|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 28, 2007 8:45:42 GMT -5
I nearly dropped the book during the Gatherers storyline.
That should tell you how much worse I place NA on the whole "sucky Avengers" continuum!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 29, 2007 3:25:04 GMT -5
I gather you didn't like it, then, dlw66...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 30, 2007 14:15:51 GMT -5
How long was that arc?? 50 issues? It just got way too convoluted -- like attempting to read and make sense of an X-Men comic at roughly the same time.
I did like the Magdalena/Swordsman II element. I thought that had some real possibilities, as I'd grown to like the Swordsman as both a villain and hero -- Englehart handled him well up until the "Mantis marries a tree" bit in GS #4.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 30, 2007 14:32:18 GMT -5
DLW you remember how those zombie looking kree kept showing up in that horribly eternal arc? When those same Kree showed up in Vol 3 I almost started crying. NO NOT AGAIN!!!
|
|
|
Post by Engage on May 6, 2007 23:01:50 GMT -5
The Gathering. The stupid thing must have had a single issue every year, then every six months, then when it finally got going it stretched on for what felt like ten years.
It might have been okay if it wasn't about four issues worth or story. Or is the message wasn't that killing is necessary. Or that half the subplots went no where and characters were left hanging around with nothing to do even into volume three.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 19, 2007 13:41:07 GMT -5
- It's been downhill, mostly, since Avengers: Disassembled. Bendis simply cannot write this book. Turning Wanda insane should have been the handwriting on the wall.
- Heroes Reborn. When it came out I remember thinking, well at least I'll never read someone worse on the book than this. Ha! The cool thing is that Liefeld is all but out of the busines. One can buy hope the same fate awaits Bendis when saner heads prevail.
- Byrne's work on West Coast Avengers. It's not the core book, but I'm thinking here of the disassembly of the Vision. Just... dumb.
- The Crossing, although the passage of time has dimmed my dislike considerably - I remember not being enthusiastic about it at the time, but not the same degree of dislike as I had for Avengers: Disassembled.
There are also dotted here and there stories I didn't like. Doubt it, much as you want to believe to the contrary, Bendis is more popular than liefeld ever was, and I don't see him going away anytime soon(Probaby because other than y'all a large portion of people like his work)
|
|
|
Post by balok on May 19, 2007 19:17:19 GMT -5
Doubt it, much as you want to believe to the contrary, Bendis is more popular than liefeld ever was, and I don't see him going away anytime soon(Probaby because other than y'all a large portion of people like his work) So far, you're right. That means that either the novelty hasn't worn off, or the young fan of today doesn't want the same things I want from a book, which would be good storytelling, good characterization, good dialogue - none of which Bendis can do. Popularity is not the same thing as talent. All it proves, once again, is that P.T. Barnum was right.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 21, 2007 14:19:46 GMT -5
Doubt it, much as you want to believe to the contrary, Bendis is more popular than liefeld ever was, and I don't see him going away anytime soon(Probaby because other than y'all a large portion of people like his work) So far, you're right. That means that either the novelty hasn't worn off, or the young fan of today doesn't want the same things I want from a book, which would be good storytelling, good characterization, good dialogue - none of which Bendis can do. Popularity is not the same thing as talent. All it proves, once again, is that P.T. Barnum was right. Or they have different opinions on what constitues good storytelling/characterization/dialogue in a comic book. Afterall this is the MTV generation that Marvel is targeting now isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on May 21, 2007 20:31:59 GMT -5
Afterall this is the MTV generation that Marvel is targeting now isn't it? I don’t quite get that. The MTV style usually refers to rapid editing and other techniques geared toward short attention spans—the diametric opposite of decompression.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 21, 2007 21:52:35 GMT -5
Afterall this is the MTV generation that Marvel is targeting now isn't it? I don’t quite get that. The MTV style usually refers to rapid editing and other techniques geared toward short attention spans—the diametric opposite of decompression. But Decompressions general result is more, larger pictures and less words, so you can generally read an issue quicker. Overall story arcs stretch out, but the actual reading of an issue is shortened. (This covers the attention span part, too many words would turn off people who want things to go fast.) Afterall what takes longer to read, A marvel comic printed today, or one printed 20 years ago? I also think to a certain extent the MTV generation implies a need for T&A(Much present in Marvel today), and Pop culture references(also present in todays Marvel)
