By Brian Michael Bendis (Writer), Mike Deodato (Artist), and Rain Beredo (Colorist)
Some Thoughts Before The Review: Dark Avengers is easily my favorite Avengers title at the moment. That said, it’s the art and character work I look forward to, not the storyline. Maybe that will change now that the first arc seems to be out of the way…
The Story: Norman Osborn does a “tell all” television interview and makes an effort to respond to Clint Barton’s (Hawkeye’s) accusations. Meanwhile, tensions rise at the Avengers tower as the teammates spend some down time together.
What’s Good: Say what you will about Brian Michael Bendis’ style of dialogue, but there’s almost no denying how effective it is in Dark Avengers #5. It’s a good thing that it works so well too, because the latest issue of Dark Avengers is very light on action and absolutely loaded with dialogue. I know that fact will instantly turn some people off, but it really shouldn’t for two major reasons…
1) Bendis has a very good handle on both sides of Norman Osborn’s current life; and Dark Avengers #5 is practically a showcase that proves it in a way that makes great use of Bendis’ “realistic” writing style. The politician is fully on display during the engaging interview that has just the write “feel” to it, thanks to the writer’s knack for conversation. Though that’s not the highlight. No, that would be Osborn’s compelling talk with the Sentry. It’s brilliantly executed and shows a side of the character that isn’t given much time in the other Dark Reign books. The small segment alone is almost worth buying the book. It’s that good. Also, and I almost forgot to mention this…Osborn’s line in the final panel is just excellent.
2) Mike Deodato’s artwork is unusually expressive and brings the entire interview segment to life. While the interview is still a bit dry (I mean how much can you really do with an interview?) Norman’s expressions are very well done. In addition, Deodato gets to shine near the end of the book with a double splash spread that really shows off his talent.
What’s Not So Good: Dark Avengers #5 doesn’t move the overall plot forward a whole lot, and in some ways, the book suffers for it. While big stuff happens at the end, very little happens before that. The character study stuff is great, don’t get me wrong, but I wish the series had more forward momentum.
Conclusion: A fine looking book with a little bit of story and a whole lot of character…That’s Dark Avengers #5 in a nutshell.
Grade: B+
-Kyle Posluszny
Filed under: Marvel Comics, Reviews Tagged: | Avengers, Brian Michael Bendis, Bullseye, Captain Marvel, Clint Barton, comic reviews, Daken, dark avengers, Dark Avengers #5 Review, Dark Reign, Hawkeye, Kyle Posluszny, Marvel Comics, Mike Deodato, Ms. Marvel, New Avengers, Noh Varr, Norman Osborn, Rain Beredo, Spider-Man, WCBR, Weekly Comic Book Review, weeklycomicbookreview.com, Wolverine
First off, I don’t believe that the motivations of Osborn are unrealistic. I just don’t think that, on realistic “real world” level, Osborn would manage to rise to power like he has and that Dark Reign, through its rushing through Osborn’s elevation, hasn’t really addressed this.
That said, there aren’t superpowers in the real world either, nor is there a SHIELD or HAMMER. Hell, neither Thor nor the Incredible Hercules, among others, are believable characters where realism is concerned. By that logic, I should give both books nothing but Ds.
In the end, I think Dark Reign is, sort of like Old Man Logan, a “shh, just go with it” sort of thing. Marvel wanted to have a world with a bad guy in charge, so they did it. HOW Dark Reign happened isn’t as important as the status quo that develops because of it. The fact that Marvel spent so little time explaining Osborn’s actual rise evidences this.
That, and as Kyle said, if we don’t say “just go with it,” would giving every Dark Reign related book a poor grade be valid, solely because I don’t think Osborn’s rise to power was well explained? Would harping on this issue in every review of every DR book make for good reviews? The pill was swallowed. I would have reviewed the ESTABLISHMENT of DR very poorly (I’m thinking that oneshot), but in reviewing DR books, we’re reviewing comics that address the EFFECTS of DR, no its establishment.
Suggesting that Dark Reign, as a whole, is invalid, would almost completely destroy every current Marvel book that has some Dark Reign tie. That would not be fair to any book with the D.R. banner (well written and visually pleasing….but you have a Dark Reign banner…F!). And it would also force one to ignore how entertaining the concept can be at times despite it’s ridiculous nature. Just because something is enjoyed, doesn’t mean that it’s respected. I’m having a blast with Dark Reign for the most part…but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect or even remotely plausible.
Also…I also find your hating of the ridiculous premise to be something of an overreaction because…let’s face it…isn’t the whole Marvel universe ridiculous? (I don’t know about you, but I’ve yet to meet a Sorcerer Supreme) Why not just roll with the direction and take each product that comes out of it individually. It’s not as though one whole creative team is doing every book.
