Marvel Collected Editions

[gurkle]

Again, I think the story ideas are good, but the dialogue is borderline Stan Lee bad. I mean, come on, the characters are calling Cyclops "one-eye."
Really? That's as lame as when the Avengers would call Giant Man "high pockets" or "tall pockets" or whatever ridiculous name it was.

What's wrong with "High Pockets" (or Shell Head or Wing Head or the other nicknames)? It's pretty funny. Stan Lee was basically a comedy writer and a lot of his dialogue is comedy dialogue. (A lot of the more comedic stuff, like Spider-Man's wisecracks and the Thing's dialogue, is still written more or less the way Lee wrote it.) It's the more "serious" dialogue that has changed the most over time to being a little more subtle.

Golden age books are the worst for that. In the two I've read, the green lantern and batman archives, literally everything the characters do is narrated.

That's because in the Golden Age and a lot of the Silver Age DC, super hero comics were written incredibly compressed. Jim Shooter once explained the '60s writing process at DC and said every panel had to be a scene in itself - the editors didn't think kids would sit still for a scene that went on too long. So every couple of panels, we would switch to a new action or a new scene, and the narration would have to tell us where we were or what was happening, because that one panel was supposed to carry an entire scene's worth of information. If you look at humor comics from the same period (like Donald Duck or Archie) there are many fewer captions because the scenes play out long enough for the artist to show what's going on.

This was one of the big changes Marvel made in the '60s, that they slowly started to "decompress" super hero comics and have longer scenes, dialogue and action. You'll notice as the '60s go on, Stan Lee's writing has fewer captions; in a lot of the Spider-Man stories with Romita, he uses captions to tell us what happened last issue or where we are, but not usually to tell us what's happening.

I think people are sometimes unfair to captions like they're always redundant, when a lot of times if you take them out, you may lose some extra information they give you. The cool thing about a well-done caption is that it can create the illusion that we see more in the panel than we actually see, or that we get a sense of several things happening at once. Some of the narration in Claremont is like that. And then again some of it would probably just be replaced today by a caption telling us the character's name. That's OK too.

[Cerd the nerd]

I second that. The whole brand new day stuff was just suck rubbish. Jumping around as he ran out of webbing and couldn't afford to make a new batch, of using one shooter only as he had the other stolen. It was just try hard rubbish. "Ooh I'm so poor and at the Edge (tm)" Seriously garbage.

I totally feel your pain.

[Cerd the nerd]

What's weird is, as much as I like Bendis's work, I've never read Powers. Are the Powers Definitive Collections worth picking up? I've heard they're not constructed well and have some pretty nasty gutter loss.

Yes, they are really worth picking up.

Funnily enough, I've just been reading the definitive collections 1-5 the last few weeks and I've really enjoyed them.

I would say that there is quite a lot of graphic violence and adult content, so if you prefer not to read that sort of stuff it is best avoided.

But there is a really good melding of script and art which drives the narrative along and produces two truly memorable characters, Christian Walker and Deena Pilgrim. I would suggest you commit to reading at least the first 3 volumes as it's only then you see its true scope.


They're not the best constructed books and there is some gutter loss, but really, these are minor considerations IMO.
I've got vol 6 pre ordered and I'm really looking forward to it!

[Ari Gold]

A great example of a mix of internal and external dialog without the exposition or word vomit - Michelinie's Iron Man

Never had any interest in reading this until just now. That's something I want to read.

I find most of today's inner dialogue sucks. They do the same spell-everything-out that used to happen in narration boxes, but in the first-person. And, to me, it sounds nothing like a true inner dialogue I may have in my head, I don't believe people actually talk in their own heads that way.

[TomSlick]

Toilet Paper > AoA Omni

Agreed.

The Trial of Jean grey is great to look at but Krisis is right the story isn't solid. I think it could have all been told in one issue.

And count me in as enjoying the Wolverine and the X-Men Omni. Been rereading slowly between other works and enjoying it all over again. I think Broo is adorable in personality and art.

.

I dropped Uncanny X-Men after Battle of the Atom because it was so bad. Tried to stick with "New" but dropped it part way through the Trial. I generally like Bendis, but his X-Men run sucks.

Another book that I really loved from early in Bendis' career is Sam and Twitch from Image. Very similar to Powers, only set in the Spawn universe (don't worry, this is not at all a Spawn book). It's available in a set of two wonderfully designed hardcovers.

