Favorite Avengers Writer

[strathcona]

Simonson was supposed to be longterm. He actually left because it was decided to bring Reed and Sue back to the FF after he was promised that he could have them for Avengers. I'm pretty sure that Hama was supposed to be longterm, too. I seem to remember an article in Marvel Age or something about that, but it didn't work out for one reason or another. Ironically, it was Harras that was supposed to be a fill-in with the bi-weekly Thane Ector story. but Marvel liked what he and Epting did and they ended up sticking around for years.

Not sure what role Shooter played in Stern's removal from Avengers. He was gone from Marvel before Stern was fired. Mark Gruenwald fired Stern.

I had heard that Simonson left due to editorial interference. But really, I didn't mind what he was doing. I thought his dismantling of the team worked well.

The reason I didn't include him, Nicieza or Hama was because I too felt that they were just fill-ins, even with what I knew about Simonson. I guess I could have left Gerry Conway and Chuck Austen off too... but what's done is done.

[FanboyStranger]

Walt Simonson had an underrated 10 issue run with John Buscema and Tom Palmer that followed Stern's run on the series. I'd like to see that get collected someday, too.

I'm a huge Simonson fan, but I find that run pretty poor, especially following Stern's run. It had some good ideas-- the time bubble, for instance-- but Walt handled those ideas better in his FF run.

[Corey W]

My top ten:

1.) Stern
2.) Thomas
3.) Busiek
4.) Engelhart
5.) Micheline
6.) Shooter
7.) Simonson
8.) Bendis
9.) Harras
10.) Lee

The things that surprise me about my list:

I am surprised that Stan the Man made the list at all. Much of his Avengers run is just unreadable nowadays, but the magic of issue 4 give it points and the kooky quarter is pretty readable, so it was really only the first year that is hard.

I am surprised that Simonson wasn't higher given that I am such a huge fan of his Thor and FF runs (and his Avengers run deals with some of the same topics as the FF run). Maybe it just wasn't long enough.

Similarly, I am surprised that Byrne didn't make my list since his X-Men, Alpha Flight and FF are among my favorite books. Maybe I am just too much of a Wanda/Vision fan to appreciate Byrne's run.

For me, there is also a sharp drop off from the top six to the next group.

[Ziggy Stardust]

That Bendis has more votes than Kurt is just...... insanely stupid.

[Tom Foolery]

I'm a huge Simonson fan, but I find that run pretty poor, especially following Stern's run. It had some good ideas-- the time bubble, for instance-- but Walt handled those ideas better in his FF run.

There is something about the Simonson run (which transitioned to his FF run) that is confusing as hell to me. The blue female villian Nebula. One of the best Avengers villains ever created by Roger Stern was named Nebula. I believe it was Avengers 256 that she debuted. Byrne used her again by issue 314, and then Starlin later decided to make her a joke so he could build her grandpa Thanos back up in the Infinity Gauntlet. Well, Simonson's first storylines starting in 291 dealt with a blue villainess with different hair named Nebula that was involved with the cross time Kang council and manipulating Dr. Druid, and then her story was continued in Walt's FF. Is the confusion just because they were both blue villainesses named Nebula, or was this just bad continuity usage of what was supposed to be the same character?

[strathcona]

That Bendis has more votes than Kurt is just...... insanely stupid.

It is... but it's to be expected. There are a lot of people that don't know any Avengers but Bendis's. I weep for those people.

[Tom Foolery]

There are a lot of people that don't know any Avengers but Bendis's.

Including Bendis, from what I've read! lol

[strathcona]

There is something about the Simonson run (which transitioned to his FF run) that is confusing as hell to me. The blue female villian Nebula. One of the best Avengers villains ever created by Roger Stern was named Nebula. I believe it was Avengers 256 that she debuted. Byrne used her again by issue 314, and then Starlin later decided to make her a joke so he could build her grandpa Thanos back up in the Infinity Gauntlet. Well, Simonson's first storylines starting in 291 dealt with a blue villainess with different hair named Nebula that was involved with the cross time Kang council and manipulating Dr. Druid, and then her story was continued in Walt's FF. Is the confusion just because they were both blue villainesses named Nebula, or was this just bad continuity usage of what was supposed to be the same character?

No... you are right to be confused. When Simonson was first using her he meant her to be the same Nebula that Stern created (if he did create her, I'll take your word on that), Thanos's granddaughter. Nebula was supposed to be infiltrating Council of Cross-Time Kangs. However, it was eventually revealed that she was just posing as Nebula and was actually an alternate Ravonna who eventually became known as Terminatrix.

I can understand why this stuff is confusing... but man, I love Kang and all his convoluted histories/futures!

[strathcona]

including bendis, from what i've read! Lol

zing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tom Foolery]

No... you are right to be confused. When Simonson was first using her he meant her to be the same Nebula that Stern created (if he did create her, I'll take your word on that), Thanos's granddaughter. Nebula was supposed to be infiltrating Council of Cross-Time Kangs. However, it was eventually revealed that she was just posing as Nebula and was actually an alternate Ravonna who eventually became known as Terminatrix.

I can understand why this stuff is confusing... but man, I love Kang and all his convoluted histories/futures!

Thanks for the explanation. I'm actually planning to read Simonson's short run today. I re-read Stern's run in it's entirity a few weeks ago, and now I'm moving on to Simonson, Byrne, Hama, Harras (with Epting), and Busiek (with Perez). Looking forward to revisiting some great stories!

[strathcona]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm actually planning to read Simonson's short run today. I re-read Stern's run in it's entirity a few weeks ago, and now I'm moving on to Simonson, Byrne, Hama, Harras (with Epting), and Busiek (with Perez). Looking forward to revisiting some great stories!

