posted
Regarding the New Avengers, I've read quite a few trades of theirs, and enjoyed most of them...but ya know what, they're not really the Avengers. They're who Bendis wanted to play with. Plain and simple, and JQ gave him the go ahead. That's cool, he runs the joint...so be it. I'd actually love to see Bendis back on Daredevil, and give him a Heroes for Hire title to play with his other toys. Cage is great under his direction and I would probabl think about picking up a seeries about him with Bendis writing it.
From: Turn around... | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get what you're saying Dev, but if you're talking from that high corporate angle, than we're getting well beyond DC vs. Marvel. We're getting closer to Time-Warner vs. Disney. Because the go-betweens from Didio to Karen Berger are all people you and I have never heard of.
Marvel releases like 10 titles a month of comic book adaptations of classic stories like the Odyssey, Pride & Prejudice, Blackbeard, etc. Some of them are written by the legendary Roy Thomas. They are a huge part of the Marvel solicits every month. I've never bothered to check one out or discuss them, but it shows Marvel is doing other things.
Marvel also has a kids line, complete with an adaptation of their TV show, Super Squad (or something). Again, I don't know much or care much about it, but it exists.
The only thing Marvel doesn't have is a Vertigo. But even there, they have something: they have the Icon imprint, which is like their own Image Comics. And that has a wide range of genres and themes. It also has some really great comic books: Criminal & Incognito, Powers, Kick-Ass, Casanova, various artsy stuff by David Mack and so forth. Not quite on Vertigo's level but its not trying to be Vertigo.
I'll also (sadly) give you this awful prophecy. One day, someone high up at DC Entertainment will realize the Vertigo books aren't great seller and somehow let the wolves into the Vertigo village--and Didio and the rest will love every second of it. And on that day, Vertigo will die. But hopefully Karen Berger will be snatched up by a smart publisher like IDW or Dynamite or Image or someone, and all of the writers & artists with any sense of loyalty and dignity will follow her and it can continue without the DC logo. Do I want that to happen? Never. Will it? Probably.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do give Marvel props with the novel adaptations. As well as the Stephen King stuff they have been doing...it's definately a step towards better things for them.
From: Turn around... | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the main thing I hope that DC is going to do with the big three (Didio, Johns and Lee) in power now is that one voice will not be pushing one vision. That there will be a mixture of elements from all three.
I too fear for the long term safety of Vertigo, but as long as Berger is there...I don't see that changing any time soon. I thinnk they're afraid of her at this poin t. If/When she ever leaves though, God help us all.
From: Turn around... | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, regarrding the feeble attempt of Marvel to produce a kids line...a handful of comics does not a sub line make.
Marvel had a great idea with the Ultimate Universe, and should have done something like that for kids...a line of their popular heroes in stories (new stories, not just retellings of the stuff we've all read and can actually give our kids to read) that are more age appropriate.
DC could use to do this as well. While they have a wider kids comics selection, it is kinda dissappointing in some ways as well. There is some stuff that is good, but there should be a Justice Leage featuring the big 7 going on that any 7 year old can pick up and read.
I realize that financially it would be near impossible to carry two versions of everything, but an anthology title with rotating features would work for both companies.
From: Turn around... | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I think every single Superman comic produced should be accessible to 7 year old and 45 year olds at the same time. DC is missing the boat in a huge way--the character basically sells himself as part of pop-culture; they just need stories everyone can read.
Superman shouldn't be fighting rapists, fundamentalists and communists.
Talk about years and years of screwing it up.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cobalt Kid: Personally I think every single Superman comic produced should be accessible to 7 year old and 45 year olds at the same time. DC is missing the boat in a huge way--the character basically sells himself as part of pop-culture; they just need stories everyone can read.
Superman shouldn't be fighting rapists, fundamentalists and communists.
Talk about years and years of screwing it up.
They have a book where the hero(ine) is accessible to all ages. She fights madmen and interplanetary villains, not rapists or psychotics. But you don't like what GrayPal are doing with Power Girl.
