Marvel's Avengers Assemble "Ghost of a Chance" Talkback (Spoilers)

[TheMadSlasher]

I was pleasantly surprised by this episode.

First, I like how they characterized this Thor. Instead of the cold aloof jerk we see in the usual Marvel stuff, they kept him in the vein of the Hemsworth Thor, who is essentially a big adorable magnanimous goof (I mean this very positively).

Tony was reasonably well-characterized too, albiet heavier on the smug-smarmy than the hyperkinetic-eccentric-nerdiness you get from RDJ's version. I like how the episode began with the flying chase scene.

But if there is one huge flaw here, it is that Black Widow is still Mary Sue To The Max. How she treats Hulk is frankly despicable (look at the cookie fight) and of course no one seems to have a problem with it. Because she's speshul. The movie Black Widow was scared of the Hulk, but apparently if MoA give Natasha vulnerabilities then a horde of Tumblr feminists will accuse the show of rampant sexism and as such MoA write Natasha as a complete fanfic Sue.

The pacing is a bit less hyper than it was in the first few episodes.

I admit I don't particularly identify with Falcon's "I WANT TO FIT IN AND BE ACCEPTED!" fanboy thing, but hey, I'm not the target demographic.

As for the issue of Hulk, I think the idea of him having glass animals is cute and it has a logic behind it. However, the problem is that we haven't seen any sensitive!Hulk before so it comes as a shock. In AEMH (which had a FAR better Hulk), you saw Hulk hurt. You saw him mope like an abused teenager (which makes sense given the canonical backstory in 616). You wanted to give him a hug or something. You KNEW he Just Wanted To Be Left Alone. And Hulk didn't make death-threats re. "if you tell anyone about my sensitive hobby I will bash you up until your flesh is the consistency of gravy."
But so far? Hulk has been just a one-note Smashophiliac who seems to enjoy inflicting violence for its own sake (IIRC this is actually against Hulk's usual characterization, at least in less childish material).

So yes, there are still some flaws, and EMH was much higher quality. But this episode IS an improvement over the first two episodes.

 

[BonnieB21:-)]

Yeah they it was brought up quite a bit in the show wasn't really ambiguous

Please, Rex being Hispanic wasn't an "important" part of the show- at least from a marketing perspective. Not in the same way that Go, Diego, Go and Handy Manny are. I don't recall a single time where CN promoted Rex as Hispanic. I could be wrong, since I didn't follow Rex closely. Plus there are many different shades to be, being of Spanish descendant from white, European from Spain, to African descendant in Cuba or the Dominican Republic, to Meso-American brown.

 

[RoryWilliams]

Not in the same way that Go, Diego, Go and Handy Manny are. I don't recall a single time where CN promoted Rex as Hispanic.

So being Latino only counts when your entire character revolves around it? I guess he wasn't screaming "Via con dios!" enough for you.

 

[Captain Travis]

Well said.

 

[Christopher Glennon]

Space Phantoms! I guess it's probably too much to hope for them to do the whole Kang/Immortus thing from Avengers Forever, but it was still cool to see them. The episode itself was okay. I mean, I expect the show to do better, but it was a nice Falcon spotlight. Liked Hulk's room, didn't like the cookies.

Yet, I love that he has a glass menagerie. Though how, when, and where he had a chance to collect them all is up for fanon. I'd like to think Betty Ross & Rick Jones have been holding on to them all this time for him. And that Dr. Banner's been collecting glass figurines as a hobby all his life. Bet we won't see either of them in AA or S.M.A.S.H. Anything is better than the Hulk as just a remorseless eating machine who smashes.

A-Bomb is in Agents of S.M.A.S.H, so I think it's safe to say Rick Jones will be on that show. Then again, lately it seems like the Hulk's appearance doesn't guarantee a Bruce Banner appearance, so who knows?

 

[Rick Jones]

A-Bomb is in Agents of S.M.A.S.H, so I think it's safe to say Rick Jones will be on that show. Then again, lately it seems like the Hulk's appearance doesn't guarantee a Bruce Banner appearance, so who knows?

Rick is definitely in the pilot. He was featured in the screen capture comic they released for FCBD.

 

[JTMarsh]

I was pleasantly surprised by this episode.

