Avengers West Coast #102
Issue(s): Avengers West Coast #102
The plot of the issue is a debate about whether or not the West Coast division of Avengers should continue to exist. The argument is inevitably meta, since the team is getting shut down because the book is being canceled. I find the debate to be one-sided and illogical, for reasons i'll get into below, but this too is inevitable for the same reason; the debate has to conclude that the West Coast division should be disbanded since the book is being canceled.
That the debate is a forgone conclusion is a point made in-story as well. Things open with the Vision calling the discussion a "post-mortem on this experimental team". The Vision then describes a series of failings on the part of the West Coast team, including multiple attacks on their compound and the fact that Spider-Woman's daughter was placed in "constant jeopardy".
Scarlet Witch's "your team always gets the gods" comment feels kind of meta. If Roy Thomas or one of the previous writers of this book had written this issue, i'd assume it was an actual grievance about which characters were available to them.
Captain America then criticizes War Machine and USAgent for their actions during Bloodties.
Cap's criticism of War Machine is blood-boilingly insensitive. Where the #@#$ does Cap get off telling a black person how they should react to racism? This is (accidentally) in character for Cap, who made similar comments to Rage in Avengers #342 and who lectured Jewish protestors on how to resist Nazis in Captain America #275. But to tell a black character that they're not Avengers material because they got goaded by race baiting seems particularly ignorant. It's not like you can't go through Avengers issues and find examples of every single character getting goaded for one reason or another (just mention "Bucky" to 1960s era Captain America to watch him turn into a pile of mush). I appreciate Abnett & Lanning trying to find real examples of characters failing on short notice for the purposes of this issue, but what a bad example (and due to the timing, it's more likely that this was coordinated editorially). War Machine doesn't even get a rebuttal. He does quit the team, but due to his ongoing feud with Iron Man, not because of Cap's admonishments.
As i noted in last issue's entry, Hawkeye's seemingly unilateral decision to withdraw the Avengers from the UN charter should have been used here instead. In fact, despite Hawkeye's absence, that could have been the basis for this whole discussion, and it might have made a lot more sense: the leader of the West Coast team making a decision for the whole franchise could have called into question the command chain and caused the Avengers to re-evaluate how the teams should operate.
Iron Man implies that this whole hearing is about the divisions in the Avengers that arose when Iron Man pulled rank on Captain America regarding the slaying of the Supreme Intelligence. Unfortunately that doesn't line up at all with the memberships of the East and West Coast teams and/or how the vote to disband the team goes. The vote is more or less along membership lines. The exceptions are: Crystal, who abstains. Sersi, who breaks with the other East coasters only because she doesn't "want these people cluttering up the mansion". Henry Pym, who as a former Whacko legitimately wants to find a better solution. And Iron Man, who is scheming to form Force Works.
The remaining West Coast Avengers - Scarlet Witch, USAgent, and Spider-Woman - quit after the vote is held. USAgent tosses his shield in the harbor near the Statue of Liberty.
Towards the end of this issue, we see some silhouetted and seemingly Kree troops ("if Hala is willing") monitoring the team's break-up.
In an epilogue, Wonder Man returns to the Avengers West compound, and Iron Man tells them that the team's been disbanded.
An essay on the lettercol page describes the parallel debate that was going on in the editorial office:
The difficult decision to cancel AWC was done for creative considerations. Essentially we had two titles, AWC and THE AVENGERS, operating quite separately from one another and paying little attention to the continuity of the other's story lines and characterizations. In fact, there were times when a roster change in one of the groups was not even alluded to in the sister publication. So what we were ending up with was two separate titles, each developing a solid readership of support, but with no connecting tie to the other "Avengers" book.
I agree that the East and West coast books were often disconnected from a continuity point of view. It's interesting that the solution to that was further separate the books, especially when Marvel had a very successfully model (sales- and continuity-wise) of tight continuity in the two X-Men books.
I don't necessarily agree, however, that the problem between the teams was their agendas, philosophies, or modus operandi. It would have been convenient if the members in favor of killing the Supreme Intelligence all happened to be on one team or the other, but that wasn't the case, and i don't think there are any other real examples of major differences in operating styles. As noted above, Hawkeye's actions with regard to the UN might have been used as an example, and maybe some other things could have been teased out with a careful re-reading of both series. But instead of going that route, what we actually have is a listing of the team's personal failings. The charges don't even feel legit, as noted above about War Machine. And, hey, did the East coast headquarters ever get destroyed? Maybe on at least two very high profile occasions?
But even if the charges were substantial, they don't point to a fundamental reason for disbanding the team. They might have resulted in a change in leadership, and that could have been done with little fuss at the moment since Hawkeye is absent due to Mockingbird's death. The question of power levels could have been addressed as well. Even ignoring the fact that Wonder Man and Iron Man are top-level Avengers in the power department and that Scarlet Witch and USAgent are decent mid-level characters, it should have been easy to redistribute the memberships to balance out the teams. I'm sure Hercules would have been happy to return to the west coast (he spent time there in his early Thor appearances and as a member of the Champions).
It's also a little disappointing that no one really stood up for the team just from a pure location perspective. The team's presence on the West Coast allowed them to deal with a number of threats originating from that area (the Pacific Overlords, for example). The Whackos defend themselves from the various charges leveled against them, but no one defends the existence of the team as a concept.
