Creative changes? Relaunch? What's next for the the Avengers?

[XPac]

I consider them Avengers but I am WRONG for saying someone maybe might not consider a specific line-up as not because it was risen in the book... SILLY ME.

If you're arguing marvel is wrong when they say the New Avengers are Avengers, then yeah... you are being a bit silly.

[RDMacQ]

I consider them Avengers but I am WRONG for saying someone maybe might not consider a specific line-up as not because it was risen in the book... SILLY ME.

But it was also ADDRESSED in the same book. You're only focusing on a small aspect of the issue. Ignoring the larger one, given the fact that that issue was brought up IN the New Avengers. It was never addressed in Mighty. Neither Iron Man or the Wasp condemned the New Avengers in that title. Or in the New Avengers title.

You can BE of that opinion. But my point is, it's not necessarily a well informed one.

[Specimen 297]

You two are too sensitive. The minute anyone raises the notion that Bendis is a bit off, you leap to challenge them. You're biting my bloody head off for me empathising with something I don't even believe.

[RDMacQ]

You two are too sensitive. You're biting my head off for empathising with something I don't even believe.

If you don't believe it, then why did you argue it so passionately? Why did you get upset when someone pointed out the flaws in the reasoning?

[XPac]

You two are too sensitive. The minute anyone raises the notion that Bendis is a bit off, you leap to challenge them. You're biting my bloody head off for me empathising with something I don't even believe.

I don't think I'm being too sensitive when I say that marvel decides who is and who isn't an Avenger over internet posters.

To me, those who seem to feel they get to decide this over marvel are the ones being too sensitive on the matter.

[Specimen 297]

Dark Avengers... AVENGERS OR NOT?

Avengers 1959... AVENGERS OR NOT?

Great Lakes Avengers... AVENGERS OR NOT?

Yeah... everyone Marvel claims are Avengers CANNOT be debated.

[XPac]

Dark Avengers... AVENGERS OR NOT?

Avengers 1959... AVENGERS OR NOT?

Great Lakes Avengers... AVENGERS OR NOT?

Yeah... everyone Marvel claims are Avengers CANNOT be debated.

Has marvel actually claimed that they were officially Avengers?

If so, then it cannot be debated. If they haven't, then obviously that falls into a grey area.

[RDMacQ]

Dark Avengers... AVENGERS OR NOT?

Avengers 1959... AVENGERS OR NOT?

Great Lakes Avengers... AVENGERS OR NOT?

Yeah... everyone Marvel claims are Avengers CANNOT be debated.

Not really.

Osborn's Avengers were governmentally backed, and based out of Avengers tower. They certainly had a legitimate claim to the title, at least in the Government and the public's eyes.

The point of the 1959 team is that they are serving in the same capacity as the current team. They may not have the proper name, but they have the proper spirit.

The Great Lakes team were a bunch of fans, who eventually got the approval of Hawkeye and Mockingbird, the later of who stayed with the team to train them. It was only until recently that the Great Lakes Avengers had their name changed, and that was for the sake of comedy more than anything else.

At no point did Marvel come out and say "NONE of these teams are Avengers."

[Specimen 297]

But they're all still debated whether they are ACTUAL Avengers.

The same way it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for someone to debate whether the New Avengers post-Civil War are Avengers.

[XPac]

But they're all still debated whether they are ACTUAL Avengers.

The same way it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for someone to debate whether the New Avengers post-Civil War are Avengers.

Again, marvel and specifically the Avengers writer has flat out stated MANY times that the New Avengers are Avengers. No debate there.

I don't believe the same can be said for many of the other teams you have mentioned... feel free to correct me if that's the case.

[Specimen 297]

*smacks head against wall*

[RDMacQ]

But they're all still debated whether they are ACTUAL Avengers.

The same way it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for someone to debate whether the New Avengers post-Civil War are Avengers.

But if they are using the rationale that the reason they aren't Avengers is because they had meetings at Dr. Strange's house, or that they were condemned by "Two founding members," it's not a sound argument. It's either superficial reasoning, or completely erroneous.

As it keeps getting pointed out, they can debate this. But the issue seems moot given that the answer was often given IN the titles themselves, or that the issues they are bringing up are completely superfluous. It's sticking by an argument that has no merit, and it makes their position look weak as a result.

[XPac]

*smacks head against wall*

I'm sure that's what people marvel would be doing out of laughter if they read how people on the internet actually believed they got to decide who were Avengers over Marvel itself, who actually owns the franchise.

I guess if you complain about something enough on the internet, marvel magically loses the rights to their properties or something.

[RDMacQ]

*smacks head against wall*

See, it's this sort of thing that makes it hard to take some arguments seriously.

You can't just assume a position is "right," and not have to back it up. And if you do try to rationalize it, the arguments need to be sound. They can't be subjective or just outright false.

A person can say "I'm just right." But that doesn't make it true, in and of itself.

[Specimen 297]

So I guess if a writer or Marvel comes out and says Tony Stark was right about Civil War... that's the end all of THAT debate too.

Or if a writer or Marvel comes out and says the holocaust was cool... I guess that's that. No debate whatsoever there.