Bendis is NOT at DC & by extension never worked on Superman. Johns had a long 1st run that was good & affected the DC universe more. Bendis mega event books have not made sense & ended poorly (CGS Secret Invasion last episode) as class A example.
And here maybe I am coming at the question the wrong way (or misinterpreting what Stewart asked originally)-- I was just measuring Bendis vs. Johns in terms of how much effect. Quantitatively. Rather than what I did or didn't like.
Bendis is NOT at DC & by extension never worked on Superman. Johns had a long 1st run that was good & affected the DC universe more. Bendis mega event books have not made sense & ended poorly (CGS Secret Invasion last episode) as class A example.
Matthew
Just playing devil's advocate here because I don't understand the meaning, but in order for Bendis to have a more quantitative effect, he had to write Superman?
Look, I find Bendis' style tiresome and in some cases (Spider-man) unreadable. I do have to agree with @David_D that he made the Avengers into Marvel's flagship team that the X-Men held in the 90s. Hell, in the Marvel NOW!, he even turned to the X-men books.
I'd even venture to say a chunk of the success of Marvel Studios is because of Bendis. When the X-Men movies were in theaters, I don't recall too many clamoring for an Avengers movie. From what I gather, the MCU relies heavily on the Ultimate universe, which he helped get started.
Even the Netflix series seem to be mining his stuff.
Aside from Green Lantern & a couple Smallville episodes, can Johns' influence beyond the books be seen? He (reportedly) had a successful run on Superman, but how much of that was used for the Man of Steel?
And, if we are including characters re-invigorated, rather than just created, then you can add "The Avengers" to Bendis' list. They seem to have had a pretty good decade under his watch.
The problem is while he re-invigorated the Avengers, he was also responsible for de-invigorating the X-Men with House of M.
A story that left an entire line of comics stuck with a storyline whose only logical conclusion was to undo that story. If we're giving him credit for stuff that should probably be credited to editorial decisions, we've got to blame him for the stuff he wrote that screwed up the X-books for years.
I get that. And here maybe I am coming at the question the wrong way (or misinterpreting what Stewart asked originally)-- I was just measuring Bendis vs. Johns in terms of how much effect. Quantitatively. Rather than what I did or didn't like. Even "No More Mutants", while not beloved of a lot of X-fans, is to me part of my vote for Bendis. Not because I think it was one of his better moves. But rather because it is another example of how much he has affected the MU as a whole.
Like the Avengers-- it is not that the Avengers were better Avengers under his stewardship (though, personally, I dug it) but rather that in his years they went from one title to the flagship title of the MU, to a franchise of Avengers books. Which is not necessarily a measure of quality, but rather of the affect the books he was writing were having on the MU at that time, and how many characters he was getting to impact.
I took the original question as 'who has has affected the universe they wrote for more?' rather than 'affected the universe BEST?', 'who has the best track record?', or 'who has done the most things people liked?' Which are also valid ways to come at it. Just not what I thought was being asked.
As I originally said, from his work, I have no idea what Bendis' view point is. As such he comes across as a guy who implements editorial edicts. Such as - "Let's put Spider-Man & Wolverine on the Avengers", "Let's make less mutants", "Let's have Norman Osborn lead the Avengers" etc.
Reading Johns work I can clearly see he's got a Roy Thomas-like obsession with tying continuity together, extrapolating from existing continuity and making superhero comics gore-filled misery fests. Johns' use of Superboy Prime alone tells you more about him as writer than reading Bendis' entire Avengers run.
That's why I buy that Johns as having more influence in the decisions made in his comics than Bendis. I might be completely off base, but nothing in Bendis' writing feels like he's responsible for the universe-altering parts of his comics. Again, I almost said stories or plots, but that would be giving his comics too much credit.
The irony is I'd rather read Bendis' empty team books and his much better solo books over Johns' books as I have zero interest in John's take on superheroes. Of course, I'd rather read anyone else than Bendis too.
It boils down to this:
I hate Geoff Johns and Brian Michael Bendis comics
I don't read many DC comics these days because of the influence of Geoff Johns on the universe. I still read loads of Marvel comics.
And, if we are including characters re-invigorated, rather than just created, then you can add "The Avengers" to Bendis' list. They seem to have had a pretty good decade under his watch.
The problem is while he re-invigorated the Avengers, he was also responsible for de-invigorating the X-Men with House of M.
A story that left an entire line of comics stuck with a storyline whose only logical conclusion was to undo that story. If we're giving him credit for stuff that should probably be credited to editorial decisions, we've got to blame him for the stuff he wrote that screwed up the X-books for years.
