Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Feb 3, 2011 21:40:55 GMT -5
1. Isn't that exactly the definition of a retcon? Taking something away that's been established? It was established that Superman wasn't able to fly when he was created. Then he was retconned into doing so. Now that he has been, is the character now ruined? I doubt that. Sticking with Superman, it was then established that he could move planets around like they were beach balls. That got taken away, too. Is he even more ruined because of that? I don't think so. I'm fairly certain you don't think so either. And I'm still not seeing how you think the story wasn't written well when it just seemed like you just mentioned that "the book becomes garbage because the writers start basing stories around stupid changes they've made to the characters." 2. And again, I'm saying it's that kind of thinking that takes away from enjoying a story as is. If continuity is the end all be all for you deciding whether or not a story is good, then you're not going to find many good stories in Marvel or DC. 3. So are you saying power makes the character now, and since Bendis seemingly nerfed him for that moment, there was no substance to the story? I'm a fan of Sentry, too. Obviously for different reasons, but like I said, I found more substance in his latter days than he's had when he was in New Avengers and Mighty Avengers. 4. Like I said, I think the eye thing in New Avengers wasn't like what you said it was. The only thing I recall from that arc was the team discovering that Agamotto was a person, and that was really his eye. I'll re-read the issues tonight to make sure, but even if it is how you said it was, it wouldn't take away from me enjoying the story. 5. You say you're calling it trash for the story, but the only thing you're mentioning as a reason is her fighting against someone who's weaker than her for a special arc. And what's wrong with issues about just Carol Danvers? Are you the type of person that doesn't like super hero comics that focus on the person behind the mask? I know that's not true because you enjoy Daredevil. 1.Superman was created in...what, the 30's? His character was retconned to meet the standards of the modern reader.All the nonsense that was written about him when he was first created was changed so it makes sense.Flight is just a power added. Now that i've reread the issue of New Avengers I now know that Strange wasn't retconned, I didn't like the story arc before because I thought they had wasted all of that time with that arc to take away a part of Strange's history.5 issues focusing on one character in a team book better have some worthwhile outcome. 2.Consistency is the be all end all for me.I don't mind if you retcon a character but whatever you change better be a retcon.Changing a characters abilities to suit the plot is an issue.My "Sudden Realization" is that there is nothing but that in comics.My problem is when it's done a large scale and there are many inconsistencies in one arc or one book. 3.How was their more substance in his latter days? There was no character progression in Dark Avengers.That story actually made me hate him and I was a fan since day 1. He was no longer a hero in Dark Reign, he was alot weaker than he had been before. Bendis never even addressed certain powers his creator Paul Jenkins gave him in New Avengers and still didn't before he was killed.Most issues he was killed.Even the 2nd issue where he beheaded Morgan Le Fay she blew him up afterwards.They only wat that arc would have been good is if Sentry had left DA with Noh-Varr when he warned him about Norman. 4.We covered this. 5.The mismatch of Ms.Marvel and Moonstone IS THE STORY in War of the Marvels.Why are you trying to detach the two? The only issues in the entire Dark Reign run that actually added anything to Carol's story is when she went back to speak with her mother and the last issue of the Volume.She was "killed off" in her own book.Moonstone took her place.I don't want to read about Moonstone as Ms.Marvel.I hate Moonstone.She's not Ms.Marvel.She didn't even do anything in that role either.She was basically doing what she had been her entire career.Pretending to be a superhero is what she was doing as a Thunderbolt.How is it any different?
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Feb 3, 2011 23:31:39 GMT -5
1.You could say that about every retcon. That was Quesada's exact argument for One More Day, but it's still hated across the boards primarily because it did what a retcon does and that was reestablish a character's history. That's the usual reason you hear. "It tore Pete and MJ apart. It took away Spidey's Other powers." Sure those aren't the only reasons, but they're definitely the most used reasons. It seems to me that anytime there's a retcon of any type, it's always going to be hated because it's changing something, but twenty, thirty years down the line, people look back on it without giving it a second thought, occasionally saying the retcon was needed, like with Superman.
And now you're saying that knowing what you know about that New Avengers arc suddenly makes the story acceptable to you? I'm sorry, but that does nothing but reaffirm to me everything I've been saying in this thread, and that's if you put continuity above everything else, you miss the story. The story arc did not change whatsoever. Same characters, same quality, same plot, same outcome, but to say it's suddenly better because you now know it didn't retcon Dr. Strange as oppose to if it did is just--I can't even wrap my head around that. I'd honestly hate if that's how I looked at every comic I read. I still don't see how you can find any enjoyment in Marvel or DC because of that.
