If I can compare various reboots of other books with this "reboot" of Avengers: I've been a long-time Legion fan and have endured many interpretations of the characters. But with a few exceptions the characters are always recognizable, the boyfriend/girlfriend relationships for the most part remain intact, the 30th Century (now 31st ) is always a cool, futuristic place, and also for the most part the characters remain heroic.
In this version of The Avengers, the characters, while looking the same, sometimes show sides of their personalities we aren't used to and overall group dynamics are either lacking or altogether missing. If you don't think it's a reboot, then tell me what about the past has been referenced? Shoot, other than the text at the beginning of each issue, what has really ever been said about the prison break in issue #1? Maybe all of that was dealt with in Spidey's or Wolverine's own books.
This New Avengers book is about as appealing as Rob Liefeld's and Ian Churchill's grotesquely different and often out-of-character Heroes Reborn Avengers. I think the word "new" alone in the title should have told us we weren't getting "our" Avengers -- we were getting a newer (and presumably improved -- at least those two words often go together in American marketing strategies) version. And, what is really new? With the exception of Luke Cage and the Sentry, almost everyone else has had some history with the team either as former member, associate, or ally.
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 23, 2006 22:59:34 GMT -5
I guess, then, the symbolic representation within the book of what was coming ahead for us, the "grumpy old men", was when the old Vision was discarded like so much trash, in order to make room for the new Vision. Jeh, we could even call it Bendis' vision for the Avengers (I know... Terrible pun...).
"Whose side you're on?" Quite simple: heroes who actually behave like heroes...
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 23, 2006 23:08:07 GMT -5
I guess, then, the symbolic representation within the book of what was coming ahead for us, the "grumpy old men", was when the old Vision was discarded like so much trash, in order to make room for the new Vision.
I don’t know the behind-the-scenes story, but it’s been my thought that the Young Avengers Vision was created by Allan Heinberg after the decision to kill the Vision in “Disassembled” was made. Rescuing discarded story threads is turning out to be a Young Avengers tradition.
I think age has very little to do with it--other than the fact that we have slightly more perspective than people in their twenties. I work with mostly 20-something nerdy guys, and they uniformly laugh at New Avengers. Nobody likes it. If not for Spiderman and Wolverine being in it, and having the Avengers name on it, it wouldn't be selling at all IMO.
Look--even today in 2006, people still look back on storylines like Miller's Electra in Daredevil (80's), and Claremont's Phoenix and Days of Future Passed, as being some of the best comic stories ever told.
I agree with you, Bob. Some silver age stories are a bit dated, but most 'good' Bronze Age stories are still great today, no matter the age of the person reading them. I read the Korvac Saga around 1987 for the first time, and Shooter and Perez tale was still 'modern', even 10 years after it was written/drawn.
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 24, 2006 10:58:23 GMT -5
People can get a LITTLE aover the top with bendis. I once read a long, rambling treatise on how he and JMS controlled the entire core Marvel Universe.
Which seems a little ridiculous considering he writes exactly one 616 book. And JMS writes 2.
As I have maintained all along, I don't hate Bendis, he's written some great stuff. He just can't write Avengers. And he's the second most overrated writer in comics today. *Shakes fist at Grant Morrison*
Von--the mark of a great writer is one who can make you really care about the characters. I'm 40 years old and still reading the Avengers because somebody, along the way, made me care about those characters. The next step is putting those characters in extraordinary situations or scenarios that make those characters come to life and play off each other in new ways. The formula is simple, but not easy.
I remember those first two New Avengers issues--I was ecstatic! A lot of people were! The She-Hulk ripping the Vision apart could have turned into an epic storyline for both characters! I mean think about it. But as issues went by it couldn't have been more obvious that the Vision was simply thrown in the garbage heap. By the time Hawkeye died, for no reason whatsoever, it was hard to feel anything but annoyed.
Contrast that to when Jean Grey died. It was like losing a family member! The way the whole thing was handled was just stunning--it made sense, the characters' actions made sense, and the result was stunning. Whether the costumes seem a bit dated now, or some of the dialogue seems dated, it doesn't matter. That storyline was like a runaway train with that kind of power.
Same with Electra--her death was no cheap ploy to drum up phony drama.
Remember, both the X-Men and Daredevil were at the bottom of the barrel saleswise until one great writer came a long and brought each of them back from the dead. They took chances and those chances worked. What chances have been taken here on NA? A cheap gimmick is NOT taking chances. What purpose, in hindsight, did the deaths of Antman, Hawkeye and the vision serve?
Also--where are the storyarchs? A story should build momentum and deliver, but Bendis' stuff just flatlines. It is beyond me how anyone can think this guy is even passable as a writer. He is Tylenol PM in human form.