Which did not rewrite continuity. He just added an aspect to it. Not the first writer to do that.He made the Illuminati.
Again, adding to the mythos is not the same as rewriting continuity.He redid what it means to be Sorcerer Supreme.
Writing around something is not the same as ignoring it. He was in the middle of one story when Carol's "death" took place, and by the time his story was over, Carol's situation was already resolved.He ignored the fact that Carol Daners was dead.
No he didn't.He ignored the fact that Tony Stark was broke.
Seriously, no he didn't. Tony being broke was part of the reason the Avengers broke up after Disassembled. And the fact that Tony couldn't fund the team was a major aspect of the formation of the new team.
Again, that didn't "rewrite" whole swaths of continuity. A retcon, sure.He did Secret Invasion, which retconned Mockingbird's death, and her subsequent adventures in the after-life.
Not entirely sure what you're talking about here.Apparently Magneto raised Wanda and Pietro.
Yeah. I read the original Sentry miniseries- not much there to begin with. AND, the original series contradicted ITSELF at several points. Bendis kept the key aspect of the series- the Sentry and the Void being one person.He redid the entire character of Sentry and the Void.
Again, Bendis ADDING something is not the same as him "rewriting whole swaths" of continuity.
...which doesn't contradict anything that has already been written.....He introduced a whole new 1959 Avengers team, that we had never heard of until now.
Actually, no it's not.So no, much more then the Wanda thing, which even that is a pretty big deal.
Much of the stuff people complain about is him adding stuff to the story. But he's not the first writer to do that, nor is he the last.
Kurt Busiek did much of the same thing during his run on Avengers and on Avengers Forever. The whole thing with Kang during "The Crossing" event? Oh, that wasn't Kang. That was Immortus and a bunch of Space Phantoms. The Vision being made out of the spare parts of the Human Torch? Oh, no. That's not what happened either. See, it was really Immortus splitting the Human Torch's android body into two separate but equal entities and then tricking Ultron into sneaking off with one (for some reason.) And then there's the whole thing with him explaining a lot of previous situations as just being "Yeah, we lied to you and you fell for it" for no reason other than it just got the story from point A to point B for the retcon they wanted. And yet, no one else brings this up. It's only Bendis who has "rewrote whole swaths of continuity." When, in reality, he's no more guilty (in fact, perhaps even far LESS guilty) than most other writers.
A lot of people seem to be upset with Iron Fist/Phoenix changes he's making. I'm not angry, but the changes do seem to be ignoring a lot of Phoenix stuff. For instance, the whole premise behind this Iron Fist/Phoenix business is that the Phoenix hasn't returned to Earth since Fongi, which isn't true at all. I just find it confusing.
Those other guys did it? So what. I didn't say that they were respectful of continuity. I didn't say that they were good writers. I didn't say that Bendis was bad. But, there is more to respecting continuity then just keeping things the way they are. When someone writes something, they create a core concept. Subsequent writers can add to that core concept. However, what Bendis usually does is change the whole core, instead of just adding and taking away. Take the Sorcerer Supreme, for example. It was long established that it was little more then a title, won by the strongest sorcerer around. Strange took on guys like Dormammu before he got the title, got only a small power boost in addition to the eye, and had given up the title before. But, Bendis changed it to him seemingly getting most of his powers from the title, and the eye chose, instead of a large contest. It changes everything about the character. He's not awesome because he's Sorcerer Supreme, he's Sorcerer Supreme because he's awesome. The Sentry was a character who was pure and good, and then sacrificed his own life to protect the world. Now, he's an insane drug addict. The core wasn't that he had a split-identity, the core was that he was a hero. He is a guy who can only exist outside continuity. By bringing him in, it misses the whole point of the original story. The Avengers were created as the World's Mightiest Heroes, and their first incarnation was created by Lee and Kirby. When you introduce an Avengers team from before that, it cheapens the concept (also, wasn't Namora dead at the time?). He did more then add to continuity. He rewrote what it means.
I'd like to see Hickman as the writer with a classic-styled line up of Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, and Hercules.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the 1959 Avengers was concept thought up by Chaykin. I think he came to Bendis with the idea of doing a mini, but he and editorial knew it would be tough sell in today's market, so they worked the story into NA.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see Hickman, Waid and Aaron each on an Avenger title.
CaptainAmerica Avengers NewAvengers UncannyAvengers Wolverine&theX-Men Hawkeye GuardiansOfTheGalaxy AllNewX-Men UncannyX-Men
Either get Busiek back, or get Mark Waid to write the main book. Or even give Jeff Parker a shot. Get rid of Wolverine. Keep Spidey, but only on New Avengers.
The main Avengers team should be Cap, Thor, Stark, Vision, She-Hulk and Wanda.
And I don't want to demand that the team should be a certain way. That's part of the reason I liked what Bendis did with the team- he staffed it with people you'd never expect to BE Avengers. Sure, the classic teams do have some appeal. But I don't want them back just for the sake of them being back, or under the imagined belief that having them back will automatically make the book "better." That sort of thinking takes the creativity out of the situation entirely. Because if the "success" of the book depends entirely on the members of the team and their status quo, then what's the point of getting excited by a certain writer. If the success is solely dependent upon the team lineup, then the creativity of the writers part is irrelevant and the whole process of telling an entertaining story is entirely mechanical. Just follow the formula, and use the same characters. But we all know that not to be true, so then why be concerned with who is or is not on the team, when the important thing is the story the creator tells?