What do you think of Bendis writing

Do you like Bendis Writing and What do you think of the direction he he is taking the X-Men in.m

Do the Original five have a future in X-Men comics.

Share your views please.

I read his Avengers stuff. Hated it.

Now, I'm F'n loving His ALL NEW XMEN and UNCANNY XMEN series'

I've enjoyed his stories in the past (Alias, New Avengers, Ultimate Spiderman, House of M, and DD: End of Days, right now), and I'm enjoying his X-men books so far.

As for the O5, I think they could. If they return to their own timeline and retain their memories, they could do a relaunch in an alternate universe, Star Trek style. Or they could stick around and grow up in the 616 universe. Conceptually, the plot is a little too out there for me to think it has any real staying power, but, like I say, I'm enjoying it, so who knows?

You're only going to get like 3 types of responses.

1) The his X-Men stuff so far has been awesome.

2) I hate Bendis *insert long winded rant/ shorty witty comment*.

3) I like some of his solo series stuff like Daredevil and Ultimate Spider-Man, but his team books suck. Including his X-Men.

Personally, I like his writing so far on X-Men. While I had my issues about certain things, like how he wrote certain characters' dialogues that just sucked, it chanced quickly and at least got better but not yet perfect. He still has some kinks I think he needs to work out, but overall I'm enjoying it.

I am enjoying his X men stuff so far and that is all ive read :D but uh as far as the Original 5 goes i just can't wrap my head around how they can possibly stay but i mean Dark beast did so maybe, it wouldn't be the worst thing that has happened in Comics i guess.

Side not is Oldnightcrawler Dallagant? (sorry if i spelled that wrong) seems like the same guy but ive been away for like a month or so (personal stuff) so lol

Hate all-new, Uncanny is ok.

@mcklayn: yeah, they could stay in the same way that the dark Beast stayed, in that they're from an alternate reality.

also, *wink*

Now i know how the Avengers fans felt when he overstayed his welcome. And the nightmare is only just beginning. This is absolutely disgusting more so than it is embarrassing. Going from the likes of Claremont/Lee/Lobdell/Smith/Simonson/Casey...to detritus hacks like Aaron and Bendis at the helm of a franchise they've no clue of. Awful. bloody awful. The sooner these two leave with their contrived, half-hearted, childish "stories", the better.

Yeah - "Oh my Gosh you're freaking out." "Oh my Gosh i'm freaking out." "Oh my Gosh everybody's freaking out." "Sandwiches."

Or even - "Dude, are you even listening?" "Yeah, listening" "So you're like, totally, seriously, listening to me right now?" "Totally, seriously, listening" "Alright, so i was listening to this..."

No thanks. There's nothing compelling about dialogue that takes several interlocking speech-bubbles which consist of the same asinine "subject" being passed to and fro to progress an inconsequential "plot". Worse when the characters sound exactly the same, save for if they're different genders. That's not interesting. That's not intriguing. And that's not what i want to see at the head of a franchise i care about, but sadly, that's the truth, and evidently, people are buying into this.

At least the majority have something entertaining to look forward to every couple of weeks :).

Who knew the return of the "real" Jean Grey would be so damn cliched. And who knew this is what Cyclops and crew would reduce themselves to. Disappointing.

His writing is dirt.

Yeah, I'm going with #3 with a long winded rant:

I don't like his writing for superheroes. I think he's a lot better at writing street level heroes and characters more grounded in real life. I didn't like his Avengers writing either even though I liked his other series so I'm not some anti-Bendis troll.

Here is my main problem with him: In order to make his stories seem "edgy", he's been making superheroes act out of character or introduce personality elements that are supremely negative. But then, he typically goes too far with them - heroes who commit genocide accidentally aren't so easily rehabilitated, just because they turned out to be under mind control, for example. Especially when that hero still seems to want to hold on to their good guy status. It gets to the point where you hardly see any legitimately well-developed villains in his stories because the villains are the heroes themselves. Further, if you push a group like the X-Men to the extreme, it is justified when they start adopting extreme views to protect themselves. The problem with this, is that you cease to be a hero or even a superhero when you adopt villainous traits. It doesn't make you a more realized character or even a more realistic character - it just makes you a jerk. Superhero stories, especially well-handled ones, have to strike a fine balance between revealing how the humanity or situation of the heroes makes them more noble. But if you undermine their humanity or the profundity of their situations, they become ignoble. They aren't heroes anymore, just potential villains.

