Invaders! the time is now

[jkemble]

...I love them! I mean the real Invaders, Cap, Namor and the Original Human Torch, and some of the supporting cast; especially the Wizzer and Ms. America.Then there were charecters like the Thin Man and the Red Raven. (of course, Bucky and Toro, but ugh!) and the villans: Master Man, uh, that Nazi chck, U-Man, Baron Blood and of course the arch-nemisis and master-villian, the infamous Red Skull. I remember once the Nazis summoned the Mighty Thor to fight the Invaders, and later, much later in Marvel time, Engleheart wrote an amazing Avengers story with the elderly Wizzer and Ms. Marvel. I believe it was Engleheart who wrote the Invaders, or was it Thomas?

I think Marvel, since they seem to be taking chances, would have the Invaders get back together. Now would be the time.

1) Cap, Namor are still alive. I don't know the status of the Original Human Torch, but really, he's a machine, and you know how easy that is to write back to life. for all I know, Jim's still kickin' somewhere. and last I heard, so is Baron Blood and the Red Skull. unfinished buisness...

2) the Invaders came together from vastly different demographics during a time of war. now is a time of war, Marvel U and the real U.

3) Given Cap and Namors simular views on the Civil War, the seem like natural allies. First mission, find the Original Human Torch.

Now is the time for Marvel to bring out the Big Guns and relaunch the Invaders.

what do you think?

[Doctor Bong]

I think it would be quite an interesting thing to do for a while, but personally I wouldn't like it if it was done in a more permanent basis (but then, what's permanent in comics, right...? Or even in life, come to think of it...). You see, I like the Invaders, but I LOVE the Avengers and, in my mind, Cap would always be 1st & foremost Mr. Avenger, even though I'm well aware he was an Invader 1st.
I always thought the original Human Torch's stint with the West Coasters was waaay to brief... Wouldn't mind seeing him with the NYC Avengers (hopefully the Old Avengers, not that unrecognizable travesti called NEW Avengers). Two other "old timers"which I think would be interesting for Avengers are Jack Frost recently seen in one of those "Stan Lee meets...", I forget which one, and the ORIGINAL Vision.
As far as I now, Jack Frost's still inside the belly of an Ice Beast, as seen in Captain America, Vol. I.

[ozbot]

Well, to be frank, I think that this was many of the premise behind the most recent Invaders series, and we all know how far that went. FWIW, I would LOVE to see an Invaders series, but returning to the World War II scene. Maybe all those stories have been told, but a series of mini-series or something would be great.

[redstatecap]

jkemble said:

...I love them! I mean the real Invaders, Cap, Namor and the Original Human Torch, and some of the supporting cast; especially the Wizzer and Ms. America.Then there were charecters like the Thin Man and the Red Raven. (of course, Bucky and Toro, but ugh!) and the villans: Master Man, uh, that Nazi chck, U-Man, Baron Blood and of course the arch-nemisis and master-villian, the infamous Red Skull. I remember once the Nazis summoned the Mighty Thor to fight the Invaders, and later, much later in Marvel time, Engleheart wrote an amazing Avengers story with the elderly Wizzer and Ms. Marvel. I believe it was Engleheart who wrote the Invaders, or was it Thomas?

Roy Thomas wrote the whole run, God bless him.

I think Marvel, since they seem to be taking chances, would have the Invaders get back together. Now would be the time.
1) Cap, Namor are still alive. I don't know the status of the Original Human Torch, but really, he's a machine, and you know how easy that is to write back to life. for all I know, Jim's still kickin' somewhere. and last I heard, so is Baron Blood and the Red Skull. unfinished buisness...

Cap, Namor, and Spitfire are all still alive. Marvel recently resurrected Bucky -- a huge mistake -- and I am pointedly ignoring him.
The Original Torch appeared to have died in the New Invaders series, but given the somewhat convoluted history of deaths and resurrections of that character, this is really not that great an obstacle.
Toro, Union Jack I and Union Jack II are all dead.
Baron Blood is back to being dead as well.