2. Like I said, I just think that's a terrible way to go about reading comics. If it works for you, it works for you, but I still don't see how. I'm trying to see how you would go about enjoying comics, but I honestly can't see it. Especially when it seems like most of your posts generally revolve around you not liking such and such a series because of the continuity issues it raises. Putting continuity above all in a medium where continuity itself is fluidly changing by the decade and with companies that thrive off of large scale, universe spanning events just doesn't seem like the best way to get enjoyment out of any of the material DC and Marvel put out.
3. Dark Avengers was all about character progression between Sentry and Osborn. You not liking the direction Sentry progressed in the story--moving from mentally fractured would be hero to great evil thing--is more of a complaint on you not liking the direction of the story, not Bendis retconning Sentry or anything. More of a taste issue than anything. Bendis didn't address Sentry's powers much because Sentry's powers weren't the focus of Dark Avengers, it was all about his psyche, and how he was breaking an' junk, falling deeper and deeper into the Void.
On an unrelated note, I think I recall reading somewhere that the concept behind Sentry is why a Superman like character couldn't exist on Marvel Earth or some crazy mess like that. Just thought that was interesting because that kinda seemed to be what was behind Bendis' mind when he had Sentry do stuff.
5. No, THE STORY, like every Dark Reign title that featured the Dark Avengers, was how each particular Dark Avenger was adjusting to the drastic change from being a villain to being a "hero." Since the official Dark Avengers title was all about Sentry, Norman, Hand, and their interaction, the solo titles expanded on the other characters. That's why they took over the other books. That was the point, that was the story, that's what happened. War of the Marvels was just the conclusion of that, when Ms. Marvel actually confronted Moonstone about the mantle. It was like the Siege to the Dark Reign. The only real reason I can see people hating the story is if they either, hate Moonstone, hate Dark Reign/Dark Avengers, hate other characters taking over books, or all of the above, which seems to be you all over.
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Feb 4, 2011 1:45:23 GMT -5
1.No you can't say that about every retcon.Comics changed drastically between the time Superman came out and the time he was retconned.OMD didn't change Spider-Man's origin all it did was undo things that Quesada thought would hurt the character.OMD retconning Spider-Man isn't my beef with it and I already explained what issues I had with the writing in One More Day.It has nothing to do with continuity.
The New Avengers arc is suddenly more acceptable now that I know I was wrong about what happened because alot of issues were used to tell the whole story.If you do all of that and then just completely ruin the character you just spent 5 issues focusing on..then it would have been pointless.I don't read comics for small details.Everything that happens in one issue has to be leading up to a bigger picture.You can't take all of these steps and then make then irrelevant with the outcome..that's a waste of my time.That's why I didn't like Shadowland.They did all this building of this demonic Daredevil and in the end it's Iron Fist with a technique he's had all along who caused him to purge himself of the Beast.
2.All of the series I didn't like I didn't dislike them because of continuity issues and I don't get why you keep saying this.I didn't like Secret Invasion because they built up tons of suspense and the skrulls were push overs.Pretty much all of the possible twists the story could have had were downplayed.I didn't like Dark Reign because it focused mostly on villains and alot of the tie-ins where completely irrelevant to the actual story.The main story was Dark Avengers and that was boring.0 character development.It was basically Thunderbolts with different costumes.I didn't like Contest of Champions II because it's pages and pages of shitty outcomes and the story isn't relevant to anyones character.It may not even be canon.I don't like Hudlin's Black Panther because the dialogue is hokey, the storylines clearly prove he didn't know what to do with the character and he over-exaggerated his abilities.The issues I have with inconsistency aren't the soul reason I hate those arcs as I just demonstrated but storylines with inconsistencies on massive levels always seem to be poorly written on top of it.
3.How was there progression? The only thing that progressed was the bond between Osborn and Sentry.There are several things about Sentry's character Bendis has yet to address and in the end he killed him off.I don't have a problem with Sentry dealing with the Void...but it was poorly executed.Issue 1 made me want to read more.Issue 2 made me want to read more.Everything after that didn't serve much of a purpose.When Bendis wrote New Avengers before Civil War..THAT'S how you write the Avengers.They were an actual team, they had chemistry, they went on missions, they took down threats. Dark Avengers was nothing like that.All Bullseye did was hunt down whomever Norman told him and he failed most times.All Moonstone did was have sex with other characters.Noh-Varr didn't do anything accept for in She-Hulk when he fought Lyra and in the annual when he leaves the team.Daken didn't do anything until Siege, and Ares didn't do much of anything either.If he didn't have his own mini and appear in Secret Warriors..he would have done nothing until Sentry he fought Sentry.The way Sentry and Norman were written in Agents of Atlas..that's how Bendis should have been writing Sentry that up until Siege. The way Dan Slott wrote Mighty Avengers during Dark Reign..that's how Bendis should have wrote Dark Avengers.How are they going to be the main Avengers team and not do anything of significance? The only reason Norman was able to keep the American people on his side is by tricking them into thinking he was a hero repeatedly.They went on like one mission.
