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

[Trey]

these are weak issues so far, except for the Smasher issue. Extremely dull. with poor art in NA.

The concepts are certainly interesting, as are the new characters, but the writing is just so boring.....

[pepper]

Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, but with comics being a visual medium, I think the limited approach is better. If the art is capable of conveying the idea to the reader, then there is no need for narration. If more info than the art is needed, then some narration is fine.

I look at Hickman's level of narration in Avengers as being pretty spot on. He's also given the narrator a voice of sorts...kind of placing the reader on the team, to an extent. I compare this with Remender's work on Uncanny, which is more heavily narrated, and I think I prefer Hickman's approach. In UA, without narration, we would know next to nothing about the Red Skull's henchmen. I think showing more about them through flashbacks or revealing it through dialogue would be better than simply stating it in a narration box.

Again, narration can be fine, and it can be a great tool fir the writer. But it can also be a crutch used to compensate for weaknesses in other areas.

For me, it's hard to say which approach is better. It all depends on the abilities of the creative team and the tone and pace of the story. In UA #3, for example, Remender overdid the narration a bit, IMO, but it was useful, in that it built an atmosphere that the art struggled to convey. Avengers had more expressive art, so less narration was needed.

Substance does not equal good nor does having it mean a story is good.

True but I want my money's worth. And I would use entertaining rather than good.

[Rheged]

Well the worlds that have been destroyed are just that worlds. I have no connection to them they are nameless faceless things that no longer exist. To stretch a metaphor they are worlds in red uniforms. Now could hickman give them substance down the road as the story unfolds sure. He probably will butto me so far it has been mostly set up and set up is not substance it is just set up. That is not a negative thing just how I see it.

The only real substancial thing for me that has occured is the mind wipe of Cap. You know that will payoff odwn the orad and you know at least some of the impact it will have. The rest has a long way to go before it takes shape in any subtancial way.

As for introducing new characters being something of substance who can say. Smasher could become a huge break out star of she could become Stingray. I don't think there is enough there at this point to judge any of the new characters. I like the a majority of the line up (nobody is going to please everyone) but and still on the fence as to how interesting a huge team can be.

Yeah, that's not what is meant when saying a work has 'substance.'

And what you say makes Cap's mindwipe substantial, actually makes it set-up.

[Rheged]

Yes, it's subjective.

Not really. You could argue about the amount / levels of substance, but a popcorn movie is always going to be a popcorn movie.

[hawkeyefan]

I agree which is why I have been making sure to use wordking like the way I read it or to me etc.

The term substance is in and if itself objective. I might have obe idea what that means, you might have another. Then whether a comic meets that criteria is also subjective.

Even though I might disagree with you, I think you've been clear and fair in your criticisms.

For me, it's hard to say which approach is better. It all depends on the abilities of the creative team and the tone and pace of the story. In UA #3, for example, Remender overdid the narration a bit, IMO, but it was useful, in that it built an atmosphere that the art struggled to convey. Avengers had more expressive art, so less narration was needed.

Definitely, the artist plays a huge part. There are lots of factors that come into play.

I remember seeing an old Spidey comic by Stan Lee. Now, I don't want to criticize The Man, but there was a panel that showed Spidey swinging up to a rooftop flagpole. An the narration was something like "using his radioactive spider powers, the Webbed Wonder swings himself to a nearby rooftop" and I couldn't help but laugh.....he just described the panel. Why bother?

[hawkeyefan]

Not really. You could argue about the amount / levels of substance, but a popcorn movie is always going to be a popcorn movie.

One man's popcorn movie is another man's work of art. Subjective. Like I just said, even the term "substance" itself is subjective. And how do you measure it? By counting nouns?

[celticguy]

Yeah, that's not what is meant when saying a work has 'substance.'

And what you say makes Cap's mindwipe substantial, actually makes it set-up.

If you want to get pricky about it ok substance means important in size or worth. Nothing so far fits that for me.


The Cap mindwipe is set up for future stories but it is also a major part of the present story. Tony and co. will have to change whole tatics in a effort to keep Cap in the dark. That is an important part of the story hence it was substantial plot point

Agree.

New Avengers, new villains, new characters, refurbished characters. Mars terraformed, evolution bombs, creation myths, universes destroyed, and galactic empires. A metric crap load of plot questions, plot lines, character hooks, and interweaving storylines with New Avengers. THAT is substantial.

And that's just in Avengers.

I do enjoy that in one post you list things as "substantial" but in antoher say they are not.

point.

[celticguy]

One man's popcorn movie is another man's work of art. Subjective. Like I just said, even the term "substance" itself is subjective. And how do you measure it? By counting nouns?

Not really the line while movable is clearly there.

[klinton]

One man's popcorn movie is another man's work of art. Subjective. Like I just said, even the term "substance" itself is subjective. And how do you measure it? By counting nouns?

I totally agree with this. A film/book/comic that may not connect with one person may touch on themes that resonate strongly with another. The assessment of a story's depth is informed directly by our interpretations of the presentation.

It is so completely subjective. I've left the cinema completely moved by a film while my friends were groaning at how cheesy it was to them.