[ April 22, 2010, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: CJ Taylor ]
From: Denver, CO | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
quote:Originally posted by Cobalt Kid: Personally I think every single Superman comic produced should be accessible to 7 year old and 45 year olds at the same time. DC is missing the boat in a huge way--the character basically sells himself as part of pop-culture; they just need stories everyone can read.
Superman shouldn't be fighting rapists, fundamentalists and communists.
Talk about years and years of screwing it up.
I agree in principle, but I want to point out that I *do* like the edgy political tone of Golden Age Superman, and so I wouldn't want it watered down so you couldn't have that.
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cobalt Kid: Personally I think every single Superman comic produced should be accessible to 7 year old and 45 year olds at the same time. DC is missing the boat in a huge way--the character basically sells himself as part of pop-culture; they just need stories everyone can read.
Superman shouldn't be fighting rapists, fundamentalists and communists.
Talk about years and years of screwing it up.
They have a book where the hero(ine) is accessible to all ages. She fights madmen and interplanetary villains, not rapists or psychotics. But you don't like what GrayPal are doing with Power Girl.
Well, I need it to actually be good too.
quote:Originally posted by Eryk Davis Ester:
quote:Originally posted by Cobalt Kid: Personally I think every single Superman comic produced should be accessible to 7 year old and 45 year olds at the same time. DC is missing the boat in a huge way--the character basically sells himself as part of pop-culture; they just need stories everyone can read.
Superman shouldn't be fighting rapists, fundamentalists and communists.
Talk about years and years of screwing it up.
I agree in principle, but I want to point out that I *do* like the edgy political tone of Golden Age Superman, and so I wouldn't want it watered down so you couldn't have that.
Yeah, and I think a fine balance could be struck.
This conversation actually reminded me of a comment you made a long time ago Eryk about how the Captain Marvel franchise could be the perfect vehicle to capture readers who also liked the Harry Potter franchise. But instead, DC has tried to tie it in further to DC continuity and crossovers and load it with run of the mill superhero tropes.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cobalt Kid: Sometimes I wonder if perhaps fandom gives Bendis too much credit in guiding Marvel.
Based on his workload of the last few years, it's obvious things he wants to do are more likely to get green lit by Joe Q.
You're not exactly disproving the "too much credit" idea, here, Des. Yes, as a very hands-on EiC, Joe Quesada definitely gets ultimate credit or blame for storylines being pushed on the Marvel Universe; that's his job after all!
Bendis is a writer, so it's not technically in his job description. And yet, like Johns (who wasn't an executive 'til recently), Bendis's storylines are the fodder for front-burner storylines and crossovers. Despite what separate things may have been going on in the Marvel U (War of the Hulks, cosmic titles, X-titles), if you ask any observer what Marvel's been all about the past year or so, they'd say "Dark Reign" in a heartbeat. Dark Reign spun off from Secret Invasion and had his New and Dark Avengers titles in the eye of the storm.
Any measure of influence would have to give Bendis high marks as a writer at Marvel. I'd have to say this is the most influence any single writer has had over Marvel's overall direction since the days that Stan Lee wrote about a million books! And Bendis doesn't even have to write very many (as you pointed out) to wield that power! Joe Q saw what Bendis could do with the foundering Avengers franchise saleswise and gave him more and more say in Marvel's overall creative direction.
Whether that makes for "good" comics is in the eye of the beholder. I think it doesn't feel like the Avengers, Dev doesn't and I'm sure lots of others feel the way we do. The X-titles still sell like gangbusters, as always, no matter who's writing them, it seems--does that mean they're any good? I'm sure many are enjoying these books, but I'd also wager that many are following them because they feel they have to in order to keep up with what are essential books to Marvel's current creative direction.
I respect you and any others who are enjoying the Bendis/Quesada era at Marvel, but I'm not. I did pretty much what I said I would when I went to my CBS yesterday: I told my comic book guy to drop every single Marvel book I had on my pull list except for Fantastic Four, Punisher Max and the upcoming Amadeus Cho mini-series Prince of Power. There's a chance I'll buy some of the titles I'm dropping off the shelf here or there, but they're not guaranteed my $4 anymore.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dev Em: Bendis destroyed the Avengers, which did have an effect on the Spider Man books (huge effects), Cap and several others.
