|
|
Post by the4thpip on Feb 5, 2015 2:51:21 GMT -5
I'm mystified as to why Bendis ever got popular to begin with, but you'd think that his time at the top has to be getting close to the end. The problem I have with Bendis is that he's isn't close to being as erudite as Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman, nor is he a likeable, whimsical wordsmith like Chris Claremont; he doesn't have the understanding of the genre, or consistency in quality, as writers like Mark Waid and Kurt Busiek and he's not as funny or witty as Peter David. He brings nothing to the table that I like to comics. His writing is superficial snark to me with little redeeming it other than the fact that he positioned himself, through the over-inflated hype of Ultimate Spider-Man, so that he only works on A-list titles and with A-list artists. I'd say some of his indy stuff-Torso, Fire, Powers et. al are masterworks of the comic form and demonstrate a level of craft and understanding of the medium of comics that few mainstream writers ever reach. However, very few of is mainstream projects to me show that same level of craftsmanship and passion. Daredevil comes closest, Alias is near there as well. However the reason he works with a lot of the top flight artists is because they want to work with him because of that perceived level of craftsmenship and the free hand he gives to artists to create and showcase their talent as well. He is a great collaborator when working with other creative folk, and he is positioned not only as one of the top writers of his generation, but as one of the most influential voices of his generation, not only through his writing but through his work as a writer professor, as a curriculum designer for programs in comics studies and in books like Words and Pictures that take that work to a wider audience. He is also a consummate professional in his relationships with editors and publishers and can shoulder a heavy workload, be prolific, and make deadlines. I dislike a large swath of his mainstream output but there is no denying his impact and influence on the modern comic landscape for good or ill, and a lot of his work-for Marvel, for Hollywood studios, and behind the scenes bridging the gap between them, helped pave the way for the growth and development of Marvel Studios and the juggernaut it has become. It was also Bendis that brought an influx of readers and revenue to Marvel is their post-bankruptcy nadir breathing life back into a business that was on its last legs (he was the go to man that Quesada and Jemas turned to get the ball rolling in the right direction when they took over). Like it or not (and I understand why people do not trust me) Bendis is the poster child for the modern Marvel success story for what it is. Yes, comics don't sell anywhere near as well as they once did etc. etc. but a lot of what success Marvel has had in the 21st century has been built on the back of Bendis and this is why, in a new period where exclusive contracts are few and far between, Bendis continues to get them from Marvel, and why artists continue to line up to do both mainstream and creator-owned projects with him. I think I need to take a shower after being the Bendis apologist, but there are very definite and legitimate reasons he is positioned were he is in the industry currently. -M See, I even found his Daredevil unreadable. Bored me to tears. Gave it 2 or 3 chances because so many people loved it, but it just was not for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 2:55:30 GMT -5
Oh I understand, like I said, I hate playing apologist for him, and I get and agree with a lot of the criticism of his work, but his work seems to resonate with enough of the buying public, critics, and the people making editorial decisions for him to have worked his way to where he is, and work ethic is not one of the things you can question about him. But I am not going to gainsay someone who doesn't like his his work...
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Feb 5, 2015 3:32:07 GMT -5
I'm mystified as to why Bendis ever got popular to begin with, but you'd think that his time at the top has to be getting close to the end. The problem I have with Bendis is that he's isn't close to being as erudite as Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman, nor is he a likeable, whimsical wordsmith like Chris Claremont; he doesn't have the understanding of the genre, or consistency in quality, as writers like Mark Waid and Kurt Busiek and he's not as funny or witty as Peter David. He brings nothing to the table that I like to comics. His writing is superficial snark to me with little redeeming it other than the fact that he positioned himself, through the over-inflated hype of Ultimate Spider-Man, so that he only works on A-list titles and with A-list artists. I dont think Bendis has ever portrayed himself as the next Moore or Gaiman, but I do think its his skills with dialogue that resonate with people. Im no teeny geekboy, anymore, but I have always liked how his characters talk. The conversations always feel real, with people talking over others, and at other times wandering off on tangents before coming back to the main point. Spider-Man was a perfect example of this in Avengers. I prefer these books where theyre discussing, and arguing for page after page, they feel more family like, and more realistic. Ive read thousands of puncheramas over the years, but well constructed discussions, and development or maturation of existing characterisations is something I enjoy. I think Bendis does these well, and I even dont mind if he gives previously 2 dimensional heroes a 3rd. Overdue I say, bring it on. |
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Feb 5, 2015 3:45:45 GMT -5
