AVENGERS: Right To Assemble #1: Roll Call

[goldenfist]

This article is from newsarama.com

Welcome to Right to Assemble, our new column following the ongoing events in the Avengers family of titles. Marvel’s Avengers franchise may be bigger than ever, and it’s fairly obvious that Dark Reign continues to have a significant impact on Earth’s Mightiest Heroes. However, today, we’re more concerned about the impact on you, the reader.

Today, I want to pose the following question: how satisfied are you with the Avengers family of titles at the moment? Let me make it clear: that’s not a knock; I’m just looking for overall opinion. One only has to cast their eyes to the sales charts to see that it’s good to be an Avenger. Nevertheless, opinions in the trenches can always vary from the stark data of sales.

For our purposes, we’re going skip solo titles and focus on the actual team books. Right now, the Avengers franchise consists of New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, Avengers: The Initiative, and Dark Avengers. While there IS a Dark Reign: Young Avengers mini in progress, the actual Young Avengers have yet to return to regular publication.

Let’s take a look at the basics of the main titles.

Dark Avengers: Inextricably tied to Dark Reign, this successful book continues to draw a lot of interest for its basic concept: “evil Avengers”. One does wonder how long this book would last without the Dark Reign support system and with different characters; one presumes that once (if?) a new status quo is achieved, Dark Avengers could possibly continue to operate with new characters as the X-Force of the Avengers family.

New Avengers: They’ve been the “Avengers on the Run” since Civil War. Though the line-up has changed a bit since Secret Invasion, this has been the “embattled Avengers keeping the spirit of the team alive” book for a while. I suppose that we would still consider this the “core” Avengers book.

Mighty Avengers: Honestly, this is the B-team book. The upside is that those books can be freeing for the creators and surprisingly entertaining for the audience. The occasional downside is that it can be hard to draw in an audience and keep them unless they see a compelling hook. While we have characters here that either have their own titles (Hercules) or following (Quicksilver), this is still going to be seen as “the other book” by a lot of readers. My guess is that this week’s Young Avengers reunion in this book is partially motivated by a desire to get more attention (and of course, to re-establish the kids).

Avengers: The Initiative: While I’ve definitely found this book frequently entertaining, it seems to be going in several disparate directions these days. Part Thunderbolts, part New Warriors on the run, part “original-Initiative-premise-with-villains”, it’s piling up a huge cast with a lot of shifting stories and agendas. That’s not to say that it can’t be great; it’s just hard these days to explain this book in a few words.

So, looking at the Avengers field, what works for you? What doesn’t work for you? Are there too many books? Not enough? Some great and fine the way they are? Some that need to change focus? You take the reins of the conversation, and we’ll talk about your opinions next time.

[dlw66]

I think as many of us have stated over the past few years, this is all just too much. The Avengers of the first decade of the 21st century have become the X-Men of the last decade of the 20th century -- too many characters, too many books, and just not doing anything well.

I've been reading quite a bit of Marvel history lately, and the policies of Martin Goodman that said flooding the market was the best marketing strategy are alive and well. I would argue that trimming the fat and doing fewer books but better, would at least balance the loss of circulation from more titles and perhaps overall increase the company's presence at the cash register!

[starfoxxx]

I'm sticking with Mighty, which so far has been a disappointment, but the addition of Gage will help. I enjoyed the first issue with Gage, so here's hoping.

And I'm also really enjoying Avengers Initiative, and have been since the attention has turned from the lame new characters and is now more concerned with Taskmaster, Tigra, Bengal, Constrictor, etc.....These are characters that were always in the background of the comics I read growing up, and now they get a chance to shine. I also like that they are written with a respect and understanding of who they are are where they came from. This is the kind of comic-writing I appreciate, and that explains why I do not buy New or Dark Avengers.

Also, I hope that Mighty and Av:Initiative stay at $2.99. It's just a buck, but it actually makes a difference to me.

[scottharris]

Here's another place to voice your opinions. One of the guys who does the Comics Should Be Good site alsohas his own blog, and tomorrow he's doing a 24 hour blogathon for charity. He's going to be posting very half hour for 24 hours and his topic is Brian Michael Bendis's Avengers and related tie-ins. Here's the link:

graphicontent.blogspot.com/

So, whether you love Bendis or hate him, here's a chance to discuss your feelings as the blog works its way through the last 5 years of Avengers stories.

