|
Post by freedomfighter on May 6, 2013 23:55:31 GMT -5
I haven't read Avengers in years, literally and as such I stopped coming here. Yet after seeing the death of Hank Pym in AOU, I just had to stop by for a second. Look, I hate bendis, no one will be surprised by that. Yet this is bad storytelling by any yardstick. First the actual death scene, evidently Hank is an idiot. He first off, doesn't even try to shrink and evade getting killed or call up a million ants to fly into Logan's nose and ears. Nope, Hank just sits there and gets himself gutted like a fish. And then someone at Marvel will say something like "Hank Pym isn't cool which is why kids don't buy comics with him." And yet his big appearance in your giant crossover consists of him whining to Sue Richards to help "get him off me!" like some kid whose big brother is giving him a wedgie... i mean I would hope he'd put up more of a fight before he gets a Colombian necktie. Imagine what a really good fight scene could've done in terms of amping up the emotion and tension in the sequence before Hank gets killed. Or hell, have Hank somehow realize what he's done and want to die because of it. Just something other than badass wolverine kills because "that's he does and he's the best at it..." Next the timeline chronology...again, suddenly the Hank Pym who couldn't fight Wolverine more than five panels is so instrumental in the marvel universe that everything is thrown into time warped chaos. Either Hank's an ineffectual mort who only messes things up or he's an integral cog in the MU. If I were reading this book without a long history of the characters I would be asking "why does anybody even miss this guy Pym?" If Bendis had portrayed Hank better, made him a more dynamic character then his disappearance would mean something. Bendis didn't so Hank's disappearance doesn't really feel it matters. This isn't just Bendis bashing, this is simple storytelling critique...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 7, 2012 16:24:08 GMT -5
Re: Namor and heirs: this was all covered actually in a plotline in one of Namor's titles: www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/llyronnamor.htmIt appears indeed that he can't conceive children, yet that didn't stop Llyra from a) claiming Namor had a child and b) being a hybrid herself giving birth... Sheesh. However I do recall at least two issues of What If where Sue Storm and Namor married and she did indeed give him children, so who knows if that's a gift from Neptune who is often seen doing nice deeds for Namor in the old Tales of Suspense run. I mean Gods were often associated with fertility... Here's a link to one of the stories: siskoid.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-if-invisible-girl-married-sub.htmlas to his book constantly being cancelled, honestly as long as they approaching subby as a super hero, it will be cancelled. He's a monarch, and a far better example of one than say, Thor. Sub Mariner should be full on Game of Thrones as he tries to annex every other kingdom in the marvel universe. He rules by divine right (Neptune himself gave him his trident) and Namor should feel the need to take over Latveria, Genosha and Wakanda and any other kingdom that might present a threat to his reign. I realize these are land kingdoms, but a) there's plenty of stuff that he can use from the land and b) plenty of wars were fought over who would control oceans and seas, so land could be important to Namor as well... (by the way if some mod wants to split these reponses from the main thread, I wouldn't be opposed at all. I realize this a pretty major thread hijack)
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 6, 2012 21:42:42 GMT -5
Isn't this exactly the logic Byrne used to determine that Namor was a mutant? Since these characteristics are not attributed to either side, they are a mutation. I"m not necessarily crazy about the notion either as it was simply a way to try to capitalize on the mutant craze but I think this was what he was going for. Of course, Namorita somehow had the same ankle wings but a repeated mutation (Banshee/Siryn, Quicksilver/Speed) wouldn't be completely unprecidented either.) Maybe his real mutant power is the ability to defy logic as well as gravity by being able to flap tiny ankle wings and fly with complete control. Ah, yeah-- this is probably a level of comic-geek semantic hairsplitting that could easily qualify us for guest appearances on BIG BANG THEORY. I suppose. . . I suppose we should watch out for that sort of thing as we get older. Looking at it broadly, Namor was born the way he is, so on some level, that does make him a mutation from any genetic norm. Heck, I guess John B even deserves some credit for trying to graft some sort of "normal" explanation (in MU terms) onto Namor's otherwise completely absurd origin. In fact, wasn't JB the guy who removed the ankle-wings in some sort of "accident"? I mean, there's gotta be a point where a serious writer/artist simply can't look the other way any longer. . . BUT-- did he ever show up on Cerebro?? Aha! Defense rests! (Someone call Charles Xavier to the stand. . . ) HB the problem with calling Namor a mutant simply because he isn't like his two progeny is that since there are so few like him, that we don't know if this is the natural result of Atlantean/Human mating. Given that Namora seemed to have the same exact mutation, who is to say it isn't simply what happens when you cross human and Atlantean genes? Also seeing as Namorita was a clone of Namora, it does seem to be ingrained in their DNA that this specialization and modification will occur. So if this is something that happens every time you cross these particular genes, I don't know that that's a mutation... If its his strength, again both Namora and Namorita display incredible strength. As for any other abilities, well don't forget Namor is "chosen" by Neptune and may have some special gifts in that regard. As for the early X-Men appearance, it's actually covered in depth at this website (and no Xavier doesn't use Cerebro to suss out if ol' pointy ears is a mutant, he just decides to...guess. Great use of scientific method, Charley...) www.supermegamonkey.net/chronocomic/entries/uncanny_xmen_6.shtml
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 5, 2012 23:43:29 GMT -5
