Avengers Controversial Opinions II

[Nomads1]

Loki and Magneto make far better semi heroes then they ever did villains.

I like the concept of redemption (Thunderbolts, as it originally was, being one of my favorite books), and no doubt, the charismatic cinematic versions did give a lot of gravitas to it, but it really isn't something that should be done indescriminately. Chris Claremont gave us an incredible evolution and development of Magneto until he became at the very least a great anti-hero, occasionally, even a full blown version of the noblest kind. However, change in writers, in comes Scott Lobdell, and suddenly he was back to the unidemensional evil laugh Magneto version Stan Lee used to write, however, Nicieza still wrote him as a little bit more nuansced reluctant villain. Morrison made him even more irrationally evil. Than Claremont came back and he started to be good again, then he joined Scott and the X-Men, and now he seems to be on the brink again... It really challenges the suspension of belief thing.
IMHO, Loki is supposed to be, at the most, naughty, not evil. He is the trisckster god, not the god of evil, as some have labled him. I always wince a little bit when peopple write him with murderous intentions. Plus, there is always that hope that he and Thor will finally get along again (especially after Tom Hiddelston's incredibly charismatic, charming and complex version).
So, yes, I'm fine with those two finding a little bit of redemption, as I was with Crusher Creel (Absorbing Man), Cain Marko (Juggernaught) and Flint Marko/William Baker (Sandman), as long as writers/editorial decides to really stick to it, and not keep going back and forth, and I really don't want all that many villains to find their inner-hero.

Peace

[Captain Astounding]

I completely agree with you, Nomads. That's something I remember happening a lot on the old boards too. I'm fine with some villains finding their way onto the heroic side, that's a huge part of the history of the Avengers. I, like you, just wish there were some consistency to it. It's a very rare villain that gets to stay reformed, and that's fine Villains reforming should be rare, and the ones that make it should have to work at it. I just wish it wasn't such an on/off switch situation.

It's like Gillen's reason for the ending of JiM, he knew that one day another writer would come along and flip the villain switch. I'm even not opposed to turning some heroes heel to make up the numbers. Just so long as there's some consistency. Changes like that should have enough backing to not be flip flopped on.

[Mockingbird]

I agree on the Maria hill thing. Also about Mighty avengers being one of the best books out there now.

As for opinions....

Loki and Magneto make far better semi heroes then they ever did villains.

Agree about Loki, even since he became Kid Loki and, recently, on Magneto. His new solo made me more interested in him than any of the X-Men teams ever did.

[HaveAtThee]

I like the concept of redemption (Thunderbolts, as it originally was, being one of my favorite books), and no doubt, the charismatic cinematic versions did give a lot of gravitas to it, but it really isn't something that should be done indescriminately. Chris Claremont gave us an incredible evolution and development of Magneto until he became at the very least a great anti-hero, occasionally, even a full blown version of the noblest kind. However, change in writers, in comes Scott Lobdell, and suddenly he was back to the unidemensional evil laugh Magneto version Stan Lee used to write, however, Nicieza still wrote him as a little bit more nuansced reluctant villain. Morrison made him even more irrationally evil. Than Claremont came back and he started to be good again, then he joined Scott and the X-Men, and now he seems to be on the brink again... It really challenges the suspension of belief thing.
IMHO, Loki is supposed to be, at the most, naughty, not evil. He is the trisckster god, not the god of evil, as some have labled him. I always wince a little bit when peopple write him with murderous intentions. Plus, there is always that hope that he and Thor will finally get along again (especially after Tom Hiddelston's incredibly charismatic, charming and complex version).
So, yes, I'm fine with those two finding a little bit of redemption, as I was with Crusher Creel (Absorbing Man), Cain Marko (Juggernaught) and Flint Marko/William Baker (Sandman), as long as writers/editorial decides to really stick to it, and not keep going back and forth, and I really don't want all that many villains to find their inner-hero.

Peace

I always saw Loki as neither totally hero nor villain, but rather the master manipulator to achieve his own ambitions. It can be refreshing if those ambitions coincide with a hero's goals at any particular moment, but can switch at his whim.

[Nomads1]

I always saw Loki as neither totally hero nor villain, but rather the master manipulator to achieve his own ambitions. It can be refreshing if those ambitions coincide with a hero's goals at any particular moment, but can switch at his whim.

There are those who find the straight arrow hero unidimensionally boring. Others feel the same way about the absolutely evil villain. They prefer a villian you can sympathize with. Personally, I'm more of a black and white guy with less shades of grey. My favorite heroes are the straight arrow kind, anti-heroes usually bore me to death and I like villians to be villians. Of course, now and then, a character with shadier motivations can be refreshing, and ONE snarky less on the up and up character on the side of the good guys can be fun (however, it gets really tiresome when everybody is written that way). When well written, it can be fun to have that bad guy that you root for, the kind that bends the rules to get results. Loki can be that kind of guy, however, it is something that has to be well written, for it's a thin line to thread.