I get that. And here maybe I am coming at the question the wrong way (or misinterpreting what Stewart asked originally)-- I was just measuring Bendis vs. Johns in terms of how much effect. Quantitatively. Rather than what I did or didn't like. Even "No More Mutants", while not beloved of a lot of X-fans, is to me part of my vote for Bendis. Not because I think it was one of his better moves. But rather because it is another example of how much he has affected the MU as a whole.
Like the Avengers-- it is not that the Avengers were better Avengers under his stewardship (though, personally, I dug it) but rather that in his years they went from one title to the flagship title of the MU, to a franchise of Avengers books. Which is not necessarily a measure of quality, but rather of the affect the books he was writing were having on the MU at that time, and how many characters he was getting to impact.
I took the original question as 'who has has affected the universe they wrote for more?' rather than 'affected the universe BEST?', 'who has the best track record?', or 'who has done the most things people liked?' Which are also valid ways to come at it. Just not what I thought was being asked.
As I originally said, from his work, I have no idea what Bendis' view point is. As such he comes across as a guy who implements editorial edicts. Such as - "Let's put Spider-Man & Wolverine on the Avengers", "Let's make less mutants", "Let's have Norman Osborn lead the Avengers" etc.
Reading Johns work I can clearly see he's got a Roy Thomas-like obsession with tying continuity together, extrapolating from existing continuity and making superhero comics gore-filled misery fests. Johns' use of Superboy Prime alone tells you more about him as writer than reading Bendis' entire Avengers run.
That's why I buy that Johns as having more influence in the decisions made in his comics than Bendis. I might be completely off base, but nothing in Bendis' writing feels like he's responsible for the universe-altering parts of his comics. Again, I almost said stories or plots, but that would be giving his comics too much credit.
The irony is I'd rather read Bendis' empty team books and his much better solo books over Johns' books as I have zero interest in John's take on superheroes. Of course, I'd rather read anyone else than Bendis too.
It boils down to this:
I hate Geoff Johns and Brian Michael Bendis comics
I don't read many DC comics these days because of the influence of Geoff Johns on the universe. I still read loads of Marvel comics.
Outside of the main Justice League book, Johns has little (from a writing perspective) influence on the current DC universe as a whole.
I am not sure if any one writer can claim to be the main influence on the DC Universe right now. Maybe Scott Snyder since he writes the best selling book with the most popular character and a lot usually revolves around Batman. That is a big stretch though.
I am going with Bendis only because I read more of his stuff because I mostly read Marvel. But Johns run on Green Lantern is probably the longest run of a DC comic that I own so props to him. My favorite Bendis run is New Avengers. He was writing the best Spider-man at a time when Spider-man own books were not great.
I am going with Bendis only because I read more of his stuff because I mostly read Marvel. But Johns run on Green Lantern is probably the longest run of a DC comic that I own so props to him. My favorite Bendis run is New Avengers. He was writing the best Spider-man at a time when Spider-man own books were not great.
I really liked what he did with Spider-Man then as well.
And, if we are including characters re-invigorated, rather than just created, then you can add "The Avengers" to Bendis' list. They seem to have had a pretty good decade under his watch.
The problem is while he re-invigorated the Avengers, he was also responsible for de-invigorating the X-Men with House of M.
A story that left an entire line of comics stuck with a storyline whose only logical conclusion was to undo that story. If we're giving him credit for stuff that should probably be credited to editorial decisions, we've got to blame him for the stuff he wrote that screwed up the X-books for years.
I get that. And here maybe I am coming at the question the wrong way (or misinterpreting what Stewart asked originally)-- I was just measuring Bendis vs. Johns in terms of how much effect. Quantitatively. Rather than what I did or didn't like. Even "No More Mutants", while not beloved of a lot of X-fans, is to me part of my vote for Bendis. Not because I think it was one of his better moves. But rather because it is another example of how much he has affected the MU as a whole.
Like the Avengers-- it is not that the Avengers were better Avengers under his stewardship (though, personally, I dug it) but rather that in his years they went from one title to the flagship title of the MU, to a franchise of Avengers books. Which is not necessarily a measure of quality, but rather of the affect the books he was writing were having on the MU at that time, and how many characters he was getting to impact.
I took the original question as 'who has has affected the universe they wrote for more?' rather than 'affected the universe BEST?', 'who has the best track record?', or 'who has done the most things people liked?' Which are also valid ways to come at it. Just not what I thought was being asked.
As I originally said, from his work, I have no idea what Bendis' view point is. As such he comes across as a guy who implements editorial edicts. Such as - "Let's put Spider-Man & Wolverine on the Avengers", "Let's make less mutants", "Let's have Norman Osborn lead the Avengers" etc.
