Lockjaw and the Pet Avengers

[Havok83]

Wow is Marvel serious? They really are going a bit overboard with the Avenger series and minis

 

[Dread]

I'd comment about my thoughts about this mini, but the last time I did in the July solicts topic, the reaction from other members was akin to me endorsing cannibalism. I learned my lesson. You're on your own, buddy.

 

[C. Lee]

You've got to be kidding me.

 

[Spider-Vader]

This is stupidly awesome.

 

[Vartha]

I thought you knew About this Corp?
I posted the solicit in the Thor threads awhile ago.

 

[Vartha]

Here's the preview, Puddlegump's origin!
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=92159514&blogId=487949357

 

[Ace of Knaves]

HAHA hilarious. Lcokjaw is a legend

 

[Vartha]

I'm actually looking forward to it.
Too bad the Hype poster Lockjaw isn't around. He'd love this.

 

[Ikaris-Eternal]

is that Lockheed as well? always liked him

and he's named for the company I pass every day going to work

 

[Union Jack]

ha ha...cool.
i look forward to reading this!!
what other hero pets are they??
ive only heard of lockheed and lockjaw in this..

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Good stuff. People who complain about this have no soul. It's harmless fun.

 

[yenaled]

How can anyone think this is a bad thing.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Apparently because Marvel could be publishing something that would sell better. Like another Wolverine comic. I don't know how the hell Marvel expects us to get by on just the dozen or so they currently print each month.

 

[bryanss3]

Ok so I loved Dr. Doom and the Masters of Evil mini, I loved the return of the Fin Fang Four One-Shot, I'm gonna love this. you know why cause I enjoy fun comics. Marvel are such bastard for printing fun care free comics. It's just a fun mini. wasn't there like a 3 page argument about this in a solicit thread or something.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Yeah, Dread thinks the mini is an abomination for having the audacity to exist, which started an argument.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I think the whole concept of different heroes pets interacting and going on adventures together is so cool and fun. There is nothing wrong with this, and anyone who thinks there is, really needs to lighten up.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I'd comment about my thoughts about this mini, but the last time I did in the July solicits topic, the reaction from other members was akin to me endorsing cannibalism. I learned my lesson. You're on your own, buddy.

Yeah, well, that is one way of putting it. The other would be closer to the fact that you went after it like a raging cannibal and you didn't really have any reasons outside sales, which is legitimate enough, but has some serious reasoning flaws.

Ok so I loved Dr. Doom and the Masters of Evil mini, I loved the return of the Fin Fang Four One-Shot, I'm gonna love this. you know why cause I enjoy fun comics. Marvel are such bastard for printing fun care free comics. It's just a fun mini. wasn't there like a 3 page argument about this in a solicit thread or something.

There was, but we won't go too into detail about that or anything.

I agree, I really enjoyed the Dr. Doom mini that came out and I'm sure I'm going to enjoy this as well.

 

[Dread]

Yeah, Dread thinks the mini is an abomination for having the audacity to exist, which started an argument.

I questioned the wisdom of launching a title like that with little to no audience for it, zero demand, absolutely no hype, and no chance of ever selling above the Top 90 for more than maybe 2 months, in the middle of a recession and falling comic sales line wide for a few months now, despite Obama-Spidey for two months and 5 printings.

Frankly, PET AVENGERS isn't the only title that I feel that way for from Marvel. I'd probably have harsher words for MARVEL DIVAS, which has been sold on T&A, which is a bit sad. Expecting DEADPOOL to sell up to 3 titles soon, via ongoings and mini's may be asking a bit much of a longtime B-Lister at the end of his 15 minutes of fame. There are other titles where I think have some audacity to exist, just this one sparked an argument.

How dare anyone pick on the funny animal book. They must be soulless.

Yeah, well, that is one way of putting it. The other would be closer to the fact that you went after it like a raging cannibal and you didn't really have any reasons outside sales, which is legitimate enough, but has some serious reasoning flaws.

