Not feeling the roster, Really don't like Fury jr and Coulson.
The world's Number 1 Ghost Rider Fan!!!!
I feel this book is like, Marvel has always wanted to have a SHIELD book, but they know a title under that name has never ever sold, so let's put in a couple of token Avengers to serve as a flimsy reason to title this book an Avengers book, while we really write Samuel Jackson and Phil Coulson as the stars because we like the movies more than the comics.
Considering all the tech and science available, every superhuman or advanced military personel in the Marvel U should be a super soldier in Iron Man armor with every mutant power available to them on speed-dial but you just kind of have to let that go for the sake of individuality and compelling storytelling. I don't want an entire cast of the same character with the same power.
Anyway, re: the movies, I think a book like this, with so many obvious cues taken from the films, is a harder sell to comic book fans who feel sort of marginalized in their own genre. Successful film adaptations change some stuff around and introduce new ideas to the canon, which is actually a smart thing. And it can be a smart thing to turn it around and introduce the new ideas back into comics. But it can also feel like a quick cashgrab in complete discontinuity with the shared universe, and since people who are buying/purchasing superhero comics are generally pretty invested in continuity and the shared universe, well, it's easy to see why that can fail. I know I wince, rather than smile, when I see references to Budapest. A book like this one has to convince readers it has an organic and authentic reason to exist within the confines of the Marvel comics universe, and is more than just an assemblage of movieverse parts slapped together to suit an editorial directive. It can definitely be done— a book like Hawkeye only exists because of the Avengers movie, but no one thinks of it as a cheap tie-in marketing ploy because there's an obvious creative vision there.
This? I'm not sure of it, yet. I don't really like the thought of "darker, edgier, morally ambiguous SHIELD" because I'm kind of lost in the Silver Age, but that's a personal taste preference. The premise of the book is also something that seems easy to make incoherent. None of the characters remembering their missions or the reasons they agreed to them makes character development tricky, and the interviews don't reveal much about the plot except that… there is one, I guess. Having Natasha willingly mindwiped seems drastically out of character at first glance, like I said. It's not just that she's had bad experiences with this in the past, it's that her origin is about freeing herself from the manipulation of a morally ambiguous spyworld, and her continued mission as a superhero is freeing other people from the same kinds of manipulation she suffered. It goes against her core concept to go along with a program like this. But hopefully that's something so obvious it will be addressed in the story. Otherwise, I really don't know what the story is, and I'm not particularly interested in active-agent Nick Fury stuff, but it's really unfair to write a book off because it doesn't seem whole in interviews. Of course it doesn't, they can't tell us everything. I did absolutely love Spencer's Jimmy Olsen work.
Not to be a downer, but if the book does flop, does anyone think Marvel will get the hint?
Last edited by Prince Of Orphans; 12-14-2012 at 01:27 PM.
Follow @MarvelWOWFacts on Twitter!