|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 12, 2016 23:26:02 GMT -5
I'm sure Waid will be good.. but nothing about Hickman was, IMO. I really just don't get what people like about him.
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Jan 12, 2016 23:48:27 GMT -5
I'm sure Waid will be good.. but nothing about Hickman was, IMO. I really just don't get what people like about him. What have you read? I tend to like most of his Image work. And I loved Fantastic Four #570-572. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 12, 2016 23:55:54 GMT -5
I'm sure Waid will be good.. but nothing about Hickman was, IMO. I really just don't get what people like about him. What have you read? I tend to like most of his Image work. And I loved Fantastic Four #570-572. I liked his FF stuff OK, though it lost steam and ended poorly. I absolutely despise everything he did with Avengers/New Avengers. I tried East of West and one of the others, they were just kinda boring. I really just don't get the love. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 13, 2016 20:00:34 GMT -5
I like Bendis, I just didn't like his Avengers... he's only has one character personality he can write... it fits Tony Stark pretty well, but having everyone in the Avengers act like him didn't work for me. I also hated Wolverine (a known killer) being on the team, and that being an issue sometimes, when they felt like it, and other times not. The Ronin story sorta sucked. I definitely didn't like Civil War. Ultimates was OK for it's different-ness, but Millar can be too abrasive and just downright depressing. I like his pretend Avengers in Jupiters Circle/Legacy better than Ultimates. Mighty Avengers was good, but it was more like Heroes for Hire than Avengers. I think Busiek had alot of new stuff to offer. I LOVED Justice and Firestar being Avengers, and their story. Wanda coming into her own, and her story with Simon and Vision. Yes, it was continuity heavy, but it was in a Roy Thomas good sorta way (IMO). Plus, he fixed the Crossing, so he gets about 1000 points for that. A lot of that stuff felt realllllyyy close to what Englehart did, to me. Although I give him credit - Busiek was the first (as far as I remember) of about a thousand writers to be influenced by/rip off stuff from Grant Morrison's JLA run. I did really like the Ultimates - The Avengers never quite worked for me as a concept, especially in the early days. Why are these people who don't like each other that much hanging out again? I liked that the Ultimates had a legitimate, in universe reason to exist. Actually, if we count Marvel Adventures: The Avengers, my two favorite runs are after the Crossing, too! |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jan 13, 2016 20:32:56 GMT -5
What have you read? I tend to like most of his Image work. And I loved Fantastic Four #570-572. I liked his FF stuff OK, though it lost steam and ended poorly. I absolutely despise everything he did with Avengers/New Avengers. I tried East of West and one of the others, they were just kinda boring. I really just don't get the love. Personally I mostly just love his handling of huge cosmic stuff. He takes his time, ties up all the subplots by the end, and it really feels gigantic and epic with cosmic beings and races and time travel and multiversal threats, but all with weight. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2016 20:39:50 GMT -5
I like Bendis, I just didn't like his Avengers... he's only has one character personality he can write... it fits Tony Stark pretty well, but having everyone in the Avengers act like him didn't work for me. I also hated Wolverine (a known killer) being on the team, and that being an issue sometimes, when they felt like it, and other times not. The Ronin story sorta sucked. I definitely didn't like Civil War. Ultimates was OK for it's different-ness, but Millar can be too abrasive and just downright depressing. I like his pretend Avengers in Jupiters Circle/Legacy better than Ultimates. Mighty Avengers was good, but it was more like Heroes for Hire than Avengers. I think Busiek had alot of new stuff to offer. I LOVED Justice and Firestar being Avengers, and their story. Wanda coming into her own, and her story with Simon and Vision. Yes, it was continuity heavy, but it was in a Roy Thomas good sorta way (IMO). Plus, he fixed the Crossing, so he gets about 1000 points for that. A lot of that stuff felt realllllyyy close to what Englehart did, to me. Although I give him credit - Busiek was the first (as far as I remember) of about a thousand writers to be influenced by/rip off stuff from Grant Morrison's JLA run. I did really like the Ultimates - The Avengers never quite worked for me as a concept, especially in the early days. Why are these people who don't like each other that much hanging out again? I liked that the Ultimates had a legitimate, in universe reason to exist. Actually, if we count Marvel Adventures: The Avengers, my two favorite runs are after the Crossing, too! Busiek has shown he can do really original innovative stuff, but he was hired to Avengers with the mandate to return the book to its roots and recapture it's fan base with a back to basics approach. You don't go outside the box when you are hired to recreate the box because the book got too far outside it. There was a strong fan sentiment to hire Englehart and Perez to do the Heroes Return book (there was even a huge petition sent to Marvel by fans led by Van Plexico who ran the Avengers website and mailing lists that frequently got acknowledged in the letters pages of the book around that time) calling for just that. At the time Marvel felt it really needed to recapture its core audience after the debacle that was Heroes Reborn. So, considering that was Busiek's editorial mandate, I'd say the way you see the book means he did exactly what he was supposed to do. Avengers became one of the top sellers for Marvle during his tenure (with the normal attrition and some losses after Perez left)-a more outside the box approach on that book at that time would not have yielded the same results. But just because Busiek didn't do that, doesn't mean he's not capable of that. His creator-owned work has shown plenty of innovation and outside the box writing, even if some of it has a soft spot for classic comics. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 13, 2016 21:08:41 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I really like every non-Marvel book that Busiek has ever written. (And kind of hate every Marvel book!) Like Trinity was soooooo far outside the "superhero nostalgia comfort zone dad comics" box that I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who liked it. And huge credit to Busiek, of course, for deciding he's sick of doing endless variations of corporate IP and for wanting to work on creator owned stuff exclusively for a while - and not caring how much his fans whine.
