|
|
Post by masterofquackfu on Sept 23, 2017 2:17:11 GMT -5
As we all now, the Avengers have been around for a long, long time. Of course, they've had many members. Most have been good, some have been bad and some, I feel, never were developed properly. A couple characters come to mind: Jocasta and the Swordsman. I felt that both seemed like sideshows and weren't fully integrated in the group. I remember seeing Jocasta in a beat up old Avengers comic book when I was waiting at the dentist's office. I felt that she was a character that the writers had no idea how to attack. She seemed the de facto outsider because of her relationship to Ultron. The Swordsman? It is like they didn't even try with this guy. They just seemed to think, "let's just put him with Mantis" and that is as far as his development went. I think he could have been a core character if they even remotely attempted to integrate him within the team. Any other member that you feel were not properly developed?
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 23, 2017 4:04:17 GMT -5
Jocasta I agree: actually I never thought there was a really viable concept behind the character, it was just Shooter trying to develop the Oedipal Complex into the Ultron/Pym story in much too heavy-handed a way. The visual design was weak as well, with the old-fashioned "robot-rivets" like something out of the 40s.
The Swordsman is more complicated: I thought that what Englehart did with him was very interesting and unusual - what happens when the star of the show loses his confidence, when the coolest guy in the room starts to see himself as a loser? It's a tough read, as I recall, because it's sad to see someone fall that way, even in a superhero comic - maybe moreso, because you aren't expecting it in that kind of story. However, I can imagine someone who remembered the Swordsman from his earlier appearances finding this not to their taste, just as Dr. Doom fans today get upset if their favourite character isn't shown at his best.
Of the "classic" Avengers, I think the Black Panther should have been much more prominent and probably leader of the team, etc at some point. Certainly at the very least equal to someone like Captain America or Iron Man. And of course I've ranted many times about the wasted potential of Moondragon, so I won't repeat my usual tirade on that character. Those are the two that come to ind right now, but as usual, I have to give the disclaimer that my experience as an Avengers reader ends sometime in the late 70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 23, 2017 5:53:04 GMT -5
There was a few periods ( mostly the 90's) when characters were introduced only to be discarded less than 12 issues later. I can name the Deathcry and Lionheart who appeared quickly and disappeared just as fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Sept 23, 2017 9:14:45 GMT -5
I always though Jocasta got a raw deal. She tried to be an Avenger, and was pretty much ignored. I never did figure out why, except maybe the writer had no use for her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 14:57:16 GMT -5
It's too bad that Mantis was gone so fast and I really liked that character from the get go. She had a cool costume.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Sept 23, 2017 16:09:13 GMT -5
Jocasta had a good show in the issue before she left (#210).
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Sept 24, 2017 16:54:36 GMT -5
Jocasta I agree: actually I never thought there was a really viable concept behind the character, it was just Shooter trying to develop the Oedipal Complex into the Ultron/Pym story in much too heavy-handed a way. The visual design was weak as well, with the old-fashioned "robot-rivets" like something out of the 40s. The Swordsman is more complicated: I thought that what Englehart did with him was very interesting and unusual - what happens when the star of the show loses his confidence, when the coolest guy in the room starts to see himself as a loser? It's a tough read, as I recall, because it's sad to see someone fall that way, even in a superhero comic - maybe moreso, because you aren't expecting it in that kind of story. However, I can imagine someone who remembered the Swordsman from his earlier appearances finding this not to their taste, just as Dr. Doom fans today get upset if their favourite character isn't shown at his best. Of the "classic" Avengers, I think the Black Panther should have been much more prominent and probably leader of the team, etc at some point. Certainly at the very least equal to someone like Captain America or Iron Man. And of course I've ranted many times about the wasted potential of Moondragon, so I won't repeat my usual tirade on that character. Those are the two that come to ind right now, but as usual, I have to give the disclaimer that my experience as an Avengers reader ends sometime in the late 70s. Good analysis of the Swordsman. With you on Black Panther - another good call. T'Challa is a difficult character to write at the best of times, and Roy never really had much of a feel for him. I remember Sub-Mariner being poorly served and underused (in a run of Avengers I really like!) but it's been a looooong time since I read those comics. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 24, 2017 18:45:28 GMT -5