Reading Johns work I can clearly see he's got a Roy Thomas-like obsession with tying continuity together, extrapolating from existing continuity and making superhero comics gore-filled misery fests. Johns' use of Superboy Prime alone tells you more about him as writer than reading Bendis' entire Avengers run.
That's why I buy that Johns as having more influence in the decisions made in his comics than Bendis. I might be completely off base, but nothing in Bendis' writing feels like he's responsible for the universe-altering parts of his comics. Again, I almost said stories or plots, but that would be giving his comics too much credit.
The irony is I'd rather read Bendis' empty team books and his much better solo books over Johns' books as I have zero interest in John's take on superheroes. Of course, I'd rather read anyone else than Bendis too.
It boils down to this:
I hate Geoff Johns and Brian Michael Bendis comics
I don't read many DC comics these days because of the influence of Geoff Johns on the universe. I still read loads of Marvel comics.
That's eloquently phrased and I'm right there with you up until the end where I go in exactly the opposite direction. Also, I rather like Johns take on super heroes.
I'll give Brian Jessica Drew, but Luke Cage was ripe for the picking. If not Brian, somebody else would have come along and brought him back to relevance before long. It's not like Marvel has an overly deep well of characters of color.
Gotta disagree with you on this one.; People TRIED bringing him back over and over, and none of it worked. Cage in the 90's, the Richard Corbin mini-series, his guest appearances all flopped. Bendis making the character a leader, getting rid of the "Blackspoitation" stuff and really giving him a strong world-view and personality is what worked.
I voted for Bendis for a very simple reason: He changed how comics are written. He wrote full script when “Marvel Style” was still the norm. He’s a former artist, so he wrote in detail about things like facial expression and body language as well as where the “camera” should be. He didn’t use narrative captioning or thought balloons. On top of that, he brought the three act structure to stories, as the endless running soap opera style of plotting was still in vogue. Remember, when the X-Men movie came out, one of the thing that Marvel’s board was upset about was that there weren’t X-Men trade paperbacks in bookstores, and the reason for that was that Marvel Editorial didn’t much allow for stories with beginnings, middles and ends… Bendis, Quesada and Jemas brought that in (like it or not) and rebuilt mainstream super-hero storytelling to story arcs. Bendis also rebuilt the Avengers into Marvel’s version on the JLA. The Big, Popular characters were a part of it and it was the By God Center of the Marvel Universe. Johns has added a lot to the DC mythos, and has been tapped for their big revamps, but his storytelling style is nothing new, and there’s nothing all that innovative about how he puts a story together. His work is very good, don’t get me wrong, but stylistically, I see very little difference between him and Marv Wolfman, Len Wein or other very good super-hero comic book writers. YMMV
I voted for Bendis for a very simple reason: He changed how comics are written. He wrote full script when “Marvel Style” was still the norm. He’s a former artist, so he wrote in detail about things like facial expression and body language as well as where the “camera” should be. He didn’t use narrative captioning or thought balloons. On top of that, he brought the three act structure to stories, as the endless running soap opera style of plotting was still in vogue. Remember, when the X-Men movie came out, one of the thing that Marvel’s board was upset about was that there weren’t X-Men trade paperbacks in bookstores, and the reason for that was that Marvel Editorial didn’t much allow for stories with beginnings, middles and ends… Bendis, Quesada and Jemas brought that in (like it or not) and rebuilt mainstream super-hero storytelling to story arcs. Bendis also rebuilt the Avengers into Marvel’s version on the JLA. The Big, Popular characters were a part of it and it was the By God Center of the Marvel Universe. Johns has added a lot to the DC mythos, and has been tapped for their big revamps, but his storytelling style is nothing new, and there’s nothing all that innovative about how he puts a story together. His work is very good, don’t get me wrong, but stylistically, I see very little difference between him and Marv Wolfman, Len Wein or other very good super-hero comic book writers. YMMV
I voted for Bendis for a very simple reason: He changed how comics are written. He wrote full script when “Marvel Style” was still the norm. He’s a former artist, so he wrote in detail about things like facial expression and body language as well as where the “camera” should be. He didn’t use narrative captioning or thought balloons. On top of that, he brought the three act structure to stories, as the endless running soap opera style of plotting was still in vogue. Remember, when the X-Men movie came out, one of the thing that Marvel’s board was upset about was that there weren’t X-Men trade paperbacks in bookstores, and the reason for that was that Marvel Editorial didn’t much allow for stories with beginnings, middles and ends… Bendis, Quesada and Jemas brought that in (like it or not) and rebuilt mainstream super-hero storytelling to story arcs. Bendis also rebuilt the Avengers into Marvel’s version on the JLA. The Big, Popular characters were a part of it and it was the By God Center of the Marvel Universe. Johns has added a lot to the DC mythos, and has been tapped for their big revamps, but his storytelling style is nothing new, and there’s nothing all that innovative about how he puts a story together. His work is very good, don’t get me wrong, but stylistically, I see very little difference between him and Marv Wolfman, Len Wein or other very good super-hero comic book writers. YMMV
Aside for how he wrote Spider-man, it was also throwing him into the Avengers that'll stand out as blemishes on Bendis' influence on Marvel. Besides Parker being a loner, now he's heavily associated with the Avengers.
