|
Post by Doctor Doom on Nov 12, 2006 12:47:29 GMT -5
And before anyone (glares pointedly; you know who you are) tried to say this confirms the ludricous theory of Bendis controlling all, I want to point out that
A: He was a logical choice as he wrote the main lead-in title and B: This is just CONFIRMING what we already knew. Bendis does NOT have sole input- or indeed, I'd guess, ANY input besides what happens to the Avengers for this title. He writes the piece, the ideas belong to others.
Anyway, thoughts? Anyone else notice it doesn't mention the FF in the radically changed list? Opinions- beyond that it must suck because it's written by Bendis?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Nov 12, 2006 14:15:05 GMT -5
Nope, It's business as usual at the corner of Down with Bendis St. & Crapola Ave., I'm afraid, with the same stubborn, undying ol' opinions... By the way, Doom, and this is very respectfully submited (I MEAN IT, about the respect part, I'm NOT being facetious here!), you're delusional!!!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Nov 12, 2006 14:32:19 GMT -5
Don't worry, ua2. I know that if you were to call me a moronic imbecile with idiotic tendencies it would be done with utmost respect. It's just the way you are I'm not delusional. Everyone ELSE on this site minus the W is
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Nov 12, 2006 17:31:21 GMT -5
It makes sense for Bendis to write this. Those are pretty much books that he's going to be writing. Its going to be a "Brave New World" sort of thing, so at least it will match with the actual book. And for the Thunderbolts, the chapter will reflect that book. This is a marketing book and Bendis' name will help it sell.
What I don't get is this: "especially for modern legend Marc Silvestri". What does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Nov 12, 2006 18:57:41 GMT -5
But Doom, I didn't! One thing I have to (grudginly) admit is that I respect your style of debating... I sincerely think it's amicable, sedated & classy, and an example for us all to follow... Now, having said that, I STILL think you've crossed the line into delutional land when it comes to defending Bendis; just IMO...
|
|
|
Post by balok on Nov 12, 2006 22:22:26 GMT -5
"modern legend"
WTF?
Clearly, Marvel has noticed that the Bendis name on a book makes that book sell well. How could they not? What amazes me is that people rave about him. I can understand liking him, because tastes differ, and he has done some good work (I liked Alias), but his work on Avengers has ranged from adequate down to garbage. Nothing he has done on that book is rave-worthy. And yet, the man sells books.
It might be that what passes for quality in the modern comic book just isn't what I was brought up on. I can't think of any other explanation.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 13, 2006 0:10:50 GMT -5
And before anyone (glares pointedly; you know who you are) tried to say this confirms the ludricous theory of Bendis controlling all... You are attempting to use a strawman argument. You know perfectly well that I have never contended that "Bendis controls all." I've stated my opinion in black and white: Bendis doesn't control everything at Marvel -- but has much more stroke than he deserves or has the talent to back up. Period. I fail to see how this very general solicit either confirms or denies anything.For argument's sake let's say that this issue really is some kind of "plot by committe" one-shot with Bendis just supplying the dialogue and getting the writing credit. But using this (highly questionable) "fact" to say: "See! Bendis doesn't have undue influence!" is an unsupportable stretch of this example. Even if that is the case, all it means is that in this issue, Bendis did not have carte blanche to set directions for other people's books. That said, you have no idea whether or not this is really written by Bendis or is a "plot by committee." Furthermore, you have no idea what the plot itself is. Try this again when you have actually read the comic. Given Bendis' track record, the likelihood is that it sucks. But, as we say down here in the South, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. Out of all the NA issues I bought (1-15) or browsed (16-23) the only issue I can honestly say was a good professional effort was the NA Annual. The Avengers solved their own problem. A plot thread was resolved -- GASP! There was some good action. I was curious to see if he could repeat that effort, but alas, that seemed to have been one of those "blind squirrel finding the acorn" moments. Take my advice: A)Do a better job of picking your examples. Otherwise you will get cut off at the knees. B)Think twice about calling someone out when you are standing on very shaky ground. RSC
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Nov 13, 2006 12:44:21 GMT -5
And before anyone (glares pointedly; you know who you are) tried to say this confirms the ludricous theory of Bendis controlling all... You are attempting to use a strawman argument. You know perfectly well that I have never contended that "Bendis controls all." I've stated my opinion in black and white: Bendis doesn't control everything at Marvel -- but has much more stroke than he deserves or has the talent to back up. Period. Perhaps it is fortune then that I was not referring to you. ? Seems a bit of an overreaction. I wasn't trying to use it to prove he DOESN'T control all, I was forestalling anyone else aruging that it proved he DID. In your opinion, of course. I didn't pick an example, Iforestalled the opposition using it. I wasn't calling you out, I was calling bobc out and as far as I'm concerned my ground is rock solid. Nor did I mean to infer you did. I merely pointed out that I've seen enough of you to know you haven't the heart to really genuinely go all-out insults on someone without respect;) Heheheh, thank you very much. Not bad for a youngling, eh? ...Waitaminute, what 'style' is this!? Actually arguing back? NEVER! EVERYONE ELSE IS IN DELUSIONAL LAND! I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO IS SANE!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Nov 13, 2006 13:44:49 GMT -5
