I think it's pretty damned arrogant to think you can just prance in and throw away decades of history. Doing that says to me that you think you can come up with some superior vision, and Bendis has done anything BUT that on the Avengers.
This book isn't even the Avengers, guys. It's an unfunny joke
It´s worse than that. He destroyed some characters (Wanda and Clint just to stay with the obvious choices) to replace them with Cage and Ronin (or Echo or wtf). Was anybody except him so interested in Cage? And the MAX version of the character, who was not even supposed to exist in the regular MU.
I remeber an interview before A:D where a reader asked if Tigra could be a member, BENDIS! rolled his eyes ans responded "Please..." or something like that. And what we got instead of Tigra? Ronin! The poor man´s Elektra... Guess every and any Avengers fan love David Mack that much.
l with ya 100% Von. I stopped buying NA a while ago, but right before I stopped I was really, really tired of these "new" characters striding in dramatically, as if just the sight of them should make us tingly with excitement--and yet nothing ever happens with them. I remember one panel with Madame Hydra being "revealed." I was like okay, what's gonna happen with her, and nothing did! Same thing with House of Marvel or whatever the H it was called--I remember seeing characters like The Black Panther striding majestically into view, giving the impression he was going to do something memorable in that title, but again, nothing.
And Ronin or Echo or WTF as you said--who cares? Who cares about him? Or The Sentry. Issue after issue of build up only to end with a dull thud.
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 10, 2006 16:27:25 GMT -5
Well, since like I said earlier I can't make myself any MORE unpopular (I came onto an Avengers board and argued that Bendis wasn't quite so bad as people thought and CW was awesome for God's sake, it could only have been worse if I trumpeted Disassembled as the pinnacle of storytelling and Austen's run as pure genius ) I may as well continue. (I mean... 20 posts and already -1 karma )
Bendis is a great writer. Marvel has many, many better writers- personally I love Mark Millar and Mark Waid, for example. Bendis is a great writer= millions of people think this, and I don't disagree. In fact, the first comic I ever read was written by Bendis, so clearly I must have liked it enough Yes, he can skip over continuity, yes he has his favourites sometimes, and yes he can have bad characterization ON OCCASION, but he makes up for it with great storytelling.
NA is the exception. NA is Bendis having consistently terrible characterization, with APPALING lack of continuity and shoving in his favourite characters everywhere, while disposing of those he isn't so fond of. I'm sure those people who liked Carnage are still outraged, not only at his pathetic death sequence- killed by someone who isn't even one of his enemies!- but also by the fact that he was already mangled in continuity before that- Vampiric? Maybe ultimate Carnage, Bendis!
And this time, the stories aren't good enough. Normally they are, but on NA his stories are mediocre to average- never truly terrible, though. New Avengers is at best an average book, at it's worst an abomination. It is an average book, it is a completely rubbish Avengers book- because it's NOT an Avengers book.
But while I hate what Bendis has done to my favourite super-team, I also hate the degree of bashing which goes on, far worse than he deserves. I keep buying his book for 3 reasons;l firstly I hold out a glimmer of hope, secondly I really, REALLY want to get an Avengers title each month, even an almost unrecognizable one.... and thirdly because this splitting into two titles makes me think MAYBE... MAYBE he can put together a REAL Avengers team and salvage some of this.
So those are my two cents- people on this board are a lot more harsh than they really need to be. Avengers fans have endured a lot worse. I personally love Civil War... but I will always wonder... what would it have been like if the real Avengers were part of it.
