|
Post by von Bek on Apr 8, 2006 12:47:18 GMT -5
imperiusrex,
I think you are painting too many different comics with the same brush. You listed Alan Moore and Frank Miller as creators you liked and whose work should be known by todays generation of writers. However those two were the ones who introduced this kind of 'realism'(or pessimism) that you seem to be against in comics in the first place. Bendis´DD was clearly influenced by early 80´s Miller stuff. In the late 90´s, thanks to Karl Kesel, DD was the happy-go-lucky acrobat cracking jokes while punching bad guys again, like in his early years. Even Karen, after being turned into a drug addict porn actress was again a healthy woman and Murdock´s girlfriend. Even this silly ninja stuff in Avengers is no doubt BENDIS! trying to mimic Frank Miller.
To me the problem is not if a comic is realistic (if this word can be used for superheroes comic books) or more fantastic, but if the creators are able to make such stories interesting. Writers like Brubaker can, while others just are not able to, making the comics only, like you stated, boring and, by trying too hard to create a 'heavy' mood, ridicule.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 8, 2006 15:43:00 GMT -5
I actually think Alan Moore is the most surreal comics writer ever. V and Watchmen really root themselves in reality, but his long run on Swamp Thing is a total acid trip, as is much of Captain Britain. Marvelman and Supreme are homages to heroes long ago and capture their flavor with a modern twist. Miller is more real, but in a noir fashion. The thing is for me, his illustration adds that unreal shadowy element . Backgrounds are almost nothing but blocked shadows. And even in his DD work with Mazzuchelli there's still an element of wonder and fun in his books. Look at Born Again--after everything, Daredevil got a happy ending! Haven't seen a happy ending in a Marvel book in years... Again just my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 9, 2006 11:54:13 GMT -5
imperiusrex: Honestly, I think we should just agree to disagree. However, I also think that you need suspend disblief a bit more. Realism makes comics more relatable to new readers. You make a lot of good points, but I could just as easily counter by saying that being bitten by radioactive spider would not give you spider powers; being exposed to "cosmic radiation" and toxic waste would give one cancer; and that it's impossible for anyone in the early 1940s to create a super soldier serum that would automatically boost the a weakling to super-human levels. You have to suspend disbelief WHENEVER you read fiction. Bendis´DD was clearly influenced by early 80´s Miller stuff. In the late 90´s, thanks to Karl Kesel, DD was the happy-go-lucky acrobat cracking jokes while punching bad guys again, like in his early years. Even Karen, after being turned into a drug addict porn actress was again a healthy woman and Murdock´s girlfriend. Here's the thing, though. Besides long-term readers of DD, who knows that? How did the book do sales-wise? Daredevil sells better went its darker. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing those issues someday down the line. This is my biggest pet peve on this site . . . Stop writing "BENDIS!" It's stupid. He's a person, for goodness sakes. Please, just write "Bendis." WELL PUT! I couldn't agree with this more. It all depends on who is writing the story and how they're dealing with the aspect of realism. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 9, 2006 15:44:47 GMT -5
imperiusrex: Honestly, I think we should just agree to disagree. However, I also think that you need suspend disblief a bit more. Realism makes comics more relatable to new readers. You make a lot of good points, but I could just as easily counter by saying that being bitten by radioactive spider would not give you spider powers; being exposed to "cosmic radiation" and toxic waste would give one cancer; and that it's impossible for anyone in the early 1940s to create a super soldier serum that would automatically boost the a weakling to super-human levels. You have to suspend disbelief WHENEVER you read fiction. ~W~ Actually this is just my point. Comics are already so fantastic and so unreal that trying to tie them into some sort of realism diminishes the effect. In a world where Moondragon (or Emma Frost, or Mentallo, or any mind controller like Killgrave) could pull secrets out of every congressman's head and blackmail them, such legislation would be easily thwarted (and to me would actually be a more interesting story...) Normally I don't question that Iron Man's boot jets can lift and propel him faster than a supersonic jet when the story is just as surreal around it. However once you start getting into real life physics and surrounding the story with too much reality in other areas, suddenly the absurd seems more absurd. Again, that's just me. I don't think I'm convincing anyone to come over to my side, just giving a hopefully reasonable explanation about why these stories often don't work for me.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 9, 2006 20:44:30 GMT -5