I'm not going to disparage his talent because I loved his run on "Daredevil", enjoyed "Alias" and I even liked "Ultimate Spiderman" and I never liked Peter Parker. But that's just why I can't buy what he's selling.

Personally, I don't really see a future for the O5 because they are redundant by their very nature and alternate reality versions don't seem to fit in that well with 616. Good for a few stories but then they devolve into being contrasted with their 616 versions (i.e. "Your Nightcrawler was a nice guy but I'm not so nice.") with recurring story beats (i.e. "Cyclops version 1 does X, but Cyclops version 2 does Y. Isn't that interesting?"). Kind of a shame considering that this somewhat devalues the original versions. But readers are apparently eating up alternate reality stories, retcons and multiple versions of the same character so I'm sure they'll be in an event or two before something horrible happens to one or all of them (i.e. gory splash pages and intermittent angst) or something, and the book will sell like hotcakes.

Which leads me to post a link to a great article about how these types of story elements lead to nostalgia porn: How Kurt Busiek (unwittingly) ruined Marvel and DC superhero comics!

@snyderman567:

:)

you make some pretty valid points here, but you undermine a lot of that by attacking the style, which you know is subjective to taste. These would be some good points, though, were they examined in greater detail...

@ageofhurricane:

When I see you have posted in a thread about Bendis, I know I will be saved the trouble of adding my two cents.

There are so many threads (or it feels like it) of hey, waddaya think of Bendis?? It's beyond annoying and just the same crap said over and over and over again, from all spectrum of opinion.

**yawn**

This a great post, hacks like bendis don't deserve the x-men.

@oldnightcrawler: No i don't, because Bendis' writing style is an objective flaw and everyone knows it, even the die-hard fans of ANXM and UXM. And you've seen enough of my posts in regards to this hack, asinine writing styles/plots don't need more elaboration than i've already put out.

@lykopis: Mm. Quite right.

@frogdog: Thank you.

@phoenixofthetides: An absolutely fascinating article Phoenix. Kurt is much akin to being like falling of a small stone that caused the rock-slide ALTHOUGH, that being said, Marvel as a whole needs a reboot to stay fresh, so I do not fault Bendis for the idea. The decision was correct even though there are better people to perform the task clearly. We have a diminishing market that grows ever smaller because of the business model and stories not meaning anything other than being a means of killing time. The age of timelessness of comics was cut short to quicken the older readers into continuing to purchase more and more titles. This was folly. It is still not too late to change this but I fear that Disney and Warner would not be willing to try something out of the ordinary to save an art-form that is not a guaranteed multi-million/billion dollar industry anymore.

@ageofhurricane: Your hatred for Bendis is only seconded in the universe by my loathing of Morrison. You have done well, Grasshopper.

I agree. But I do wonder how a universal reboot would look nowadays since Disney is involved and for better or worse, Marvel is now more focused on synergizing the movies with the books, with both acting as marketing tools for each other. Marvel has tried this before, so it's not like they haven't attempted it (Heroes Reborn

@phoenixofthetides: I see your point however I feel compelled to state that only DC has ever done a (from Zero) reboot. Heroes Reborn was more of a dubious flirtation with true rebooting then going all non-committal at the end (queue a Taylor Swift song). I just sit here and think to myself that it is fine to respect the past, in fact obeying continuity should be a rewarding experience for reader and writer. Comics are modern mythology, I don't want to see Odysseus change into something he is not, nor see Amaretsu end up being a candle maker due to writer not caring for her. The closest thing I can remember of it was when the end of Legion Quest occurred. I adore the feeling of not knowing what will truly happen and not being bogged down by decades of continuity and to see fresh new characters interact with established ones. It was a new world truly, yes you can pipe some nostalgia in there or some fan service but on the whole scope of it but it is not necessary. That is the state of Marvel comics today though, trapped between nostalgia and shock value.