Sam & Twitch is superb! I've got those two OHC and they're great. Now, his Hellspawn? Not so much. (Nice art, tho.)

[Ultimate Spider-Fan]

Yes, they are really worth picking up.

Funnily enough, I've just been reading the definitive collections 1-5 the last few weeks and I've really enjoyed them.

I would say that there is quite a lot of graphic violence and adult content, so if you prefer not to read that sort of stuff it is best avoided.

But there is a really good melding of script and art which drives the narrative along and produces two truly memorable characters, Christian Walker and Deena Pilgrim. I would suggest you commit to reading at least the first 3 volumes as it's only then you see its true scope.


They're not the best constructed books and there is some gutter loss, but really, these are minor considerations IMO.
I've got vol 6 pre ordered and I'm really looking forward to it!

I've actually been trying to whittle down my collection because I've run out of room and my backlog is enormous, but now my interest is piqued. I might just order volume 1 next week and see how I like it. You guys are worse than drug dealers, you know that?

[NZ_InFerno]

Maybe I should put "welcome to the thread, sorry about your wallet" in the intro...

[Ultimate Spider-Fan]

Maybe I should put "welcome to the thread, sorry about your wallet" in the intro...

There should be a Surgeon General's Warning.

[DrGregatron]

Have you read any of his early Ultimate Spider-Man or Daredevil stuff? I think it's some of the best comics I've ever read, and is usually well-regarded even by those who don't like his current work.

I think some fans just hate on Bendis because he's popular. It seems like in any artistic field, when a figure starts to get really big and popular, it's inevitable that they will become a target of hate and/or derision. Just look at any thread on this board asking what creative team you would like to see on a particular book. It's almost always a litany of lesser known names listed, as those guys just aren't popular enough to be universally reviled yet. Just look at someone like Hickman. A few years back, you never heard anything bad about his work. Nowadays, while his work is still pretty popular, you hear a lot more complaining and dissent than you did in the past. People couldn't wait for him to take over the Avengers, but you didn't hear near as many people complain when it was announced he was leaving the franchise next year.

Is it that he's popular and people now hate him for it? Or is it he's written so many books now that enough people have had their chance to read and hence dislike his work? A couple years ago I hadn't read anything by Hickman, but now that I have read his Secret Warriors and FF, I can safely say I don't care for his writing or his decompressionism.

[gurkle]

Have you read any of his early Ultimate Spider-Man or Daredevil stuff? I think it's some of the best comics I've ever read, and is usually well-regarded even by those who don't like his current work.

I think some fans just hate on Bendis because he's popular. It seems like in any artistic field, when a figure starts to get really big and popular, it's inevitable that they will become a target of hate and/or derision. Just look at any thread on this board asking what creative team you would like to see on a particular book. It's almost always a litany of lesser known names listed, as those guys just aren't popular enough to be universally reviled yet. Just look at someone like Hickman. A few years back, you never heard anything bad about his work. Nowadays, while his work is still pretty popular, you hear a lot more complaining and dissent than you did in the past. People couldn't wait for him to take over the Avengers, but you didn't hear near as many people complain when it was announced he was leaving the franchise next year.

I don't think it's about popularity at all. It could just be that when writers become popular, they are "promoted" to books that they aren't so good at or that have a harder time pleasing everyone. Bendis's most universally-loved books at Marvel were Ultimate Spider-Man, a book removed from the main Marvel continuity, and Daredevil, always a relatively small book. This got him promoted to Avengers, but some people found that his strength at writing street-level solo heroes didn't carry over into writing team books. Others found that they didn't like him as much now that he was doing all the editorial mandates and big events that come with a big book. And then others liked it, but I don't think people were just hating on him because he was popular.

Same with Hickman. Most people liked him on Fantastic Four, and now opinions are more divided on Avengers. Maybe some people think his style is not as suited to the Avengers as it was to Fantastic Four. (Avengers is a really difficult book to write and a lot of popular writers, like Geoff Johns and Gerry Conway and Walt Simonson, have disappointed fans when they were assigned to that book.) It's the same with Rick Remender; everyone loved him on Uncanny X-Force but opinions are very divided on his Uncanny Avengers and Captain America, but it doesn't mean people who don't like his current work are rejecting his good work of the past.