I completely agree with the idea that just because something sells it doesn’t mean it’s good. But just because something sells well, doesn’t mean it instantly sucks either (Elitist idea for sure)…
-Kyle
These responses don’t really address a big question: If “Dark Reign” is so thinly plotted and the motivations of Osborn, et al., so unrealistic that the event as a whole is unbelievable, then why respect it? One could say the same about the current NEW AVENGERS storyline, which features a magician, of sorts, that has nothing to do with the classic Dr. Strange, Sorcerer Supreme. When an issue comes out that is an editorial disaster, failing in both plot and characterization, it’s better to give the issue the rhetorical shredding it deserves, and be done with it, than to pretend that the issue has to be taken seriously only because Marvel is publishing and promoting it. The mere fact that a Bendis “Avengers” issue sells doesn’t mean that it has to be “good” somehow; what it means is that people buy the issue for various reasons that are unrelated to the quality of the writing.
SRS
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. Bendis’ style definitely has problems, but I don’t think they appear much (if at all) in Dark Avengers #5. While Bendis’ characters have a tendency to blend together from time to time (an example from DA #5 – venom sounding like spidey), I’ve found most of the Dark Avengers to be pretty distinct. I’d add more but, in all honesty, Alex pretty much covers the rest.
-yle Posluszny
Then why have the “Dark Reign” event, if the premise was so obviously flawed? The way it’s being presented to readers can’t be any more simplistic than the way that it was proposed. The awfulness of “Dark Reign” as story material might indicate that Marvel is now doing events for the sake of events, to generate tie-ins, not because the events have any other purpose.
Re dialogue: Practically all of Bendis’s dialogue that isn’t strictly conversational — four- or five word-bursts — has problems. Years ago, readers noted that his female characters all talked alike, his dialogue for Dr. Doom was heavily criticized, the dialogue for the Skrulls talking to their queen in NEW AVENGERS was in the manner of grade-C movies. Part of the problem is that he relies far too much on dialogue to move events along, so characters speak when narration would be much more efficient and effective. The other part of the problem is a simple lack of skill in writing dialogue. Characters are identified by what they say and think.
SRS
Wow, I couldn’t disagree with that comment anymore
While there are cases where Bendis-speak is a problem, I felt that this issue was surprisingly admirable in that area. I’ve never really felt Bendis’ trademark dialogue as “stilted.” Rather, I’ve always found it fairly fluid and human; the chief difficulty with it isn’t its artificiality, but rather that the style sometimes lends itself to predicaments where characters all start sounding the same. I didn’t think that happened this issue.
Yes, the interview did sound a bit stilted, but I thought that that was the point. Osborn mentions that the questions he’s being read were pre-prepared, suggesting that his answers were also rehearsed. It SHOULD sound just a little stilted and unnatural. Many political interviews on CNN sound the same.
I understand your grievances with respect to Dark Reign’s believability, but I’m not sure how much of this I can pin on Dark Avengers as a series. At the very least, one should blame the Secret Invasion: Dark Reign one-shot. That said, I do think that having a fanciful villain like Morganna as their first conflict, instead of something more “real-world” was a misstep. On the other hand, the less Obama in my comics, the better. Whenever he shows up, you either end up with gushing love (“Amazing Spider-Man”) or utter blandness (Thunderbolts). I don’t turn to the Marvel Universe to read Obama.
I actually greatly enjoyed the Osborn/Sentry dynamic this issue and it was one of my favorite moments this month. I find the relationship very interesting considering Norman’s past. While the Sentry has been used as a plot device often, particularly in other Dark Reign comics, I think that this “unstable” take is actually working out fairly well.
The biggest problem with this issue is just that it’s pretty insubstantial; it’s obviously little more than a transition.
Btw, despite what I said about not wanting any Obama in my comics, I do agree that the Joint chiefs, or at least SOME representation of real world politicians/political bodies would really serve this event well. Then again, is there really any way at all to make Osborn’s takeover believable? Dark Reign doesn’t bare thinking to hard about on this level, because frankly, it’s impossible.
What you cite as strengths are actually major weaknesses in the story. Aside from all the “talking heads” wasting the page space taken up by the art, Osborn’s dialogue itself is unnatural. Whenever Bendis tries to have someone speak at length in a non-conversational way, whether it’s Osborn, Doom, the Skrulls, or Ultron, the dialogue is stilted and unnatural, and implies that Bendis simply doesn’t know how to match dialogue to various personality types. He’s read too little besides crime fiction.
Involving President (?) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in “Dark Reign” without making them characters undercuts the premise for the event. Selection of Osborn, et al., would have involved considerable debate in the real world; simplifying the political and social reality radically just to enable “Dark Reign” makes the event comparable to a dark version of “Super ‘Friends,” suitable only for children.
The Osborn-Sentry sequence was painful to read, a combination of stilted dialogue and the use of a mentally retarded character who’s manipulated by the writer as he sees fit. Bendis’s Sentry isn’t a functional character and shouldn’t be appearing in print.
SRS