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on May 21, 2007 22:13:10 GMT -5
But Decompressions general result is more, larger pictures and less words, so you can generally read an issue quicker. Overall story arcs stretch out, but the actual reading of an issue is shortened. (This covers the attention span part, too many words would turn off people who want things to go fast.) Afterall what takes longer to read, A marvel comic printed today, or one printed 20 years ago? I also think to a certain extent the MTV generation implies a need for T&A(Much present in Marvel today), and Pop culture references(also present in todays Marvel) Pop-culture references are a mighty Marvel mainstay dating back to the Silver Age—like the time the Thing wore a Beatles wig. My thought about editing techniques and decompression was that with rapid editing, you (potentially) get more information per foot or meter (thinking in terms of the lengths of traditional [pre-digital] video and film media), whereas with decompression you get less. But you are right that the time spent experiencing an issue becomes less with decompression, and so I concede that you may be on to something there.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 22, 2007 8:43:20 GMT -5
I really don't agree with Alchemistx's position on decompression. My take on it (specifically Bendis, and see his DD over NA for better examples) is that there are far more words per page because of all of the standing around talking. In the old days there were actually figures in various forms of motion, limiting the space for word balloons.
As far as Phantom's information about pop culture references in the Silver Age -- spot on! Stan, in my opinion, often went over the top to make his stories "relevant" to the readers. There has been an ongoing argument about realism in Marvel Comics today; read some of Stan's Amazing Spider-Man and FF from the 1960's to see how he injected both news and celebrities into his yarns.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 22, 2007 13:25:31 GMT -5
I definately agree that people stand around in modern comics more, but I think words per page have gone down. I didn't wanna crack open old stuff and count and compare, but for the most part pages in The Kree-Skrull War contain more text than Civil War based on a quick visual evaluation.(The two closest things I could find when writting this)
But DLW maybe your right, maybe its just the action that seems to go by too fast.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on May 22, 2007 16:03:07 GMT -5
- It's been downhill, mostly, since Avengers: Disassembled. Bendis simply cannot write this book. Turning Wanda insane should have been the handwriting on the wall.
- Heroes Reborn. When it came out I remember thinking, well at least I'll never read someone worse on the book than this. Ha! The cool thing is that Liefeld is all but out of the busines. One can buy hope the same fate awaits Bendis when saner heads prevail.
- Byrne's work on West Coast Avengers. It's not the core book, but I'm thinking here of the disassembly of the Vision. Just... dumb.
- The Crossing, although the passage of time has dimmed my dislike considerably - I remember not being enthusiastic about it at the time, but not the same degree of dislike as I had for Avengers: Disassembled.
There are also dotted here and there stories I didn't like. Doubt it, much as you want to believe to the contrary, Bendis is more popular than liefeld ever was, and I don't see him going away anytime soon(Probaby because other than y'all a large portion of people like his work) Dunno 'bout that. When Liefeld was at his peak, his books like X Force sold incredibly well, much better than Bendis by far. Had he not been dissatisfied with marvel at the time and left the book so suddenly, and became a founder of Image, who knows how his marvel sales would've gone. And I don't want to hear about the speculator market being the only reason- there weren't half as many ways to get comics as there are now (I can be in Malaysia and order my books online and have them shipped next day delivery through hundreds of internet locations) and the visibility of comic heroes has never been higher. Between movies, action figures and other merchandise, marvel is much more of a global presence than it was in say, 1993.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 22, 2007 16:16:17 GMT -5
And X-Force (or Youngblood or any of his Image/Extreme titles) didn´t have Spiderman and Wolverine in it to help sales.
|
|
|
Post by Engage on May 22, 2007 16:33:03 GMT -5
I think it might be unfair to compare Bendis and Liefeld by sales alone, because of the vast differences between the markets now and in the 90s.