Post by Doctor Bong on Aug 10, 2006 18:18:50 GMT -5
Apparently most people are of the opinion that Civil War is awesome... I agree that the concept, on paper, sounds pretty cool, but Bendis' execution of the concept simply doesn't ring true, is my contention, to any concentious long-term Avengers' fan... not to mention Avengers Disassemble... Let's see: what happened to Wanda, I believe, was a slap in the face to those years worth of stories where we had seen her grow & evolve... I suspect most of us would have rather seen a smart writer handle her under that light for, as many of you have pointed out, most of the writers, for all their other strenghts, simply didn't know how to handle her or her powers. Then Hawkeye died an anticlimatic, meaningless death. Then the Vision's remains were treated with less respect than you would afford a pet's, with NO ONE among his fellow scientific comrades even attempting to put him back together, as they had done so at least a couple of times in the past... Then Avengers Mansion was abandoned, ostensibly 'cause T. Stark doesn't have the money to back up the team anymore... and yet, what does he do next...? He backs up the new team, and on new headquarters, no less... and we don't see any kind of signs that their resources have diminished in any way... Of course there isn't any consistent characterization going on, because Bendis evidently did all this with the purpose of getting rid of everything that, to him, smacked of classic Avengers, as he was/is hellbent on creating his own "New" tradition... which is disrespectful to the past AND bad storytelling, for he purposefully forced every element of the Avengers, even distorting beyond recognition characters & their back histories, all to achieve his goals. I say it's bad storytelling 'cause a good writer should give her/his characters room to breath & play at will, sometimes going places he would have never suspected when he began; instead, I believe Bendis had everything pre-planned & pre-conceived... Does it make any sense that the Iron Man who went against the goverment during the 1st Armor War & who later asked to be officially exonerated by his Avengers peers for betraying them to "Kang" (Immortus) would so callously go against a large number of said peers...? I really suspect Bendis doesn't much like Iron Man. And, in spite of his loyalty to Tony, I don't believe for a minute that Spider-Man would have gone public; not the Spider-Man who paid such a high price through the years whenever some of his enemies DID learn his I.D. ... sorry, not buying!!! Now, I was shocked & appalled when they unmasked him, but upon reflection I believe Marvel may be right when they say that from this a truckload of new stories can be told about S.M. that would have never been able to tell otherwise... yes, definitely, it makes perfect sense from Marvel to take this step, BUT it just doesn't make ANY SENSE from Spidey's point of view, and all attempts by Marvel to explain this come off as lame... By omission, they have written Peter as a naive individual and, after so many years of tragedy & heartbreak, that's just wrong. What about Hank Pym...? After seeing him grow & overcome most of his mental limitations during Busiek's Ultron saga, we see him on Civil War once again becoming the pathetic, self-doubting o' Pym... And the Wasp...? Do we believe for a minute she would agree to hunt down Captain America...? Not in the universe that I come from... Only in the Bendiverse...!!!
"Whose side you're on?" Quite simple: heroes who actually behave like heroes...
Post by Doctor Bong on Aug 10, 2006 18:29:53 GMT -5
I just had another thought: I think it's typical of Bendis' carelessness regarding all the rich, different fascets of the Avengers mythos that he hasn't given us Edwin Jarvis' thoughts about what's going on... I mean, being the ONLY character who's been there from the beginning & up until now, you'd think it would be interesting to see how all these events would affect him... My take: he would once again present T. Stark his resignation.
"Whose side you're on?" Quite simple: heroes who actually behave like heroes...
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 11, 2006 3:57:14 GMT -5
Ua2: I fully agree with your concerns on Disassembled- especially since VIsion was one of my favourite characters- but most of those don't concern Civil War. Also, Bendis doesn't WRITE Civil War, Mark Millar does, bendis only writes the NA tie-ins.
Does it make any sense that the Iron Man who went against the goverment during the 1st Armor War & who later asked to be officially exonerated by his Avengers peers for betraying them to "Kang" (Immortus) would so callously go against a large number of said peers...?
Well firstly he's going against said peers no matter which way he goes, secondly would it make any sense if Iron Man, who has been secretary of defence, went against a law which he was certain would prevent enormous loss of life?
And, in spite of his loyalty to Tony, I don't believe for a minute that Spider-Man would have gone public; not the Spider-Man who paid such a high price through the years whenever some of his enemies DID learn his I.D. ... sorry, not buying!!!