And when I see Wolverine siding more with the Avengers then the X-Men, I proclaim blasphemy. In fact, there's a rumor going around that I'm starting about Marvel pressuring Hugh Jackman to walk away from the Logan role, so his recent connection with Avengers will permit MCU to use him.
Aside for how he wrote Spider-man, it was also throwing him into the Avengers that'll stand out as blemishes on Bendis' influence on Marvel. Besides Parker being a loner, now he's heavily associated with the Avengers.
Parker was never a loner.
He was a social outcast.*
He wore bowties and sweater-vests, not a black trenchcoat.
The Avengers storyline of him being accepted as a peer by the "grown-ups" was wonderful, and a great payoff to thirty-odd years of starring in Marvel Team-Up.
*Really more a matter of perceiving himself as a social outcast rather than actually being one, but we all know that High School can scar the crap out of some people.
Aside for how he wrote Spider-man, it was also throwing him into the Avengers that'll stand out as blemishes on Bendis' influence on Marvel. Besides Parker being a loner, now he's heavily associated with the Avengers.
Parker was never a loner.
He was a social outcast.*
He wore bowties and sweater-vests, not a black trenchcoat.
The Avengers storyline of him being accepted as a peer by the "grown-ups" was wonderful, and a great payoff to thirty-odd years of starring in Marvel Team-Up.
*Really more a matter of perceiving himself as a social outcast rather than actually being one, but we all know that High School can scar the crap out of some people.
Team Ups & Team Member aren't the same thing, nor a natural progression. I'm not certain the way Bendis was writing Parker would lead to "grown up" acceptance. In fact, he acted more like the kid side ("I tore my booty") Lee created him inspire of. He was more adult in his solo book.
Plus, it lead to his identity reveal to a larger group (never been a fan of having to reveal one's identity to teammates).
Whether he was a self-perceived social outcast or not, Parker has operated solo or short-term team ups for years. Hell, his partnerships never lasted long.
Back when I first started reading comic books, one of the draws to Parker was him being a solo act. It's also why I've never really read team books.
Aside for how he wrote Spider-man, it was also throwing him into the Avengers that'll stand out as blemishes on Bendis' influence on Marvel. Besides Parker being a loner, now he's heavily associated with the Avengers.
Parker was never a loner.
He was a social outcast.*
He wore bowties and sweater-vests, not a black trenchcoat.
The Avengers storyline of him being accepted as a peer by the "grown-ups" was wonderful, and a great payoff to thirty-odd years of starring in Marvel Team-Up.
*Really more a matter of perceiving himself as a social outcast rather than actually being one, but we all know that High School can scar the crap out of some people.
Team Ups & Team Member aren't the same thing, nor a natural progression. I'm not certain the way Bendis was writing Parker would lead to "grown up" acceptance. In fact, he acted more like the kid side ("I tore my booty") Lee created him inspire of. He was more adult in his solo book.
Plus, it lead to his identity reveal to a larger group (never been a fan of having to reveal one's identity to teammates).
Whether he was a self-perceived social outcast or not, Parker has operated solo or short-term team ups for years. Hell, his partnerships never lasted long.
Back when I first started reading comic books, one of the draws to Parker was him being a solo act. It's also why I've never really read team books.
M
So it's really a matter of your preference for solo characters.
Aside for how he wrote Spider-man, it was also throwing him into the Avengers that'll stand out as blemishes on Bendis' influence on Marvel. Besides Parker being a loner, now he's heavily associated with the Avengers.
Parker was never a loner.
He was a social outcast.*
He wore bowties and sweater-vests, not a black trenchcoat.
The Avengers storyline of him being accepted as a peer by the "grown-ups" was wonderful, and a great payoff to thirty-odd years of starring in Marvel Team-Up.
*Really more a matter of perceiving himself as a social outcast rather than actually being one, but we all know that High School can scar the crap out of some people.
Team Ups & Team Member aren't the same thing, nor a natural progression. I'm not certain the way Bendis was writing Parker would lead to "grown up" acceptance. In fact, he acted more like the kid side ("I tore my booty") Lee created him inspire of. He was more adult in his solo book.
Plus, it lead to his identity reveal to a larger group (never been a fan of having to reveal one's identity to teammates).
