Abe
New Avenger
Posts: 14
|
Post by Abe on Jun 2, 2006 1:18:27 GMT -5
Vision is one of my favs, and is on my ideal Avengers team. You know the fantasy Avengers team that we all have that represents "This is the team I would write if I was given the Avengers title"
-Abe
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Oct 7, 2006 19:14:35 GMT -5
The Vision was one of my favorite characters growing up. But the poor synthezoid has really gone through hell over the years. Although we now have 'a' Vision in Young Avengers, it's not the same one that I remember. That hero truly is dead and gone, and it seems a shame that none of the MU characters seem to give a d**n.
The Vision I recall was a stalwart Avenger and a being of great emotional depth. From his early years, where he longed to be human, and kept his love of Wanda a secret (although Jarvis could certainly see what was going on!), Vision showed he was no 2-dimensional hero. He had a fantastic costume design and his powers, especially in that era of Avengers, really made him a bastion of the team. Yet even in such a fantastic world, the Vision was an outsider, a man apart; I think that had a tremendous appeal to me and probably a lot of other teens.
But then we had a lot of bad years for Vizh; people have mentioned the Byrne stories, and I really think that was one of the worst things to happen to him. After that, the character never seemed to find his footing again. I think in some ways it also set Wanda adrift.
So while I am glad to see the Vision around in some form (and I think Young Avengers is the best Avengers title we have at the moment), I still feel that we lost a great Avenger, and he has not been paid his due yet.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 8, 2006 21:52:41 GMT -5
In terms of plots and premises, what would it take to bring back the “classic” Vision? Just mix the YA Vision’s memory archive with Simon Williams’ engrams in a suitable artificial body?
If that occurred, and if the YA Vision were still around, what kind of relationship would the two Visions have? Talk about the child being father to the man…!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Oct 8, 2006 23:29:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure how we could get the original Vizh back, Night Phantom. Didn't we also have Alex Lipton's personality template in the mix too?
I guess if we did have two Visions, we could have an interesting extended family, what with Billy and Tommy being sort-of Wanda's sons...does that make young Vision their dad and brother?! It's like a Jerry Springer show...
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Oct 9, 2006 1:02:41 GMT -5
I think the Young Vision gets catastrophically injured and they use what they could salvage from the original Vision to make the repairs. I don't remember what was left after his death, but maybe if only scraps were left they could implant what they have and have the rest be slowly internally repaired and recovered by the Vision's systems?
The Vision could have his body "restored" to its classic shape and we could pretend the whole thing never happened.
I don't even think they tried to put the pieces back together after Disassembled, did they?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 9, 2006 1:30:38 GMT -5
Nope, they didn't... Tony Stark put his remains in a container at some dark corner of Stark Enterprises & they hardly gave him another thought afterwards, in what amounts to the most glaring, execrable example of total mischaracterization from a writer (?) whose making a career of them... In this case, not just of one character, but a whole team of them... What a Brain Bender...!!!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 9, 2006 1:44:35 GMT -5
I mean, c'mon...!!! If, for whatever reasons (didn't care for him, wanted to make room for Vision Jr., etc...), BMB wanted Vizh out of the picture that's one thing... He could have accomplished this in any number of ways... He could have them try to bring him back & fail. But he NEVER showed them at least trying to do anything about it or really caring at all...!!! Not at all...
