|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jan 22, 2016 8:43:30 GMT -5
What's the general opinion of this title?
I've never read any of it, this occurred after I basically dropped out of all Avengers-related books. I would think any work written by Abnett and Lanning would be worthwhile but I can't remember hearing anything (good or bad) about this book.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Jan 22, 2016 20:15:23 GMT -5
Imo, the writing was pretty forgettable, except (unfortunately) for the "The Crossing" ending (I wish I could forget that...!). But what really made this title an abomination was the "art" which, to me, makes Rob Liefield look like a tolerable artist by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 23, 2016 10:34:28 GMT -5
21 issues. 10 pencilers. 7 inkers.
Each artistic permutation worse than the last. Although, IIRC from those dim years in the past, there was somehow an amazingly uniform look to the awful-ness in spite of the many hands creating it. Like everyone had been handed Rob Liefeld or Erik Larson's high school sketch books, and were told to copy that style precisely. Hunh-- a whole-comic-book version of the "can you draw this clown?" correspondence art school ads from the old days. . .
I. . . . .do have the whole flippin' run, I do. And as much as I loathed the art, I still felt like there was a decent group book in there trying to get out-- but it obviously had no editorial support at all. I know that I don't hate it nearly as much as most folks do-- but I also certainly can't blame them for it. The title from the get-go was far, far, far too derivative and dependent on a thorough understanding of both Avengers continuity and history, AND the late run (and demise) of the WCA. A person was never ever ever going to be able to pick that book up as a new or cold reader and have any idea what was going on. That being said, A&L did a credible job of keeping folks in character and having their interpersonal conflicts stem from well-established traits. I was also liking the "mystery" character of Century while his mystery remained intact-- 'cause he did seem like a very ancient character having in-the-moment personal growth-- it was kinda cool. But then he turned out to be an impossibly stupid "Amalgam of a Race"-type character, and immediately lost all credibility or empathy.
And of course it was all tangled up in the horrific mess of THE CROSSING at the end. It's funny how, once upon a time, that event represented a never-could-get-worse-than-this nadir for the Avengers and their related titles. Now it's barely a footnote in the Ledger of All-time Awful Avengers Arcs. . .
HB
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Jan 23, 2016 16:33:56 GMT -5
I used to have the whole run too. Man, back then I was a clueless, masochistic completist.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 24, 2016 7:14:05 GMT -5
I used to have the whole run too. Man, back then I was a clueless, masochistic completist. I seem to recall that the book sort of tied into WAR MACHINE for a bit as well-- which wasn't a bad fit. The two jumble together in my mind--- although I think Rhodey's book may have been the better of the two. But yeah, I was buying and AWFUL lot of comics during that dark, aesthetic famine. Out of habit, out of opportunistic "completeism", out of. . . my mind, in retrospect! HB
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Jan 24, 2016 14:28:25 GMT -5
Yikes, Force Works is a nightmare, IMO. I had stopped reading comics by the time it appeared (I quit @92), but I'm aware of this steaming turd. YES, the art was absurd!!! Also, is it just me or did something happen to Marvel's coloring palette in the 90s??? Maybe the paper was different, but I never remember so many pinks and pastels, and just crappy coloring jobs before the 90s. A major reason I can't stand GAMBIT, that pink-and-trenchcoat look is just sooooo lame, IMO. And Wanda and US Agents' FW costumes were appalling.
FW kinda worked better in the IRON MAN 90s cartoon, Hawkeye was on that one.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 24, 2016 17:18:32 GMT -5
Yikes, Force Works is a nightmare, IMO. I had stopped reading comics by the time it appeared (I quit @92), but I'm aware of this steaming turd. YES, the art was absurd!!! Also, is it just me or did something happen to Marvel's coloring palette in the 90s??? Maybe the paper was different, but I never remember so many pinks and pastels, and just crappy coloring jobs before the 90s. A major reason I can't stand GAMBIT, that pink-and-trenchcoat look is just sooooo lame, IMO. And Wanda and US Agents' FW costumes were appalling. FW kinda worked better in the IRON MAN 90s cartoon, Hawkeye was on that one. Oh man, I forgot about Wanda's costume. My impression is that this was the first time we finally had a total surrender on keeping Wanda's look even remotely classy, and she too joins the full-prostitute trend (albeit poorly designed even then). Perez' later costume for her is probably more egregious, if you're being totally objective, but somehow you could forgive it because it was a better looking, characteristic outfit. . . You also found yourself wondering why, exactly, USAgent was still being included on any team at that point. Such a dreadful character from the get-go. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 24, 2016 20:20:01 GMT -5
One of the worst comic series ever (Even by today's standards). The story was pretty bad and that Century character was terrible but no aspect could come close to the art for sheer awfulness. And yes, I have the entire series. I was a big fan of the West Coast Avengers and continued to hope that this would become good because of my love for the characters. It is now one of the embarrassments of my collection.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Jan 24, 2016 20:28:58 GMT -5
Which was kinda aknowledged, tongue in cheek, by Busiek on Avengers # 4, Volume III, when the founders are discussing possible members for the team, and Cap says: "Another possibility. What about USAgent?". The other four look at each other ackwardly and finally the Wasp changes the subject: "So, ah --where is Hawkeye, anyway?".
