Avengers by Brian Michael Bendis: What is your verdict?

[XPac]

It's falling because it's not that good. If ten years from now writer X runs NA into the toilet is that proof that the NA formula is rotten and bad? No, it's just that it needs a new writer.

If declining in the sales charts is an indication that a book isn't good, does that mean that Bendis sucess on the charts are an indication that his books are?

[XPac]

No, I don't think that is the issue at all. I know that Bendis is not writing the Avengers... I have been saying that all along. I realize that New Avengers is something different. However, most of Bendis's fans are always going on that they love the Avengers now and that Bendis made them readable... No. They love the New Avengers now, and he made the New Avengers readable (debatable). He is NOT writing the Avengers, and that is my point.

That's always the challenge of trying something new. Readers often do resist change.

Stan Lee did it with the Kooky Quartet. CLarement did it with the all new all difference X-Men. Bendis did it with the New Avengers.

Trying something new doesn't always work... but I think from most objective standards one can argue this did. I'm sure Lee and Clarement got their fair share of criticism for their decisions as well. That's just comes with the territory.

[CyberCoyote]

If declining in the sales charts is an indication that a book isn't good, does that mean that Bendis sucess on the charts are an indication that his books are?

I think this poll is an indication that he's successful. It's pretty much a 50/50 split for and against. But the OP was indicating that it's not a success (MA) because 'traditional Avengers' is a failure as a concept. Just as my counter point doesn't discredit NA directly indicating that his formula IS successful and if someone else failed with it that failure wouldn't reflect on him or the concept.

I still don't like it. But it IS successful as far as sales go. I never said it wasn't. and I agree that MA hasn't been very good..

edited: a better way for me to state it would be 'the current product isn't that good.. meaning the writing/art/product rather than the concept of the team'

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'll sum up by saying that while he'll be remembered as likely the top selling writer for "Avengers", as far as I'm concerned:

1) what he wrote was NOT the Avengers
2) his run should not count as one of the greatest based on story-telling, especially compared to Busiek and Stern and Englehart, but on sales alone.

[Gabe De Los Muertos]

I'll sum up by saying that while he'll be remembered as likely the top selling writer for "Avengers", as far as I'm concerned:

1) what he wrote was NOT the Avengers
2) his run should not count as one of the greatest based on story-telling, especially compared to Busiek and Stern and Englehart, but on sales alone.

How are they not the Avengers?

And how do his stories not compare? I look at Bendis entire run as a one huge story, it looks damn good like that.

[Rev. Calibos]

Walt Simonson's Avengers run?

I love the guy's work and all but his Avengers run hasn't had any impact on me or the book on the whole whatsoever save for a pretty bad line up in transitioning from Stern to Macchio to him.

That run is a particular favorite of mine because it was the new line up (Reed, Sue, Steve, Thor and (snicker!) Gilgamesh, it was art by John Buscema, it was soon after the 300th issue and it was the period that I first started reading comic books.

Looking back impartially it was pretty yawn inducing (after assembling to deal with Inferno and getting Franklin back from Nanny the team then deals with the SuperNova and the Nova Corps) but it was arguably the biggest roster shake up since issue 16.




There's nobody left. The team had broken up. Only Jarvis is there to lock everything up. Cap shows up when the computer sends out an alert and, with no active Avengers to call, starts going through the reservists.

So Cap leads a team comprised of Beast, Falcon, Yellowjacket (still then a criminal) Hercules and the Incredible Hulk against the High Evolutionary.

After this adventure Cap then finds Sue and Reed, Thor and Gilgamesh to deal with Inferno and the behind the scenes machinations of Kang in issue #300 reforming the team at the end of the issue.

Now at the time this was a big deal. For a couple of months the Avengers weren't a team anymore, everyone had quit. To have the team re-form in an anniversary issue and have the assembled team to be as bizzare as that line up, it was a big deal at the time

[strathcona]

I don't agree... as much as I like the Avengers, the X-Men were really more the center piece of the MU for a good long time. The Avengers had a back seat.

X-Men got the cartoons, the X-Men got the movies, and the X-Men got the big high profile summer blockbuster events. And in part that was due to sales. The top selling books get the biggest push... thats just common sense.

But Bendis made the Avengers THE franchise of the Marvel universe. He took the spot previously held by the X-Men... and if the Avengers are able to keep it, I think it's something that Bendis can rightfully be credited for (at least if you're an Avengers guy... X guys might feel differently).

You are still missing my point. I am not talking about the sales, the crossovers, the popularity with fans, the comics, the cartoons, the video games.... I am talking about within the context of the MU.

If Kang came attacking New York, who did the citizens of the MU look to? Not the X-Men, the Avengers. They WERE the biggest and the best in the MU and Bendis has removed that. Maybe he has made them the biggest and the best in the real world, but he had to completely rewrite what the Avengers are in order to do it. He is not writing Avengers comics, he is writing New Avengers comics... they are not the same.

[strathcona]

He's not writing the Avengers lineups as you knew them so this is the type of book where 2nd stringers are the ones that step up and get the spotlight. However they have most of the right elements of an Avengers team such as uniting to fight a common threat, using Quinjets, adding classic and well known Avengers to their ranks (Cap, Iron Man, Clint, Mockingbird, Ms. Marvel), and fight different types of villains, some of which also aren't the typical Avengers villains which is good for variety's sake.