Yes and no. The majority of the team is currently and has always been Mutants. After Decimation, some of the few de-powered X-Men and associates (Prodigy and Dani Moonstar, to name a few) stuck around as full-time members. The X-Men have always had plenty of human allies - Moira, Stevie Hunter, Charlotte Jones, Dr Kavita Rao, Tom Corsi, etc etc. Some of them have gone off on adventures with those pesky X-Men. When the school was open during Morrison's run, there was at least one human student. Captain Britain and Daytripper/Magik II are both humans, but were technically only members of Excalibur. Oh, and Longshot wasn't a Mutant. He wasn't human either, if that counts. Hunh. I'm sure I'm not the first person ever to bring this up, then, but-- to be a true, active, super-powered X-Man, it would appear that one has to at least have been a congenital mutant-- born Homo Superior, as it were. Or an inhuman alien, like Longshot or Warlock, say (although wasn't there some weak case made for both of them that they were somehow subtle "mutations" from their own respective races-? I think?). I guess otherwise they're just considered a "friend of" or associate? I dunno-- it just seems a bit touchy to me. No wonder mutant/human race wars seem to be so easily ignited. There's an inherent exclusivity in the very supergroup whose mission is to make the world safe for the co-existence of both groups. . . Of course, Uncanny Avengers may be exactly a way in which to address that-- so I should probably keep a bit more of an open mind. . . in spite of the obvious, cynical sales play. . . yeesh. . . HB There was a very good reason for the X-Men to be all mutants- it made the book stand out. Forgetting the fact that it's primarily supposed to be a school and not a super hero hangout, the concept works better when it is all mutants who can't ever fit into society and it can work as an allegory for racism or homosexuality or whatever it needs to be to readers. Yeah it does seem to be a bit ridiculous that they never tried to integrate the team, but being able to touch on that whole alienation worked pretty well in terms of sales for a real long time. Also as an aside, I don't know why Marvel persists in calling Namor a mutant. He's a hybrid, the product of interspecies romance that produces a viable offspring that possesses traits from both progenitors. As far as I've seen, Namor is the most likely result that you get when you mix Atlantean and human DNA. That's not mutation...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 7, 2012 6:53:41 GMT -5
Hmmm. I don't think so. I just don't buy it. Whilst you can certainly construct such a hypothesis from selective use of details and having a bit of background knowledge about the characters involved I think this is reaching -and quite a way too far. I don't believe this is part of the subtext of the movie. Whilst they could choose to knock up some elaborate plot like this for the second movie I suspect that using the idea of raiding Odin's treasure chest again for yet another movie would be seen as a bit too repetitive (it's already played a key role in three films). I'd like to think that they do actually have more ideas than that. If the Infinity Gauntlet had really had a significant role in their long term plans then I'm sure we'd have been given a better look at it rather than just something that fanatics can dig up if they crawl through a scene in super slow-mo and blow up a tiny bit of the background. That stuff was there for the fans. I've seen stills from Iron Man 3 featuring yet another villain in armor, so don't discount the idea that they will go to the same well more often than not... The tesseract (cosmic cube) has already been used as a plot device in several films as well, and they still have Thor 2 and Cap 2 and IM 3 to build to the Gauntlet/Loki/Odin/Thanos etc. Not saying the post that Shiryu linked to is actually how the plot will turn out, but it would be easy to do so, even if they decided to fit it in after the fact... www.hollywoodgrind.com/iron-patriot-iron-man-3-leaked-pictures/
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 5, 2012 20:51:58 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, I spoke with a client about this. I said Loki never intended to win, but rather he wanted to inspire fear and then turn on his allies, so that he could rule over the mindless sheep who'd be so happy that he saved them they would revere him with a minimum of fuss (attack New York for one day with space aliens is a lot easier than a long prolonged attack...). But there was a missing step in there-namely, how he planned to turn on Thanos- so I couldn't reconcile that theory. But this is elegant in its simplicity...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 2, 2012 16:08:31 GMT -5
Didn't you come into this thread solely to express how Whedon would be a lousy writer on the Avengers comic? So let's recap; you came into the thread to complain about a writer, but then get annoyed when people in greater numbers complain about a different writer? Nope. If you read my post, you would see that I was simply critical of him, citing things that were both Whedons strengths and weaknesses. I wasn't complaining. I simply stating that I didn't think he would work very well on a team comic like the Avengers. Whedon's style is very cinematic with a heavy focus on character and less on plot. This works well with movies, because these things go through several re-writes with several different people. The Astonishing X-Men story in question has notable plot holes and inconsistent story elements. The characters are great, but the four stories of that run are a little sloppy. That doesn't make Whedon a lousy writer. It makes him a writer that focuses more on the cinematic elements of a comic (creating big, splashy scenes) and character development. And no point did I refer to Whedon as lousy and I certainly didn't call him a hack like you did Bendis. Why was this thread even written as an anti-Bendis thread anyways? Why the negativity? Why not have it be called "Joss Whedon should write the Avengers comic" and focus on how cool it would be to have Joss Whedon -- as opposed to the beating of a dead horse that is Bendis bashing? If you read MY post, you'd see I didn't call bendis a hack...I also didn't say you'd say that Whedon was a lousy writer, but rather I was restating that you thought he'd wouldn't be good on Avengers. And if he wouldn't be good, he'd be anywhere between so-so and bad right? And is lousy just another way of saying he'd be mediocre to bad? It's not the worst word to describe someone. It's not awful or terrible, just lousy. And did you not make the point was he wouldn't do a very good job on the Avengers based on his run of X-Men where your critique is that he couldn't tell a story. Pretty much the whole point of writing is to tell a story, so if he's not doing that then he's not doing a very good job of writing, is he? But that's not a complaint?? Whatever. I guess it's not really worth worrying over; after all this isn't the first time we have been on total opposite sides of an issue and likely won't be the last... However I do think you should really pay more attention to the content of both our statements. But if not, that's fine, it's a just a messageboard. I don't get my feelings hurt over something so trivial.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 31, 2012 14:38:21 GMT -5
Isn't this all a little moot? A year from now, Bendis will no longer be on Avengers. You're just shoveling dirt onto his grave. Hey! I have an idea! Let's find ANOTHER way to voice our dislike of Bendis by comparing him to a different writer in a different medium with a cast of characters taken at a different point of their development. You guys hate Bendis. We get it. Didn't you come into this thread solely to express how Whedon would be a lousy writer on the Avengers comic? So let's recap; you came into the thread to complain about a writer, but then get annoyed when people in greater numbers complain about a different writer? Have we done it before? Sure. Have you defended Bendis a number of times before? Yes, you have. If you have ten people in a room and nine of them hate something and one of them likes it, it's not ganging up if the nine people feel free to express their opinion. You've used this tactic more than once, but the difference is no one is telling you can't say nice things about Bendis. You like Bendis. We get it. Doesn't mean I have to stop disliking his work or feeling free to express that, does it?
