I don't think Whedon is a simplestic writer - his Astonishing X-men arc and what he did with Scott Summers during that arc was quite good. But like myself, I don't think he ever was an Avengers fan.
He even admits it in various interviews - that he really didn't follow the Avengers that closely.
Wolverine and Gambit aren't boring characters...they were sort of overdone. Wolvie was put into every single title, regardless of whether they fit in the titles. (Seriously, Wolverine as an Avenger? He was also put in The Defenders -- which again, seriously? )
With Wolvie - less is more. And it's not helped by the constant retconning and backstory. The character is so out of character and as a result comes across as a flaming hypocrit in the comics post Schism, to the point I can't stand him. And Captain America and Stark are written similarily in the Avengers vs. X-men arc. I couldn't stand Steve Rodgers or Wolverine after that arc. Stark comes out the best.
The problem with comics is you get a lot of turn-over in writers. And the writers don't follow the entire story just the parts that interest them. I get that, I do the same thing, but I'm not writing the story.
But to say, Wolverine, who is basically 400 years old, messed up, and committed some horrendous act and is struggling to redeem himself - after the US turned him into a living weapon...is sort of...I mean, come on.
Rogers is just a weak guy who signed on to Super Solider program. There isn't much there...to explore. He's Joe Average. And yes, Joe Average wanting to be and becoming a super-hero is frigging hard to write well -- you can fall into Marty Stu territory far too easily.
Summers is actually easier and he is written fairly well in places. I never read him as a boy scout with a stick up his butt. I saw the nuances in the character - I read him more like Whedon did - which is a character who was either completely out of control or controlled. He fears losing control - because the moment he lets his guard down, people die. And he fears mediocrity. With Summers - you have a perfectionist, who has intentionally crippled himself in order to maintain control. Wolverine and Summers are interesting to compare, because in some respects they have the same problem, both need to maintain control.
But I can discuss those guys...the Avengers? I'm at a loss, because the nationalistic superteam never interested me. I don't like the Justice League that much either and struggle with Marvel Agents of Shield for similar reasons. X-men fan all the way. ;-)
no subject
He even admits it in various interviews - that he really didn't follow the Avengers that closely.
Wolverine and Gambit aren't boring characters...they were sort of overdone. Wolvie was put into every single title, regardless of whether they fit in the titles. (Seriously, Wolverine as an Avenger? He was also put in The Defenders -- which again, seriously? )
With Wolvie - less is more. And it's not helped by the constant retconning and backstory. The character is so out of character and as a result comes across as a flaming hypocrit in the comics post Schism, to the point I can't stand him. And Captain America and Stark are written similarily in the Avengers vs. X-men arc. I couldn't stand Steve Rodgers or Wolverine after that arc. Stark comes out the best.
The problem with comics is you get a lot of turn-over in writers. And the writers don't follow the entire story just the parts that interest them. I get that, I do the same thing, but I'm not writing the story.
But to say, Wolverine, who is basically 400 years old, messed up, and committed some horrendous act and is struggling to redeem himself - after the US turned him into a living weapon...is sort of...I mean, come on.
Rogers is just a weak guy who signed on to Super Solider program. There isn't much there...to explore. He's Joe Average. And yes, Joe Average wanting to be and becoming a super-hero is frigging hard to write well -- you can fall into Marty Stu territory far too easily.
Summers is actually easier and he is written fairly well in places. I never read him as a boy scout with a stick up his butt. I saw the nuances in the character - I read him more like Whedon did - which is a character who was either completely out of control or controlled. He fears losing control - because the moment he lets his guard down, people die. And he fears mediocrity. With Summers - you have a perfectionist, who has intentionally crippled himself in order to maintain control. Wolverine and Summers are interesting to compare, because in some respects they have the same problem, both need to maintain control.
But I can discuss those guys...the Avengers? I'm at a loss, because the nationalistic superteam never interested me. I don't like the Justice League that much either and struggle with Marvel Agents of Shield for similar reasons. X-men fan all the way. ;-)