New Avengers and Bendis would have sold much higher numbers in a market as inflated as the one in the 90s.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on May 22, 2007 20:05:58 GMT -5
I think it might be unfair to compare Bendis and Liefeld by sales alone, because of the vast differences between the markets now and in the 90s. New Avengers and Bendis would have sold much higher numbers in a market as inflated as the one in the 90s. So you say. But in my last post I put up a number of reasons as to why I don't think the differences in the years is as much a factor as people like to say. And there are a lot of books in the 90s that didn't sell all that well. In fact there were plenty of books that sold at current levels so it's hardly a proof just because several creators and several books managed to sell well that the 90s were just easier to sell millions of comics. In fact I tend to think it's just become an all purpose excuse. Joe Q can hide behind it every time sales are down i.e. "well the boom market is gone..." and when they sell well "we're defying the market and bringing readers back!" When you have lowered expectations it's much easier to succeed. Honestly mass market books, toys, videogames, movies, have all managed to still have a similarly sized impact. TV had to suffer the influx of most cable channels adding five hundred choices as competition, but overall the audience is still the same. I just don't get that people get away with saying "the audience left." An audience left. But they weren't readers in the first place. And as we've seen with events like Identity Crisis and Civil War you can market properly, and put fannies in the seat. But like it or not, Rob Liefeld managed to sell anywhere between a million and two copies of X-Force #1 without Wolverine or Spider Man. You can cut away half of that number and it's still impressive no matter when it happened. And if we're judging Bendis' popularity what other barometer are we to use other than sales? Because Lord knows if you go by this board, he's about as popular as herpes.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 23, 2007 1:02:41 GMT -5
I realize now that I have a copy of X-Force #1, and somehow way back when I actually contributed to that problem, so I apologize. (Only copy of X-Force I have though). Incidentally wikipedia says X-Force #1 sold 4 million copies.
Bendis' main arguments would probably be his five Eisner awards.
But when I look at it, its probably too hard to compare the two because of different era, and different levels of involvement in their respective projects.
the only real way to find out is to let time take its course, although I do maintain Bendis is probably here to stay.
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on May 23, 2007 7:33:44 GMT -5
although I do maintain Bendis is probably here to stay. Ugh.... You just ruined my whole day. Hope yer happy...grrrrrr.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 23, 2007 8:42:01 GMT -5
I would say when the current regime at Marvel (Joe Q) ends, so will BENDIS! career in the comics industry. And this opinion has nothing to do with personal taste or what I think of his work in general.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 23, 2007 8:47:57 GMT -5
New Avengers and Bendis would have sold much higher numbers in a market as inflated as the one in the 90s. It´s interesting to note that even in the 90´s, when editors thought the best way to increase sales was putting Wolverine in a book (or at least on the cover) no one made him an Avenger...
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on May 23, 2007 8:52:18 GMT -5
I realize now that I have a copy of X-Force #1, and somehow way back when I actually contributed to that problem, so I apologize. (Only copy of X-Force I have though). Incidentally wikipedia says X-Force #1 sold 4 million copies. Bendis' main arguments would probably be his five Eisner awards. But when I look at it, its probably too hard to compare the two because of different era, and different levels of involvement in their respective projects. the only real way to find out is to let time take its course, although I do maintain Bendis is probably here to stay. I checked a couple of other sources and most of them don't say anywhere near 4 million. Wikipedia can be okay when it comes to certain things like images, but as a fact finder it can be notoriously unreliable. And five Eisners? I think Kurt Busiek has about twenty (I know Miller, Gaiman and Moore all have a ton, too), so Bendis has got a lot of catching up to do. Keep in mind Evan Dorkin of Milk and Cheese fame has multiple Eisner awards. I think I got one walking by Marvel Comics the other day...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 23, 2007 10:36:55 GMT -5
You know, since I've dropped all things Avengers (sans EMH and Ultimates) these past couple of months, I guess I can definitively say that the times in which we now live are indeed the Lowest Point in Avengers History -- at least from this fan's perspective.