Jocasta I agree: actually I never thought there was a really viable concept behind the character, it was just Shooter trying to develop the Oedipal Complex into the Ultron/Pym story in much too heavy-handed a way. The visual design was weak as well, with the old-fashioned "robot-rivets" like something out of the 40s. The Swordsman is more complicated: I thought that what Englehart did with him was very interesting and unusual - what happens when the star of the show loses his confidence, when the coolest guy in the room starts to see himself as a loser? It's a tough read, as I recall, because it's sad to see someone fall that way, even in a superhero comic - maybe moreso, because you aren't expecting it in that kind of story. However, I can imagine someone who remembered the Swordsman from his earlier appearances finding this not to their taste, just as Dr. Doom fans today get upset if their favourite character isn't shown at his best. Of the "classic" Avengers, I think the Black Panther should have been much more prominent and probably leader of the team, etc at some point. Certainly at the very least equal to someone like Captain America or Iron Man. And of course I've ranted many times about the wasted potential of Moondragon, so I won't repeat my usual tirade on that character. Those are the two that come to ind right now, but as usual, I have to give the disclaimer that my experience as an Avengers reader ends sometime in the late 70s. Good analysis of the Swordsman. With you on Black Panther - another good call. T'Challa is a difficult character to write at the best of times, and Roy never really had much of a feel for him. I remember Sub-Mariner being poorly served and underused (in a run of Avengers I really like!) but it's been a looooong time since I read those comics. The only excuse I can think of with the Panther situation is if they figured he was only a kind of part-time Avenger since his real job was King of Wakanda. When was that run with the Sub-Mariner? |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 26, 2017 12:39:09 GMT -5
Good analysis of the Swordsman. With you on Black Panther - another good call. T'Challa is a difficult character to write at the best of times, and Roy never really had much of a feel for him. I remember Sub-Mariner being poorly served and underused (in a run of Avengers I really like!) but it's been a looooong time since I read those comics. The only excuse I can think of with the Panther situation is if they figured he was only a kind of part-time Avenger since his real job was King of Wakanda. When was that run with the Sub-Mariner? Namor was around during the Stern/Buscema/Palmer era. He joined in issue #262. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 26, 2017 21:28:51 GMT -5
I always thought Firebird would have been interesting long term.. having a strongly religious superhero could have been fun. Monica Rambeau, of course.. I've mentioned her several times... I think she was too much thought of as Roger Stern's character for too long.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 21:35:52 GMT -5
Doctor Druid!  |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 28, 2017 10:35:38 GMT -5
Well, Firestar didn't have that impressive a ch.......
Oh, character development.............................
Never mind!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 28, 2017 11:37:29 GMT -5
Of the "classic" Avengers, I think the Black Panther should have been much more prominent and probably leader of the team, etc at some point. Certainly at the very least equal to someone like Captain America or Iron Man. And of course I've ranted many times about the wasted potential of Moondragon, so I won't repeat my usual tirade on that character. Those are the two that come to ind right now, but as usual, I have to give the disclaimer that my experience as an Avengers reader ends sometime in the late 70s. Couldn't agree more. I'm certainly not the first to make this observation, but in terms of the quality of the character, Black Panther should be Marvel's Batman. Unlike a "clone" character like Moon Knight, he's unique, has an original origin, the potential for a varied supporting cast and is diversity done right. Unfortunately, given the stories I've heard about the comics business in those days (black characters sold poorly in the South among other unpleasant issues...) it seems like race has played a part in holding this truly great character back. I'm still floored at how progressive (in the good sense of the term) Lee and Kirby were when they created him. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 29, 2017 10:41:24 GMT -5
Well, Firestar didn't have that impressive a ch....... Oh, character development............................. Never mind! I don't consider her an Avenger... but a New Warrior. She's a good example of how Marvel can't handle development. She had a great story where she married Justice (who LOVES being a superhero) and they were debating retirement... she was concerned he powers were going to give her cancer, and maybe prevent them from having children. After they retired from the Avengers, all of a sudden all that is gone, and she's de-aged to a grad student and hanging out with Arana and other random female heroes that Marvel didn't know what to do with. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 29, 2017 11:01:05 GMT -5
As we all now, the Avengers have been around for a long, long time. Of course, they've had many members. Most have been good, some have been bad and some, I feel, never were developed properly. A couple characters come to mind: Jocasta and the Swordsman. I felt that both seemed like sideshows and weren't fully integrated in the group. I remember seeing Jocasta in a beat up old Avengers comic book when I was waiting at the dentist's office. I felt that she was a character that the writers had no idea how to attack. She seemed the de facto outsider because of her relationship to Ultron. The Swordsman? It is like they didn't even try with this guy. They just seemed to think, "let's just put him with Mantis" and that is as far as his development went. I think he could have been a core character if they even remotely attempted to integrate him within the team. Any other member that you feel were not properly developed? I totally disagree about the Swordsman being underdeveloped; his whole character arc, ending with his tragic death, was what made me an Avengers fan in the first place, and he remains my favourite Avenger to this day because it. For me as a child, his entire story as played out over those two or three years was incredibly powerful, emotionally, and genuinely moved me in a way that few comics have before or since. |
|
