Jmacq1

You can't do "accurate" Oliver on a mainstream TV show, because accurate Oliver is a straight-up "left coast" liberal with socialist tendencies.

In short, the guys making this show aren't going to immediately turn off roughly 50% of the potential audience by making Ollie too "political."

@Danial79 said:

I sometimes feel like I'm the only person in the comic book community that doesn't like this series...

... that is, until I see that #3 only sold 35k, and I realise there are others like me out there :)

Looking back, I don't think I've ever liked any of Fraction's work, and I really don't like Aja's art style, so it makes sense that this book wouldn't appeal to me. Oh well. As the saying goes, to each to their own.

35k is pretty decent for a second tier character solo title.

@antemiusenteri: Storm was until very recently the queen of Wakanda, and given current circumstances putting her in charge of a team that's supposed to seriously be in the public eye could have been a bad move from an in-universe PR perspective.

And that, of course, is assuming she would even have wanted or taken the job. And that X-Men editorial didn't reserve her for themselves. From a character perspective I could see Ororo being keen on keeping some distance between herself and T'Challa at the moment, and being a full-time Avenger isn't likely to allow that.

@inferiorego: I think more accurately: It was almost a situation exactly like this in that someone else was forming the team and deciding its' roster (Iron Man/Tony Stark in this case) but naming someone else the "leader" (Wanda).

Memory is dim, but I think she even called him out for butting in too much at some point.

However it's also worth noting that Wanda was one of the "Generals" in the post-Busiek/Post-Kang War Avengers setup.

@Med said:

This is all under the assumption that Havok is a poor leader. Cap seems to have a lot of faith in him. If he is right about him, then Havok will make good decisions and there will be no need for dissension among the ranks. If his other team mates cant take a good order because they think they know better, then they have no place being superheroes at all, let alone leaders. On the other hand though, the above picture doesn't have Havok front and center. He is just off on the side. Waaaay off on the side...

Yeah, but that's just marketing at work. Cap and Thor have recognition factor that's way bigger than Havok. No one is going to deny that they're "bigger" characters than Havok, but that doesn't have any affect on the in-story dynamics if the writer is good and the editors don't force his hand.

Plus, Cap's got a great design for centering covers around.

@jointron33: Yeah, they might change their minds eventually but for now? No powers.

Let's not forget that for a good 10+ years Black Canary didn't have her Canary Cry except in the form of sonic grenades (something that would be very in-keeping with the show).

Huntress looks like she fits the aesthetic of the show just fine.

I doubt we'll ever see Batman (or Nightwing for that matter) on this show. Smallville could have gotten away with it because Superman is an "equal" character to Batman, and because in a super-powered world there are ways to have other characters "equal" Batman without overshadowing him or being overshadowed. Batman in Arrow would just mean Ollie would be completely overshadowed, as Bruce would be better at every single thing Ollie does except shooting arrows. Not to mention that he'd kick Ollie's arse and turn him in to the cops for his lethal methods. Plus, as persnickety as WB is about sharing Batman amongst their various properties, I'd imagine some executive would veto it so that "it doesn't cause confusion" with the inevitable Bat-reboot, whether as part of a JLA film or in a standalone.

More likely guest star? The Question/Vic Sage.

Yes, so far this show is the love child of Smallville and The Dark Knight trilogy. It's definitely still finding its' footing, but has potential to be awesome.

With the Uncanny Avengers in particular, I don't see it as too much of a problem, with the possible exception of Thor, but even then:

Captain America: He's a soldier. He knows how to take orders as well as give them, and I think he wants Havok to succeed. He won't undermine his authority. He might pull him aside and talk to him if he disagrees with something, but it won't be in the midst of combat. This is likely critical to the rest of the Avengers falling in line: If they see Cap doing it, they'll be inclined to do the same.

Rogue and Wolverine: Both of these X-ers are old buddies of Havok from the Australia days, Logan and Alex were chummy enough to go on road trips together back in the day, and Logan has followed Alex's lead before. Rogue has been a leader of late, but as long as Havok doesn't insult her intelligence or experience he should be fine. She's much more emotionally stable than she used to be.