@oldnightcrawler: So you're AoA version of DG, then?

@phoenixofthetides: that was a provocative article, thanks for posting it!

I don't think that it is. But, hey, you brought it up.

naw, he was the HoM version of me.

@oldnightcrawler: Touche'

It's kind of funny, because Disney used to (and maybe still does?) license out it's characters to comic book companies, and now they own one of the biggest ones. But I'm sure they must see the value of that: an almost unending supply of character properties that could theoretically be applied to virtually any media? They need people coming up with stories and characters to begin with, and comics are perpetually doing that anyway.

I wasn't a huge fan of Bendis's Avengers stuff (didn't mind it too much) but all the X-Men stuff has been amazing since he started there!!

@oldnightcrawler: They are also the ones who had the motto "less songs more explosions" at one time. That is real, look it up.

@chasereis: wow. that I did not know..

hahahahahahaha!!!!

It is funny you bring that up because in ancient times, this happened with culturally shared characters all the time. There are multiple variations of many myths, with the gods, goddesses, heroes and villains acting different or being ascribed different motivations. There were philosophers and critics in Greece that actually complained about some of these stories tarnishing the true character of these characters - such as stories that a goddess would cheat on her husband, that a hero was a rapist or that a god would randomly kill someone just because they were bored. Even the Epic Cycle, which covers the Illiad and the Odyssey, had different versions of the characters (such as Achilles committing necrophilia in the Aethiopis). Some of these changes were due to the fact that the original stories were most likely told in the oral tradition, meaning that one official version didn't exist so storytellers might forget some details and adjust the plot with each re-telling (probably why being a bard or a priest/priestess often consisted of learning 'true' versions of things and strengthening memory in so many cultures), different cultures had different gods and heroes that seemed similar enough in some ways that when they were assimilated into another culture they simply added the older names to new gods (such as Zeus worship, which was reconciled with other cultures' great gods by adding stories or titles to his name) or split different parts of the gods up to make new characters (such as Artemis, Hera, Aphrodite and Demeter starting out as great goddesses in their own rights across other countries with multiple characteristics but becoming more specialized when specifically absorbed into the Greek myths). In some ways, the myths show that when a culture is alive and thriving, the variation shows continued creativity, and when cultures stop adjusting their stories, it is a sign that they are on the road to stagnation. Even the desert religions, such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism indulge in this - part of the sermons their preachers conduct every holy day discuss a commonly accepted story and then additional commentary bringing new life to those same stories.

So, in a way, comics being a modern mythology are precisely why the changes and reimaginings may be good in a medium that has such a large turnover for readership. I definitely agree that continuity adds to stories but as you said, I blame writers who rely on props, stunts and poor writing technique to create hamfisted stories. I also blame editors who create mandates that make evolution and forward progression impossible who dumb down every story to be a waste of time that ceases to be entertaining because they make writers re-use the same tropes over and over again. Using the mythology example again, comics aren't making new adventures for the old characters - they are debasing them by ascribing bad character traits to them and/or going back to old adventures to retcon them with these negative versions of the characters.

That's me.

1) The his X-Men stuff so far has been awesome.

@phoenixofthetides: Wow, Phoenix. You're on fire today, bro. You, however, must stop telepathically plagiarizing me thoughts, lol. I am totally on board with your stance. However a really large difference between then and now is the amount of continuity baggage and informational overload without any real reconciliation between "versions". Number issue in ANXM and any potential 616, 617, 618, 619 (Booyaka, Booyaka) universe overlays or deviations.

I loved this analogy, by the way.

It's something I think of when people talk about character consistency or continuity. To take this analogy a bit further, no one seems to have a problem with the contemporary interpretations of Thor or Hercules, who are meant to be the same characters from the old myths. Even Stan Lee's version of Thor is only just recognizable as the character who appears in comics now, because the characters change to fit the times. Captain America certainly wasn't as offended by racism or sexism in the 40's as he is written to be now, Batman used to shoot people, and Superman wasn't anyone's idea of altruistic (he was actually quite a jerk).