But the Avengers line-ups as I knew them were about the 2nd stringers already. Cap, Thor and Iron Man never got any characterization in the pages of Avengers... it was a book for Hawkeye, Wasp, Hank Pym, Wonder Man, Vision... and then there were all the 3rd stirngers. Bendis has shown disdain for those characters, and therefore disdain for the type of book the Avengers was. He created something new (good for him, more power to him), but it is not the Avengers...

[strathcona]

Bull. Now you're just projecting.

There was a huge thread on this selfsame board decrying how many people thought Wasp being "GREAT leader" was the one significant bad point from Stern's run.

More importantly, few IF ANY writers have carried it. Contrast say Sue's growth from Invisible Girl to Invisible Woman with Jan's and there's no contest.

You'd be hard pressed t find for those of us here to list Jan among the top 3 Avengers leaders. Black Widow is certainly above her, as is Hawkeye and of course Cap. I'd throw in personally Monica and Stark above her as well.

Your opinion. I would say that Wasp is probably in the top 5 along with Cap, Hawkeye, Monica and I guess Iron Man. I definitely think that other writers have continued with the growth that Stern gave to Wasp, and it was only under Austen and Bendis that she was reverted back.

[strathcona]

I for the life of me do not understand the Bendis hate. A lot of these Anti-Bendis fans just make up reasons to hate him so they can try and tear down his Avengers work.

I think I and many others on here have given more than enough reasons for why we don't like his books. We are not making up reasons, we genuinely find fault with his writing. I will admit that I have not read any of his writing before Avengers Disassembled, but based on what I saw there and in the first year of NA (before I dropped it), and the few other times I have given him a chance, I can honestly say that I find him to be one of the weakest writers I have ever read in comics... and I have a lot of comics.

[strathcona]

Just because you don't view them as the Avengers does not mean they aren't the Avengers. You are assigning them arbitrary requirements to disqualify them being an Avengers team. I assume you're doing it to justify your dislike with the writer/direction. Unfortunately, your reasons are as valid as saying that they aren't the Avengers because there are no founding members on the team or because there are no size changing heroes on the team. In other words they're not valid except to you. I have now been collecting the Avengers for over 25 years and I have no problem accepting the current incarnation as being an Avengers team. So who's opinion is correct and who's is wrong? The answer is neither. The Avengers are who ever Marvel deems it to be (even if it includes half the FF). You just need to accept that.

I have made my explainations quite clear on here. This is not an arguement about 'wah wah, Bendis doesn't use my favourite characters'. My point is, he is not writing the book about the same organization that has been under the Avengers name for 40 years. He changed the focus and the basic concepts the book was based on. He is writing a book that would be perfectly fine (except for the poor writing, though that IS my opinion) with a different name... the fact that he hijacked the Avengers name to write this book is the issue. He clearly doesn't get what the book is about (Avengers has not been about having the biggest names ever since #16), and has changed it into something else.

[XPac]

You are still missing my point. I am not talking about the sales, the crossovers, the popularity with fans, the comics, the cartoons, the video games.... I am talking about within the context of the MU.

If Kang came attacking New York, who did the citizens of the MU look to? Not the X-Men, the Avengers. They WERE the biggest and the best in the MU and Bendis has removed that. Maybe he has made them the biggest and the best in the real world, but he had to completely rewrite what the Avengers are in order to do it. He is not writing Avengers comics, he is writing New Avengers comics... they are not the same.

And that's all well and good, but what Bendis did was make something that was true only in the context of the stories a reality.

Its fine to say the Avengers are the big guns, but it's another to actually have the company treat them that way. Now we're having events built around the Avengers. They're the spine of the MU.

And that to me is a worthy legacy for Bendis, if it lasts. He brought them from the undercard and made them the main event.

[Sighphi]

But Bendis made the Avengers THE franchise of the Marvel universe. He took the spot previously held by the X-Men... and if the Avengers are able to keep it, I think it's something that Bendis can rightfully be credited for (at least if you're an Avengers guy... X guys might feel differently).

No.
Unless you are going to tell me Bendis is in control of Marvel Comics the dude did nothing but write.

Marvel deciding to bring the Avengers to the forefront has nothing to do with Bendis. The dude just comes up with the stories.

[psm]

I have made my explainations quite clear on here. This is not an arguement about 'wah wah, Bendis doesn't use my favourite characters'. My point is, he is not writing the book about the same organization that has been under the Avengers name for 40 years. He changed the focus and the basic concepts the book was based on. He is writing a book that would be perfectly fine (except for the poor writing, though that IS my opinion) with a different name... the fact that he hijacked the Avengers name to write this book is the issue. He clearly doesn't get what the book is about (Avengers has not been about having the biggest names ever since #16), and has changed it into something else.

All your explanations do is point out why you don't believe it's an Avengers book. It has no bearing on whether they are the Avengers or not. You rational is just that, a rational. You don't want to accept they're the avengers, fine. Say that. Don't make it an objective statement because it's not. You are not the final judge and you don't hold the criteria of what makes an Avengers book an Avengers book. It's just an opinion and you might be surprised to find out that Bendis's view of the Avengers and what they are about are just as valid as yours.

[giovedi]

I thought it was obvious that we're speaking from our own opinions here...