And I am aware that I'm criticizing a bunch of editors and writers under the "Busiek's run" umbrella.. I think purposefully regressive pop culture is a bad idea to begin with (you should give kids stuff that can belong to them, screw us old people) and I'm not a fan of the incestuous dialog of superhero comics that only relate to other superhero comics. I think that that keeps the fans who are going to die soon anyway, and alienates the 98% of new readers who aren't thrilled with the idea of having to read decades of comics to keep up.
And certainly, in this case, I was correct in a corporate profit sense; A completely-outside-the-box approach a couple years later turned Avengers into an even bigger deal.
I speculate, of course, that one of the reasons that the Bendis Avengers was so popular was that it was "Something that isn't exactly like old comics, we're sick of that #$%^."
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2016 21:16:15 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I really like every non-Marvel book that Busiek has ever written. (And kind of hate every Marvel book!) Like Trinity was soooooo far outside the "superhero nostalgia comfort zone dad comics" box that I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who liked it. And huge credit to Busiek, of course, for deciding he's sick of doing endless variations of corporate IP and for wanting to work on creator owned stuff exclusively for a while - and not caring how much his fans whine. And I am aware that I'm criticizing a bunch of editors and writers under the "Busiek's run" umbrella.. I think purposefully regressive pop culture is a bad idea to begin with (you should give kids stuff that can belong to them, screw us old people) and I'm not a fan of the incestuous dialog of superhero comics that only relate to other superhero comics. I think that that keeps the fans who are going to die soon anyway, and alienates the 98% of new readers who aren't thrilled with the idea of having to read decades of comics to keep up. And certainly, in this case, I was correct in a corporate profit sense; A completely-outside-the-box approach a couple years later turned Avengers into an even bigger deal. I speculate, of course, that one of the reasons that the Bendis Avengers was so popular was that it was "Something that isn't exactly like old comics, we're sick of that #$%^." And I will counter with, if Bendis style Avengers comic had followed on the heels of the abomination of Heroes Reborn by Liefled, it would have bombed even worse than Heroes Reborn did. Busiek revived interest in the franchise, which Johns and Austin then squandered away, setting the stage for the reception Bendis' run got (which alienated a lot of the hardcore base too, but brought in enough outside the base to make it work, but the kind of reader he brought in wasn't really there to support that type of book in '98 when Heroes Return took place. Without Busiek rebuilding the foundation of that franchise, there would have been nothing there for Bendis to remodel, you can come in and wreck something already in ruins, and that was the state of Avengers in '98 after Leifeld got done imploding the thing. Busiek's Avengers, love it or hate it, was exactly the kind of shot in the arm the book needed at that point in time. I don't think there is a franchise for Bendis to revitalize if Busiek hadn't pulled it off the scrap heap and rebuilt it like he did. Sometimes timing is everything and Busiek on Avengers was right place right time for that book. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 13, 2016 21:26:46 GMT -5
I've never understood the notion that strong continuity in superhero comics alienates fans. As a fan that started following Marvel in the mid-80's, I began in an era with far tighter continuity, that frequently used historical asides/editorial comments, and loved the fact that there was this vast history behind what I was reading. Not once did my 9-13 year old self feel the need to go back and read all 300+ issues of Incredible Hulk so I could get the "full story." To be honest, it wasn't until Marvel Masterworks came along that the notion even crossed my mind. Given the ubiquity of Marvel/DC wiki's and online handbooks, it's easier than ever to go back and brush up on a character's history. I get the feeling that this "problem" is a problem almost exclusive to older readers, be they long-time fans or new to the medium. Young readers seem far more open to not knowing everything in the beginning and learning as they go along. I think the reason Bendis' Avengers was a success is because Busiek and Perez did their job so well (their run sold and was a hit) that the mostly aging fan-base got full on nostalgia and wanted something different. The basic philosophy of the Quesada era, and by proxy creators like Bendis, was that they wanted to do comics in the tone of Watchmen and DKR. Beyond the fact that nobody at Marvel then or now had the talent or craft to write something on that level, it was incredibly wrongheaded to want to turn what should be an all-ages line of adventure comics into that sort of thing. What was the MAX line for? |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 13, 2016 21:40:08 GMT -5
Busiek's run salvaged things as best he could, but everything since has been medicore at best. I loved Hickmans run and am enjoying Waids and plan on getting Wilsons in trade...and at least Bendis gave us back Wasp. Is Waid on the Avengers now? I haven't read anything of his yet so this might be a good time to give him a shot. I presume this means Hickman's run is finished now, so maybe I'll give that a try as well. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 13, 2016 21:50:45 GMT -5
