Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities The All Avengers Thread

HWW, you should really check out the issue Stealth mentions. I think the execution of Hank rejoining the team during the Harras era really reflects where he was after Stern's story and is a very logical and understanding turn of events.

Its only later during Busiek's run and the bad runs since Busiek that Hank has reverted to the mess of a character he is now.

But from Avengers #366 - 380 (or so), Hank was really Hank, back in business as Giant-Man and an Avenger, having grown even further as a man. I think it was done really well.

Stealth - I hope you're right. I hope there is some great era of Avengers just over the horizon. Something else else new and fresh, drawing on some old characters (re: not just members), but moving forward in some new direction. We all want it so badly...it will assuredly happen. Lets just hope the don't ruin the Marvel Universe too badly in the meantime.

Here's another thing that makes me hopeful -- Bendis' Avengers books may be selling well, but let's not forget that Morrison's X-Men sold well at the time and was hyped as being "edgy", but today it's generally looked at as little more than a footnote.

For the moment, I must report that I browsed through Avengers: The Initiative # 1 and found it dreary and mean-spirited. I think that Marvel made a big mistake by turning it into an ongoing at the last minute. Hey, maybe it'll be the first scratch in the armor of the current Avengers.

HWW, are you sure you stopped reading Volume One with # 378?

Not entirely. Much of that period is a blur to me. Someday, I'm going to have to re-read those Harras issues; my memories of them are vague. I remember being unimpressed with the new Swordsman arc (mainly because I felt that Swordy was another character whose story was "over" and should have been left that way, alternate version or not).

I don't remember the spoiler story you described at all. That tells me that either it just wasn't very memorable, or I never read it in the first place.

Yes, comics are meant as escapist fantasy. But Marvel always raised the bar a bit, and this particularly true in the early '80s, with the death of Phoenix and then Hank's meltdown. I saw these types of stories as an extension to the "heroes with problems" theme that Marvel pioneered in the early '60s: Spidey's money problems and being branded a menace by the Daily Bugle; the FF bickering among themselves; Cap feeling like a relic, etc. Then, too, I grew up during the Watergate era, in which a President resigned (an incident that was memorably reinterpretted by Englehart in CAPTAIN AMERICA), and John Lennon had been murdered in 1980. So, real world heroes were flawed and finite; comic book heroes, I felt, should be the same. It made their attempts to accomplish something good even more heroic.

As for Jan and Hank saying they were never meant for each other, I don't know if they ever used those exact words, but in # 230, Hank tells Jan, "I fell for the young lady who reminded me of my first wife ... and you fell for the strong, silent hero. But I was never that strong, Jan. You know that now." To which Jan replies, "Uh-huh."

It is probably true that both initially had unrealistic expectations of each other (which happens often in relationships). But it's also true that they were married for a very long time, even by Marvel standards ... long enough, I'd bet, to get to know and love each other for who they really were.

Given that they were going their separate ways in # 230, it's possible that Hank tried to soften the blow by assuring Jan that their love was never meant to be (and Jan sought to return the favor by agreeing with him). I wouldn't read anything of Stern or Shooter's motives into this.

Avengers v.3 #77 - 84

There was a time a few years ago that Chuck Austen got a terrible reputation online. I'm understating it actually--he had by far the worst reputation out of any writer I've ever seen save possibly Byrne or Liefield.

Unfortunately, he largely deserved the criticism. And no where was it more pronounced than in Avengers.

If you've never read the Austen Avengers issues, I can't justify reccomending them to anyone. They'll simply annoy you. Allow me to highlight them:

(1) The writing is downright terrible. Weak stories that have little accomplished. Dialogue is forced and ridiculous, coming across like a sitcom. Stories are at the peak of Marvel's 'pad it for the trade' era, stretching six issues each time. There is nothing good here.

