Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Mar 15, 2007 19:39:57 GMT -5
So I picked this up this week, along with CW: The Initiative, which came out last week. Along with Mighty Avengers, I have now picked up 3 Bendis books in the past 7 days. It's easy to tell now, why I enjoyed Mighty Avengers, over either Confession or Initiative... apparently that was Frank Cho sharing the writing duties. Bendis apparently needs help writing these characters. I don't know why, but that's just my gut.
I will admit that I don't totally and utterly hate every single word that Bendis writes. My singular problem with his writing style is not the "realistic" back and forth exchanges he's famous/infamous for, but rather the phrases or words he uses at times to make his characters seem more down to earth. I don't know if he is trying to make his characters more identifiable to readers, but if that is true, he must not have a very high regard for them. Aside from the notorious "Oy's," "Stop raping me's," etc... The Confession has a few examples of his dialogue that I find childish, ineffctive, and simply just unecessary, if not simply in touch with the characters he's writing.
The Confession is basically two-acts. The 2nd, preceding the first (though there's not much confessing to speak of in the 1st, errr 2nd Act... errr, last half of the book). The first half of the book shows Starks arrival at the SHIELD Helicarrier, and begins his "confession" to an unseen party. You know, this starts off well enough. And then BENDIS! happens. Tony is recounting his speech to his SHIELD troops, which dealt with King Pyrrhus of Epirus, and how he wanted his troops to know he felt the same as the King did following a costly victory. But rather than say the troops made him feel like they didn't care, or that he rained on their parade, or whatever, Bendis uses the phrase "...and they looked at me like I dumped in their breakfast bowls." Seriously, Bendis... wtf? As a good writer, I am sure you want to avoid obvious cliches, and I guess he felt he had to have another way of saying "pissed in their wheaties." But "DUMPED in their BREAKFAST BOWLS"? Why? I guess Tony is just that much of an everyman, who can go from talking about obscure Kings and battles of ancient history and how they tie into his deepest emotions... to referencing the act of defecating in the container for a person's most important meal of the day! What, was "pinching a loaf on their pancake platters," "dropping a deuce in the donut box," or "laying a log in their link sausage" to pedestrian for the demographic? Disappointing.
Tony goes on to explain his reasoning for the war. When he first knew it would come to fruition. And how, he being the all knowing futurist, he just knew it would come to all this. It was horrible, but it all had to be done, it was for the best. But hey, there was good news! At this point, I expected him to talk about how he was saving money on his car insurance, but it turns out the one bit of good news from the Civil War was that he never took a drink.
And then he starts a bit of rationalization, and then the CONFESSION... it "WAS" the right thing to do, but now... it wasn't worth it... but he can't tell anybody. Bravo... you had the bait in the water Bendis, but and you even got a little nibble from me, but then you tried to sink the hook and lost me, but you kept reeling and yanking on the fishing rod like you were somehow reeling in this big fish. Tony's tearful confession did nothing to endear him to me, or make me pity him or see that he did things for the right reason and while I may have disagreed I should respect him. Nope, you just get a big fish story... and just like any fish story you can hold your hands out wide... but there's a lot of nothing in between.
So ACT 1 (errr... 2) is a big stinkeroo for me. But then something almost miraculous occurred. It was almost GOOD! I'm not kidding here people, he almost got it right. The 2nd act, which actually takes place 2 days earlier than the 1st, is IM going to see Cap in custody. Cap dresses IM down, rather royally, and with emotion, and with the spirit of thought and emotion you would expect. Cap's anger seemed a little over the top, even considering the situation, but his words ring true. But everything IM says to Cap just drives me further from this character, and totally erases what you just read in the 1st (errr. 2nd) Act. And the cherry on top at the end... IM calls Cap a "sore loser." Nice.
Writing in Civil War: The Confession gets 2.5 out of 5. There were actually quite a bit of words here. There are quite a few silent panels interspersed here and there... mainly in the last half of the book, but the characters had something to say... not just banter back and forth in two-syllable sentences. Of course, that may have more to do with the typ of story he is telling here, but could it be a glimmer of hope?