First, I like how they characterized this Thor. Instead of the cold aloof jerk we see in the usual Marvel stuff, they kept him in the vein of the Hemsworth Thor, who is essentially a big adorable magnanimous goof (I mean this very positively).

Well Thor tried to e warm & friendly in EMH - when they beat Gravitron he caught them all in a group hug, and in "Some Assembly Required" he does try to be nice to Hulk, but Hulk keeps acting like Hulk so that might have caused Thor to pull back on the comrades in arms attitude.

 

[Rick Jones]

I thought he was usually pretty chummy on EMH, outside of having some problems with the Hulk or Tony.

 

[Medinnus]

I don't think its fair to judge AA elements in comparison with AEMH, to be honest.

AEMH was a great show. If AA is going to be constantly compared to it, the odds are that the absolute best they can do in the eyes of many (including myself) is reach a draw, especially as regards how the characters are/were handled.

For me, the question is "is the characterization consistent as derived from the source material" (which in the case of AA is the MCU, not MU 616, as far as the main characters are concerned)? For the most part:

* Hulk is being done wrong, because of the absence of Banner. No big deal for me, really, as I'm not a big fan of Hulk, who is consistent with the Hulk parts of the MCU.
* Thor is missing his movie supporting cast, which went a long way to humanizing him.
* Captain America is being written more like his MU-616 version; the MCU winghead isn't as upright and uptight as CA is being portrayed here.
* Black Widow is nowhere near as smart as portrayed in the MCU, where she mentally manipulates and outmanuevers others more than she kicks butt - not that she can't kick butt, but she's a manipulator first.
* Iron Man is quite consistent, but without (pun not intended) the heart that RDJ puts into the MCU version.
* Hawkeye... eh. He seems less driven, and more MU-616 here.
* Falcon - with no guidance from the MCU, he's being played as a de-aged fanboy, which always annoys me. I get that he's the "Hey kids - identify with the teen-ish sidekick" character here, but the Falcon has never been that way in MU-616 or any other incarnation, so its kind of insulting to the established character.

 

[Aang]

I don't think its fair to judge AA elements in comparison with AEMH, to be honest.

AEMH was a great show. If AA is going to be constantly compared to it, the odds are that the absolute best they can do in the eyes of many (including myself) is reach a draw, especially as regards how the characters are/were handled.

For me, the question is "is the characterization consistent as derived from the source material" (which in the case of AA is the MCU, not MU 616, as far as the main characters are concerned)? For the most part:

* Hulk is being done wrong, because of the absence of Banner. No big deal for me, really, as I'm not a big fan of Hulk, who is consistent with the Hulk parts of the MCU.
* Thor is missing his movie supporting cast, which went a long way to humanizing him.
* Captain America is being written more like his MU-616 version; the MCU winghead isn't as upright and uptight as CA is being portrayed here.
* Black Widow is nowhere near as smart as portrayed in the MCU, where she mentally manipulates and outmanuevers others more than she kicks butt - not that she can't kick butt, but she's a manipulator first.
* Iron Man is quite consistent, but without (pun not intended) the heart that RDJ puts into the MCU version.
* Hawkeye... eh. He seems less driven, and more MU-616 here.
* Falcon - with no guidance from the MCU, he's being played as a de-aged fanboy, which always annoys me. I get that he's the "Hey kids - identify with the teen-ish sidekick" character here, but the Falcon has never been that way in MU-616 or any other incarnation, so its kind of insulting to the established character.

We seem to differ about a lot of these things. But I can always appreciate a well reasoned argument. Some people seem to care greatly about strict fidelity to the depiction of characters and the telling of stories based off of history. Some people care about those things, but are not going to let deviations from historical precedence prevent them from enjoying a story. While some people do not care at all and would be jubilant if everything was made different. I tend to fit category two mostly.

There are new stories being told with Marvel characters in print, animation, and cinema which are creating new fans of Marvel. These stories adhere to previous versions to varying degrees. However the end effect is that the amount of admirers of Marvel characters is increasing. A big disconnect seems to occur when people who cherish the traditional stories and characters greatly, depreciate the stories that do not follow previous history, even though those new stories are helping to make more people love Marvel. Far too often those people come across as mean spirited and overbearing which can have the effect of ticking off some people (who actually just want to dialogue about Marvel things) or completely turning off others.