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 25, 2012 11:55:12 GMT -5
It would be interesting to see if he'd take the team as it is now (Who is it? Storm, Cap, Hawkeye, Quake, other people) or if he'd want to shake it up. And now my brain is thinking "ooh, the possibilities!" Storm is an Avenger? Who is Quake? Is it easier these days to just list the characters who are NOT Avengers? I remember many times looking throught the lists of all the members and the order in which they joined. The nerdy part of me (Which is a big part) enjoys that sort of thing. I don't think a true list is even possible anymore. Anyway, this just shows how out of the loop I am thanks to my Bendis boycott. As for Wheden taking a turn - I guess we can dare to dream but I find it hard to imagine at this point. I would say it would be publicity for the next film but is that even needed? I think the best we could hope for would be a few issues or a limited series but I just don't see him committing himself to a regular book. If it makes you feel better most of the Bendis issues don't follow a majority of the Avengers charter (links to the charter are below) in terms of adhering to the rules and regs set forth, so most of his additions wouldn't be considered full Avengers anyway... www.comic-images.com/details.php?image_id=695&sessionid=258h12vk1h1qoqg3pftb5ndd42www.comic-images.com/details.php?image_id=697&sessionid=258h12vk1h1qoqg3pftb5ndd42
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 24, 2012 12:49:51 GMT -5
With the talk of Bendis being off Avengers this year, and since I'm a bit behind in my current Avengers reading (dang Atomic Comics closing...) has it been decided who's taking over the writing for him? If not... maybe give Whedon a chance to write a story, two-to-three issue arc maybe, just to see how it's received. If it works, and he's interested/has the time, great. If not, then we had a nice guest writer and they move on to someone "in-house." I have to imagine Marvel would drool at the idea of just having the press release about the co-writer/director of the billion dollar Avengers movie taking on the regular title, even for a short stint. However I have to also imagine the billion dollar co-writer/director of the Avengers is going to be getting paid a lot more than a comic company's page rate for his upcoming film projects...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 23, 2012 10:32:18 GMT -5
MARVEL execs---PLEASE convince Joss Whedon to start writing the Avengers comic book! I disagree. Side-stepping the continual Bendis-bashing, I don't think Joss Whedon is really suited to write a team book like the Avengers on a regular basis. The reason I say this is because of his 25.5 run on Astonishing X-Men. The guy is great at character dynamics, pacing, humor, and action -- but where he lacks is proper storytelling. The Astonishing X-Men comic has some great scenes, but some of them are really out of place and inconsistent. His run had major emotional impact, sure, but it also had a some major plotholes that you could ride a giant bullet through. Maybe he's improved? I don't know. I do know that his writing on Avengers was pretty good . . . but screenwriters don't always transition perfectly to comics. Well I didn't find this to be the case at all, but let's argue that you're right. Did you care about the characters in Astonishing? Because pretty much every comic book has plotholes you can fit a planet through. There isn't a single comic out there(or most movies with any fantastic subject material for that matter) that when put through exhaustive plot scrutiny, hold up all that well. People forgive these things when they get other things from a story. Emotional resonance, excitement, a progression from point A to B- and characters who were compelling to read. These are things I thought Whedon did exceptionally well. So even if there are some plot points you don't think he hit, that's your take. Here are points I think he has solidly over Bendis- his stories actually had a progression where things moved solidly and weren't just talking heads for two issues at a time, characters talked like you remembered them and did things that seemed in character; villains were interesting and things flowed with the heroes in real jeopardy. And the real question is, do you think Bendis did a better job of storytelling during his tenure on Avengers? I certainly don't...it often felt like he had one or two moments he wanted to get in a book and would write around that one moment or one line he wanted to get to, no matter how forced or out of character it was.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 23, 2012 9:17:41 GMT -5
I went to San Diego two years ago and usually go to the NYC con, so I've been to a few of the biggies. I personally don't get many autographs, but the ones I do get aren't usually any cost. Most of the time, they charge for photos and autograph those and that's where there's some fee. I also think they tend not to allow people more than two or three books/other items to be signed as it slows the line to a crawl. If you're looking for Stan Lee, then yes I'd expect to pay for the privilege. Someone like Gage, I'd be shocked. I've been at cons where some talent just sit and wait for people to come over and talk to them. Guys like Peter David and Fabian Nicieza who've sold tons of books won't have a steady stream of people. Perez will probably be very busy because people will be commissioning artwork and that will eat up a ton of time. I don't blame him- he can make two or three grand in a day probably just throwing out sketches. A friend paid Michael Golden for some artwork and I'm fairly sure it was a two or three hundred dollar piece- it was a very nice Baron Karza, but man, it didn't take the dude more than a hour, tops. So, artists will be busy making money, everybody will be trying to sell something, but a lot of the talent will have time on their hands. If you look for the big names, expect a long wait...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Mar 19, 2012 22:56:16 GMT -5
Isn't the Hulk still the guy who destroyed most of Vegas (and according to conflicting reports from marvel, killed people)and then when exiled for it, came back and destroyed New York? That guy? How the bloody blue hell can a terrorist like the Hulk, who's probably caused trillions of dollars of destruction and would likely be enemy number one of the United States join any Avengers team? I'm bothered when Marvel does this big events like World War Hulk and then decides to ignore the actual effects of them... Oh and this book has absolutely no reason to exist- Bendis isn't doing a single thing in Avengers Assemble that is so special and particular that merits him writing this other Avengers story.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Feb 29, 2012 12:54:39 GMT -5
