Will Marvel Fans Miss Bendis?

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

not even a little.

i did love his take on the recent defenders and i'm sure there are a few other runs of his that i have enjoyed. However, the few good stories do not make up for the whole.

i've read little of his work at marvel, but what i have read has ranged from "just ok" to "damaging-to-the-mu bad." i wish he had left years ago.

absolutely not.

he can only write street and daredevil and mostly average to above average there.

nope.

10char

won't miss him. wish he left earlier.

if you ignored the characters he butchered, yeah, you may enjoy that.
his idea isn't even "novel", busiek did this large scale reality warping story already, byrne did the psycho wanda already.
and you know what? they respect the continuity, i don't like byrne's dipection of her but at least he had a build-up for her later insanity.
But did bendis do? Oh she suddenly remembered her dead kids who she actually already remembered in the 90s!
He didn't even bother to check the character's history, it's a psycho plot device wearing wanda's skin in avengers dissembled/house of m.
And the praising for house of m feels like people appreciate a mushroom cloud caused by nuclear blast, yeah, that's how i see what bendis did to certain characters, it's like nuking them and leaving them in a disastrous fallout.

I won't miss him, but i guess i will be reminded of him whenever i see those who got nuked.

no. I'm not sure i've ever encountered another writer with such a flagrant lack of regard for previously established continuity and canonically correct characterization.

i agree with those that said it'd been better if he had left earlier, but at least he's gone. Respectfully speaking.

No more character assasination.

fair enough, however, how much can a writer be a slave to continuity? Does he need to go back to the beginning and not deviate at all? For me continuity does not matter and whenever a new writer jumps on a title i can accept they will put their own spin on the material.

I understand that previous writers have a reality warping story before, but did it have the same effect as house of m?

major events should not be ignored. putting a new spin should not mean creating the character anew. so no i will not miss reading constant retcons in every book wrote.

effect as in putting characters in limbo for 7 years and still get hostile shit from editorial? Nope, not at all.
Like seriously, he didn't want to give a solid reason nor did he give an out for wanda, her past and future got slipped apart by this in a bad way.


I am not asking for anyone to be a slave of continuity, there is a middle ground between being a slave and being a total irresponsible continuity butcher.
there are details that can be altered or ignored, but i am talking about wanda doing fine in a team she called home and dealing with her trauma long ago, then suddenly bendis randomly decided she was the sacrifice to his new reign of avengers, and he just casually throw away chaos magic, a well-establishd power system by busiek like it's trash and replace it with vague "with great insanity comes great power" bs.
and he let doctor strange of all people do the explanation about why wanda was nuts, the man who was directly involved in the birth of wanda's children, pretend he was never there.

It's just ridiculous. It's like if game of throne jumping right into red wedding in season one when robb became the king in the north, no build-up, no reason, just for shock value.

If he just want to have a new take on characters, be my guest, but what he did is blowing them up like fire works to cheer up whatever he was actually doing.

nope, i won't miss him either. Most of the time when i've read bendis it wasn't because i liked his writing but because i liked the characters in the book. then the decompression sets in. I don't really think it's so much a style but that there's not much depth to the story. so he stretches it to fix the typical number of comics that's needed for a tpb. And yeah, he's stuck in a rut and anyone that's been reading his invincible iron man will probably agree.

besides not respecting the continuity of events that have happened with a character, and yes what he did with wanda was probably the worst of his offenses, there's been times when he simply ignores events in his own stories. he'll have some major scene and then in the next issue, it's not brought up. Then 4, 5, 6 issues goes by. I think maybe he's hoping the readers have forgotten about and since he hasn't come up with anything to follow up he just drops it.

no. My distaste for bendis finds its roots in the essence of his writing style.

i really like writers who build upon the history of the characters, the continuity, even when i'm unfamiliar with it. don't care much for decompression, and i like writers who can find different voices for the characters (i honestly never got the fans who say he writes dialogues like real people talk. Sure if everyone is a attention deficit disorder bevis 'n butthead wannabe teenager. but, i'm trying to keep it civil here, so, let's skip this part).

As you can see, bendis is the exact opposite of what i enjoy in a writer.

few others displease me so much (mark millar, judd winnick and chuck austen come to mind), however, none of them had their hands on favorites of mine for soooo long, to the point of making me quit reading some of my favorite books (winnick also made me quit the outsiders).
Now, bendis is going over to dc, to write another character i usually enjoy reading (and i am liking quite a lot jurgens, tomasi and gleason's run). I'll admit that i'm liking some of the things thst i've been reading about bendis' insights on superman (such as the foccus on clark as a reporter) but i sincerelly doubt bendis abilities of writing the book in a way that would please me. i've given him pleanty of chances only to be severly disappointed every single time.

peace

hear, hear!