I envy you... to be able to read some of those stories again for the first time... awesome!

[OldSchoolfan]

I really did like Harras's run... I loved how it was mostly second tier characters and not characters that already had their own books. I loved the Gatherers saga... still think it's one of the best, untapped pieces of the Avengers mythos. There is so much that could be done with them. Galactic Storm is one of my all-time favourite Avengers stories. I remember not liking the Collector's Obsession story much when I first read it... but I have loved it more with each subsequent reading. Really, up until the Taking A.I.M. crossover I thought the book was doing great. After that it fell apart and just got worse until the Crossing... but I have always blamed Terry Kavanaugh for that as he was co-writing at the time.

The thing I like most about Galactic Storm was the way you could pick up the Avengers chapters individually and have a pretty good idea of what was going on....I really didn't feel like I missed any necessary details if I just read the Avengers book. Secondly, I really didn't expect Dane to follow through with what he did...I also thought Cap's reaction was appropriate. What bugged me is why he let them go in the first place....

Yeah, I'm off topic.....but I really think you guys are super tough with Bendis. Actually I think he has made the seventies Marvel characters more interesting to me. I always did like Luke Cage and it never bothered me that he was an Avenger.
I don't understand the hoopala surrounding Spidey....when you read Byrne's run, you get the impression that he intended for Spiderman to stick around. And like I said before, Spidey appeared in the first 400 issues more than the Hulk.

[strathcona]

The thing I like most about Galactic Storm was the way you could pick up the Avengers chapters individually and have a pretty good idea of what was going on....I really didn't feel like I missed any necessary details if I just read the Avengers book. Secondly, I really didn't expect Dane to follow through with what he did...I also thought Cap's reaction was appropriate. What bugged me is why he let them go in the first place....

Yeah, I'm off topic.....but I really think you guys are super tough with Bendis. Actually I think he has made the seventies Marvel characters more interesting to me. I always did like Luke Cage and it never bothered me that he was an Avenger.
I don't understand the hoopala surrounding Spidey....when you read Byrne's run, you get the impression that he intended for Spiderman to stick around. And like I said before, Spidey appeared in the first 400 issues more than the Hulk.

I have given Bendis a few chances and been disappointed each time. His ignoring, or ignorance of continuity is a huge deal to me. If you are working with existing characters, you should be familiar with them and make sure what you are doing with them makes sense. I think he has some great ideas, but he has no idea how to complete them, his endings always fall flat. His dialogue is awful, all the characters sound the same, and that doesn't work when you are looking at such diverse characters and personalities as Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America or Doctor Strange... they should not have interchangeable dialogue.

I don't have that big an issue with Spidey on the team, though it does make him a bit harder to believe as a hard luck hero over in his own book. I love the idea of Luke Cage on the team, and don't mind the work done with him from what I can see in other non-Bendis books.

Really it's the fact that Bendis isn't suited for the type of action and scope that we should see in Avengers, I think SI was a prime example of that... the main mini was just awful and didn't actually explore the opportunities that the premise presented... you had to read Slott and Gage's A:I for that.

[OldSchoolfan]

I have given Bendis a few chances and been disappointed each time. His ignoring, or ignorance of continuity is a huge deal to me. If you are working with existing characters, you should be familiar with them and make sure what you are doing with them makes sense. I think he has some great ideas, but he has no idea how to complete them, his endings always fall flat. His dialogue is awful, all the characters sound the same, and that doesn't work when you are looking at such diverse characters and personalities as Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America or Doctor Strange... they should not have interchangeable dialogue.

I don't have that big an issue with Spidey on the team, though it does make him a bit harder to believe as a hard luck hero over in his own book. I love the idea of Luke Cage on the team, and don't mind the work done with him from what I can see in other non-Bendis books.

Really it's the fact that Bendis isn't suited for the type of action and scope that we should see in Avengers, I think SI was a prime example of that... the main mini was just awful and didn't actually explore the opportunities that the premise presented... you had to read Slott and Gage's A:I for that.

Only asking out of curiosity, did you read any of Siege? I really thought that there was a lot there that was done correctly. To me, he missed a beat at the end but I really thought he had Iron Man acting incredibly heroic, Thor was humane and Cap was a rock. The story itself was well coordinated with the other books (except Dark Wolverine) and the confrontations with Osborne and Doctor Doom were, I thought, really well done.

I thought his treatment of The Red Hood and how Loki tricked every one were also well done.

I am thinking about what you are saying with regard to his dialogue and characterization...I will consider it. Mostly I remember the humorous exchanges between characters.
I promise to read with a little more evaluative eye.

[strathcona]

Only asking out of curiosity, did you read any of Siege? I really thought that there was a lot there that was done correctly. To me, he missed a beat at the end but I really thought he had Iron Man acting incredibly heroic, Thor was humane and Cap was a rock. The story itself was well coordinated with the other books (except Dark Wolverine) and the confrontations with Osborne and Doctor Doom were, I thought, really well done.

I thought his treatment of The Red Hood and how Loki tricked every one were also well done.

I am thinking about what you are saying with regard to his dialogue and characterization...I will consider it. Mostly I remember the humorous exchanges between characters.
I promise to read with a little more evaluative eye.

I am not telling you that my opinion is right, you may appreciate what he is doing and that's fine. Just be prepared for me to explain why I don't like it.

As for Siege, I only read the crossover issues of books I already read, A:I, MA, New Mutants and the one-shots for characters I like, YA, Captain America and Secret Warriors. From what I read it was OK... but I am not going to read anymore Bendis penned books, no matter how good I hear they are, I have been burned too many times with junk.