Okay, I'm up to issue #50, and I'll go ahead and take the risk of recommending this book to folks. It's wonderfully "Marvel"-ish; it's quirky, but very engagingly written. It's . . . endearing. That seems to be the best way to describe this book. It manages to be unique and original, and yet feels warm and comfortable at the same time. Not at all groundbreaking--- yet not quite like any other book I can think of. I mean, any book where an antagonist (Sergei/the Presence) is re-directed elsewhere to seek confirmation of the fall of the Soviet Union (which he had been out of commission for). . . well, that's a first-rate way to neutralize a foe, is what I'm sayin'-! I'm sorry to see the run coming to an end at issue #60. HB I would've recommended this book without reservation early on. Gruenwald did an interesting trick by taking so many of the stock set pieces of Jim Starlin stories and dropping an earnest Midwestern boy in place of the cosmic heroes like Mar-Vell and Warlock. Quasar was over his head against Thanos, The Stranger and Maelstrom and it showed, but he never gave up. The book was also a who's who of neglected Marvel characters like Jack of Hearts, Moondragon, Makkari, Her/Kismet, Wundarr/Aquarian and generally a fun trip through the Marvel Universe. Then the art got really bad, jumping from one issue to the next with new pencillers and inconsistent styles. A lot of the later issues are forgettable and read like "spacecop" Green Lantern stories from the 80s. Still Quaze's heart always showed through- never forget when he picked up the Ultimate Nullifier and was ready to sacrifice himself during one of Thanos' Infinity storylines. A true hero and I'm glad his "death" during Annihilation was overturned.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Feb 22, 2012 22:44:11 GMT -5
I most definitely saw Rick Jones dressed as Bucky, albeit only for a panel or two, recently in an old comic I read. For the life of me, I can't remember where. It seems like it may have been Marvel Two-in-One, but I'm too lazy to go pull it out of the box at present. It may very well have been in an old Captain America circa, I think, 1968 or '69. It wasn't long after Cap got his own solo book, and right in the midst of that legendary Jim Steranko run (Man, I used to HAVE most of those issues!!!). If I remember right, Rick was really giving it his all-- training, wearing a Bucky-style costume, the works. And Cap was having a dreadful time trying to resolve himself to fully accepting Rick as a new partner/sidekick. I do not remember how it resolved-- but Rick didn't last all too long in that deeply Bucky-centric capacity. But yes, he was indeed a true-blue, traditional sidekick for awhile there. HB darn straight- he was a big time sidekick! And his book tour for his memoir "Sidekick" was a plot point in Peter David's Hulk book for probably two years. Read section 2.4 of his hero history on wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Jones_%28comics%29The actual foreword for Rick's book was published in The Ultimate Hulk anthology as part of the history between Rick and Hulk... www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Hulk-Marvel-Comics/dp/0425165132/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_iSo yes, Rick is Marvel's premier sidekick...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Feb 21, 2012 23:03:17 GMT -5
Well Japan is a different culture, plus most manga have a beginning and end plotted out so they are far more like graphic novels in that sense. You know in two, five or ten years the story will be over. That's kind of what killed Lost for me. I got the impression that they never truly understood their endgame; they just kind of plotted around it to be clever and I still hate that ending today... Most American comics are plotted with no endgame in sight, so this deliberate storytelling style seems almost at odds with the overall plan of making these characters viable for thirty, forty, fifty years and longer as money making properties. For example, in World War Hulk the Hulk just went batsh*t crazy, fought the world, forced the evacuation of New York and pretty much destroyed Manhattan and somehow isn't the biggest terrorist in the world? How, pray tell? It would have been an interesting story if it had been his endgame, his final chapter. But it's not. And it leaves the character completely with little or no viability which is why the original green Hulk is still somewhat obscured especially with the Red Hulk taking on so many of his previous spots in MU books and crossovers. Also I singled out Marvel because writer Paul Jenkins made note of how Marvel was really gearing his work to write "for the trade." If you read this interview you'll see where he says he feels he has a chance to do more of the stories he likes at DC www.newsarama.com/comics/paul-jenkins-stormwatch-new-52-111220.htmlIn any case, no one denies that despite a huge several year period where comic book movies have become a linchpin of movie studios boxoffice plans, the source material, that is the comics they sprang from continually fade into obscurity. I think the density of the storylines and the brusque way comics treat anyone looking for an entry would make the four year old version of me (whose first comic was a Lee/Steranko Captain America, mind you) feel like an unwelcome intruder.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Feb 21, 2012 10:34:32 GMT -5
Below is a link I found very interesting. It talks about how a show like The Sopranos may have done harm to the TV experience by taking away the concept of episodes and making it a long form storytelling device. I find a LOT of parallels, especially to current Marvel philosophy. I find far too many issues where stories are just prelude and don't really tell a story themselves. I am not advocating a return to one and done storytelling issues, but rather that each issue feel like you got twenty odd pages of drama/excitement/human interest. The problem with approaching comics like you would a novel is that the reader controls the novel experience in terms of how much they want to digest, and doesn't control the comic experience in the same terms. In any case, found it interesting, decided to share... www.avclub.com/articles/did-the-sopranos-do-more-harm-than-good-hbo-and-th,69596/
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Feb 10, 2012 23:02:39 GMT -5
Upon further review I do find a lot of the recent links are pretty active (I didn't bother checking the Bendis related stuff because y'know...), but older articles seem to be very hit or miss. try reading most of the stuff on this page for example: www.whiterocketbooks.com/avengers/articles.htmlJust seems like the lights are being shut off in here...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Feb 10, 2012 15:26:41 GMT -5
the main avengers page where all the links are- everything on there is dead. jarvis awards, covers, interviews, everything else is non functional. this board is the only thing that still works. anybody have a clue what happened?
