> Storytelling often requires shaking up the status quo every once in a while. It's the narrative equivalanet of needing to break a few eggs to make an omlettel
Agreed. Shaking up the staus quo...not necessarily the core concept. Avengers #16 changed the status quo but not the concept. Heroes Reborn radicaly changed the status quo but the core concept wasn't revised (not that it was successful). Hydro base and Avengers West Coast changed the staus quo in interesting ways yet the core concept was consistent. When Busiek expanded on the concept with a more global operation it changed the Avngers' staus quo. In much the same way The Avengers: The Initiative looks similar and I applaud all those efforts, whether executed sucessfully or not. The FF, The X-Men, Spiderman, Captain America, the JLA, The Legion, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc all have had egg breaking radical changes in stauys quo but remianed true to the essence and concept which made them what they were.
I don't think New Avengers was sucessfull on a number of fronts (certainly a finacial sucess though!)because it changed the status quo in a manner which did not remain consistent with the orginal concept as maintained throughout all the teams's incarnations. Start a new book if it's that different is what I'm saying. And if Marvel or Bendis or whomever wanted to capitalize on a brand name, well Defenders could have worked just as well.
The Defenders concept allows folks to be on multiple teams so it could have worked very nicely to use not only Wolverine but Cap and Iron Man as well.
> I think the Avengers needed to be Disassembled and lose they very things which made them the Avengers (really the most "profectional" and sanctioned team in the MU) in order to move the entire MU in the direction it's going now, where the lawless days of the vigilante could be coming to an end.
> And you can't do that with the Defenders.
Difference of opinion. I absolutely do not think the Avengers had to "lose they very things which made them the Avengers". Why? Then they are not the Avengers...
A radically transformed Avengers was not necessary for Civil War, the end of unregistered lawless vigilantism, or the new direction MU is heading in. The same end could have been achieved in as interesting a fashion with an internally conflicted Avengers Team or an Avengers team at odds with a Bendis written super team (Defenders)consisting of his current cast. In fact, that's what we've ended up with anyway with Mighty and New New. >
> I don't think New Avengers was sucessfull on a number of fronts (certainly a finacial sucess though!)because it changed the status quo in a manner which did not remain consistent with the orginal concept as maintained throughout all the teams's incarnations. Start a new book if it's that different is what I'm saying. And if Marvel or Bendis or whomever wanted to capitalize on a brand name, well Defenders could have worked just as well.
Well, obviously you have a much higher opinion of the Defenders brand name than I do.
And yes, it did change the status quo. Hence the name "NEW" Avengers. The old team was disassembed, and what we created in NEW Avengers was something NEW. That was kind of the point. And they're probably going back to the older concept in Mighty anyways, so I don't see the big deal.
> > And you can't do that with the Defenders.
Nope. Because the Defenders were already outcasts and vigilantes by nature. That made them poor vehicles for showing the deterioration of the relationship between the hero community and government. The Avengers are at the other end of the spectrum. They symbolize what it means to be heroes... when the government and them are at odds, it actually means something.