|
Post by pulpcitizen on Jun 13, 2012 14:56:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jun 13, 2012 15:56:49 GMT -5
I had heard the Hickman rumor from my LCS guy last week. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I don't think he's necessarily a bad writer but his run on FF has bored me. However, the reason for that is that he has made such a point of having the FF face other dimensional type challenges instead of fighting villains that, in an effort to keep the FF from being the same as it always has been, he's made for even more sameness. I don't read the book regularly but when I do pick it up, it's always the same. 6 Sues are fighting 4 Johnnys while an army of Things invade the Dr. Doom from the 21st century and the Reed Richards of the 22nd or some such nonsense as that (Yes, I know I'm making up the details but I can't remember a single actual detail.) A few stories of that nature are okay, but issue after issue and I'm done. I would hope, however, that he would not use that same approach for the Avengers since his whole reasoning was that he thought it was what the FF should be. Therefore, I will take a wait and see approach. Again, I don't think he's a bad writer. I just don't like the style he's used for that particular book.
As far as the Astonishing thing goes, I've never read an issue of Astonishing X-Men or Astonishing Spider-man. Is there something that marks those books, characteristically or is Astonishing just a cool sounding word to use?
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 13, 2012 20:03:44 GMT -5
Aren't 'Astonishing' titles set outside continuity?
Not really happy about Hickman. I think he has a good handle on characters, but his plots can get very drawn-out. Like Straczinsky's, his work reads well in TPB form, but is often boring month by month. I would have been a lot happier with Waid, Cage or Slott, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jun 14, 2012 10:55:50 GMT -5
Aren't 'Astonishing' titles set outside continuity? . Isn't everything?
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jun 14, 2012 20:30:32 GMT -5
From what I understand, Astonishing titles aren't necessarily out of continuity -- they're mainly presented as a "jumping on" title for new readers, typically light on the history.
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Jun 15, 2012 2:38:24 GMT -5
Elsewhere i have seen a post suggesting Waid on Avengers Assemble, but I have not seen a source quote to add any solidity.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jun 18, 2012 18:16:25 GMT -5
...and the Reed Richards of the 22nd or some such nonsense as that... Oh, right!! That godawful Council of Reeds--and the emphasis on the kids--should've tipped me off, but nooooooo --I persevered and read the Hickman collections and then some individual Fantastic Four issues so that I would be up to date for the much-ballyhooed demise of Johnny. And people I know were raving about his FF work ("They return to their explorer roots! You'll love it!") For me Johnny's "death" sequence was affecting; in those panels I felt both Ben and Johnny were written true to form (as I may have posted here at that time). But those were about the only panels that I felt were done well. The rest of Hickman's run was--blechhh! Disjointed, long-winded, and indulgent, IMHO. Well, at least I resisted buying the "FF" (Future Foundation or whatever) spin-off issues. Yep, I would hate to see Hickman on the Avengers.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jun 24, 2012 23:32:13 GMT -5
I don't know if it'll be that bad. Hickman seems to have a better grasp on history and characterization than Bendis does. Plus, Marvel is officially making a move towards small, 1-3 part stories as a opposed to 4-6 parts. Honestly, though, I'm heart-broken to hear that Brubaker is leaving Cap . . .
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jun 25, 2012 0:15:12 GMT -5
I don't know if it'll be that bad. Hickman seems to have a better grasp on history and characterization than Bendis does. Plus, Marvel is officially making a move towards small, 1-3 part stories as a opposed to 4-6 parts. Agreed. As I said before, it's the themes he explored in FF that I didn't like- not his actual writing ability or grasp of characters, but I don't think he'll take the Avengers in the same direction. At least I hope not. I actually asked him about the Avengers at the convention. He said he didn't really know yet but that they would make an announcement in San Diego. Of course, I interpreted that as "I'm not at liberty to say."
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 25, 2012 7:47:48 GMT -5
I'm hoping it'll just prove to be a better fit for him (Hickman). While I admired Hickman's attempts to try legitimate new arcs and twists in FF (well, prior to Johnny's being "killed" off), it simply didn't click for me at all. I wish I could come up with a more properly concrete, critical reason-- but what it boils down to is that I continuously felt like I was watching the FF's exploits from a bit of a distance, as opposed to being involved with what was transpiring. Could not ever shake that sense of detachment. This may be in part because I never got over the destruction of Reed Richards' character in the process & aftermath of Civil War, which seemed to be so easily forgiven and forgotten that it actually made me queasy-- and then Reed is the character that Hickman chose to focus on right away, with him undertaking ethically-questionable means to "Solve Everything", as it were. Then the whole "Team o' Rascally Kids & Their Pals" came across to me as a vague riff on Fantastic Force, or something. Or possibly an echo of that earlier X-mini featuring Artie and some other young mutants (don't remember the title). Kind of had a feeling of having been done before, and really doesn't hold up well under closer scrutiny.
But, Roger Stern had a pretty lame (long) tenure on Incredible Hulk; Gerry Conway was initially DREADFUL with Marvel Team-up; Walt Simonson's X-Factor was horrendous (as was his FF)-- so there's every reason to give a writer a chance to move around and find the title that he clicks with.
HB
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jun 25, 2012 19:52:17 GMT -5
Cautious optimism?
I don't know. I probably won't buy it. Besides AvsX and some X-Men trades, I've been inconsistent in my comic buying since "Siege" in 2009 (10? 11?). Beyond my slow burn out on super-hero titles, the financial pressures of parenthood (and adulthood in general) makes comic buying extremely difficult.
The end of Bendis may just be the end of my Avengers adventure. At least in new issues (I am interesting in reading older Avengers issues -- as evidenced in my Avengers Volume Three thread).
|
|