Avengers >> View Post
Post By
Happy Hogan 

Location: Northern Virginia
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,427
In Reply To

Subj: I'm not trilled with the idea of a "core 9"
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 03:20:15 am EDT (Viewed 281 times)
Reply Subj: Essential Membership
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:22:08 am EDT (Viewed 376 times)

    The "miss the old avengers" post revealed a few posts I find odd. Some say that the avengers MUST always have the big three of Cap, Thor, and Iron Man. Others assume the team should mostly be the core nine (or close to it) of thor, cap, ironman, hawkeye, pym, wasp, vision, scarlet witch, and wonderman.

Well right of the bat I've never been a big fan of Wonderman.  And the idea I keep seeing from time to time about a "core" of "classic" Avengers reminds me why the series was in a rut for so long.  
Forget about the old core, that group was too cliqueish. (sp?)   With a group like the Avengers, it should not be about the clique, it should be about the mission.   And the next mission, and the mission after that, etc.     When it had that "core group" and only just one or two new members it was just too much of the same old, same old.

One of the reasons that Claremont's X-men were in a rut for so long was that it stopped being a book about the attempt to join mutants with the rest of humanity, and became one that was all about the mutants.   I wouldn't want the Avengers to head down that slippery slope again like they had been doing before  disassembled.

    Though I do say I want at least one or two of the Core nine in my avengers I find it odd how many people discount any other avengers as fake.

    Mind you their are some Avengers whose membership I disagree with or dislike (Sentry, Wolverine, Ares, Moon Knight, Jessica Drew, etc.) But their are any second tier (black knight, she-hulk, hercules) and third tier (Justice, Firebird, Living Lightning) Avengers I enjoy and consider valid Avengers.

    This leads to a few questions I have.

    If you feel the Avengers MUST be composed of the BIG three or the core nine (or a group close to the core nine) why? Do you consider those second and third tier avengers not valid as members or not fitting the avengers feel?

    Any my other question is what do you consider traits that make someone avengers material?

    What I feel makes a person Avengers Material is the following.

    1. Heroic Acts: The character must act consistantly heroic. This means by both being willing to help, protect, and save others selflessly. And being willing and able to do so while on duty.

    2. Code Against Killing: Yes I took this ones name from a disadvantage in the Champions superhero RPG. An Avengers should be unwilling to kill and only resort to such in only the most extreme and unlikely of circumstances. And even then stooping to that level should be a burden to him and a decision not reached quickly.

    3. Relatively Stable: His mental state should be stable enough to be trusted in a position of power and authority. Sure almost every avenger ever has gone nuts at one time or other, but during his time as an avenger he must prove his stability and reliability in the role.

So why did we end up with characters like Silverclaw, Triathalon, Hellcat, Doctor Driud, D-Man, Moondragon, Jack of Hearts, etc?  The Avengers shouldn't be a roster of characters chosen because they weren't well enough liked to have their own books.   Give me Mockingbird and Spider Woman over those guys.3

The "core" avengers should be the core heroes of the MU.   At this point, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Doctor Strange should be thought of as core MU heroes, as well as all Four member of the FF, and some X-Men.

Posted with Mozilla Firefox 13.0.1 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