(2) Chuck Austen ultimately had to sex it up for no reason, and in doing so, made many characters look very bad and out of character. We've spoken at length about Harras good things with Hank, Busiek's rehashing and then John's bad decision to put Hank and Jan firmly together even moreso than Busiek. Well, now comes the worst one. Austen decides to make Jan cheat on Hank with Hawkeye. Does Jan come off as a tramp (I won't use a worse word b/c I think that would be unneccessary)? Yes, she does. Does Hank seem weak-willed and slightly unhinged/'out there' again? Yes. Does Hawkeye seem like a complete jerk for doing this to his friend? Oh yes--and let's not forget that at one point the Avengers were simply Jan, Hank and Clint, and all were three very close friends, and remained so for many years. Hank and Clint stuck by each other during Hank's final battle with Egghead after all. But here's Austen's take: "Fuck continuity, let's sex up the Avengers for some drama". Even worse, he tries to sell it as some 'pro-female' situation, which ultimately fails and feels patronizing.

(3) Captain Britain II - the ultimate 1990's stereotype of a battered woman/single mother, who becomes a super-hero. Not a bad concept, and it could have worked well. But Austen failed in delivery. Horribly. Have you never seen her again in Avengers? There's a reason.

(4) No real antagonists/storylines. I'm going through my brain repeatedly right now trying to figure out what stories I'm forgetting. I realize its because so many were so bad I blocked them out. The Wrecking Crew were stretched out for four or six issues and the story sucked.

(5) Giant-Jan - stupid.

Ultimately, I feel this was as bad an era as Shooter's era post #200, and definately worse than Byrne's post #300. It was a terrible time for Avenger's fans, and it made Bendis Dissassembled happen. Because by then the Avengers had been dissassembling since around Busiek's Kang story, and never recovered. The majority besides the big three were reduced to B-listers who did nothing other than dog-pile on the villains, and the Marvel Editorial staff had gone so far beyond forgetting the characters continuity, that they were making up their own versions of the characters with each story. It didn't help that the 'fit the trade' approach was more prominent than ever, and Marvel's sensationlism had shifted from entertaining you to outraging you.

But when Austen left the Avengers, a clear path could be seen with 20/20 hindsight to how we had gotten to the start of Bendis' run.

I almost didn't say this, b/c I'm afraid someone will say they liked Austen's run and be offended. But honestly, anyone who says that it was good better be a better orator than Martin Luther or Cicero, b/c your credibility is on the line.

The only Chuck Austen stories I've read of late were the WAR MACHINE mini-series, which took me a bit to figure out were not in continuity with the "main" MU. Dark, nasty, MEAN-spirited... sheesh. And then I started hearing all these things about the other stuff he was doing... YEESH! What the hell happened to the guy whose work I used to LOVE 15 or so years back?

Austen started out as an artist with a rather realistic style, but he offended many of his earliest fans when he struck out and evolved a more "cartoony" style. As that was when I came in, I loved it. He was also doing one of my favorite x-rated book at the time-- STRIPS. The one thing I couldn't figure out back then was, the letters page (yep, a letters page in a porn comic!) had some of the nastiest, most viscious in-fighting and back-biting I'd ever seen in a comic-book letter column. What th'...?

At some point, the book got canned, and Austen dropped from sight. Several years later, he resurfaced, and tried to pick up right where he left off. But he made one of the dumbest marketing blunders I'd ever seen. For a few months, he was publishing 2 separate runs of STRIPS simultaneously-- new episodes (that picked up where the original story left off) and reprints of the originals, with extra "new" material added. This was just a rip-off! If you already had the orignals, you'd feel ripped off if you bought the reprints just for the few new pages. (Topps pulled this EXACT same crap with the 2nd LADY RAWHIDE mini-series, which was cancelled after 5 issues-- and then, the reprints were cancelled after 4.) Meanwhile, if you didn't have the old issues, you might not wanna buy the new episodes UNTIL you had all the earlier ones. A TPB collecting all the earlier episodes would have been the way to go. OY.