Comics are already so fantastic and so unreal that trying to tie them into some sort of realism diminishes the effect. Imperiusrex discusses “diminishing the effect” in terms of story logic and plausibility (which is different from possibility), but I would also say that attempts to infuse realism into fantasy can also produce banality. You know, across the room from where I’m sitting, I can see a thin crack that’s been slowly forming in one of the walls. Is the crack real? Yes. Is it entertaining? So far, no. I wouldn’t shell out $3 a month to look at pictures of it, even if I didn’t already have it conveniently located in the privacy of my own home. And I wouldn’t buy a $10+ paperback collection of it either. And forget the hardcover edition! Certainly the revolutionary idea in Marvel comics of the Silver Age was increased realism: bickering among the Avengers and the FF, Peter Parker’s worries about his aunt and difficult relationships with his peers, and so on. But it wasn’t realism for realism’s sake: it was realism for adding drama and spice—and to some degree, structure—to some pretty crazy fantasy. And yes, it was also realism for making characters more relatable—not because they live in the same setting we do, but because their personalities and situations have psychological resonance for us, even if the characters live in Asgard or battle giant-sized planet eaters. Ultimately there’s a matter of personal taste when we evaluate the effectiveness of “realism” in fantastic fiction. And since adherence to reality is not the only factor in entertainment value, a person might reasonably have sliding standards of realism when evaluating different works. For example, my standards for Star Trek are more stringent than my standards for Star Wars, and my standards for both are still more stringent than my standards for Futurama. The Avengers has worked successfully for decades (albeit with ups and downs) without Brian Michael Bendis’ brand of realism. This is not to say that realism has been absent from The Avengers, just that its amount and/or kind has been different. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that Bendis’ radically new approach (radically new to Avengers comics, anyway) has ruffled the feathers of many a longtime fan. The infusion of greater or different realism is not necessarily a bad thing for a superhero comic; personally, while I’ve never been much of a Daredevil fan, I think I prefer DD in Frank Miller mode over Stan Lee mode (sorry, Stan!). But when you have a formula that largely works for the audience, respect the formula (even if you do tinker with it somewhat). Bendis’ style might be a legitimate approach for a superhero comic, but not necessarily every superhero comic. If Marvel wanted to publish a team book in Bendis’ style, Marvel could have created a new comic (simply adding the word “New” and revising the numbering doesn’t count) or perhaps chosen an existing team comic with greater compatibility. Ironically, the sudden infusion of greater realism (or at least one man’s version of it) into a long-running series can greatly undermine the realism of the series, for sheer lack of consistency!
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 10, 2006 2:10:43 GMT -5
yeah, what he said...
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on Apr 10, 2006 8:39:02 GMT -5
I did read the one shot yesterday, so here some words from me. First off all, I enjoyed it, once again a Bendis NA story I do like. That said, I am a near 40 guy, too, and I still believe the old Avengers stuff (up to 200+) is superior to nearly anything else that I´ve read afterwards. Once again I don´t mind Bendis´ slow storytelling, and honestly, I don´t give too much for continuity probs. I would prefer there were no continuity flaws, but nobody´s perfect, and somehow the writers have to tell (hopefully good) stories, maybe not always conform with continuity. In case you don´t know it yet, here is an interview with Bendis about the whole Illuminati thing: www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=df7083eb22d5185c94f7706dfb4c8cdd&threadid=66106I think some points are clarified, some are not and most presumably most of you will find some of Bendis` answers very annoying, especially when he talks less than the interviewer... But at least one thing becomes clear: Bendis did not create Illuminati for the only purpose of CW and there will be (I, at least, would hope so) more stuff from the Illuminati - whenever that will be.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 10, 2006 8:46:45 GMT -5
Here's the thing, though. Besides long-term readers of DD, who knows that? How did the book do sales-wise?
Daredevil sells better went its darker. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing those issues someday down the line.
VB: I wasn´t saying one aproach was better than the other, just responding to imperiusrex comment and comparing the differents ways DD has being written since Miller reinvented the character. I am really enjoying Brubaker take on the character, and it´s very 'realistic', even more than all the previous writers.
This is my biggest pet peve on this site . . . Stop writing "BENDIS!" It's stupid. He's a person, for goodness sakes. Please, just write "Bendis."
Actually BENDIS! is Brian Michael Bendis signature. It´s how he wrote his signature in the many websites he participated. So noone on this site made it up, it was Bendis own invention.
WELL PUT!
I couldn't agree with this more. It all depends on who is writing the story and how they're dealing with the aspect of realism.