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 30, 2012 22:48:26 GMT -5
Really Humanbelly This whole board has been negative towards everything Marvel has put out. Everybody thinks they know the Avengers better than the people that created them, wrote them, and drew them. If that is true then how come I don't ever hear your names in the comic book companies. When I wasn't posting I read what was posted and stood away cause the whole board has become place of so much hate towards one writer. Guys the writers you loved left Marvel long ago and they ain't coming back so if you don't like today's stories then go back to the silver age, bronze age, cooper age and the 90's cause today's world is not for you. I guess I'm gonna have to defend the Avengers movie from the whole board when I hear someone say it sucks. I love Daredevil and have been talking it up like crazy. I liked Slott's Mighty Avengers and I really like Avengers Academy. So your statements just aren't true. Also to use the argument "you're not writing for Marvel" is a straw man argument. Just because I don't work there doesn't mean I can't criticize. I do after all, help pay their bills and have done so for nearly 40 years. Without guys like me, there wouldn't be a Marvel for guys like you. So keep that in mind. And you know what else I find interesting? Look at this way- Bendis was say, selling 100k copies of Avengers on average, but that's a very small sampling of the potential audience out there, and there are a lot of people who don't like his work (not just on this board, mind you), so maybe, just perhaps we have valid points and by dismissing them with your callous "you old fans suck" attitude does everyone a disservice. As for many of the writers having left Marvel that's true, I suppose, but there are some left like Mark Waid and Peter David and newer guys like Dan Slott and Christos Gage whose work I enjoy. But if your attitude is going to be "like the new Marvel or else,", sorry kid -ain't gonna happen. I will feel free to like what I want. if you don't like that, I don't care and I will not miss you if stop posting.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 27, 2012 22:13:43 GMT -5
The point where Iron Man is saying "oh no" on the page from the annual I was thinking, "is he speaking for all the fans who've grown tired of Bendis and his annoyingly repetitive theme about Wanda..." The sad part is there are ways to make these stories work, there are ways to tell an interesting story about a hero who keeps coming back from the dead and reconcile these story points, but bendis just doesn't bother. Hell Valkyrie is an Avenger now, a shieldmaiden of death, whose powers include knowing when someone is at death's door. A far more interesting story to me would be her and Simon interacting- is he indeed a shade of some sort, or just a different life form and him being afraid of the answer from her as to just what he is exactly. But no, Bendis has to go to the mundane, the most common, trite Philosophy 101 story thread. And also, he really butchers former Force Works character Century as a character as well. It's like he doesn't even bother to read the old stories...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 27, 2012 1:56:43 GMT -5
I went to my local comic shop and re-read the whole thing again at the racks (because I wouldn't buy this book simply for research purposes) and my major problem is the argument bendis makes simply doesn't hold one bit of water. first is the argument that the Avengers as a concept don't work- they'll do more harm than good. By God, how? Yes, Ultron has caused significant damage and loss of life. Thousands? I suppose. So The Avengers disband. Then the Kree come to earth to conquer and everybody dies. So you lost billions because you couldn't reconcile that sometimes good intentions will lead to bad things. Will Simon Williams go back in time and kill Einstein for helping develop nuclear weapons? After all, he was a well intentioned scientist who created something that has become a menace to all life on earth. And it seems as if Simon only wants to get the Avengers. But what of the FF? Didn't they go into the Negative Zone exploring and lead Annihilus and Blastaar to earth? Didn't they find Namor and revive him along with his war with the surface world? Didn't they save Galactus when his galaxy wide genocide could've been halted? Reed Richards has untold trillions of deaths on his head (and don't give me that higher purpose baloney for Galactus. Why is his purpose any more special than any other predator in the universe?). I'm sure if you read deep enough into any superteam's history you'll find that they've caused a lot of harm in addition to their good. But then the alternative is no superheroes or gov't sanctioned heroes who only act when told, which would be an inept group for sure (look at how at odds our current American gov't is. Can you imagine the politicking that would occur i.e. "we can't send the gov't superteam because this is an election year and we don't the president's popularity to rise."). Next Bendis goes back to the well again on his Wanda diatribe... Sigh. I find this so pointless. Any person who reads comics knows its a boring and repetitive plot device that heroes die and come back. It's overused, hackneyed and dull because we all know there's little or no permanence to it. It's often a lame sales tactic that is repealed before the ink is dry on next year's calendar. So once you pull back the curtain on it, the whole coming back to life thing, then what? It would be freaky to die and come back to life, assuredly. yet superheroes do it probably once a year. So are they ALL going to go freakoid nuts every time? It's just done so poorly without any real explanation as to why this particular Wanda related "death" (Hawkeye had the same reaction by the way) has had such long term resonance as opposed to time Simon was touched by the actual real (in Marvel reality anyway) personification of Death which I think happened in an Avengers Annual... So Wonder Man has probably got a dozen deaths under his hat at this point. He's gone to hell in own short lived book, and fought perhaps not THE DEVIL, but a devil but none of that unhinged him. He fought a personification of true evil, in a version of hell, and fought the real personification of death and he was cool with all that, yet Wanda bringing him back from the dead is what does it to him?? That's what drives him over the cliff because she brought him back as pure energy after his ionic atoms were scattered? Okay...then what does Simon think about Goliath/Atlas/Erik Josten? Same exact thing has happened to him TWO OR THREE TIMES!!! He's been scattered to the wind, his ionic energy dissipating and he's seemingly dead. Read it for yourself in his marvel bio. marvel.com/universe/Atlas_%28Erik_Josten%29Did Scarlet Witch bring him back too? Every time? Without knowing it? Now one can say, "oh but the Avengers don't know everything...why would they know about Atlas and why would Simon know?" I dunno, maybe they do research on their villains?? here's what marvel's own wikia says about Josten's reformations: marvel.wikia.com/Erik_Josten_%28Earth-616%29 While attempting to defeat the criminal mastermind Count Nefaria, Atlas was forced to absorb into his body the discharge from Nefaria's ionic bomb. This destabilized Atlas' own ionic energies, causing him to grow uncontrollably and eventually discorporate. It remains to be seen whether this signals the end of Josten's career or the beginning of a new chapter in his life.
Later, however, he was kidnapped and controlled by Count Nefaria, who had found that he could mentally dominate people such as Josten who were powered by ionic energy. Wholly transformed into a being of ionic energy by Nefaria, Josten fought the Avengers and the Thunderbolts before the two teams united to defeat Nefaria. Josten's body was unaccustomed to the stresses that were unleashed by Nefaria's manipulation and was forced to be hospitalized. Josten then became the target of the latest Scourge (a.k.a. Nomad) who was hunting down and killing various members of the Thunderbolts. Josten was forced to fight Scourge, but his powers over-extended, threatening to destroy the immediate area. Scourge helped confine Josten with the help of size-altering Pym Particles, but Josten had perished in the explosion.