[Ultimate Spider-Fan]

I don't think it's about popularity at all. It could just be that when writers become popular, they are "promoted" to books that they aren't so good at or that have a harder time pleasing everyone. Bendis's most universally-loved books at Marvel were Ultimate Spider-Man, a book removed from the main Marvel continuity, and Daredevil, always a relatively small book. This got him promoted to Avengers, but some people found that his strength at writing street-level solo heroes didn't carry over into writing team books. Others found that they didn't like him as much now that he was doing all the editorial mandates and big events that come with a big book. And then others liked it, but I don't think people were just hating on him because he was popular.

Same with Hickman. Most people liked him on Fantastic Four, and now opinions are more divided on Avengers. Maybe some people think his style is not as suited to the Avengers as it was to Fantastic Four. (Avengers is a really difficult book to write and a lot of popular writers, like Geoff Johns and Gerry Conway and Walt Simonson, have disappointed fans when they were assigned to that book.) It's the same with Rick Remender; everyone loved him on Uncanny X-Force but opinions are very divided on his Uncanny Avengers and Captain America, but it doesn't mean people who don't like his current work are rejecting his good work of the past.

You raise valid points. Obviously I'm just going to disagree with the majority sentiment regarding Bendis's current work because I still enjoy most of it. I still think Bendis-haters go overboard with their criticisms, but maybe fandom and hyperbole just go hand in hand.

[Cap'n_RDM]

I think this could be said of every Bendis Marvel story arc ever.

I must be one of the outliers when it comes to Bendis. I've loved pretty much everything he's ever written for Marvel, especially his current X-Men stuff. I love reading krisis's posts and share a similar love of all things X, so it kind of boggles my mind that we can be so vastly apart in this one area. Different strokes, huh?

Have you read any of his early Ultimate Spider-Man or Daredevil stuff? I think it's some of the best comics I've ever read, and is usually well-regarded even by those who don't like his current work.

I think some fans just hate on Bendis because he's popular. It seems like in any artistic field, when a figure starts to get really big and popular, it's inevitable that they will become a target of hate and/or derision. Just look at any thread on this board asking what creative team you would like to see on a particular book. It's almost always a litany of lesser known names listed, as those guys just aren't popular enough to be universally reviled yet. Just look at someone like Hickman. A few years back, you never heard anything bad about his work. Nowadays, while his work is still pretty popular, you hear a lot more complaining and dissent than you did in the past. People couldn't wait for him to take over the Avengers, but you didn't hear near as many people complain when it was announced he was leaving the franchise next year.

Don't confuse my comment for hate. He is far from a favorite of mine but as you pointed out, his Daredevil and USM (the 75 issues I've read of it) are excellent. His Avengers was OK and I just started reading his X-Men a couple months ago so am reserving judgement for a few more issues. It is possible to enjoy someone's work and have criticisms.

[csista]

I agree that early Bendis is great comics. I don't think the fan backlash is because his rise in popularity as much as his taking on books his writing sensibilities are less suited for.

I don't hate his Avengers and X-Men stuff as much as most people seem to, but it isn't even in the same ballpark as his Daredevil/Alias/Powers/Ultimate Spider-Man work.

This. I'm a huge Bendis fan. And I love his X-Men work more than I expected to. All New X-Men, especially. But, as I've stated in the past, his strength is solo characters with a strong supporting cast. Because once he's on a team book, the inner-dialog is lost, and the characters' thought process is where he excels. Which results in decompressed plot and banter, which is the core of most of his criticism.

That being said, my belief at what really caused the permanent backlash, is the one-two punch of Avengers Disassembled and House Of M. Both resulted in HUGE changes to the status quo of long, ongoing, beloved franchises. And, let's face it. Comic book fans aren't always the best at accepting change.

[Drakul]

Also, for this question


It's in the Superior Spider-Man v1 OHC.

Sweet! I'm all set then. Thanks.

Sam & Twitch is superb! I've got those two OHC and they're great. Now, his Hellspawn? Not so much. (Nice art, tho.)

I have the 2 TPBs but not read them yet. I need to reread Spawn someday.

Maybe I should put "welcome to the thread, sorry about your wallet" in the intro...

Do it!!

[kodave]

Sam & Twitch is superb! I've got those two OHC and they're great. Now, his Hellspawn? Not so much. (Nice art, tho.)

I think Bendis got booted off Hellspawn 6 issues through and I think his 6th issues was heavily rewritten by editorial if I'm remembering correctly. Steve Niles does the back 10. Bendis' first 6 weren't that good but it didn't help that editorial didn't want Bendis to tell the story he was building up to and Niles took it a different direction leading to an incomprehensible mess of a book.