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 24, 2016 22:21:16 GMT -5
One of the worst comic series ever (Even by today's standards). The story was pretty bad and that Century character was terrible but no aspect could come close to the art for sheer awfulness. And yes, I have the entire series. I was a big fan of the West Coast Avengers and continued to hope that this would become good because of my love for the characters. It is now one of the embarrassments of my collection. I think, SW, that there's an element of almost. . . perverse pride. . . that can be taken in being able to admit harboring generally reviled items like that in one's collection. Lord knows, the HB collection is a veritable museum of comics that are notorious in their awfulness: Force Works, yes. The Crossing/Timeslide specials. Nearly the ENTIRE Heroes Reborn output (god, it was a masochistic nightmare. . . ) At least the first five issues of ALL of the New Universe titles (including KICKERS, INC). Vision & the Scarlet Witch Maxi Series Secret Wars 2 (which is still kinda the Benchmark of Bad for me) The last fourth of Werewolf by Night's run Aaaand I'm sure there's plenty more, just a-cluttering up the longboxes! HB
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jan 28, 2016 9:07:25 GMT -5
Wow, okay. Two questions:
1) I've never heard, is there an official account or reason for why WCA was cancelled?
2) If the art was that terrible, could this be an instance where better art could've helped the story's quality? I've recently read some online discussions over which do you prefer more as a reader, the art or the story? Would you accept bad art if the story is that engaging? Can good art save a bad story? To me, it sounds as if the art was so bad all around, that it'd served as a major detraction and distraction from any quality the stories might have held.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Jan 29, 2016 1:25:16 GMT -5
Concerning the art question, the answer would be a definite "yes" for me.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 29, 2016 19:05:16 GMT -5
Concerning the art question, the answer would be a definite "yes" for me. Same here, for the most part. (Good art saving a bad story, that is-) But of course it's not as cut & dried as all that. The art is an inherent part of the story-telling, not actually a separate element-- especially in the "Marvel Method". So as long you have an artist who can pump some visual life, energy, humanity, drama, etc, etc onto the page, creating a compelling string of moments (so to speak), he's going a long way toward carrying a questionable storyline. As sort of an example, think of Neal Adams' first X-Men issue-- #56 (I got their Masterworks vol 6 for Christmas). It's actually the continuation of the Living Pharaoh storyline, and brothers and sisters I'm here to tell you that the first installments of that storyline (w/ Werner Roth and then Don Heck on pencils) were just plumb awful. Like, "please let this book end" awful. But Adams' pencils- "wizardry" was the word used right there in the credits- bring a crackling energy and immediacy to a flailing, diffuse, mundane plot, and clearly lit an inspirational fire under Roy's desk, as we suddenly lost most of his by-the-book, Stan-copy, and got a dynamic script that matched the visual pacing. Honestly, it was still a dumb-ish plot at its heart-- but now it worked. At the other end of the spectrum, think of McFarlane's huge coup- where they created a new Spidey title (SPIDER-MAN) all just for him-- as both artist AND writer. The art, if you liked McFarlane, was him at his subjective best-- but the script on that book was almost breathtakingly bad. About a 30 word vocabulary, and not a shred of discernible characterization for anyone whatsoever. Wolverine had exactly the same "voice" and speech patterns as Peter. It was astonishingly poor (and sold millions of units--ugh), and IIRC it did not last long as a title. I can only think of a couple of books that managed a following in spite of questionable (or even bad) art, simply because the writing overcame that limitation: QUASAR-- which Gruenwald kept alive for all of us well past the time Marvel wanted to let it go; there was a fan write-in campaign that extended its run for about a year. And INVADERS-- which I never read; but brother, it had a legion of fans who loved Roy's stories even as they hated Springer's(?) sometimes deranged pencils. Oop- gotta go have dinner! HB
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Jan 29, 2016 22:14:53 GMT -5
Concerning the art question, the answer would be a definite "yes" for me. Same here, for the most part. (Good art saving a bad story, that is-) But of course it's not as cut & dried as all that. The art is an inherent part of the story-telling, not actually a separate element-- especially in the "Marvel Method". So as long you have an artist who can pump some visual life, energy, humanity, drama, etc, etc onto the page, creating a compelling string of moments (so to speak), he's going a long way toward carrying a questionable storyline. As sort of an example, think of Neal Adams' first X-Men issue-- #56 (I got their Masterworks vol 6 for Christmas). It's actually the continuation of the Living Pharaoh storyline, and brothers and sisters I'm here to tell you that the first installments of that storyline (w/ Werner Roth and then Don Heck on pencils) were just plumb awful. Like, "please let this book end" awful. But Adams' pencils- "wizardry" was the word used right there in the credits- bring a crackling energy and immediacy to a flailing, diffuse, mundane plot, and