5.Moonstone didn't make a drastic change.She has been a villain playing a hero her entire career.Dark Wolverine,Hawkeye,those are different stories.Daken and Bullseye aren't heroes.Having the book focus on Moonstone isn't that big of a deal..but what they didn't do is write anything new for her.Brian Reed didn't write a milestone for her life...he basically just revisited things we already knew about her character.The part of Dark Reign before Carol "dies". Is worth the read..the stuff with Moonstone and the War of the Marvels is not.They drag out a mismatch for 5 issues.When you end a volume..you're supposed to end it on something big.War of the Marvels was trash.It won't be remembered as a valuable arc for her character.You think that's what Ms.Marvel fans want to see? After what we saw from her in Secret Invasion, the Cru arc, Initiative..you really think at the end of the vol. they want to see her struggle with someone who's physically weaker than Luke Cage? After a whole volume of big moments for the character, ending it like that is disrespectful to the readers.And yes it does suck because of her fighting someone she's clearly more powerful than because that's what War of the Marvels WAS about.When Ms.Marvel ripped those stones out of her and she had a moment..that was the first time, Brian Reed actually gave Moonstone some feeling.
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Feb 4, 2011 2:29:05 GMT -5
1. Every retcon I've come across has been done so to "meet the standards of the readers." I know your reasons for the OMD fanrage, and I also know the reasons a lot of other people fanrage about it, and the first thing that usually pops out of their mouths is the marriage, something Quesada thought would hurt the character in the long run. So for you, it's all about the outcome? Who cares what the story is about, just tell me what it leads into? That's continuity. Not caring about the little details is not caring about the story. If the only thing that matters to you is the outcome of things, you might as well replace your comic reading with wiki reading. You'd get the same benefit. 2. I keep bringing up continuity because--well, for starters--that's what I jumped in wanting to talk about: I can take a crappy storyline, what I can't stand is reading something that shows the person who wrote the book has a clearly lack of knowledge on the subject. Now that's interesting. If you don't mind, I wanna take a moment and start a discussion centering around that in particular. For starters I guess I should ask why? How is a crappily written story better than a story that simply pays little attention to continuity? I notice a lot of comic fans seem to have that mentality, and it's always baffled me. and because in talking about it with you, you've been making it plainly evident in all of your posts that the reason you dislike most of the stories you've brought up was because of them going against continuity. From the beginning, I said liking or disliking a bad story because it's a bad story is one thing, but when looking at a story, and then deciding it's bad because it doesn't fit with the continuity, like how you did with Strange and the New Avengers is completely different. It's only now that you're saying you didn't like Secret Invasion and Dark Reign because of the story. I mean, if you're tired of talking about whether or not inconsistencies and continuity errors should dominate one's opinion of the overall story, and just talk about what makes a bad story bad and a good story good, we could do that. Actually, I think that'd be more interesting at this point now in the discussion. 3. Yes, that's how you write the Avengers. Were the Dark Avengers the Avengers? No, it was a completely different book with a completely different theme. What you call "doing nothing" I call doing something else. The nature of Dark Avengers wasn't about being an Avengers team like Mighty or Initiative going on missions every which way, taking down threats, and being Earth's Mightiest Heroes. It wasn't a big, "who is this team going to fight this issue?" It was a book focused on the character's, their dynamics, and their interactions with the public and each other. Not liking that is simply not liking the style, the story telling. It was never a team book like how the Avengers was, and going into it, thinking it was, it's no wonder you were displeased with its outcome. Noh-Varr leaving was a major thing worth happening because it reaffirmed that theme of "this is not a super hero team." Bullseye, Moonstone, and Ares, had their thing going on in their minis, giving way for the spotlight to be focused on developing Norman and Sentry's relationship. 5. Hey, it made me a Ms Marvel fan, and it also got me looking at Moonstone, a character I didn't care about before hand. So revisiting things close to Moonstone's roots while going up against a character that I became a fan of during the volume and the arc was A-OK with me. I don't see how just because she's weaker than Ms. Marvel is some sort of insult to the readers. I'm sorry you feel that way?
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Feb 4, 2011 8:32:11 GMT -5
@nexus
1.I don't have OMD fanrage.I have different reasons for not liking the story.It was boring,predictable,no different than any other story where someone a hero loves is going to die.I am happy with the outcome of OMD and alot of what followed it was very good.I have been satisfied with Spider-Man since then.
2.You're taking what I said out of context.The point of what I was saying is that bad writing sucks period but if I have to compare a boring or pointless story to a story that goes against what is consistently shown for the character.That is a far worse offense to me than simply not writing something good.Every writer isn't going to write to my taste.What i think is boring or pointless, others may find enjoyable but when it comes to showing poor knowledge of the character by the writer.That's undeniable.Nowhere in any post did I say I didn't like Secret Invasion or Dark Reign because of continuity errors.I first mentioned those events on page 5 and none of the reasons I named for those arcs not being good had anything to do with continuity but everything to do with Bendis not writing characters well.