Again, absoloutely nothing to do with Bendis, but yeah, I do buy it, especially if you read the issue of ASM just beforehand, the most beautiful issue JMS has ever written IMO.
Now, I was shocked & appalled when they unmasked him, but upon reflection I believe Marvel may be right when they say that from this a truckload of new stories can be told about S.M. that would have never been able to tell otherwise... yes, definitely, it makes perfect sense from Marvel to take this step, BUT it just doesn't make ANY SENSE from Spidey's point of view, and all attempts by Marvel to explain this come off as lame...
Same as above.
By omission, they have written Peter as a naive individual and, after so many years of tragedy & heartbreak, that's just wrong.
If they had written him as naive, it would be wrong. But he's not. He knows exactly what is going to happen, but he does it anyway- again, see the ASM tie-in.
]quote] What about Hank Pym...? After seeing him grow & overcome most of his mental limitations during Busiek's Ultron saga, we see him on Civil War once again becoming the pathetic, self-doubting o' Pym... And the Wasp...? Do we believe for a minute she would agree to hunt down Captain America...? Not in the universe that I come from... Only in the Bendiverse...!!! [/quote[
Now the thing about Hank IS Bendis, plain and simple. In none of his other appearances in CW has he been pathetic and self doubting except NA. And as for Wasp, in the context of Civil War I believe she would go pro-reg with some personal reservations.. which is exactly what she HAS done.
Sorry, this thread is for NA, not CW, so I'd be delighted to continue this conversation in the Civil War forum, ua2
Oh, i forgot, they don't write for the trade. Or rape, kill, ressurect everyone every 10 issues to create the greatest event ever that just broke the internet into 2. Poor guys, they suck.
LOL, true enough- all better writers and they had none of Bendis's worst tendencies. Still, House of M was okay, far beter than his Avengers work. Naturally there were several issues of standing around and talking, since it is Bendis, and naturally Wolverine was the main character, but in the end it seemed worth it
Post by redstatecap on Aug 11, 2006 11:50:05 GMT -5
Gotta disagree with you on the minis. HoM was absolute trash. I regret spending $15 on the first five issues before I figured out that it was not an Avengers crossover as advertised, it was a Wolverine/X-men vehicle. There was about 2 issues of material spread into 8 issues, even worse than his New Avengers standard of 2 issues of material into 6. It was a direct product of the already foolish AD, in that it continued Bendis' habit of ignoring or making up continuity to suit his purposes. Suddenly Wanda is all-powerful and remakes the world at a whim? Huh? Suddenly Cap is old and plays no part in HoM, when Bendis just had Wanda engineer a love interest. And about CW, it's true that Bendis is not writing the main title. But Bendis' crossover issues thus far (I've read them) have been terrible. NA #21 continues Bendis' tradition of stupendously bad characterization of Captain America. Going all the way back to AD, Bendis has shown me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he could not write Cap if his life depended on it. Why this is puzzles me -- I mean, Cap is a well-defined character, not the most complex or angsty type by far, and frankly comic-writing ain't rocket science. Any poster on this board could do a more competent job with Cap than Bendis has. I have to believe that Bendis simply does not like the character and does not want to write him, but has been compelled to keep him on the title to make it seem like an actual Avengers book. NA #22 with Cage was just a pile of the standard half-baked comic-book politicking. "SHRA is slavery," fight the power, yada yada yada. You could have written than plot just by pulling out the handbook of every cliche Marvel uses when they want to "address" (using the term loosely) some civil rights issue. Pure tripe. Bendis will probably do a decent-good job on the Spider-Woman crossover, because he likes the character and is pushing her. And for people interested in the character (I'm not) that's great. But the rest of the team deserves that effort too. When you get down to brass tacks, NA has been a vehicle for Bendis to push Spider-Woman, Sentry, and Cage, while the rest of the team gets short shrift. Worse yet, for a book that even supporters agree is a lot of standing around talking, there has been stunningly little in the way of real character development and interaction. JMS over in Amazing Spider-Man has done much more along these lines with just a handful of tie-in issues than Bendis has done in 22 issues of the main Avengers title.