Whether he was a self-perceived social outcast or not, Parker has operated solo or short-term team ups for years. Hell, his partnerships never lasted long.
Back when I first started reading comic books, one of the draws to Parker was him being a solo act. It's also why I've never really read team books.
M
So it's really a matter of your preference for solo characters.
EDITED for the peanut gallery & alcoholics:
Parker has really only become known as a team member once Bendis crammed him into his Avengers.
And, I prefer solo hero/vigilante heroes to read. Never been much of a team player myself.
Aside for how he wrote Spider-man, it was also throwing him into the Avengers that'll stand out as blemishes on Bendis' influence on Marvel. Besides Parker being a loner, now he's heavily associated with the Avengers.
Parker was never a loner.
He was a social outcast.*
He wore bowties and sweater-vests, not a black trenchcoat.
The Avengers storyline of him being accepted as a peer by the "grown-ups" was wonderful, and a great payoff to thirty-odd years of starring in Marvel Team-Up.
*Really more a matter of perceiving himself as a social outcast rather than actually being one, but we all know that High School can scar the crap out of some people.
Team Ups & Team Member aren't the same thing, nor a natural progression. I'm not certain the way Bendis was writing Parker would lead to "grown up" acceptance. In fact, he acted more like the kid side ("I tore my booty") Lee created him inspire of. He was more adult in his solo book.
Plus, it lead to his identity reveal to a larger group (never been a fan of having to reveal one's identity to teammates).
Whether he was a self-perceived social outcast or not, Parker has operated solo or short-term team ups for years. Hell, his partnerships never lasted long.
Back when I first started reading comic books, one of the draws to Parker was him being a solo act. It's also why I've never really read team books.
M
So it's really a matter of your preference for solo characters.
Parker has really only become known as a team member once Bendis crowbarred him into his Avengers.
And, I prefer solo hero/vigilante heroes to read. Never been much of a team player myself.
I voted for Bendis for a very simple reason: He changed how comics are written. He wrote full script when “Marvel Style” was still the norm. He’s a former artist, so he wrote in detail about things like facial expression and body language as well as where the “camera” should be. He didn’t use narrative captioning or thought balloons. On top of that, he brought the three act structure to stories, as the endless running soap opera style of plotting was still in vogue. Remember, when the X-Men movie came out, one of the thing that Marvel’s board was upset about was that there weren’t X-Men trade paperbacks in bookstores, and the reason for that was that Marvel Editorial didn’t much allow for stories with beginnings, middles and ends… Bendis, Quesada and Jemas brought that in (like it or not) and rebuilt mainstream super-hero storytelling to story arcs. Bendis also rebuilt the Avengers into Marvel’s version on the JLA. The Big, Popular characters were a part of it and it was the By God Center of the Marvel Universe. Johns has added a lot to the DC mythos, and has been tapped for their big revamps, but his storytelling style is nothing new, and there’s nothing all that innovative about how he puts a story together. His work is very good, don’t get me wrong, but stylistically, I see very little difference between him and Marv Wolfman, Len Wein or other very good super-hero comic book writers. YMMV
Plot-first was still the norm at Marvel until Quesada was given the Marvel Knights line. His concentration was on story over art, and he wanted his writers to have more control over the story. Quesada brought in writers from film and TV who were used to writing scripts, and Bendis fit right in to what Quesada was looking for. Absolutely Bendis’ writing influenced others, but how much of the overall change was due to Bendis, and how much was because Quesada took over and pushed his all of his writers to take more control over the finished product? And full-script has always been the norm at DC. Marv Wolfman was one of the few there who wrote plot-first.
I don't know of many writers besides Bendis who suggest camera angles any more than writers did before Bendis, but there are plenty of visual writers, and there have been for decades. According to Alan Davis, Mike W. Barr was the most visual writer he's ever worked with. Personally, I think the publication of Alan Moore’s and Neil Gaiman’s scripts in the ’90s made a huge impact on descriptive script writing going forward. I know Matt Fraction counts that as a huge moment in his development as a writer.
I'm not sure if you're saying Bendis rang the death knell on thought balloons and caption boxes or not, but I think they were they already on the way out. It's fair to say Bendis pushed things in that direction, but it's hard to really pin down when that started, much less to pin it down to one writer. But I do know Johns didn't use thought balloons or captions (other than the very occasional box to indicate a new locale) in Stars & STRIPE (1999), his first work for DC.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Bendis brought in the three-act structure. The three-act structure has been a part of comics since comics began. The neverending soap opera aspect was more prevalent with some writers (Claremont and Wolfman being prime examples) than with others—and was much stronger in Marvel’s titles than in DC’s in general. I assume what you mean, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Bendis wrote his story arcs to a specific length, generally speaking, and smoothed the transitions from issue to issue within each arc, and broke the transitions from arc to arc more cleanly—or to put it briefly, he wrote for the trade. But as you pointed out, the rise of the importance of trade paperback collections (thanks in large part to Gaiman’s Sandman, and I think on some level thanks to the rise of manga in the US bookstore market) was dictating that change. The evolution of the market was the dominant force in moving superhero storytelling to focus on the story arc, and it would have happened with or without Bendis. After all, he wasn't doing anything the writers for DC’s Vertigo line hadn't already been doing for years (see the superhero-ish Sandman Mystery Theater, for one).
