|
Post by Shiryu on Dec 20, 2012 18:12:30 GMT -5
Two welcome additions join the ranks of this incarnation of the Avengers: spoiler ahead ... ... Issue 5 sees Wasp and Wonder Man join this team
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Dec 5, 2012 20:55:34 GMT -5
Oh boy, I nearly, nearly, didn't visit the forum today and missed the tremendous occasion! Very happy birthday, Humanbelly. May you have a great day with your spouse and family
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Dec 3, 2012 19:11:36 GMT -5
If I understand correctly, this isn't our traditional Red Skull, but a clone of his made just before the end of WW2 and recently awoken. In other words, there are two Skulls around.
Also, the original Skull in the cloned Captain America body has been killed off some time ago in Cap, by the Winter Soldier. He is back now, but in a new body I think.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Dec 2, 2012 23:26:08 GMT -5
Here I am, I'll lock the topic for now, and contact rainbowbear32 to see if she is a real person or a bot. I'm not against trying to sell Marvel items per se, just as long as it's not a scam to get credit card numbers, but it's also the wrong section. Topics like this should go to merchandising vplexico.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=mercha
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Nov 15, 2012 10:22:01 GMT -5
To be honest, I'm equally unimpressed by the Kooky Quartet era. I think my gripe is that Lee doesn't seem to build any "mythology" around the Avengers, the way he did with other characters.
In ASM 1-10, we have Chameleon, Vulture (twice), Dr Octopus, Sandman, Lizard and Electro. They were all new, original characters, and are all still prominent 50 years later.
The FF have Skrulls, Doom, a revival of Namor and the Puppet Master. Again, all new characters who still play major roles now. Soon afterwards, we get the Watcher, the Blue Area of the Moon, Molecule Man, and so on.
Thor was lacklustre when written by Larry Lieber, but the moment Stan got on, he created Enchantress, Executioner, Cobra, Mr Hyde. Not to mention Loki, of course.
Each of these books made an immediat impact by creating its own mythology, which eventually became the mythology of the whole Marvel Universe. The Avengers instead kept relying on borrowed villains: Namor, Dr Doom, Hulk, the Masters of Evil. There were moments of brilliance, like Kang, Immortus or Nefaria, but, much like Magneto over at UXM, they were far from the threat we know now. It's like the Avengers were low on Stan's priority list. I don't think it's a coincidence they are the only ones whose most important nemesis, Ultron, wasn't created by Stan himself.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Nov 14, 2012 22:48:05 GMT -5
You know, when I got my DVDs and started reading the Silver Age stories of all the main Marvel books, Avengers was the one I was most disappointed with.
Amazing SM hit its stride almost immediately, and so did FF. Thor and Iron Man took slightly longer. But Avengers? it took forever to have one really good story. In fact, I'm tempted to say it didn't really happen until Stan left and a perhaps more focused Roy came on board.
There just is a sense that Stan wasn't too confortable with writing these characters together. He keeps relying on borrowed villains for plot purposes, and on internal conflicts for characterization purposes, but most stories are really thin, at times bordering on ludicrous.
It sort of reminds me of a movie where everything is about the all-star cast but no one paid any attention to the story.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Nov 14, 2012 22:38:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Nov 14, 2012 22:35:57 GMT -5
Count me in among those disappointed by Hickman on Fantastic Four and FF. It was just SO boring. It probably reads better in TPB form, but I couldn't get into it at all, some ideas seemed good (I liked the Council of Reeds for example), but I was constantly disappointed by the pace of the execution, and confused by everything that was going on with time-travelling, various kids and alternate/future versions of the characters.
I did however like Hickman's Uncanny Avengers #1, so I will give it a go, and probably read the main Avengers book too. Not very keen on the new New Avengers lineup though.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Nov 14, 2012 22:31:08 GMT -5
I suppose I liked IM #1, but only if compared to what went on in the recent past. Despite the great reviews I read around, I really really couldn't stand Fraction's Iron Man (or most other things he writes, he doesn't seem to click with me for some reason).
So, compared to that, it was a step in the right direction towards a more fun and "comic-booky" book. Still early days, but I'll get issue 2.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Nov 14, 2012 22:27:24 GMT -5
But I think only myself, spiderwasp, tomspasic, HB, and woodside are even READING any new comics (probably forgot some--sorry) Anyway, let me know what's good, PLEASE---starfoxxx *lifts his hand up shouting "me, me!"* It's not much to go on, but I personally liked Uncanny Avengers #1, and it's more contained cast of characters (relatively speaking). Oh, and Daredevil is still, consistently, really good since Waid came on. As for the rest, so many books are going through creative team changes that it will take some wait and see I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 20, 2012 20:42:22 GMT -5
I think I disagree with the premise of comparing Spider-Man to Batman in first place, because Bruce starts up as an adult. I have no idea whether his age has ever been given, but I would put him in his mid to late 30s. True, he doesn't evolve or grow much, but neither does Cap, or Thor. They more or less remain what they were when they were first presented to us, which is understandable because, barring some growing cynicism, people don't really change much anymore once adulthood is reached.