Yep, we are on the same page here.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 10, 2006 8:55:13 GMT -5
On the topic of the Illuminati, I´m not against the idea per se, but if a writer wants to mess with continuity that much (starting after the Kree Skrull War, that was in 1971!) he better need a good reason to do it. I don´t see what the big deal is. A group os superheros exchanging information among themselves... So what, where´s the big conspiracy
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 10, 2006 22:42:30 GMT -5
First off, let me say that you guys have given some great arguments in defense of the varying points of view expressed in this thread -- it's been a joy to read!
Let me, if you'll allow, shift this discussion just a bit. Tell whether you find it more annoying/heretical for a writer/artist to a) amend continuity retroactively or b) steer a character/book in a whole new direction. So in other words, to mess with the past, or mess with the present/future. Because what I'm seeing out of Mr. Bendis is an attempt to do both. Who needs Stan, Jack, Roy, etc.?? Just make it up as we go!!
When (if) you choose to answer my question, be sure to tell why and/or give examples (and yes, I am a teacher if that sounds like something you were ordered to do back in school!!!).
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 11, 2006 9:31:28 GMT -5
Wow, this topic has grown up a lot ! Give me the time to read the last 1 and half pages and I'll comment too.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on Apr 11, 2006 10:18:58 GMT -5
First off, let me say that you guys have given some great arguments in defense of the varying points of view expressed in this thread -- it's been a joy to read! Let me, if you'll allow, shift this discussion just a bit. Tell whether you find it more annoying/heretical for a writer/artist to a) amend continuity retroactively or b) steer a character/book in a whole new direction. So in other words, to mess with the past, or mess with the present/future. Because what I'm seeing out of Mr. Bendis is an attempt to do both. Who needs Stan, Jack, Roy, etc.?? Just make it up as we go!! When (if) you choose to answer my question, be sure to tell why and/or give examples (and yes, I am a teacher if that sounds like something you were ordered to do back in school!!!). I have more of a problem with a writer altering the past of a charater or group of charaters. Many times a writer has gone back and added bits to charaters past, and I am ok with that, it is when a writer goes back and tries to either make whole sale changes to the charaters history or tries to insert something that changes the framework of a lot of history. Some examples for the writer going back and adding to a charaters history are brubaker with Cap. He added more detail to the bucky story and made it possible for him to be alive, this did not effect any of Caps history or any of the stories that have happened in the past. It merely added on to his history and present. An example of a writer ignoring or changing history to suit his story is simple. Bendis with disassembled and HOM. There was a story several years ago, where Wanda did remember her children and that part of her charater was rapped up. Yet, Bendis choose to ignore it, essentially wiping those stories from many charaters history so that he could tell his story. Another example of this is Sentry, a charater whose addition to the MU should cause wide spread changes to the history and present of the comics yet isn't. Another example is the Illuminate, a group that seems to have been inserted simple to be disbanded in Civil War, on top of trying to say they existed since the kree/skull war, yet had no effect on the MU. Finally there is Jessica Jones, although she is blip in comparsion to the others I have mentioned, here inclusion into Marvel History has effected the history of several MU charaters.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 11, 2006 11:50:04 GMT -5
First off, let me say that you guys have given some great arguments in defense of the varying points of view expressed in this thread -- it's been a joy to read! Let me, if you'll allow, shift this discussion just a bit. Tell whether you find it more annoying/heretical for a writer/artist to a) amend continuity retroactively or b) steer a character/book in a whole new direction. So in other words, to mess with the past, or mess with the present/future. Because what I'm seeing out of Mr. Bendis is an attempt to do both. Who needs Stan, Jack, Roy, etc.?? Just make it up as we go!! When (if) you choose to answer my question, be sure to tell why and/or give examples (and yes, I am a teacher if that sounds like something you were ordered to do back in school!!!). I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'll illustrate my point with Alan Moore's run on Swamp Thing. If done properly you can both amend history and take the book in a new direction as he did without alienating fans. While the character's origin was completely retooled, it still made sense in the context of prior issues. And the book had a different direction towards a more gothic horror setting, but seemed so much more scary for it, that as a horror fan I didn't mind the shift. I don't hate an occasional retcon; some stories and characters absolutely demand it. The history of the Legion of Super Heroes is a good example. It had become so convoluted that Waid addressed it in a recent issue and took pains to essentially say that his version was no more valid than Shooter's or Levitz's; they're all just legends waiting for someone to share their story. This allows someone to tell a Tyroc story or someone to do an adult Legion story ten years from now. I appreciate a creative team that has reverence for the characters they use. Not treated as sacred cows, but reverent. Don't do something because it's the most convenient way to get the characters from point 'a' to point 'b', but be creative. To be honest I just found disassembled to a very lazy story and not well thought out. For example, the core of the story was that Wanda had all this power to recreate reality. Yet her kids weren't real. So she recreates reality, but it's not real? Then she doesn't recreate reality. You can't have it both ways. Creating life is a complex yet incredibly simple thing really. Most life forms do it with ease. That Wanda could magically change everything in the universe (as in House of M), yet couldn't cause within her own body the same reaction that has someone give birth (by essentially say, cloning her own cells and dividing them) seems a major discrepancy to me. I think there were a multitude of better ways to get to these New Avengers, yet the effort wasn't there. I think I could've accepted the sweeping change if there had been a better effort on the part of Bendis. Because I found it to be lacking, I didn't enjoy the change.