I do concede that Bendis has revived the Avengers franchise and helped bring it to what it is now, which is bigger than either the X-Men or Spider-Man. Then again, with that much invested new blood talent, hype, and editorial support, imagine how terrific the Avengers would be if even half of Bendis' events or stories had been GOOD, or written by someone who actually LIKED SUPERHERO TEAMS, rather than feeling the need to "answer" for them.
Just because a fire created fertile ground for acres of new growth doesn't mean one has to enjoy fire.
It's the idiots who read comics they don't like who piss me off. I don't mean when the comic is having a rough couple of issues, but it's usually good. I mean when the comic is just bad, the reader admits it's bad, but they continue to read it because they're a completist or it's a force of habit or they somehow think reading that particular bad comic will somehow enhance their enjoyment of other good comics.
Somehow this reminds me of when I was buying NEW AVENGERS and ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN/X-MEN.
I have been trying to break that sort of habit of mine within the past 6 months or so.
Well he's failing miserably if that's the case.Slott's only wowed me with this I'm With Stupid and Thing books.
The first 2 issues,which I read and did not buy and have no shame in admitting so,were a let down.Who the hell was the guy on the last page of #21 and why should we be concerned?
Plus,Slott's dialog was just plain awful in some parts.Yeesh.
Pham's art isn't really helping either.
Fair enough. While sometimes Slott isn't the same with more straight-forward superhero work, especially some dark ones like AVENGERS: THE INITIATIVE, I still think he tells those stories well. He acknowledges character and continuity, and has characters develop, and so long as he does that, I can overlook some hiccups with the spectacle itself.
Perhaps he does presume more intimate Avengers knowledge than the casual reader is used to. Bendis has an approach of, "Don't know about the past? Neither do I! I'll even make a joke about how silly it was!" and it is easy to relate to that kind of writing sometimes.
I don't mind some of the dialogue. It may seem "old", but it ages better than Mark Millar's pop culture tripe from THE ULTIMATES, which barely a decade later seems HORRIBLY dated. This is Slott's second issue on the MA title; I remember when people were excusing 12 issues of Bendis hiccups as "give it time". Hopefully he will ease into the characters more.
Different strokes, I guess.
Again, i feel like Slott's Mighty Avengers could kick so much more ass and i dont mean by copying Bendis' style. I just think the series needs a better artist that packs more of a punch in the panels like Deodato is doing over at DA. Pham's art just seems a little...plain, there's no flair to it, and a book with a bunch of powerhouses like hercules, hulk and ironman should have that "badass" look. And slott just needs to tone down the cheesy 80's dialogue and narration boxes.
I don't mind Pham's artwork, although I admit he is hardly my favorite artist.
I prefer cheesy 80's dialogue to endless pages of 1-3 word lines that just repeat what the last speaker said for half of them. The way Bendis makes people talk, you'd think every superhero was heart of hearing.
"That's Loki!"
"What?"
"Loki!"
"Loki?"
"What!"