[scottharris]

I want to mention that the blogathon has started, and the guy began it with a long post saying how much he loved Disassembled and how great it was that it pissed off the fans. I kind of blew my top and posted a diatribe about how Bendis is Lucifer and that I want to dance on his grave. Well, I didn't go quite that far, but I got pretty worked up.

Anyway, if anyone else wants to jump over and pitch in (or defend Bendis, that's cool too), please feel free. Only a few people have posted so far and I think I'm the only person who isn't a fan of Bendis. So there's that.

[scottharris]

I want to mention that the blogger, Chad Nevett, has been pretty impartial overall. He likes NA more than I do, but he's trashed some stuff as well (he really went to town on Civil War, for instance). My last post here made it sound like he was a Bendis disciple, which I feared when he began his day with the praise for Disassembled, but it's not really turned out to be the case.

[dlw66]

I stopped by that blog a couple of times today, but realized how un-qualified I was to post anything since I swore off NA after #24 and have never picked up a copy of MA or the Initiative titles.

But it was an interesting premise for the blogger to run his posts throughout the day!

[steed]

"My overall assessment of the Avengers' corner of the Marvel Universe can be summed up as: Demoralized Patience(?) I'm extremely disappointed but loyally waiting on better days."

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[scottharris]

HIs posts have been pretty interesting and thougtful, and it's kind of nice because he is reviewing, like, every single thing bendis has done since he started on Avengers, which means all sorts of tie ins and stuff that I've never even heard of. It helps give more context. Doesn't make the stories good, but at least I know more about what was going on.

I will say that there is one guy over there who responded to every post -- I guess he's a friend of the blogger -- who I wanted to kick in the babymaker. After I commented that New Avengers didn't really feel like an Avengers title, he wanted me to explain what being an Avengers book means, so I spent a great deal of time explaining in detail, with historical examples, what makes a book and a character Avengery. His response was a total blow-off that basically amounted to "If you don't like Spider-man on the Avengers you're an idiot". Ah, the internet.

But if you want to read my explanation of what makes one book Avengery and another not, it's in the comments here:

graphicontent.blogspot.com/2009/08/blogathon-21-new-avengers-revolution.html#comments

[scottharris]

You know, Bill, I called him out on that; another guy on the Comics Should Be Good website quoted that passage and said how much he agreed with it, so I told them both they were being snobby dicks:

goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2009/08/22/some-responses-to-the-new-avengers-blog-a-thon/#comments

So the blogger responded by saying I'm an elitist moron:

graphicontent.blogspot.com/2009/08/blogathon-44-is-new-avengers-proper.html#comments


As President Obama might say, this has reminded me that arguing with people on the internet is like the Special Olympics, so I'm just going to leave it at that I guess. Their attitude really, really gets me steamed, but whatever.

[humanbelly]

Aug 23, 2009 0:38:53 GMT -5 scottharris said:

HIs posts have been pretty interesting and thougtful, and it's kind of nice because he is reviewing, like, every single thing bendis has done since he started on Avengers, which means all sorts of tie ins and stuff that I've never even heard of. It helps give more context. Doesn't make the stories good, but at least I know more about what was going on.

I will say that there is one guy over there who responded to every post -- I guess he's a friend of the blogger -- who I wanted to kick in the babymaker. After I commented that New Avengers didn't really feel like an Avengers title, he wanted me to explain what being an Avengers book means, so I spent a great deal of time explaining in detail, with historical examples, what makes a book and a character Avengery. His response was a total blow-off that basically amounted to "If you don't like Spider-man on the Avengers you're an idiot". Ah, the internet.

But if you want to read my explanation of what makes one book Avengery and another not, it's in the comments here:

graphicontent.blogspot.com/2009/08/blogathon-21-new-avengers-revolution.html#comments

Scott, you did indeed explain yourself very well in your post-- and in your subsequent responses. Clearly, there are two different scales being refered to-- the Dead Literal ("It's Avengers 'cause that's what Marvel put on the cover") and the Esoteric (your own "Avengers Feel"). And while I agree with you, the problem of course is that there's no way to quantify or codify an Avengers Feeling, so it's easy for critics to brush it off as being entirely subjective and invalid.
I think you were getting close when you brought in the Force Works comparison, although I'm not sure I can make a concrete distinction either.