2) the Invaders came together from vastly different demographics during a time of war. now is a time of war, Marvel U and the real U.

The Invaders was a "peacetime" comic, so I'm not sure that's relevant.

3) Given Cap and Namors simular views on the Civil War, the seem like natural allies. First mission, find the Original Human Torch. Now is the time for Marvel to bring out the Big Guns and relaunch the Invaders.

I love the Invaders, but I don't want them within ten miles of CW. That pile of sh*t pollutes everything it touches. The last thing I want is to see is the Invaders getting mixed up in that story in any fashion whatsoever.

what do you think?

Let's say, hypothetically, I was writing an Invaders concept.
First, I would find a way to get the surviving members back together -- not necessarily as the Invaders.
Thus, the Invaders within the Avengers. Build that up. Reacquaint new fans with the history and the dynamics. Play them off against well-known Avengers like Hawkeye and Ms. Marvel. Contrast the ways of doing business born of wartime with the less stringent standards of the Avengers.
In the meantime, begin throwing in flashbacks that are essentially Invaders issues. Spin off a summer miniseries and see what the response is. If it's good enough, re-launch the Invaders.
(Whether or not the Invaders is relaunched, I think filling out an Avengers roster with Invaders could make for a spectacular run for all the reasons I've mentioned.)
I can't stress enough that you need the right person to do this, who:
a)will take the time to do the research on the characters to get the dynamics right. (A good counter-example is the late New Invaders, which managed to get the characters and dynamics so wrong I have to wonder if the writer even read the old series.)
b)knows WWII history well and doesn't try to fake it like 99.99% of writers.

The only writers I can think of offhand that I would trust to do this right are Roy Thomas, Roger Stern, and John Byrne.

RSC

[jkemble]

word.
and thanks for the corrections!

peace!

[von Bek]

I would like to see a concept similar to DC´s JSA. A legacy book with a mix of 'originals' and second (or third) generation of heroes. The originals would be of course Cap, Jim Hammond, Namor and Spitfire. Quicksilver could be a great member (remember when he tought he was the son of the Whizzer and Ms. America?). Maybe a new Black Marvel, Red Raven or Nightraven. And the working class Union Jack (but not as Spitfire´s boyfriend/love interest).

[redstatecap]

I favor excluding UJ because a) he isn't the original and b) it makes it too much Invaders and too little Avengers.
The current UJ's backstory has gotten a little problematic too. Joey is supposed to be the same age as Jackie's son, who (if alive) would be pushing 60 right now.
Add to that the absolutely horrid decision to make UJ and Jackie lovers, which is something best forgotten. Ugh!

RSC

[Doctor Doom]

An old superteam of some sort is reintroduced in CW6 but it's unlikely it's the Invaders since the Pro-Reggers are creating the team.

[von Bek]

redstatecap said:

I favor excluding UJ because a) he isn't the original

But what makes such a team interesting is the mix of 'originals' and second and third generations of legacy heroes.

redstatecap said:

b) it makes it too much Invaders and too little Avengers.
The current UJ's backstory has gotten a little problematic too.

Err... but we´re talking about the Invaders, so they have to be 'too much' Invaders. And UJ´s origin is one of my favourites stories from the Stern/Byrne run, making him a working class hero opposed to UJ (the WWII one) who was a member of UK´s elite was also a great idea Stern had.

redstatecap said:

Add to that the absolutely horrid decision to make UJ and Jackie lovers, which is something best forgotten. Ugh!

RSC

I agree with you here. It was like the writer tought because both are british they must be a couple.

[BigDuke]

I always loved those comics back in the day. Two of my favorite subjects (WWII and Comics) combined into one.

The biggest obstacle to this coming off well is finding the right person to write. Then, when is it set? Is it more WWII or is it set in the modern era, (or modern with flashbacks).