I do agree that a lot of contemporary comic writers seem to disregard what other writers have done to fit the characters they want to use into the stories they want to tell, and, yeah, that often makes for some poor works as well as thoughtless interpretations, but as you point out, that's always been the nature of the beast. The more a character is used the more interpretations there will be, but that people think of there being a true version of the characters speaks to the works that are seen to have got the character right; in the long run, those are the only ones that really matter anyway.

I mostly agree with your sentiment about retroactive continuity, but I don't think it's always a bad thing; after seeing Thor meet Apocalypse (from a time before there was a marvel version of the character) last week, I couldn't help but wonder why no one had thought to write these characters together before. The answer to which probably has more to do with editorial mandates than what's actually interesting for the characters.

Anyway, you've given me much to think about before I really make up my mind on this, so, thanks.

@oldnightcrawler: Personally I think Phoenix is just about spot on. However to use your example we should have seen mention of Thor and Apocalypse several times by now. More to the point, I kind of despise "Oh by the way...this happened I forgots to tell ya." Retroactive story placement never really works unless its pre-planned and honestly that would be a RARE thing.

The big problem I have with Bendis is how over-exposed he is. He writes so much of the Marvel universe, including all the big events, that it gets monotonous. He's had good stuff and bad stuff, but when you're so familiar with his style and his little dialogue quirks, you kinda want to get away from it.

I don't know, retroactive continuity really just means setting a story in the past, before another story was supposed to have happened; surely that can't always be a bad thing. That's like saying all stories have to start at the beginning, or that the entire concept of historical fiction is inherently flawed. I get that there's a distinction made between retcons and stories just set in the past, I just think that the distinction is arbitrary.

In my mind, some of the best X-men stories that Claremont wrote were his backups in X-men classics; some of those might be considered retcons while others might not, but they're all written in the same style, the same spirit.

Some stories are good and some aren't, and I don't think whether or not it's a retcon is really a factor.

Better then I expected. His dialogue is what bothers me the most but it seems to be improving. His Emma and Illyana are slowly getting better with each issue. (Those are the two characters i had a hard time listening to at first)

@oldnightcrawler: Eh. I'm not so sure that X-Men classic backup stories is a good example. Those were more like in-between stories that embellished already existing story lines...but I hear what you are saying to me.

@chasereis: Wasn't it Claremont that established Magneto's history as a holocaust survivor? He did subsequent stories about Magneto's back story in those back-ups too, that had never been mentioned by Lee or the other 60's writers..

Ooh, or the Starjammers! Corsair's entire story is a crazy retcon!

ANXM is the first comic I've ever bought and I'm loving it. I'm very much a fan of the focus on drama/character development and am ok with the (supposed?) lack of action.

I put supposed in parenthesis because I have no comic history to compare my ANXM experience to. I'm just basing that off of what I've heard some longer-time comic book readers say.

A group of friends and I have never bought comics until post-AVX and are hanging on after every issue of ANXM and UXM waiting for more.

@oldnightcrawler: I think there several allusions to it with him as Magnus, but it was never really at the forefront until Scott Lobdell and the height of his run with whole Erik Lehnsherr thing (which was retconned out of existence, imagine that). I mean somethings were in the classic tales that you obviously didn't know but it didn't really drive the story-line of the titles. I find really interesting that most people dont even know Piotr is a father...

@jg0587: Then welcome unto the fold. Lots of good stories out there, hunt them down and read away!

haha! does Colossus even know?

seriously though, those back-ups added a lot of depth to the stories (from the 60's and 70's especially) that really wasn't there in the original source material, and that readers didn't really come to expect until the early 80's, and many of those, as well as stories from the original series, were strait-up retcons.

@oldnightcrawler: Not not actually. He encoutered him and Nareel in Annual 12, but nothing ever came of it. I agree that they were defintely depth adding but I am having difficulty in remembering a instance of "strait up retcon". I will reread them in light of your notion that they are retcons...