3.YES, the Dark Avengers..were the Avengers.The Dark Avengers during Dark Reign were the only legally operating team.Can you give reference to one issue where anyone besides Sentry or Norman did anything? And when I say did anything I mean anything that mattered.The Dark Avengers book WASN'T about the Dark Avengers..that's what it WASN'T about.It was about Norman and Sentry.Why didn't they just give Sentry a mini for all that? Why assemble a team and then not use them? I didn't go in expecting this to be like other Avengers books..I was just giving examples of well written ones.I was expecting this to be like Thunderbolts...because that's basically what this team is.It wasn't.It was a waste of time.The minis that where made for the other characters were trash. They only made those minis because they had done NOTHING with those characters for a whole event.
5.How? How did that make you a Ms.Marvel fan? Not the arcs where she actually lived up to her potential..but War of the Marvels? Moonstone has been the same character since day 1, she didn't change as Ms.Marvel so a book focused on her isn't worth the read and definitely not when it's wasting space in another characters Vol.You don't see how Moonstone being weaker than Carol makes War of the Marvels and insult? The reserved 5 issues for Carol to fight someone who is weaker than her...we've seen far better from Carol earlier in the Volume..she's backpedaling....
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Feb 4, 2011 12:34:35 GMT -5
1. Yes, you mentioned that. And I was mentioning the general populous of who do, the majority of long time Spidey readers who speak the loudest about why they hated OMD, and among their top reasons is the retconing of the marriage, and the wonky effects that followed. People saying "I'm not reading a Spidey book until Pete and MJ get back together." There was even a good bit of that in Spidey's thread about how he felt.2. And on page 4, we talked about that, and the thing you kept going back to was inconsistent showings and continuity. I misspoke when I said that was all you were complaining about with Secret Invasion and Dark Reign, but that was the main reason you stated for hating Contest of Champions II. Inconsistent feats, and with Dark Reign, inconsistent character traits or whatever. If that's the only thing that's wrong with the story, then the story shouldn't be considered bad. If the story turns out not having any real story to it, then it should be considered bad for not having a story. Putting quality over consistency and story over continuity, to me is just a much better way to enjoy reading a comic than being overly concerned with "What in the world? Wonder Man should wipe the floor with Black Widow," etc. 3. NO, Dark Avengers was a different book from Avengers. Sure, they were a team of Avengers, but the book was not like how the book of New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, Avengers: Initiative, or Avengers was written. It did focus primarily on Sentry and Norman and Victoria Hand. It was for all intents and purposes, their story. The other members of the team had their own stories in their own titles. Moonstone took over Ms Marvel's title, and Daken took over Wolverine's title, Ares, Bullseye, and Venom got their own series. And that's exactly why they were made, because Dark Avengers wasn't a book that focused on each individual character. It was made to show how Norman deals with being the top dog. Noh-Varr leaving was a plot device to further solidify that the book Dark Avengers was not the same heroic books that New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, and Avengers have been. The reason I'm italicizing those titles is because that's the English way of referring to titles of books. Perhaps I should underline them so there's no confusion between that and me emphasizing words. Saying it was a waste of time because it had three dynamic characters and everyone else being a flat character is like saying there's no such thing as a good book that involves flat characters. Some characters are just there for the protagonists to interact with. That's how stories work. Characters interacting with other characters. 5. It made me a Ms. Marvel fan because I read it, thought Ms. Marvel was cool, and decided to look into the rest of her series. Nothing all that complicated. After doing that, and seeing how War of the Marvels was brought about, how it was the conclusion of Carol taking back her mantle and such, made me enjoy the story even more. Saying that it's an insult for a character to be fighting an even match with a character she should easily beat is once again putting consistency and continuity over the storyline. Like I've been saying all along, plot shouldn't be secondary. The reason for the story, the character's interaction with the events, how that character deals with those events, the things that you call "small details," the things you said you don't care about--those are all the elements of the story. If all you care about is the result and whether you agree with that end result, you're completely missing the story, completely missing the theme, the writer was trying to convey. And not caring about what that theme is because of only being concerned with "Oh, this character should beat this other one easily,"--well, that's going back to the baseball card stat thing, and again, you can get that same thing without undergoing the heartache of being forced to read through five issues of stuff that you hate by just reading up on wikis for a living. You can get that from visiting the battle threads for a living. Blogs, forums, everything meta-textual. You can do exactly what you're concerned about without having to touch another comic again.