I did admit that my pet peeve is people, both fans, editors, and writers, taking short-hand for comedy or "coolness" by drafting a project and automatically assuming it will find an audience because it has said shorthand items. I.E. "ninjas are always cool, let's have the Avengers fight ninjas in a hotel", or back when cybernetics and military shoulder-padded outfits. That includes, "monkeys are always funny", or in this case, funny animals. That isn't saying that they CAN'T EVER be funny. It just means that it has to actually be funny, rather than relying on the gimmick. Much like MARVEL DIVAS, this just seems to be hanging and hinging on a gimmick as an excuse to exist, like the MARVEL NOIR line.

While everyone saw a harmless animal adventure, I saw "READ THIS, BECAUSE ANIMALS ARE ALWAYS FUNNY", and I lashed out because I thought it was horribly mistimed and misjudged.

Least C. Lee and Havok83 may be able to relate to me. I think it's pretty stupid. I'm game for something light and fun sometimes; I read AGENTS OF ATLAS, and I'm reading X-MEN FIRST CLASS and so on, but the line between funny and stupid is often blurry and very, very, subjective. Right now PET AVENGERS does seem rather silly. I also wondered about whether Marvel was mocking or testing their Avengers brand with this, Havok83.

My new comments about LOCKJAW AND THE PET AVENGERS:

- How low must you be on the Marvel totem pole that on a team, LOCKJAW is considered the "big name" on the title. He is the Captain Britain of the MI-13, the Wolverine of the X-Men, of the Pet Avengers. A teleporting dog with a mustache that both the Inhumans and the Thing kept as a pet. I can imagine Lockheed and Redwing getting jealous. I mean, hey, Lockheed beat Ord.

- Part of me dreads the poor, pathetic super-villain who will have to be trucked out to actually lose to the Pet Avengers. If they're fighting monsters I suppose it would read like something of a junkyard dog-fight with capes and fireballs, but at some point some grand arc villain has to come out to make it functional. And losing to the Pet Avengers, a team without even a pair of thumbs among them, it will be very hard for said villain to be seen seriously. If said villain is someone already not taken seriously, it could work. If not, though, then someone's about to fall from B to G-List.

- This will seem to be a series where I believe NONE of the stars can actually talk, unless Frog-Thor can. That's going to be a stretch to be the least.

- Because life often likes to prove me wrong, every issue will average about 40k, rather than the 10-15k that I expect.

 

[Tron Bonne]

While everyone saw a harmless animal adventure, I saw "READ THIS, BECAUSE ANIMALS ARE ALWAYS FUNNY", and I lashed out because I thought it was horribly mistimed and misjudged.

And what reasoning do you have behind this logic again, Dread? Oh, that's right, you don't have any do you? You just think it's a dumb idea and that's really all there is to it, huh

Guess Marvel needs to be making more Dark Reign titles and cancel these so they can sell other useless **** with a DKR tag on it

 

[Dread]

And what reasoning do you have behind this logic again, Dread? Oh, that's right, you don't have any do you? You just think it's a dumb idea and that's really all there is to it, huh

Guess Marvel needs to be making more Dark Reign titles and cancel these so they can sell other useless **** with a DKR tag on it

I never said that. In fact, I think Marvel should be selling fewer comics, period. Trim the fat. Ad revenue is down, unemployment is hovering around 10% (and that doesn't count people working part time or have given up looking for work), there is a lot of lashing out about $4 comics, and we are one breakthrough away from digital comics being provided competently. Out of the Top 300, nearly half of them are Marvel, and I think that is a bit of an overload at this time. That includes trimming some fat with WOLVERINE and DARK REIGN.

