I'm usually consuming the cartoons half of the comics and cartoons label and so i'm wondering what about bendis makes...

Attached: Sitting 2.jpg (1200x1845, 933.11K)

Attached: Sitting 3.jpg (1200x1845, 859.71K)

Attached: bendis.jpg (1981x1421, 663.27K)

Attached: Sitting 4.jpg (1200x1845, 873.78K)

Attached: Sitting 5.jpg (1200x1845, 760.57K)

He used to be one of the biggest examples of how everyone took the wrong point from Watchmen; just shoving violence and misery everywhere because that's what's "realistic". And they just kept giving him more and more high profile work, and he would carelessly kill off characters that other writers were using, or just take them and write them completely wrong because he did zero research.

He's like the insufferable ascended fanboy Byrne-esque writer, but tempered with the sheer ego and cynical contempt of the British Invasion writer. He was instrumental in leading comics to where they are now.

Now, things have changed quite a bit in the last ten years, since he realized that movies were where all the money is and decided to desperately try to get himself close to that side of things.
His comics are now written robotically and formulaicly. He's only interested in creating and putting his spin on as many characters as humanly possible so he can have an in on any movie or TV adaptations.
That's what's most frustrating about him nowadays; he's treating DC like his personal buffet and forcing other people to either go for the less appealing dishes or clean his filthy plate for him. All these people who have just been itching for years to write for Young Justice, Legion of Super-Heroes, and tons of others, and he just casually grabs them all up while he's ALREADY DOING LITERALLY BOTH OF DC'S MAIN SUPERMAN BOOKS. It's unbelievably selfish and transparent.

Attached: Byrne, Bendis, and the Scarlet Witch.png (1173x513, 57.53K)

His writing. It’s awful. He has his characters repeat redundant information even after been given to us. Case in point: This is only made worse my the fact that many people pass his writing off as “realistic”, despite being very much the opposite.

The page in and is a parody, though. I know there's other pages of actual Bendis speak that are similar

>He was a good writer that got too much power
shoehorning Spider-Man and sniktbub onto the Avengers does not make one a good writer, neither does rehashing previous work with your own super special OCs involved

Basically this, plus he kept trying to replace established Marvel characters with OCs that were self-inserts for his adopted children.

This went far beyond Bendis, and involved Quesada, Brevoort and X-Men editorial collectively using Wanda as a plot device to fix the X-Men status quo, but in a way that left her demonized by X-Men writers and fans forever.
They let the X-books continue to demonize her for over 5 years before trying to retcon the story so they could ever use her again, and didn't fully commit to it, leaving it ambiguous enough that X-fags could just deny it.

If Whedon hadn't wanted her in the MCU, she may never have come back, and it still took years for people to move on. Then Hickman started it all up again. Thanks Hickman.

Reminder that Brevoort had been editor of Avengers since 1997, and was completely unaware how much Avengers readers loved Wanda, or how angry they'd be about Disassembled and House of M. While Bendis kept trolling those fans for years afterwards, Brevoort never ever understood. When an issue of Remender's Uncanny Avengers killed Wanda, Rogue and Wonderman, Brevoort couldn't understand why readers were so hurt and angry about Wanda and Rogue dying, but didn't seem to care about Wonderman.

He's not a good writer.

>Reminder that Brevoort had been editor of Avengers since 1997, and was completely unaware how much Avengers readers loved Wanda, or how angry they'd be about Disassembled and House of M. While Bendis kept trolling those fans for years afterwards, Brevoort never ever understood. When an issue of Remender's Uncanny Avengers killed Wanda, Rogue and Wonderman, Brevoort couldn't understand why readers were so hurt and angry about Wanda and Rogue dying, but didn't seem to care about Wonderman.

I always wondered if Brevoort is the reason for what happened with Scarlet Witch over the last two decades.

Brevoort's rationale is that controversy creates cash

Man, Secret Empire really fucked that theory up

benis

Badly imitates Aaron Sorkin and David Mamet to add a veneer of “adult” to his work, purely surface level
His only innovation is bringing that to comics, and the only reason he did it first is because comics really doesn’t lend itself to that at all and writers who are smart understood why it would be a bad idea and just insufferable to plow through

>Bendis thread

google.com/amp/s/www.jta.org/2013/02/10/culture/meet-brian-bendis-the-man-who-killed-spiderman/amp
>Raised by a single mother in Cleveland, Bendis attended an Orthodox day school and discovered comic books as an adolescent.
>“I studied them like the Torah,” he said. “I memorized the ads. At 5, I literally stood on the sofa and said ‘I will be the artist on Spiderman.’ ”
>Like others drawn to stories of caped crusaders and mega-muscled heroes, Bendis was searching for a stand-in for his absentee father. Stan Lee, the Jewish co-creator of Spiderman and other comic book heroes, became something of a father figure for him.
>But the rabbis who taught him as a child weren’t too fond of Bendis’ hobby, fearing that his penchant for drawing men in tights indicated he might be gay.
>“I would just start drawing without thinking and [suddenly] it’s a bunch of naked guys and I’d get sent home,” Bendis said.
>and [suddenly] it’s a bunch of naked guys
>[suddenly] it’s a bunch of naked guys
>suddenly naked guys
>suddenly

>implying he didn’t get free reign because he’s part of the tribe

>I always wondered if Brevoort is the reason for what happened with Scarlet Witch over the last two decades.
It's difficult to tell if he actually dislikes her, or managed to be the editor of Avengers for a long time without noticing that Avengers fans like her, and like Bendis and Quesada, was convinced nobody cared about her.
Most of what happened to her with Disassembled and House of M probably started with Bendis wanting to revisit Byrne's Avengers and Quesada wanting to fix the X-books, then the X-Men writers got to spend years demonizing her. The one thing Brevoort seems to have a part in is Marvel fighting MCU synergy with Wanda and Vision, and keeping them apart. Geoff Johns wanted them together, and literally as soon as Johns was gone, Marvel ignored what he'd done and Brevoort let Priest start a Cap/Wanda story in his Captain America & Falcon book, then Disassembled happened.

>Brevoort's rationale is that controversy creates cash
He believes angry fans buy more of Marvel's comics. The success of events like Civil War, World War Hulk and AvX that pitted heroes against each other and also fans against each other seemed to prove him right for a time, but eventually it stopped working. When you make people too angry all of the time eventually they just stop caring and move on to something else. But years before they were doing this with events, Brevoort's first effort at making readers angry was with the Wanda/Wonderman ship in 1998 Avengers being deliberately intended to make fans angry.

X-Men vs Inhumans, Civil War II and Secret Empire all happened within a 2 year period, and most Marvel events have been underperforming since that time.

the trainwrech effect has limits