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Feb 4, 2011 18:25:24 GMT -5
@nexus
Contest of Champions II isn't a literary masterpiece.You can't make a comic based on hero vs. hero and the can somehow be written well even if all the fights have ridiculous outcomes.I'm not putting continuity over story.There is no story without the parts that I didn't like.Thus the story is trash.
As far as Dark Reign.My biggest beef wasn't about inconsistent character traits although I don't like what had been done to Sentry.My biggest beef with that series is it built up alot of suspense and it didn't at all meet my expectations storyline wise.I thought this was going to be the arc where Sentry was going to make other people fans because he was going to do great things.I thought he was going to be persuaded to leave the Dark Avengers and the exact opposite happened.Alot of people hate the character because of that story arc.Dark Reign is considered bad for not having a good story but I can't overlook the misuse of characters either.I'm a Marvel fan because I believe they have the best character roster in comics.I don't want to see my favorite characters not used properly or not used at all.
Dark Avengers was a different book that other Avengers books.I'm not disagreeing with that.What I am disagreeing with is them not being the real Avengers.That's what they were supposed to be.They were supposed to be to Dark Reign what the Mighty Avengers were to Civil War.Now they have the registration act in their hands they can police the United States and round up heroes.That's not what they did.They spent issue after issue on the Void and Sentry.Which begs the question.Why even assemble a team at all? Sentry did most of the work anyway.That's not how you write a team book.It doesn't matter if it's the Avengers or anyone else.Ms.Marvel's solo book, Sinister Spider-Man,Hawkeye, and Dark Avengers: Ares were no different than any other Dark Reign tie-in...pointless.I don't even like Deadpool and enjoyed his Dark Reign tie-ins more than these. There is no such thing as a good team book with flat characters.If they don't do anything there's no reason for them to be in the book.It's that simple.
I don't get what you don't get about what I'm saying about War of the Marvels.Plot CANNOT come secondary to continuity in this case.The Plot is based around an inconsistency.Basing a comic around Carol taking her mantle back from someone that is vastly weaker than her is stupid and a waste of my time.That's not how you write a big vs. arc. Carol has defeated more powerful beings than Moonstone in Vol.1 when she was weaker, how is that arc acceptable? Look at War of the Hulks..that's a title worthy of "War".They don't ever put Hulk against characters he can easily beat unless he's fighting them in large groups.World War Hulk is an example of that. Look at War of the Kings.Blackbolt vs. Vulcan..that's a CREDIBLE match up.That makes me intrigued to want to know what's going to happen because I don't know who is more powerful. Basing an arc around a fight I know Carol will win with no interesting plot twist or anything to make it fair for Moonstone is just WIS.I do care about "baseball card" stats because they are part of the character AND part of the story.If you're not going to stay true to the things you've already shown then there is no point in showing them. I care about outcomes.Character progression.Nerfing a character down to using as a punching bag to suit your plot IS NOT good writing.Disregarding continuity and consistency..isn't good writing.(excluding retcons)
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Feb 4, 2011 18:35:38 GMT -5
Caine, what you're saying here is exactly part of why I abandonned marvel and Dc
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Feb 4, 2011 18:37:10 GMT -5
Caine, what you're saying here is exactly part of why I abandonned marvel and Dc The lack of respect for characters and consistency?
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Feb 4, 2011 18:39:33 GMT -5
yes, amongst other things. These days, I only buy stuff from other companies/series that are consistent because they are creator/writer controlled.
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Feb 4, 2011 18:44:37 GMT -5
yes, amongst other things. These days, I only buy stuff from other companies/series that are consistent because they are creator/writer controlled. It wasn't always this bad, well for Marvel at least.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Feb 4, 2011 18:46:35 GMT -5
In my experience Marvel and DC had always been as bad. It's just that they screwed the pooch in different ways.
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Feb 4, 2011 19:34:21 GMT -5
In my experience Marvel and DC had always been as bad. It's just that they screwed the pooch in different ways. I don't know what you mean but I won't pursue it.
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Feb 5, 2011 3:32:56 GMT -5
What Crom is saying is that Marvel has always been doing this. It's nothing new. Like I said on page 5, it's the very nature of the company being so big. Saying that it hasn't been this bad before is simply ignoring most of the things that came before hand, things such as multiple writers, things such as different interpretations of the characters, things such as "staying with the times," and things such as retcons. DC is also known for doing this. Again, it would be impossible for them to have existed so long with so many writers and editors for them not to do this, so the biggest thing I'm trying to get from you is if consistency and continuity are held so high for you with companies that are notorious for having a fluid, constantly changing continuity, why bother putting up with it? Why not stop reading Marvel (and/or DC)? There are plenty of other comics and stories out there that do exactly what you want. What worked for Crom sounds to me like the exact thing that would work for you. And since you say you like Marvel because of the characters, well you can still get your fix with them by sticking with keeping up to date with wikis, forums, and blogs. Especially since the only thing that you stated that matters to you is the end result. You'd get that same exact result without having to go through any of the hassle and trouble. If you can't read what Marvel or DC puts out and enjoy it, then it's not for you. Like I said, I went into Marvel and DC already knowing this, and as such I realized that the best way to enjoy a story they put out is to not get caught up in baseball card stats, and I've always believed--frankly I thought it was always common knowledge, but I guess not--that when judging how well a story is written, you should actually judge the story.