You see this with some people's responses to USM and MAA. The expression of dislike for the shows does become a bit too much at times. It comes across as if some people do not want anyone to like those shows. Look here, a lot of people do not care about someone else's issues with certain writers or producers. It's true. They just enjoy the work that they do.

I do agree that MAA seems to be an amalgam of MCU, MU 616, and a bit of writer/artist creativity. But for me that is fine.

I think I understand what you are saying in terms of Falcon's representation. Honestly I just come to a different conclusion. To me he actually comes across as an equal partner in the Avengers group rather than as a second or third class member. He is just an equal partner who happens to be the new guy. He is not the experienced guy who has been around forever but never got asked to be with the A -Team until now. There are advantages to this approach. Not the least of which is adding a relatable character for people of a certain age group.

Overall I am liking the character representations and the direction of the show.

 

[Medinnus]

I think I understand what you are saying in terms of Falcon's representation. Honestly I just come to a different conclusion. To me he actually comes across as an equal partner in the Avengers group rather than as a second or third class member. He is just an equal partner who happens to be the new guy. He is not the experienced guy who has been around forever but never got asked to be with the A -Team until now. There are advantages to this approach. Not the least of which is adding a relatable character for people of a certain age group.

Actually, you came to precisely the wrong conclusion about what I was saying. Let me try to be more clear.

In literature - and this is not really subjective, just to refer back to your analysis elsewhere ) - characters have an attribute known as characterization. The attribute of Characterization, in short, consists of the elements of the character which define the basis of the character. Spider-man, for example, is impulsive, scientifically brilliant, personally heroic, apt to react with emotions or feelings rather than rational cost/benefit analysis, and introspective.

Comic book characters (which encompasses all literary media in which they appear - graphical storytelling, animation, prose, whatever) should have consistency across those elements which define their character.

Change any one or two elements of the characterization, and the character remains recognizable. Change enough of these characteristics and you have, in essence, reduced the character to nothing more than a power set and a costume over a mannequin. This is fine for young readers who have little sense of literature, who can be satisfied with little more than mannequins in costumes with power-sets slugging in out, but for any reader with a tinge of education and discernment, it pales rather quickly.

The characterization of the Falcon has no MCU basis, so we are impelled to compare him to the MU616, Ultimates, and/or Super Hero Squad (although the SHS version is by definition exaggerated and farcical, just as the SHS Captain America is). The MU616 and Ultimates versions are nothing like the Falcon as portrayed in MAA thus far - they are mature, experienced combatants without a scientific bent. They are not late teen/early 20's fanboys with SHIELD training and technical genius. While I can appreciate the Falcon character for what he is in MAA, the fact of the matter is that by changing virtually all the characterization attributes of the character, they have essentially created a new character that they have disguised as the Falcon.

That is the nature of my complaint - when writers warp a character beyond recognition, they create a new character. I would rather they actually create a new character than insult the fans of the old one by claiming that their new creation has any relation beyond costume (and power set) from the established character.

Obviously, there will always be some who don't understand or care about characterization - but I'm not one of them. I don't mind the approach they've taken, except they've reduced and lessened the character of Falcon in my eyes. This jumped-up fanboy in armor isn't Sam Wilson from any meaningful measure, and its grating to be solely on that basis - if they had introduced a new character I wouldn't mind. But Sam Wilson, the Falcon, is older than most of the audience, and to make him some "gosh wow" fanboy denigrates the established character.

YMMV - it often does )

 

[Aang]

Medinnus, I like your passion, and I did understand your point. You should be careful about assuming what a person does or does not know about literature. Hubris is not a good thing. You are reaching. These are comics. Many writers have handled these characters over time. It's simply artist or writer interpretations. I tend to like your comments even if they do not reflect my own position. I just disagree with you. It's cool.

 

[bigdaddy313]

Well in my conclusion this falcon I saw is not the falcon I know and it's easy to change things of a B class character in television

 

[Medinnus]

Medinnus, I like your passion, and I did understand your point. You should be careful about assuming what a person does or does not know about literature.

Oh, I am very cautious about assuming - hence the lengthy explanation.

Hubris is not a good thing. You are reaching. These are comics.