Some time later still, Austen turned up at Marvel as a writer. My impression is that, just possibly, he'd had some kind of nervous breakdown and complete personality change since 15+ years ago. I dunno. It's just so bizarre...


As it is, I dropped AVENGERS before Johns left, and have not picked it up since. Haven't missed it, either. Although, after reading all the posts here, I may just wanna look up the Harras run one of these days when finances are a lot better.

I'll get back to some of this (not just this post) later, just one minor point just now:
Yes - Claremont grabbed her (and changed her name to "Lionheart"). Considering she's such a Claremontian stereotype, even given that Austen created her, not so surprising...

Jeez Louise! :rolleyes:

Shouldn't Brevoort share some of the blame for the blase attitude toward continuity? After all, Austen AND Busiek AND Bendis each committed a whole bunch of continuity sins...and all under Brevoort's supervision!

I think that's an accurate comparison, because, as I said early on in this thread, Shooter's grafting of his personal demons onto these characters predated a similar approach from Austen.

I'm very glad that you're considering giving the Harras run a chance.

One minor thing about Austen though - didn't he take Hank out of the Yellowjacket costume near the end? (Even if Bendis dropped him right in it again)

I'm trying to recall, and I can't, probably b/c Bendis and McNiven paid no attention if he did. For some reason I don't think so, but think we might have just seen more scenes with Hank in regular old scientist gear. I probably won't be re-reading these issues anytime soon.

And 'Boot, I forgot that Captain Britain II was in Excalibur under Claremont. Oh boy, I can imagine that one :rolleyes:

BTW, up next is Bendis' Avengers Dissassembled. Stealth, did you read that? If so, I'll return the ball to your court for reviewing, if not, I can give a very brief but unkind review of it.

I've read Disassembled only once, as a trade, more than two years ago, in one sitting at a Barnes & Noble. I remember thinking it was mean-spirited and senseless and incredibly stupid, like something a ten-year-old on a sugar high might write. I also remember thinking that David Finch's layouts were dynamic, but the drawings themselves were ugly and scrathy (although that might have had to do with the inking.) And I remember that the extra issue at the end (was it called Avengers Finale?) had a lot of guest artists, some of them very talented, but the coloring was so murky that none of them looked their best.

Lucky for you, I didn't have to actually read an issue to verify it

Avengers v3 #83, p2: http://milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=page2&issue=05819410642%2083

PS: Scott Kolins' Wasp headshot in that last panel REALLY reminds me of Triad, for some reason.
PPS: Fer the heckavit: http://www.thexaxis.com/misc/avengers81.htm - and while I'm at it: http://www.thexaxis.com/xmen/xmen164.htm

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuup

"it was mean-spirited and senseless and incredibly stupid, like something a ten-year-old on a sugar high might write"

This brings up a point I've had on my mind for some months now. More and more I get the feeling that a lot of "professionals" found success too fast, too early, too YOUNG. They hit adolescence and turned their backs on everything they liked and believed in when they were kids (normal, natural), but never quite reached adulthood when they would come to their senses and embrace things from their childhoods that WERE worth holding onto. I strongly suspect a LOT of writing in comics these days is a result of writers who never really grew up, and since they're getting paid for writing at a 15-year-old level, they don't have to, and probably never will.

Of course, there's some guys who are just cynical and mean-spirited by nature. While watching COMIC-BOOK SUPERHEROES UNMASKED on the History Channel, it really pissed me off to hear Denny O'Neil talk about how as the years have gone by, he's come to realize that as writers, they're the "custodians" of modern mythology. OH. REALLY. Took him THIS F****** long to figure that out, did it? After he almost single-handedly DESTROYED my #1 favorite costumed character, and with the help of his cronie, Frank Miller, pushed the entirety of "mainstream" superheroes into a dark, ugly pit from which they may never escape.


Meanwhile... I'm still waiting for detailed overviews of WEST COAST AVENGERS! (I didn't miss 'em-- did I?)

