|
Post by humanbelly on Apr 27, 2013 21:07:49 GMT -5
All of the exposure on SW's Covers thread got me thinking about re-visiting Hawkeye's old team. I hadn't re-read a single issue of the run since they were published (got 'em all, though), starting back in *yikes* '85 or '86. I distinctly remember not being able to surrender to the Milgrom art paired with the often-loopy, overly-Alan-Alda-esque, HEAVILY derivitive (and extremely deeply-researched) Englehart plotting and scripting. And yet. . . and yet. . . I could never deny an almost inexplicable, deep affection for the book and the team. Englehart's writing careened wildy from intensely introspective self-actualization for the damaged characters to very heavy supernatural quests to some rather eyebrow-raising sexual situations (Tigra specifically-- who has a "problem", and sleeps with Simon, Hank Pym, and a Cat Demon hunk in the first 9 issues. . . as well as making a play for Tony). And this writing could not be paired worse than w/ ol' Al Milgrom, who chugs along with a style that is right out of World's Finest, circa 1958. HOWEVER-- as much as I consistently knock Al, his work always has an honesty to it- a lack of pretention?- that is somehow endearing. And as w/ the Avengers run, he is SAVED by Joltin' Joe's inkbrush. Again, one of the extremely rare cases where the MVP of the book may have been the inker, rather than the writer or artist.
I'm up to about issue #13, and we've indeed gone through the arc where Tigra gets upgraded. . . and sprouts a tail. And even though the book isn't "good" by most standards I'd usually apply, I find that, if anything, I'm enjoying it even more this time around. It's not good. . . but it's endearing. And there are many rather clumsily-handled character developments that it would actually have been nice to hang onto (WonderMan's putting all of his personal demons to rest; Hank Pym retiring "permanently" from costumed heroics; Clint and Bobbi being a relatively fun, normal, non-superpowered married couple, etc).
The first annual was also a fairly nice throwback to the style of older annuals. One of the major times when Quicksilver went bad-- with nice early pencils by Mark Bright.
So, just thought I'd start a more current thread for this ol' team, in case any discussion continues to pop up. They've been kind of conspicuous in their absence from this board, I daresay. . . ;D
HB
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Apr 28, 2013 0:40:43 GMT -5
I was wondering, what is the general perception of this title amongst Avengers fans? Is it fondly remembered? Cringe-worthy? Had potential that never was fully reached?
I sporadically read the title but always enjoyed it. The roster(s) may never have been among my favorites, but it did make me appreciate Hawkeye much more. It's good to see that Marvel has begun reprinting it in TPBs.
|
|
kidcage
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 167
|
Post by kidcage on Apr 28, 2013 23:51:38 GMT -5
*Dusts off account, logs in* Wow, have a baby... and it's been awhile since I've posted... but in terms of WCA, I had to. I actually got into WCA BEFORE the main title, and collected the entire run. I loved the West Coast team. Sure, sometimes things got a little goofy, but I always found the title to sometimes be a little more fun than the "main team" (at the time). Hawkeye's my #1 guy, and the relationship he has to the team and Mockingbird, the idea of him wanting to do the Avengers right, etc. just had a huge impact on my comic reading. I will always consider this my jumping on point for Avengers, so maybe while that could help endure me to the series, I never found too much of a problem with the series. In fact, #50 was one of those "childhood memory" comics I had as my best friend had a poster of the cover art on his wall because it was the return of one of the original Marvels
|
|
|
Post by wundagoreborn on Apr 29, 2013 10:24:04 GMT -5
I certainly remember it fondly. "Loopy" and "endearing" are great words for it. I wasn't a serious 'wow' book, even when they were dealing with powerful villians like Graviton. It was always a feel-good read.
Mockingbird's revenge killing and her subsequent efforts to hide it were an interesting story.
I can't have a barbeque without having a flash of the WCA, like I'm Hawkeye about to hand a burger to Rhodey-Iron Man.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Apr 29, 2013 12:41:02 GMT -5
I re-read up to #41 a few years ago (I've recently bought some back issues which get me up to #55, then 72-77, with the occasional missing link) and plan to read the rest, after I finish reading through some regular Avengers (I'm in 1993 - the 360's, and it's getting very difficult to make it through these awful books) so maybe at some point you and I will be reading concurrently, HB.
Anyway, while the Wackos never quite gripped me the way the Eackos did, I did enjoy the title, to a degree. I thought the first 6 issues were very good. Some pretty solid writing by Englehart. Throughout the series, I though the Milgrom art was pretty good - as long as Joe Sinnott was inking him. When it switched to Mike Machlan's inks (or Gerry Taloac for Annual #2) the art declined noticeably (somewhere around #25). Overall, I thought the first 2 years of the series were good, then it slipped a bit.
Annuals 1 and 2 were definitely highlights of the series, though Annual 3 was mediocre - an Evolutionary War tie-in, with mediocre art.
Tigra is one character that never did it for me. Whoever wrote her, I never found her interesting or agreeable. I thought it was funny the way Hawkeye kept going after Ben Grimm, and let Firebird slip right through his fingers in the meantime.
I agree with Wundagoreborn that Mockingbird's revenge killing and her subsequent efforts to hide it were an interesting story.
Anyway, and team with Hawkeye must be good.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Apr 29, 2013 20:41:02 GMT -5
Personally, I loved the early years of the WCA. The primary thing that I feel is missing in most of the current books Marvel puts out is the fun. WCA had that in spades. Can you imagine the Avengers getting up a baseball game these days? I didn't even really mind the "Soap opera" aspect that HB disliked so much. To me, that was just the character stuff that made it more interesting. I'm not at all interested in adventure without character. Both are necessary to me. On the other hand, I do agree that Englehart was often a little heavy handed with some of the dialogue and could have sometimes used a bit more subtlety but I'd rather have that than so much subtlety that I don't even understand what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Apr 30, 2013 3:18:41 GMT -5
I'm a huge Englehart fan, a modest Byrne fan and a big Thomas fan, so I was always pretty happy with the book. Englehart really strove to give the book and the team it's of ethos and feel, but kept it an "avengers" team. The early stories were engaging, and followed the standard Englehart procedure of taking some small piece of usually forgotten continuity and making a story out of it. I remember the Hank Pym/ sentient communist ape storyline as being particularly good in that it expanded upon a much skipped-over part of Hank's past, and developed those few lines in an obscure comic into a larger, deeper storyline. And the point about the annual baseball games is a telling one. Now we have eleventy Avengers titles, the majority of which do not in any way refer to each other, and nobody is supposed to care what happens when, or in what order. I prefer the era of annual baseball games, and team-ups and sometimes snarky rivalries between coasts. There has been a touch of this in the sadly cancelled Avengers Academy, which is the closest thing to a successor title in spirit and tone (and also features Hank Pym, Tigra, and Jocasta). But yes, the rosy glow of nostalgia does help me look back on WCA fondly, though I still prefer Engleharts original Avengers run (which gets even yet still more nostalgia).