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 11, 2006 13:17:42 GMT -5
I don´t mind steering a book in a new 'take' or direction, almost every book needs some kind of change in a while, or else we would be still reading Marvel characters fighting communists or Silver Age aliens. And I don´t mind retcons either, BUT: a) the writer must, first, know the continuity of the character before changing it (in the very least to understand what can and cannot be done with the character/team - a good example was given by imperiusrex and BMB Wanda´s retcon) and b) had a clear goal in mind before the change. Making the Sentry an Avenger could have been very interesting, but until now there was no interaction with the other New Avengers and the Sentry isn´t even really active in the book, being almost a reserve member. I´m a big fan of Byrne´s WCA, he did a lot of retcon in that book, but he knew the characters (and their history) very well, and the changes made the book exciting and interesting again with USAgent as an anti-Cap, a 'new' Vision without his humanity, the developing of Wanda and Simon in new directions, among other changes. The original Dark Wanda tale was interesting, Avengers Disasembled on the other hand just an example of bad writing.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 11, 2006 14:08:41 GMT -5
Agreed, vonbek! I thought it was worthwhile to see how the Vision would be restored, because we all knew he would eventually return to his red skinned self. And while the Dark Wanda story was not original in light of Dark Phoenix a few years earlier, it did work in the WCA context and it wasn't shoehorned into the book at the expense of logic (no pun intended toward Vizh on that one!).
Again, a good conversation brewing here. Others want to chime in with your two cents?
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 15, 2006 11:40:13 GMT -5
a) the writer must, first, know the continuity of the character before changing it (in the very least to understand what can and cannot be done with the character/team - a good example was given by imperiusrex and BMB Wanda´s retcon) and b) had a clear goal in mind before the change. Making the Sentry an Avenger could have been very interesting, but until now there was no interaction with the other New Avengers and the Sentry isn´t even really active in the book, being almost a reserve member. I'll agree with you here. Despite how much I'm enjoying "New Avengers" and loved "House of M," it felt like little research was done on Bendis' part. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, history doesn't always have to be mentioned or talked about, but can be acknowledged. But here's a question: is it the writers fault or the editor? Tom Brevort (I know I misspelled that) is known for a love on continunity, and has apparently been aiding Millar with continunity with "Civil War." What happened with "Disassembled?" Was someone else editing the book at the time? That being said, I don't think anyone is throwing history/continunity out the window. Sometimes screw-ups occur. I also think that history should be fudged just a bit here and there for the sake of a good story. Not outright thrown out and not completely revised, but can be adjusted to fit a story. As for moving characters forward . . . it's impossible to please everyone and they've got to change and evolve to match the times and to be both relateable and sell-able. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Apr 16, 2006 8:34:50 GMT -5
After reading Thew's original couple of posts, I wanted to just zip down here and say a couple of things. One, I appreciate the maturity and consideration by those participating on this board and in this thread. Two, there's plenty of good stuff coming out in the comics world, these days, and if you think nothing positive is being said here, I'd ask that you look around all the corners of this board. In the past few months, I've bragged on the outstanding quality of: THUNDERBOLTS (IMO the best comic Marvel produces today) THE THING (old-school Marvel fun) ULTIMATES 2 (far better than the first run) ULTIMATE FF (Millar has very much impressed me this year, giving me hope for Civil War, though having my favorite character lead the "bad" side won't make me happy!) YOUNG AVENGERS (IMO the second best comic Marvel produces today) MS. MARVEL (so far, so good) MOON KNIGHT (ditto) IRON MAN: THE INEVITABLE And I'm really looking forward to the Carnivale guy writing the new IRON MAN regular series, as I've also mentioned here before. I didn't much care for the prologue issue of ANNIHILATION, but the SILVER SURFER and SUPER SKRULL issues I found enjoyable-- just haven't had a chance to mention them yet, this week. (Same with SON OF M.) That being said, it's easier to post to the Web when you're "fired-up angry" about something you didn't like, rather than just enjoying a good story and moving on. That's a shame, but it's true. But to say there's nothing positive here is to, well, overlook most of my posts! ;D In fact, about the only book I'm really negative on, that I continue to buy anyway, is..... NEW AVENGERS!!
