I would say it was the best-selling comic for most of his run because Marvel decided to make that book their main priority. If you build a universe around one book or title it is bound to be the biggest book in the company.
As we all know quality does not always sales.
Again, I disagree, and I wonder if we were even reading the same comic. Quesada's editorial plan was to go through each of Marvel's "Franchises" and fix them. He started with the X-Men (which pissed off John Byrne and brought sales up by about 50%), then moved to Spider-Man (which again pissed off John Byrne and doubled sales) and then moved to the Avengers.
I LIKE Bendis's storytelling style. I thought it brought a cohesion to the book that had gotten lost in the endless soap opera with "mysterious overlords" combined with 3rd rate characters (Sersi and the Black Knight as the main Avengers? REALLY???) and brought it back to being the top gun in the Marvel Universe facing down the top threats to the Marvel Universe.
The Avengers SHOULD be the hub of the super-hero world. They are the team that takes on the threats that are too big for the rest of the heroes to take on alone. They SHOULD be where the big stories come from, because it's the big team: Thor, Iron Man, Captain America and a crew of characters that the writer feels fits. In the 70's, when I started reading comics, The Avengers WAS the hub of the Marvel Universe.
As for quality not equaling sales, I agree with you, but not in this case. The Avengers books were usually the first ones I read because I had to know what was going to happen next...and that's why I read super-hero comics. It's fine if they aren't your cup of tea, everyone has different tastes, but I disagree with you on the function of the book and I firmly believe it was a high quality series. Bendis changed the book for the better.
Answer me this, would you rather have read more of Chuck Austin's Avengers run? How about Bob Harris's? Even Geoff Johns couldn't do a good Avengers story (and in a lot of ways, his were extra creepy, sex-wise.).
0
I did not stop reading the Avengers monthly until the Bendis run. So yes, I did prefer those runs over Bendis. I also preferred Brubaker's Secret Avengers, Slott's Mighty Avengers, Slott/Gage's Academy/Initiative runs. I thought they were all much better books. If Marvel had built the universe around any of their runs the results would have been the same.
I much prefer Sersi and Black Knight over Luke Cage and Daredevil on the team.
How did Marvel "build the universe" around Bendis' books to create this result? And, if so, why didn't they do it for the X-line, too, so that it could take off the way Avengers did in the mid-00s?
If it is the books and how Marvel positions them, and not the desire for a specific creators' work, why did Mighty Avengers sales drop when Bendis left and Slott came on?
I would say it was the best-selling comic for most of his run because Marvel decided to make that book their main priority. If you build a universe around one book or title it is bound to be the biggest book in the company.
As we all know quality does not always sales.
Again, I disagree, and I wonder if we were even reading the same comic. Quesada's editorial plan was to go through each of Marvel's "Franchises" and fix them. He started with the X-Men (which pissed off John Byrne and brought sales up by about 50%), then moved to Spider-Man (which again pissed off John Byrne and doubled sales) and then moved to the Avengers.
I LIKE Bendis's storytelling style. I thought it brought a cohesion to the book that had gotten lost in the endless soap opera with "mysterious overlords" combined with 3rd rate characters (Sersi and the Black Knight as the main Avengers? REALLY???) and brought it back to being the top gun in the Marvel Universe facing down the top threats to the Marvel Universe.
The Avengers SHOULD be the hub of the super-hero world. They are the team that takes on the threats that are too big for the rest of the heroes to take on alone. They SHOULD be where the big stories come from, because it's the big team: Thor, Iron Man, Captain America and a crew of characters that the writer feels fits. In the 70's, when I started reading comics, The Avengers WAS the hub of the Marvel Universe.
As for quality not equaling sales, I agree with you, but not in this case. The Avengers books were usually the first ones I read because I had to know what was going to happen next...and that's why I read super-hero comics. It's fine if they aren't your cup of tea, everyone has different tastes, but I disagree with you on the function of the book and I firmly believe it was a high quality series. Bendis changed the book for the better.
Answer me this, would you rather have read more of Chuck Austin's Avengers run? How about Bob Harris's? Even Geoff Johns couldn't do a good Avengers story (and in a lot of ways, his were extra creepy, sex-wise.).
0
I did not stop reading the Avengers monthly until the Bendis run. So yes, I did prefer those runs over Bendis. I also preferred Brubaker's Secret Avengers, Slott's Mighty Avengers, Slott/Gage's Academy/Initiative runs. I thought they were all much better books. If Marvel had built the universe around any of their runs the results would have been the same.
I much prefer Sersi and Black Knight over Luke Cage and Daredevil on the team.
How did Marvel "build the universe" around Bendis' books to create this result? And, if so, why didn't they do it for the X-line, too, so that it could take off the way Avengers did in the mid-00s?
If it is the books and how Marvel positions them, and not the desire for a specific creators' work, why did Mighty Avengers sales drop when Bendis left and Slott came on?
As an aside, while I liked Bendis' Mighty Avengers... I really liked Slott's better. I suppose I'm in the minority on that one.
As an aside, while I liked Bendis' Mighty Avengers... I really liked Slott's better. I suppose I'm in the minority on that one.
I liked it a lot too. I think it was Cho's art that really makes me remember Bendis' run so fondly. Slott did some pretty cool stuff though and I dug it a lot.
I would say it was the best-selling comic for most of his run because Marvel decided to make that book their main priority. If you build a universe around one book or title it is bound to be the biggest book in the company.
As we all know quality does not always sales.