But Peter starts up as a teenager, I see him more as a Dick Grayson figure, and you can probably agree with me when I say that Dick has changed tremendously over the years. He went from childish sidekick to leader of the Titans, and it's only because of Batman's presence (similar power set and skills would make one superflous) that he hasn't become a core member of the JLA already. It's true that Spider-Man today isn't very different from the 80s, but he is (and was, in the 80s) very different from the 60s. I'm more inclined to believe that the problem was not having him join the Avengers in the 80s, instead of having him as a member now.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 20, 2012 16:15:22 GMT -5
I think HB and Shiryu both nail a very strong point about Peter Parker/Spider-man the character, and the issue at hand for those that seem to feel his inclusion is merited and a natural story-path for his character . Forgive me for making a leap, but could part of the problem that for those against Peter/Spider-man's inclusion, it is more of a problem with Peter/Spider-man the icon, and what the icon represents, rather than with Peter/Spider-man the character? Hmm, you make a very good point, Pulp. I think the problem with icons is that they are expected to be "forever eternal", so to speak. And this is perfectly acceptable for a mature, extablished character. But not so much for younger, growing characters, who will have to change at one point or another. Spidey is Marvel's "heart", someone who is always going to make the right choice regardless of personal consequences. This is, in my opinion, what makes him and icon, and it hasn't changed in 50 years. His personality has never really gone dark for any lenght of time, unlike Cyclops, or Daredevil. Even at his lowest, during "Back to black", he ultimately refused to kill Kingpin in cold blood. I just don't think that being an underachiever with rotten luck is part of his iconic value. I sort of see it as something else, important but one step short of iconic. To make a parallelism, his classic costume is iconic; his armpit webs... not quite so much. Take away the former for too long and you ruin the icon, take away the latter and it's just evolution. See, I can't get my head around that one, I find it contradictive. To me, one can either form a group willing to kill, or not, as long as it's clear from the start. But if you don't want your group to resort to killing enemies, it seems hypocrite to include someone specifically because he can go the extra mile whilst you aren't willing to. It's like handing the gun you don't want to fire. If a situation ever gets so dire to require murder, I would expect Cap or Thor or Tony to be honest enough to do it themselves, whereas it seems implied they would rather look away and let Logan do the dirty work just to keep their own hands clean. It's... murky, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 20, 2012 14:21:47 GMT -5
There is one recent editorial by Roger Stern, I believe for one of the special books celebrating 50 years of Spider-Man, where he describes Peter as the typical "late bloomer", pointing out more or less what you are saying. But even a late bloomer has to bloom, sooner or later, or he becomes an underachieving / immature young adult.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 18, 2012 17:57:20 GMT -5
Heads up! Episode 2x10 of Young Justice and 1x16 of Green Lantern are online in the torrent network. They also went briefly on ITunes before being pulled off.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 14, 2012 7:38:21 GMT -5
The chain mail is the least, Cap now has knee pads, like a rugby player, and brown leather strips to hold his helmet in place At least he still has his wings though.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 12, 2012 11:24:48 GMT -5
We've discussed it here and there several times, but I don't think there was specific topic for it.
They were obviously added for marketing choices, but here are my two cents
- Wolverine: wouldn't have have fitted in the old Avengers, at all, and I would still prefer him to be off the group. However, I should say I can no longer find in-story reasons why he couldn't be an Avenger, either, other than his long association with the X-groups. My complaint was that he is an assassin, while the Avengers weren't, but for a couple of years now Hawkeye and, especially, Black Widow have been retconned as killers, so I suppose the point is moot now. But yes, he doesn't really add anything, other than his knowledge of the mutant world.