If they did a modern era version, what big evil substitute for the Nazis do they use? To use modern terrorists seems a little too real, hits a little to close to home for current victims, and is not exactly PC enough for the modern world. To contrive some big bad country (Latverian Blitzkreig?) would not have the same background and depth as WWII and would just seem fake.

If we keep the Invaders in WWII we can keep them out of all the goofy crossover series crud that seems to go on all the time and let them just beat up the bad guys. Plus it appeals the the nostalgic side of me, getting to see the old team with the old supporting cast beating up on the old, and maybe some new, villains: Master Man, U-Man, Baron Blood, etc. The represented a real evil. The new Master Man just strikes me as a stupid bigot.

[redstatecap]

vonbek said:

But what makes such a team interesting is the mix of 'originals' and second and third generations of legacy heroes.

Having never read the DC book I don't understand where you're coming from.

Err... but we´re talking about the Invaders, so they have to be 'too much' Invaders. And UJ´s origin is one of my favourites stories from the Stern/Byrne run, making him a working class hero opposed to UJ (the WWII one) who was a member of UK´s elite was also a great idea Stern had.

Let's say you were starting up a modern day Invaders, like New Invaders, only good. Then of course you would want everyone, including the third UJ.
But the idea here is not to restart the Invaders per se, at least initially. The idea is to play with Invaders dymamics and themes within (and against) the Avengers. In this case it's not necessary to have all the Invaders, and it's even counterproductive because there are too few Avengers to play off of if you pack the team with Invaders.
Joey (UJ III) doesn't fit this theme because he wasn't an Invader and has none of the shared experience that bond the Invaders tightly. He would be something of a fifth wheel on a team with 4 original Invaders and two veteran Avengers.

I agree with you here. It was like the writer thought because both are british they must be a couple.

Or something like that. I read a couple of the other Spitfire appearances where they just butchered the characterization.

RSC

[von Bek]

redstatecap said:

vonbek said:

But what makes such a team interesting is the mix of 'originals' and second and third generations of legacy heroes.

Having never read the DC book I don't understand where you're coming from.

I strongly recommend DC´s JSA if you´re a fan of Golden Age comics and characters (or if you´re just a fan of good superheroes tales). Johns sucked in Avengers, but many of his DC´s books are great.

redstatecap said:

Let's say you were starting up a modern day Invaders, like New Invaders, only good. Then of course you would want everyone, including the third UJ.
But the idea here is not to restart the Invaders per se, at least initially. The idea is to play with Invaders dymamics and themes within (and against) the Avengers. In this case it's not necessary to have all the Invaders, and it's even counterproductive because there are too few Avengers to play off of if you pack the team with Invaders.
Joey (UJ III) doesn't fit this theme because he wasn't an Invader and has none of the shared experience that bond the Invaders tightly. He would be something of a fifth wheel on a team with 4 original Invaders and two veteran Avengers.

If you ever read DC´s JSA you will see that 3 or 4 original members don´t make the new ones redundant. And even the 'Avengers' that could make a good character interation with the Invaders have to be the 2^nd and 3^rd stringers. Except for Cap, any Invader will be eclipsed by Iron Man or Thor.

redstatecap said:

I agree with you here. It was like the writer thought because both are british they must be a couple.

Or something like that. I read a couple of the other Spitfire appearances where they just butchered the characterization.

RSC

Marvel had a great chance to launch a good book but instead went with Chuck Austen reintroducing them in the MU as a right wing organisation and the crap that was New Invaders.

[jkemble]

Yes, original kicks ass.
but I would want to see a modern take (maybe like I said above...)
mini-series would be okay, but I want ongoing!