"this fan" = very Mantis-like, you think?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 23, 2007 11:09:27 GMT -5
Rather ironic that what some percieve as their lowest point is probably their most popular point and most important in-universe in... well, ever really. (I mean comparatively popular, obviously there were more readers in the 60s etc)
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on May 23, 2007 20:40:37 GMT -5
I do maintain Bendis is probably here to stay. Mmmm…I’m waiting for him to break into film and/or television. He might never look back…
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Jul 20, 2007 12:40:45 GMT -5
I echo what at lot of you guys have been saying... I got into the book in the mid-70s, and quickly backtracked the early days...
I also agree that today's stories really pale in comparison to the writing back when. The stories focus too much on art/pointless conflict as opposed to expressing any real idea.
But rather than pile on with the usual suspects of low points... what about the Zodiac stories from the 80's-120s of the original series? Cornelius Van Lundt and the rest of his flunkies?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 20, 2007 19:17:36 GMT -5
It's interesting that you cite the Zodiac stories of the #120's, as they were drawn by Bob Brown; you cited him as one of your least favorite Avengers artists in another thread. I happen to find Brown's art very tolerable (which is slightly outside of "I really liked him"), so my memories of those stories aren't too negative. However, you raise an interesting point -- with the diversity of powers exhibited by the Zodiac, are they really all that different from the Ringmaster's Circus of Crime?
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Jul 21, 2007 22:30:16 GMT -5
Ok, here's a thought. This isn't a master's thesis, so I'm going to paint with a broad brush and the sympathetic reader can fill in the blanks while the hostile reader is free to disregard.
Quality writing and drawing in comics rely on a number of elements to succeed. Writers must not only concoct interesting plots, but they must create actions, situations, and dialog to make that plot happen. They must also create a sense of time/place, characters, mood, etc. with the words. In comics, a good deal of the words fall into the category of dialog.
Bendis is great at writing the Avengers, as far as using dialog to express a particular character's point of view in a certain situation. His skill here though is balanced against his neglect for other storytelling tools.
In the area of art, the artist must not only depict exciting figures of people that denote power, but they must also depict action and portray the flow of time, and illustrate the scene and mood for the book.
In the 90s, artists quit telling stories and focused almost entirely on depicting brawny characters and sway backed ladies in dramatic poses. It was often difficult to figure out was happening. And anatomy was forgotten.
The comparison I'm making is that nowadays, in the area of writing, and in the 90s, in the area of art, there was undo emphasis on particular aspects of the craft, rather than the overall balance of elements needed to make great comics.
Now, what we're talking about is fashion. The original intent of comics has been forgotten. What we have now are stylized commentaries on comics. Sort of like the high fashion cat walk shows. Nobody could wear any of those dresses in my home town, but the "fanboys" of fashion spend all their time lauding or lamenting particular elements of entirely impractical articles of clothing.