So what? Does that mean that comic writers are held to a lesser standard? I refuse to accept that crap writing is acceptable "because its comics". I refuse to accept that comic literature is any less literature than a prose novel, and I refuse to excuse a lack writing quality. Hubris is overweening pride - I don't call people idiots for not agreeing with me; however, if they can't counter arguments with anything but relativism, I have no sympathy. Perhaps one might read in a certain condescension when I invoke things like literary study and form, but I what they defensively term condescension I call clarification of my position.

I have high standards, and I do not apologize for them. For the most part, AEMH, Young Justice, and the like met them, so perhaps I am somewhat spoiled in my expectation as regards the excellence of the writing I've come to expect. Perhaps I'm doomed to disappointment while Loeb is in charge of Marvel Studios' TV lineup, but I don't think so (I have hopes of MAA moving that bar).

Many writers have handled these characters over time. It's simply artist or writer interpretations. I tend to like your comments even if they do not reflect my own position. I just disagree with you. It's cool.

Many writers have handled Captain America over time (I am choosing Captain America as my example because I know far too much about the bibliographic history of the character). Mike Friedrich wrote some of the worst, most trite issues of Captain America in his publication history. Steve Gerber and Jack Kirby produced mediocre Captain America stories, which leads me to believe they had little interest in the character runs, as their overall history of writing indicates that they could do much better work, and were phoning those runs in for a paycheck. DeMateiss (sp) and Waid's first run were excellent, as was about half of Gruenwald's run as writer (he was a better editor than writer, IMO). My point is that its not merely interpretive - one can discuss the merits of the different interpretations in accord with common standards of literary merit. This isn't a third grade class PE exercise where everyone gets a ribbon for participating; some of the work is crap, some of it good, and some of it excellent. There are objective standards against which merit can be measured.

Obviously, fans can ignore standards, and quite often do. I do myself - the Phantom movie with Billy Zane is a perfect example. It is, by critical standards, a horrible movie, with over-the-top acting worthy of a young Bill Shatner, cheesy plot and special effects, and so forth. I fully admit its faults, but love the movie nevertheless (and I suspect that the newly released Pacific Rim will fall into this category for me, for similar reasons), being a huge fan of the Ghost Who Walks.

The point of sites like this is to gather fans and enthusiasts with diverging opinions and tastes, and give them a sandbox in which to play. I don't begrudge anyone their opinions, but I will argue like the devil when I disagree with opinionated assertions which are presented as fact.

 

[Sketch]

Typical body snatching plot with some admittedly good interaction between Iron Man and Falcon. It at least did not feel as disjointed as the pilot or the Serpent episode.

The "comedy" more often than not fell flat and to chime in on the cookie thing, these are adult super heroes, MOA needs to stop writing adults like they were teenagers or children.

 

[Aang]

Medinnus, I am going to try this one more time and then I am going to simply count it as a lost cause. Apparently you missed the part of my comment about being mean spirited and overbearing, but maybe you do not realize how some things you say may be perceived. There are a few others like you on this website so maybe there is something that I am missing. It is not my cup of tea. But, maybe I am the problem. Please forgive me if I am missing something.

Surely you must realize that the second and third quote you used from one of my comments actually are a single thought which implies that they are addressing the same point. That point is that in comics, multiple writers and artists are allowed to handle single characters and consequently to input their own interpretations. This is different than many other forms of literature, even "comics" from other countries such as manga. My comment had nothing at all to do with the inferiority of comics as a form of communication. You, my friend, imposed the "lesser standard" implication onto my statement, and then spent time trying to debunk it.

If I was cynical then I would say that you deliberately raised a strawman argument in order to allow yourself to essentially say what you wanted to say. However, that is not fair. So I will simply count it as an honest mistake.


Since I have already stated that I tend to enjoy your comments (primarily because they do come across as thoughtful) I am not going to reiterate that (oops, I just did).
However, I would implore you in the future to concentrate on the tone of your statements. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that you have to come across as a (fill in the blank).

All of your statements are oppionated assertions. They are. Please let that complaint go. It is trite and unneccesary. It can not be a valid criticism of people who disagree with you unless you also include yourself. Just look at your own examples of Captain America writers. Calling something bad does not in and of itself make it bad. If there are people who love the stories that you think are not good, then what determines its value. What are the outside, objective measures that are used to make such an evaluation. You have not stated those specific metrics in your comments. Therefore you should at least be gracious enough to people who disagree with you by receiving their points in kind without tossing out the "oppinionated assertions" tag. Can I justly assume (as you said in your comments) that you "can't" justify your own argument with anything but relativism. I would not, and I ask that you would return the same kindness to others.

