Avengers by Brian Michael Bendis: What is your verdict?

[Nomads1]

The fact is, Bendis was a key part of an initiative to change the whole flavour of the Marvel line. To make it more "real World" (whatever that means when you're dealing with gods, people who can flay and lift trucks, etc...). To give it a more independent feel (after all, independent comics are where the real writers are, super-hero comic book writers are shmucks). AS a result, the MU became this huge pot of intrigue, killing, backstabbing, wetworks and black ops, where nobility and true heroism are foreign concepts (hence, exactly like the true world). As with other past concepts (nothing old can be good), the original Avengers concept is stupid. "Earth's mightiest heroes getting together to face enemies no single hero can defeat"? What's the big deal? Boring. Much beter, "some cool and popular heroes get together to eat, talk trash and, occasionally, get of their butts to join huge fights, where other people end up saving the day." Much more "realistic".
(Add a whole lot of overblown sarcasam while reading the sentences above, but the essence is truly felt).
Nowadays, I feel like Marvel is like one of those big Hollywood studios, where suits who know absolutly nothing about story telling come up with these "great" ideas that will sell and editors and writers have to bend backwards to make them happen (And, yes, at least in relation to Avengers, in my book, Bendis is one of the suits).
"You know what would really sell? NINJAS! Everybody loves ninjas! Let's do it!"
or:
"No, I know it. I know it. (See the repetition? That really is how real people talk.) Gangstas! Let's make it happen."
And they put Little Red Ridding Hood with two guns leading a bunch of generic bad guys.

Peace

[Fatguy]

No, sales absolutely do NOT factor into determining whether or not the work of art is artistically worth respecting.

Crap sometimes sells. A lot.

lol that's my point. If "Crap" sells a lot, then dont you have to believe yourself in the minority of thinking its crap?

Right.

So when determining whether or not Bendis' run cuts the mustard, you need to throw the sales figures out.

You are arguing both sides of the debate here.

In your first paragraph, you say 'sales matter.'

In your seocnd paragraph, you say they skew the discussion.

I'm not arguing both sides. Sales dont skew the discussion, I think they're a legitimate way to validate an "Artists" work. Do you think if I was able to buy an original Picasso for $10 today that he would be considered a "Great" artist? No freaking way. I mean, you can argue his art was still great but if at the end of the day nobody cares enough to buy the work, then it's a complete failure. Unless you're only drawing pictures to hang on your fridge for your own amusement.

My point with the Titanic reference was that it was a massive success that saw both commercial success and industry acclaim (Both of which Bendis has achieved). So the argument that Titanic was crap can never truly be won by me, since I can only bring my opinions to the table whereas the Titanic people have numbers and facts to back up its merits. I mean, if it's crap, then why is it so popular?

At some point fans have to realize that "Not my taste" does not equal "Garbage".

[strathcona]

At some point fans have to realize that "Not my taste" does not equal "Garbage".

I do understand what you are saying. But I have been arguing that Bendis is a bad writer since Disassembled came out, and I have backed it up with many reasons why (poor characterization, little to no research, no concern about what other writers are doing, bad continuity, etc). But when presented with these facts Bendis fans are the ones saying, "No, those things you see as 'wrong' are things I am willing to look past". So, if they can look past it, that's great for them, but it doesn't change the fact that there is indeed a problem.

[Fatguy]

I do understand what you are saying. But I have been arguing that Bendis is a bad writer since Disassembled came out, and I have backed it up with many reasons why (poor characterization, little to no research, no concern about what other writers are doing, bad continuity, etc). But when presented with these facts Bendis fans are the ones saying, "No, those things you see as 'wrong' are things I am willing to look past". So, if they can look past it, that's great for them, but it doesn't change the fact that there is indeed a problem.

It's definitely a valid criticism. But it's impossible to point out a single writer working in comics that doesnt have flaws that are easy to point out. At the end of the day, it's balancing strength vs. weakness. Many fans just believe that his strengths outweigh his weaknesses.

By the by, my verdict on Bendis' Avengers has shifted quite a bit over the years. I went from "I really like it!", to "Im enjoying.", to "Ehh its ok", to where I currently sit. Which is "It's readable, but I'm really ready for someone else".

[strathcona]

It's definitely a valid criticism. But it's impossible to point out a single writer working in comics that doesnt have flaws that are easy to point out. At the end of the day, it's balancing strength vs. weakness. Many fans just believe that his strengths outweigh his weaknesses.

I don't think it's really a case of thinking his strengths outweigh his weaknesses (that is a case for his scripting, weak ending... things along those lines), more that they are don't know they are weaknesses (or at least willing to overlook them). Whereas, most people that were reading Avengers books before Bendis came along (but not all) realize that he is making errors and his plots don't make sense.

[Frank]

House of M (with the X-Men's main villain taking over the world, leading to the wipeout of most of the world's mutant population) changed the X books far more than Disassembled did the Avengers. And it was followed up by one crossover event after another in the mutant line.

And the event decimated mutants.

New Avengers didn't cross into World War Hulk (though two issues of Slott's Avengers: The Initiative did). The X-Men got a World War Hulk miniseries. New Avengers skipped House of M too, though seven mutant books had tie-ins.

The X-Men always got some tie-ins but have never been part of the big events themselves except for House of M. Avengers got directly tied with Civil War and Secret Invasion in the main books.

Were they IN Civil War? NOOOOOOOO! The biggest event Marvel had had in the last 15 years. No X-Men.