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Oct 9, 2006 14:37:00 GMT -5
I mean, c'mon...!!! If, for whatever reasons (didn't care for him, wanted to make room for Vision Jr., etc...), BMB wanted Vizh out of the picture that's one thing... He could have accomplished this in any number of ways... He could have them try to bring him back & fail. But he NEVER showed them at least trying to do anything about it or really caring at all...!!! Not at all... That really bothered me too. I don't expect much from Bendis, but you'd think someone at Marvel (like an editor?!) would realize this was not right and get the writer to re-work it.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Oct 9, 2006 17:16:01 GMT -5
well come on guys--don't quote the obvious. Bendis, with his usual arrogance, just threw this character in the garbage can, along with his history. Expecting him to show respect for the characters we grew to love is like getting blood out of a rock. I have almost stopped buying Marvel comics for this exact reason. Bendis is like a fungus that is growing and destroying its host. You can see the Bendis effect even in Civil War--his hands are all over that and suddenly even Mark Miller is writing characters completely out of character.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 9, 2006 17:27:58 GMT -5
I'm not sure how we could get the original Vizh back, Night Phantom. Didn't we also have Alex Lipton's personality template in the mix too? That name didn’t mean anything to me. If I understand Wikipedia’s entry on the Vision correctly, this Lipton person’s engrams were added relatively late in the Vision’s life, sometime in the ’90s…so, it seems to me that if you wanted a “classic” Vision, Simon Williams’ engrams would do. Or just a classic Silver Age-style cover…“My Father…My Brother!!” (And then it could be repeated in Runaways: “My Brother…My Nephew!!”
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 9, 2006 18:25:51 GMT -5
I hear you, bobc...! I'm not buying any CW related books either, so right now I'm pretty much down to She-Hulk, Exiles, Marvel Team-Up, Annhilation & Beyond!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 15, 2007 22:07:10 GMT -5
Which reminds me. In the letters column, somewhere between issues 111 and 114, a fan suggested that the Vision should be shown to be the original Human Torch. In the letter (Avengers #115), the fan didn't originate the idea; he jokingly suggested it and then admitted he had read "the Gallery interview." This refers to an interview Neal Adams did with Gallery magazine (an "adult" magazine, I believe) at the time. In the interview Neal talked about his idea of having the Vision be the original Human Torch. The seeds were planted by Neal in his celebrated depiction of Hank Pym's journey through the Vision's body in Avengers #93...he pictured Hank noticing or recognizing something in the Vision's body. Though it was not revealed what Hank was reacting to, it was supposed to be something that would identify the Vision as having been constructed from the original Torch (per Adams). So from all accounts I've read (admittedly, mostly accounts from Adams), it was his idea; according to Neal, Roy loved the idea and pursued it even after Neal left the book (in #102, a Sentinel's description of Vision as being "three decades vintage"), and then this idea was developed by other writers, as others here have said. I've read that the letter was not supposed to be published (since it contained a huge spoiler) but that somehow it slipped through the cracks and made it into #115's letter column. Marvel was not too happy about that.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 16, 2007 11:13:10 GMT -5
It truly was a great step-by-step revelation, of course screwed up by Byrne during his WCA run. While I enjoyed the novelty of seeing the Torch and the Vision side-by-side, it still removed a little luster from the backstory. I would say that Byrne's undoing of this great idea (which tied the Golden and Silver ages together at Marvel, in my opinion) was one of the retcon failures.
I do not recall the letter in question, by the way, but sometimes those little teasers make the final revelation quite ripe from the anticipation!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 16, 2007 16:11:40 GMT -5
I absolutely hate what Byrne did. It felt like he assaulted the character. First, he took away his personality, then his history. Having the Vision be a reborn Human Torch was quite clever, and it also gave Marvel a nice legacy-type character.
I don't know that there's any conceivable way to bring back that part of his history, but it seems like we should be able to get the "real" Vision back, if anyone would bother with it. Vision's neglect by his Avengers team-mates after disassembled is just another instance where the writers and staff don't seem to get the team. Every other time the Vision suffered some catastrophic injury, the team was always there for him. To put him in a crate and put him in a warehouse is just unbelieveable.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 16, 2007 19:45:04 GMT -5
I do not recall the letter in question, by the way, but sometimes those little teasers make the final revelation quite ripe from the anticipation! When you have time, check it out on the DVD-ROM...the original letter columns are included, right? Also, I've read that any subsequent inquiries from fans (reactions to that particular letter, or on the topic of the Vision being the original Torch) were banned from ever appearing in print. This edict was relaxed after the revelation, of course.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 16, 2007 21:03:35 GMT -5
I absolutely hate what Byrne did. It felt like he assaulted the character. First, he took away his personality, then his history. Having the Vision be a reborn Human Torch was quite clever, and it also gave Marvel a nice legacy-type character. I don't know that there's any conceivable way to bring back that part of his history, but it seems like we should be able to get the "real" Vision back, if anyone would bother with it. Vision's neglect by his Avengers team-mates after disassembled is just another instance where the writers and staff don't seem to get the team. Every other time the Vision suffered some catastrophic injury, the team was always there for him. To put him in a crate and put him in a warehouse is just unbelieveable. As I am working my way through Avengers chronology (slowly but surely -- I'm up through #65), it is amazing to me how quickly the team took him in. Granted, there wasn't much of a choice as Hank and Jan, Hawk, and the Panther were all that remained (and Hank and Jan were gone from #61-64). But there was an almost immediate allegiance toward the Vision, and his value was never underestimated seemingly from the beginning. I will scout out the letters in question sometime (hopefully soon!).
