Avengers by Brian Michael Bendis: What is your verdict?

[strathcona]

That's an entirely subjective list of peeps there.

When holding up their mainstream-books ( I don't know a thing about their indie-stuff, because I like capes and amazing, unbelievable, incredible, astonishing adventures) and comparing them to Bendis work, I see no-one that sets himself apart as superior in any way...

In fact, I think I even strongly disagree with positioning Parker in the same league as the others you mentioned, he definitely feels like he's still a weak link, untested and un-evolved.
I feel he has yet to produce any work on his own, that truly make me believe he is as talented as the others you mentioned.

And although the writers you listed are all talented, in very different ways, I don't feel they have the universal appeal that many, including myself, want to see.

And Avengers was a very different franchise back when Bendis was placed on the book. Taking over the Avengers now is more like how it was when someone took over X-men from Chris Claremont, or Grant Morrison.

Aka, you can't just stick any ol' ape on the job, you need someone like Joss Whedon, or of a similar well-known, universally appealing and talented writing-skill, in order for the fans to accept the new guy on the block.

I know *I* myself won't settle for Tommy-two-bit-newbie on the Avengers after Bendis inevitably leaves. I want someone stellar!

If the new writer isn't someone impressive, I will drop the book like 10 tons of bricks! And this is something Marvel is, and should be, aware of. Even huge books can and will, lose numbers when the big creators leave.

Ultimates after Millar, JLA without Lee/Johns sold like sh*t, etc etc.

I completely disagree with most of what you said. I don't see why everyone says we have to have a BIG name in order to sell. Doesn't that indicate that people are only buying Avengers now because of Bendis's name, and not the stories he is writing?

I would say that anyone of the writers listed are far, far superior to Bendis IMO (OK, I have only read very little of Aaron's work, and I find it weaker than the others on the list).... and Parker is probably up there with Slott and Gage as Marvel's best bunch of writers.

Why does a writer have to be known or a 'big name' in order to sell a title? Shouldn't their work be the best way to gauge the quality? And, as Telos said, these writers have all shown that they know the characters and the MU much better than Bendis has ever shown. They could write circles around him no matter of their status in the hierarchy of popular writers.

[Nomads1]

Why does a writer have to be known or a 'big name' in order to sell a title? Shouldn't their work be the best way to gauge the quality? And, as Telos said, these writers have all shown that they know the characters and the MU much better than Bendis has ever shown. They could write circles around him no matter of their status in the hierarchy of popular writers.

Unfortunately, my friend, it's the sign of changing times. People no longer read for the characters, they read for the writers, which , as long as they get enough of a big name, no longer have to be so careful with the companies proprieties. Smart self-promoters like Bendis, Millar, Winnick, JMS and other super-stars are the ones who make the most of this trend, and the companies have given in to it (not sure if they had a choice, but I think putting a writer's success in front of the company's intelectual propriety is a pretty dumb move. It's no longer about Cap, Spidey or Thor, it's about super-star writer, critically successful Einser award nominee/winner Blowhard Emeritus). This started with the Image super-stars and has only gotten worse in recent years. It's all part of the celebrity culture. Those who know how to best use it, will get ahead. It's nothing new.

Peace

[Darrell D.]

I think I would rather have a talented writer, rather than some hack on the books. The talent is more important than the character, to me.

[Captain Planet]

Don't get the Bendis hate. I started reading comics in the mid 90's but never avengers.

I just started reading busiek's run and have read all new avengers, and some mighty avengers.

Busiek has some great stories but his style is over dramatic and soap opera-ish.

Bendis' writing is much quicker, more interesting and cuts the waste. Busiek made characters have more distinct personalities though. All in all they both have brought great things to the Avengers.

[Monty_Cristo]

Don't get the Bendis hate. I started reading comics in the mid 90's but never avengers.

I just started reading busiek's run and have read all new avengers, and some mighty avengers.

Busiek has some great stories but his style is over dramatic and soap opera-ish.

Bendis' writing is much quicker, more interesting and cuts the waste. Busiek made characters have more distinct personalities though. All in all they both have brought great things to the Avengers.

this isn't two-party race.

[XPac]

I completely disagree with most of what you said. I don't see why everyone says we have to have a BIG name in order to sell. Doesn't that indicate that people are only buying Avengers now because of Bendis's name, and not the stories he is writing?