I'm guessing he will launch three or four Fantastic Four titles after Secret War is over. It's the one big franchise he hasn't gotten to play with, yet. As long as he's not the creative force behind whatever Dr. Strange series comes out in time for the movie...I wasn't enamored with his take on Doc during his Avengers run, he plays Doc too much like just another Marvel super-hero. I for one wouldn't mind seeing him do a new Heroes for Hire type book that he seemed to set up at the end of his Avengers run though. Not sure about FF, there have been some weird rumors about the FF post Secret Wars that I don't give a lot of credence too but they seem to be persistent (i.e. 1-no FF title but FF characters appearing in other books, and/or 2-resetting the sliding timeline of the MU so the classic FF and X-Men stories took place in the 60s as a first generation of post-war heroes but are no longer part of the current landscape as they have all retired and/or died by the time Spidey and the Avengers come on the scene as a second generation of Marvel heroes allowing them to keep the history of the books and their place in MU history but not actively support the Fox properties as part of the current MU). Like I said, I don't give much credence to either rumor, but the fact so much stuff is emerging about possible routes for the FF (and X-Men) post Secret Wars and the strife with Fox makes you think something may be up, and add in the FF titles have been sales dogs for a while now, I am expecting some kind of curveball where the FF is concerned in the event aftermath. Bendis might be enough to five the franchise a shot in the arm saleswise, but I doubt it. -M Dr. Strange the rumoured writer (if a new solo-series is happening) so far seems to be Barbiere (writer of the excellent Five Ghosts, which quite a few people on this board are fans of). He already did a Dr. Strange solo story for a New Avengers annual and he would be a solid pick for a Dr. Strange writer. (Though I keep repeating: Marvel had Mike Carey on contract for years and they didn't give him a Dr. Strange series?) FF sales haven't been that bad. Pre-Robinson they even had 2 titles for quite a bit, but even after that they had mediocre, but not terrible sales (25-30k from what I can find). FF has a slight problem in that the four characters interact so well with each other in their set personalities that any character growth and change will be undone by the next writer to get that story engine running again. I think the only permanent change to the FF that has stuck (so far) since the Lee/Kirby years is the addition of Valeria (and that only got to work when Millar turned her into a Reed-level genius). |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 5, 2015 3:54:40 GMT -5
I'm mystified as to why Bendis ever got popular to begin with, but you'd think that his time at the top has to be getting close to the end. The problem I have with Bendis is that he's isn't close to being as erudite as Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman, nor is he a likeable, whimsical wordsmith like Chris Claremont; he doesn't have the understanding of the genre, or consistency in quality, as writers like Mark Waid and Kurt Busiek and he's not as funny or witty as Peter David. He brings nothing to the table that I like to comics. His writing is superficial snark to me with little redeeming it other than the fact that he positioned himself, through the over-inflated hype of Ultimate Spider-Man, so that he only works on A-list titles and with A-list artists. I dont think Bendis has ever portrayed himself as the next Moore or Gaiman, but I do think its his skills with dialogue that resonate with people. Im no teeny geekboy, anymore, but I have always liked how his characters talk. The conversations always feel real, with people talking over others, and at other times wandering off on tangents before coming back to the main point. Spider-Man was a perfect example of this in Avengers. I prefer these books where theyre discussing, and arguing for page after page, they feel more family like, and more realistic. Ive read thousands of puncheramas over the years, but well constructed discussions, and development or maturation of existing characterisations is something I enjoy. I think Bendis does these well, and I even dont mind if he gives previously 2 dimensional heroes a 3rd. Overdue I say, bring it on. I obviously have a bias against Bendis' style, but I can't even say that his dialog is a strongpoint; page after page of dialog is not my idea of a good superhero comic. I have nothing against this in practice, many pages of Sandman were constructed that way, but it simply doesn't work for me in Avengers. When I read Sandman, I wanted that sort of thing as an experience from a stylistic perspective. I get no awe or wonder from the man's writing and have always been suspicious of the notion that human interaction is the center of the universe. I also think, from the little I've read, that he simply writes most characters with his voice and pretty much ignores differentiation in characterization. At what point did this become good writing? I've often wondered if this is simply a byproduct of the current social structure; is there a move to homogenize everything to bring us all around the same level so nothing offends, and consequentially, nothing stand out or lasts? As far as realism is concerned, I've always found that to be the most overrated aspect of the post-Watchman/DKR's era. What's most important to me is emotional resonance and substance. I can only speak for myself, but well written idealism has always moved me more than well written postmodernism. I like both, but I certainly favor one over the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 6:57:55 GMT -5
Shame if Bendis is leaving X-Men books, I've enjoyed his work there (and mostly on his Avengers, previously, apart from unwinding everything he'd done at the end).
On the other hand, I thought the start of the GotG/X-Men "Black Vortex" cross-over was a mess (Edit: which wouldn't be such a non-sequitor if Bendis had actually written it!)