Perhaps it's worth going back to the old splash page blurb for inspiration (Group of heroes banded together to face foes, razza, razza, razza)? Hmm. Heroes that are otherwise unafiliated, yet organize themselves into a FORMAL team structure to face enormous threats to the greater good. Work in concert with governing and law-enforcment bodies. Adhere to a STRICT MORAL CODE.

. . . That may be a marker. Cap is the Avengers: Always do the morally right thing, regardless of how difficult or hopeless it seems. Iron Man is something else: Take whatever means necessary to serve the greatest good available.

I don't know-- is there something to expand on with that? Is that any help?

(wow-- my 200th post. Youse folks has been real patient wit' me.)

HB

(Oops- modifiation: only my 199th. Mustn't celebrate too soon. Still possible to be yanked from the boards. . . HB)

[woodside]

Do you guys ever think that maybe your smug, "I know the Avengers better than anyone and thus THEY SUCK because the industry/title today is different than it used to" attitude is just as bad those whom you take up against?

Argh . . . I've got more to say, but I don't think I'll bother.

YET.

I'm working on something. Something that will hopefully make you all see why I feel like this is one of the best eras in Marvel history.

[scottharris]

If you've read my comments, either here or on those other blogs, you're fully aware that I don't have any issue with changes being made or the status quo being shaken up, either in Avengers or the MU in general. I just don't like the stories that have resulted. I want to read good stories, not bad stories; that's the complete extent of my criticism. I'm not sure how this is either smug or elitist and I don't really appreciate being called names or having my opinions dismissed out of hand on these wholly invented grounds just because I don't like Bendis or New Avengers.

I look forward to seeing whatever it is you're working on. I would love to see a reasoned discussion of why these stories are good; so far, all I've received is name calling and derision.

You know, I appreciate the fact that you care about this stuff, woodside. Seriously, I respect that. But I'd like it if we can keep our discussions civilized. That's all.

[spiderwasp]

Aug 23, 2009 22:12:26 GMT -5 scottharris said:

If you've read my comments, either here or on those other blogs, you're fully aware that I don't have any issue with changes being made or the status quo being shaken up, either in Avengers or the MU in general. I just don't like the stories that have resulted. I want to read good stories, not bad stories; that's the complete extent of my criticism. I'm not sure how this is either smug or elitist and I don't really appreciate being called names or having my opinions dismissed out of hand on these wholly invented grounds just because I don't like Bendis or New Avengers.

I look forward to seeing whatever it is you're working on. I would love to see a reasoned discussion of why these stories are good; so far, all I've received is name calling and derision.

You know, I appreciate the fact that you care about this stuff, woodside. Seriously, I respect that. But I'd like it if we can keep our discussions civilized. That's all.

I'm right there with you Buddy. I hate being classified as some negative unreasonable person because I don't like what Marvel is doing. I want to like this stuff. I really do. I understand that some people love it. I understand that those feelings exist, however I just can't understand why. It's not that I don't want there to be changes or that I just want repeats of old stories. It all boils down to one thing. I buy the books because I think or hope that I will enjoy them then I read them and don't. The truth is that I've enjoyed less than 10% of what I've read over the past 10 years, especially where Bendis was concerned. At this point, I enjoy I about 90% of what I'm buying but that's because I'm buying about 4-6 titles per month and only 1 of those is a regular series (Mighty Avengers.) Just because someone else loves this stuff doesn't mean those of us that don't should be quiet or feel bad because we don't. Like you, I look forward to reading why someone feels that this stuff is great because I am truly clueless on it.

[dlw66]

. . . That may be a marker. Cap is the Avengers: Always do the morally right thing, regardless of how difficult or hopeless it seems. Iron Man is something else: Take whatever means necessary to serve the greatest good available.

