In The Wake of Hickman's Finale, Marvel Teases "All-New, All-Different Avengers"

[Bl00dwerK]

I hope Bucky isn't in it so I won't be tempted to buy it. If he was to be in any Avengers title it should be Secret, and it's getting canned...

[hawkeyefan]

I have no problem with that; what I meant is that the Lee/Kirby run on Avengers wasn't very long or very good, and most Marvel fans traditionally have felt Roy Thomas's run is the one that set most of the tropes we associate with the series. It's not a big deal, but it's a bit like talking about the X-Men and talking about Lee/Kirby and Grant Morrison as the most influential runs.

I think that was just part of Hickman's approach, though: you have the original concept of the Avengers with the five or six original members (even though that concept was abandoned a year and a half into the book, it's still the original concept, and the original Avengers have turned up more than once in Hickman's comics), and you have Bendis's rethinking of the Avengers for a broad modern audience, and apart from that, let's not wallow in historical nostalgia. But as he implies himself, this is why traditionalists were fine with his FF run and not so much with his Avengers run, because the FF run had all the tropes we associate with the series as a whole, and the Avengers run tried to avoid them.

I do think Hickman adding his '80s favorites to the team was a great idea, just as I think Bendis's idea of adding Luke Cage was a great and long-overdue idea. I'm always in favor of new blood because that's what the Avengers have been about since Avengers #16. But you can do that and still address the historical nature of the franchise - look at how Ewing's Mighty Avengers was immediately embraced by traditionalists as "the real Avengers book" despite its mostly non-traditional cast. Hickman doesn't do things that way; he wanted to break off from the historical nature of the book, unlike with Fantastic Four. Which is fine, I'm just saying that it's not for me.

I think it's hard to find a more influential run than the one that started it all.

I do think there was a conscious effort on Hickman's part to not dwell too much on the traditional aspects of the team. He wanted to move forward. I think that was a wise choice. I don't think he has ignored those traditional aspects entirely...but they are by no means the focus.

As for Ewing's Mighty Avengers, I think it was accepted by many fans because it is what they expect. I am not knocking Ewing, I think the book is solid, but it is an example of playing it safe. Much as Hickman said he did not want to mimic the movie or Bendis but instead wanted to do something else, Ewing's book kind of does the opposite. But instead of mimicking recent success , he is mimicking the successes of the past.

Nothing wrong with either approach, just a matter of preference.

I don't know that it has to be a limit of seven. As you say, given that you always have to have several A listers on the team, seven slots is too few, and even when there was a seven-member limit, the writers often wound up filling the mansion with other people who weren't technically members.

I do think it's important to limit and streamline the lineup again. That was actually part of the point of Bendis's New Avengers reboot - the team had gotten too bloated under Busiek and Johns, and it was time to start over with a leaner team. It was the same impulse that was behind Grant Morrison's revamp of the X-Men: the X-Men comics had too many characters for anyone to follow, so his book focused instead on a very small, very tight group, as did Whedon's follow-up series.

I don't know that it makes logical sense to have a small team - why fight threats with only the team in this book, instead of calling in reinforcements from another Avengers or X-Men book? But this lapse in logic happens even now (Hickman works almost exclusively with the Avengers from his lineup; Avengers from other Avengers books, despite being technically active, are not called in no matter how big the threat). I think the lapse in logic is worth it to have a smaller team and to actually have some impact when a character leaves or dies and a new member arrives.

Actually, Ewing's team just showed up in the most recent Time Runs Out issue, and their inclusion was handled well in terms of the story Hickman is telling.

[gurkle]

I think it's hard to find a more influential run than the one that started it all.

Hm, I don't know about that. Some titles really don't find themselves until later. With Avengers and X-Men, we're talking two of Lee and Kirby's weaker titles that became successes after being heavily revamped, and are mostly associated with other writers and artists. I don't want to be pedantic about it, I just wanted to explain why it seemed meaningful to me that Hickman jumped from the early, weak issues to Bendis in discussing the franchise.

I do think there was a conscious effort on Hickman's part to not dwell too much on the traditional aspects of the team. He wanted to move forward. I think that was a wise choice. I don't think he has ignored those traditional aspects entirely...but they are by no means the focus.