Perhaps half of Marvel's titles a month wouldn't have to be $4 if Marvel published fewer than about 150 books a month, especially when a good dozen or two barely sell well. I mean, yes, there's quality stuff like CAPTAIN BRITAIN AND MI-13 that drowns at 18k, but guess what, that's likely been canceled quietly, same as IRON FIST and GHOST RIDER, which are winding down. In this market I just don't see the need to overindulge or really dive into niche material with this, or DR: LETHAL LEGION or WOLVERINE: GIVE US MORE MONEY one-shot or whatever.

No, PET AVENGERS isn't the fall of man. I just see it as a symptom, and one that is likely to be very, very, stupid and pointless. I enjoy funny. I am rarely in the mood for pointless. The line between is blurry, and as I have said before, subjective.

If it puts your mind at ease, my position has a downside; if PET AVENGERS defies the odds and my cynicism and is actually some classic comedy Eisner material, I can actually never read it and then admit to liking it, lest I never be taken seriously again. I'm surprised I've survived enjoying CAPTAIN AMERICA after bashing it for the first few years. Nothing is punished worse on online message boards than anyone admitting to being wrong about something.

But, hey, the rest of you, who may end up making 3% of the entire reading audience of this, enjoy. I just require more of comedy comics than a bunch of animals fighting monsters. That's of course my taste, of course.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I never said that. In fact, I think Marvel should be selling fewer comics, period. Trim the fat. Ad revenue is down, unemployment is hovering around 10% (and that doesn't count people working part time or have given up looking for work), there is a lot of lashing out about $4 comics, and we are one breakthrough away from digital comics being provided competently. Out of the Top 300, nearly half of them are Marvel, and I think that is a bit of an overload at this time. That includes trimming some fat with WOLVERINE and DARK REIGN.

Perhaps half of Marvel's titles a month wouldn't have to be $4 if Marvel published fewer than about 150 books a month, especially when a good dozen or two barely sell well. I mean, yes, there's quality stuff like CAPTAIN BRITAIN AND MI-13 that drowns at 18k, but guess what, that's likely been canceled quietly, same as IRON FIST and GHOST RIDER, which are winding down. In this market I just don't see the need to overindulge or really dive into niche material with this, or DR: LETHAL LEGION or WOLVERINE: GIVE US MORE MONEY one-shot or whatever.

No, PET AVENGERS isn't the fall of man. I just see it as a symptom, and one that is likely to be very, very, stupid and pointless. I enjoy funny. I am rarely in the mood for pointless. The line between is blurry, and as I have said before, subjective.

If it puts your mind at ease, my position has a downside; if PET AVENGERS defies the odds and my cynicism and is actually some classic comedy Eisner material, I can actually never read it and then admit to liking it, lest I never be taken seriously again. I'm surprised I've survived enjoying CAPTAIN AMERICA after bashing it for the first few years. Nothing is punished worse on online message boards than anyone admitting to being wrong about something.

But, hey, the rest of you, who may end up making 3% of the entire reading audience of this, enjoy. I just require more of comedy comics than a bunch of animals fighting monsters. That's of course my taste, of course.

Yeah, more or less just proved my point. You can try to rationalize your way however much you want, but it essentially just comes to sales and not liking it for you. Then of course the little condescending part at the end was, of course, the top off to what I was guess was suppose to be some type of 'owning' statement or something

And, for the record, you can just to spin yourself the victim of this horrible internet bullying ring here at the hype, but we all know how it went down. I already deconstructed all your points and BS in the July Solicit thread as much as I care to.

 

[Dread]

Yeah, more or less just proved my point. You can try to rationalize your way however much you want, but it essentially just comes to sales and not liking it for you. Then of course the little condescending part at the end was, of course, the top off to what I was guess was suppose to be some type of 'owning' statement or something

And, for the record, you can just to spin yourself the victim of this horrible internet bullying ring here at the hype, but we all know how it went down. I already deconstructed all your points and BS in the July Solicit thread as much as I care to.

You're making more of it than I was right now. I chose to restate my position essentially, because someone else raised the issue. No, I don't think it will sell very well. It is a niche sort of mini. I've seen far better material sink like a stone.