I would say that anyone of the writers listed are far, far superior to Bendis IMO (OK, I have only read very little of Aaron's work, and I find it weaker than the others on the list).... and Parker is probably up there with Slott and Gage as Marvel's best bunch of writers.

Why does a writer have to be known or a 'big name' in order to sell a title? Shouldn't their work be the best way to gauge the quality? And, as Telos said, these writers have all shown that they know the characters and the MU much better than Bendis has ever shown. They could write circles around him no matter of their status in the hierarchy of popular writers.

A writers work should be the best way to guage their quality. And that's why a lot of readers today follow writers rather than titles or characters... if you like a writers work, you'll follow that writer to their next project.

And that's how writers develop "big names." Certain readers will follow particular writers because of their previous work... they in effect become a selling point for some readers.

Though I don't completely follow that particular model, I do think it makes perfect sense. You're basing your purchasing purely on the quality of the writer rather than the character... which in theory should get you more consistancy.

[XPac]

Unfortunately, my friend, it's the sign of changing times. People no longer read for the characters, they read for the writers, which , as long as they get enough of a big name, no longer have to be so careful with the companies proprieties. Smart self-promoters like Bendis, Millar, Winnick, JMS and other super-stars are the ones who make the most of this trend, and the companies have given in to it (not sure if they had a choice, but I think putting a writer's success in front of the company's intelectual propriety is a pretty dumb move. It's no longer about Cap, Spidey or Thor, it's about super-star writer, critically successful Einser award nominee/winner Blowhard Emeritus). This started with the Image super-stars and has only gotten worse in recent years. It's all part of the celebrity culture. Those who know how to best use it, will get ahead. It's nothing new.

Peace

I don't think a writers sucess necessarily comes at the expense of putting the companys intellectual properties. There's no reason both can't grow at the same time.

In the case of Bendis and the Avengers, I'd argue the Avengers franchise and Bendis name as a writer both have grown. It's not a contest between them.

[SomeBodyAtCBR]

Don't get the Bendis hate. I started reading comics in the mid 90's but never avengers.

I just started reading busiek's run and have read all new avengers, and some mighty avengers.

Busiek has some great stories but his style is over dramatic and soap opera-ish.

Bendis' writing is much quicker, more interesting and cuts the waste. Busiek made characters have more distinct personalities though. All in all they both have brought great things to the Avengers.

I didn't want to necessarily do this today, but I have to ask if you've ever bought a single issue of Bendis's Avengers or read them in trade? I'm with you -- I found Busiek's work way too over dramatic but Bendis is anything but quick as a writer. Nor does he cut the waste.

[Nomads1]

I don't think a writers sucess necessarily comes at the expense of putting the companys intellectual properties. There's no reason both can't grow at the same time.

Don't mean to be snarky, but tell that to Joey Q when Morrison told him he was going to quit X-Men and go back to DC (I read that it was at a convention, and it wasn't pretty).

As for the characters vs. creators debate. I'm a character guy. Love Stern, read some of his Spider-Man, and what I read was great, however, never was much of a fan of Spidey (don't hate him, but don't like him enough to follow him), so, I didn't start reading Spider-Man simply because he was writing it (nor when PAD, who is another of my favorites did). If a "hack" as another poster put it, although I do find it too strong a term, even for writers I dislike, is writing a character I like, I may give him a chance, before I drop the title. How big a chance, depends on how much I like a character. For exemple, despite far from being my favorite run, I actually mildly enjoyed the first 2 1/2, 3 years of Bendis (the 7 plus years killed it for me). As I've posted elsewhere (maybe even in this thread) somethings I liked, others not so much, but Avengers were my favorites, so I stuck with it in the hopes it got better. It didn't (IMHO, of course), so I eventually dropped it.
However, one of the reasons I don't follow writers, is that I truely don't think that every writer can write everything. Some writers are a better fit with some characters, and a terrible fit for others. Some writers are excellent at writing mystery novels, and terrible at science-fiction, other writers are great at comedy, but suck at writing action, and so on. That's why I don't subscribe to the term hack. I think it's just a matter of placing the right writer with the right character, and the right type of story, of course.

Peace

[Khajit]

Bendis is good when you're New or having just come back into comics without a huge level of knowledge in your head about the characters. He's great at hooking you in at the start. The problem is when you start to like the characters and pickup some back issues or their other series that are in print and realize the characters were butchered. You grow to love the other versions of em and cringe when you realize that the very thing which hooked you into the avengers is (generally speaking since he is and can be entertaining)the worst thing in your collection. It's partly nostalgia filter since nostalgia has the effect of being able to pick from the cream of the crop while ignoring stinkers.