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 11, 2006 14:46:29 GMT -5
I cannot argue with your points about NA 21 and 22. Particularly because, though many people believe it to be biased, I believe Civil War is being fair enough in many titles... and then titles like New Avengers are totally, utterly and completely biased. Registration is nothing remotely like slavery, and according to every other comic Jessica DOESN'T need to register. So yeah, Bendis is writing crap there.
As for HoM, we must agree to disagree. I enjoyed it, I was genuinely surprised by the revelation that it was Quicksilver, it was great to watch Magneto go psycho and some of the ideas were genuinely good ones. I think the problem comes when you look at the fact that afterwards absoloutely nothing has changed unless you read X-Men books. The Avengers were almost there as a courtesty. Naturally, Luke Cage etc are the first to know
But still, I enjoyed it alright. If you manage to get past the shoddy, terrible premise based on the Wanda of AD, who is of course a BUTCHERED Wanda... if you get past the hideous premise of the crossover... it's not written that badly. Stretched out abysmally? Yes. It's amazing how Millar has done far more in 3 issues than Bendis did in 8. He has given us far, far more action, more thought, more characters... and has radically altered the future stories of one major Marvel branch (Spider-man) 'forever'. (Or until they retcon it ) Same effect, only he did it in two issues and it was a lot more interesting. Now he has altered Avengers books. (In a GOOD way... finally Thor is back!)
BTW, some hope for Avengers fans. The description for issue 4 of Civil War says 'And a team reborn...' Well with Hank Pym, Wonder Man, Ms Marvel, Wasp, Iron Man and Thor on one side... maybe... JUST maybe... we'll get a real Avengers team again.
Post by Black Knight on Aug 11, 2006 15:10:26 GMT -5
Unfortuantly it will not be so, because the two Avengers books coming out of CW are both written by Bendis... Be prepared for double the dose of bad charaterzation, poor continuum, and lots and lots of talking with no forward movement.
I'm with you, BK. You could have Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Giant Man and the Wasp in it, but if Bendis was writing it, chances are the group would be unrecognizable.
Let's say, theoretically, that Marvel forced Miss Bendis to put Spiderman and Wolverine in the New Avengers--don't you think somebody like Miller or Stern or Busiek could have made their presence here at least tolerable? I think they could have!
Post by Doctor Bong on Aug 11, 2006 17:51:25 GMT -5
Doctor Doom: Well, I guess what I really meant to say was that I believe, precisely because I like the Avengers, than most, if not all of them (Iron Man included) would simply refuse to fight each other, if for no other reason, because more than once they have been screwed over by the bureaucrats in the goverment and they would know better than to let themselves fall totally under their control... I posit that the internal conflicts of the past when they faced each other were of a very different nature than this, since Iron Man has stated in more than one ocasion how he believes many heroes are gonna die... I'm sorry... since when the Avengers became soldiers...? Since when Tony, who stopped building weapons for the goverment years ago because he didn't want to be an instrument of dead anymore AND went against his own goverment to make sure his inventions wouldn't fall in the wrong hands, since when, I repeat, has he decided that he's willing to go to war against some of his former comrades in arms, and possibly kill many of them over the POSSIBILITY that someone, somewhere, would missuse her/his/their powers again & cause another tragedy...? Because, sorry, that's the bottom line: that's the premise... 'Cause it all comes down to this: would such people, who have fought over the years TOGETHER to fight all kinds of menaces to the world, who have saved each others lives again & again, allow a bunch of politicians to destroy the house they built...? If they would, I posit they're undeserving of the name heroes.
"Whose side you're on?" Quite simple: heroes who actually behave like heroes...