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 16, 2007 21:34:41 GMT -5
You must be prescient. If you're reading chronologically, you'll soon get to an arc that touches upon the very topic you bring up.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 17, 2007 9:56:04 GMT -5
Yes, I'm reading them chronologically. Trouble is, I'll go a week or two without having (making) the time to do the DVD-ROM thing, then all of a sudden I'll take an evening and read 4-5 issues in a sitting. I like that type of continuity.
The art chores on the book were really in flux in the #60's-70's, with Gene Colan, Barry Smith, and Sal Buscema all taking their turn. The book had really developed a "feel" with John Buscema at the helm. I will say, though, that the three Colan issues really grew on me; I'd expected less because I've always felt he was more suited to the Daredevils and Draculas of the world. But the story was moody enough that Gene the Dean fit right in!
But I digress, to the Silver Age Artists thread... Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 17, 2007 10:13:11 GMT -5
I just checked out the letter in question in issue 115, and I saw the author was Duffy Vohland, who later worked for Marvel, I believe in the Production department. I do recall seeing him in issues of FOOM.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 17, 2007 12:14:57 GMT -5
That makes more sense, then! Was he working for Marvel in 1973? (Maybe he was an intern..I know Marvel hired people, usually interns, to "write letters"...I was so diappointed when I learned that, it seemed like cheating). If he was with them in 73 he may have mocked up this letter as a joke and someone, perhaps not him, pushed it through...either because they thought it was supposed to be published or because it was part of the "joke"...
As mentioned, Marvel brass was fuming when they saw it in print!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 17, 2007 20:03:04 GMT -5
Tana's info about Duffy Vohland piqued my interest so I looked him up, since I didn't know who he was or that he worked for Marvel. He seems to have been a jack-of-all-trades: a FOOM editor, production work (as Tana said), he even did some inking (including some of Avengers #150). He also helped Byrne get his foot in the door by showing some of Byrne's work to Tony Isabella and others. Sadly, he has since passed away.
I did a little digging through my collection and here is Marvel's official take on the Vision-Torch storyline, from the letter column in Avengers #139 (1975). Vohland's letter is mentioned:
"...the tie-in between the two was carefully planned and planted nearly four years ago. Neal Adams first thought of it when he was drawing Avengers #93, and so included that famous scene of Ant-Man seeing something startling in the Vision. As he explained it to Roy, it was evidence of a previous use for the android body. The Rascally One took it from there...when Steve (Englehart) took over with #105, it was left to him to pick the proper time for telling all...
"Incidentally, while all the Bullpen was engaged in guarding this secret these past years, we still let the truth slip out once--through a printer's error in #115. Check it out; then-fan Duffy Vohland, in a PS not to be printed, was referring to an interview with Neal."
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 9, 2007 14:44:14 GMT -5
Hey, just got around to reading this thread... in Avengers Annual #3 (during the Celestial Madonna saga of Avengers #127-135/Avengers Annual #4), Kang uses the legion of the unliving (Baron Zemo, the Ghost from Silver Surfer; Midnight; Frankenstein's monster, Wonder Man and the original Human Torch) to take on the Avengers in a labrynth in limbo... during the battle with the Torch, Iron Man is killed (Immortus brings him back later) and the Vision's arm is nearly severed completely off in his battle with the Ghost.