Art in The Confession? 3 out of 5. I am not too impressed with Maleev. He can draw IM's armor like nobody's business, but his thin pencil style doesn't work well for me in most other regards. Admittedly, I don't know enough about how all the various people, that make up all the art, work in conjuctoin with each other. However, I thought the coloring and shading fit the tone of the book, but I don't think I could regularly buy a book with this art team.
Overall Rating: 2.5 out of 5. It has its highlights, but once again, I just think Bendis has a hard time properly conveying these characters. However, I will give him kudos for Cap's words in the 2nd part of the book.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 15, 2007 20:48:08 GMT -5
Thanks for the review. You get exalted for that third paragraph alone.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Mar 16, 2007 12:34:52 GMT -5
Although I debated about buying this prior to going to the LCS, I went ahead and got it, figuring I went this far with CW, I might as well get the coda. I'm glad I did. Because maybe, just maybe, there is a little ray of hope that Stark will redeem himself.
I thought that both art and writing in this book were pretty good. Yes, there are a few moments of Bendisitis, but all in all, it was pretty engaging, and may have done the best job yet of any book in making me understand better why Tony has gone to such extremes. That being said, I still don't buy his King Arthur explanation for how he "knew" heroes would go to war with each other. But otherwise, I actually felt that at the end of his confession, Tony sincerely regretted the way things had gone. He tells himself he did the right thing, but he's having to work awfully hard to convince himself. He knows he has sold out his convictions.
Which brings us to the second act, where Tony meets with Cap in his cell. The arrogant, flippant remarks Tony makes to Steve in this act make his contrition in act 1 all the more real. This was the last time he talked to his friend, a man he respected and admired, a man who had so many qualities he wishes he had. And how did he treat him? With contempt.
For his part, Cap is Cap. He gives Tony a marvellous quote about war and all its hypocrisies (from Mark Twain, a fitting choice, kudos to Bendis) and forces Tony to think about what he's done, making terrible compromises. There is a gravitas to Cap here, and if Steve Rogers truly stays dead (yeah, right), then this scene is not a bad way to remember him. Because he goes out still believing in everything he stood for in life.
So for those of us who are so disappointed in Stark, perhaps there is some hope. Perhaps Marvel has been setting things up here, to show what happens when you sell out everything you believe in. I hope that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 16, 2007 12:57:36 GMT -5
Aaah Tananile. It seems to me you missed the point- Stark wasn't saying that the things he had DONE weren't worth it, he was saying that losing CAP wasn't worth it. (Though I think it works better that way; it's such a very human vulnerable moment.) I'll post up my thoughts from CBR:
Bendis blew me away.
I'm not a Bendis fan. I'm not. I'm not. At least, I don't want to be. I HATED the concept of New Avengers. Reinforced by the sheer mind-boggling bias of 21-23... but then 24 was fine, and I thought "Huh? Surely the exception that proves the rule?" But then #27 and '28 came out... and they weren't bad... then I loved Mighty Avengers despite it's slight cap bias... and now this may be the best Bendis book I've ever read.
I didn't think, especially after Mighty Avengers, Bendis had it in him to be unbiased. I was wrong. This book bolsters the cause I support, Iron Man's, yet further, showing for the 23rd time why we're in the right, which I appreciate. But it also does not DEMONIZE Cap the way so many anti-reggers try and fail to demonize Tony. Sure he flies into a kind of irrelevant rant at the end, but I too took it to be showing that these guys can't even have a civil conversation- and that those were their last words to each other makes me feel a deep pang of regret. Bendis actually got me feeling emotional, no mean feat.