New Avengers (last week) and Avengers, this week, seem markedly more interesting that the last few issues - they seem to be getting to the crunch point now (shame that point is going to be Secret Wars, but still)
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 5, 2015 18:31:05 GMT -5
And I'm going to pause my Bendis' ranting. Sheesh. Sorry. I try to avoid this sort of crap nowadays since the internet is rife with this sort of thing. In my defense, I try to keep it constructive and I never get personal. Bendis could be a great guy, but it's all about the work with me. (Hell I love John Byrne's classic stuff, but the guy himself...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 19:06:17 GMT -5
I am excited to hear that he is off the X-Men.
I am in the group of folks who could not stand his X-Men.
And if this means the end of the X-Men? So be it. I'd rather have them end than to be written by him, dragging on and on and ON for an eternity doing NOTHING.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 5, 2015 20:21:15 GMT -5
I just read the new Jungle Jim and although it is a HUGE departure from the original, moving Jim from the jungles of south east Asia to Arboria and making Jim into some kind of god the art was good and I'm interested to see where the story goes.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Feb 5, 2015 20:24:08 GMT -5
And I'm going to pause my Bendis' ranting. Sheesh. Sorry. Please don't. The majority of his work is terrible. At least what I have had the distinct displeasure of reading. Keep going! RIP HIM UP!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 5, 2015 22:50:08 GMT -5
I enjoyed his New Avengers and his Powers books were great. I guess some fans are mad at what he did in Dissasembled but it was all set right afterwards. You can't really blame the Wanda thing on him, Byrne and others laid the groundwork for her treatment. And she's back to being Wanda now.
|
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Feb 6, 2015 3:26:09 GMT -5
I dont think Bendis has ever portrayed himself as the next Moore or Gaiman, but I do think its his skills with dialogue that resonate with people. Im no teeny geekboy, anymore, but I have always liked how his characters talk. The conversations always feel real, with people talking over others, and at other times wandering off on tangents before coming back to the main point. Spider-Man was a perfect example of this in Avengers. I prefer these books where theyre discussing, and arguing for page after page, they feel more family like, and more realistic. Ive read thousands of puncheramas over the years, but well constructed discussions, and development or maturation of existing characterisations is something I enjoy. I think Bendis does these well, and I even dont mind if he gives previously 2 dimensional heroes a 3rd. Overdue I say, bring it on. I obviously have a bias against Bendis' style, but I can't even say that his dialog is a strongpoint; page after page of dialog is not my idea of a good superhero comic. I have nothing against this in practice, many pages of Sandman were constructed that way, but it simply doesn't work for me in Avengers. When I read Sandman, I wanted that sort of thing as an experience from a stylistic perspective. I get no awe or wonder from the man's writing and have always been suspicious of the notion that human interaction is the center of the universe. I also think, from the little I've read, that he simply writes most characters with his voice and pretty much ignores differentiation in characterization. At what point did this become good writing? I've often wondered if this is simply a byproduct of the current social structure; is there a move to homogenize everything to bring us all around the same level so nothing offends, and consequentially, nothing stand out or lasts? As far as realism is concerned, I've always found that to be the most overrated aspect of the post-Watchman/DKR's era. What's most important to me is emotional resonance and substance. I can only speak for myself, but well written idealism has always moved me more than well written postmodernism. I like both, but I certainly favor one over the other. Gosh, can you imagine a Bendis-written Sandman? The Corinthian, Matthew, Morpheus and Delirium all talking in his generic "Big Lebowski" voice? |
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Feb 6, 2015 3:42:32 GMT -5
I obviously have a bias against Bendis' style, but I can't even say that his dialog is a strongpoint; page after page of dialog is not my idea of a good superhero comic. I have nothing against this in practice, many pages of Sandman were constructed that way, but it simply doesn't work for me in Avengers. When I read Sandman, I wanted that sort of thing as an experience from a stylistic perspective. I get no awe or wonder from the man's writing and have always been suspicious of the notion that human interaction is the center of the universe. I also think, from the little I've read, that he simply writes most characters with his voice and pretty much ignores differentiation in characterization. At what point did this become good writing? I've often wondered if this is simply a byproduct of the current social structure; is there a move to homogenize everything to bring us all around the same level so nothing offends, and consequentially, nothing stand out or lasts? As far as realism is concerned, I've always found that to be the most overrated aspect of the post-Watchman/DKR's era. What's most important to me is emotional resonance and substance. I can only speak for myself, but well written idealism has always moved me more than well written postmodernism. I like both, but I certainly favor one over the other. Gosh, can you imagine a Bendis-written Sandman? The Corinthian, Matthew, Morpheus and Delirium all talking in his generic "Big Lebowski" voice? Actually I'd be interested to see it. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Feb 6, 2015 3:51:32 GMT -5
Gosh, can you imagine a Bendis-written Sandman? The Corinthian, Matthew, Morpheus and Delirium all talking in his generic "Big Lebowski" voice? Actually I'd be interested to see it. Watch a lot of train wrecks, do ya?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 4:03:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I've ever read a Bendis comic, and have only read one issue of Sandman Overture, but I like dialogue in comics.
|
|