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 5, 2013 18:02:54 GMT -5
By the way, kidcage, muchos congrats on the new baby-- woo-hoo!
I'm up to about ish#26 now, and I should clarify (for SW's sake) that I don't dislike the heavy soap-opera aspect at all-- it's just that it's surprisingly ham-fisted in its execution. I like the stuff going on quite a bit, really. Englehart simply seemed to have misplaced his ability to write dialog with any subtlety or depth. None of the characters have any thoughts or references or lines that aren't driven (or at least influenced by) the one-dimensional trait that they have been bestowed with. Tigra was sex-crazed and "torn" by her two souls; Wonder-Man is newly and supremely self-confident; Firebird is deeply devout; Tony is perpetually supportive, Hank is humble and seeking redemption. HOWEVER, Englehart manages to maintain interest because these one dimensional traits at least progress into other one dimensional traits: Tigra becomes integrated and well-adjusted; Wonder-Man becomes impossibly arrogant and self-centered; Hank becomes depressed, suicidal, and then even MORE "redeemed"; Tony becomes ridiculously impatient and volatile w/ Simon's ego; Bobbi is overwhelmed w/ regret about lying to Clint about Ghost Rider's demise, etc. In general, Hawkeye is handled quite well, so his character rolls along nicely throughout. And it all really does kind of work. . .it's just not a bit subtle. . . I mean, I'm enjoying this read-through, no question.
The whole Lost in Space-Time arc (famous for Bobbi's deservedly letting G.R. fall to his death) was just a delightfully meticulous continuity construct on Englehart's part. Contrived, perhaps, but it's so wonderfully researched and fitted into the existing canon (WITHOUT hurting any of it!) that you can't help but admire it as the much lighter little brother of the Celestial Madonna epic. It also makes so much more sense w/out the month-long wait between chapters.
I'm trying to find a more apt way to explain the appeal of this title. Ah--
In style and tone, it very much resembles the better of silver age DC, but the content itself benefits from being bronze age Marvel. Does that resonate at all w/ anyone?
HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 5, 2013 19:55:44 GMT -5
I had never read most of WCA except for the odd annual or crossover, but just last month I bought the 1st omnibus as my own birthday present (together with the Iron Man omnibus by Micheline and Layton). It collects WCA #1-4; Iron Man Annual #7; The Avengers #250; West Coast Avengers vol. 2 #1-16; Vision and the Scarlet Witch vol. 2 #1-2; The Avengers Annual #15; West Coast Avengers Annual #1, so it gave me a good starting point.
I think I found it all ok-ish, but not mind-blowing. Hawkeye having a go at leadership, and realizing his own past irritating behaviour in the process, was easily the best element. The Thing being repeteadly asked to join was my favourite subplot, and I also liked the introduction of Firebird.
Everything else fell a bit flat though. The Tigra arc, with all its sexual innuendos and subtext, was bizarre. Wonder Man seemed to overcame his weaknesses just a little too quickly, although this could be the result of me reading several stories in quick succession, and often felt forced, trying too hard to prove the point. Also, Iron Man has been completely wasted thus far, missing more often than not and usually serving only as some additional muscle.
Nothing too shambolic yet, but, considering that at the time the regular Avengers were enjoying one of their best runs ever under Stern and Buscema, WCA does come second best. In November I'll buy the next omnibus too, to see how things progress.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 7, 2013 7:20:30 GMT -5
Good summary of the one-dimensional characters, HB> I hadn't really thought of that before.
I think many of us are in agreement that Hawkeye was the best thing about the book. Too bad the Thing never did really join.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 16, 2013 15:16:21 GMT -5
WCA? Here's my lowdown on it.
Loved the miniseries and was gagging for the ongoing.
Back in the day I was stoked to see a major favourite like Ultron but really it's the worst portrayal of the character up to that point. Unlike many I'm really not an Engelhart fan and find his soapy style pretty unbearable. In my view his portrayals of every single character are cringeworthy. I've only ever enjoyed Milgrom's artwork once (when he inked himself actually IIRC), and I'm just not a fan of of industry All-Star and genuine legend Joe Sinnott at all (IMO he's incredibly bland, making everything he works on look rubbery and superficial, draining character and nuance from the work of the artists -admittedly if the art's not that good this can work in its favour as everything gets sucked towards a Sinnott 'golden mean' of mediocrity). I was still pretty young when that run started, but by the end of it I had long outgrown the time when I could tolerate that stuff and found it genuinely repulsive to have to put up with. This was also the era that introduced Wonder Man's christmas tree and jet pack costume -and it's been downhill ever since...
Of course, naturally I love the period so many hate -the Byrne era. They're the only bit of the ongoing series worth owning IMO. The characters immediately came back to life and felt real again and the book became exciting and interesting. I can understand why people got upset about what was done to the Scarlet Witch, but I think that over all it was for the best. The character, a great one in my view, had been boxed into a corner and a drastic change was needed. Ending the marriage and disposing of the babies was undeniably extreme, but ultimately much to the character's advantage as far as I'm concerned and made for a thrilling story (although the Immortus shenanigans were never explained all that well -possibly due to Byrne's departure). He also brought Quicksilver back from being dumped on by every other writer out there.
One of the best things is the portrayal of Hank Pym. Instead of the usual excessive exertions to overcompensate one way or the other that writers (especially Engelhart) were guilty of, the character just gets on with it and feels like the hero of old that we all knew. Praise the lord. I think pairing him with Jan again was a mistake though. I was happy with it at the time and understand Byrne's nostalgic desire to restore the character but in retrospect I think it was a mis step -it was something that needed to remain in the characters' pasts and new pastures were required.