Again, I disagree, and I wonder if we were even reading the same comic. Quesada's editorial plan was to go through each of Marvel's "Franchises" and fix them. He started with the X-Men (which pissed off John Byrne and brought sales up by about 50%), then moved to Spider-Man (which again pissed off John Byrne and doubled sales) and then moved to the Avengers.
I LIKE Bendis's storytelling style. I thought it brought a cohesion to the book that had gotten lost in the endless soap opera with "mysterious overlords" combined with 3rd rate characters (Sersi and the Black Knight as the main Avengers? REALLY???) and brought it back to being the top gun in the Marvel Universe facing down the top threats to the Marvel Universe.
The Avengers SHOULD be the hub of the super-hero world. They are the team that takes on the threats that are too big for the rest of the heroes to take on alone. They SHOULD be where the big stories come from, because it's the big team: Thor, Iron Man, Captain America and a crew of characters that the writer feels fits. In the 70's, when I started reading comics, The Avengers WAS the hub of the Marvel Universe.
As for quality not equaling sales, I agree with you, but not in this case. The Avengers books were usually the first ones I read because I had to know what was going to happen next...and that's why I read super-hero comics. It's fine if they aren't your cup of tea, everyone has different tastes, but I disagree with you on the function of the book and I firmly believe it was a high quality series. Bendis changed the book for the better.
Answer me this, would you rather have read more of Chuck Austin's Avengers run? How about Bob Harris's? Even Geoff Johns couldn't do a good Avengers story (and in a lot of ways, his were extra creepy, sex-wise.).
0
I did not stop reading the Avengers monthly until the Bendis run. So yes, I did prefer those runs over Bendis. I also preferred Brubaker's Secret Avengers, Slott's Mighty Avengers, Slott/Gage's Academy/Initiative runs. I thought they were all much better books. If Marvel had built the universe around any of their runs the results would have been the same.
I much prefer Sersi and Black Knight over Luke Cage and Daredevil on the team.
How did Marvel "build the universe" around Bendis' books to create this result? And, if so, why didn't they do it for the X-line, too, so that it could take off the way Avengers did in the mid-00s?
If it is the books and how Marvel positions them, and not the desire for a specific creators' work, why did Mighty Avengers sales drop when Bendis left and Slott came on?
As an aside, while I liked Bendis' Mighty Avengers... I really liked Slott's better. I suppose I'm in the minority on that one.
I didn't like it better, but I did enjoy it a lot.
How did Marvel "build the universe" around Bendis' books to create this result? And, if so, why didn't they do it for the X-line, too, so that it could take off the way Avengers did in the mid-00s?
If it is the books and how Marvel positions them, and not the desire for a specific creators' work, why did Mighty Avengers sales drop when Bendis left and Slott came on?
How many of the line wide events during Bendis' Avengers run were written by Bendis? How many of the line wide events during Slott's Avengers run were written by Slott?
Any non-Bendis Avengers book was going to seem less important by default when he was doing the majority of the lynchpin event books (which tended to feature the Avengers too).
Ironically the reason they were in no place to do it with the X-Books was due to a book Bendis wrote - House of M. That painted those books into such a corner it was years before they even addressed the outcome properly. Obviously that was editorial edict more than Bendis' fault.
Moreover, the book that did become a hit, best selling X-Book, couldn't be linked in the same way as Bendis' Avengers as it was written by a celebrity director, rather than one of the "bullpen" and drawn by a man who couldn't put a book out monthly. There's no way you could have used Astonishing X-Men as a core book the way Avengers was used.
Obviously Bendis played some part in the Avengers popularity, just as he did Ultimate Spider-Man's but Marvel's editorial approach and marketing undeniably helped too. (And failed some of Bendis' other books like Spider-Woman and Moon Knight).
Comments
I did not stop reading the Avengers monthly until the Bendis run. So yes, I did prefer those runs over Bendis. I also preferred Brubaker's Secret Avengers, Slott's Mighty Avengers, Slott/Gage's Academy/Initiative runs. I thought they were all much better books. If Marvel had built the universe around any of their runs the results would have been the same.
I much prefer Sersi and Black Knight over Luke Cage and Daredevil on the team.
How did Marvel "build the universe" around Bendis' books to create this result? And, if so, why didn't they do it for the X-line, too, so that it could take off the way Avengers did in the mid-00s?
If it is the books and how Marvel positions them, and not the desire for a specific creators' work, why did Mighty Avengers sales drop when Bendis left and Slott came on?
If it is the books and how Marvel positions them, and not the desire for a specific creators' work, why did Mighty Avengers sales drop when Bendis left and Slott came on?
As an aside, while I liked Bendis' Mighty Avengers... I really liked Slott's better. I suppose I'm in the minority on that one.
I didn't like it better, but I did enjoy it a lot.
How many of the line wide events during Slott's Avengers run were written by Slott?
Any non-Bendis Avengers book was going to seem less important by default when he was doing the majority of the lynchpin event books (which tended to feature the Avengers too).
Ironically the reason they were in no place to do it with the X-Books was due to a book Bendis wrote - House of M. That painted those books into such a corner it was years before they even addressed the outcome properly. Obviously that was editorial edict more than Bendis' fault.
Moreover, the book that did become a hit, best selling X-Book, couldn't be linked in the same way as Bendis' Avengers as it was written by a celebrity director, rather than one of the "bullpen" and drawn by a man who couldn't put a book out monthly. There's no way you could have used Astonishing X-Men as a core book the way Avengers was used.
Obviously Bendis played some part in the Avengers popularity, just as he did Ultimate Spider-Man's but Marvel's editorial approach and marketing undeniably helped too. (And failed some of Bendis' other books like Spider-Woman and Moon Knight).