Personally I mostly just love his handling of huge cosmic stuff. He takes his time, ties up all the subplots by the end, and it really feels gigantic and epic with cosmic beings and races and time travel and multiversal threats, but all with weight. I can see that's what he's going for.. and you're not the only one that appreciates it. I found all his stuff overwrought and epic for the sake of epic-ness. Also, he never ends anything well (if at all)... perhaps Secret Wars will change that, but I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 13, 2016 21:57:54 GMT -5
RE: Busiek's Avengers. I would probably not have even tried an Englehart Avengers book... that's probably my 2nd least favorite era. Maybe for the art. Also, I think the Crossing 'went outside the box' in the way a 3 year old scribbling over a coloring book does. Sure, it's different, and not what you expect, but that doesn't mean I want to read it. If you get right down to it... Bendis just told the same story, he just did it with more irony and sarcasm and better art  . I think, had Busiek stayed longer, things would have more innovative, and it would have resemembles some of the amazing stuff he does with Astro City. The market just made it such that it made more sense to tell those stories with his own character. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 13, 2016 22:10:10 GMT -5
I've never understood the notion that strong continuity in superhero comics alienates fans. As a fan that started following Marvel in the mid-80's, I began in an era with far tighter continuity, that frequently used historical asides/editorial comments, and loved the fact that there was this vast history behind what I was reading. Not once did my 9-13 year old self feel the need to go back and read all 300+ issues of Incredible Hulk so I could get the "full story." Note 1: In general, any demographic argument based around "This one thing I did this one time" is a weak argument. That said, I'm not sure I disagree with you point. What I think is true is that "tight continuity alienates potential readers." And that potential readers are at least if not more important than established fans, just 'cause there's so many more of 'em. Anybody got a problem with that? |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 13, 2016 22:17:11 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I really like every non-Marvel book that Busiek has ever written. (And kind of hate every Marvel book!) Like Trinity was soooooo far outside the "superhero nostalgia comfort zone dad comics" box that I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who liked it. And huge credit to Busiek, of course, for deciding he's sick of doing endless variations of corporate IP and for wanting to work on creator owned stuff exclusively for a while - and not caring how much his fans whine. And I am aware that I'm criticizing a bunch of editors and writers under the "Busiek's run" umbrella.. I think purposefully regressive pop culture is a bad idea to begin with (you should give kids stuff that can belong to them, screw us old people) and I'm not a fan of the incestuous dialog of superhero comics that only relate to other superhero comics. I think that that keeps the fans who are going to die soon anyway, and alienates the 98% of new readers who aren't thrilled with the idea of having to read decades of comics to keep up. And certainly, in this case, I was correct in a corporate profit sense; A completely-outside-the-box approach a couple years later turned Avengers into an even bigger deal. I speculate, of course, that one of the reasons that the Bendis Avengers was so popular was that it was "Something that isn't exactly like old comics, we're sick of that #$%^." And I will counter with, if Bendis style Avengers comic had followed on the heels of the abomination of Heroes Reborn by Liefled, it would have bombed even worse than Heroes Reborn did. Busiek revived interest in the franchise, which Johns and Austin then squandered away, setting the stage for the reception Bendis' run got (which alienated a lot of the hardcore base too, but brought in enough outside the base to make it work, but the kind of reader he brought in wasn't really there to support that type of book in '98 when Heroes Return took place. Without Busiek rebuilding the foundation of that franchise, there would have been nothing there for Bendis to remodel, you can come in and wreck something already in ruins, and that was the state of Avengers in '98 after Leifeld got done imploding the thing. Busiek's Avengers, love it or hate it, was exactly the kind of shot in the arm the book needed at that point in time. I don't think there is a franchise for Bendis to revitalize if Busiek hadn't pulled it off the scrap heap and rebuilt it like he did. Sometimes timing is everything and Busiek on Avengers was right place right time for that book. -M Hard to say. There's always elements of right-place-right-time in any successful art-type product. But I'd say that Bendis et. al. did one thing right that carried over... Betcha a dollar that Busiek's Avengers would have sold better with Spider-Man and Wolverine in it. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 14, 2016 0:16:42 GMT -5
I think the histories of a lot of these characters are so filled with internal contradictions at this point that it's impossible to stay true to all of it: you're always going to be in conflict with something from the past because different parts of that past are in conflict themselves.
|
|
.