As for other "controversial " opinions.

- I Like Hercules better as an Avenger than Thor.
- I prefer when the big three are not in the team at the same time (big four now with Hulk). One or two at the most, mixed with other less "big" members.
- Avengers should be an elite, not a synonym for Super-hero in the Marvel Universe.
- The Avengers team assembled for Operation Galactic Storm could wipe the floor with Hickman's army of Avengers (plus, they were tons more interesting).
- The Crossing was better than anything Bendis wrote for Avengers (except maybe for his first New Avengers arc).
- Heroes Reborn, unfortunately, was not.
- Chuck Austen is the worst Avengers writer ever.
- The original Guardians of the Galaxy and the Two-Gun Kid should not have been made honorary Avengers.
- Rick Jones and Captain Mar-Vell should (actually Mar-Vell should have been made a full member).
- A byrule should be made excluding anyone from Dark, Secret, Young and New as Avengers, unless the have served in the main team, under one of the founders (that, at least, should serve to shrink a bit the membership, and I'm sure some explanation could be made for guys like Cage and Iron Fist to reamain Avengers).
- Avengers should go back to fighting more super-villains instead of only alien invasions, political conspirancies and criminal scientific organizations.


Peace

[UltimateTy]

I don't think the Chuck Austen part is that controversial lol @Nomad1

Cage was under cap but even if he wasn't he shouldn't be any different than anyone else if we go by your rule.

[jazzflower92]

Yeah, I agree I prefer Loki as a jerk who is Chaotic Neutral who plays for both sides because at heart he is a trickster who would more likely to swing both ways.

[Nomads1]

I don't think the Chuck Austen part is that controversial lol @Nomad1

Cage was under cap but even if he wasn't he shouldn't be any different than anyone else if we go by your rule.

Fair enough.

Peace

[Shambles]

Mockingbird should have Taskmasters powers, it just seems such an obvious fit.

Hawkeye and Black Widow should just be shield agents not Avengers

There should be no more than one Antman ever and I don't care which

[stingnewell]

-Anti heroes belong in street level teams or none than straight up super hero teams in general

-Black Widow is more believable at being a spy than a super hero

-The Avengers can handle mutant related problems without being a
unity team or focusing purely on that one subject.

-Bendis and Ellis are better off writing political, indie and street level teams.

-Wolverine and Cap were better off hating each other

-Avengers and X-men are better off cold and distancing each other like Batman and Jason Todd

-Spider-man has potential as a great Avengers with the proper writing and respect of his abilities outside his spider powers.

-Avengers # 200 was the worst issue that rivals Disassembled in horrid quality.

[jazzflower92]

I think the writers should experiment more with Loki in his weirder quirks in mythology like how he would transform into a woman and give birth to children with mortal men.

[Nomads1]

Hawkeye and Black Widow should just be shield agents not Avengers

Disagree. Hawkeye should never be a spy/Shield agent. He is the exact opposite of covert.

Black Widow is more believable at being a spy than a super hero

I agree, but that is not to say that she doesn't have her occasional uses as an Avenger. Just not as front and center as she has been in recent years.

-The Avengers can handle mutant related problems without being a
unity team or focusing purely on that one subject.

I agree.

Wolverine and Cap were better off hating each other

I wouldn't say hate, exactly (I can't imagine Cap hating anyone), but certainly at odds.

-Avengers and X-men are better off cold and distancing each other .

Yes, I prefered when their worlds didn't cross so oftenly.

Peace

[ShadowDemon]

Truthfully, I think pacifism is particularly important to show in superhero comics. It's a genre where the answer is almost always "punch someone," and that's probably not something we should encourage. I think there's definitely a need to show a character who thinks "punch people" is a bad way of going about things.

Only insofar as they then show said character getting his clock cleaned to show how innane such a position is in that context.

[ShadowDemon]

I liked the idea - a joint team of Avengers and X-Men, a PR team trying to promote tolerance for mutants. It's the execution I have a problem with, because it's utterly ignored the whole "PR team trying to promote tolerance for mutants."

Uncanny Avengers is nothing but a "bone" tossed to X-fans who rightfully complain that Marvel has all-but ignored and badly mishandled the mutant corner of the MU for over a decade now. The book itself is nothing but an effort at "tokenism". Marvel is cynically trying to say: "See! We DO appreciate the mutants! We DO! Look at all the mutants we're promoting in this book!!!"

The reason they have done this is because Fox holds the X-rights, and therefore Marvel doesn't want to significantly promote it. They admitted as much to Liefeld years ago.

Speaking of Uncanny...that reminds me I need to nominate Rogue in the "worst done by" thread...

You definitly need to read more.

Peace

I suggest he start with Busiek's run...

[ShadowDemon]

deleted (10 char)