Now tell me, how in the world did you go into Dark Avengers thinking that it was going to work out like Mighty Avengers? Seriously, are you telling me that you thought Norman was going to lead a team of real heroes? Like some super police implemented like the pro-reg forces in Civil War? From issue one, it was evident that nothing like that was going to work out. All throughout Dark Reign, every writer of every book was straight up tellin' us that Norman and his Avengers weren't going to last. There was no indication that the team or the event was going to work out any other way than it did. It shouldn't have come as a surprise when it didn't. Quite frankly, it shouldn't of come as a surprise that Sentry didn't leave the Dark Avengers team. Saying that because he didn't is a misuse of his character seems more and more like--I don't even know--just you not getting what you hoped for, and that's just bound to happen simply because you're not the one writing the story. I'm sorry that you feel that Sentry should be this great character that should have all these fans because he's such a great guy, but that just simply wasn't what the story was about. Sentry's downfall was about the end of Dark Reign, the end of Norman Osborn, and the return of the real Avengers. You either like it or you don't. You, and a bunch of others obviously don't like it, but I, along with a few others do. If you really want to see a story where Sentry or Norman, or the Dark Avengers worked out the way you wanted them to, you should write a fan-fic, and I'm not saying that to be facetious or anything, fan-fiction was created with this very thing in mind. People don't agree with outcomes of stories all the time, but with fan-fiction, the outcome is virtually anything you can imagine it to be. It takes the phrase "if you want it done right, do it yourself" to a new level. Seriously, try it out some time if you haven't.
I don't get why you think I don't get what you're saying about War of the Marvels. You're putting character showings, feats, and continuity over the plot. Saying that the plot in Ms. Marvel was based on an inconsistency is completely missing the story. You might as well have just read the last five pages of issue 46 and nothing else. The story wasn't about Ms. Marvel vs Moonstone. That was the end result of the story, a small piece in the plot. The falling action. In every big story that has the word "war" in the title. It's never about "Oh this guy's fighting this guy." The story is about how and why this and that guy are gonna meet and fight. Again, those tiny details that you say you don't care about is the entirety of the story. Judging the story based on one small aspect of it, the end result, the falling action, the baseball stats, and dismissing everything else that led up to it, the part of the story that actually matters, is dismissing the entire point of the comic. They're not battle forum debates, they're not Yu-gi-oh monsters with higher attack points and defense points, they're not just stats on a baseball card, they're not fighting for fighting's sake, they're characters taking part in an actual story. You say you care about character progression, but not caring about the stuff that leads up to it just doesn't make sense. Character progression isn't about two characters fighting each other at the end of a story arc, it's about the character reacting to the plot in that story arc that leads up to the fight. If the only reason you read comics is to see comic person A fight comic person B, then you might as well stick to the only place in the world that does that right, and that's the battle forums. Forget reading comics all together and just stay there. There, when reading and participating in debates with credible people, you won't be disappointed, because there're no little things like or character emotions or writers or plotline getting in the way. It actually is comparing baseball stats.
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Feb 5, 2011 13:50:16 GMT -5
When I said I don't know what he meant I didn't mean I couldn't comprehend what he's saying.I meant I disagree.When I said "It wasn't always this bad" what I meant is more comics were actually readable. Different writers having their "own interpretation" of a character isn't my problem.I said was ok with that pages ago.Most of that first paragraph is stuff I already know..stuff I've even said myself. I don't read comics to get caught up on baseball card stats.I read the stories so I can see how characters I like have progressed.If I cared only about baseball card stats I wouldn't have read half of Daredevil's minis because there's little to know feats in them.In fact I don't even think he fights anyone in Daredevil Redemption.He spends most of the time doing detective work and taking a court case.I also wouldn't have read non-superhero books like Fables, American Virign, and Alias.
I don't know why every response you're asking me to stop reading Marvel and DC when I have yet to say anything about any DC storyline and I HAVE stopped reading current continuity Marvel books accept for Amazing Spider-Man,Heroes For Hire and Hulk.I only read New Avengers because I heard things about it and I was curious. I can still read older Marvel Comics and enjoy them but as of late everything has become about gimmicks and a false sense of suspense.They get people excited and then write mediocre storylines with predictable outcomes.