[Rheged]

One man's popcorn movie is another man's work of art. Subjective. Like I just said, even the term "substance" itself is subjective. And how do you measure it? By counting nouns?

Actually, you said the term was objective, which it is. People can have their own meanings for words, but that doesn't make it the correct meaning of a word. Substance, as it pertains to discussion of literary works, is fairly specific.

And labeling something a work of art isn't talking about the substance of a piece. That's getting into another whole critique.

[Victor Freeman]

Both New Avengers and Avengers are pretty awesome to me. A breath of fresh air--and Bendis is bringing his A-game with the X-books--which seem better then his Avengers stuff in my opinion.

[hawkeyefan]

Not really the line while movable is clearly there.

But what line? To use the popcorn movie analogy... won't different people consider different movies popcorn movies?

I totally agree with this. A film/book/comic that may not connect with one person may touch on themes that resonate strongly with another. The assessment of a story's depth is informed directly by our interpretations of the presentation.

It is so completely subjective. I've left the cinema completely moved by a film while my friends were groaning at how cheesy it was to them.

Yeah, any evaluation of art is going to be subjective. There are certain elements of writing that could be evaluated objectively...grammar and punctuation and things of that nature...but a nebulous term like substance? Not really...we've already seen a few people define it differently right here in the thread.

Actually, you said the term was objective, which it is. People can have their own meanings for words, but that doesn't make it the correct meaning of a word. Substance, as it pertains to discussion of literary works, is fairly specific.

And labeling something a work of art isn't talking about the substance of a piece. That's getting into another whole critique.

My bad...that was a typo on my part. That should read that substance itself is subjective.

I don't know if I can agree that there is one definition of substance when it comes to writing.

[mistergoodman]

I'm kind of puzzled over Marvel's thinking here. You know, after The Avengers movie delivered funny slam-bang action focusing on Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hawkeye, the Black Widow and the Hulk (and sold $1.5 billion dollars worth of tickets), it's really odd that Marvel restarted the series and made it serious and talky, focusing on characters like Hyperion, Smasher, Black Veil, Manifold, and Captain Universe. The most popular characters on the team are given little that's interesting to say or do. This book doesn't seem aimed at people who liked the Avengers movie, people who liked Bendis' funnier take on the team, or even fans of the classic series. Obviously some people in those groups will enjoy it. But it reminds me of this era:






I guess Marvel is counting on comic store owners to steer movie fans to Avengers Assemble. With 10+ Avengers books coming out a month though, Avengers Assemble seems to be getting lost in the shuffle, selling less than books like Thunderbolts and Red Lanterns.

And yes, I find the book pretentious. From all the credit pages (2-4 pages per issue, not including the recap page), to the conventional storylines delivered with overwhelming earnestness, this is absolutely a pretentious book. I've got a 12-issue mail order subscription, so I'll keep reading. It's pretty disappointing though, after Hickman's Fantastic Four. It'll be interesting to see how sales hold up and whether Hickman's long range plans make it into print.

[XPac]

I'm kind of puzzled over Marvel's thinking here. You know, after The Avengers movie delivered funny slam-bang action focusing on Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hawkeye, the Black Widow and the Hulk (and sold $1.5 billion dollars worth of tickets), it's really odd that Marvel restarted the series and made it serious and talky, focusing on characters like Hyperion, Smasher, Black Veil, Manifold, and Captain Universe. The most popular characters on the team are given little that's interesting to say or do. This book doesn't seem aimed at people who liked the Avengers movie, people who liked Bendis' funnier take on the team, or even fans of the classic series. Obviously some people in those groups will enjoy it. But it reminds me of this era:






I guess Marvel is counting on comic store owners to steer movie fans to Avengers Assemble. With 10+ Avengers books coming out a month though, Avengers Assemble seems to be getting lost in the shuffle, selling less than books like Thunderbolts and Red Lanterns.

And yes, I find the book pretentious. From all the credit pages (2-4 pages per issue, not including the recap page, to the conventional storylines delivered with overwhelming earnestness, this is absolutely a pretentious book. I've got a 12-issue mail order subscription, so I'll keep reading. It's pretty disappointing though, after Hickman's Fantastic Four. It'll be interesting to see how sales hold up and whether Hickman's long range plans make it into print.

I think the first arc gave a descent amount of focus on the movie Avengers... Cap in particular. Though Stark and Thor got a descent amount of love.

But it does seem like after that first 3 issue arc, Hickman is giving spotlight issues on new members.

But I guess marvel figures that because of Avengers Assemble they can afford to do something a bit different.

[celticguy]

But what line? To use the popcorn movie analogy... won't different people consider different movies popcorn movies?



Yeah, any evaluation of art is going to be subjective. There are certain elements of writing that could be evaluated objectively...grammar and punctuation and things of that nature...but a nebulous term like substance? Not really...we've already seen a few people define it differently right here in the thread.



I don't know if I can agree that there is one definition of substance when it comes to writing.

To an extent but some are universal. The Avengers and superhero movies in general are popcorn movies. Django unchained is getting some awards but that is really a popcorn movie but some would argue that point. Certainly movies are often marketed as popcorn or art films, but i am not sure you can say they always stay as those.