It's like that with comics. We're in an era of totally disfunctional comics. They fail to tell stories. They're just for the critics and the hardcore fans. They don't work anymore, because they fail to tell stories using all the necessary elements.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jul 21, 2007 23:40:45 GMT -5
Ok, here's a thought. This isn't a master's thesis, so I'm going to paint with a broad brush and the sympathetic reader can fill in the blanks while the hostile reader is free to disregard. *sharpens knife* Dialogue is rather separate from plotting. You could write an innovative, consistent plot and have it marred by poor grammar. Silver and Bronze-age dialogue was, on the negative side, often simplistic and stilted. On the other hand, they were writing within the expectations of the superhero genre, the white-hat cowboy vs. the black-hat villain. Furthermore, comic-book writers, then and now, as a rule are not particularly accomplished writers of prose. In other words, if you pick up a comic and expect to see prose worthy of Ernest Hemingway, you are deluding yourself. The best one can reasonably expect is a writer that is capable of making his characters "sound" different. *head explodes* Totally, totally disagree. Brian Bendis is vastly, vastly, vastly overrated as a writer of dialogue. Bendis has one "voice" and writes every character in that voice no matter how inappropriate. For example...in "Alias," Bendis repeatedly writes the first words out of Cap's mouth as "Ehrmmm..." Like half a dozen times. Sorry, but I don't picture Cap's response to any question as "Ehrmmm..." This is an example of inappropriate voice. Hank Pym, yeah, maybe I could see that. I call it "cutesy banter," but call it what you will. If a scene calls for "cutesy banter" that sounds like it was ripped from an episode of "Seinfeld," then Brian's your man. If it calls for anything else you're screwed. I find it excruciating to the point of unreadability. Ed Brubaker is head and shoulders above Brian Bendis as someone who can write different characters and make them "sound" different. Time has been Marvel's enemy for the last 30 years. Yeah, that sucked. I think I understand what you're saying -- that writing has gone haywire in the 00s like art went haywire in the 90s. I would instead say that comics today have lost sight of the fact that comics are about stories, about working within established continuity, and ultimately about right and wrong. Instead comics have become a vehicle for creators to trumpet themselves, the peculiarities of their storytelling style, and their political agendas. I agree that today's Marvel is dysfunctional. How so is up for some debate. I'd make the following assertions: --Today's Marvel is about the creators rather than the characters. --Today's Marvel is about substituting shock, destruction, and gimmicks for solid storytelling. --Today's Marvel is willing to toss away older, long-term fans and their tastes in an attempt to broaden its appeal to newer, younger fans and their tastes. RSC
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 1, 2007 15:08:33 GMT -5
It's interesting that you cite the Zodiac stories of the #120's, as they were drawn by Bob Brown; you cited him as one of your least favorite Avengers artists in another thread. I happen to find Brown's art very tolerable (which is slightly outside of "I really liked him"), so my memories of those stories aren't too negative. However, you raise an interesting point -- with the diversity of powers exhibited by the Zodiac, are they really all that different from the Ringmaster's Circus of Crime? The problem I had with the Zodiac -and the subsequent attempts to power them up to make them suitable opponents for the Avengers, is the inherient limitations to their powers. How threatening is some guy dressed as a crab, for example? The Ringmaster comparison is pretty fair... Now I realize you can't expect Ultron, Count Nefaria, Kang, the Lethal Legion or even the Sons of the Serpent every issue, but they simply weren't worth the time it seemingly took each storyline required. My biggest complaint about the Bob Brown art was that it was pretty unremarkable... especially in comparison to Neal Adams and Big John Buscema before it, or George Perez after it. But to a point RedstateCap made earlier about comics in the silver age vs. today... Well said! And if you think the writing in some of the silver age is stilted, then try digesting the golden age stories... but they are fun in sort of a time capsule sort of way. Anyway, the best point you made was how good comic book writers gave a "voice" or a personality to a character, and even though writers may change, that voice/personality remains fairly consistent. Namor/Quicksilver are arrogant; Cap, paternal yet assertive, Hawkeye, cocky and brash with an in-your-face attitude... and so on. And the great writing comes from the subplots and interpersonal relationships among the characters... The Avengers are a soap opera in a way, and to reduce the book to almost a Seinfeld-like rip-off with cheesy dialogue and take their history a la carte just frustrates older fans to no end. Your assessment was right on about the promotion of the creators over the characters. What these egotists seem to forget is they will come and go, but the characters remain constant. Cap has outlived Jack Kirby, Superman, Simon and Shuster and so forth. 20-30 years from now, very few people will recall Bendis... but Cap will still be going, and people will debate his character and storylines. And that's the trap these newer writers are in and can't figure out how to get out of. Every so often some newbie comes in and tries to wipe out the history of an established character/team becasue they envy the freedom of someone like Stan Lee or Roy Thomas back in the 1960s. They were creating history, so now these new guys are slaves to it. So they destroy the history to get that clean slate, and it fails more often than it succeeds, because the people who are loyal to those books grew up with Thomas and Lee and love that history.
|
|