Hickman's Avengers...am I missing something?

[Etoma]

New Avengers is everything I could ask for from a Marvel comic.

[klinton]

I haven't read NA yet, but I do read Avengers and so far for me it is just okay. A bit anti-climactic and flat. Nothing about it has pulled me in yet and the first arc seemed completely forgettable. I really hope it turns around.

They really do need to be read in tandem. They're not seperate stories, at all. I'd suggest picking up New Avengers if you wish to keep following Avengers.

So far I'm diggin' Uncanny Avengers a lot more.

Agreed. Uncanny Avengers is easily my favorite Marvel book right now. Easily. :D

[theXfactor]

I really like New Avengers, but Avengers is kind of flat. The writing feels too pretentious and the characters are all just... there. I noticed I really don't care about what happens to the characters, even the ones I like. I think there needs to be more character focus, otherwise, what's the point of all the action?

[XPac]

I think you can argue the characterization in Avengers is SOMEWHAT flat at times. It's not terrible in that regard, but it's not that strong either.

But I think New Avengers does a better job of that... which isn't surpising I suppose since it has a much more intimate cast.

[PupsOfWar]

I often don't know what people mean when they use terms like "pretentious".

It's not like Hickman is writing the superhero equivalent of À la recherche du temps perdu here, nor comes off as if he is trying to.

[Centipede Damascus]

I totally get where you're coming from, but what I've found from issues 4 and 5, and rereading 1-3, is that it seems like the first arc was intentionally anti-climactic. Hickman keeps circling back around to things that happened before issue 1, so I'm pretty sure there's even bigger things ahead that will make the story much more satisfying.

[crimsonspider89]

Issues 4 and 5 were completely character driven. Already giving us future tension with Hyperion and Smasher. Which Hyperion will emerge? The one who values individuals or the one who values the group? And will Smasher be loyal to the Avengers or to the Imperial Guard which allows her to see stars and planets which is her dream?

And NA, OMG so amazing.

[celticguy]

I often don't know what people mean when they use terms like "pretentious".

It's not like Hickman is writing the superhero equivalent of À la recherche du temps perdu here, nor comes off as if he is trying to.

I think what people are referring to is the stuff like their were two Hyperions one one was life one was death over and over in a story story. Prententious might be the wrong word but it was off putting to me style wise. That said I expect at the trades to read better.

[PupsOfWar]

I think what people are referring to is the stuff like their were two Hyperions one one was life one was death over and over in a story story. Prententious might be the wrong word but it was off putting to me style wise.

I know that's the stuff to which they refer, I just don't know what they mean.

Sometimes I feel like it's just a hot-button for people to push when they dislike things like:
Narration-heavy stories, lyrical aspirations, thematic focus, writers with Things to Say, et cetera.

I think Jonathan Hickman is very conscious that superhero comics are innately filled with silly nonsense, and that they're (almost) innately locked into the constraints of pop entertainment, for given niche values of "pop". He just wants to fiddle around with that sandbox and try to translate the kind of narrative he likes - long-form sci-fi yarns - into superhero terms, and vice-versa. And most sci-fi isn't exactly the most mature of stuff - I know because I've spent most of my life reading it.

I don't think he thinks he is changing anybody's life or anything.

[Upper_Krust]

I really like New Avengers, but Avengers is kind of flat. The writing feels too pretentious and the characters are all just... there. I noticed I really don't care about what happens to the characters, even the ones I like. I think there needs to be more character focus, otherwise, what's the point of all the action?

What action? Or at least, what meaningful action have we had? Hickman seemingly doesn't do dramatic action (where characters are in peril) he just does random eye blasts and a few punches. There's no sense of danger in any of the conflicts, no sense of imagination in the conflicts and probably not a heck of a lot of thought either. When villains need to win they win EASILY. Then later when the heroes need to win they triumph EASILY. How about a struggle against the odds for a change or have writers today lost a grasp of the fundamentals of telling an exciting story?

[Mr. Holmes]

I know that's the stuff to which they refer, I just don't know what they mean.

Sometimes I feel like it's just a hot-button for people to push when they dislike things like:
Narration-heavy stories, lyrical aspirations, thematic focus, writers with Things to Say, et cetera.

I think Jonathan Hickman is very conscious that superhero comics are innately filled with silly nonsense, and that they're (almost) innately locked into the constraints of pop entertainment, for given niche values of "pop". He just wants to fiddle around with that sandbox and try to translate the kind of narrative he likes - long-form sci-fi yarns - into superhero terms, and vice-versa. And most sci-fi isn't exactly the most mature of stuff - I know because I've spent most of my life reading it.

I don't think he thinks he is changing anybody's life or anything.

Hickman is basically picking up from what people like Grant Morrison and Warren Ellis have done with superheroes. Superheroes are generally an absurd concept when you think about it, but like anything else really, they can be done with style and elegance. Avengers is kind of JLA/Authority, and New Avengers is Planetary/Stormwatch.

[pepper]

The thing with Hickman is, he can be very subtle. He's a very show-not-tell writer and loves his foreshadowing. If you're used to Bendis' style, you might not get into this.

I recommend you give New Avengers another go, though. It's got a smaller cast full of strong personalities, so it's much more emotional.

[infinitEEntropy]

I felt the same way until this past week with issue #5 of Avengers and issue #3 of New Avengers. The connection between the end of NA #3 and the beginning of Avengers #1 was awesome. I can tell that the two books are going to turn into epic interwoven stories with hidden layers which is exactly what I love.

This is the way Hickman works, he sets things up for the long run so just give it a chance and maybe it will grow on you.

[Swashbuckler]

I completely get why people aren't enjoying Avengers. I found the first arc completely boring and it didn't matter who was there. It could have been ANY team. It just didn't resonate with me. The Hyperion issue also didn't work for me as it failed to finish connecting the dots as to why the Avengers trust him so much. I did like the Smasher story however.

New Avengers is tying in nicely, but it's definitely a sweeping epic that will take time for pay off. I hate most of the characters, but I'm enjoying the story.

[SomeBodyAtCBR]

I think the coldness is on purpose, tbh. This isn't the FF. Sure, the Avengers are family at some point, but not here. They're here to kick-ass and chew bubblegum, and they're all out of gum. This is the Avengers machine saving the planet, the galaxy, the universe...the multiverse! I think the first arc was to set the tone and let the reader know that this team doesn't have time for chit-chat, or get married, or any of that other stuff outside of the mission.