Longshot knows... Betsy might know if she scanned Nareel or Longshot's mind during that annual.

@chasereis: I'm just saying that I think some of them (as well as stuff from the originals) would count as retcons. But, yeah, check it out and let me know what you think.

@polarity: I seem to recall that! Too bad I dont think Longshot could carry a thought for very long, no pun intended.

@oldnightcrawler: Certainly I shall report back soon.

@oldnightcrawler: I love those X-Men Classic backup stories, by the way. The characters were drawn in more realistic style and because of this, they felt like they carried more weight than the more exaggerated styles used by most artists.

I do think there is a distinction between retcon and "retroactive continuity". Most stories that are considered "retcons" erase an event that that has impacts on timeline, commonly understood continuity or a character motivation. A story that just takes places in the past but is couched within commonly held continuity is just 'retro'. "Marvels", used as an example in the article I had linked to, was a story that fit within the continuity of Marvel's history but just happened to be retro in that it took place in a past era. For example, revealing the Jean Grey's best friend that was killed by a car was also a mutant who shared an empathic bond with her would be retroactive, but fits well within Jean's character bio and doesn't disturb anything. However, saying that her friend was Professor X's sister Cassandra Nova, and he locked away Jeans' telepathic powers after taking her through therapy because he felt anger and compassion at the same time would be a retcon since it destabilizes the order of events, ages and relationships that had previously been established.

you do realize that retcon is just short for retroactive continuity right?

Anyways, yeah, I do recognize that there's a difference between a retcon and a story that's just set in the past (I did really enjoy that article, by the way, thanks for the link), I just think the distinction is pretty minor, really.

As I understand it, a retcon changes something from a what a previous story had established, like Jean Grey being revealed to not have been the Phoenix in DPS or Cyclops' father being revealed to not have died in a plane crash. Those count as retcons, right?

Maybe they don't, and in that case I'm not really sure what a retcon is, but I just don't think that whether a story is a retcon or not determines anything about it's intrinsic value as a story.

@oldnightcrawler: LOL yeah, which is why I make a distinction between "retcon" and 'retro'.

Hmm, I think the Jean Grey-was-not-Phoenix and the Cyclops' father-not-dying weren't retcons, because they do fit within the continuity pretty well. The revelation that Tessa was an agent for Professor X is a soft retcon because she was in close quarters to a powerful sorceress, telepath and individuals with great resources who didn't realize she was Xavier's agent despite figuring out the X-men's identities, how to counter them, incapacitating Xavier himself, etc. Black Widow being a child during WWII was a hard retcon because it impacts the character and moves established continuity around.

I like good stories so I'm willing to accept retcons that are interesting. It's just that most of them are so heavy-handed they aren't that interesting.

I think they seem like they fit in now because that's the version of the story that we probably knew first, so it just doesn't seem weird. There's probably people who don't think the secret Deadly Genesis team or Sage's back story seem weird, because that's how they first read it, but I do think that, technically, all of these are examples of retroactive continuity, and therefore retcons. The distinction is subtle to begin with, so claiming one to be soft or hard seems fairly arbitrary.

Magneto was revealed to be a child in a concentration camp in the early 80's, but if that's the case, why is he already middle age by 1963? If he was, say, 12 in 1942, he should have only been 33 at the time of the X-men's first appearance. But that wasn't Stan Lee's idea, it was Claremont's; he retroactively adjusted continuity to fit the story (same as with your Black Widow example), and the story of Magneto (and, by association, the X-men) became that much richer because of it.

Anyway, I think we're mostly on the same page about this, I just don't care if something's a retcon, or if it effects other stories connected to it, as long as it's a good story in and of itself.

Love his xmen stuff but other wise no likey

Bendis has always been my favorite writer. His Daredevil run with Alex Maleev is what got me into comics, so far I've absolutely loved his ANXM and UXM. They are by far my favorite Marvel titles. Check out my review of Uncanny X-Men #5 over at my new site The Nerd Cave. http://www.thenerdcave.com/uncanny-x-men-5-review/