Better Know Some Avengers! Part 2

Promo Assemble! Art by Gerald Parel

Last time, I discussed the historical comic book origin of The Avengers and how that source material may serve Marvel's "movie universe". With the theatrical release a few months off, it's hard to say what specifically will get borrowed from the 1963 classic, but it'll still have to reconcile with various established film-verse elements that simply weren't around back when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby kicked off the original franchise. How does this all work? This is the story of the other half of the equation...

The biggest difference, of course, is the right-outta-the-box presence of Captain America (whose own 2011 blockbuster was subtitled: "The First Avenger"- coincidence, hmmm?) and the peacekeeping taskforce, SHIELD- most notably Director Nick Fury and operatives Black Widow and Hawkeye. Is there some historical comic book context here, too? Strangely enough, yes. One word answer: reboot.

In fact, there have been two separate instances that the Avengers' beginnings have been recast with a few added twists and turns. And before anybody's head explodes from cries of "This is why I don't read comics!", I will say up front that both cases involve alternate realities that stuck. But hold on-- I'll walk us through slowly, 'kay?

The first scenario was something called Heroes Reborn. Conceptually a pimped-out "lifeboat", it's very much the poetically ironic byproduct of the 1990s industry-wide boom-to-bust cycle. Without launching into too much tangential history: in the throes of financial uncertainty and a rash of subpar publications during the mid-nineties, Marvel outsourced a handful of their titles to then-white hot upstarts of Image Comics, Rob Liefeld and Jim Lee (no relation to Stan). A few years before, Lee, Liefeld and four other top Marvel artists jumped ship and created a huge stir with their new creator-owned enterprise. Now reaping something of the whirlwind they unintentionally created, Marvel appealed to their competitors to "Image-ize" what's essentially the core of the Marvel Universe (Avengers, Fantastic Four) as its own stand-alone thing easily plug-and-play accessible for a then-modern audience. Mission accomplished...sorta.

While generally bolstering the waning popularity of the properties, results of this endeavor were mixed at best; proving wildly controversial amongst the long-term fanbase with many decrying that the iconic characters they grew up with were rendered unrecognizable. Problems further compounded when mid-way through the project, Marvel tried to renegotiate contracts and lost Liefeld in the process. Lee's own Wildstorm art studio was brought in to pinch-hit the remainder of those issues. Fan reaction was slightly more favorable despite perpetuating its own mess along the way (gratuitous and ultra-confusing Issue 13s, I'm looking at you), eventually wrapping with everyone metaphorically waking up from their mass Wizard of Oz coma-fantasy and reinjected back into their old "classic" lives in the mini-series Heroes Return.

So what was the long-term gain from this proverbial dog's breakfast of a venture? Simple- it proved it could be done: total one-stop shopping. While The Avengers traditionally chronicled the collaborative intersection of "Earth's Mightiest Heroes", for the most part, they were still respectively the stars of their own solo series. As such, the "BIG personal stuff" would rarely (if ever) happen in the team-up book. This meant buying more books so as to not be taking off guard when Tony Stark would show up in the latest Avengers issue rocking some new armor or knowing in more intimate detail how Ant-Man suddenly became Giant-Man. The fact notwithstanding that both Iron Man and Captain America retained their own respective Reborn spin-offs, the issue was forced on "How the heck do we get alll these heroes to hit the ground running in lock-step without the benefit of extra pages?" Easiest answer: make 'em a government-sanctioned strikeforce. Know why? It all comes back to a certain super-soldiered maguffin from "Dubya-Dubya Eye-Eye"...

As evident from the framing pieces of last year's Captain America movie, SHIELD's been looking for their Super-Soldier for some time. It would be somewhat naive to think, though, that in the intervening years since "The Big One" that the comic book global superpowers wouldn't be cultivating other super-agents as well- either by design or accident. Besides, nothing cuts through extraneous backstory and personal motivations like being dropped into the middle of an ops briefing with all the players amassed like "toyetic" eye candy. You can always get the skinny on everyone's individual secret origin later. And, so what if the ascribed historical sequence of events gets juxtaposed a little to facilitate this arrangement. I mean, really, what makes for a better opening move than the quest to revive the "o.g." of 'em all, huh?  (Robot Clown, anyone?)