The Human Torch spots the collapsed Vision and announces to the mute Frankenstein that somehow the Vision's body is his own, which led to the Vision learning his own origin in #134-135.
In an interview, John Byrne discussed his dislike for the Vision, his costume and his marriage/children with the Scarlet Witch, which lead to his actions on WCA.
However, Byrne forgot what the color white does on the type of paper comics were printed on back then (you could see the next page bleeding through), so the Vision began to take an off-white/yellow hue.
I also suspect that Byrne wanted to bring the Human Torch back to restart some sort of Invaders spin-off using Namor, the Torch, Namorita, Union Jack and the now young Spitfire in Namor's book (which he did do in Namor #11-13 IIRC), but he left both Namor and the WCA shortly thereafter.
Anyway, the Vision is a favorite character of mine, but I prefer the more Mr. Spock characterization of the Vision -stoic, reserved, intelligent, but can be emotional at times...which he tries to hide as best he can.
But he's a question for all of you: What do you think the Vision sounds like when he talks? Like the computer from the 1983 movie War Games ("Shall We Play A Game?") I'm just trying to imagine how a voice can sound "cold... like the dankest tomb"
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Aug 10, 2007 23:13:30 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I think Byrne's deconstruction of the Vision was the beginning of the end for him. I never felt like he truly recovered his status after that, although Busiek and Perez did much to restore him in volume 3.
But the fact that he was killed off as he was during Disassembled, with little to no commentary on it later by his fellow Avengers, let alone an attempt to restore him, just shows how little Marvel thought of him, or how little they understood his value to long-time Avengers fans.
For many years, the Vision was the face of the Avengers. By the mid-seventies, I would say he was Avenger #2, only after Cap in my mind. He was a presence, he had a compelling history and personality, and his power made him invaluable to the team. All that began to crumble when Byrne got his mitts on him.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 11, 2007 9:22:06 GMT -5
For many years, the Vision was the face of the Avengers. By the mid-seventies, I would say he was Avenger #2, only after Cap in my mind. He was a presence, he had a compelling history and personality, and his power made him invaluable to the team. All that began to crumble when Byrne got his mitts on him. As I was reading your post, I was thinking of the EXACT line you used to lead off this paragraph -- thanks for saving me the trouble of typing it!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Aug 12, 2007 23:45:25 GMT -5
For many years, the Vision was the face of the Avengers. By the mid-seventies, I would say he was Avenger #2, only after Cap in my mind. He was a presence, he had a compelling history and personality, and his power made him invaluable to the team. All that began to crumble when Byrne got his mitts on him. As I was reading your post, I was thinking of the EXACT line you used to lead off this paragraph -- thanks for saving me the trouble of typing it! You're welcome Doug - and I am glad I'm not the only one who had this thought. Heck, when I first started reading comics, it was the Vision's figure that was plastered in the upper left corner next to the issue number! To me the Avengers just aren't the Avengers without him.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 13, 2007 20:12:40 GMT -5
Avengers Annual #3 (during the Celestial Madonna saga of Avengers #127-135/Avengers Annual #4) By the way, those “Avengers Annual” issues are actually issues of Giant-Size Avengers. Welcome aboard, Hourly!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 13, 2007 22:45:36 GMT -5
Heck, when I first started reading comics, it was the Vision's figure that was plastered in the upper left corner next to the issue number! Exactly. Within a few years he became the literal symbol of the Avengers as evidenced by his place of honor on the covers, as you mention (starting with #93), analogous to Ben (who appeared in the upper corner of the FF books). Quite an achievement for a relative newcomer, wouldn't you say? As mentioned in a similar thread (the recent poll about the Vision), the Vision was Roy's pet character (and Englehart's too, it would seem). By #89, he had become the focus of the stories and remained so for a number of years. After the Vision joined the team, the big three appeared more frequently, but Roy really stopped developing the regular characters except for the Vision (and Wanda, because she was part of the Vision's story), with the following results: Clint (who had really been the focus from issues #29-44 or so) was given the growing powers and became a one-dimensional buffoon (up until the time he left in #109; when he returned, Englehart developed him); T'Challa, who'd