Plenty of potential was created for the future, but sadly precious little of it realised (much like Byrne's brief run on the Hulk). The new ideas and excitement were frittered away by those that came after. We could have explored the unadulterated journey of the vision as pure artificial intelligence towards understanding and experiencing emotion. The vision as outsider, rather than the cheery plastic regular joe that he'd been mutilated into. But we didn't see that -instead various writers lost the plot and the character -and have never really managed to recover it. The prospect of a genuine psycho nutjob (USAgent) being foisted on the team by the government's bureaucratic numpties and the problems and issues that was likely to throw up were a golden opportunity -but instead this was morphed into a familiar and pedestrian tale of outsider being accepted into the fold (yawn). What a waste.
In the later period the art was above average but nothing special or memorable. Roy Thomas was way past his best (and perhaps his time?) and the stories were also nothing special, and notable for little more than an ill conceived Bride of Ultron retread.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 18, 2013 9:18:03 GMT -5
The early stories were engaging, and followed the standard Englehart procedure of taking some small piece of usually forgotten continuity and making a story out of it. I remember the Hank Pym/ sentient communist ape storyline as being particularly good in that it expanded upon a much skipped-over part of Hank's past, and developed those few lines in an obscure comic into a larger, deeper storyline. I can't remember if it's the same thing as you're talking about, but I did like the use of Hank's first wife and some of the villains from the old Ant Man stories. Not so much the story with his first wife being mutated itself, just the fact that they were used at all as its a much neglected area. I've always had a bit of a fantasy that Comrade X was actually the mentor who trained the Black Widow. Not for any good reason; I just thought it'd make for a cool bit of backstory.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 20, 2013 6:40:27 GMT -5
Yes, I didn't even know about Hank's past, before Jan, until reading those issues!
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 24, 2013 17:48:36 GMT -5
Wellllllll, I'm at issue #40, and the book is really falling apart at the moment. I'm not sure if Englehart was abruptly pulled from it, or if perhaps he quit in a huff, or what-- but shortly after the blast from Hank's past (which I agree was a pretty neat re-visiting of some of his old, OLD Tales to Astonish nemeses) we had the SUPREME drag of Hawkeye and Mockingbird splitting up-- dividing the team as well. Bobbi took Tigra & Moon Knight (who was actually Khonshu himself, sort of inhabiting Marc Spectre's body on the down-low) with her, and Vision & Wanda stayed on w/ Hawkeye & Simon. . . while Hank was supposedly pre-occupied w/ de-mutating his first wife. Plus Mantis was revived out of the blue in an EXTRAORDINARILY contrived manner which raised suspicions that maybe Englehart was intent on recapturing the glorious elements of his earlier Avengers successes. But none of that seems to matter at the moment, 'cause there was a filler issue, and then a bit of rotating artist/writer tango that is clearly just filling time until John Byrne can come aboard to work his magic, dontcha know. The book is the very definition of a directionless mess, IMO.
It also completely stopped being fun w/ the extremely poorly handled Clint/Bobbi situation. One has to wonder if Steve E himself must have been trying to work through some domestic issues at the time, because he clearly has some strong opinions and thoughts on the subject, but they don't seem to be grounded in anything like normal, adult behavior.
Y'know, once upon a time I would have disagreed with the idea that Vision's transformation into an upbeat, burger-grilling, slap-on-the-back regular joe was a fatal mistake for the character. But I do see now that his earlier personality was, of course, part of what made him so appealing. Taciturn, serious, sometimes ironic, thoughtful, deeply loyal, contemplative, quietly brave-- I really did like him so much better that way. The only "fix" needed with the removal of the control crystal from his brain would be that he could jettison the endless self-doubt & self-examination, and get rid of that nagging sense of being not human enough. I mean, Wanda married THAT guy, not the one who could conceivably wear a lampshade on his head at a suburban cocktail party, y'know?
HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 25, 2013 13:38:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 26, 2013 17:27:59 GMT -5
Thanks much for the link, Shir. Kind of a surprisingly positive modern-day perspective on a decades-gone title. It certainly seemed to carry more respect from the editor/creator group they talked to than I would have expected. Makes me feel a little less off-kilter for rather liking the title as well-- in spite of its distinctive quirks and even clear flaws. What is kind of unsettling, though, is having them discuss it as an entity remembered from long ago, since for me the title is kind of happening right NOW, as I'm right in the thick of reading it through. It's not "remember when" at all, but rather, "wow, I can't believe this is happening!". [At the moment, we're in the process of a HUGE one-issue wrap-up where we're getting rid of the Tigra, Mockingbird, Moon Knight, Hellstorm splinter group. We're also getting Moon Knight's ill-coceived "possession" by Khonshu resolved. And we're having the final tussle between the two ghostly spirits of the Phantom Rider-- which will finally be knowingly housed in yet another descendant's body.] HB
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 28, 2013 3:20:05 GMT -5
Y'know, once upon a time I would have disagreed with the idea that Vision's transformation into an upbeat, burger-grilling, slap-on-the-back regular joe was a fatal mistake for the character. But I do see now that his earlier personality was, of course, part of what made him so appealing. Taciturn, serious, sometimes ironic, thoughtful, deeply loyal, contemplative, quietly brave-- I really did like him so much better that way. The only "fix" needed with the removal of the control crystal from his brain would be that he could jettison the endless self-doubt & self-examination, and get rid of that nagging sense of being not human enough. I mean, Wanda married THAT guy, not the one who could conceivably wear a lampshade on his head at a suburban cocktail party, y'know? HB Thank god. I feel like a voice crying in the wilderness sometimes. I think your description of Engelhart's writing and its focus on 'self-actualization' back in the OP is pretty spot on. Obviously I'm a lot less forgiving with this stuff and really don't enjoy it. For me there just seemed to be a bit of wish fulfillment for the fans going on -giving popular characters who'd had troubled histories happy endings. They just don't ring true for me. Hank's New Dawn feels incredibly forced. Hawk wandering around with a grin on his face, as a well adjusted middle class guy who never loses his temper (well, until the Wild West melodrama anyway) just loses the essence of the character entirely. What happens to Wonder man is just grotesque. Shiny, happy people having fun. Regarding that article: ...er This one made me giggle. I'm sure we all know what he really means, but I'm pretty sure they've had global trade since the 18th century at the very least. I agree with them about it being a crappy title for a comic book though and there's certainly no need to revive it under that name. Re-opening the compound as an Avengers base would make sense though.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 3, 2013 18:33:53 GMT -5
Oh, my Sweet Fancy Moses---
Well, teammates, I've just finished John Byrne's run on this title, and the level of dissatisfaction I'm feeling is immense. Whereas this re-read gave me a new-found appreciation and affection for Englehart's run, the effect has been the opposite w/ Mr. Byrne. I actually don't have quite the time for an in-depth post at the moment, but let me at least say that, so many of the sins that a number of us credit BMB as being the originator of can be found right here being perpatrated by Byrne a good 20 years earlier. The thing is, he camoflages it all so well because his artwork is first-rate, his story-telling structure is generally quite good and engaging, and his scripting is far better than Englehart's was on this book. BUT--- the stories he tells are simply wrong. He completely- COMPLETELY- ignores previous continuity, he disregards or discounts established relationships, and he has characters sounding like themselves even as they do things that are wildly out of character upon closer examination. He quietly uses inaction as a means to further the plotlines that he clearly came to the book wanting to do. And then he is dreadfully sloppy in keeping even his own continuity in line w/ the rest of the MU (to the point where he has to make an "appearance" at the end of one issue to explain that a character- Tigra- who appears in both annuals actually, uh, DIDN'T. . . because he forgot to keep track of what he was telling the other writer and editor was going on in his book.). And ultimately, the disrespect heaped upon the previous creators' incredibly hard work is apalling. . . just apalling. Simply destroying elements and relationships and plots that took years to construct. On a whim. Out of rock-solid hubris.
