Avengers by Brian Michael Bendis: What is your verdict?

[strathcona]

My brief experience on these boards, continuity is generally broken down into two sides:

In continuity: Developments I enjoy.


Not in continuity: Developments i don't enjoy.

Ex: "What? Scarlet Witch doesn't remember her kids and she's crazy?"...not in continuity

"What? Bucky survived and has been a Soviet assassin all this time?"...in continuity.

That's not it at all. I would have no problem with what Bendis did with Scarlet Witch, if he had bothered to explain it. Why did she not remember her kids when all previous stories had shown she did remember them. If she was crazy all along, try showing it, not just telling us. Don't just suddenly say, oh yeah, and she has this giant reality warping power, when what she was doing has always been out of her scope... natuarally progress to a point, don't just suddenly be there in order to jam in the story you want.

Bucky actually wasn't a contradiction. Brubaker read the previous stories and made sure what he was writing made sense when read along side with them.

Is that so hard to understand?

The shared universe thing is cool, but my opinion: Story first, continuity second.

I was skimming the Blindspot review thread, when I saw this love fest break out because McCann had read every story Hawkeye was ever featured in. I personally think it's impressive, but does that make it a good comic? Posters said they were willing to give it more of a chance because he'd been so thorough. Is that really half the battle? Drawing within the lines of everyone who has gone before (even though a lot of those previous writers, in fact, did not draw between the lines when creating their stories)?

Just a question.

Now, I can understand that not everyone will share this opinion, but yes, in my mind, if you have done the research and made sure your story fits with everything else, then... yes, you are a better writer. You are taking your plot and molding it around the characters and their continuity. Bendis on the other hand come up with his plot then jams the characters in to fit it. That is bad writing.

The example lobsterj gave above is a perfect example of this. It could be the best written story in the world... but it's not going to work within the context of the MU. I read stories in the MU, because of the continuity and shared history of allthe characters and I love seeing that played with and built upon. If you just want to write any old story, why bother trying to say it takes place in the MU if you aren't going to do the work to make it fit.

I work in a call center (I know, exciting job right), but I have to follow certain rules to do my job correctly. I have tyo answer the calls that come in regarding our products. I can't just have my friends and family cal lme all day long. While I would still be answering the phone, so in the most technical sense, still doing my job... I am not doing what is needed to do the job properly. That is what a writer who doesn't do the proper research is doing. They are technically still writing a comic book story, but they aren't writing it while taking into account the continuity of the MU, so therefore they aren't doing their job correctly, and are putting out subpar material.

[Nomads1]

This is the thing I don't get. Some people are actually praising Bendis for ignoring the one aspect of american comic books that made it unique and which has also been emultated by varuois other forms of media. The soap-operish feel of a shared universe, which moves along in a (addmitidly, more-or-less) unified form. "I don't like having to know what happéned in hundreds of books that came before me." Great. Most of the time, you shouldn't have to. But your writer should. If it bugs you, you can always go read a novel. "There is too much back story for anyone to remember." Wow, fantastic. Lazy writers and lazy readers. What a combination! The fact is (yes, in this case, fact), if you don't, at the very least, respect what came before, what you do is go from Highlander to Highlander II (For those too young to know what I'm talking about, it was two completly different stories which actually only shared the name of the title character, and a vague mention of the past story, before going on to tell a vastly different story which states that everything you knew before was wrong. Believe me. It was utter crap. And the most astonishing was that Sean Connery actually played a part in it.). I tried to find it but couldn't, but another poster mentioned that Bendis New Avengers run reads like a tight closed single story, completly apart from the previous Avengers runs. Good. I actually believe you. Then, why is Bendis writing Avengers (he isn't by the way. At least not in MY OPINION.)? If he disliked so much what the group was about. Why didn't he get Jessica Jones, Echo, Luke Cage, Spiderwoman, The Sentry, Wolverine, and other characters he wanted to write about, and went write "The New Protectors", or The New Hip-Talksters" or whatever? Or why didn't he do what Mark Miller did, when he wanted to write Cap as right-winger A-hole, Stark as a usless promiscuous jerk, Thor as a whackjob, Pym as a frustrated wife-beater, etc, and created a whole new universe in which to do it?
I,m in no way criticizing Bendis as a writer, I am criticizing his fittnes to write Avengers. It was different when it started. Not as good as I wanted, but bearable. After six years, I can't wait to see him go. Will I get my wish anytime soon? Probably not. At least not untill after the big movie. Will whoever comes after him be better? I don't know, but at least it will be different. (And despite what some here may claim, I am not the one afraid of change. I liked most of what came before. Don't like where we are now. Want to move on.) I started a thread about what creative team you would like to see in Avengers, and most of the answers were related to new takes (including mine). Very few people wanted Stern or Busiek back. Names like Hickman, Parker, PAD, DnA, and other poped up quite a few times. (also quite a few interesting sugestions on artists). Am I wrong not liking Bendis Avengers work? No. Are you wrong for liking it? No. However, despite the fact that Bendis most probably will remain, I have the right to voice my displeasue with his run, and share it with liked-minded people (which are not a small and loud minority as you like so much to claim). You don't want to read it?. Your right. Just skip it and move on to the next post (I have to admit that I sometimes do that also).