joined the team a few scant issues before the Vision and who actually had the starring role in a few issues (Sons of the Serpent and a couple of other issues), was reduced to sporadic appearances; Jan and Hank were exiled to Alaska to make room for Wanda and Pietro; Pietro was bland as ever at first and then served only to criticize his sister's attraction to the Vision (which is a shame, because when Pietro actually got to do something, as in issues #102-#104, I thought he was interesting and effective); the Kree-Skrull War focused as much on the Vision's feelings as it did on more interstellar issues; similarly, he played a large role in the Celestial Madonna epic; the Grim Reaper, Wonder Man and the original Human Torch were re-introduced as recurring elements...and so on. Nearly every development revolved around the Vision. IMO, the Avengers book back then was like one long Vision story...until around the time Vizh and Wanda got married. After that, there was a more equitable concentration on other characters (Beast, Patsy Walker, others). But he was the dominant character in the Avengers book for a while and his journey from outsider to husband certainly provided years' worth of stories.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 14, 2007 9:57:54 GMT -5
A nice summation. I agree with your recap. Hawkeye was indeed a buffoon, but I think that was not out-of-character. Although he looked like Hank Pym (in and out of costume), he didn't act like Hank. So in terms of characterization, while they didn't enhance Clint, they at least remained consistent -- we knew who he was from issue to issue.
I still feel that one of the worst things ever done to the Vision was the removal of the crystal from his brain that in turn removed the "cold voice" from his personna. Thomas and Englehart had taken their time in humanizing him without the need for anything so dramatic. Once that thingamabob was out of his head, he just seemed to blend in with everyone else (at least in the speech pattern dept.).
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 19, 2007 20:36:23 GMT -5
A Hawkeye was indeed a buffoon, but I think that was not out-of-character. Although he looked like Hank Pym (in and out of costume), he didn't act like Hank. So in terms of characterization, while they didn't enhance Clint, they at least remained consistent -- we knew who he was from issue to issue. I don't disagree, dlw; Clint's humor has always been a huge part of his characterization (at least once he joined the Avengers; he had been portrayed as less humorous in the early Tales of Suspense stories). And as I've mentioned in other posts, characters like Clint and Jan, with their humorous takes on things, add texture and realism to stories. You put it well- - Clint's characterization remained consistent but it did not develop. The thing is, IMO, there came a point when his humor seemed to overshadow other parts of his personality; for a long time (back then), he became more of a caricature and less of a well-rounded character. To be fair, this was true of all the "non-big three" Avengers once Roy had the big three make more or less regular appearances in the book (something he'd wanted to do for a long time); any character development for Hank, Jan, T'Challa, and Clint just stopped once Thor, IM and Cap were featured. The book focused more on the battles, villains, etc. and less on interpersonal relationships (unlike the long Black Widow arc from #29-#44). And for Clint, who had been the focus of said arc, this resulted in him being used primarily for comic relief: spouting one-liners and being served huge cups of cocoa by Jarvis. And once Roy started to focus on the Vision, Clint became a would-be complication in the Vizh-Wanda relationship. He was a supporting player, instead of the star he had been a few years earlier in the book.
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 27, 2007 12:22:55 GMT -5
I think Roy got a little bored with Hawkeye... it was a great foil for Cap's seriousness, and a way to write someone a little more crass compared to the rest of the group... but it is almost as if it got old pretty quick for Roy -even though he was the last member of "Cap's kooky quartet" to leave the group.
I mean the Black Widow romance really didn't go anywhere other than have her constantly take off for some SHEILD mission or another, and then have Hawkeye brood over her absence... it is almost as if Roy made Clint become Goliath just to see if that sparked him to do more with the character.
Yes, the Vision became Roy's focus for characterization (something Englehart with pick up on when he took over the book), but at the same time, as others pointed out, bring the big three back gave Roy characters he found far more interesting to develop than Clint Barton.
Ironically, I found Hawkeye to a better character when he came back to the Avengers in the 130s... it was like the book needed a break from him to finish the Vision storyline(s) and he came back a little more grown up.
|
|