When the Black Knight went over Cap's head and killed the Supreme Intelligence back during Operation: Galactic Storm, that crossed a big line not only for the team, but for me as a reader. When I recall how I felt at that moment, and then how I felt when Wolverine was put on the team -- morality wasn't one of the values that was coming to mind.

As to what Scott and spiderwasp said, I too would like to see an argument that would suddenly reveal to me the greatness that is the current state of Marvel. I'm not seeing it.

I thought one of my complaints of the current industry (not all of it, but I guess just to decompresed storytelling in general) was an offhand comment on one of the blogs Scott asked us to look at over the weekend: the blogger wondered what he would do in the intervening 29 minutes between posts. One thing he offered was to read 15 comics. 15 comics! But you know what? Today you can do that.

Tana, Sharkar and I have commented many times to each other when researching for our blogs that back in the day it took a good 15-20 minutes to read a comic book. Because it had words that went with the pictures, and the pictures had detailed backgrounds and they served to move the readers eyes across and up and down the pages. And the humanoids looked like all of their joints were tight and like they could actually move their muscles.

It was a simpler time, and maybe I'm just a simple person. I am also not opposed to change, but it must be organic and not forced. Somewhere around here I posted a link a few days ago (I'll try to find it again) to a website that had Avengers team shots from several different eras. Even during the creative downturns, a reader could make a logical explanation for who was and who was not on the active roster at that given time, and while there were always going to be pet characters, at least there was characterization and storytelling.

EDIT: Here's the link -- www.dragonhero.com/marvel/avengers.html

[betaraybill]

Aug 23, 2009 21:21:59 GMT -5 woodside said:

Do you guys ever think that maybe your smug, "I know the Avengers better than anyone and thus THEY SUCK because the industry/title today is different than it used to" attitude is just as bad those whom you take up against?

Argh . . . I've got more to say, but I don't think I'll bother.

YET.

I'm working on something. Something that will hopefully make you all see why I feel like this is one of the best eras in Marvel history.

Take your time... get your words right...

[freedomfighter]

Aug 23, 2009 21:21:59 GMT -5 woodside said:

Do you guys ever think that maybe your smug, "I know the Avengers better than anyone and thus THEY SUCK because the industry/title today is different than it used to" attitude is just as bad those whom you take up against?

Argh . . . I've got more to say, but I don't think I'll bother.

YET.

I'm working on something. Something that will hopefully make you all see why I feel like this is one of the best eras in Marvel history.

Wow. And you call classic Avenger fans smug? The self satisfied tone of your message is such an apt example of smugness, it could be a dictionary definition. Dude, just let people have their own opinions. You're really not gonna change too many minds. If Bendis hasn't done it in like five years, it's not likely your post is gonna do it either...

[Doctor Bong]

Aug 25, 2009 11:27:45 GMT -5 freedomfighter said:

Aug 23, 2009 21:21:59 GMT -5 woodside said:

Do you guys ever think that maybe your smug, "I know the Avengers better than anyone and thus THEY SUCK because the industry/title today is different than it used to" attitude is just as bad those whom you take up against?

Argh . . . I've got more to say, but I don't think I'll bother.

YET.

I'm working on something. Something that will hopefully make you all see why I feel like this is one of the best eras in Marvel history.

Wow. And you call classic Avenger fans smug? The self satisfied tone of your message is such an apt example of smugness, it could be a dictionary definition. Dude, just let people have their own opinions. You're really not gonna change too many minds. If Bendis hasn't done it in like five years, it's not likely your post is gonna do it either...

Respectfully submited: call me crazy, because I for one am unabashedly in love with the (good...?) old times, but I think woodside, as an AA old timer, has every right to express his own opinions and since he's making an obviously sincere and good intentioned effort to present his point of view we should not discourage him from engaging others in such discussion.
My two cents...

[freedomfighter]

Aug 26, 2009 4:33:43 GMT -5 Doctor Bong said:

Aug 25, 2009 11:27:45 GMT -5 freedomfighter said:

Wow. And you call classic Avenger fans smug? The self satisfied tone of your message is such an apt example of smugness, it could be a dictionary definition. Dude, just let people have their own opinions. You're really not gonna change too many minds. If Bendis hasn't done it in like five years, it's not likely your post is gonna do it either...