[Shiryu]

Funny enough, I happened to read yesterday the issue where Cap fights Baron Blood again and the third Union Jack is introduced, so I'd like to see him in an Invaders book.
He could be a bit like Justice in the early issues of Avengers V3, gradually building up his skills and personality next to some living legends like Cap and Namor, and also being a bit "Hawkeye" like, due to what looked like a somewhat arrogant personality.
I don't think he could be a love interest for Spitfire though, unless things have been retconned, she should be way older than him.

[redstatecap]

shiryu said:

Funny enough, I happened to read yesterday the issue where Cap fights Baron Blood again and the third Union Jack is introduced, so I'd like to see him in an Invaders book.
He could be a bit like Justice in the early issues of Avengers V3, gradually building up his skills and personality next to some living legends like Cap and Namor, and also being a bit "Hawkeye" like, due to what looked like a somewhat arrogant personality.
I don't think he could be a love interest for Spitfire though, unless things have been retconned, she should be way older than him.

CA #253-254 may be the finest comics I've ever read. That was a fantastic two-issue arc.
Joey did come off like a bit of a prick, which is fine with me.
Unfortunately, the writer of New Invaders did hook up Joey and Jacqueline. That was just ridiculous -- a horrible idea.

RSC

[von Bek]

Thanks to another blood transfusion from the Torch Jacqueline looks like she´s 25 (or around that age), but making she and UJ a couple was a mistake.

[The Night Phantom]

redstatecap said:

But the idea here is not to restart the Invaders per se, at least initially. The idea is to play with Invaders dymamics and themes within (and against) the Avengers. In this case it's not necessary to have all the Invaders, and it's even counterproductive because there are too few Avengers to play off of if you pack the team with Invaders.
Joey (UJ III) doesn't fit this theme because he wasn't an Invader and has none of the shared experience that bond the Invaders tightly. He would be something of a fifth wheel on a team with 4 original Invaders and two veteran Avengers.

In capable hands, this could be an interesting part of the dynamic—the relative newcomer who’s neither fish nor fowl, trying to fit into both worlds.

vonbek said:

I would like to see a concept similar to DC´s JSA. A legacy book with a mix of 'originals' and second (or third) generation of heroes. The originals would be of course Cap, Jim Hammond, Namor and Spitfire. Quicksilver could be a great member (remember when he tought he was the son of the Whizzer and Ms. America?). Maybe a new Black Marvel, Red Raven or Nightraven. And the working class Union Jack (but not as Spitfire´s boyfriend/love interest).

Your concept could be interesting, but how about a brand-new team that incorporates some ex-Invaders? Not a return of the Invaders, not an infusion of Invaders into an existing team, but just a new “legacy legion”? I like the Invaders concept but I associate it with a specific historic context, and it could be refreshing to see a revitalization that nevertheless isn’t afraid to break with the past by leaving the old name behind and moving forward altogether with “old fogies” and younger characters alike.

[redstatecap]

nightphantom said:

In capable hands, this could be an interesting part of the dynamic—the relative newcomer who’s neither fish nor fowl, trying to fit into both worlds.

I'll have to agree to disagree here.

Your concept could be interesting, but how about a brand-new team that incorporates some ex-Invaders? Not a return of the Invaders, not an infusion of Invaders into an existing team, but just a new “legacy legion”? I like the Invaders concept but I associate it with a specific historic context, and it could be refreshing to see a revitalization that nevertheless isn’t afraid to break with the past by leaving the old name behind and moving forward altogether with “old fogies” and younger characters alike.