Are we judging stories based on popularity. Fine. Popularity in which circles. Just because your group really likes something does not mean other groups feel the same. For example, football (soccer) is the most poular sport in many parts of the world. However in some areas of the world people think that it is a mediocre sport at best and boring more often than not. What does that imply about the objective value of football? Nothing at all.

The point of sites like this is to gather fans and enthusiasts with diverging opinions and tastes, and give them a sandbox in which to play. I don't begrudge anyone their opinions, but I will argue like the devil when I disagree with opinionated assertions which are presented as fact.

I have already addressed the oppinionated assertions/fact point.

Once again, I am not going to continue to go back and forth with you because I do not know how productive this is. But I do have respect for you and look forward to reading your future (and hopefully less vitriolic) comments.

 

[Venom Melendez]

But if there is one huge flaw here, it is that Black Widow is still Mary Sue To The Max. How she treats Hulk is frankly despicable (look at the cookie fight) and of course no one seems to have a problem with it. Because she's speshul. The movie Black Widow was scared of the Hulk, but apparently if MoA give Natasha vulnerabilities then a horde of Tumblr feminists will accuse the show of rampant sexism and as such MoA write Natasha as a complete fanfic Sue.

Natasha was not a "Mary Sue" and her treatment of Hulk was not despicable, she was having fun with him. This episode showed that she isn't a Mary Sue, unless you are saying that any female character who is competent is a "Mary Sue". Natasha on this show is also on friendlier terms with Hulk on this show and he is not as animalistic as the movie version, so it makes sense she would be more at ease with him.

Black Widow on this show is not a Mary Sue.

As for the issue of Hulk, I think the idea of him having glass animals is cute and it has a logic behind it. However, the problem is that we haven't seen any sensitive!Hulk before so it comes as a shock. In AEMH (which had a FAR better Hulk), you saw Hulk hurt. You saw him mope like an abused teenager (which makes sense given the canonical backstory in 616). You wanted to give him a hug or something. You KNEW he Just Wanted To Be Left Alone. And Hulk didn't make death-threats re. "if you tell anyone about my sensitive hobby I will bash you up until your flesh is the consistency of gravy."
But so far? Hulk has been just a one-note Smashophiliac who seems to enjoy inflicting violence for its own sake).

Except that is not the case at all and Hulk didn't Make any "Death threats", all he said was "We don't talk about this". Hulk loving a good fight is nothing new, but we have seen other sides to this Hulk.

 

[Medinnus]

Once again, I am not going to continue to go back and forth with you because I do not know how productive this is. But I do have respect for you and look forward to reading your future (and hopefully less vitriolic) comments.

I will be honest - I skipped over much of your last, when your imputations started being personally insulting (which is not to say you meant to give offense, just as I usually don't - and yet, it doesn't stop you or I from being offended nonetheless), as there are few ways to take "mean spirited and overbearing". Needless to say, I will not be adjusting my writing style, but I'm sorry if my opinions offend you - clearly, my writing skills are insufficient, as the onus for mis-interpretation is pretty much always on the author, not the reader.

 

[TheMadSlasher]

Natasha was not a "Mary Sue" and her treatment of Hulk was not despicable, she was having fun with him.

Natasha never jokes around with any other character, at all. And when Clint jokes around with Hulk, Clint gets thrown several yards.

And Natasha is barely part of the team here. There is no way to argue she is "more" friends with Hulk than Clint.

This episode showed that she isn't a Mary Sue, unless you are saying that any female character who is competent is a "Mary Sue".

No, a competent female character is not a Mary Sue.

A relatively overcompetent (i.e. far more competent than the other characters) female character, whom the narrative always treats as flawless and perfect (when other characters are given flaws, quirks, issues, etc), whom is consistently set apart and "special" relative to the rest of the team, whom is never shown in a weak or unflattering light (when all the other characters are) is a Mary Sue.

Competent female characters are awesome. Mary Sues are not.