I wonder how much the writers actually have to do with the direction of the characters, or whether they are just "mouthpieces" for editors or publishers who really control the characters.

It would be naive to think that Marvel didn't know what Bendis, Austen, etc., were doing. It would be even more naive to think they could get away with "destroying" the characters without the parent company's consent. I've always viewed writers and artists who work for Marvel and DC as foot soldiers, carrying out the commands of some unseen authority, which can always find someone to do its dirty work.

Well said.

No, you haven't missed them. I'm still waiting for them, too.

C'mon, Whacko fans! Where are you??

I think that's true some of the time, but I think there's always a handful of writers who become successful and then find themselves working for editors who indulge their every whim.


And, finally, here's something I forgot to include in the post last night (I was getting tired by that time.) If anyone hasn't read Disassembled but is curious about what actually happened, here it is:

A strange force is causing terrible things to happen at Avengers mansion. The mansion is set on fire; Ant-Man, Vision, and Jack of Hearts all die; She-Hulk goes savage; a small army of Ultrons attacks; a Kree armada comes out of nowhere and attacks and Hawkeye dies counterattacking; finally, the enemy is revealed to be the Scarlet Witch, because (according to Bendis) she's always been unstable and potentially dangerous and she's finally snapped. In an ending that's even worse than what's come before, the Avengers allow Magneto to carry away the unconscious Scarlet Witch. Yes, you read that right.

Pitiful, isn't it? And this is the reason why I think that revealing Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch to be Magneto's children was a terrible idea in the long run.

"I've always viewed writers and artists who work for Marvel and DC as foot soldiers, carrying out the commands of some unseen authority, which can always find someone to do its dirty work."

"I think that's true some of the time, but I think there's always a handful of writers who become successful and then find themselves working for editors who indulge their every whim."

In the case of Denny O'Neil, the "destruction" didn't really start until he became an editor! Then-- KABLOOIE! (Need I remind anyone who was editor on DAREDEVIL when Frank Miller decided Jim Shooter's dark, nightmarish character-destruction habits were something to be expanded on? I'm pretty sure the 2 of them collaborated on Heather Glenn's murder. I know it was a suicide. But somebody had to WRITE it. That's murder in my (comic) book!)

When O'Neil returned to DC in 1986... OHHH boy. Overnight, he took my favorite costumed hero-- who he'd generally written really decent stories about in the past-- and unleashed something that has only recently begun to back off.

A lot of the guys who've written character-destructive storylines in the years since have been trying to "out-Miller" Miller-- only without the talent. Kinda like all those slasher movies that followed in the wake of HALLOWEEN. "Hey! WE can do something like THAT!" (No-- they couldn't...)


Wasn't it John Byrne who came up with the idea of revealing that Wanda & Pietro were Magneto's kids-- and that the idea was best if NOBODY but the audience would ever find out? Shame it didn't stay that way...

Yeah, but once the secret was out, Byrne decided he wanted to turn Wanda evil and have her fight at Magneto's side -- and Bendis has confirmed that this story was the one that inspired him to turn Wanda evil. If not for Byrne, it might never have happened and the Marvel Universe would be a better place.

"Yeah, but once the secret was out, Byrne decided he wanted to turn Wanda evil and have her fight at Magneto's side"

So... is THAT why Byrne had the Federal Government MURDER the Vision-- so the Scarlet Witch would go crazy?

I still recall the ad announcing Byrne's run on WCA, which featured 5 covers (I think). They got thru the first 4, but the 5th never appeared. It seems like Byrne abruptly changed the story's direction just before the climax, making a farce (in my eyes) of the whole "destroyed Vision" storyline.

Byrne then JUMPED ship-- just as abruptly-- just as he'd done on SHE-HULK, HULK, CAPTAIN AMERICA... (boy, this guy has a long track record of pulling temper tantrums and leaving books without warning, doesn't he?). Roy Thomas-- apparently-- finished off the "Wanda goes crazy" story, but it didn't really make much sense. I don't think I had a clue it was Byrne's idea, either.