It's hard for me to see for the following reasons:
1) Outside of Cap and perhaps Namor, the Invaders are relative unknowns to today's audience. The older fans know and love them, but the rest just don't know the characters and the dynamics. As I see it, asking a group of (mostly) unknowns to carry a title and develop dynamics with some newer (and probably better-known) characters is asking a lot. My thought on that is; you need to re-introduce the original Invaders more or less as a whole, re-educate the fans on what they were as characters and a team, and then use them to play off of better-known "modern" characters.
(I must digress here: A good example of how to not succeed is "New Invaders."
First, Jacobsen got the characters and dynamics of the originals horribly, horribly wrong.
Second, he put them in a book with a few "modern" third-stringers, evidently expecting that he could develop interesting dynamics beween characters that few today know (the Invaders) or care about (USAgent, etc.)
Add to that the absolutely crippling absence of Captain America, who alone among all these could carry a title. Simply put, an Invaders title should not have been green-lighted without Cap.
I believe that this was a recipe for failure from the start, and it was proven when the series was axed after a mere 10 issues. End of digression.)
2) Marvel editorial has unfortunately developed a fixation on demanding that Johnny Storm be the only Torch in the MU. That means that the Torch (Hammond) and Toro (currently dead) are problematic to include as they should be included. I happen to think that comic readers are smart enough to grasp the concept that there are at least two distinct Torches. But Marvel does not and therefore you get the stupid powers change that the Torch (Hammond) was subjected to in "New Invaders."
3) An Invaders-themed team without Cap is (IMO) doomed to failure. On the other hand, an "Invaders-themed" team that does have Cap, but not enough other Invaders, isn't much of an Invaders-themed team any more. Say you had Cap and Namor plus a grab-bag of younger characters (you pick). Well, is there really enough of the Invaders dynamic left to make it worthwhile? Is there anything to really differentiate that from your average Avengers roster? IMO, you absolutely have to have the surviving original members (Cap, Spitfire, Namor, and the Torch) or else there is just no point.

RSC

[The Night Phantom]

redstatecap said:

Your concept could be interesting, but how about a brand-new team that incorporates some ex-Invaders? Not a return of the Invaders, not an infusion of Invaders into an existing team, but just a new “legacy legion”? I like the Invaders concept but I associate it with a specific historic context, and it could be refreshing to see a revitalization that nevertheless isn’t afraid to break with the past by leaving the old name behind and moving forward altogether with “old fogies” and younger characters alike.

It's hard for me to see for the following reasons:
1) Outside of Cap and perhaps Namor, the Invaders are relative unknowns to today's audience. The older fans know and love them, but the rest just don't know the characters and the dynamics. As I see it, asking a group of (mostly) unknowns to carry a title and develop dynamics with some newer (and probably better-known) characters is asking a lot. My thought on that is; you need to re-introduce the original Invaders more or less as a whole, re-educate the fans on what they were as characters and a team, and then use them to play off of better-known "modern" characters.
(I must digress here: A good example of how to not succeed is "New Invaders."
First, Jacobsen got the characters and dynamics of the originals horribly, horribly wrong.
Second, he put them in a book with a few "modern" third-stringers, evidently expecting that he could develop interesting dynamics beween characters that few today know (the Invaders) or care about (USAgent, etc.)
Add to that the absolutely crippling absence of Captain America, who alone among all these could carry a title. Simply put, an Invaders title should not have been green-lighted without Cap.
I believe that this was a recipe for failure from the start, and it was proven when the series was axed after a mere 10 issues. End of digression.)
2) Marvel editorial has unfortunately developed a fixation on demanding that Johnny Storm be the only Torch in the MU. That means that the Torch (Hammond) and Toro (currently dead) are problematic to include as they should be included. I happen to think that comic readers are smart enough to grasp the concept that there are at least two distinct Torches. But Marvel does not and therefore you get the stupid powers change that the Torch (Hammond) was subjected to in "New Invaders."
3) An Invaders-themed team without Cap is (IMO) doomed to failure. On the other hand, an "Invaders-themed" team that does have Cap, but not enough other Invaders, isn't much of an Invaders-themed team any more. Say you had Cap and Namor plus a grab-bag of younger characters (you pick). Well, is there really enough of the Invaders dynamic left to make it worthwhile? Is there anything to really differentiate that from your average Avengers roster? IMO, you absolutely have to have the surviving original members (Cap, Spitfire, Namor, and the Torch) or else there is just no point.

Thanks for elaborating!