In addition the run went on too long or too widespread because seeing the same writing style just got monotonous and repeated exposure to something gives you more time to pick out it's flaws. Overall he did what he was paid to do and that's hook me into the avengers side of the universe instead of thinking of them as hyped up D-listers. He had a few good story arcs(notice I didn't say event's because he couldn't consistently write all his events great at the same time) I was disappointed that HoM lasted such a short time as I was still freshly back on the comic scene and expecting some sort of long epic like the Age of Apocalypse only to be caught off guard when it was already over.

Bendis is generally good at characterization(wait for me to finish) but usually only when he made the character or (sometimes) when it's a pet character of his. I'm detecting a hint of dislike for spider-man(616) but I cant tell if it's ignorance to how x thing can be interpreted or if it's willful. D-man however we can all tell he hates. In the years to come it might be interesting to find out if editorial was holding him back from giving spidey the D-man treatment. He also has a tendency to screw over characterization even for his own favorites that he's shilling for plot expedience. The Red Hood seemed intelligent enough to pull a Kingsly when things got rough but instead went and did the stuff he specifically founded his little empire on not doing.

Actual plot making skills need work as well since if you screw up the character for the sake of the plot it breaks down the enjoyment of the plot.
Could Bendis have been a great one? Surprisingly i'd say yes but he's been too overworked(imagine if he spent all that time writing multiple avengers books reading up on his characters),needs to take lessons on what an actually deep plot is(possibly also the result of taking on a huge chunk of writing), and needs to learn how to give characters different voices/personalities.

This is a real damned shame too since His Ultimate spider-man work is amazing and probably will be regarded as a classic in the years to come.

Bendis was just out of his element in this one. If he did an avengers solo series i wouldn't mind it since he becomes far better once he's not in a team book.

[Predabot]

Don't mean to be snarky, but tell that to Joey Q when Morrison told him he was going to quit X-Men and go back to DC (I read that it was at a convention, and it wasn't pretty).

Peace

I have to comment on this one, because as I understand it, there are several versions, some entirely speculative and second-hand, about the process in which Morrison left Marvel.

The version I heard first, for instance, was that it was MORRISON that told people he was quitting, at comic-con, without notifying Q, and Q then found out at comic-con and tracked him down, shocked and pissed as he was, and then they got into a heated argument.

I don't think it's fair to spread one version or another, since both creators have in later interviews said they left on decent terms.

[XPac]

Don't mean to be snarky, but tell that to Joey Q when Morrison told him he was going to quit X-Men and go back to DC (I read that it was at a convention, and it wasn't pretty).

I can't comment too much specifically on the Joe Q/Morrison thing since I don't know what happened there.

So I'll just say again that I don't think a superstars artists rise necessarily comes at the expense of the franchise he's writing. Avengers as a franchise has done quite well for itself in recent years.

[ComicsAreForFun]

I never cared for Avengers before Bendis took over. I always felt they were a bit corny and had a lot of characters that werent really what I would consider Earths Mightiest Heroes.

I have generally enojoyed what Bendis has done with the Avengers since he took over. I will admit that he has his faults and some stuff can be a bit boring and some dialouge is off. But for the most part he is a great storyteller with big ideas and good delivery.

The original New Avengers Breakout up to The Trust arc were some of my favorite comics ever. And the New Avengers realunch first arc was great too in my opinion.

[West]

I always felt they were a bit corny and had a lot of characters that werent really what I would consider Earths Mightiest Heroes.

Did you try reading about it instead of judging by appearances? I remember reading early back issues my teacher kept and World trust and a TPB of Busiek's run and they were anything but corny, I was actually surprised at how mature some of the older issues were when I was younger. And just becuse they aren't charicters you don't like or are less interested in doesn't mean you should just dismiss them.

[ComicsAreForFun]

Did you try reading about it instead of judging by appearances? I remember reading early back issues my teacher kept and World trust and a TPB of Busiek's run and they were anything but corny, I was actually surprised at how mature some of the older issues were when I was younger. And just becuse they aren't charicters you don't like or are less interested in doesn't mean you should just dismiss them.

Ive read my fair share. And its not like I hate everything before Bendis. There were some stories i enjoyed. just not the majority.

And i have a problem getting into stories with characters that I dont like.