But if I had to name one problem- I think putting the stories in the order they were greatloy diminished the impact. 9.5/10, fantastic work by Bendis.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Mar 16, 2007 14:52:31 GMT -5
Aaah Tananile. It seems to me you missed the point- Stark wasn't saying that the things he had DONE weren't worth it, he was saying that losing CAP wasn't worth it. (Though I think it works better that way; it's such a very human vulnerable moment.) No, Doom, I didn't miss the point. I never said Stark still doesn't feel that he did 'what had to be done'. I said he regetted the way things had gone, ie. Steve's death as a result of the war. But let's face it, we both have our biases, and that certainly colored the way we read this story. I see Stark as realizing he has sold out, but telling himself this is the way it had to be, and that eventually all of his actions will lead to a better, safer world. This is very typical behavior for people in positions of power. Tony is a genius, a multi-billionaire businessman (thanks, no-bid contracts!!), and a superhero to boot. Of course he has a tremendous ego! It's easy to see how he could convince himself that he knows what's best for the country. This reminds me, not long before DC's Infinite Crisis came out, hearing one of the DC staff say, "The most dangerous thing in the DCU is Batman's ego." That became apparent during the course of the series. But afterwards, we got a Batman who realizes his mistakes, and is now trying to repair his relationships with his fellow heroes. I am hoping for the same from Iron Man.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 17, 2007 17:04:10 GMT -5
But rather than say the troops made him feel like they didn't care, or that he rained on their parade, or whatever, Bendis uses the phrase "...and they looked at me like I dumped in their breakfast bowls." Seriously, Bendis... wtf? As a good writer, I am sure you want to avoid obvious cliches, and I guess he felt he had to have another way of saying "pissed in their wheaties." But "DUMPED in their BREAKFAST BOWLS"? Why? I guess Tony is just that much of an everyman, who can go from talking about obscure Kings and battles of ancient history and how they tie into his deepest emotions... to referencing the act of defecating in the container for a person's most important meal of the day! What, was "pinching a loaf on their pancake platters," "dropping a deuce in the donut box," or "laying a log in their link sausage" to pedestrian for the demographic? Disappointing. Because of the combination of the comic’s title and the sudden turn to the gratuitously scatological, I am once again reminded of a “Weird Al” Yankovic song, this time from his most recent album, Straight Outta Lynwood. The song is “Confessions Part III”, a parody of an Usher song called “Confessions Part II”:
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Mar 17, 2007 17:39:26 GMT -5
"sore loser"
Cap only surrendered the fight, to protect the people. He didn't lose until that bullet hit him. and we all know that is a short term thing as well.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Mar 17, 2007 19:56:40 GMT -5
For shame, Cap never lost!
He "died" being true to himself, and there are others who still fight for the ideals he embodied... as there always will be.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Mar 17, 2007 20:32:23 GMT -5
yup, For tony to sat that 'sore loser' bit just shows what a punk the powers that be have turned himinto.
Cap was his bud,.. even in the middle of the conflict IM never would've talked to cap like that.
Oh well
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 21, 2007 17:39:19 GMT -5
Well, I finally got this issue today. I found it rather disappointing. Definetly not Bendis' best.
Act One was the stronger of two. I liked the two-page spread at the end, with Tony next to Cap's body and him saying "It wasn't worth it." Parts of his speech came off as heartfelt. But it took way too long to get its point.
Act Two was really bad. Really bad. Terrible charaterization and having it come after him saying "it wasn't worth it" just kills the first act.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 21, 2007 20:26:56 GMT -5
Help me out here - which act was the one where Tony called Cap a "sore loser?" Act Two comes chronologically before Act One? We anti-reggers don't need to demonize Tony - Frontline #11 did that job for us!
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 21, 2007 20:40:56 GMT -5
Help me out here - which act was the one where Tony called Cap a "sore loser?" Act Two. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 21, 2007 20:58:25 GMT -5
Thanks. So if I understand this thread, you and Tone-Loc have more or less the opposite opinion about the relative merits of this book?