As for Ewing's Mighty Avengers, I think it was accepted by many fans because it is what they expect. I am not knocking Ewing, I think the book is solid, but it is an example of playing it safe. Much as Hickman said he did not want to mimic the movie or Bendis but instead wanted to do something else, Ewing's book kind of does the opposite. But instead of mimicking recent success , he is mimicking the successes of the past.

I don't think doing a book that fits with the historical style of the Avengers is "playing it safe" these days, not after 10 years of Bendis and Hickman trying to get away from as many of those tropes as they can. (Slott's Mighty Avengers also showed that the commercial prospects aren't great for an "old school" Avengers book, though that book also suffered from being too self-conscious in its nostalgia, and from some cast weaknesses.) I understand preferring Hickman's approach, I just don't think it's particularly more daring than attempting to create a modern take on the traditional tropes of the Avengers.

As Hickman noted, when he wrote Fantastic Four, he did look back and try to bring in all the things we expect from the FF - the Inhumans, the Silver Surfer, Galactus, and so on. With the Avengers, he consciously chose to go the other way and avoid immersing himself or the reader in what the team has been. (Bendis's run was a little different because of course he was constantly comparing the revamped team to what the "old" Avengers were like. I think that was part of the broad appeal of his take on the Avengers.) This is his choice and if you like it, good. I just don't find the Avengers very interesting divorced from that history. You don't have to tick off all the boxes when you're writing a series, but I do like to see some engagement with the past, because the tug of war between the past, present and future is really what these legacy series are about: what has the series been? What is it now? What should it be? Without that grounding in the past, I have trouble engaging with Hickman's attempt to push the Avengers forward.

[Vic Vega]

I think it's hard to find a more influential run than the one that started it all.

I do think there was a conscious effort on Hickman's part to not dwell too much on the traditional aspects of the team. He wanted to move forward. I think that was a wise choice. I don't think he has ignored those traditional aspects entirely...but they are by no means the focus.

As for Ewing's Mighty Avengers, I think it was accepted by many fans because it is what they expect. I am not knocking Ewing, I think the book is solid, but it is an example of playing it safe. Much as Hickman said he did not want to mimic the movie or Bendis but instead wanted to do something else, Ewing's book kind of does the opposite. But instead of mimicking recent success , he is mimicking the successes of the past.

Nothing wrong with either approach, just a matter of preference.

It's worth noting that Ewing's Avengers book wasn't selling all that great before and isn't doing all that great now.

[gurkle]

It's worth noting that Ewing's Avengers book wasn't selling all that great before and isn't doing all that great now.

And, as I said earlier, Slott's openly nostalgic "Mighty Avengers" flopped. I would never claim looking back to Avengers history is a recipe for better sales, but I don't care about sales as long as a book keeps getting published (eg Captain Marvel sells poorly, but it keeps going, and that's all that should matter to its fans) and I think willingness to engage with Avengers history makes the Avengers a better book. I don't expect everyone to agree, especially since what constitutes "Avengers history" is much less clear than what constitutes FF or X-Men history.

I thought Bendis's experiment in 2007-8 was interesting, where after Civil War he split the Avengers into two books, New Avengers and Mighty Avengers, and deliberately made Mighty Avengers a somewhat more "traditionalist" book in terms of its cast, its villains, its use of thought balloons, etc. It was at least partly a method of characterization (Mighty Avengers was about the pro-registration characters, who were portrayed - rightly or wrongly - as more old-fashioned in their thinking), but it was also a method of trying to do types of storytelling New Avengers didn't have room for. Hickman has approached Avengers and New Avengers as more stylistically similar to each other, because they're both part of one big story that's now coming together.

[hawkeyefan]

Hm, I don't know about that. Some titles really don't find themselves until later. With Avengers and X-Men, we're talking two of Lee and Kirby's weaker titles that became successes after being heavily revamped, and are mostly associated with other writers and artists. I don't want to be pedantic about it, I just wanted to explain why it seemed meaningful to me that Hickman jumped from the early, weak issues to Bendis in discussing the franchise.