And then he jumps off the book at the point where he's twisted the overplot beyond reasonable repair.
Gad-- it's the best-drawn, best-paced (mostly), and best-scripted book that I've ever thoroughly hated. It really makes me that angry.
whoo-- gotta cool off---
HB
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Jun 3, 2013 23:41:46 GMT -5
Oh, my Sweet Fancy Moses--- Well, teammates, I've just finished John Byrne's run on this title, and the level of dissatisfaction I'm feeling is immense. Whereas this re-read gave me a new-found appreciation and affection for Englehart's run, the effect has been the opposite w/ Mr. Byrne. I actually don't have quite the time for an in-depth post at the moment, but let me at least say that, so many of the sins that a number of us credit BMB as being the originator of can be found right here being perpatrated by Byrne a good 20 years earlier. The thing is, he camoflages it all so well because his artwork is first-rate, his story-telling structure is generally quite good and engaging, and his scripting is far better than Englehart's was on this book. BUT--- the stories he tells are simply wrong. He completely- COMPLETELY- ignores previous continuity, he disregards or discounts established relationships, and he has characters sounding like themselves even as they do things that are wildly out of character upon closer examination. He quietly uses inaction as a means to further the plotlines that he clearly came to the book wanting to do. And then he is dreadfully sloppy in keeping even his own continuity in line w/ the rest of the MU (to the point where he has to make an "appearance" at the end of one issue to explain that a character- Tigra- who appears in both annuals actually, uh, DIDN'T. . . because he forgot to keep track of what he was telling the other writer and editor was going on in his book.). And ultimately, the disrespect heaped upon the previous creators' incredibly hard work is apalling. . . just apalling. Simply destroying elements and relationships and plots that took years to construct. On a whim. Out of rock-solid hubris. And then he jumps off the book at the point where he's twisted the overplot beyond reasonable repair. Gad-- it's the best-drawn, best-paced (mostly), and best-scripted book that I've ever thoroughly hated. It really makes me that angry. whoo-- gotta cool off--- HB Well, HB, as you say, at least he was able to make them sound like themselves. Bendis, for the most part, didn´t even manage to do that... .
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Jun 4, 2013 9:14:36 GMT -5
HB, I haven't read very much of Byrne's WCA run (though I plan on reading the issues I do have later this year) but you're making him sound a lot like Bendis!
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jun 4, 2013 22:13:21 GMT -5
Gad-- it's the best-drawn, best-paced (mostly), and best-scripted book that I've ever thoroughly hated. It really makes me that angry. whoo-- gotta cool off--- HB Best Line I've Read So Far This Year. ;D I can't fully recall from 'lo those many moons ago, perhaps from a snippet of a fragment of a memory of an article from Marvel Age, but I tend to think that Byrne was brought onto the title to give it a jump-start, a boost. And what better way to do that than deconstruct everything that came before? I haven't read those issues in quite awhile, but that was the time I started paying more attention to WCA back then. For me though, Bendis using this as the basis for the majority of his Avengers work, that upsets me more.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 5, 2013 19:07:40 GMT -5
Ooooooooh what a flippin' train-wreck. I Googled "Why did John Byrne leave West Coast Avengers", and got a surprising number of hits. His side of the story's extremely accessible, and he's had a lot to say about this specifically and his view of how he was treated at Marvel in general. He's . . . had a LOT to say about a LOT of stuff for a LONG time. He's spent a lot of time tearing Jim Shooter to shreds-- but one has the impression that Jim Shooter was his nemesis during his WCA stint, but. . . he wasn't. Tom DeFalco was EiC during that period. Byrne only refers to "the Boneheaded EiC" when speaking of that particular period of strife. The whole behind-the-scenes saga is far, far more than I care to detail here, and you do have to rely on second hand accounts and reading between the (Byrne's) lines to get the non-Byrne position, but sufficeth to say that there's a WHOLE lot of ego involved, an awful lot of professional disrespect, very weak editorial oversight at crucial moments, and generally a lack of maturity, respect and communication on all sides. Ugh.
One thing I will say sort of on JB's behalf is that he came to the book with a very specific long-term arc in mind (it was horrible and wrong, but he believed he'd gotten it approved), and had it all mapped out, and then halfway through he was told he had to work in the big "Acts of Vengeance" event which had nothing to do with his arc. Then IMMEDIATELY after that came the big "Atlantis Attacks" summer annual event (hmm, unless I've reversed those two), which almost made the events happening to Wanda absurd in their severity, and had nothing to do with the story he was trying to tell. Ongoing storylines being completely subordinated and trampled by big, whooptido "events".