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 16, 2006 9:00:30 GMT -5
Two, there's plenty of good stuff coming out in the comics world, these days, and if you think nothing positive is being said here, I'd ask that you look around all the corners of this board. In the past few months, I've bragged on the outstanding quality of: THUNDERBOLTS (IMO the best comic Marvel produces today) THE THING (old-school Marvel fun) ULTIMATES 2 (far better than the first run) ULTIMATE FF (Millar has very much impressed me this year, giving me hope for Civil War, though having my favorite character lead the "bad" side won't make me happy!) YOUNG AVENGERS (IMO the second best comic Marvel produces today) MS. MARVEL (so far, so good) MOON KNIGHT (ditto) IRON MAN: THE INEVITABLE Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong threads, then and have just based my impression on those particular threads. This thread, though, has been pretty good when it comes to both maturity and repect. I do need to get a little nit-picky about your "Civil War" nodd in your last post. Millar has gone on record as saying that neither side is "good" or "bad," just opposed to the other. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Apr 16, 2006 9:37:42 GMT -5
That's why I put bad in quotation marks. I was referring to my perspective, not Millar's. I've already taken a side.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 17, 2006 7:54:44 GMT -5
Ahhh, I see. Duh. I should have realized that.
I haven't picked a side yet.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by Spiderwasp on Apr 19, 2006 16:58:23 GMT -5
I think the reason so many of us who grew up reading 70s and 80s comics as new get so upset with the revisionist writing is because we do indeed feel a bit disrespected. We have spent more money than we care to calculate on Marvel books through the years. Because of that, they do owe it to us to be true to what they've sold. It was disrespectful handling of characters that led to New Avengers including the Scarlet Witch (She may be beyond repair now) Wasp (She got drunk and let dangerous information just slip?) Captain America (He was willing to disband the team and then reform it without bothering to invite the team he'd trusted for years) Antman and Hawkeye (They died for shock value, not really moving the story along) and the team in general (Suddenly they weren't good enough to serve just because they had a really bad day and then didn't show up for a particular prison break). Meanwhile, they were replaced with characters like Wolverine solely to be able to put him on covers (He hasn't even been that important to the stories). If we seem a little to critical, then so be it. When we've invested so much time and money into the MU, we deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on Apr 20, 2006 3:54:22 GMT -5
Meanwhile, they were replaced with characters like Wolverine solely to be able to put him on covers (He hasn't even been that important to the stories). Same with Spider-Man, in fact the (active) membership of Wolverine and SM are the points that I really don´t like about NA. They´ve had some funny dialogues, that´s it. And personally I really do not want to see Wolverine or SM on an Avengers cover. But it has something positive as well, at least in Germany. They call the book here Spider-Man & Die Neuen Rächer (would translate Spiderman & The New Avengers) - now, if this isn´t a horrible title... But it does work so far - thanks to Spider-Man (on the titel) we have even reached issue #4 (two US-books per german issue) and the book seems to sell quite good. We may even reach an issue #10 this time! ;D For comparison: A new FF series was simultaneously started and cancelled after only three issue - sadly, sadly Spider-Man isn´t a member of the FF it seems...
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 21, 2006 21:01:32 GMT -5
With all due respect, the fact of the matter is, Wolverine and Spider-Man are a part of the New Avengers team. Well they still be when Civil War is over? Maybe, maybe not. However, my advice to you is that you just accept it and just make the best of it. Avengers roosters change, and this will be no exception. Give it time and Wolverine and Spider-Man will head out once again.
Personally, I aplaud Marvel for putting together a diverse team such as this. Now, if only the pace would pick up . . .