Well perhaps we're quibbling, but I see the run that created the property as being pretty influential. Thomas nor any other writer would have had runs if not for Stan and Jack's. And simply the return of Cap and then the huge roster revamp in issue 16 I would say are two of the most influential events that affected the franchise forever.

And I think comparing the beginning of the franchise to a run that is considered a modern beginning makes total sense.

I don't think doing a book that fits with the historical style of the Avengers is "playing it safe" these days, not after 10 years of Bendis and Hickman trying to get away from as many of those tropes as they can. (Slott's Mighty Avengers also showed that the commercial prospects aren't great for an "old school" Avengers book, though that book also suffered from being too self-conscious in its nostalgia, and from some cast weaknesses.) I understand preferring Hickman's approach, I just don't think it's particularly more daring than attempting to create a modern take on the traditional tropes of the Avengers.

As Hickman noted, when he wrote Fantastic Four, he did look back and try to bring in all the things we expect from the FF - the Inhumans, the Silver Surfer, Galactus, and so on. With the Avengers, he consciously chose to go the other way and avoid immersing himself or the reader in what the team has been. (Bendis's run was a little different because of course he was constantly comparing the revamped team to what the "old" Avengers were like. I think that was part of the broad appeal of his take on the Avengers.) This is his choice and if you like it, good. I just don't find the Avengers very interesting divorced from that history. You don't have to tick off all the boxes when you're writing a series, but I do like to see some engagement with the past, because the tug of war between the past, present and future is really what these legacy series are about: what has the series been? What is it now? What should it be? Without that grounding in the past, I have trouble engaging with Hickman's attempt to push the Avengers forward.

I feel that trying to appeal to the "traditionalist fans", for lack of a better term, is certainly playing it safe. Relying on traditional elements is almost the definition of playing it safe. Do I think that automatically means a run will be either successful or unsuccessful? No, there are many more factors at play from the choice of characters to the quality of writing and any number of other things. But if just looking at the two approaches...one sticking with tradition and one breaking from tradition, I think most would say that breaking from tradition is the riskier proposition.

And I think Hickman's more traditional approach to FF was probably a big factor as to why he wanted to not take the same approach with the Avengers. Why try that approach again except with different characters? As a writer, he probably wanted to stretch some different muscles, so to speak.

All that said, I don't know if his run is totally divorced from the past, as you say. The major Avengers nemeses have made appearances, albeit not exactly as we may have expected. Although the focus is certainly not on those villains, they've been present in some way.

It's worth noting that Ewing's Avengers book wasn't selling all that great before and isn't doing all that great now.

True. I personally don't read it. I've glanced at it in the store, and it seems decent. It just doesn't feel much different to me than most team books. At this point, having read comics for years, I'm looking for stuff that feels different or new or innovative. I think the book has a vocal fanbase, consisting primarily of folks who wanted a more "back to basics" approach.

[hawkeyefan]

And, as I said earlier, Slott's openly nostalgic "Mighty Avengers" flopped. I would never claim looking back to Avengers history is a recipe for better sales, but I don't care about sales as long as a book keeps getting published (eg Captain Marvel sells poorly, but it keeps going, and that's all that should matter to its fans) and I think willingness to engage with Avengers history makes the Avengers a better book. I don't expect everyone to agree, especially since what constitutes "Avengers history" is much less clear than what constitutes FF or X-Men history.

I thought Bendis's experiment in 2007-8 was interesting, where after Civil War he split the Avengers into two books, New Avengers and Mighty Avengers, and deliberately made Mighty Avengers a somewhat more "traditionalist" book in terms of its cast, its villains, its use of thought balloons, etc. It was at least partly a method of characterization (Mighty Avengers was about the pro-registration characters, who were portrayed - rightly or wrongly - as more old-fashioned in their thinking), but it was also a method of trying to do types of storytelling New Avengers didn't have room for. Hickman has approached Avengers and New Avengers as more stylistically similar to each other, because they're both part of one big story that's now coming together.

I think the two books under Hickman have only become stylistically similar since the 8 month jump into the Time Runs Out story. Prior to that they were very different. Yes, there were connections and there was always one overarching story , but the storytelling and the style of each book was pretty distinct.