What I especially enjoy is how questioning the logic of releasing material that has little hope of selling well in the midst of a recession with Marvel already selling too many comics and with many of them falling some 25% in sales the last 6 months is somehow seen as being illogical and morally wrong. You miss my point and just see it as me, essentially, kicking a dog. Very well.

In the July Solict I chose this title as an example of that point above. Perhaps that was and still is not entirely warranted. While PET AVENGERS is being sold on some comedy shorthand (whether it is or isn't is a story for the future; much as MARVEL DIVAS may be more than T&A, but is being sold as T&A by the cover), it isn't as pretentious as some other Marvel material. But what especially surprised me was the sheer reaction to my criticism. For a series that isn't supposed to be taken serious and is supposed to be light and fluffy, some people hardly get light or fluffy if said series' merits or boader issues are questioned. While I will concede I went a little far with some of the condescending statements I made in the July solict, I rarely get into my conceding mood while I am still taking salvo's for repeating a valid position.

I DON'T think material like this should be replaced with DARK REIGN or WOLVERINE jibberish. I would like to see Marvel cut back on their printings a bit so they could lower costs a bit and have some mercy for their customers. I DON'T see the point in releasing made-for-niche material when stuff like AGENTS OF ATLAS or CAPTAIN BRITAIN AND MI-13 has trouble catching a foothold. Why not, say, ride out the recession a bit with this? Is PET AVENGERS in strict continuity that it can't wait a few extra months for an economy rebound?

Still, I did ask for it. I knew the results and went into it anyway. My fault. I shouldn't have replied here. I knew what was coming.

Lesson: never, ever, EVER say you don't like animal books. It starts a worse fight than Hulk vs. Superman debates.

 

[Dread]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=preview&id=2558&disp=table

12 page preview at CBR for those interested. "Throg" actually has a somewhat decent origin, although the rest of the story is a bit too absurd for me. It also clearly takes place before WAR OF KINGS. And doesn't quite gell with THE ILLUMINATI series.

But, I mean...people LAUGH at Krypto. Throg is almost the same thing for the Thor franchise. Can THOR handle the addition of a frog pet as part of the mythos? They have an alien, after all...

 

[Tron Bonne]

Like I said Dread, I'm not going to get into that again, I already did all I needed to in the July Solicit thread. Don't care much for going down that road again

In the July Solicit I chose this title as an example of that point above. Perhaps that was and still is not entirely warranted. While PET AVENGERS is being sold on some comedy shorthand (whether it is or isn't is a story for the future; much as MARVEL DIVAS may be more than T&A, but is being sold as T&A by the cover), it isn't as pretentious as some other Marvel material. But what especially surprised me was the sheer reaction to my criticism. For a series that isn't supposed to be taken serious and is supposed to be light and fluffy, some people hardly get light or fluffy if said series' merits or boader issues are questioned. While I will concede I went a little far with some of the condescending statements I made in the July solict, I rarely get into my conceding mood while I am still taking salvo's for repeating a valid position.

Ok, I don't get you at all. You just acknowledged what the real problem was in the first part of this paragraph and then you totally start the same **** again.

The real problem in the July thread wasn't your criticism of the book. Yes, me and others questioned exactly why you thought it was 'sheer stupidity' and when you questioned us back as to the pros of the title you essentially compared people who were planning to pick up and read the title to dunk frat kids who sit online and watch the same video for hours and still laugh and thought monkeys were funny just for being monkeys. That is when I started hammering you about the reasons behind your hostility and most of your logic pretty much ate itself all its own from there.