Hmmm-- zat ring a bell with anyone? I honestly do remember noticing this destructive phenomenon back then, and not liking it one bit. And now we've achieved the Marvel Event Channel. . . All Events, All The Time!!!
HB-- still mad. . .
|
|
|
Post by wundagoreborn on Jun 6, 2013 6:17:54 GMT -5
there's a WHOLE lot of ego involved, an awful lot of professional disrespect, very weak editorial oversight at crucial moments, and generally a lack of maturity, respect and communication on all sides. Ugh. Lifted from it's context, this is a nice capsule summary of contemporary discourse.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Jun 6, 2013 8:15:49 GMT -5
That is one major reason why I hate those mega events. They've ruined more than one long term story by forcing all of the writers to she-horn that silliness into their own mags. I wonder if that book about the inner workings of Marvel that came out last year (I forget the name) would shed any light on this Byrne WCA issue?
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 6, 2013 9:38:03 GMT -5
That is one major reason why I hate those mega events. They've ruined more than one long term story by forcing all of the writers to she-horn that silliness into their own mags. I wonder if that book about the inner workings of Marvel that came out last year (I forget the name) would shed any light on this Byrne WCA issue? Oh, would that be Sean Howe's MARVEL COMICS: THE UNTOLD STORY--? Over on dlw66's Bronze Age Babies blog several of us read it and had a bit of a discussion. I don't recall that it talked about this episode specifically. While the book was a pretty good read, it did tend to gloss over certain periods, giving a few specific examples to illustrate the goings-on at the time. There's a pretty solid indication that Shooter had more-or-less temporarily lost his marbles by the end of his time, and that Tom DeFalco had one heck of a tough job trying to keep the Marvel behemoth operating afterwards with corporate shenanigans clobbering him from above while production & staff demands plagued him from below. The quality of the product was clearly being effected by all of this, and the WCA situation was a particularly strong example. Man, the two filler issues following Byrne's abrupt mid-arc exit are just excruciating in their effort to twist themselves into the ongoing continuity. The second, in fact, literally turns out to be an "alternate universe" story that is purged by Immortus in a re-written two-page ending. An imaginary story. A What-If-? Something that the early "good" Shooter would never have allowed. Although I'm about to head into the rest of the run, I don't have much memory of the book ever really being good on any level after this point. I'm not sure I've ever even read a lot of these issues. HB
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 6, 2013 11:31:18 GMT -5
Well, you're rarely going to get any sense out of Byrne where his numerous grudges are concerned. This does seem to have been a relatively straightforward misunderstanding though. I'd have liked to see his 'What if Kang had Won' storyline and Immortus changing history. It sounds like it'd have been fun. I think that using Immortus as a threat who actually does twist the timeline and change history to suit his own purposes is excellent and restores him to his rightful role as one of the Avengers premier nemeses (and a lot more interesting than just another round with the Legion of the Unliving). I can understand the editorial being uncomfortable about changing Wanda's power into a history changing one. It doesn't seem like a wise move and I think the probability altering rationale made good enough sense and needn't be messed with. As far as I remember in the story as it had been up to the point he got to Wanda's powers had merely been altered into history changing ones by Immortus. I think comparing this to Bendis's Disassembled is thoroughly unjust. Byrne did all this stuff to Wanda because he absolutely loved the character and wanted to do something with her in the central role. Bendis used some ideas from this in order to use Wanda as a lever to set up his New Avengers malarkey which would have absolutely nothing to do with the Scarlet Witch. She was just a mechanism to Bendis. I also dispute that the characters behaved out of character -I think he got them right and made them interesting again in a way that they simply hadn't been under the previous creative team. He was brought in to shake the title up and that's exactly what he did. The 'disrespect' to the previous team was exactly what was asked of him -and quite frankly exactly what was needed. The outline of Byrne's original plans and some of the intended covers can be seen here: goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/05/18/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-51/As I've already said, IMO these are the only issues of the ongoing WCA series that are worth owning. They're not only my favourite WCA's, they are amongst my favourite of all Avengers comics.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 6, 2013 13:14:25 GMT -5
I think comparing this to Bendis's Disassembled is thoroughly unjust. Byrne did all this stuff to Wanda because he absolutely loved the character and wanted to do something with her in the central role. Bendis used some ideas from this in order to use Wanda as a lever to set up his New Avengers malarkey which would have absolutely nothing to do with the Scarlet Witch. She was just a mechanism to Bendis. Considering Byrne's well-known and declared misogynous tendencies, I strongly doubt he loved Wanda, or any other female character he ever wrote. In fact, they all fared badly in his hands, from Dark Scarlet Witch to Dark Phoenix, from Marrina being tortured and raped to She-Hulk being twice subjected to a cavity examination in public, I always got the feeling he wanted to humiliate them and/or make them behave like harridans. The subject has been discussed in various blogs and websites. A thorough overview is here: cbddossiers.blogspot.it/2006/09/record-john-byrne.html
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 6, 2013 20:17:13 GMT -5
Ah, Crimson C, I think we are just destined to forever have widely disparate viewpoints on many, many things, eh? Much like Felix & Oscar. . . or Siskel & Ebert. . . or Ernie & Bert. . . (hmm, not sure which one I am in any of those pairs. . . ).