Yeah, you can't really underestimate the effect Bendis's stuff had on the rest of the Marvel U. Suddenly, too damn many people knew Spidey's secret identity because of his Avengers affiliation, which I think laid the groundwork for the cheap publicity stunt/travesty that was Spidey's public unmasking during Civil War. (Again, I realize Millar wrote that). Which directly lead to a certain deal with the devil...and everyone knows the rest, I'm sure.
Brubaker's stuff on Cap was pretty insular for a while, too, until Civil War and its aftermath. From what I've read, Bru never intended to kill off Cap until it was "suggested" he do so. Bru did pretty well with it, obviously, but I think the longterm negative effects of this decision have begun to show up as this monumental 'event' (like Spidey's unmasking) was undone a short time ago. I think left untouched and devoid of the sensationalism, Bru's story would have been stronger in the end--though admittedly, the sales probably wouldn't have been as high.
Again, though Bendis didn't write Civil War, it was a natural outgrowth of Bendis's darkening of the Avengers corner, and I'm certain it had his full approval and cooperation.
And as I've said, when Invincible Iron Man started becoming synonomous with Dark Reign, it absolutely obliterated what had been an enjoyable experience for me during the first contained arc.
quote:Originally posted by Cobalt Kid: I hated Avengers Dissessembled. But did it destroy the Avengers? No, not really.
It was the catalyst, but it's what came after that really destroyed the Avengers. As you said Spider-man and Wolverine don't belong. Ever. Being Avengers fundamentally undermines what those two characters stand for. And they are there for one reason only: marketability. That's it. Let's put our two most marketable characters in the Avengers. Period.
Moreover, Bendis changed the team's tone completely to match the kind of stories he was comfortable with telling. The Avengers were serving Bendis, rather than Bendis serving the Avengers. That's just laziness.
So Bendis was interested in writing the kinds of characters he was comfortable writing to serve the kinds of stories he was comfortable writing. Darker, edgier, fringier characters. I can't argue that he's done wonders with Luke Cage, but like Spidey and Wolverine, he just doesn't belong there.
After Disassembled, the gutsier move would've been to create a new team with a new name and launch from there. Leave the Avengers name behind, establish a new thing to take its place, and, like it or not, at least no one could complain that he wasn't telling Avengers stories if he wasn't calling it that.
I know...calling it something else would've been a lot less marketable. Well, in contrast, the Ultimates reinvented the Avengers concept, called it something else and did quite well for itself. So there!
It doesn't matter that Bendis and Quesada may have had a x-year plan to do what their about to do and relaunch Avengers with a more recognizable and classic lineup. The damage has been done. Spidey and Wolverine are still there. And I'm reasonably sure that Bendis will write it mostly the way he is comfortable writing it--which is all wrong for a title calling itself the Avengers!
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Guys, guys, guys. Bendis putting his favorites on the team is something almost every Avengers writer has done including Kurt Busiek, Roger Stern, Steve Englehart and Roy Thomas!
Fact: Marvel fans in the mid-60's thought adding Hawkeye, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch to the line-up was a hugely stupid decision! (My father was one)
Fact: Marvel fans in the late 60's thought adding Black Panther to the line-up was Roy Thomas doing whatever he wanted to do and not keeping it the Avengers.
Ms. Marvel? Namor? Mockingbird? All of these characters were on their own for years and eventually became members.
Do I like Spidey and Wolverine in the Avengers? No. But there is precendent. That entire arguement rings false for me. This is nothing new. This is a tradition in comic books in general.
As for Bendis--again, I think you give him too much credit Lardy. Civil War was Millar's thing and you don't hesitate to rope him into it. Sure, I bet he was at the editorial retreats and said "wow, great idea!". But he can't take credit for it. You compared him to Stan Lee on the previous page--that's way over the top! Bendis certainly doesn't have as much control as Jim Shooter did in the 80's. Or Roy Thomas after Stan.
