Avengers >> View Post
·
Post By
Happy Hogan

In Reply To
Bagheera

Subj: So What?
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:08:59 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Another reply...
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:23:57 am EDT

Previous Post

> ...as far as who is on the team...Bendis hasn't done anything differently than Stan..who wiped the entire original team after 16 issues.

Somewhat.

A) Cap (arguably a founding member) was still on the team.
B) The team still operated out of Avengers Mansion.
C) The team still received funding from the Maria Stark Foundation.
D) The team still employed Jarvis.
E) The book had been out for less than two years so there was no real "status quo" as of yet.
F) Within 10 issues, two more founding members (Hank and Jan) returned to the team.

> I object more to the loss of story and character more than I miss the sign on the lawn that kept Spidey off the team. I can't argue against putting Wolverine on a team that will take Darkhawk or Deathbird. But I can complain that Bendis has failed to make his picks as interesting as just about any grade C hero to ever join. Wolverine, Cage, and Spidey might as well have been fullfilling community service prior to the team being up rooted. They needed a few solid years of adventures as a team to get taken seriously as Avengers.
>
> Basically, I think the book would stink if Bendis were writing a team that had Thor, Cap, Ironman, Beast, Wanda, Yellowjacket, Wasp, and Vision.

Well, I posted a bit on my issues with Bendis on another board about a month back. So with the magic of "cut and paste," I'll recreate it here...

* * *

These are what I perceive to be problem areas:
1) Bendis usually will have a great idea or set-up for each arc, but you can always count on the lack of a serious payoff. I mean, he really seems to have a hard time with the most basic plotting formula: Beginning (introduction, set-up, mood) - he's fantastic; Middle (conflict, obstacles, reaching a goal) - he's sometimes decent, but appears to struggle over what his characters actually need to accomplish; Ending (climax, denoument) - he's absolutely horrid, creating artificial cliffhangers for himself and others to later solve.
2) He tends to finagle his way around past continuity - to suit his needs for the plot or to include characters he likes or exclude characters he doesn't quite like.
3) His use of dialogue is beyond annoying. (Note: Now, initially, I was really drawn to what I perceived to be a very naturalistic way of giving each character a "voice." But the novelty wore off real fast. Especially once I noticed an entire page of dialogue - sometimes only a few sentence fragments - could be devoted to something absolutely asinine.)

* * *

But let me just say this too: Having Spider-Man and Wolverine on the team (especially at the same time) stinks of a sales stunt. And in this fan's opinion, each of them belong on the Avengers about as much as Reed or Sue. And we all know how well that went down...

(In fact, in 1991, there was an Avengers arc - written by Byrne, I believe - that perfectly explained why Spidey would really never "fit in" as an Avenger. And I remember it making a good bit of sense at the time.)




> But let me just say this too: Having Spider-Man and Wolverine on the team (especially at the same time) stinks of a sales stunt. And in this fan's opinion, each of them belong on the Avengers about as much as Reed or Sue. And we all know how well that went down...

Sure it's a sales stunt. So What? It's not as much of a sales stunt and Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman being on the same team. And in a time of diminishing comic book sales. what's wrong with sales gimicks like that?

And for the sake of the whole publishing house franchise, it makes sense to define how your best selling characters relate to each other. That's actually been overdone with Supes and Bats, but with Spider-Man and Wolverine, it's really still reasonably fresh territory.

> (In fact, in 1991, there was an Avengers arc - written by Byrne, I believe - that perfectly explained why Spidey would really never "fit in" as an Avenger. And I remember it making a good bit of sense at the time.)

So what was that reason? From what I've heard, while John Byrne is an outstanding artist, and fairly talented writer, he never really got a good "take" on Spider-Man.


Happy Hogan


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 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