Peace

PS: These are MY staements, My way of thinking. They are not directed at any specific poster.

[ZooperSaiyan]

Hell no it isn't.
There have been little moments that worked, sure, individual "character pieces" which "popped", but overall its just been pretentious.

The writers will be trying to repair the damage from Osborn's rule, Skrull babies and Siege for years to come
I used to be a fan of alien Empires like Skurlls until invasion made them into the dumbest bunch of cosmic jobbers

thumbs down

don't even get me started on BND

Judging by the memorable Avengers' stories that Bendis has or hasn't written, the answer for me is a definitive "NO."

He started with some great little ideas but in the end shook up the Avengers comicbook brand too much until it became a disorganized mess

[Invisible Poet]

That's not it at all. I would have no problem with what Bendis did with Scarlet Witch, if he had bothered to explain it. Why did she not remember her kids when all previous stories had shown she did remember them. If she was crazy all along, try showing it, not just telling us. Don't just suddenly say, oh yeah, and she has this giant reality warping power, when what she was doing has always been out of her scope... natuarally progress to a point, don't just suddenly be there in order to jam in the story you want.

Bucky actually wasn't a contradiction. Brubaker read the previous stories and made sure what he was writing made sense when read along side with them.

Is that so hard to understand?

No, not so hard to understand.

But an either case it's releasing an old truth an embracing a new one. Bucky was dead until Brubaker, had been dead for a generation (or more) of comicbook readers.
But I partially agree with you, in any other medium, I'd want a better explanation, but comic books lend themselves to these extrapulations.

Ex., I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact wording, but during the "Talk to the Hat", Omar, the fan-interviewer, brought up how Venom ate flesh for a very specific reason, which had been resolved in-continuity. Now here comes Ellis on Thunderbolts, and he's eating flesh as a matter of course without any explanation. Is Ellis' great run on Thunderbolts made void because he didn't specifically sight the reasons for Venom eating flesh again?

Now, I can understand that not everyone will share this opinion, but yes, in my mind, if you have done the research and made sure your story fits with everything else, then... yes, you are a better writer. You are taking your plot and molding it around the characters and their continuity. Bendis on the other hand come up with his plot then jams the characters in to fit it. That is bad writing.

The example lobsterj gave above is a perfect example of this. It could be the best written story in the world... but it's not going to work within the context of the MU. I read stories in the MU, because of the continuity and shared history of allthe characters and I love seeing that played with and built upon. If you just want to write any old story, why bother trying to say it takes place in the MU if you aren't going to do the work to make it fit.