However, since Josten was by this time a being comprised of ionic energy, he in fact did not die. His ionic essence was able to seek out Dallas Riordan, contacting her through their mutual love. With Riordan's help, Josten could suffuse her being with his energy, allowing Josten to share her body. When Josten is in control of her body, Riordan appears as a fully-charged ionic being. The part of this that's most important? However, since Josten was by this time a being comprised of ionic energy, he in fact did not die.So Marvel has established this as pretty much canon- that Josten has died in a very similar way to Simon at least twice and come back without thinking he was dead and nobody ever brings it up to Simon Williams? "We've pretty much established that you can't die once you become ionic energy just no longer corporeal able to eventually reform and probably can present a ton of research to prove it, but let's let a guy as strong as Thor stay mad about something..." So The Avengers as a force for good outweigh the relatively low body count that has come out of their worst mistakes (lives saved? Billions. lives lost? Thousands. ) That's pretty much pointless to try and make that argument. And Wanda didn't do anything to Simon that he couldn't do himself and its been established that ionic beings in the marvel universe don't die. So as an editor I would say to BMB "go back and show me why these arguments against your story don't work. If you can come up with good legitimate outs, then write the story. If not, then scrap it, because it currently doesn't hold water..."
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 19, 2012 0:39:35 GMT -5
Which is all fair and reasonable, but I take issue with the notion that it is either/or for everyone re: BMB. What I suspect is that there are a vocal few strongly pro-BMB, and a vocal few strongly anti-BMB, and of the other tens on tens of thousands of Avengers fans and readers (past or present) there is a position somewhere between the two rather than there being only the two stances. Would you be more comfortable with the idea that those who like BMB's writing style aren't likely to find fault with this story? I don't think this particular tale is any worse or better than his usual efforts and those who've liked previous stories wouldn't find any exceptional fault here. And conversely, those who've never liked his work won't find much to change their minds here. My point really is that I don't want to go on simply because I can make a ton of points that really won't matter if you are a fan or a detractor. To the people who really care, these things are going to be what draw them to, or repel them away from the work For example, I could say to someone, if you hated Aaron Sorkin's writing on the West Wing you still might enjoy his screenplay The Social Network because he doesn't do his "Aaron Sorkin" style that is so present in his other work like Sports Night. But if someone hated Sports Night, I wouldn't recommend West Wing because the style is so similar. But that's for someone who comes in with a strong opinion. This leaves a vast number of people who don't feel much either way in their own category welcome to come to the work however they like. But I think anyone with a strong opinion is likely to keep that opinion in the same fashion after reading these stories.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 18, 2012 10:26:02 GMT -5
...But it would be pointless. Those who like BMB's style won't care and those don't already agree with me. I think that is a pretty blinkered and binary view. I think the truth may be somewhere between the two. For you it may be all or nothing, but to make your sweeping generalisation, well that is by default inaccurate without anything to prove otherwise. Take any Avengers writer of any decent length of tenure and I think for most readers there will be a mix of good and bad in differing proportions. For example, Kurt Busiek is probably my favourite Avengers author, yet i still think he had some bum notes in his work. The moment an opinion is so heavily biased against the work of a specific author then the qualities of that work (if there are any) will be overlooked. I think your criticism of Wonder Man's motivations is fair - unless we learn later maybe that he himself is irrational for some additional as-yet undisclosed reason. But only time will tell on that. It was sad to see D-Man used in a way that did not stand up to the best of his past or even the sensitivity of his appearances in the Busiek era. Overall these two Annuals have been unsatisfying to me as a reader who is generally favourable to BMB, and they felt like there was more story that needed to be told, as well as the fact that they should not have broken the story up by months. I'm basing my POV on years of debating the topic on various posts here and other message boards. Whenever I point out various deficiencies in Marvel editorial and basic storytelling, the Bendis supporters would point to his Eisner awards and how great Powers is and how well Avengers was selling. This two annual storyline is a perfect example. If you go online and read reviews, you'll see so many of the opinions are varied but those who love the story point to how interesting it is, for example, to have a superhero "whistleblower" and the other various concepts BMB throws up on the wall during the story. And those who don't like it are bothered by the lack of internal logic, the sudden completely out of character shifts, the lack of resolution, etc. Now one can say there are plenty of clunkers in Busiek's run, just as any other writers, but for the most part, these stories are written well in that as an editor, I wouldn't go in and make a ton of changes. Like the Kulan Gath storyline, the stories just don't resonate with me, but do they reach a conclusion, they remain true to the characters, there's internal logic. To me, that's wholly different than the BMB argument I'm making. Now you may not agree with the argument, which is fine, but it is based primarily on how people appreciate the style of the writer. Those who appreciate Bendis don't mind my criticisms. If they did, then his work wouldn't sell, because they are his stylistic choices. To me they're as obvious as liking certain art styles. So people who like Rob Liefeld for example have already accepted his take on anatomy and backgrounds, etc. and me pointing out what I don't like about them isn't going to change their mind.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 17, 2012 11:05:03 GMT -5