I dunno, if a comparison w/ Bendis doesn't work (which is a valid point due to the scale of damage that Bendis was able to do-- Byrne never quite had that level of freedom or opportunity, I'll admit), I'd still stand by the observation that Byrne set a clear precedent as a creator "star" who demanded unprecedented creative freedom. Serving his own particular vision- to the detriment of other creators' visions, I daresay- was unfortunately also a self-serving mode of operating. I daresay Bendis saw that, took it very much took to heart and enlarged upon it (although, of course, that's just pure conjecture). As I pointed out, Byrne is a pretty good scripter, and his characters did "sound" like themselves. However whether you liked Englehart's (and other folks') established characterizations or not, there were still some impossible lapses in how all of these characters behaved starting w/ the sanctioned "killing" of the Vision. NOBODY CARED EXCEPT FOR WANDA. That fact was almost horrifyingly obvious with this read-through. There was some righteous anger over the transgression itself, but NO GRIEF. This was insane. Simon in particular was ridiculously enamored with having this new "brother" in his life, and had been for more than a couple of years. Byrne comes in, Vision's killed, and Simon's heretofore un-expressed love for Wanda becomes his driving plot issue--- not a speck of pain over losing his brother. Just guilt over coveting his wife. And this is compounded by Simon's initial (and impossible to justify) refusal to have his brain patterns re-scanned so that the Vision's true personality might possibly be re-established or re-built. Effectively, a brain-pattern version of a bone-marrow donation. Could save his brother's life, but Simon's just too angst-ridden to do it? Really?? Jan's reaction is chilling. Again, no sense of loss of a teammate she's known from his first day (although she was very put-off by him in his earliest appearances)-- and she ACTIVELY tries to get Simon to pursue Wanda, even in her distraught state, w/ her disabled husband still on hand. ENCOURAGES Simon to let Wanda know his feelings. This is creepy and extremely disappointing from a character that I've liked and respected for a long, long time. Hank? Again, no actual grief-- and he's one of the Vision's closer friends. They have a long, complicated deep bond. He's worried, and driven to try to fix the problem-- but he seems to realize very early that they can't actually get Vizh back, and doesn't seem to make that clear. Hawkeye was the teammate that was standing up for Vizh in the early "anti-android" days-- and yet, he does nothing to right this inconceivable wrong. The WHOLE TEAM, in fact, does little more than shrug once they've collected Vision's parts at the bogus facility where he'd been dismantled-- well, they do knock the place down, but-- CLEARLY it would have been demolished anyway to cover up the trail! But the whole team attitude (other than Wanda's shrill panic) is so wildly dialed-down from the fury that we should have been seeing that, again, it's deeply disturbing. It came off almost literally as, "Oh well, ya can't fight a covert consolidated world-government operation. What're ya gonna do, right?" When would Clint ever roll over like that??
So that's where my profound problem w/ the characterization originates. It's like Pod People. They look and sound like themselves. . . but they're not responding appropriately to the situation around them. And Byrne had to do this, or else the Wanda-centered arc he wanted to impose on the character couldn't take place. Which, to my mind, is just one thing that calls the legitimacy of that arc into question.
Some things that had promise:
Reviving the original Human Torch- but then he did NOTHING with Jim at all. He clearly lost track of his own brief continuity in the arc, and then abrupty de-activated him again.
Continuing Hank's redemption (started by Englehart). JB clearly had a lot of respect for Hank Pym, and Hank subtly took on the role of team leader after Hawkeye left. Mind you, he completely ignored the ongoing Hank sub-plot where they'd just recovered his mutated wife, and he and Jan sort of had a rush-to-recapture-relationship. I was pleasantly surprised that he stuck w/ the "Dr. Pym" identity-- I think I'm the only fan that prefers that one for the good doctor.
Hawkeye & Bobbi reconciling, and getting Hawkeye back on good terms w/ the team. HATED the clumsy way Englehart handled them and goofed up their relationship. CC, I do know we're miles apart on that issue! I also thought the GLA were a lot more fun on the re-read, and wanted to see more of them.
Oh golly-- sister-in-law just got here. Look how long I've been going on--!
HB
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 7, 2013 8:06:16 GMT -5
Humanbelly wrote:Well that's what makes it fun. I'll get back to you on the rest at a later juncture. For now I want to address the misogyny accusation. Considering Byrne's well-known and declared misogynous tendencies, I strongly doubt he loved Wanda, or any other female character he ever wrote. In fact, they all fared badly in his hands, from Dark Scarlet Witch to Dark Phoenix, from Marrina being tortured and raped to She-Hulk being twice subjected to a cavity examination in public, I always got the feeling he wanted to humiliate them and/or make them behave like harridans. The subject has been discussed in various blogs and websites. A thorough overview is here: cbddossiers.blogspot.it/2006/09/record-john-byrne.htmlSorry, but I completely disagree with this. John Byrne is many things, unbelievably egocentric, a paranoid conspiracy theorist, vengeful and unreasonable towards those he feels slighted by, extraordinarily cantankerous and argumentative, incapable of listening to criticism. However, I don't think any of the evidence cited supports the idea of him as a misogynist and the article you linked to massively distorts many of the incidents it mentions. It even seems to contradict itself in several places. John Byrne's use of women in comics is for the most part even handed, sometimes a little exploitative to be sure, but generally mild given the much wider and sleazy 'Women in Refrigerators' tendency of comics in general. John Byrne always liked to use the suggestion of sex and sexuality related themes in his comics. That is certainly true. By far the most questionable that I know of (and oddly the article overlooks) is Superman and Big Barda being brainwashed into starring in a porn flick together. That was definitely pushing it (although I do quite like that Barda was 'more of a man' about it afterwards than Supes). Whilst certainly exploitative the story did serve to emphasize the twisted practices of Apokolips. Another case might be the girl in Next men who transmutes herself into the fantasy lovedoll of the guy she wants to get with. This story surely served as a metaphor for girls who try to change themselves (with surely things like plastic surgery, dieting to the point of ill-health etc being targeted) to fit some male's ideal. It's a far from misogynistic story. I suppose a relevant one here would be just what Wanda does to Simon in that notorious scene in WCA. I honestly don't know what was originally intended. Byrne says it wasn't intended to show oral sex whilst others claim that the scene was doctored to include her head. If her head wasn't there I can see why people might think it was a bit dodgy. Either way I wouldn't view it as misogynistic. An oral sex as torture scene would certainly be exploitative though, but not entirely inappropriate given Wanda's psychotic break and the deep resentment and hostility she must be feeling towards Wonder Man. I'm not even sure what's being complained about here. A girl has an abusive drunk for a father and this is shown in fairly mild terms. I haven't read this for a long time but am I missing something here? Should the very concept of abusive parents be glossed over to the point that they are never depicted at all? The