While you didn’t say it outright, I think one of the reasons for your dissenting take on my suggestion would be that you are much more attached than I am to the concept of relaunching the Invaders team per se—your earlier posts in this topic relate a plan of building to such a relaunch—whereas I was suggesting specifically not going in that direction but just branching off it. So, it would appear my suggestions and yours have incompatible goals. (That said, I’m not actually opposed to a relaunch.)

I appreciate the thought you’ve put into editorial and marketing realities, which I did not give much consideration to. Even without the rebuilding of the Invaders name and mindshare, probably a new comic with “Invaders” in the title would, all other things being equal, stand a better chance today than one with a brand-new name. And even the “Invaders” name might need some buildup first—so, some good points!

Regarding the Human Torches—I never had trouble distinguishing between the characters, but when Jim Hammond was revived in Avengers West Coast, I had something akin to a spider-sense tingle. My usual sensibilities generally balk at the idea that two or more super-characters within the same fictive universe should share a codename simultaneously on a long-term basis. Maybe it’s an unwritten rule, like the convention that a simple pair of eyeglasses can effectively disguise the most famous superhero on the planet. (I can more easily accept the multiple Green Lanterns of the Green Lantern Corps because, in that context, “Green Lantern” is more a title like “Lieutenant” than an actual name.) But I decided to keep an open mind about the dual Torches. Sadly, Hammond has been underused since then, and when he is used, he’s often going by his civilian identity anyway. Worse, Marvel chooses, as you stated, to change or remove his powers or outright kill him. If Marvel considers the two Torches to be a problem, I wonder Marvel doesn’t just change one’s codename? Alas, even that move would leave me torn, since I respect both characters and their histories. Obviously Hammond’s got the prior claim on the name; but then again, Johnny Storm made it his own when Hammond was absent—and Johnny actually is human! If Marvel were to solve the “problem” by giving a new codename to one character or the other, I imagine it’d be Hammond who’d change, since Johnny Storm is by far the better recognized and more popular of the two. I guess I wouldn’t be entirely satisfied no matter what gets done.

[The Night Phantom]

By the way, RSC, you got a karma point for your post.

I was taking another gander at your earlier musings on including a group of Invaders within the Avengers, and I was wondering if you had thoughts on how that would come about, storywise: would there be a specific drive to recruit ex-Invaders? would the recruitment occur gradually? etc.

[redstatecap]

nightphantom said:

While you didn’t say it outright, I think one of the reasons for your dissenting take on my suggestion would be that you are much more attached than I am to the concept of relaunching the Invaders team per se—your earlier posts in this topic relate a plan of building to such a relaunch—whereas I was suggesting specifically not going in that direction but just branching off it. So, it would appear my suggestions and yours have incompatible goals. (That said, I’m not actually opposed to a relaunch.)

True, my ultimate goal would be to re-launch a WWII Invaders book.
However, to get to the point where a WWII Invaders book could be successful, it is critical to first have the surviving Invaders doing something high-profile in the present day. That means some kind of hybrid Invaders/Avengers book like I'm talking about to re-establish the Invaders in fan-consciousness. Therefore, at least at this first stage there is really no difference in the approaches.
Even once a WWII Invaders book was (hopefully) launched, I would still want a present-day book that focussed on the surviving Invaders in some context. You could then contrast the Invaders as they were with the Invaders as they are.

I appreciate the thought you’ve put into editorial and marketing realities, which I did not give much consideration to. Even without the rebuilding of the Invaders name and mindshare, probably a new comic with “Invaders” in the title would, all other things being equal, stand a better chance today than one with a brand-new name. And even the “Invaders” name might need some buildup first—so, some good points!

Thanks, I wish Marvel would see the light! But then, an Invaders comic needs the right writer above all. I don't think that the "new Marvel" understands that this title can't succeed while being treated as just another superhero comic.