Bendis has about as much control as Englehardt did in the 70's and Stern did in the 80's. And I admit, that's a lot. But he's not on par with the EiC's.
Saying Bendis is responsible for the Dark Reign stuff in Iron Man is like saying: "Damn you Claremont and your stupid Mutant Massacre! I had to sit through two issues of Thor fighting mutants in the sewers!". Claremont didn't make Walt Simonsin do that--Walt did it himself. Bendis can't be blamed because Matt Fraction figured he could boost sales by participating in Dark Reign. I could see extending the blame to Tom Brevoort or Joe Q, but there's no vicarious liability that extends sideways; it only can go up.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is not the same comic community as the 80's Cobie. Fact is, Bendis' stories did pretty much force writers to pay attention and play along, or else their comics became "not important" to the main Marvel Universe. To say otherwise is naive. Pak got away with the Hulk because he was on another planet, and then came back with a singular mission that meant he (Hulk) wouldn't really give a damn about what was happening to the rest of theswe people...most of whom he wanted to pummell anyway.
Geoff did this as well with BN, but on a lesser scale. Some books participated and got a boost, some did not. It really seemed like more creator choice, but not in a few cases (JLA being one.)
From: Turn around... | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Officer Taylor: Moreover, Bendis changed the team's tone completely to match the kind of stories he was comfortable with telling. The Avengers were serving Bendis, rather than Bendis serving the Avengers. That's just laziness.
So Bendis was interested in writing the kinds of characters he was comfortable writing to serve the kinds of stories he was comfortable writing. Darker, edgier, fringier characters. I can't argue that he's done wonders with Luke Cage, but like Spidey and Wolverine, he just doesn't belong there.
I don't agree with this at all! Every writer does that on every title!
Frank Miller changed the tone of Daredevil completely when he did his run.
Grant Morrison has changed the tone completely on every title he's ever written.
Walt Simonson did the same on Thor. Alan Moore on Swamp Thing? Steve Gerber on...everything he ever touched? Jack Kirby on...everything he ever touched?
Every writer whose ever had a great run on a title that is original and iconic, took chances and changed the tone to meet the stories they wanted to tell.
I know you were a fan of Busiek's Avengers and while I liked it, I have to say that too much of it was mired in nostalgia for the old days. Those days have come and gone though. You have to move forward and take risks. I understand from a subjective viewpoint that what Bendis did is not yours and Dev's cups of tea. But I think your criticisms aren't 100% valid.
Writers cannot be constrainted by this ambiguous sense to adhere to "the spirit of the Avengers", when 50% of the history of the Avengers has not adhered to the original spirit. The Avengers boiled down to its original 16 issues is the blueprint. The rest of the history are just chapters along the way.
I think perhaps thats where Johns differs from so many others and gets at why some of us fans prefer one method to the other. Johns I think feels the need to restore the comic book industry to 1982 and then go from there. Other writers feel the need to just write from their first issue with the notion that everything changes hereafter and then goes from there.
There is a fine line with paying respect to the past. Because where you guys say Johns does that, I say so often he screws it up; his idea of the past is wrong, because the past isn't one consolidated, tangible thing. Green Lantern after #50 in the late 60's is a different Green Lantern from the early Silver Age. If Geoff wants to respect the past, he can't pick and choose what parts to respect. But he does that. So sometimes he gets it right, like with GL. Sometimes he gets it wrong, with Flash and the Legion.
Why even play that game. The past, like I said, is in complete conflict with itself. Thor by Roy Thomas is in total conflict with Thor by Walt Simonson and both took place in the 80's. No writer should feel hamgstrung to "restore" Thor to the glory days of Walt and claim they are respecting the past. It's their duty to move forward and tell the best stories they can and to take risks. Even if it changes the tone.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
If/When she ever leaves though, God help us all.
![[No]](graemlins/shake.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