It's been said (probably by current Avengers scribe, Brian Michael Bendis) that the team was like a good band just lacking that "it factor" until it found its "lead singer" (Cap) and that may very well be true. In its earliest incarnation, the title seemed like it was bound and determined to tear itself apart before it even truly got going. Formed out of a misunderstanding with the Incredible Hulk, the following issues centered around the worsening of that relationship as by #3, ol' "jade jaws" was blatantly adversarial with the group; himself forging an uneasy alliance with the amphibious Prince Namor, The Sub-Mariner (Timely's original bad boy anti-hero). 

By the fourth installment, it may as well've retitled itself "The Continuing Saga of Nascent, Somewhat Amorphous Super-Club versus the Two Most Aggro Freaks of Nature Ever" if not for one very distinct difference...

The original. Cover-dated March 1964. Art by Jack Kirby (with George Roussos, inks)

I don't know if there's more to be read into this but Avengers #4 originally hit newsstands shortly after the JFK assassination and right around the time of The Beatles' debut on The Ed Sullivan Show. Coincidence or speaking of something greater in our collective subconscious, I don't know- I wasn't around then. But what I do know is that The Avengers would never be the same again (and certainly for the better).


Now the unit had a focal point and by extension, a formula. From there, quite honestly, it didn't matter what craziness the team ran into from issue to issue-- subterranean lava men, time-traveling warlords, you name it-- Cap's weirded-out yet unswervingly righteous "man out of time" schtick was the audience's orientation. The trick came in keeping it fresh and somehow Stan, Jack and company kept this particular riff going for about a year and a half before changing gears entirely with the title (more on that later).


The time-honored simplicity of this blueprint, though, was again demonstrated when Marvel launched their "Ultimate Universe version" of The Avengers, The, err, Ultimates...

Here we go again for the first time. Art by Bryan Hitch

Cover-dated March, 2002, The Ultimates was the 21st Century reimagining of the team unfettered by their decades of history. In this respect, thematically similar to Heroes Reborn, however the two couldn't be further apart in tone and delivery. Written by Mark Millar and illustrated by Bryan Hitch, Ultimates doesn't dick around or pull punches like a "kiddie book" at all.

Among its lead qualities is its' gritty "real world feel", as it's undeniably the artistic yield of a post-9/11 world. While quickly hitting through all the "classic" beats (SHIELD's discovery and revival of Cap, the untried teams' first field assignment against the gamma-irradiated alter ego of scientist Bruce Banner), the book is heavily tied to the currently-topical while embracing its fantastical elements. I mean, ya can't storm the Middle East without having a good ol' fashioned alien spaceship invasion first, right?

The Ultimates proved to be such a huge success, in fact, that it sent some pretty palpable shockwaves back into the regular mainstream Avengers book. But that is definitely a story for another time...

[To be Continued]

Better Know Some Avengers!

Coming Soon...

Well, the Super Bowl is this weekend and outside of the obligatory bells and whistles that go into "The Big Game" itself, another tradition of the event, of course, has become the orgiastic barrage of advertising that permeates, underscores- and sometimes undercuts- its programming block. This year will undoubtedly be no different. And while I'm really not the biggest sports guy, I'm particularly mindful of this one because a new trailer will be debuting for the eagerly-anticipated film adaptation of The Avengers. In interest of pre-empting the mass blow-up of text message questions I'll be getting in the next few days and months, I figured I'd make this "101 series". So, in some paraphrase mash-up of Stan "The Man" Lee and Stephen Colbert: "Face front, true believers-- 'cuz you Better Know Some Avengers"...

If you've seen any of Marvel Studios' previous releases, you can get a general gist of where this is all going as those movies- as much franchises unto themselves- ultimately all serve on another level as preamble to what's coming next. From a logistical standpoint, it's an unprecedented move having all these hitherto self-contained Hollywood icons share equal billing as co-stars in something greater than the sum of its parts. In keeping with the historical lore and ethos of the Avengers comic book, though, this feat is nothing short of utter wish fulfillment nerdgasm of the highest order!