Scarlet Witch: As others have noted, she's in no position to lead anything right now, both in terms of her own state of mind and in terms of the trust levels required for others to follow her.

Thor: Thor's kind of the wild card. He's got a big ego and can be brash and arrogant. However, if Captain America vouches for Alex that's probably all the justification Thor needs, and if Alex earns Thor's respect through his actions in the meantime, all will be well.

Upcoming Members

Sunfire: Another potential wild card. Sunfire can be brash and arrogant as well, though I think he's mellowed somewhat over the years. How well he follows is probably going to be dependent on his reasons for joining the team.

Wasp: Janet did a fine job during her stint as Avengers leader, but she doesn't seem to be overly ambitious in that regard. She's not likely to place herself in competition with Alex, in other words. Janet knows her greatest strengths are as a "supporter" (both in combat and emotionally speaking) and seems to be happy in that role.

Wonder Man: Simon's rarely been in a leadership role, and like Wanda isn't really in "a good place" to be asserting his (lack of) authority.

My only question at this point is: Where the heck is Beast? He should be a natural fit for this group. Especially with Simon showing up.

For those talking about Helena Bertinelli's history with the Bat-Family...it hasn't necessarily been erased, but like many things with the new 52, it's confusing. Helena Wayne has basically stolen Helena Bertinelli's identity at some point, and the real Helena Bertinelli is believed to be dead. So basically: Helena B could have been the Huntress for a while, but is now "dead" and Helena Wayne has assumed that role relatively recently to my knowledge. That would leave the Bertinelli history about as intact as anything else in the new 52, but I think it's very clear by now that NO mythos has been completely untouched, though Green Lantern probably underwent the least changes overall (with Batman in second place with "a lot of the most recent stuff stayed, but a hell of a lot of retconning of past stuff has occurred).

Batman was definitely altered far more than advertised, though. Given that it's been made pretty clear DC has not freaking clue what they're doing with the New 52, that doesn't surprise me.

@toa_deserok said:

Here is my question: Why couldn't Marvel just allow a major marriage (like storm and T'Challa) and something of a child being conceived in the process of that marriage? If they did that with the proper writer flow and emphasis, it could actually prove to be a unique and engaging story builder.

There are a variety of reasons that having children is usually a major no-no for major characters in the main continuity:

1. It "ages" the characters. Teens are likely to be less likely to relate to a parent.

2. The "Franklin Richards" syndrome - It's VERY difficult to handle the aging of said children once they're born, as once again, doing so ages their parents to a point many readers might find less relatable. The sliding timescale is designed to keep all characters in their "prime" and having children is a major stumbling block for that same timescale. Comics have already had problems stemming from teen sidekicks "growing up" while their mentors don't age, and children tend to cause the same problem only magnified.

3. It's often a narrative dead-end. Unless "family" is a major theme of the book (ala Fantastic Four) the kid just tends to be a plot device, and is usually unceremoniously taken out of play in some manner before long (to avoid the problems above) whether through death, plot-induced age-up, or being sent away "someplace safe" and then conveniently forgotten about.

Basically, most of it stems from the need to keep the major characters "young" enough to be marketable. While some would enjoy a Marvel Universe where everyone ages and new generations take over, from a business/marketing perspective it would be sidelining your most profitable icons in an environment where creating truly successful new characters is VERY difficult.

Children can sometimes be pulled off (though even then they tend to cause problems, see Franklin Richards above), but generally they become more of an inconvenience for writers rather than a useful plot element.

@HopesummersFORtheFUTURE: While there's little sign of romantic interest between Storm and Magneto, it'd be interesting to explore, but ultimately I like them better as respectful sometimes-friends, sometimes-foes.

Has the Rogue and Magneto thing been sunk by recent events? I don't mind the relationship but I think it's pretty much played out.

The weirdo in me would kind of like to see some gloriously messed-up interaction between Magneto and Illyana Rasputin.

And again for Storm and Logan: Too late to hold my interest. I'd have no problem with them being occasional friends with benefits, but I don't see it going beyond that.

Being a fan of left-field or underexplored relationships, I'd like to see Storm and Cable interact again. They kinda/almost had a "thing" back in the mid-late 90's and I always felt like it was a shame that subplot-thread ended up being left hanging.