I've already been over my thoughts on Bendis’ Avengers, and I agree with your assessment of Johns’ writing style. Again, I just can't give full marks for things that are not quantifiable. And, like you said, your mileage may vary.
Aside for how he wrote Spider-man, it was also throwing him into the Avengers that'll stand out as blemishes on Bendis' influence on Marvel. Besides Parker being a loner, now he's heavily associated with the Avengers.
Parker was never a loner.
He was a social outcast.*
He wore bowties and sweater-vests, not a black trenchcoat.
The Avengers storyline of him being accepted as a peer by the "grown-ups" was wonderful, and a great payoff to thirty-odd years of starring in Marvel Team-Up.
*Really more a matter of perceiving himself as a social outcast rather than actually being one, but we all know that High School can scar the crap out of some people.
Peter was always the one who kept himself out of groups thinking he wasn't good enough. Bendis, in changing the Avengers BACK to what it was at the beginning (the best selling characters all in one book) brought him that one step forward, which was later built upon by other writers who used it to show Peter's low self-esteem contrasted with how he is seen by other heroes.
Besides, he always saw himself as unlovable and two women drawn by John Romita loved him. He's never been good at knowing himself.
I voted for Bendis for a very simple reason: He changed how comics are written. He wrote full script when “Marvel Style” was still the norm. He’s a former artist, so he wrote in detail about things like facial expression and body language as well as where the “camera” should be. He didn’t use narrative captioning or thought balloons. On top of that, he brought the three act structure to stories, as the endless running soap opera style of plotting was still in vogue. Remember, when the X-Men movie came out, one of the thing that Marvel’s board was upset about was that there weren’t X-Men trade paperbacks in bookstores, and the reason for that was that Marvel Editorial didn’t much allow for stories with beginnings, middles and ends… Bendis, Quesada and Jemas brought that in (like it or not) and rebuilt mainstream super-hero storytelling to story arcs. Bendis also rebuilt the Avengers into Marvel’s version on the JLA. The Big, Popular characters were a part of it and it was the By God Center of the Marvel Universe. Johns has added a lot to the DC mythos, and has been tapped for their big revamps, but his storytelling style is nothing new, and there’s nothing all that innovative about how he puts a story together. His work is very good, don’t get me wrong, but stylistically, I see very little difference between him and Marv Wolfman, Len Wein or other very good super-hero comic book writers. YMMV
Plot-first was still the norm at Marvel until Quesada was given the Marvel Knights line. His concentration was on story over art, and he wanted his writers to have more control over the story. Quesada brought in writers from film and TV who were used to writing scripts, and Bendis fit right in to what Quesada was looking for. Absolutely Bendis’ writing influenced others, but how much of the overall change was due to Bendis, and how much was because Quesada took over and pushed his all of his writers to take more control over the finished product? And full-script has always been the norm at DC. Marv Wolfman was one of the few there who wrote plot-first.
I don't know of many writers besides Bendis who suggest camera angles any more than writers did before Bendis, but there are plenty of visual writers, and there have been for decades. According to Alan Davis, Mike W. Barr was the most visual writer he's ever worked with. Personally, I think the publication of Alan Moore’s and Neil Gaiman’s scripts in the ’90s made a huge impact on descriptive script writing going forward. I know Matt Fraction counts that as a huge moment in his development as a writer.
I'm not sure if you're saying Bendis rang the death knell on thought balloons and caption boxes or not, but I think they were they already on the way out. It's fair to say Bendis pushed things in that direction, but it's hard to really pin down when that started, much less to pin it down to one writer. But I do know Johns didn't use thought balloons or captions (other than the very occasional box to indicate a new locale) in Stars & STRIPE (1999), his first work for DC.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Bendis brought in the three-act structure. The three-act structure has been a part of comics since comics began. The neverending soap opera aspect was more prevalent with some writers (Claremont and Wolfman being prime examples) than with others—and was much stronger in Marvel’s titles than in DC’s in general. I assume what you mean, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Bendis wrote his story arcs to a specific length, generally speaking, and smoothed the transitions from issue to issue within each arc, and broke the transitions from arc to arc more cleanly—or to put it briefly, he wrote for the trade. But as you pointed out, the rise of the importance of trade paperback collections (thanks in large part to Gaiman’s Sandman, and I think on some level thanks to the rise of manga in the US bookstore market) was dictating that change. The evolution of the market was the dominant force in moving superhero storytelling to focus on the story arc, and it would have happened with or without Bendis. After all, he wasn't doing anything the writers for DC’s Vertigo line hadn't already been doing for years (see the superhero-ish Sandman Mystery Theater, for one).