I work in a call center (I know, exciting job right), but I have to follow certain rules to do my job correctly. I have tyo answer the calls that come in regarding our products. I can't just have my friends and family cal lme all day long. While I would still be answering the phone, so in the most technical sense, still doing my job... I am not doing what is needed to do the job properly. That is what a writer who doesn't do the proper research is doing. They are technically still writing a comic book story, but they aren't writing it while taking into account the continuity of the MU, so therefore they aren't doing their job correctly, and are putting out subpar material.

But don't you see? Comicbook writers have been doing this forever. This is there job. You have to. After thirty, forty, fifty years of story. Hell, after five years of stories, you have to, or nothing ever happens. Eventually you run out of relevant things to say, and more importantly, no one changes.

Should continuity be adhered to when possible? Yes. At the expense of story? No. What's the point of everything fitting together perfectly if the stories aren't very good?

[SomeBodyAtCBR]

But don't you see? Comicbook writers have been doing this forever. This is there job. You have to. After thirty, forty, fifty years of story. Hell, after five years of stories, you have to, or nothing ever happens. Eventually you run out of relevant things to say, and more importantly, no one changes.

Should continuity be adhered to when possible? Yes. At the expense of story? No. What's the point of everything fitting together perfectly if the stories aren't very good?

I don't think anyone is saying that continuity should never be changed. I think the problem is the blatant oversight and ignorance that comes when a writer seems to show little caring for the past of the character(s) he/she is writing.

I don't think anyone should state Bendis is a poor writer because he made Wanda go crazy and kill all those mutants. Of course, you'll have people who feel that way. Those are the ones that are valid to ignore. But there's also a good segment of people who aren't upset that he did it, but that he failed to do enough research to fit into the way the prior stories were laid out.

It's not a very strong argument against a writer, IMO. Bendis has much more obvious and grating flaws that fit the criteria for this thread, but I can certainly sympathize. Why shouldn't long-time readers be offended when they aren't shown respect for their loyalty when a writer ignores the past? That fan has invested time and money into those stories just for them to be written off. Of course it's not the best practice to cater mostly to your retentive audience, but that doesn't mean they don't have a valid argument.

[SomeBodyAtCBR]

Of course I can. I'm not spitting in the faces of any writer, I'm telling the truth. There is no way to not contradict someone's story, there's been 70 years of stories. Sometime, someway, someone's story is gonna get stepped on or forgotten. It's just the way comics are being that they exist in a sliding timescale.

Your posted sounded as if no writer takes continuity into consideration. Which would be a direct slap into the face of many writers. Of course some things are going to go through the cracks but that's completely different than someone outright ignoring continuity out of ignorance.

[Corto]

Actually, I never had the feeling that Bendis respects continuity any more or any less than other writers.

What's more, you could even say that he's obsessed with continuity, based on stuff like Illuminati, Secret Invasion or his current New Avengers run.

Also, I fail to see why we're still stuck with the Scarlet Witch argument. Bendis isn't the first one who wrote her as mentally insane.

[Mikey Brown]

What is it with Bendis fans always discarding facts on his writing. Anyways isn't Bendis job to make his plots be coherent and complete instead of using other writers to fill in the details in from previous arcs for him in other stories.

I can do this with a lot of writers actually. Those are not "facts" anyways, there are no "facts" when it comes to opinions.

[Mikey Brown]

You mean Hawkeye the guy who was so opposed to killing he left his wife for failing to stop the death of her rapist but then turned around and wanted to murder Norman Osborn? Yeah Bendis did great work with him. That previous characterization of Hawkeye was just useless continuity that hinders a talent like Bendis.

I have to wonder how everyone who argues against continuity in a shared, serial universe would feel about an excellently written and drawn story where Peter Parker gets up one morning and rapes Aunt May after his morning wheat-cakes.

You think you could be a little bit more over the top here? Actually, I'm sure you can, but THIS is up there...

[Mikey Brown]

Well with Hawkeye there's always been a deep sense of self introspection with the character and the way Jim used previous continuity was pretty neat in that it recapped all the early important bits in Hawkeye's history. If done right it can be used to make the book more accessible by giving a new reader info on Hawkeye's past.