All X-Men ever had these past years are TIE-INS to big events. They mainly had their own events. I'm not saying their fortune would have not gotten better with Bendis witing them(no doubt the X title did not have stellar writing) but we have never felt a great support to make the X-Men number one at Marvel.

I will say this though, Bendis was big enough to help the sales of the Avengers early on. Marvel knew what they were doing, they put their biggest writer on the book. What the proposal came about it was either Bendis or Millar doing the book. You want X-Men to get better attention? Have a big profile Mark Millar relaunch with Steve McNiven, Bryan Hitch and Ethan Van Sciver.

[Petes12]

I do understand what you are saying. But I have been arguing that Bendis is a bad writer since Disassembled came out, and I have backed it up with many reasons why (poor characterization, little to no research, no concern about what other writers are doing, bad continuity, etc). But when presented with these facts Bendis fans are the ones saying, "No, those things you see as 'wrong' are things I am willing to look past". So, if they can look past it, that's great for them, but it doesn't change the fact that there is indeed a problem.

But you ignore the things that he does well.

[strathcona]

But you ignore the things that he does well.

I have said many times before that my only exposure to him is Avengers and his event books. From those books, I haven't seen him do anything well. He may be good on other titles, but I have seen no reason to go check them out from what I have read.

[Petes12]

I have said many times before that my only exposure to him is Avengers and his event books. From those books, I haven't seen him do anything well. He may be good on other titles, but I have seen no reason to go check them out from what I have read.

well thats partly because you want him to anally respect the past avengers books. one of the things that he does well with avengers books is he makes them very accessible. part of that is also that they're light stories and they read more or less like very modern comics, rather than weighed down with awkward exposition or forced melodrama, which is definitely a problem even today for a lot of writers. And he's very good at using those titles to direct the marvel status quo. Which might seem like nothing because he's writing them, but you have to remember that they plan that stuff out basically as a group at their retreats.

Avengers is also definitely not his best work.

[SomeBodyAtCBR]

well thats partly because you want him to anally respect the past avengers books. one of the things that he does well with avengers books is he makes them very accessible.

Hmmm, where have I heard that false generalization before? There's a difference between the way a writer writes and what he writes. Many people dislike Bendis because of the way he writes content, not because they don't like the content. I don't understand why it's such a hard concept for some people to grasp and lump it together with being upset over nostalgia.

[Corto]

One of the things I like about Bendis' writing is the way his Avengers feel so different than his predecessors. Roger Stern or Kurt Busiek would never write like that. I love Busiek's and Stern's runs, but I find it really refreshing how down-to-earth Bendis' characters are. Even Thor! For example, I love Spidey's reactions. He's seen his fair share of battle, and yet, when he fights alongside the Avengers, he knows he's way over his head. And I feel that's how a super-powered youth would react here. And then you have a guy like Thor who is completely enamored with his godly status and could hit Galactus in the head without blinking. Yet, he's more than willing to chill with the others while watching TV or something.

Oh, and that Hood vs Red Hulk battle was awesome.

And Maria Hill? Badass.

I hope we'll see an omnibus edition of Bendis' run someday. Crossovers and all.

[Hypestyle]

... I see the cover to #14 features.. spoilers
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ms. Marvel, Pulsar and the Protector on the cover-- three heroes with at least some form of claim to the "Captain Marvel" concept-- a bunch of people are running from-- something/one.. who/what could it be?

[strathcona]

well thats partly because you want him to anally respect the past avengers books. one of the things that he does well with avengers books is he makes them very accessible. part of that is also that they're light stories and they read more or less like very modern comics, rather than weighed down with awkward exposition or forced melodrama, which is definitely a problem even today for a lot of writers. And he's very good at using those titles to direct the marvel status quo. Which might seem like nothing because he's writing them, but you have to remember that they plan that stuff out basically as a group at their retreats.

Avengers is also definitely not his best work.

I never said I wanted him to be a slave to continuity. Just to respect it. I will use Disassembled as an example (because it's one of the few full stories I read of his). If your plot depends on a certain thing, like Scarlet Witch not remembering her kids... well, make sure that is what actually happened in continuity. Because if you fudge that major point, then the rest of the story doesn't make sense. That ruins anything else he could do in the story, because the premise of it no longer makes sense. I could care less if he shows a flashback that has Hawkeye in a wrong costume, or anything like that... it's actual plot points or characterizations being wrong that wreck the story. Bendis has shown he doesn't pay enough attention (even to his own stories, if what I heard about the first arc in Mighty Avengers is correct) to be able to write a good story... it may be a fun story... but it's not good.

[Nomads1]

For me, Keith Giffen was the one that said best: "It's not continuity that matters, it's consistency."

Peace

[Petes12]

I never said I wanted him to be a slave to continuity. Just to respect it. I will use Disassembled as an example (because it's one of the few full stories I read of his). If your plot depends on a certain thing, like Scarlet Witch not remembering her kids... well, make sure that is what actually happened in continuity. Because if you fudge that major point, then the rest of the story doesn't make sense. That ruins anything else he could do in the story, because the premise of it no longer makes sense. I could care less if he shows a flashback that has Hawkeye in a wrong costume, or anything like that... it's actual plot points or characterizations being wrong that wreck the story. Bendis has shown he doesn't pay enough attention (even to his own stories, if what I heard about the first arc in Mighty Avengers is correct) to be able to write a good story... it may be a fun story... but it's not good.

That is just such an unbelievably stupid reason to say any story is not good. Respecting continuity is nice but it is not what defines whether a story is good or not, not even close.