Psycho-Man plays upon years of repression in order to mind control Sue into Malice. The point is that she's supposedly allowed herself to be a doormat in the past and while she breaks the Psycho-Man's hold she acknowkledges that she has allowed herself to be too passive and subject to the males in the team in the past. The story, and the name change, were indicative of a change in the portrayal of Sue Storm into a much more active role rather than just being the hostage to be saved or black out any time she was asked to do anything difficult. The Malice story established, and this was subsequently maintained, that Sue was actually the most powerful member of the FF. This was very much a story with a feminist agenda (arguably undermined somewhat by Malice's bondage costume, but that's Byrne for you -although I'm sure that some lesbians at least would approve of the butch/power costume). Byrne's always had a bit of a thing for the Pygmalion syndrome, but that's quite common and surely a major facet of the very concept of superheroes anyway. He's even satirized himself in regard to some of the things he did in She-Hulk where a series of older characters underwent a miraculous rejuvenation into lithe young beauties (Spitfire, Blonde Phantom). Someone pointed this out to Byrne and he actually accepted the criticism and had the Blonde Phantom going on an eating binge whilst on holiday and returning with her previously plump figure (although she remained young). I thought that was actually pretty classy and showed a willingness to acknowledge that he was in danger of making characters conform to male fantasies of the ideal female. As for Frankie Raye he has her become incredibly powerful and fulfil her dream of exploring the universe (and play a significant part in saving the world). Again, I seem to be missing something. What's wrong with this. What's it got to do with misogyny? I always thought it was quite a good idea that made sense that Lockjaw was a type of Inhuman. This is nonsense. She Hulk is the only character that has been written as a successful member of the FF other than the original four. She was never presented as a pushover (that's a complete distortion). Byrne adored the character so much that not only did he make her part of the FF for about half of his run, he also did a graphic novel on her and launched her own series which he did two stints on. I remember the strip search scene in the Graphic Novel (I don't remember the other one). I suppose you could argue that it's exploitative of her as an attractive female but the point of the scene was to show the SHIELD agents as sexist, sleazy and abusive. He was actually making a point about objectification. Indeed Byrne used this theme repeatedly going back to the FF issue where Shulkie tracks down some nude shots of her sunbathing that got published by a sleazy skin mag. Having raised these issues Byrne actually dealt with the powerlessness under the law that Jennifer experienced in this situation pretty well. Yet apparently he's just a misogynist? In the She-Hulk comic he regularly used pin-up shots on the cover to highlight and satirize the use of sex to sell comics and the by now traditional 'headlights' mag tendency. Considering some of the physiques that Jim Lee was depicting by this time it was very timely. 'Doesn't sound feminine to me'. Who's guilty of female stereotyping here? What's wrong with including a crazed female robber (empowered as the leader of the gang too). There's a whole bunch of complaints about women suffering some kind of violence or being threatened in various stories. In what way is this unusual? Comics regularly portray conflict and showing the bad guys picking on and abusing the innocent is pretty standard. The focus on the Darth Vader choke hold (I mean the one at the beginning of Star Wars itself -not the Sith choking power) seems rather odd too. Surely that's pretty standard villainy -if anything worthy of being criticized as a cliche. I don't remember this but I'm not really sure why pregnant women shouldn't be depicted being victimized by bad guys any more than anyone else. As pregnant women are usually viewed as sympathetic depicting the bad guy torturing one would seem to be a good way of showing just how bad a guy the villain is. I haven't read his Wonder Woman so I can't comment on that. I don't remember the Marrina rape thing you mentioned either -I'll have to look it up. This idea that Byrne's a misogynist seems like a considerable distortion to me. He's dealt with 'feminist' issues directly a number of times in his comics -a lot more than can be said for many comic book writers. He sometimes uses exploitative material (though he has also satirized that) but I don't actually have a problem with comics being sexy within reason -indeed I think it's a good thing. He's usually managed to do so without being sleazy. Does he suffer from the tendency to view women as either angels or whores? Quite possibly, but that's not that unusual and is a cultural feature of our society. That doesn't make him any more of a misogynist than most men. Byrne appears to be a very judgemental person anyway which is something that evidently contributes to his constant feuds. Let's look at things that have happened to female characters under some other prominent comics writers. Fist of all there's the tendency to just make them knock offs of a male character. Ms marvel, She Hulk etc. This tendency was traditionally much worse under DC (although Marvel have now really sunk to these depths with the likes of Thor Girl). Carol Danvers is made to choose to go and ride into the sunset with her rapist in Avengers 200 (I actually defended this a while back as I thought that they hadn't made Marcus mind control her -but I've re-read the issue and I was wrong). Shooter and Micheline (and everyone else who was apparently rushing to get a writing credit on that one) hang your heads in shame. Claremont was absolutely right to criticize them for that one. Mr Claremont's got some pretty dodgy stuff in his closet though. Mastermind seduces Jean grey with his illusionism and its implied that he has his way with her. She's also shown having a side that revels in cruelty (Byrne of course is also responsible for this stuff). Emma Frost does a body swap with Storm and its implied that Shaw has sex with her whilst in Storm's body. Firestar is manipulated by Empath who is evidently taking advantage of her sexually as well. Selene as an incarnation of the traditional male fear of women as succubi. Candy Southern being offed in the most dismissive manner possible. Polaris becoming possessed by Malice and turning evil and spiteful and, it's implied, becoming the lover of Mr Sinister. Madelyne Pryor goes mad, seduces Havok, turns traitor and becomes a Demon Queen in one of the most absurdly exploitative costumes in Marvel Comics history. She's then revealed to just be a clone and offed. Rogue has sex with eligible grandad Magneto who's apparently suddenly become so freaking awesome that her powers don't even work on him. She also gets gang raped in Genosha and suffers a complete personality shutdown. Psylocke gets turned into a blowup oriental sexdoll for no discernible reason. Other oriental women also feature being turned into sex slaves (either by the Reavers technology or by the Shadow King's telepathic power). Issues much? Yet Claremont is actually famous for his sympathetic portrayals of women! Another very pro-feminist writer is Steve Engelhart yet he had Mockinbird manipulated and sexually abused by the Night Rider, and just look what he did to Hank Pym's first wife. Mantis and the Scarlet Witch? Mantis supposedly the embodiment of eastern transcendental wisdom and Wanda, previously gentle, classy and graceful, are portrayed as a couple of bitches in heat as they squabble over the Vision. The petty catiness of their depiction, that even interferes with their jobs as Avengers sometimes, is hardly a showcase for women in the workplace. Mantis then ends up being ushered off