Art by Jack Kirby (with Dick Ayers- inks)

Cover-dated September, 1963, the first issue of Marvel Comics' The Avengers saw the banding together of disparate characters from various established solo series as "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" (as they would subsequently be so modestly tagged); fighting the foes no single hero could take alone. While from today's perspective, the notion of cherry-picking a "best of the best" combat unit might sound pretty frikkin' sweet, there really wasn't as much material to work with back in the day. As a result, writer/editor Stan Lee and artist/co-genius Jack Kirby's "Version 1.0"- while very powerful- comes off a little "misfit weirdo remainder bin". However, if the constituency seemed a little wonky on paper, they did have some very effective branding with the most bad-ass moniker around, easily giving them a leg up against the more recognizable heavyweights over at DC Comics, The Justice League of America.

As strategically contrived as it may seem, it is very much this overt spirit of jockeying for market placement that saw The Avengers come about. Five years prior, DC had begun successfully revitalizing and updating a number of heroes from their "Golden Age" (World War II-era) heyday, ushering in renewed interest in the "superhero genre". By 1960, they had built themselves a nice stable of titles and began showcasing the meet-ups of their most popular characters as the aforementioned League.  

Charged with chasing this particular trend by his uncle/publisher, Martin Goodman, Stan (along with Kirby) instead scored an offbeat hit with 1961's The Fantastic Four. This new offering was born more out of a last-ditch "Hail Mary" of creative whimsy than a direct response to the challenge, as Atlas (Marvel's 1950s incarnation) was still heavily steeped in one-and-done sci-fi/monster and romance comics, having long-since mothballed their own circa-WWII Timely "mystery men" properties. While there is more than a passing wink and nod to the greater pedigree of the art form in those initial FF issues, Stan's greatest, most sustaining achievement would be the attitude that he imbued into these new creations: heroes with feet of clay- a modernized spin on Greek tragedy wherein the superhuman is in some way made more vulnerable as a consequence of their new ability. One doesn't really need to look any further than the monstrously-transformed FF member, The Thing or the Amazing Spider-Man as prime early examples of this mindset. The next step was really just to wash, rinse, world-build and repeat ad infinitum.

For the next few years, the ideas just proliferated in this vein. Ostensibly, the body of this inaugural "class" would become the nucleus of Lee's new "supergroup"- yet none of them had quite the same marquee draw that other more-established "solo title" heroes brought to their respective "team" books. Hell, even in their own evolving House of Ideas, the closest thing they had was The Amazing Spider-Man; though either by virtue of Spidey's on-panel multiple chainsaw juggle of a life or co-creator Steve Ditko's implied desire to not share all the toys in the new toy box, it was readily evident the wall-crawler couldn't play well with others. From there, essentially, it shakes out to be less about "the best of the best" and more about "You go to war with the army you have"...

It's right about there that the original comic book series separates from what will no doubt become the "Movie Origin of the Avenger Initiative's 1st Field Mission", although many of the core tenets will assuredly remain intact. In the traditional story, Loki (yep, that Loki. Norse God of Mischief- y'know, from the Thor movie) attempts to use the Incredible Hulk as a pawn in a revenge scheme against his hated adopted brother, the ubiquitous God of Thunder (and Rock and Roll). As Loki tries to leak word and bait Thor, he accidentally draws the attention of additional heroes: Tony Stark, the Invincible Iron Man (apparently before the turned-to-steel-in-a-great-magnetic-field incident you hear so much about) and the insect-themed duo of Dr, Henry Pym (the Astonishing Ant-Man) and Janet Van Dyne (the Winsome Wasp), whose appearance in the movie, of this writing, remains a point of speculation and easter-eggery. 

Once all the "lone gun" heroes converge and momentarily beat their chests about how they work alone (except the Wasp, who takes this as a chance to super-speed date!), they get down to the wacky business of pursuing the Hulk, who has pulled it together enough to disguise himself as a-- I shit you not-- robot clown in a nearby traveling circus until the heat dies down on his Loki-induced public catastrophe.

ooohh-- I  sure hope they work this into the movie somehow...