Natasha on this show is also on friendlier terms with Hulk on this show and he is not as animalistic as the movie version, so it makes sense she would be more at ease with him.

To the point of outright teasing him in a manner which none of the other team members would (except Clint), and with the Hulk NOT lashing out a her even though he lashes out at Clint for doing the same things?

And how do we know Natasha is on friendlier terms with Hulk? Natasha doesn't spend much time at all around the team in the first place, including Hulk.

Black Widow on this show is not a Mary Sue.

She has been portrayed, so far, as more competent than everyone else, as having no fears or insecurities or vulnerabilities or even character quirks (whereas we've seen all of these in the other characters), she's never the butt of any jokes, she receives favorable portrayals in the script all the time (whereas most of the other characters have had some variation), she's used as a plot device to pull the guys' hides out of the fire when they all fail (in the first two episodes) because OF COURSE the levelheaded Closer-To-Earth woman is needed to rescue the pathetic manchildren, etc.

Maybe over time MoA can deepen her and de-Suify her, but so far everything I've seen of her portrayal is the kind of thing I'd read in Mary Sue fanfics. Yes, we've only seen four episodes, granted, but what I have seen so far is consistent with Sue-ness.

MCU!Black Widow had flaws and vulnerabilities (her huge fear of The Hulk). She was not a Mary Sue. AEMH!Black Widow had her own issues and wasn't given a Practically Perfect In Every Way characterization, even though she was an absolute BAMF who could beat Clint in hand-to-hand combat and performed a brilliant double-agent infiltration of HYDRA. She wasn't a Mary Sue either.

Competence isn't Sueness and it is quite possible to make a Black Widow that isn't a Sue. In my view, AA has failed to do this (so far).

Except that is not the case at all and Hulk didn't Make any "Death threats", all he said was "We don't talk about this". Hulk loving a good fight is nothing new, but we have seen other sides to this Hulk.

The death threat was obviously implied by the situation, Hulk's tone, etc. And so far, this Hulk has been depressingly one-note, particularly compared to AEMH's.

 

[suss2it]

Natasha never jokes around with any other character, at all. And when Clint jokes around with Hulk, Clint gets thrown several yards.

To be fair we live in a society where violence against women is very taboo. So yeah it'd be very jarring to see Hulk throw Black Widow across the room over a cookie and yet not so if he were to do it to Clint. That's just the world we live in right now.

A relatively overcompetent (i.e. far more competent than the other characters) female character, whom the narrative always treats as flawless and perfect (when other characters are given flaws, quirks, issues, etc), whom is consistently set apart and "special" relative to the rest of the team, whom is never shown in a weak or unflattering light (when all the other characters are) is a Mary Sue.

If Widow was as flawless and perfect as you make her seem wouldn't she have avoided getting brainwashed (along with everyone else) in episode 2 and avoid getting captured by the phantoms in ep 3?

She has been portrayed, so far, as more competent than everyone else, as having no fears or insecurities or vulnerabilities or even character quirks (whereas we've seen all of these in the other characters), she's never the butt of any jokes, she receives favorable portrayals in the script all the time (whereas most of the other characters have had some variation), she's used as a plot device to pull the guys' hides out of the fire when they all fail (in the first two episodes) because OF COURSE the levelheaded Closer-To-Earth woman is needed to rescue the pathetic manchildren, etc.

First of all being more competent than everyone else doesn't make her a Mary Sue and second of all no she hasn't. Tony Stark has pretty much been the smartest guy in the room since day one. And Falcon was the guy who got to save the day in ep 3 and Widow didn't even appear in ep 4. And yeah she hasn't been the but of any joke so far but neither has Captain America. So he is too a Gary Stu?

MCU!Black Widow had flaws and vulnerabilities (her huge fear of The Hulk). She was not a Mary Sue. AEMH!Black Widow had her own issues and wasn't given a Practically Perfect In Every Way characterization, even though she was an absolute BAMF who could beat Clint in hand-to-hand combat and performed a brilliant double-agent infiltration of HYDRA. She wasn't a Mary Sue either.

Explain to me exactly the difference in character portrayal of Widow between A: EMH and AA please and how she isn't a Mary Sue in the former but somehow is one in the latter. Don't remember at any point Widow showing her flaws and vulnerabilities in A: EMH.