clearly lit an inspirational fire under Roy's desk, as we suddenly lost most of his by-the-book, Stan-copy, and got a dynamic script that matched the visual pacing. Honestly, it was still a dumb-ish plot at its heart-- but now it worked. At the other end of the spectrum, think of McFarlane's huge coup- where they created a new Spidey title (SPIDER-MAN) all just for him-- as both artist AND writer. The art, if you liked McFarlane, was him at his subjective best-- but the script on that book was almost breathtakingly bad. About a 30 word vocabulary, and not a shred of discernible characterization for anyone whatsoever. Wolverine had exactly the same "voice" and speech patterns as Peter. It was astonishingly poor (and sold millions of units--ugh), and IIRC it did not last long as a title. I can only think of a couple of books that managed a following in spite of questionable (or even bad) art, simply because the writing overcame that limitation: QUASAR-- which Gruenwald kept alive for all of us well past the time Marvel wanted to let it go; there was a fan write-in campaign that extended its run for about a year. And INVADERS-- which I never read; but brother, it had a legion of fans who loved Roy's stories even as they hated Springer's(?) sometimes deranged pencils. Oop- gotta go have dinner! HB Well, I was thinking of the art question more especifically in terms of the Force Works run. I think ANY other art would have been a significant improvement.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 30, 2016 6:52:53 GMT -5
Same here, for the most part. (Good art saving a bad story, that is-) But of course it's not as cut & dried as all that. The art is an inherent part of the story-telling, not actually a separate element-- especially in the "Marvel Method". So as long you have an artist who can pump some visual life, energy, humanity, drama, etc, etc onto the page, creating a compelling string of moments (so to speak), he's going a long way toward carrying a questionable storyline. As sort of an example, think of Neal Adams' first X-Men issue-- #56 (I got their Masterworks vol 6 for Christmas). It's actually the continuation of the Living Pharaoh storyline, and brothers and sisters I'm here to tell you that the first installments of that storyline (w/ Werner Roth and then Don Heck on pencils) were just plumb awful. Like, "please let this book end" awful. But Adams' pencils- "wizardry" was the word used right there in the credits- bring a crackling energy and immediacy to a flailing, diffuse, mundane plot, and clearly lit an inspirational fire under Roy's desk, as we suddenly lost most of his by-the-book, Stan-copy, and got a dynamic script that matched the visual pacing. Honestly, it was still a dumb-ish plot at its heart-- but now it worked. At the other end of the spectrum, think of McFarlane's huge coup- where they created a new Spidey title (SPIDER-MAN) all just for him-- as both artist AND writer. The art, if you liked McFarlane, was him at his subjective best-- but the script on that book was almost breathtakingly bad. About a 30 word vocabulary, and not a shred of discernible characterization for anyone whatsoever. Wolverine had exactly the same "voice" and speech patterns as Peter. It was astonishingly poor (and sold millions of units--ugh), and IIRC it did not last long as a title. I can only think of a couple of books that managed a following in spite of questionable (or even bad) art, simply because the writing overcame that limitation: QUASAR-- which Gruenwald kept alive for all of us well past the time Marvel wanted to let it go; there was a fan write-in campaign that extended its run for about a year. And INVADERS-- which I never read; but brother, it had a legion of fans who loved Roy's stories even as they hated Springer's(?) sometimes deranged pencils. Oop- gotta go have dinner! HB Well, I was thinking of the art question more especifically in terms of the Force Works run. I think ANY other art would have been a significant improvement. Ha! Yeah, sorry Bong-! The broader thesis just sort of took control of my brain and dragged me and my keyboard right down the Tunnel of Over-Expansion-- ah, goodness. . . And you know, not only would any artist have been better (even, like, Springer, or late Don Heck, or even late Don Perlin-- or any one of the late QUASAR B-List fellas), but I daresay that if somehow Sal Buscema had been assigned to the book, he actually might have been able to make it work. It didn't need "brilliant" pencils, really-- the book needed "grounded" pencils to help put across the shaky writing of that period. Speaking of which-- WCA itself was rather in the same boat as Quasar or Wonder-Man before it was cancelled. I was still getting it via long-term subscription, but had really stopped reading it. Roy Thomas (w/ Dann) was brought in as the writer, and ultimately a young Dave Ross took over as penciller. . . and it just didn't click. Ross seems to be a MUCH better artist now. . . and Roy didn't seem to have his old knack at all--- much the way Englehart floundered on the title a few years prior. I'll wager the cancellation was a straight sales decision, as well as an opportunity to free up characters for "hot, new" creators and their "hot, new" ideas. . . yadda, yadda. . . But I don't think the decision to end the title's run was incorrect, to be honest. HB
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Jan 30, 2016 19:22:27 GMT -5
Yeah, Ross was nothing to write home about then... I seem to remember he´d drew his characters with hugely wide, expansive chests and really tiny, super narrow waists... isn´t that right...?