I've already been over my thoughts on Bendis’ Avengers, and I agree with your assessment of Johns’ writing style. Again, I just can't give full marks for things that are not quantifiable. And, like you said, your mileage may vary.
When I go back and read Marvel books from the 90's, the big thing that strikes me is that the stories have no beginning or ending. The story about Peter's parents returning blends into the close saga blends into the Green Goblin being back blends into the next, and EVERYTHING ends with "To Be Continued".
Maybe I misstated when I say Bendis brought in the three act structure, but he did bring it BACK after a couple of decades of the endless on-going story. Bendis had a clear beginning, a clear set of rising action and endings. He structured things for trades, but he also paid off his plot points, something hard to do when your scripting over a fully drawn story.
Yes, Gaiman did it, Moore did it, etc... But Gaiman and Moore weren't writing the flagship books of a company.
WAS it a market evolution? I look at Vertigo sales figures from the 90's and while they did well outside comic shops...Sandman's biggest selling issue was projected to have sold 75,000 copies when Spider-Man's weakest series was selling a half million. To move away from Marvel's failing, but still #1, formula of the Claremont-esque soap opera with a side of "Mysterious mastermind we never find out about" that infested most everything the published was a pretty bold risk.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
But I love how you made me think about my points so I could clarify them. Thank you!
Comments
Matthew
Look, I find Bendis' style tiresome and in some cases (Spider-man) unreadable. I do have to agree with @David_D that he made the Avengers into Marvel's flagship team that the X-Men held in the 90s. Hell, in the Marvel NOW!, he even turned to the X-men books.
I'd even venture to say a chunk of the success of Marvel Studios is because of Bendis. When the X-Men movies were in theaters, I don't recall too many clamoring for an Avengers movie. From what I gather, the MCU relies heavily on the Ultimate universe, which he helped get started.
Even the Netflix series seem to be mining his stuff.
Aside from Green Lantern & a couple Smallville episodes, can Johns' influence beyond the books be seen? He (reportedly) had a successful run on Superman, but how much of that was used for the Man of Steel?
M
Reading Johns work I can clearly see he's got a Roy Thomas-like obsession with tying continuity together, extrapolating from existing continuity and making superhero comics gore-filled misery fests. Johns' use of Superboy Prime alone tells you more about him as writer than reading Bendis' entire Avengers run.
That's why I buy that Johns as having more influence in the decisions made in his comics than Bendis. I might be completely off base, but nothing in Bendis' writing feels like he's responsible for the universe-altering parts of his comics. Again, I almost said stories or plots, but that would be giving his comics too much credit.
The irony is I'd rather read Bendis' empty team books and his much better solo books over Johns' books as I have zero interest in John's take on superheroes. Of course, I'd rather read anyone else than Bendis too.
It boils down to this:
I hate Geoff Johns and Brian Michael Bendis comics
I don't read many DC comics these days because of the influence of Geoff Johns on the universe.
I still read loads of Marvel comics.
I am not sure if any one writer can claim to be the main influence on the DC Universe right now. Maybe Scott Snyder since he writes the best selling book with the most popular character and a lot usually revolves around Batman. That is a big stretch though.
Because of his writing, I was sucked back in to monthly comics..
CGS made me aware of comics and of Johns.. So the real winner is CGS.. As it should be
M
He wrote full script when “Marvel Style” was still the norm. He’s a former artist, so he wrote in detail about things like facial expression and body language as well as where the “camera” should be. He didn’t use narrative captioning or thought balloons. On top of that, he brought the three act structure to stories, as the endless running soap opera style of plotting was still in vogue.
Remember, when the X-Men movie came out, one of the thing that Marvel’s board was upset about was that there weren’t X-Men trade paperbacks in bookstores, and the reason for that was that Marvel Editorial didn’t much allow for stories with beginnings, middles and ends… Bendis, Quesada and Jemas brought that in (like it or not) and rebuilt mainstream super-hero storytelling to story arcs.
Bendis also rebuilt the Avengers into Marvel’s version on the JLA. The Big, Popular characters were a part of it and it was the By God Center of the Marvel Universe.
