Originally posted by Digi
I guess I was reading it as sort of a throwback piece to literal golden age comics. As such, the dialogue came off as humorous and cheeky instead of patronizing or childish. Because yes, it's not at today's standards otherwise.The Kang moment was hilarious though, you have to admit.
Spoiler:I come to warn..."
"I AM [b]KANG!!!
*KRA-BOOM*
...and Thor boots him across the street. It was a rare literal lol for me while reading a comic, because it's the exact opposite of the pontificating you normally get in "hammy" comics. And despite his stated intentions, Thor was like "nope, you're the bad guy. See ya."
But still, like I said, miffed at Tony/Steve. Awesome opportunity for character development there. Unless it remains a boiling tension to be resolved later, it was an AWFUL way to sidestep it. [/B]
Ok, I could see it as a throwback to literal golden age of comics...but why are we going back to the golden age?
I mean, comics have EVOLVED. they're more realistic, characters are more multidimensional, dialogue is more interesting...all of which are the opposite during the golden age.
golden age comics (I don't mind reading comics from that era) because they were revolutionary as a literary form for THAT time.
I also feel like this is a marketing gimick, part of trying to get a mass appeal where parents can buy comics for kids again where comic book characters can serve as 'role models'.
also, the art makes me that much less tolerant.
Originally posted by Starscream M
I also feel like this is a marketing gimick, part of trying to get a mass appeal where parents can buy comics for kids again where comic book characters can serve as 'role models'.
I doubt it especally when Marvel is still releasing comics under its MAX label (well one title these days) and you've still got Wolverine chopping people apart in his comics.
Originally posted by scifinut
since they got rid of the registration act, does that mean civil war was all for nothing?
Yep. Tony "Mr. Futurist" Stark & Reed "Everything is solved by numbers" Richards look like fools at the end of the day.
Tony got his comeuppance. I'm still waiting for Reed to get his - don't quite feel he got it during Dark Reign.
And I do like Romita Jr.'s artwork. I remember not liking it back in the 1980's, but then I thought artists that didn't draw like John Byrne or George Perez weren't worth it. Now I actually prefer someone with an impressionistic edge. JRJR's work is actually helped by working with inkers with a thick, heavy style - Klaus Janson & Tom Palmer have made his work look dynamic on several titles.
Originally posted by Starscream M
Ok, I could see it as a throwback to literal golden age of comics...but why are we going back to the golden age?I mean, comics have EVOLVED. they're more realistic, characters are more multidimensional, dialogue is more interesting...all of which are the opposite during the golden age.
golden age comics (I don't mind reading comics from that era) because they were revolutionary as a literary form for THAT time.
I also feel like this is a marketing gimick, part of trying to get a mass appeal where parents can buy comics for kids again where comic book characters can serve as 'role models'.
also, the art makes me that much less tolerant.
Art aside, do all comics have to be gritty and realistic? I see your complaints here as more of a personal taste thing than anything else. If you don't like Avengers, you have plenty of other choices. Pick up whatever Ellis is writing or has recently written, he'll probably be more your style.
Also, hardcore comic fans aren't writers' audience. We're going to follow comics, sour to some writers, love others, etc. regardless of what they do or write. And, unfortunately enough, their target audience is much younger than most of us. There's a high "drop" rate among comic fans after about age 18, but the majority of comic readers at any given point are 14-19 year old males. So yes, there needs to be some family appeal. That's why Spider-Man was rebooted, the Avengers are getting rebooted, etc. Kids can easily follow them again, and the vocal minority that hates it is just that, a minority.
More than anything, though, I'm just never one to overreact. Especially to one issue. Part of me hates the monthly comic format, because the large majority of comics are better when read as coherent arcs (usually 4-8 issues).
Originally posted by Digi
Art aside, do all comics have to be gritty and realistic?
I never said that all comics have to be gritty and realistic. That's what I thought Marvel Adventures were for?
But it makes little sense to act almost as if the siege didn't happen. To go from gritty and realistic to suddenly innocent golden age with no explanation is odd. There should be SOME fallout from what just happened...instead everyone's acting like they just woke up from some form of amnesia.
Also, the art sux.
Originally posted by scifinut
since they got rid of the registration act, does that mean civil war was all for nothing?
No. We got Dark Reign and a handful of other stories from Civil War. It's still in continuity and establishes a dark time in Marvel his that can be referenced and used for future stories.
Originally posted by Bentley
Does anyone else think its stupid to have a team of "New Avengers" in which four characters will be already in -at least- another team?
*raises hand*
I didn't think that Spidey and Logan would be on the main Avengers team, too. They should both just stick solely to the New Avengers roster and put someone like Pym and/or Quicksilver on the main team.