I didn't expect the the Dark Avengers to work out like Mighty Avengers at all.They did however take their role.The Dark Avengers were legally the only Avengers team allowed to operate.Like how the Mighty Avengers were in Civil War,Initiative,and parts of Secret Invasion.I didn't expect them to be this great team..I did however expect them to be A TEAM.Even if a bad one I did expect them to do something.
I'm not surprised that Sentry didn't leave the Dark Avengers.That's simply what I wanted to happen.That's not why the book sucked though and I never said it was.I just wanted more for Sentry.The fact that he was evil or the Void took over is no problem for me.The way it was written wasn't good though.I'm not writing a fan fic either.I honestly don't even care that much.Dark Reign and Dark Avengers sucked IMO.That's all there is to it.
You said you don't get why I think you're not getting one I am saying and then you prove you didn't get it.I'm not putting showings or stats above story.The story was not about the steps Carol took to fighting Moonstone and getting her mantle back.In the very first issue of War of the Marvels, Ms.Marvel v2 #42..Carol and Moonstone fought for the entire issue and Carol lost.How is Carol fighting Moonstone a small piece of the plot when they fought in 3 out of the 5 issues? The stuff involving Catherine Donovan was pointless because she's not a real character.Carol had no obligation to even save her accept the fact that she's a hero and in the end she was still killed by Iron Patriot.Those tiny details you think i'm neglecting added nothing to the story.Fighting Moonstone was the story..there was nothing else.Carol wasn't even dealing with the fact Moonstone took her mantle.She had a bunch of other personal issues during that arc.Most importantly "dying". As Wolverine pointed out.So at the end of the day the story still based around a plot device.That story should have ended in issue #42.
I don't read comics for fights but if that's what you're going to make the comic about.Then make it a good one.That's what I was I was saying.
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Feb 5, 2011 15:59:34 GMT -5
Readable in the sense that they stayed true to the characters and continuity all the time? No, that wasn't the case. That was hardly ever the case. I've read through older Marvel stories that had inconsistencies with the same writer with comics from the 70's and 80's just as I've read through them with the present. They've had Captain Mar-Vell get brutally beaten by Ronan the Accuser, and two issues later having him fight toe to toe with Drax the Destroyer, the same Drax that ripped out the core of a star, and then somehow have Ms. Marvel beat that same Ronan. What you're complaining about happening today has been happening for decades. I don't know why it suddenly upsets you now.
And I keep asking you to stop reading Marvel and DC because I'm trying to find a solution to your dilemma, and honestly, that's the best thing I can think of. I'm not trying to say it's wrong that you read comics the way you do, but if that's how you do it, and you know that Marvel and DC are notorious for doing what you don't like, then don't go through the trouble. If you have stopped keeping up with the current events that you don't like, then you have solved your problem, and that's good.
What something could the Dark Avengers have done that they didn't though? They weren't heroes, so they weren't going to do anything heroic. All Norman cares about is himself and keeping his power, so he did what was true to his character, and that was try to keep his power while trying to take away everyone else's, setting up the Cabal, keeping Sentry on a leash, making sure his PR was in check, sending "messages" to all who opposed him--Atlantis, the X-Men, and the big one Asgard. That's actually quite a lot of stuff for a series that lasted only 15 issues, so saying they did "nothing," isn't entirely true.
When you read comics, are you paying any attention to the words? I mean, dang yo, it's like we didn't read the same thing. LOL. I just re-read the arc in its entirety, and everything about it was Carol becoming Ms. Marvel again, and Karla becoming Moonstone again. The fight that took place in the first issue was just the set up for that. It was not the story. Again, and again, you're saying that the fight was the story, but it was not. It was a part of it, yes, but the story did not revolve around the fight. Very little do they ever take center stage. There's always a story behind the fight, and if there's not, then you got a bad story--or DBZ, take your pick. The story was about Catherine Donavan--the Carol side of Ms. Marvel. I don't see how Reed could have made that any clearer. The storytellers gave her the chance to live life normally, but she was still somehow drawn to the life of a super hero. The story was also about Ms. Marvel, the super hero side of the coin, the side that was about saving lives and fighting the bad guy and how she couldn't really be a good super hero without her human half, the "meaningless" Catherine Donavon. The story was also about Karla and how she was trying to deny herself by pretending to be what she's not, by pretending to be Ms. Marvel. All of this was the story. Those are the details that you claim meaningless and tiny and pointless. The fight that resulted from the story, the one thing that you seem to think was the entirety of the story was just nothing more than the story moving along. It played perhaps the smallest role in the story.
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Feb 5, 2011 19:05:12 GMT -5
Where are you getting the question that you're asking from what I just posted? When anywhere in this thread did I say or suggest that Marvel EVER was completely consistent all the time? I've never said that.In fact me realizing that was the point of this thread.My post was really more about figuring out what characters can do based on what I've read rather than my beef with the writing in Marvel Comics currently.I'm not upset either.I've already made a choice of what do about what i'm reading and I'm happy with it.