What I really meant to say is, although quite often you seem to go out of your way to argue against the general concensus on this site, you manage to be contrary yet at the same time genial & a gentleman. One of the reasons I expressed the opinion that (regarding Bendis) you're delusional is all that doggone forestalling other people's arguments, which kinda comes across as (charmingly) paranoid.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Nov 13, 2006 13:53:19 GMT -5
I mean, this isn't chess (and your not playing against the accursed Richards...) there's no need to anticipate your opponent's every move. That is, unless doing it really warms the cockles of your heart.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Nov 13, 2006 14:37:16 GMT -5
What I really meant to say is, although quite often you seem to go out of your way to argue against the general concensus on this site, you manage to be contrary yet at the same time genial & a gentleman. I will freely admit to being a huge devil's advocate, who will argue for the sake of arguing and enjoy every moment of it, yet on this site I geneerally do believe that which I espouse. Perhaps to a lesser degree than it SEEMS And thank you very much for the gentlemanly comment. Doom is a gentleman, of course- it would not do to foresake honour, for without honour what is there to seperate us from a bunch of particularly obsessed dogs? Well I freely admit to being paranoid, charmingly or not And to be honest, I play my arguments as though they WERE a game of chess, which perhaps would go some way to explaining that particular point.
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Nov 13, 2006 17:24:29 GMT -5
Here's another question I have about this: How much are we going to guess this will cost. I got roped into Choosing Sides because of Omega Flight, but there's no way a book like this should be full price. I think the Distinguished Competition (where would we be without that?) got it right with Brave New World's lowered price. Who says this isn't the Mighty Marvel Age of Marketing Mark-Up?
...sorry...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Nov 13, 2006 19:49:23 GMT -5
Don't get the Night Phantom started, engage...
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Nov 13, 2006 21:47:32 GMT -5
Who says this isn't the Might Marvel Age of Marketing Mark-Up? ...sorry... No need to be sorry! Who says this isn’t the Excellent Marvel Age of Excusably Alliterative Editorial Allusion?! Excelsior!!
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Nov 13, 2006 22:28:35 GMT -5
See? This is why it's always worth it to get Night Phantom going.
Awesome.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 14, 2006 0:12:06 GMT -5
Perhaps it is fortune then that I was not referring to you. Hard to believe given that almost the entire conversation in question was between the two of us. There are two false assumptions there. First, you had no indication that anyone was even considering doing that. Second, you are simply mistaken in thinking that this solicit can be used to prove anything one way or the other. Heck, looking at the solicit right now, I fail to see how I could even attempt to use it to "prove" my side. And in the opinions of a lot of other people who want him off the title. Using it for what??? There is no information there that pertains to the discussion at hand! How can your position be "rock solid" where there is -- as I've pointed out already -- no solid info in the solicit at all? There is no information about how the plot was written and if it was collaborated on. There is no indication of what the plot itself is. Therefore how can your position be solid? RSC
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Nov 14, 2006 12:02:59 GMT -5
RSC, is there really any point in us arguing? I mean, I'm all for debating under any circumstances but this just seems ridiculous.
Suffice it to say I was trying to cut off any attempt to use this solicit as an argument on ANY side, which I believed was forthcoming though I had no particular specific reason to believe as such.
Good lord, I'm wondering if people are determined to argue with everything I say on principle! They can't do that- that's MY job!
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 14, 2006 12:38:58 GMT -5
lol
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Nov 14, 2006 17:49:12 GMT -5
Well, I hope that’s the end of RSC and Doom’s discussion. Engage and I are much funnier.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Nov 15, 2006 15:45:34 GMT -5
Yeah . . . so . . . Who else is picking this up? According to this article here forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=90932, it's going to serve as an Epilogue to "Civil War." It would make sense to have Bendis write it, as he was the one that wrote the Prelude with "Illuminati." ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on Nov 17, 2006 10:11:05 GMT -5
I'm not delusional. Everyone ELSE on this site minus the W is Make it three as I enjoy Bendis´ NA (don´t hit me for that ;D), at least most of it. On the other hand I probably won´t buy this book. I see it like engage and in this one there´s even no Howard in it to save the day! One can think of Bendis what one likes, but Bendis clearly writes too much books. He should NOT write Mighty Avengers, too...
|
|
|
Post by balok on Nov 17, 2006 20:10:46 GMT -5
Civil War is selling very well, so Marvel is doing what any wise businessman would do: they're getting as much mileage from it as they can, launching new books and specials. My experience from the past suggests that stuff duct taped onto the side of an "event" will be a lower quality. On top of that, Bendis' recent writing doesn't fill me with enthusiasm.
So this one's don't fail to miss, IMO.
|
|