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 21, 2007 21:31:51 GMT -5
Thanks. So if I understand this thread, you and Tone-Loc have more or less the opposite opinion about the relative merits of this book? It seems so, but that's okay. He's still a neat dude. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 21, 2007 22:21:22 GMT -5
I want to say that I never WANTED or set out from the beginning to demonize Tony... Iron Man has always been, by far my favorite character in the whole MU... I have basically every book where he has been featured for the last 20 years, or did, up until when I couldn't take his behavior during CW anymore... So I want you to understand that I do not speak lightly when I say I consider his behavior there as non-canonical... I know whereof I speak about.... I know this character very well, which is not to say that my knowledge about him is nfallible, but even so, I'd say I've paid my dues as an IM fan... That's all... If that is demonizing him, showing my dissatisfaction with the way he's been handled by the creators of this event (just like I thought pretty much the same team of creators mishandled Quicksilver, the Scarlet Witch, the Vision & Hawkeye before...) thenI guess I am... but not WITHOUT arguments for feeling this way, whether you agree with me or not....
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Mar 21, 2007 22:37:47 GMT -5
Ua, I think that your sentiments are true for many (not all) but many people. I've always loved Iron Man. It seems, however, that they have turned him into a government stooge. It doesn't sit well with me. Oh well, maybe something will turn it all around.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 22, 2007 13:07:27 GMT -5
It seems so, but that's okay. He's still a neat dude. No criticism of any kind was implied. I was merely trying to understand the argument. The book is gone from my LCS, and I wasn't that interested in it anyway, so I'm probably not going to read it unless a friend gets it and lends me a copy.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 22, 2007 13:21:28 GMT -5
I want to say that I never WANTED or set out from the beginning to demonize Tony... This is basically my position as well. He was never my favorite character (that's probably Spidey or Cap), but he has lost esteem in my mind since they made him unheroic in his pursuit of the SHRA, and basically a government toady.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 22, 2007 14:48:20 GMT -5
Whereas I had never really liked Tony and found all my favourite characters coming down anti-reg (Except Reed) and now Tony is among my favourites and I was firmly pro-reg.
What a world, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Mar 22, 2007 21:36:17 GMT -5
Whereas I had never really liked Tony and found all my favourite characters coming down anti-reg (Except Reed) and now Tony is among my favourites and I was firmly pro-reg. What a world, eh? So Doomsie, are you saying that they can only be your friend if they agree with you? And if you don't like them if they do something you agree with you start liking them? That's called conditional love man, and it's soooooo wrong. You should love EVERYBODY
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 23, 2007 3:36:18 GMT -5
Ah nutcase, I'm hardly saying they can only be my friend if they agree with me- Cap and Spidey are still my two favourites for goodness sake! Naa, I just have a LOT more respect for Tony Stark to see what he was willing to sacrifice for the good of others.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 27, 2007 23:01:19 GMT -5
after reading this confession, here's what I don't get. why did iron Man wait so long? No, really. he's known since his encounter with King Arthur that this was coming. even in marvel time that's at least a couple of years. why not set up a foundation for young super powers? train them. recruit them. get them on your side. so when the crap does hit the fan, you can say "I've been training these heroes and if everyone was trained like they were, this would've never happened." not only that, a real registration might've prevented the New Warriors from being so gung ho. Anyone remember early appearances of Marvel Boy when he tried to become an Avenger? Boy if he'd been trained and then brought in other heroes... Not only that, why not set up a fund to retrain super lawbreakers? Seriously, do you know how in demand Nitro would be in the private sector? Demolition, mine field clearance...he could make millions, legally. Am I thinking too realistically? No, because this is what happens when you start pushing your stories too close to reality. Suddenly the very good and the very bad become barely different shades of grey and the mundane sets in. Why would an old guy want to wear a tight purple bodysuit and fight gods with hammers and men in iron suits that have more firepower than an F-14? Once you start to say "well this part doesn't make sense," you start to see the whole freaking thing is ridiculous. I'm not a futurist but I can see that the situation that caused Civil War and Stamford could happen again easily. Why hasn't Stark done more than just have the biggest fight with his allies, ever? My question is seriously if he's had several years to think of a solution and this was as close as he got, isn't it pretty terrible? should he seem so happy with himself at the end of CW 7? I can't see why...