~W~
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Apr 22, 2006 16:15:37 GMT -5
With all due respect, the fact of the matter is, Wolverine and Spider-Man are a part of the New Avengers team. However, my advice to you is that you just accept it and just make the best of it. ~W~ With all due respect, I don't think that expressing displeasure with Spidey and/or Wolverine being on the team is refusal to accept that it is happening. However, if you just make the best of whatever happens and don't express opinions about it, then what is the point of going on a message board? I have no problem with anyone not agreeing with me or anyone else on any point. I do have a problem with people who complain that I shouldn't be having the thoughts I have or posting them.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 22, 2006 23:06:41 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood me, spiderwasp. I didn't say that you shouldn't post your opinions. That's perfectly fine.
However, what I said was in response to your opinion. I think that instead of being upset (as it seems many people are) with the current rooster of the Avengers, then you should just try and take it as it is. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you complain (and by all means, you have that right and God bless you for it), it will not change the facts. Hence my advice: accept it and enjoy it the best you can. Nothing lasts forever - esspecially in comics.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 24, 2006 9:29:07 GMT -5
I for once don't mind having Spidey in the team. He has been with them before on a few scattered adventures, he is a reserve member and I think he fits quite well.
Wolverine I have more problems with, mainly because he is, well, a killer, and "Avengers don't kill" has always been of the main points of the book (of course they did kill some enemy from time to time, but it was under particular circumstances). Also, he is a member of the X-Men too as far as I know, and having the same guy on two teams complicates things a lot IMO.
That being said, I agree with Thew, members come and go, so it should not be a big deal. My complaints are the story themselves, and the lack of real action and teamwork. If they get proper characterization, I can live with Spidey and Logan in the team.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 24, 2006 18:11:54 GMT -5
I’m going to echo Shiryu’s post. When I first learned of the “New” lineup, my only reservations were with Wolverine’s and Spider-Man’s membership. Shiryu’s position on Wolverine happens to be mine—but I would also add that I like the fact that the X-Men and the Avengers often do not have a cozy relationship, and I was content to keep their shared membership at one (the Beast, natch!). As for Spider-Man, I was a little more ambivalent. While it’s true that he has some shared history with the team (both as member and non-member) and specific team members, on the other hand I also appreciate him as a loner and as a guy who feels more than a little out of his element in the grandiose conflicts the Avengers so often find themselves embroiled in (or used to—but the current “Collective” arc represents a partial return to form). But as I’ve said before, the current lineup makes for interesting reading...at least, in other comics (most notably Spider-Man’s own titles). Subpar writing in the Avengers’ own comic is what really frustrates me, not the roster per se.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 24, 2006 20:56:07 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood me, spiderwasp. I didn't say that you shouldn't post your opinions. That's perfectly fine. However, what I said was in response to your opinion. I think that instead of being upset (as it seems many people are) with the current rooster of the Avengers, then you should just try and take it as it is. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you complain (and by all means, you have that right and God bless you for it), it will not change the facts. Hence my advice: accept it and enjoy it the best you can. Nothing lasts forever - esspecially in comics. ~W~ I don't think there's much of a difference either way in expressing displeasure in the title on messgae boards. I do think that not buying it if you're not enjoying it is a much better tactic. Wonder how many completists are grumbling as they take out their wallets every month? If so, you've got no one to blame but yourself...
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 24, 2006 22:27:00 GMT -5
[ I don't think there's much of a difference either way in expressing displeasure in the title on messgae boards. I do think that not buying it if you're not enjoying it is a much better tactic. Wonder how many completists are grumbling as they take out their wallets every month? If so, you've got no one to blame but yourself... I did that for the longest time with X-Men. When Chuck Austen came along, he wasn't half bad, until after about a year. Then it went to crap. But I kept buying it, despite how much I hated it. And then, I stopped. And I felt better. Then he left and I bought the back issues for cheap at a con and that was that. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 25, 2006 19:04:10 GMT -5
I do think that not buying it if you're not enjoying it is a much better tactic. Wonder how many completists are grumbling as they take out their wallets every month? If so, you've got no one to blame but yourself... No, you can still blame the writer, the editor, the editor-in-chief, etc. Voting just with your wallet isn’t always clear. It’s usually a buy-it-or-don’t proposition. Can I just buy some team members and not others? Can I vote for some good jokes and condemn others? Can I approve the subplots but disapprove the main story? Can I express the issue’s overall worth by paying just 99¢?
|
|