Regarding the Human Torches—I never had trouble distinguishing between the characters, but when Jim Hammond was revived in Avengers West Coast, I had something akin to a spider-sense tingle. My usual sensibilities generally balk at the idea that two or more super-characters within the same fictive universe should share a codename simultaneously on a long-term basis. Maybe it’s an unwritten rule, like the convention that a simple pair of eyeglasses can effectively disguise the most famous superhero on the planet. (I can more easily accept the multiple Green Lanterns of the Green Lantern Corps because, in that context, “Green Lantern” is more a title like “Lieutenant” than an actual name.) But I decided to keep an open mind about the dual Torches. Sadly, Hammond has been underused since then, and when he is used, he’s often going by his civilian identity anyway. Worse, Marvel chooses, as you stated, to change or remove his powers or outright kill him. If Marvel considers the two Torches to be a problem, I wonder Marvel doesn’t just change one’s codename? Alas, even that move would leave me torn, since I respect both characters and their histories. Obviously Hammond’s got the prior claim on the name; but then again, Johnny Storm made it his own when Hammond was absent—and Johnny actually is human! If Marvel were to solve the “problem” by giving a new codename to one character or the other, I imagine it’d be Hammond who’d change, since Johnny Storm is by far the better recognized and more popular of the two. I guess I wouldn’t be entirely satisfied no matter what gets done.

I would still go for the direct approach and not change anything. But it's true, Marvel is just not going to do that. *shrug*

I was taking another gander at your earlier musings on including a group of Invaders within the Avengers, and I was wondering if you had thoughts on how that would come about, storywise: would there be a specific drive to recruit ex-Invaders? would the recruitment occur gradually? etc.

I think that would be fairly easy to handle. I would write it in a sense of having the surviving Invaders "pinch hit" for the Avengers in an emergency, and then make the arrangement official.
Start with the surviving Invaders guest-starring in an Avengers arc, so they are conveniently "on hand." Then create a situation where the Invaders have to get drafted into the Avengers.
For example, say a chunk of a standing Avengers team gets taken out (injured or killed) and there is no time to call up the reserves. Or, a situation could be written where the Avengers simply needed immediate backup (again, no time to call in reserves) and the surviving Invaders are conveniently on hand. Personally, I would prefer the method of the Invaders filling holes in an Avengers roster left by casualties from a fight. That sets up plenty of drama and angst right off the bat.

RSC

[von Bek]

nightphantom said:

I was taking another gander at your earlier musings on including a group of Invaders within the Avengers, and I was wondering if you had thoughts on how that would come about, storywise: would there be a specific drive to recruit ex-Invaders? would the recruitment occur gradually? etc.

I hope you guys don´t mind if I throw my two cents in.
First the Invaders 'big three' are (or had been) Avengers (East or West Coast). So there already is a group of Invaders within the Avengers. And with Spitfire´s connections to Cap and Hammond it would be easy to introduce her to the rest of the team. So we would have the 'heart and soul' of the Invaders within the Avengers.

[von Bek]

redstatecap said:

True, my ultimate goal would be to re-launch a WWII Invaders book.
However, to get to the point where a WWII Invaders book could be successful, it is critical to first have the surviving Invaders doing something high-profile in the present day. That means some kind of hybrid Invaders/Avengers book like I'm talking about to re-establish the Invaders in fan-consciousness. Therefore, at least at this first stage there is really no difference in the approaches.
Even once a WWII Invaders book was (hopefully) launched, I would still want a present-day book that focussed on the surviving Invaders in some context. You could then contrast the Invaders as they were with the Invaders as they are.

Why not have both kind of stories in the same book? We could have story arcs set in the present and others as flashbacks from WWII, attracting both 'classic' readers and new fans willing to give the book a look.

