Avengers >> View Post
·
Post By
CaptKlondike

In Reply To
boham

Subj: Re: Avengers West Coast question
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 02:54:49 am EST
Reply Subj: Avengers West Coast question
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:48:51 am EST (Viewed 1 times)

Previous Post

In this day and time, a 102 book run would be considered VERY successful, imo. However, the addition of a 2nd Avengers book has be wondering: what is the opinion of the board as to why the West Coast Avengers (or Avengers West Coast) comic failed to last any longer than it did? Was it due to the comic crash of the 90's? Did it turn to crap?

I always enjoyed it and will be glad when I can get the last 50 or so books of that title, since I never finished it!

Thanks in advance for the thoughts!

thanks,
boham

> I always enjoyed it and will be glad when I can get the last 50 or so books of that title, since I never finished it!
>
> Thanks in advance for the thoughts!
>
> thanks,
> boham

It my mind the concept of a second team never "failed" per se, just the execution.. The first 60(ish) issues gave some of the best development of my favorite character (Hawkeye) ever... Up and through the Byrne issues, the series seemed to have a passion for the traditional Avengers who weren't the Big 3.. Wanda,Vision,Hank Pym,Wondy, even Tigra.. They all had plotlines and a focus that seemed to treat the characters with a measure of respect. I think where it suffered is when the title (Avengers West Coast) become not only secondary to Avengers East (which was understandable), But Iron Man as well. (which isn't). It seemed to stumble when it came to "..and Tony's up to this this month" continuity. My continuity may be off, but I know It was Rhodey who was actually a founding member, then it when through the armor wars, and (I'm struggling here, not a IronMan fan) other issues, It always seemed like the character (tony Stark) treated his membership like a hobby, and if it isn't important to one of your staples (their one Big 3) Why should it be important to the casual fan.. Thor and Cap are "Avenging" over in the other book.. Then I imagine when the Force Works reimagining happened, it made story line sense to shut them down and reboot.
I think the editorial desicions that drove Steve Englehart away,(I absolutely loved his the Lost in Space-Time storyline) was one strike. John Byrne's strong start(Our first dose of Whack Wanda!!!) and abrupt end, was strike Two. And the last 40 issues or so just blend into mediocrity and crossovers(I do remember the attempt with the Pacific Overlords to create a singular (non Eackos) nemesis was good). Was three.
I absolutely HATED (and still do) the idea that they had to kill Mockingbird in the last issue. It seemed to be such a blatant "end to the West Coast, its history isn't important anymore" storyline decision..

I honestly don't think some characters ever really recovered as Avengers. I know Hawkeye's best Avenging moments (outside of Kurt and George's first arc) since were with the Thunderbolts. Hank Pym had a nice, sane original status quo as "the scietific adventurer" that was revisited nicely in the recent "Beyond" miniseries. but lately he's been on anti depressants and awkwardly written when it comes to any persona (wether its Yellowjacket or any of the others..) The Scarlet Witch/Vision/Wonderman triangle seems to be the White Elephant nobody knows what to do with unless the Beast is around.
So turn to present day.. as Avengers, its easier to write and accept charcters from the 70's/early 80's (Cage, SpiderWoman, Ms Marvel) instead of dealing with favorite charcters who's continuity was beaten up pretty badly by the decisions/ apathy when they were with the Avengers West Coast.

wow. theirs my two cents.. (plus)


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software