But if a writer just uses past continuity to impress fans that he knows his stuff and doesn't forward the story in any way then that's just a waste.

This is a great point Will. Continuity should be another tool the writers use, not something they should be mandated to do.

[Mikey Brown]

Actually, I never had the feeling that Bendis respects continuity any more or any less than other writers.

What's more, you could even say that he's obsessed with continuity, based on stuff like Illuminati, Secret Invasion or his current New Avengers run.

Also, I fail to see why we're still stuck with the Scarlet Witch argument. Bendis isn't the first one who wrote her as mentally insane.

Good points all around here.

[Mikey Brown]

Your posted sounded as if no writer takes continuity into consideration. Which would be a direct slap into the face of many writers. Of course some things are going to go through the cracks but that's completely different than someone outright ignoring continuity out of ignorance.

No, my post didn't sound like anything, I was very clear about my point, just like many others have been that you've 100% ignored (You know, all those points Alex Dragon made and you tried to say he said something completely different.....even though I asked you several times to back up your statements, only for it to be complete fabrication on your part). Your Bendis hatred is getting ridiculous, I made a very clear point about how some comics are forgotten and you try to dismiss it. And you do hate Bendis no matter how much you try to disguise it. Some day when you take your bias out of the equation, maybe we can have a civil debate. This goes to the rest of you as well.

Just waiting for the "apologist" comment again.......

[Nomads1]

I don't think anyone is saying that continuity should never be changed. I think the problem is the blatant oversight and ignorance that comes when a writer seems to show little caring for the past of the character(s) he/she is writing.

I don't think anyone should state Bendis is a poor writer because he made Wanda go crazy and kill all those mutants. Of course, you'll have people who feel that way. Those are the ones that are valid to ignore. But there's also a good segment of people who aren't upset that he did it, but that he failed to do enough research to fit into the way the prior stories were laid out.

It's not a very strong argument against a writer, IMO. Bendis has much more obvious and grating flaws that fit the criteria for this thread, but I can certainly sympathize. Why shouldn't long-time readers be offended when they aren't shown respect for their loyalty when a writer ignores the past? That fan has invested time and money into those stories just for them to be written off. Of course it's not the best practice to cater mostly to your retentive audience, but that doesn't mean they don't have a valid argument.

Good post.

Peace

[lobsterj]

You think you could be a little bit more over the top here? Actually, I'm sure you can, but THIS is up there...

Gets to the heart of the matter though, doesn't it?

[mistergoodman]

Should continuity be adhered to when possible? Yes. At the expense of story? No. What's the point of everything fitting together perfectly if the stories aren't very good?

Continuity is one of the things people love about comics, and the people who spend the most on comics tend to care the most about continuity. One should strive to tell good stories within existing continuity. People have been doing it for years. Continuity rarely gets in the way of good stories. I think there should be only two reasons for a story to contradict continuity-

1) The author of the story did his/her best, but naturally doesn't have 50 years worth of stories memorized. Google and Wikipedia help, but there's just too much continuity for any single person to keep track of. And there are talented writers who aren't very familiar with comics history who are capable of telling good stories. Editors should help them adhere to continuity as much as possible, but they're only human too. As long as the writer and editor are faithful to the characters and do their best, some mistakes shouldn't be a big deal. But adhering to continuity should generally be a goal.

2) Some earlier stories are mistakes that, if adhered to, would keep current stories from reaching their potential (both artistically and commercially). For example, Captain America 322 established that Cap had never taken a life during all his time fighting in World War II. Now that was just a dumb idea, and one that--if adhered to--would really get in the way of Brubaker's take on the character that has worked so well. Some stories, especially ones that hurt the perception of the character, should be ignored or retconned away.

On the other hand, giving Bucky a completely new origin (as Brubaker did) seemed pretty unneccesary. I don't see why Brubaker couldn't have just revised and extended the origin Bucky already had (as Fabian Nicieza did in Adventures of Captain America). Fans obviously didn't have a big problem with it though. As others have noted, fans are much more accepting of retcons they like than retcons they don't.