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Feb 18, 2016 9:49:08 GMT -5
At the other end of the spectrum, think of McFarlane's huge coup- where they created a new Spidey title (SPIDER-MAN) all just for him-- as both artist AND writer. The art, if you liked McFarlane, was him at his subjective best-- but the script on that book was almost breathtakingly bad. About a 30 word vocabulary, and not a shred of discernible characterization for anyone whatsoever. Wolverine had exactly the same "voice" and speech patterns as Peter. It was astonishingly poor (and sold millions of units--ugh), and IIRC it did not last long as a title. That's because, in this instance, McFarlane wasn't a professional writer, only beginning to scratch that surface. I remember reading one particular interview with him where he admits that his plotting Spider-Man #1 consisted of him laying out various random panels and shots he had drawn on the floor and re-arranging them into some coherent form resembling a story. I guess in some bizarre reverse Marvel Method style of writing. He admits that had some of the pro writers of that time at Marvel known of how he did this, they would probably be yelling from the rooftops. But it seems my problem has been solved. For it appears that this May, Marvel is releasing Avengers/Iron Man: Force Works TPB which collects #1-15, the ashcan edition, Century:Distant Sons #1 and material from the Collector's Preview.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Feb 18, 2016 20:22:22 GMT -5
At the other end of the spectrum, think of McFarlane's huge coup- where they created a new Spidey title (SPIDER-MAN) all just for him-- as both artist AND writer. The art, if you liked McFarlane, was him at his subjective best-- but the script on that book was almost breathtakingly bad. About a 30 word vocabulary, and not a shred of discernible characterization for anyone whatsoever. Wolverine had exactly the same "voice" and speech patterns as Peter. It was astonishingly poor (and sold millions of units--ugh), and IIRC it did not last long as a title. That's because, in this instance, McFarlane wasn't a professional writer, only beginning to scratch that surface. I remember reading one particular interview with him where he admits that his plotting Spider-Man #1 consisted of him laying out various random panels and shots he had drawn on the floor and re-arranging them into some coherent form resembling a story. I guess in some bizarre reverse Marvel Method style of writing. He admits that had some of the pro writers of that time at Marvel known of how he did this, they would probably be yelling from the rooftops. But it seems my problem has been solved. For it appears that this May, Marvel is releasing Avengers/Iron Man: Force Works TPB which collects #1-15, the ashcan edition, Century:Distant Sons #1 and material from the Collector's Preview. Hmm, now there´s the perfect Christmas present for Humanbelly... either that or the "Heroes Reborn" collected edition...
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 23, 2016 16:15:52 GMT -5
That's because, in this instance, McFarlane wasn't a professional writer, only beginning to scratch that surface. I remember reading one particular interview with him where he admits that his plotting Spider-Man #1 consisted of him laying out various random panels and shots he had drawn on the floor and re-arranging them into some coherent form resembling a story. I guess in some bizarre reverse Marvel Method style of writing. He admits that had some of the pro writers of that time at Marvel known of how he did this, they would probably be yelling from the rooftops. But it seems my problem has been solved. For it appears that this May, Marvel is releasing Avengers/Iron Man: Force Works TPB which collects #1-15, the ashcan edition, Century:Distant Sons #1 and material from the Collector's Preview. Hmm, now there´s the perfect Christmas present for Humanbelly... either that or the "Heroes Reborn" collected edition... Ah-hahahahaaaa! Fellas. . . Fellas. . . Must I shamefacedly (is that even a word?) admit yet again that I already own both of those thrice-curse'd runs???They are wrapped 'round the neck of my collection like the albatross hanging from the Ancient Sub-Mariner's. . . I cannot believe that they've gone this far down into the inventory barrel for TPB-fodder. Geeze-- how long before we see Essential Muppet Babies, vol 1? HB
|
|