Avengers #22: OMG, finallly. I did not hate this issue. Hurrah! Bendis does two things here well:
First, he does what I think he wanted to do with the "Avengers" and "New Avengers" annuals, but didn't quite manage: namely, present a philosophical discussion about the Avengers and the consequences of their actions. I thought the White House conversation that starts this issue really got this point across, with the President's advisor noting that Norman Osborn didn't really do anything different than Tony Stark ever did, from a legal standpoint. Of course, a difference exists, practically. Both the Avengers and the Dark Avengers work (or worked) for the U.S. government. However, after the events of "Siege," the U.S. government pulled its support for the activities of the Dark Avengers, leading to Osborn being charged (though, as we establish here, never tried) with insubordination and treason. Converesely, the U.S. government hasn't, at least yet, pulled its support of the Avengers. As such, ipso facto, the Avengers maintain the sanction of the U.S. government. Even if the team does something the government doesn't want them to do (or even explicitly told them not to do), the fact that the U.S. government doesn't punish the Avengers for their actions amounts to tacit approval. The President's advisor essentially admits as much, noting that the government lets the Avengers do what they want because they have the support of the public. As such, Bendis highlights what he's been trying to do with this H.A.M.M.E.R. war, getting Osborn to shake the public's support of the Avengers and thereby putting pressure on the government to yank its sanction of the team. The problem, thusfar, has been that Bendis hasn't shown why the public would pull its support for the Avengers merely based on Osborn's antics and, even if they did, why it would matter. In this issue, Bendis addresses the latter, in a pretty convincing way, I must say, by drawing a direct connection between the public's support of the Avengers and the government's ability to give them free range. (I'm still waiting for the former, which, to be honest, is more the key. More on that in the "New Avengers" review below.) Essentially, Bendis finally defines the stakes.
Second, Bendis delivers a pretty convincing series of "bad moments" for several Avengers. Captain America is tortured by Madame HYDRA, Dr. Washington attempts to strip Tony Stark of his armor, Spider-Woman is confronted by her "mom," and H.A.M.M.E.R. tries to get some sort of genetic-material sample from a comatose Red Hulk. Normally, these sorts of montages can be eyeroll-inducing, because we all know that the heroes are going to escape. But, Bendis makes it interesting by focusing on more than just the heroes' physical safety, going after their beliefs (in terms of Captain America and Spider-Woman) and their powers (in the cases of Iron Man and Red Hulk). As such, the heroes have more on the line than just saving their lives; they have to re-affirm their beliefs in the face of opposition and prevent H.A.M.M.E.R. from using their powers to futher its ends. (Can you imagine an Iron Rulk?) Moreover, we see Quake and Vision frantically trying to find their teammates; you can feel their desperation as Quake tries to find where H.A.M.M.E.R.'s base is located and Vision confronts Osborn on the lawn of Avengers Mansion.
All that said, this issue isn't perfect. I still think Bendis has to do more in the way of explaining why the public would take Osborn's side. For example, when Vision confronts Osborn on the lawn, Osborn comments, "Physical confrontation. How exactly like you people." However, Vision hadn't confronted Osborn. In fact, he shook his hand. It's Osborn who, without Vision doing anything, attacks Vision and throws him through the Mansion's front door. Given that Osborn does so in front of the press, don't we think that the reporters would see that Osborn attacked Vision essentially unprovoked? Depsite the progress Bendis makes here, I still feel like he's not selling why the public would turn against the Avengers in favor of Osborn, particularly with Osborn acting the way he's acting. (Also, I have to mention pet peeve #1: at no point does Captain America fight Gorgon, as depicted on the cover.)
In sum, Bendis wins me back a bit, but he's still got some more work to do.
New Avengers #21: Ok, the fight with Ragnarok was just about the best fight scene Bendis has ever scripted and Deodata has ever drawn. First, I loved the fact that it revolved around Spidey saving everyone and deciding who to throw into the fight against Ragnarok. Awesome. Over the course of the two Avengers series, Bendis has rarely had Spidey do anything more than issue one-liners. Here, Bendis lets him step into the leadership role, and it leads to the New Avengers taking down Ragnarok. Given that they usually get their asses handed to them, I'd say Luke Cage might want to consider giving Spidey some more responsiblities for the way they fight. Second, Deodata is ON FIRE in this sequence. The panels of Wolverine fighting Ragnarok were absolutely amazing.
Bendis also gets to the point of the last few "New Avengers" issues, showing how the New Avengers' attack on the Dark Avengers would help Osborn sway public opinion in his favor, given that they attacked just after the Dark Avengers saved Miami. OK, I get that. I appreciate that Bendis is trying, given that I take him to task so often for doing a poor job on this front. But, I'm still not buying it. So far, the sum of public disapproval of the Avengers is the "Occupy Avengers Mansion" protestors outside the Mansion and the assumed disapproval of those people who watched the New Avengers beating up the Dark Avengers after saving Miami. I mean, it doesn't really seem like a sufficient swell of anti-Avengers sentiment to justify the government taking over Avengers Mansion. After all, Nitro had to destroy a school full of children to provoke "Civil War" and Loki had to manufacture the destruction of a stadium full of people to lead to "Siege." I get that Bendis' argument is that these events haven't been forgotten, particularly not on the heels of "Fear Itself," so it's easier to get people to turn against the Avengers. He's probably right. But, he's also got to prove that they'd not only turn AGAINST the Avengers, but that they'd turn TO Norman Osborn. It still seems like a stretch.
Don't get me wrong: I liked the idea of the New Avengers when they were operating outside the law during "Dark Reign." But, they've moved past that role. Bendis still hasn't done anything here that makes me feel like we're not just seeing a repeat of "Dark Reign." Even if the result of the H.A.M.M.E.R. war is the government revoking its sanction of the Avengers...we're still just re-doing "Dark Reign." Bendis has hinted that Osborn actually isn't looking to do what he did last time, but it's probably time he shows us some of Osborn's cards. Ultimately, it's how he differentiates this story from "Dark Reign" and whether he finally convinces us that the public would turn against the Avengers so quickly that will determine how it's remembered.
Winter Solider #2: OK, I have to say, I love the fact that Brubaker gave us a gun-toting, jet-packed, 800-pound gorilla in this arc. A series about Bucky making amends for his past could be a dark, dark time. By having Bucky and Natasha fight said gorilla, it injects a certain sense of comedy into the series, a sign from Brubaker that it's not all going to be Bucky fighting back tears as he remembers the evil deeds he committed as the Winter Soldier. Usually, Brubaker uses Bucky's relationship with Natasha to lighten the tone, so it was fun to watch him (successfully) take a different approach here. In terms of the plot, Brubaker is a master of these several-issue arcs. He gives us just enough information here to keep it interesting, without spoiling the surprises he has in store or keeping us guessing about too much. (I'm looking at you, Bendis.) Bucky and his allies are starting to put two and two together, but Lucia von Bardas and the Red Ghost are a few steps ahead of them. This series continues to deliver on its promise, and I still feel like pinching myself that Marvel actually gave us back Bucky.
No comments:
Post a Comment