Johns has added a lot to the DC mythos, and has been tapped for their big revamps, but his storytelling style is nothing new, and there’s nothing all that innovative about how he puts a story together. His work is very good, don’t get me wrong, but stylistically, I see very little difference between him and Marv Wolfman, Len Wein or other very good super-hero comic book writers.
YMMV
I'm interested here in the perceived differences of these particular two writers who have had similar roles during the same period.
Ignored it.
Ironically enough, I was trying to keep a thread on track.
Karma's a mean SOB.
And when I see Wolverine siding more with the Avengers then the X-Men, I proclaim blasphemy. In fact, there's a rumor going around that I'm starting about Marvel pressuring Hugh Jackman to walk away from the Logan role, so his recent connection with Avengers will permit MCU to use him.
M
He was a social outcast.*
He wore bowties and sweater-vests, not a black trenchcoat.
The Avengers storyline of him being accepted as a peer by the "grown-ups" was wonderful, and a great payoff to thirty-odd years of starring in Marvel Team-Up.
*Really more a matter of perceiving himself as a social outcast rather than actually being one, but we all know that High School can scar the crap out of some people.
Siding against the radical leadership of a man with whom he has clashed since the day they met?
Siding against the cosmic entity that destroyed Jean Grey?
Makes sense to me.
Plus, it lead to his identity reveal to a larger group (never been a fan of having to reveal one's identity to teammates).
Whether he was a self-perceived social outcast or not, Parker has operated solo or short-term team ups for years. Hell, his partnerships never lasted long.
Back when I first started reading comic books, one of the draws to Parker was him being a solo act. It's also why I've never really read team books.
M
M
Parker has really only become known as a team member once Bendis crammed him into his Avengers.
And, I prefer solo hero/vigilante heroes to read. Never been much of a team player myself.
M
Take a drink!
I don't know of many writers besides Bendis who suggest camera angles any more than writers did before Bendis, but there are plenty of visual writers, and there have been for decades. According to Alan Davis, Mike W. Barr was the most visual writer he's ever worked with. Personally, I think the publication of Alan Moore’s and Neil Gaiman’s scripts in the ’90s made a huge impact on descriptive script writing going forward. I know Matt Fraction counts that as a huge moment in his development as a writer.
I'm not sure if you're saying Bendis rang the death knell on thought balloons and caption boxes or not, but I think they were they already on the way out. It's fair to say Bendis pushed things in that direction, but it's hard to really pin down when that started, much less to pin it down to one writer. But I do know Johns didn't use thought balloons or captions (other than the very occasional box to indicate a new locale) in Stars & STRIPE (1999), his first work for DC.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Bendis brought in the three-act structure. The three-act structure has been a part of comics since comics began. The neverending soap opera aspect was more prevalent with some writers (Claremont and Wolfman being prime examples) than with others—and was much stronger in Marvel’s titles than in DC’s in general. I assume what you mean, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Bendis wrote his story arcs to a specific length, generally speaking, and smoothed the transitions from issue to issue within each arc, and broke the transitions from arc to arc more cleanly—or to put it briefly, he wrote for the trade. But as you pointed out, the rise of the importance of trade paperback collections (thanks in large part to Gaiman’s Sandman, and I think on some level thanks to the rise of manga in the US bookstore market) was dictating that change. The evolution of the market was the dominant force in moving superhero storytelling to focus on the story arc, and it would have happened with or without Bendis. After all, he wasn't doing anything the writers for DC’s Vertigo line hadn't already been doing for years (see the superhero-ish Sandman Mystery Theater, for one).
I've already been over my thoughts on Bendis’ Avengers, and I agree with your assessment of Johns’ writing style. Again, I just can't give full marks for things that are not quantifiable. And, like you said, your mileage may vary.
Besides, he always saw himself as unlovable and two women drawn by John Romita loved him. He's never been good at knowing himself.
Maybe I misstated when I say Bendis brought in the three act structure, but he did bring it BACK after a couple of decades of the endless on-going story. Bendis had a clear beginning, a clear set of rising action and endings. He structured things for trades, but he also paid off his plot points, something hard to do when your scripting over a fully drawn story.
Yes, Gaiman did it, Moore did it, etc... But Gaiman and Moore weren't writing the flagship books of a company.
WAS it a market evolution? I look at Vertigo sales figures from the 90's and while they did well outside comic shops...Sandman's biggest selling issue was projected to have sold 75,000 copies when Spider-Man's weakest series was selling a half million. To move away from Marvel's failing, but still #1, formula of the Claremont-esque soap opera with a side of "Mysterious mastermind we never find out about" that infested most everything the published was a pretty bold risk.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
But I love how you made me think about my points so I could clarify them. Thank you!