Another classic misunderstanding-amongst-heroes dust-up ensues until they collectively smoke out the real culprit. Before parting ways, their smallest members suggest that they should regularly meet up as a thing-- and even spring that killer name off! And that was how it was for all of two issues...

Sounds pretty weird, huh? It may come off a bit hokey by today's standards, but the stories-  outside of their sheer historic value- are not without their own innate awesomeness. I couldn't even begin to think where we our modern mythology would be without the output of Marvel's Silver Age Bullpen. And for those uninitiated, I recommend any of this stuff (but put on your Ed Wood googles 'cuz the less said about the three-toed/eight-toed Hulk variance the better, shhh).

Move over Mr.T, Hulk in on pitying racket since '63!

By the same token, though, you may be saying: "Where's Cap? When does the whole SHIELD para-military angle come into play?" Hold on, I'm getting there...

[To Be Continued]

Frank Miller's Holy What The @#*% Was That?!

It must be hard to be an industry giant- any industry. No matter what the outlet, there is something to be said about meeting the axiom "you're only as good as the last thing you've done" at least somewhat half-way. It's just the price for putting yourself out there, for anyone really, I guess- apply it as you will. 

As a creative entity, though, you do owe it to yourself to constantly strive for that "next level" as you hone your particular craft in the here-and-now-- comfort zones should equal death. However, I suppose, once you've been successfully at your "thing" for a few decades, it seems easy to get painted into a corner of idiomatic schtick whether you like it or not. Sure, latter-day "experimental forays" are met with mixed results at best but pretty soon you probably need to resign yourself to being this self-parodying "Hollywood Squares" version of your former self. Sorry, but it's really the best case scenario for us all. Then there's graphic novelist/film director Frank Miller-- whose latest offering, Holy Terror, would have us believe that as he draws ever nearer to the age of senior citizen entitlements, he is going swinging full-on early bird into the batshit crazy buffet!

For a man who has given so much to inform the language, landscape and sensibilities of modern comics for a generation (plus)-- myself largely included in those that have been impacted by his awesomeness, I do not take to this smack-talking lightly. If this was merely a creative misfire that didn't quite connect, it could easily be shrugged off, forgiven and thrown into the "oh well, can't win 'em all" pile forevermore (a la his solo directorial debut, The Spirit, where Miller's newly-adopted fedora affectation was clearly in the creative driver's seat).

Contemplating chinstrap for hat?

If only that were the case here. If. Only...

Instead, what we are "treated" to is a tome wholly devoid of any kind of socially redeeming art or provocation value. Initially hyped for years as a "Batman vs. Al-Qaeda" story, Miller's underlying goal all the same was to not so much to tell a typical "beginning-middle-end"-style tale with a familiar protagonist set against a topical foe but to intentionally manufacture a piece of jingoistic propaganda guaranteed to universally revile. At some point, he and Batman's handlers at DC Comics parted ways on the project and the book ultimately became the debut release from Legendary. Choosing to start out on the foot of controversy with a "comic book Salman Rushdie" could be a curious choice for a publisher- maybe not so much when you're just the new arm of a splashy Hollywood production company though, huh?

It's not the actual displays of Miller's calculated crassness that offend so deeply or even his grotesquely hateful racism towards all Muslims (which come off as more as personally shameful for the author and kinda make you fell sorry for him) that evoke the true feelings of "bad taste" as it is the outright conception and execution of this travesty. Apparently, he would have us believe that this epic, while in many respects the comic book equivalent of a Faces of Death movie, also (literally) attempts to embrace the overtures of Captain America socking Hitler across the jaw in the classic cover from 1940. Just more viscerally jumped-up for our ADHD'd-out go-go modern lifestyle. Wait- didn't we already have that when South Park's Eric Cartman went Looney Tunes on Osama bin Laden? Either way, not really sure how we should extend... gratitude for such a.. um, truly unique 9/11 ten-year anniversary "memento" (that nobody particularly wanted or asked for). And without leading to too much sidebar discussion, what strange times these are when Trey Parker and Matt Stone could effectively lead seminars on where "the line" is...