Freedomfighter: could you please summarize for me the second part of Wonder Man and the Revengers´ story on the Avengers annual? What happens with the other Revengers once they are defeated...? You see, I may well be the only one here, but I have a soft spot in my heart for D-Man (on the other hand, it seems pretty obvious to me that Bendis doesn`t care at all for the character). The sad thing is if Bendis were truly creative, he could actually do something with the character. D-Man was shown to have become a little...eccentric living below ground, but I don't think the character was ever shown to be mentally unstable until Bendis starting messing with him in "The Pulse" storyline a few years back. If you're going to introduce mental illness into a character, maybe you should have a nice suitable storyarc for it. Instead he pretty much just threw it out there and then did away with it as a short bit in The Pulse. Compare that with what Peter David did with the Hulk and his history of mental instability, or when the Genis Vell Captain Marvel went insane. In both cases he introduced a story concept and followed it through, fleshed it out, really explored the topic. Bendis just seems to like to touch on topics and then leave them floating- I suppose he feels its more realistic as things don't get resolved in the real world. The problem is, this is heroic fiction, for me this sort of non-resolution just feels incomplete. Many of the best scripted dramas that he lovingly refers to in interviews like the Shield and Breaking Bad have storyarcs that lead the viewer somewhere. Where does Bendis take his characters? They seem to have the same loop everytime. For example the recent Dark Avengers storyline feels like an exact copy of the first, and that feels like the Hood storyline that ran for a year (i.e. lower level threat villain has high aspirations, gains greater powers and assembles teams of villains). To me, three of his dominant storyarcs seem exactly alike. And this latest one with Wonder Man and the Revengers just feels like more wheel spinning. Here's Wonder Man, worrying if he's a ghost (even though it's been long established he's ionic energy and Simon is enough of a scientist to understand that Wanda didn't bring him back to life since you cannot "kill" energy). Now let's just assume all the various times he's been killed by Zemo, the Grandmaster, Thanos, Korvac, et al. didn't register and ONLY Wanda bringing him back seems to have set him off, fine let's just run with that because BMB says so. Since super heroes are a danger what does he do? He assembles a group of mentally unstable heroes/villains and has them attack in midtown Manhattan. So let's recap; to fight the danger that is the Avengers, he assembles villains and mentally unstable heroes and has a fight in midtown Manhattan with hundreds, maybe thousands of ordinary folks in potential danger. Sigh... I could go on about this storyline for ten pages; how each twist and turn should have an editor saying to BMB "huh?" and "how do you plan to take this story to a conclusion that leaves the reader both satisfied with their motivations and wanting more?" But it would be pointless. Those who like BMB's style won't care and those don't already agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 14, 2012 23:33:54 GMT -5
[Sif and Valkyrie on the same team? I dunno about that one, if only because Marvel usually won't let anybody get cut, so having two Asgardian chicks with swords would lead to a lot of "strike you with the flat of my blade" dialogue... (I know Val probably has a spear at this point and I'm thinking that's not much better...). Ha! Actually, I was thinking of it more as a "choose 3 from column A" sort of thing, and hadn't considered the possibility of the two Asgardian warrior lasses serving at the same time. But you got me to thinking about exactly what that scenario could entail. . . and I think there's a LOT of high-voltage dramatic gold to be mined there-! Do we have any idea if Sif and Val get along at all? (Shiryu, you're sort of the Thor-centric guy 'round here, aren't you? Any enlightenment?) My guess would be no-- no way. Thor & Sif have a long, long, long history, and the hearty Asgardians don't strike one as a particularly chaste bunch. Obviously that's been a romantic relationship, at the very least, for many, many years. There's also been mention made relatively recently of at least a pretty serious liaison between Thor & Brunhilde at some point in their past. Surely. . . SURELY that would be the source of considerable friction between these two, yes? And they somehow find themselves on the same team on Midgard, fighting for the benefit of these mortals. Val certainly has some roots (admittedly disjointed ones) sunk in down here, and can be assumed to have a solid sense of commitment and duty. Sif has rarely seemed little more than tolerant of the Midgard situation, and may even be resentful of the responsibility to this team. All it would take is a couple of terse, snappish comments in the midst of a battle, and suddenly you've got a couple of full-powered Asgardians pulling out those swords you're worried about, and going at it toe-to-toe. Friends will do their best to intervene; foes (Lethal Legion? Zodiac? Circus of Crime?) will likely- and wisely- suddenly remember pressing hair and/or dental appointments elsewhere. Oooh, I'm likin' it a lot. . .! That is simply delightful, FF-- it truly is- ;D. Possibly to beef up the female contingent a bit, one could add Emma Frost & Finesse (from Av.Acad.)-? Man, Hawkeye would have to lead from the rear, as it were, with arrows pointed directly at all of their backs. Perhaps one could include Hercules at his gregarious, "give thee the gift of battle!" best, to give Clint a bit of over-the-top support. Heh. HB As I recall, Thor and Brunhilde (Valkyrie) have an intertwined past. Back during the adaptation of the Ring saga, just before Thor battled the Celestials (so figure around Thor 293-299) they were both mortals long ago in the past and they were lovers in the storyline. However lately they've said that the Eye of Odin may have been telling a tall tale... marvel.wikia.com/Thor_%28Thor_Odinson%29As for my team, Finesse would be a perfect addition- thanks for the suggestion! Emma Frost...a good arrogant character but two reasons I'd probably eliminate her 1) Moondragon has been doing the arrogant telepath in a tight bikini thing so much longer without as much attention that I would want to spotlight her. 2) There's been enough cross pollination between the X-Men and Avengers. It's like seeing Derek Jeter on the Red Sox at this point. Just destroys the whole purpose of cheering one team in particular. I like that there are certain delineated "teams." It creates rivalry and those fan moments. We couldn't have Avengers vs. Defenders at this point, virtually every Defender is an Avenger now. The whole leadup to Avengers vs X-Men looks less promising simply because many of the X-team are currently Secret New or Mighty Avengers (Storm, Wolverine, Beast)...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 11, 2012 23:24:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 11, 2012 23:16:57 GMT -5
Actually never read the book, but the Atom never bothered me. At that size he's likely transformed into some sort of subatomic particle and the idea that he attached himself to another subatomic particle in a soundwave never really seemed that far fetched, given that when I was into theoretical physics we were assuming things worked the same but weren't 100% sure... Don't know if I have too much left to help out son of HB. I'm pretty good with basics, but any major revelations in the last twenty years would leave me needing to do some reading. Anyway, trying to go back to the topic thread, I already offered Nova and Vance Astro and Modred. I would also offer up Sunfire- he's connected to the whole Japanese sphere of the MU and he would slightly make up for a horrible lack of Asians in the flagship title of Earth's premier super team. (Do you realize there have been more Asgardian Avengers than superpowered Asians??). Seriously, that's pretty freaking weak... Man, Sunfire's such a jerk, though. Namor looks reasonable and easy-going next to him. But yeah, there's certainly a lack of Asians from Asia isn't there? Might be a little more luck w/ Asian-Americans. . . like Jolt, maybe? Or. . . doesn't Jubilee actually become