Respectfully submited: call me crazy, because I for one am unabashedly in love with the (good...?) old times, but I think woodside, as an AA old timer, has every right to express his own opinions and since he's making an obviously sincere and good intentioned effort to present his point of view we should not discourage him from engaging others in such discussion.
My two cents...

I have no problem with a sincere and good intentioned effort. I dont think starting out saying "smug" is necessarily going to be good intentioned. As a rule, insulting someone before trying to explain something is a bad way to start off...

I'm amending this answer because I really want my viewpoint understood. As my example I'll take a current theme running through the Marvel Universe and one that is affecting the Avengers hugely.
Dark Reign.
Now BMB has pretty much placed Norman Osborn in a place of power that no one can defy because he stopped the Queen of an alien invasion. There were a hundred heroes right in the middle of the battle too but evidently some cameraman was right next to Norman in the midst of a war and got one perfect shot so compelling that the US turned themselves over to some guy who is a killer super villain.
How many times has Reed Richards turned back Galactus, The Skrulls, The Kree, The "-you -name -it -he's -done -it" pretty much single handedly without this much fanfare? Ah yes of course, well this is new Marvel and we're trying to explore a certain story so we're ignoring all that's gone before.
Now this attitude can work in a self contained universe like Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, where he rewrites history because his defiance of history that preceded his film only affects his film (and maybe some goofy teens who treat his film like a documentary and write a book report on it...), but does it work in Marvel to take every situation where you want an outcome to the point where you push the limits of credulity just to get there?
We want heroes to be afraid of operating outside the law so we'll make some of them sound incapable of defying authority. Considering most heroes are already acting outside the law, it just comes off as fake.
Now a good writer will create a situation where the scene works. Just give the character a reason (maybe they got married, had a kid, anything, just something real so as to really spark a personal change in the character), but did we really get that? I didn't see it.
Now also in dark reign I see Hawkeye is ready to murder Norman Osborn.
Really?
REALLY?
The same Hawkeye who didn't want to murder the man who drugged and likely sexually assaulted his wife? The same Hawkeye who has faced Doctor Doom, Red Skull (a modern day Nazi genocidal maniac who has likely killed thousands and will happily do so again), and any number of crazed powerful, power mad, world beaters who've conquered the planet and barely been beaten back. Read Emperor Doom, or any issue with the Red Skull and the cosmic cube. The world has faced any number of nearly omnipotent threats and Hawkeye always sought another way besides murder. In fact this would be a first for him.
But the writer chose it. Did he build to a great strong reason why the character would completely 180? Eh, not so much in my eyes, maybe to others.
But that's why things aren't universal.
The story that was written didn't convince me, so I didn't like it. That's not smug, that's not being close minded, that's wanting a story that makes me buy what the writer is selling. If a writer wants me to believe Hawkeye has suddenly become the Punisher, then make me believe it, make me sympathize with the character so I believe this change, so I see as justified and consistent with the character. That's all.
During one of the heydays of the Avengers when Hawkeye was featured in Avengers Spotlight, Steve Gerber I believe decided to take Hawkeye down a gritty turn, put him in armor, patrol the inner city streets like Batman.
That lasted about ten or fifteen issues and then got thrown on the scrap heap.
It wasn't consistent with the character, it wasn't believable and the writer did a poor job of making the change.
That was nearly 20 years ago and fans didn't like it then.
But if they don't like changes like this in 2009, they're being smug or close minded?
That's a poor argument. The simple fact is it is the creative team's job to sell that change to me as a reader. It's not my job to accept it and like if I find huge flaws. I'm spending the 3 or 4 bucks an issue, and just like in movies, or TV where millions are spent on story and actors, it comes down to: does the audience buy the story you're telling them?
People didn't buy Tom Cruise in Valkyrie.
By most critical accounts, a decent enough film, neither a great nor terrible effort, yet people decided they'd rather not watch Tom, one of the top ten box office draws in the world, playing a Nazi good guy. Maybe they just didn't buy it.
That's what audiences get to do...
I'm not buying Bendis because I don't like his writing. I think it's sad to say I'm being smug for having a preference for a type of storytelling.
My money and entertainment value should not be subject to someone else's whims and taste.