Grumpy Old Men-- this time it's personal...

And above all else, whatever you do-- please, PLEASE! don't call Holy Terror a Batman story. Get "The Bat" out of your mind. Sadly, though, the only one who didn't get clued to this revisionist memory wipery would be ol' Frankie himself. While by right, Batman is the copyrighted property of a corporation and created by Bob Kane in 1939, Frank Miller's take on the character has all but become the definitive version in the eyes of modern pop culture over the past 25 years. It's very hard to separate the two. Personally, I even have a hard time watching the recent Christopher Nolan movies without thinking about blocky, grizzled Old Bruce in that anachronistic grey/blue spacesuit putting a jagged spiked bat-boot to the face of Old Superman. Instantly I'm brought back to being 13 years old, reading The Dark Knight Returns! And that's just me- casual Batman fan- I can only imagine of the associations that go on in the mind of the guy who made those experiences possible.

This does beckon some larger questions, though. If all Miller really wanted to do was tell a Batman story, why not just tell a damn Batman story already? (Although given how badly DKR's actual sequel, The Dark Knight Strikes Again, was critically received, maybe it's just as well.) And, if it's not a "Batman story" what the hell is it, then? In that respect, HT dies on its own merits because it wants to play like the bastardized excerpts of his seminal dystopian bat-epic the entire time! There is a severe lack of originality in any of the story elements. His "hero", while not direct-to-type with noble Bruce Wayne, harkens in disposition instead to another of Miller's own former creations: the psychopathically uber-patriotic thug Nuke from Marvel Comics' acclaimed 1986 Daredevil storyline, "Born Again"- proving that what could potentially have been a showcase for some originality in itself still becomes an exercise in wanton regurgitation.

Art-wise, it's a pretty phoned-in affair as well. If you're at least passingly familiar with any of Miller's previous work within the past three-plus decades, there is sadly nothing new to be found in the layouts . The signature style is certainly still there- all the stark, monolithic figures and minimalist juxtaposition of gutter-punk and avant garde- but it's just a pale shade of former glories, commanding none of the gravity it normally should. In terms of trying to evoke the "old tones", weather and lighting are very much foreground elements. It's enough to make one reminisce of tales from FM's Sin City yet not enough to transport in that same manner to an equally seedy noir-tropolis. Instead, the rain  comes off as some half-assedly amateurish attempt to ape Jackson Pollack with the larger notion of "background as character" screaming "knock-off" quite loudly all the while.  As most of the 2000s have seen Miller involved in film, it's been some time since he's done comics. It would've been nice if maybe his craft evidenced some new turn. I'm sorry, a two page spread of nothing but diminishing blank white squares? You hipped me to it back in the day- but now? Ho. Hum.

Statue of Blind Lady Justice-Liberty's cornrows: bleeding edge or passe?

So, if there's wasn't an audience clamoring for the work and the creator himself isn't bringing any new tricks to the table- what was the point? Just so we can all have the pleasure at being offended by this "art" that absolutely, positively needed to be birthed into the world- no matter how intentionally ugly?! I'm sorry, but Holy Terror is indeed something else entirely functioning outside the umbrella of "art for art's sake". It actually plays closer to the foil-helmeted doomsaying of those fringe characters that hang out by the highway off-ramps. They have signs and draw pretty pictures on them too sometimes, y'know. Frank's just happens to be more elaborate than most, I suppose.

Speaking of Frank's friends in the "outdoor set", the flak heaped on him over this one-man anti-jihadist jihad bad-joke manifesto would only probably be half as bad if it didn't come so two-fisted with the now-infamous post on his blog regarding the Occupy movement. While his right to voice his opinion against the protests is as valid as theirs, one may also look into his motivations with the same mark of cynicism that he himself extols in the tirade. Capitalizing on a coincidence that no one could've ever really planned, Miller's own counterpoint comments- while not overtly screaming "Buy my new book, Holy Terror, out now from Legendary Books..."-  do openly lend themselves quite readily to a certain opportunistic huckstering one may find on an extended press junket. Just like when somebody has a new product to shill.  Hmmm. Conspiracy, anyone?