an Avenger in some alternate future? Hmm. Here's a whole team's-worth of newish additions, then: Cannonball (co-leader) Mockingbird (co-leader) Missing Link Killraven Jolt Deathlok (Luther Manning) Dr. Strange (a bit of a holdover-- but make it really official) It would be nice also to see: Sharon Ventura/Ms. Marvel/She-thing (whatever form she's in right now) Lyja-! That's the Skrull we should get! Sif Valkyrie, on the REAL team. Re-animate poor Jack-of-Hearts Nightcrawler Boy, there are just so many. . . HB Sif and Valkyrie on the same team? I dunno about that one, if only because Marvel usually won't let anybody get cut, so having two Asgardian chicks with swords would lead to a lot of "strike you with the flat of my blade" dialogue... (I know Val probably has a spear at this point and I'm thinking that's not much better...). As for Sunfire, I love arrogant characters and could see him and Quicksilver constantly trying to prove which one of them is more "homo superior." I actually have a lovely idea for a team with Namor, Moondragon, Quicksilver, new recruit Sunfire, a resurrected Dr. Druid, US Agent and poor Hawkeye as leader. I already have a cover idea for the first issue. All the other heroes are standing there with their arms folded, backs to one another out of contempt and Hawkeye is just standing rubbing his temples in frustration. I would read that book voraciously...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 11, 2012 0:14:44 GMT -5
Actually never read the book, but the Atom never bothered me. At that size he's likely transformed into some sort of subatomic particle and the idea that he attached himself to another subatomic particle in a soundwave never really seemed that far fetched, given that when I was into theoretical physics we were assuming things worked the same as they do in the macrouniverse but weren't 100% sure... Don't know if I have too much left to help out son of HB. I'm pretty good with basics, but any major revelations in the last twenty years would leave me needing to do some reading. Anyway, trying to go back to the topic thread, I already offered Nova and Vance Astro and Modred. I would also offer up Sunfire- he's connected to the whole Japanese sphere of the MU and he would slightly make up for a horrible lack of Asians in the flagship title of Earth's premier super team. (Do you realize there have been more Asgardian Avengers than superpowered Asians??). Seriously, that's pretty freaking weak...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 9, 2012 23:47:52 GMT -5
Man, a topic like this is just the kind of stuff that's Sharkar's bread & butter. I surely hope she reads this and then feels compelled to offer her academically-enhanced view. . . ;D And then I'll agree with her, and be able to go to sleep more easily (me & the Toad. . . twin sons of different amphibious mothers-!) While there's no disputing that of course we can't ever really know how superheroes and their ilk could actually operate or exist in a hyper-realistic setting, I don't think that I agree that the attempt to do so as a fictional exercise is necessarily pointless or even dull. I think in that sense it's simply a matter of individual taste. Really, it's nothing more than the ol' magic "What If-?" that is the basis for practically any and every level of fantasy &/or SciFi. I think we've reached the same conclusion on this particular question, though-- that there's not really a true, analogous organization in the real world for the Avengers. . . or really any other SuperTeam. But pointless? Nah-- not at all. By keeping the society as real as possible, and the heroes themselves as human (and flawed and realistic) as possible, it provides a way to tell very human stories in fantastical trappings. Look at many of the best episodes of Buffy-- when you pull the vampire/horror elements out, you discover that the compelling personal stories remain intact and are just as moving. I've always found straight, traditional Sword & Sorcery to be impossible to surrender to because it was, well, completely unrelatable to me on any level. I recognize that there's tremendously good stuff out there, but it simply doesn't hook me in because the level to which it's divorced from any common human experience is too large for me to navigate (I freely admit, the failing may be mine). But these would indeed fall under the heading of "Different Tastes for Different Folks", yes? Ha-! And I have to say, FF, that the ol' Navel-Gazing charge is probably an apt one-- but heck, that's TOTALLY a part of what makes being a devotee of this genre' fun, right? It's almost a requirement, dating clear back to the earliest, earnest "Who's stronger: Underdog or Mighty Mouse?" debates of our youth-! (Well, hopefully it was back in our youth. . . ) Now, where are ya, Shar? You're a lot more coherent about these things than I ever am. . . HB Ah, well I guess I more mean it gets pointless to examine in minutiae the realism of superheroes. For example, as a former physics minor, I find the whole comic universe silly from top to bottom. For example, ever seen a supervillain pull a girder down from a building skeleton? Well how is that possible? In 99% of cases, the girder weighs more than the person pulling it, he would just do a pull up instead of pulling it down. Even with super strength, he needs to obey gravity... Or how about holding a building at one corner and keeping it from falling? The building would just fall anyway. It's not a solid, the component pieces will break down... Or flying faster than sound and talking? Or breathing without external apparatus flying that fast? Or hell just getting radiation poisoning and tumors instead of become spidery or half ton green monster when exposed to too many rads...? So I suppose tackling all of those sorts of things would make comics more realistic, but inherently less fun. As such I just kind of check my understanding of physics at the door so I can enjoy the story. Once I've done that, the idea that "superhero- quasicops" seems okay as anything else... I also think we're confusing resonance with realism. I too am not a big fan of sword and sorcery, but I think these stories appeal to nomadic types who don't want to be tied down, and their world seems so big and unconnected because they want it to be that way; no worries, just a lone guy cutting a swath through women and adventure. The one guy I know who is a big sword and sandal fan is a lifelong bachelor and I think it reflects a lot of who he is that he likes that so. And that resonates with him. But I've enjoyed some far out stuff that didn't fit the genres I like because it tugged the heartstrings in the right way. I grew up in the eighties and saw flicks like Enemy Mine and Starman, both of which should've bored my young self who was looking for Star Wars style entertainment. But they were interesting, scifi stories that were really just disguised stories about family and romance, respectively. I just find in my experience all your really need is to have the characters reach something universal in your story and that's when you mine good emotional stuff. Doesn't have to be realistic to do that. In fact, once you get bogged in those kinds of details, I find you often lose that emotional core. I find that especially true of a lot of current comics. I really don't care when these heroes and villains die these days, unless I have a strong tie to them from years ago. A lot of current comics don't make me feel anything but annoyed.
|
|