[gurkle]

I feel that trying to appeal to the "traditionalist fans", for lack of a better term, is certainly playing it safe. Relying on traditional elements is almost the definition of playing it safe. Do I think that automatically means a run will be either successful or unsuccessful? No, there are many more factors at play from the choice of characters to the quality of writing and any number of other things. But if just looking at the two approaches...one sticking with tradition and one breaking from tradition, I think most would say that breaking from tradition is the riskier proposition.

Well, breaking from tradition isn't the riskier proposition if it sells better, which "non-traditional" Avengers clearly does after the last 10 years. A more modernized approach to the Avengers was probably a risky proposition when Bendis did it (he wasn't the first person to try breaking up the Avengers and starting with more of an all-star team, he was just the first one to make it work), but now for many people it simply is the Avengers. More people know the tower than the mansion, more people know S.H.I.E.L.D. as an integral part of the Avengers' world. I can see that there's a risk in the kind of slow-burn storytelling Hickman does, but there's no commercial risk in not tipping the hat to old Avengers tropes.

It's sort of like, using thought balloons in a mainstream comic used to be traditional. And now when a writer does it, like Aaron in Thor, he's taking a risk. There's a tendency to associate being old-fashioned with playing it safe, but that's only true if it actually is safer.

So while I don't think Hickman has any obligation to try a "back-to-basics" approach to the Avengers, I don't think that would constitute playing it safe. When changes have become familiar, undoing them is controversial - ask anyone about the time Marvel got "back to basics" by making Peter Parker single again.

And I think Hickman's more traditional approach to FF was probably a big factor as to why he wanted to not take the same approach with the Avengers. Why try that approach again except with different characters? As a writer, he probably wanted to stretch some different muscles, so to speak.

What bothers me about Hickman's approach is not that he doesn't take a traditional, back-to-basics approach, it's just that he doesn't seem to be aware of what this team has been and what it has meant (or, more likely, he is aware but doesn't want to get into it, because that's not part of the story he's telling). I don't care for Bendis's rather malicious characterizations of some of the old characters, but I had no problem with the actual approach of New Avengers, and I didn't think he seemed unaware of what the Avengers had been; in fact, that was a big part of his story, the contrast between what the Avengers used to be and what they have to become to fit the needs of a new world. I don't get the sense of Hickman doing that, except showing that the Avengers used to be smaller and now they're bigger.

I think Hickman sees the Avengers, or portrays them, more as a group that happens to be the big dog in the Marvel Universe, rather than a book with its own rules and its own associated tropes. When he does bring in a traditional Avengers trope, I don't really get the sense that he knows them or at least is interested in them; the issue with the three versions of Kang didn't (to me) have much to say about any of them besides "here's Kang." A writer doesn't need to recite a list of all the stuff Cap and Kang and Immortus have been up to over the years, but he can still convey what makes their hero-villain-semivillain relationship unique.

A non-traditional, anti-nostalgic approach is great, but I still want to feel that the writer understands the tropes he's rejecting or changing. Like Grant Morrison clearly had enough familiarity with the X-Men's superhero tropes to contrast them with his resolute "they're not superheroes" approach, and his return to ranting supervillain Magneto was not done without acknowledgement that many people view Magneto as a heroic figure. To me Hickman's Avengers is just kind of a generic superteam, and the Illuminati are... well, OK, I never thought the Illuminati was one of Bendis's better ideas, but in any case they're a bit separate from the Avengers proper. I want to feel interested and engaged by the new approach Hickman and his characters are bringing to the Avengers, but I can't do that if I don't feel a sense of what's being changed.

[hawkeyefan]

I don't agree with all your points, but I get what you're saying. I guess my feeling is that, as you said, Be dis kind if juxtaposed what the Avengers had been and what they became. Hickman has departed from Bendis's approach as well as from the traditional approach.

Thanks for the discussion though. You make some interesting points.

[gurkle]

Thanks for the discussion though. You make some interesting points.

Thanks, you too. So much more fun to argue about this than about The Reboot.

[hawkeyefan]

Thanks, you too. So much more fun to argue about this than about The Reboot.

The what?!?! There's going to be a reboot?!?!?