Seriously, man, I doubt anyway cares whether you like the book or the idea, but you went way overboard with that **** I mentioned above. There's a lot of titles that deserve internet rage hate, but I'm not entirely sure why you singled this one out. Yes, you went after that Divas thing and Noir, but you seem to be in arms from the get go about this title. If you're that passionate man, keep your guns, but I just don't get your angle

 

[Dread]

The real problem in the July thread wasn't your criticism of the book. Yes, me and others questioned exactly why you thought it was 'sheer stupidity' and when you questioned us back as to the pros of the title you essentially compared people who were planning to pick up and read the title to dunk frat kids who sit online and watch the same video for hours and still laugh and thought monkeys were funny just for being monkeys. That is when I started hammering you about the reasons behind your hostility and most of your logic pretty much ate itself all its own from there.

I conceded that I went a little overboard with some of the condescending comments in the July Solict thread. I believe I even apologized, or came close to it. But I still feel my point is valid.

And I do wonder who this series is honestly supposed to appeal to, if not a niche market.

Seriously, man, I doubt anyway cares whether you like the book or the idea, but you went way overboard with that **** I mentioned above. There's a lot of titles that deserve internet rage hate, but I'm not entirely sure why you singled this one out. Yes, you went after that Divas thing and Noir, but you seem to be in arms from the get go about this title. If you're that passionate man, keep your guns, but I just don't get your angle

My reaction was akin to Havok83's above: "Wow is Marvel, serious?" I just elaborated a bit further, since I do that with everything. There are some projects where I think it is fair to throw your head back and ask, "Why? For the love of all that is holy, WHY!? Why does this have to exist and be released? Why?" and it is a valid question. PET AVENGERS isn't the only thing Marvel sells that one could lament that about; personally I think NOIR is pretty flimsy; if you want to do noir stories, there is no reason to slap Marvel trappings on them; Brubaker doesn't in CRIMINAL. For me, PET AVENGERS is one of them.

I'm getting tired of $20 barely getting me five comics a week anymore as Marvel continues to find bold new ways, via renumbering, anniversaries, and "switching from ongoing series to hiatus 6 issue mini" to charge $3.99 for more and more comics. With ad revenue drying up across the board in the print medium (and heck, it is down about 10-20% on TV according to some figures), I honestly believe that Marvel could trim a lot of costs by slicing down the obscene amount of comics they publish. Their Unite share has been averaging 50% for months now; that means one out of every 2 books on a shelf is a Marvel book. That would be a glut in good times, but I think now they need to tighten the belt a little to justify these rising costs at a time when, heck, 1 out of every 100 readers may have lost their job, or had to take a cut, or only works part time. Comics have only been "recession proof" since the last time we had a recession this bad, they were still under $2. Hell, they may have still been under $1.75. PET AVENGERS, while not alone, to me is but one title that could be trimmed for such costs. Or offered online, or something.

"Funny Pet Characters" strike my nerves, but I explained that already. In a way, PET AVENGERS illustrates this. There are five of them; the only one I care about is Throg, based pretty much on the 12 page preview. And that is usually my opinion about "funny animal characters" in comics and cartoons. For every one that is cool, like Rocket or Cosmo, there are usually at least 4 that aren't, that are either mundane (Redwing) or annoying (Lockheed). A 25% interest return isn't enough for me to give a damn. I had to endure them in no end of 80's and 90's cartoons as a kid, and I'll be damned if I need to sit through them now. If there is a purgatory, for me it will be a laundromat where all I am doing is folding an endless amount of white socks, with no one but Snarf, Cringer, and Scrappy Doo to amuse me.

Yes, Cringer was awesome as Battle-Cat. But until then you just wanted to decapitate him. Or at least I did.

I also wonder...Throg was apparently a black man who was cursed into becoming a frog, who was brown skinned. After grabbing the sliver of Thor's hammer, be becomes "green" like the Odinson was as a frog. Is...that racist?

I think I have a right to dislike this launch, and I also have a right to question the wisdom of it's release within the current comic market and economic climate. I don't think that is wrong.

(I do have a sense of humor, though. Hell, I'll freely admit to enjoying BATMAN: BRAVE AND THE BOLD as a guilty pleasure. There's not usually enough to type reviews about on SHH, but it's a very fun show. Reminds me of 1988, but in good fun ways.)