Sunday, May 18, 2008

Neither so Mighty, Either.

A few days back I wrote about how the latest issue of The New Avengers didn’t contain any New Avenger story, but served as a backdrop for the ongoing (upcoming?) Secret Skrull War that is happening in the Marvel Universe. Well, it seems that they’ve done it again in Mighty Avengers.

That’s right, we have yet another comic that doesn’t deliver what it promised on the cover (and in this one, None of the Avengers, Mighty or New appear). Seriously it has got to be a way to keep us involved in this storyline without forcing us to buy every single title in the Marvel line-up, but it is taking us away from our preferred heroes.

Personally, I’m not such a big fan of this. Anyone else want to chime in?

2 comments:

Tommy said...

Offhand, I'm thinking they're doing this cause they don't want to do a separate limited series that has this backstory in it.


I suppose it's a Choose your poison sort of deal here.

If the backstory stuff was in a limited series, it's be there for those who want it, but yet, it would be another thing to buy to get the full picture. However, a crossover is a crossover, meaning the main storylines are either put on hold or are forced to fit with the overall event.

In this case, you may not have to buy as many titles, BUT you essentially have an issue of a title you can take or leave due to who stars in it. Or rather, does not.


My main problem with the plethora of big events (outside of the wallet issue) is that we've got some interesting concepts, but they're implemented in a crappy way (at least in my opinion).

Characterization is altered to get from point a to point b, continuity is a laugh, and most of the time, the new continuity established isn't as researched out and can clash in several ways. For instance, the Beyonder is now an Inhuman. An Inhuman that needed Pete to show him how to use the bathroom and a bunch of other stuff.

I always felt it was badass that a god being took a liking to Spider-Man, even if he was an immature god being. Oh, well. I'm probably too passionate about this stuff for my own good.

Robert J. Sodaro said...

Tommy, I’m getting the "why" of the background stories in both Avengers, the problem that I'm having is that I really wanted to read something about the Avengers, and I didn't get that, so I invested the $3.00 and, for all intents and purpose, didn't get what I (thought) I was paying for.

That is called "bait and switch" in the real world (I wanted to buy a Lexus, but wound up with a ford for the same price). Hence it is illegal. I'm thinking that the cover should have contained some sort of disclaimer on the cover (Hey kids! No Avengers actually appear in this issue!)

I also agree with you that Marvel is piling one world-shaking event on top of another, not allowing the dust from one to settle in for the next ratings stunt to take place. Then they are backing away from the fallout of the previous event as "it didn't work", or whatever they are claiming.

I can't help but to think that they are digging themselves into the same hole that they dug themselves into in the '90s with all of the die-cut, refractive variant issue crap they attempted to foist upon us back then.

There was an error in this gadget