Byrne's art & writing at the time was still pretty damn good at the time-- and in some ways, was a HUGE improvement over what he came after. But the actual stories he told... EHHH!!! The other main memory I had of those issues was, Byrne & Bob Wiacek (I think) did the SEXIEST Scarlet Witch since Dave Cockrum. I don't think the art on the book ever recovered after he left. (sigh)


The strangest thing about those WCA issues, for me, may be that I was so far behind on my reading, but a big Byrne fan at the time-- so I actually read Byrne's issues of WCA before any of Englehart's! (Let that thought soak in!)

And yet, for every writer that is a big deconstructionist, insisting that whatever came before 'sucked' and must be torn down and 'made fresh' by crapping all over it and turning everything that made it popular upside down and inside out, there's a writer who has the nostalgia bug, who has some sense of reverence for what has come before.

Both sides have their downsides. I believe it was Stealth who made a point that Busiek did nothing new, bringing back an old team, telling old stories, putting Hank back in a costume he'd grown out of, rearranging relationships to a 'classical' mode that they had evolved beyond, etc.

While *I* loved that sort of thing, being a nostalgia goob, and felt not a speck of interest for the characters that Stealth holds up as the best Avengers ever, I do agree that too much 'nostalgia,' if it leads to stagnation and characters forever frozen and unable to change or grow or develop, can be stale and backwards-looking.

So there's some mythical 'happy medium,' where an author can allow a character to grow (allow Spider-Man to marry Mary-Jane, allow Dick Grayson to become Nightwing and leave the shadow of the bat, etc.), without crapping all over what has made them great in the past.

Dan Didio, who wants Nightwing dead, dead, dead, or Joe Quesada, who wants Mary-Jane dead, dead, dead, are both guilty of, IMO, going too far in *both* directions. They want to freeze the clock in some aspects, and they want to upturn the apple cart in others by radically transforming Stark into a ruthless villain, idealistic Wonder Woman into a cold-blooded pragmatist, Captain America into a waffling poll-watcher, Hal Jordan into a psychopath, etc.

I love reading this thread, even if some of the opinions are 180 degrees reversed from my own!

For the WCA, I don't think I could really do justice for reviews for the first 80 or so issues, but I do remember the final 20, and the Forceworks comic that followed. I'm more interested in all of your guy's comments, so I know what to look at and avoid upon a reread

Prof, I'm currently rereading the entire Spider-Man run (I'm about #87 right now, issues before Capt. Stacey dies-- ), and I recently read the Quicksilver appearance (early 70's). Sexiest Scarlet Witch may just go to Johnny Romita Sr. in that one issue, where we only see her for about two pages! But WOW, Jr. Sr. could draw beautiful women! Of course, Jr. Sr.'s Gwen is the benchmark for me, but his touch could be seen on all his characters (men also, since his Peter Parker, Flash Thompson, Ned Leeds, and even older Joe Robertson have a strong leading man attractiveness to them that even I can see).

HWW, I definately agree that the editors not only have the knowledge of what's happening, but are most likely pushing for it. The so-called 'protector of Marvel's past' Tom Brevoort is probably anything but, that I'm convinced of. Still, better than Axel Alonzo, who does the Spider-Man comics these days.

Set, great points and I think we all agree on that. Some degree of a happy medium is needed, and I think that's where the best comic book writers since the late 60's have excelled. Steve Englehart's run on Avengers is probably the best example.

That's the exact spirit in which I started this thread. Everyone is welcome, and the greater the diversity of opinions, the better.

"So there's some mythical 'happy medium,' where an author can allow a character to grow (allow Spider-Man to marry Mary-Jane, allow Dick Grayson to become Nightwing and leave the shadow of the bat, etc.), without crapping all over what has made them great in the past."