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 17, 2007 20:15:15 GMT -5
Imp, it's probably something he was trying to do all along through the Illuminati. Even though we didn't know they existed at the time of that cool story.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 17, 2007 23:56:15 GMT -5
Imp, it's probably something he was trying to do all along through the Illuminati. Even though we didn't know they existed at the time of that cool story. Well so far, the Illuminati aren't doing anything except imposing their will in certain defining situations. Again, remember Tony knew the war was coming. he saw it as inevitable. So why wouldn't he start the Tony Stark Superhuman training foundation? If nothing else he could've had a hundred well trained young heroes at his side, many of whom essentially ended up on Cap's side during the conflict. I'm no futurist, but if I knew something was coming I would stack the deck in my favor. Tony didn't do that. Just doesn't make sense. And don't tell me they couldn't have retconned it in. Instead of having all those heroes that are part of the 50 state initiative pop up later, they could've established they were in training for years. It seems like someone decided to give this thing roots and didn't bother to see where they went.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 18, 2007 0:10:33 GMT -5
Imp, it's probably something he was trying to do all along through the Illuminati. Even though we didn't know they existed at the time of that cool story. Well so far, the Illuminati aren't doing anything except imposing their will in certain defining situations. Again, remember Tony knew the war was coming. he saw it as inevitable. So why wouldn't he start the Tony Stark Superhuman training foundation? If nothing else he could've had a hundred well trained young heroes at his side, many of whom essentially ended up on Cap's side during the conflict. I'm no futurist, but if I knew something was coming I would stack the deck in my favor. Tony didn't do that. Just doesn't make sense. And don't tell me they couldn't have retconned it in. Instead of having all those heroes that are part of the 50 state initiative pop up later, they could've established they were in training for years. It seems like someone decided to give this thing roots and didn't bother to see where they went. The thing is, Rex, so much of what Marvel does these days seems sloppy, careless & haphazard, like there just throwing stuff around to see what sticks to the wall... Not the professional way you would expect from one of the 2 top publishers in the country...
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 18, 2007 1:14:37 GMT -5
I think a large part of the problem is that many of the current creators don't seem all that knowledgeable about Marvel continuity. We've all heard about the Aunt May surname gaffe, but there have been other examples, such as Paul Jenkins admitting that he had no idea who Captain Marvel was when he was initially asked to write CW:The Return.
I can't help but think many of the current creators feel no need to pay attention to continuity since they are not that aware of it themselves. Sure, they can go back and try to catch up by reading old books, but that can't take the place of having read those books as they came out. The knowledge and memories absorbed that way is just different than what one gets from a quick study.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 18, 2007 11:27:44 GMT -5
I don't think the surname gaffe was huge as we don't know whether JMS originally got it right, we know an editor corrected it as Fitzgerald which I believe is Peter's mothers maiden name. It just seems JMS wasn't all that sure and I don't find it an unforgivable crime.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 18, 2007 12:07:01 GMT -5
I don't think the surname gaffe was huge as we don't know whether JMS originally got it right, we know an editor corrected it as Fitzgerald which I believe is Peter's mothers maiden name. It just seems JMS wasn't all that sure and I don't find it an unforgivable crime. It's not little things like this name game that I think has some people unhappy. I recall an issue of Avengers where they thought Ant Man's real name was Scott Harris. No it's more a disconnect from the history of the MU. I'm not talking continuity as that's too much of a burden to bear for anyone and for my taste would just as soon ignore certain stories such as Aunt May marrying Doc Ock or Byrne's revision of Hulk's origin with the Skrulls involved. But knowing these stories exist and having read them with some fun in your heart and joy and respect for the history isn't too much to ask. I don't care if you didn't grow up marvel--I don't need a historian to write the book, and you don't have to be eternally bound by the stories--you don't need to know that Sandman has appeared 262 times in the current Marvel Universe, but you should have read his best stories like the issue of Marvel Two in One where he and the Thing sit down for a beer and you get to know Flint Marko/William Baker as a person. That sort of thing is what I think much of the current Marvel writing and art is missing. they're good talents but they don't understand the heart and soul.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 18, 2007 15:31:35 GMT -5
Agree wholeheartedly, rex...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 18, 2007 15:36:57 GMT -5
Disagree wholeheartedly, Rex. C'mon, you knew that was coming
|
|