- Spidey: I feel he should have become an Avenger decades ago. He has shed what you call the "Loveable Loser" persona when he married MJ in the late 80s (early 90s?), and has never, really, been the same. He still has more than his fair share of troubles and personal drama, but a lot of what made him a constant victim of the circumstances hasn't been there for a long time, and having him become an Avenger, to me, is a good way of saying that no matter how much trouble you go through, things will get better if you stick to your principles. I see it as a well-deserved reward, whereas the idea of him still getting all the stick 50 years later would be pretty saddening. I do have issues with how he has been used as an Avenger, but I'm happy he got there.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 12, 2012 11:11:31 GMT -5
For me, issue 1 was very good. Might be a fluke, might be a sign of things to come, but I liked what I saw. Except the new costumes, those are ugly.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 9, 2012 12:19:52 GMT -5
Stan reminds me so much of several Artistic Directors I've known (there's a definite "type" that is drawn, moth-like, to the title), that I feel like I must somehow know him already. Brilliant, extremely energetic, incredibly personable and articulate and outgoing, visionary, able to inspire a team to work above their own abilities, highly creative. . . but I daresay this also comes with a surprisingly unsavory willingness to sacrifice friends and colleagues for the perceived good of the company, a lack of personal loyalty, and an unshakable tendency towards self-promotion and self-protection. And I don't think those are conscious, chosen traits-- I think it's just part of the personality package. Really, the hardest direct knock I've heard against Stan was that he simply never went out on a limb for any of his staff when times were tough-- he made sure he was covered and employed, and headed for the sidelines (and again, this is stuff you read. . .so veracity is hard to judge). The self-promotion resentments seem to be largely from acts of omission rather co-mission. Yep, that's probably the case. To be fair, just by watching The Apprentice, it sadly seems to be a common trait in particularly succesfull people. Even John Romita Sr, who's probably one of Stan closest friends in the business, in his biography mentions having had a fall-out with him for a while before the Marvel Era. Essentially, Stan kept promising him more work, and then suddenly had to let him go, resulting in Romita being without job and with very little openings left, as everybody else had already taken the other positions available elsewhere. On his part, in his autobiography Stan said he wasn't given any choice by Goodman, and that was the hardest thing he had to do. Oh, there's so many. There are exceptions, of course: Byrne, Perez, Adams, Davies are all accomplished at both. But your average artist isn't really suited for writing, and often they can't even see it. Thank you! I have been lurking regularly, but didn't really have much to contribute, or much time to. Hopefully it'll be a little better now
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 7, 2012 11:25:19 GMT -5
Stan does not come off well in this book, either, I must add. Does he ever? Joe Simon's book was also quite critical of him, in its own subtle way. I'm always on the fence on this matter. From my own personal experience, I can guarantee that artists in general tend to consider themselves as more fundamental than writers for the success of a comic book (which often is indeed the case, in a visual medium) and harbour a belief that they could be good writers too (which is almost never the case. The absolutely worst writers I've ever come across are all talented, professional artists. They have good ideas but lack any form of structure.) With Stan having been and still being the face of Marvel, some resentment is likely to cloud judgements too. But then, on the other hand, when a lot of different people say the same things, chances are there is some truth behind them.
|
|
|
AvX?
Oct 7, 2012 11:14:59 GMT -5
Post by Shiryu on Oct 7, 2012 11:14:59 GMT -5
I thought AvX went on too much, had it been compressed in about 7-8 issues, it would have been fine. It's a lot of flair without substance, but I suppose I enjoyed most of it.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 25, 2012 15:07:31 GMT -5
All the remaining episodes are online! Final 4 are
New Avengers Operation Galactic Storm Live Kree or Die Avengers Assemble
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 24, 2012 12:03:26 GMT -5
IIRC, Diablo was also used by Busiek towards the end of his Avengers tenure, just before Kang's big attack. He used some form of chemicals to transform the population of an entire town into Hulks. I have a feeling the artist was Alan Davis.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 18, 2012 8:59:55 GMT -5
Here we go, for all the Young Justice animated series fans
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 18, 2012 8:59:27 GMT -5
I never understood though, was if the Gargoyles were all Scottish, how come only Hudson had an accent? Perhaps, being the oldest, he spent the longest time around humans and got their accent. Anyhow, I'm about to open the YJ thread, so we can talk about that series there.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 17, 2012 19:40:01 GMT -5
W -- although I have Avengers/JLA as my personal favourite Busiek/Perez story, I agree with everything you say. The massacre of Slorenia really makes Ultron look like a true menace not just for the Avengers, but for the world, and the battle scenes are great. Besides, Thor's "Ultron, we would have words with thee" line is one of the all time greatest.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 17, 2012 19:35:03 GMT -5
You should also check out the Green Lantern animated series. Once you get past the CGI, it's really pretty good.
I'd be happy to give YJ its own thread if everybody feels the same as Starfoxxx? I've been watching, and enjoying, it myself, but not much time for commenting so far. It's by Greg Weisman, the creator of Gargoyles, which IMO is one of the best cartoons ever, west of the Atlantic.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 13, 2012 20:03:44 GMT -5
Aren't 'Astonishing' titles set outside continuity?
Not really happy about Hickman. I think he has a good handle on characters, but his plots can get very drawn-out. Like Straczinsky's, his work reads well in TPB form, but is often boring month by month. I would have been a lot happier with Waid, Cage or Slott, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 12, 2012 15:48:52 GMT -5
Drew, trying not to spoil anything to the others, in the Assault on 42 episode, did you also get the impression that a lot of characters were eaten alive? It was really creepy, and we never saw them again.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 7, 2012 10:53:28 GMT -5
True, but still sad. They could have continued EMH with the movie's cast, there was no need to cancel it altogether.
Oh well, at least we can still enjoy it. 3 more episodes are out online!!
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 6, 2012 16:16:09 GMT -5
|
|