I read a fantastic article once-- in SCARLET STREET, I think-- that talked about how drastic changes and character growth often destroy long-running series. The writer's favorite example of the opposite was NERO WOLFE. The stories were written over a stretch of decades, each clearly taking place during the period it was written in. But Nero & Archie NEVER changed! The whole POINT of the series wasn't watching the characters change, it was watching the GREAT characters take part in extrememly well-written stories. I often think too many writers these days can't really write, either-- and just take the "easy" way out by doing bad soap-opera. (And of course, in soap-operas, EVERYBODY's miserable, all the time.)


As for SPIDER-MAN, I'm afraid that, being a fan from about 1967-up, I see the book as one that has REPEATEDLY "jumped the shark"-- each time worse than the time before-- and I wonder how some ever put up with it. Of course, for me, the first time was the death of Captain Stacy. Gil Kane got on the book, and his "specialty" seems to be high-tension nightmares and characters on the verge of a nervous breakdown all the time. (Gee, he might have been a good artist for the SPACE: 1999 comic! heehee) I only read the 2 years following Stacy's death a couple years ago, but they were far more downbeat and miserable than I expected. And unfortunately, except for brief periods here and there, it's been that way ever since. Oh well...


So guess what I just started watching on my VCR today???

I often think Marvel spoiled us (or me, at least), by creating the "illusion of change," where characters could grow and face serious changes. At least, that's what I've come to expect from serialized comics in general.

I started reading comics a little later than you did, so I grew up with a Legion while it was being that Bates-and-Cockrumized, a Spider-Man who was mourning the loss of Gwen, and a Captain America who quit being Cap for several months. Change was practically written into my comics-reading experience from the beginning.

So, for me, the issue becomes what changes are too much and when do they go too far? I'm not sure I have an answer, but one change that went too far for me was Byrne's demolition of The Vision and dismissal of his and Wanda's children. These changes set the characters back, not forward.

For an example of a TV series where change is an integral part of its development, I'd point to "7th Heaven," which is now ending after 11 seasons. The show has remained true to its premise, even though the original children have grown up and several have moved on. New cast additions have kept the story moving forward instead of detracting from it.

A huge pet peeve of mine. Change is good, within reason, but the characters are no longer seen as characters. They are seen as iconic properties, and changing anything about their 'IPs' is a major no-no, from name to costume to marital status to physical condition.

Robin 'growing up' and becoming Nightwing could *never* happen in todays environment, I fear. He'd be back as Robin within six months, because Dan Didio is happy enough to massacre and decapicate and dismember and rape characters, but he'll be *damned* before he'll allow one of them to mature or develop or grow as a character.

Hank Pym coming to the realization that he doesn't need a costume or fancy name in West Coast Avengers was good character development, IMO. Having him go back to the 'crutch' of his name(s) or costume(s) doesn't work for me.

Getting rid of Mary-Jane to 'reboot' Spider-Man back into a loner doesn't work for me. Having Superman, or Spider-Man, change costumes and then mysteriously reboot back to their classic look the moment a new creative team comes along doesn't work for me. Reed and Sue breaking up *because Reed's become an insane monster who takes his moral guidance from a super-villain who'se first name is 'Mad'* and then Joe deciding that they get back together because the event is over, without any consequences at all, doesn't work for me. Xavier getting out of the chair, and then back into it, and then back out of it, and then back into it, doesn't work for me. Let the man walk already! The wheelchair does not *define* Charles Xavier! How many broken backs does one man need? It's like 'bold new direction! Right back to where we started...'

Those are good examples, Set.

Another "change" that stuck in my craw was Byrne's (just to pick on him some more) redaction of The Vision being the original Human Torch. Vizh's true identity had long been established and was important in his development (learning of his heroic past gave him the courage to propose to Wanda). Undoing this made no sense, and was completely unnecessary. All it did was resurrect the original Torch for a few unmemorable stories.