All I was expecting from Dark Avengers is for it to be a team book.I don't read Heroes for Hire expecting to read about Misty Knight.Although she's one of my favorite characters, I would like them to take some time and focus on other characters.They weren't heroes..but they were villains so they could have done something villanous or anything more than they had done.I was just giving suggestions earlier by using other books.When you called a book _____Avengers you increase my expectations and Dark Avengers didn't meet that.
I payed attention to the words in the book.You said that Carol fighting Karla was a small piece of the plot but it wasn't it was the bulk of the plot.The stuff with Catherine Donavan part of the book would have been insignificant without the fight between Ms.Marvel and Moonstone.All of this "becoming Ms.Marvel" again stuff was done earlier in the Volume but there was more substance.When Ms.Marvel lost her powers in Cru arc..there was a better storyline behind it the results were more worth the read.Thus as I said posts ago she's backpedalling.
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Feb 5, 2011 20:42:54 GMT -5
I got it from this. yes, amongst other things. These days, I only buy stuff from other companies/series that are consistent because they are creator/writer controlled. It wasn't always this bad, well for Marvel at least. You saying it always wasn't this bad. I assumed you were talking about Marvel being consistent, thus being more readable, since that was what you and Crom were discussing. Dark Avengers was a team book. Bendis didn't give every member of that team their own moment in the sun, but not all team books do that. Guardians of the Galaxy was a team book, but roughly for the most part it was about Peter Quill leading the team. Was it a horrible book because of that? Most certainly not. Sure, more people got their moment to shine in that than Dark Avengers, but it also lasted much longer than 15 issues. I'm sure if Dark Avengers lasted longer, there would have been more development for the rest of the members as well, but it didn't so Bendis maximized on it by having it focus primarily on Norman, Hand, and Sentry, because that was what was needed to lead into Siege. And like I said before, the fight was part of the story, and it served it's small part by moving the story forward. It wasn't the bulk of anything. If there wasn't a fight, the story could have moved forward by some other method. The stuff involving the Cru wasn't all that like War of the Marvels at all. You're talking about Monster and Marvel, right? #21-24? If so, we could do a compare and contrast between the two story arcs.
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Feb 6, 2011 0:57:31 GMT -5
I got it from this. It wasn't always this bad, well for Marvel at least. You saying it always wasn't this bad. I assumed you were talking about Marvel being consistent, thus being more readable, since that was what you and Crom were discussing. Dark Avengers was a team book. Bendis didn't give every member of that team their own moment in the sun, but not all team books do that. Guardians of the Galaxy was a team book, but roughly for the most part it was about Peter Quill leading the team. Was it a horrible book because of that? Most certainly not. Sure, more people got their moment to shine in that than Dark Avengers, but it also lasted much longer than 15 issues. I'm sure if Dark Avengers lasted longer, there would have been more development for the rest of the members as well, but it didn't so Bendis maximized on it by having it focus primarily on Norman, Hand, and Sentry, because that was what was needed to lead into Siege. And like I said before, the fight was part of the story, and it served it's small part by moving the story forward. It wasn't the bulk of anything. If there wasn't a fight, the story could have moved forward by some other method. The stuff involving the Cru wasn't all that like War of the Marvels at all. You're talking about Monster and Marvel, right? #21-24? If so, we could do a compare and contrast between the two story arcs. All Team books are supposed to do that and most do.Guardians of the Galaxy is a bad example.They spent plenty of time focusing on other characters than Peter Quill.The issues in Secret Invasion where Adam Warlock heavy.Moondragon had her moments as did Phylla.Major Victory and Starhawk had a few issues revolving around them etc. etc. Also they spent time showing how they work as team.They weren't the most well put together team but the writer showed that everyone had role on the team.Even Cosmo and Rocket Raccoon were of some use.In fact I think Rocket Raccoon was the leader at one point.I understand why they focused so much on Sentry,Norman,and Victoria Hand...that doesn't make the story any better because the parts focused on them weren't good either. In regards to War of the Marvels..how is the thing that drives the story the a small part of it? Any story could have been moved forward by some other method but this was driven by a fight between two characters. I don't feel like anything that happened in the entire Dark Reign series of Ms.Marvel was what Brian Reed wanted to happen.I think he was stuck with what Bendis created for that arc and was going to have to write for Moonstone and he wrote all that other stuff to make a viable reason for this rivalry between two mismatched characters.That's what I think happen.I don't know how someone who had written so well for an entire volume writes something this bad. The Cru arc..Yes Monster & Marvel isn't much like War of the Marvels.For starters it's actually good but they do share common elements.
|
|