stage left by marrying the corpse of her dead ex which has been reanimated by some kind of alien plant. Creepy enough for you? Kurt Busiek took Ms Marvel, a character specifically created to show a strong, powerful and effective female superhero, and turned her into a broken down alcoholic, massively depowered her and consistently showed her as weak, ineffective and a liability to her team mates. Here's some others. Illyana Rasputin, turned back into a child, depowered and killed. The other Ms Marvel turned into a monster in order to pursue a rocky relationship with Ben Grimm (sorry, couldn't resist). Later ditched unceremoniously. Mockingbird killed off. Karen Page becomes a hooker, betrays Daredevil, get AIDS and is killed off. Batgirl gets shot and paralysed purely for shock value. Janet van Dyne consistently shown as being almost exclusively interested in clothes and men. She Hulk becomes uncontrollable rage monster like her cousin (women unable to control their emotions trope). Regarding women being depicted as crazed villains or being depicted suffering violence I give you Typhoid Mary. Daredevil has punched her in the face and kicked her in the belly in some extremely brutal action sequences and she's unquestionably a flat out crazed psycho. The character of Number 9 was created as a sex slave and ideal homemaker and this is used as a critique of sexist attitudes. However, a few issues in to the storyline and we start to see a different perspective in which Number 9 is actually shown having positive traits deriving from her programming and the hardcore feminist character is revealed to be blinkered and in some ways limiting herself as a result of her extremism. So does this make Ann Nocenti, quite possibly the most 'right-on' comic book writer ever, a misogynist? I just don't see how someone like Byrne can be seriously be viewed as especially misogynistic in this environment. If there is one thing in his entire resume which the charge of misogyny can legitimately be directed at it is the way he wrote Wanda's children out of continuity. It is an extreme move and there is a shortage of healthy mothers in superhero comics. However, I believe that he did it because he felt that Wanda and the Vision were both in dead ends as far as their character development was concerned. He especially wanted to use Wanda as the centrepiece of his run on WCA (indeed I remember him placing great emphasis on this in his interview in Marvel Age at the time -even describing himself as having always been in love with the Scarlet Witch). It remains a questionable move and it's only right that it remains controvertial. Was it the right decision? In some ways yes and in some ways no. I can certainly understand why editorial might have taken issue with it. I don't think that the charge of misogyny is remotely on target though.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jun 7, 2013 11:56:05 GMT -5
Can I just say that I love Byrne's art? ;D Byrne has his flaws and idiosyncrasies but he's never come across as a misogynist to me either. The problem is inherent to superhero comics in that their portrayal of women is often either as idealized sexual fantasy objects or helpless, thoughtless damsels in distress. And that is a generalization of an over-used trope. Some aspects have gotten better in women's portrayal in today's comics while some stigmas remain. Byrne's work may come across as misogynist to some while others, like CC, don't see that much of it. It all comes down to reader's perception and beliefs. I do have some points about some of your arguments though CC. Again, I seem to be missing something. What's wrong with this. What's it got to do with misogyny? I always thought it was quite a good idea that made sense that Lockjaw was a type of Inhuman. The idea is that an Inhuman person was transformed by the Terrigen Mists into a giant dog. Afterwards, the other Inhumans treat him as a dog instead of a person-turned-into-a-dog. It's shocking and demeaning behaviour being suggested here by this idea, one I'm thankful that PAD tried to right. He was actually making a point about objectification. Indeed Byrne used this theme repeatedly going back to the FF issue where Shulkie tracks down some nude shots of her sunbathing that got published by a sleazy skin mag. I remember that issue, about the only time I recall, as a kid, of She-Hulk being used as a sexual object in FF. Her privacy was invaded, how she was thought of a sexual object/sensation to be exploited. Dealing with superheroes, I thought Byrne handled the subject well. Carol Danvers is made to choose to go and ride into the sunset with her rapist in Avengers 200 (I actually defended this a while back as I thought that they hadn't made Marcus mind control her -but I've re-read the issue and I was wrong). Shooter and Micheline (and everyone else who was apparently rushing to get a writing credit on that one) hang your heads in shame. Claremont was absolutely right to criticize them for that one I've never read #200, but from what I understand through reading various synopsis of the issue, only 3 Avengers were present to see her leave with Marcus; Thor, Hawkeye, and Iron Man. Hawkeye was upset over his previous actions so he just wanted Carol to be happy, Thor was in love with the idea of Marcus finding his love, while Tony was the only one willing to question what was actually happening. But before he could, Thor whisks them both off to Limbo. Now, Carol is right to be angry with the team, but her angry should be better placed towards those three for they were probably the ones to tell the rest of the team their rendition of what happened, that Carol was fine, and thus why they never came after her in Limbo. Bu this leads into your comment about Busiek's later treatment of Carol, making her weak and ineffective. I disagree with that stance. #200 and Annual #10 so severely damaged the character, that it was decades, until Busiek, that she became whole and a better character. Making her an alcoholic was her response to all these previous events, as if she had to prove over and over and over again why she was worthy of being both a hero and an Avenger. Tony being a former alcoholic provided more drama and characterization. He could recognize the problem while the others were in danger of yet again letting her down when she needed them the most. I thought Busiek handled Warbird very well. Karen Page becomes a hooker, betrays Daredevil, get AIDS and is killed off. Batgirl gets shot and paralysed purely for shock value. Janet van Dyne consistently shown as being almost exclusively interested in clothes and men. Karen Page's relationship with Matt Murdock is rather complex. Kevin Smith gave her AIDS out of the blue (or did she? It may have been all part of Mysterio's plot) Killing her off was showboating to the extreme, a shock tactic to generate buzz. If there one instance where the Comic Revolving Door of Death should work, it would be to bring back Karen. I disagree with Barbara being shot and paralysed as shock value. Yes, it was a shocking moment, but it was part of Moore's portrayal of how sick and twisted Joker is capable of being. Joker's later actions and torture of Jim Gordon were equally disturbing, but it served the needs of the story, not just to sell books. Plus, it served as a basis for the character growth of Barbara, as she became a valued asset and member of Batman's war on crime. Well, for years, Janet has been portrayed as probably the dizziest female character in all of Marvel, that is, until she grew under Stern's guidance into a capable, independent woman and team leader. Having to lead the group through one of their darkest hours as the Masters of Evil laid siege to them was a watershed moment for her. But of her previous behaviour, that one moment that stands out for me is her hooking up with Magneto during Secret Wars. Shooter implies that they spent the night together. I've never understood why she would do that with one of the world's most dangerous villains.
|
|