I think that would be fairly easy to handle. I would write it in a sense of having the surviving Invaders "pinch hit" for the Avengers in an emergency, and then make the arrangement official.
Start with the surviving Invaders guest-starring in an Avengers arc, so they are conveniently "on hand." Then create a situation where the Invaders have to get drafted into the Avengers.
For example, say a chunk of a standing Avengers team gets taken out (injured or killed) and there is no time to call up the reserves. Or, a situation could be written where the Avengers simply needed immediate backup (again, no time to call in reserves) and the surviving Invaders are conveniently on hand. Personally, I would prefer the method of the Invaders filling holes in an Avengers roster left by casualties from a fight. That sets up plenty of drama and angst right off the bat.

RSC

Well, that would be Avengers:Dissassembled done right plus Invaders instead of Doctor Strange.

[von Bek]

As for the Human Torch I/Human Torch II debate, DC has two Flashes co-existing without problems in the same timeline...

[redstatecap]

vonbek said:

I hope you guys don´t mind if I throw my two cents in. First the Invaders 'big three' are (or had been) Avengers (East or West Coast). So there already is a group of Invaders within the Avengers. And with Spitfire´s connections to Cap and Hammond it would be easy to introduce her to the rest of the team. So we would have the 'heart and soul' of the Invaders within the Avengers.

That is certainly a good point. Unfortunately, while 3 out of 4 surviving Invaders have already been Avengers, little to nothing has been done with them to utilize the Invaders dynamic together.
This means that all that really has to be done is a)get Spitfire on board and b)get the 4 together on the team at the same time.
Here's how I'd do this:
I'd probably start with Cap and the Torch already Avengers, plus say Hawkeye, Ms. Marvel, Firestar, and two other Avengers to be killed off or incapacitated. Have Spitfire and Namor guest-starring. The two expendable Avengers go down, and Spitfire and Namor join up to save the day. Immediately you get a shift in dynamics as the Invaders become the sudden majority of the team. You could start playing up the Avengers/Invaders differences/conflicts almost immediately.

Why not have both kind of stories in the same book? We could have story arcs set in the present and others as flashbacks from WWII, attracting both 'classic' readers and new fans willing to give the book a look.

You could, BUT in an Avengers title you do still need the Avengers. I believe a run that explored an "Invaders within the Avengers" theme/conflict could still work as the Avengers title, because there are still enough Avengers around (4 to 3). I think the differences/conflicts would make for a great and very interesting dynamic.
However, getting into regular flashbacks makes it essentially an Invaders title, and I'm not sure the Avengers fanbase would accept that, understandably so.

Well, that would be Avengers:Dissassembled done right plus Invaders instead of Doctor Strange.

Yeah, the same thought had crossed my mind.

RSC

[The Night Phantom]

vonbek said:

First the Invaders 'big three' are (or had been) Avengers (East or West Coast). So there already is a group of Invaders within the Avengers.

Right, but I was asking because (as RSC alluded) they’ve never been in the Avengers together, and only Cap is a perennial member (the Torch has been largely disassociated from the team, and Subby tends to be busy with other matters and seldom shows up for Avengers business). So, just having them conveniently show up and serve together could easily seem a lot more contrived than having people like the Wasp, Iron Man, and Ms. Marvel show up and serve together. RSC’s suggestions sound natural to me.

vonbek said:

As for the Human Torch I/Human Torch II debate, DC has two Flashes co-existing without problems in the same timeline...

I wouldn’t say it’s without any problems, for I occasionally am confused or uncertain when one of the Flashes is spoken of without sufficient context. Overall, it works, sure. In the Flashes’ case, it seems that the whole situation is very easily avoided since one of them just took the name for the first time while the other—the original—was still active. Bart could have gone back to “Impulse” or come up with something else.

I might not mind the shared aliases so much if the characters had well-established secondary aliases to distinguish them—kind-of like “Scarlet Speedster” for the Flash, except that also applies to all Flashes. Sometimes this is done with the characters’ real names, but that solution isn’t very colorful, and within a story it may not even be feasible if secret identities are involved.