As noted above, the flaws in the debate stem from the fact that the conclusion was predetermined for meta reasons. The forgone conclusion also sometimes affects the characterization, since people need to argue certain positions based on the plans for the book. But if you can ignore that, and granted that's a very big if, this is actually a nice change of pace for an issue. It's fun to see the characters debating, and the characterization isn't entirely off. And of course this is a fairly momentous issue since it concludes with the disbanding of a team that's been around for a decade.
Quality Rating: D+
Chronological Placement Considerations: Wonder Man is not present at the meeting and it's said that his last known location was Kanem, where he engaged the Hulk. That was in Wonder Man #26-27. Wonder Man then appears at the West Coast compound at the end of this issue. So i have Wonder Man #28-29 taking place concurrently with this issue, and no other Wonder Man appearances in between Wonder Man #27-28. See the Considerations for Wonder Man #26-27 for more.
Continuity Insert? N
My Reprint: N/A
Inbound References (5): show
This was largely an insincere farewell to the West Coast Avengers. It’s a baffling issue - It is basically just a deck clearing exercise but then straight afterwards the same decks are JUST put back down (for example this issue has U.S.Agent retire… except he immediately comes back in Force Works #1). The East Coast Avengers team are written horrifically out-of-character here and for them to toss the whole West Coast team under a bus does ring true and the idea it's Iron Man - who has tossed the team under the bus himself several times over the course of the book - shows up to argue their case is also a lame choice.
This was a landmark moment and an final issue of a long-running series, it was, and should’ve been, a chance to draw in characters to celebrate the 100+ issues of West Coast Avengers. But, again, this just wasn’t a sincere farewell. Hawkeye’s not there, Wonder Man’s not there til the end, Tigra, Wasp, Living Lightning… I think if anything, even Roy would've given them and the book a better farewell. DnA had no attachment or interest beyond their own plans.
Posted by: AF | September 26, 2017 8:53 AM
"You allowed a powerful supervillain to defeat you, because you felt emotions. That is not the trait of an Avenger."
What a dick.
Posted by: Mortificator | September 26, 2017 8:58 AM
It is indeed a very meta issue, which I find impossible to read it without paying attention to the men behind the curtain.
At this point the WCA book had been aimless for years, to the point that its participation in various crossovers actually gave it a purpose. The staff comments in the letters page seem to me to be mistaking (consciously or otherwise) a lack of editorial guidance and vision for a spontaneous drifting of team personalities. The same mistake, I must assume, that made the creation of Force Works possible. It is hard to forget that this happened at the exact time when Marvel was utterly confused about what justifies the existence of a comic book. This is the trailing end of the flooding the market strategy, and Force Works remains a prime example of a book that was created for no apparent reason beyond editorial confusion and hubris, at a time when Marvel was already fracturing into several turfs that did not want to be bothered to learn about other people's projects.
Posted by: Luis Dantas | September 26, 2017 9:19 AM
I've always wondered why Crystal abstained in that vote. Ultimately the reason is "plot", of course. But I've always wanted to know what her in-story reasoning was. It just comes of as incredibly passive aggressive.
Posted by: Brandon | September 26, 2017 9:29 AM
I can't wait for the entry on Force Works #1. The failed cover alone should warrant some interesting comments.
Posted by: clyde | September 26, 2017 9:55 AM
Brandon, I think Crystal abstained because she didn't want to vote against her sister-in-law.
Posted by: Steven | September 26, 2017 12:18 PM
Steven, if that's the case, not voting in her favor is almost as bad.
Posted by: clyde | September 26, 2017 1:29 PM
This is a classic example of characters being written as wildly out-of-character in order to get the plot to move in a specific direction. Unfortunately this sort of "writing" would later become much more prevalent at Marvel in the 21st Century.
It's funny to look back and see the editorial office seriously debating the issue "What does it truly mean to be an Avenger and what bond do these two groups share that enable them both to lay claim to the name Avenger" when nowadays seemingly *everyone* in the Marvel universe is an Avenger, and there's six or seven ongoing Avengers titles.
Posted by: Ben Herman | September 26, 2017 3:01 PM
What does it truly mean to be an Avenger and what bond do these two groups share that enable them both to lay claim to the name Avenger?
The answer is: Whichever book makes the most money is what makes you an Avenger. ;)
Posted by: clyde | September 26, 2017 3:16 PM
@Steven, yeah, I also assumed it had something to do with not wanting to offend Wanda. Like she was in favor of shutting down the Avengers West, but didn't want to deal with people being angry at her. Sort of wishy-washy and passive-aggressive.
Which is actually in line with how Crystal was portrayed over in the main book at the time. I found her very annoying and manipulative in how she led on both Black Knight and Quicksilver simultaneously, while still trying to paint herself as some sort of innocent caught in the middle.
Posted by: Brandon | September 26, 2017 3:19 PM
The way the main team treats them is especially dick-ish when you consider Vison left the west coast branch because he felt the east coasters were under powered. Didn't Hank Pym move back east for the same reason? They really owed it to the west coast team to send a member or two to pay them back.
Plus, *how* many times in (then) recent history had the main team's HQ been completely destroyed? At least the west coast coumpound had only been damaged. It was never destroyed all the way.
Posted by: Brandon | September 26, 2017 3:36 PM
I havent read the issues and theres probably more to it, but I see Cap basically being a good leader, trying to tell a team member not to put his own needs above those of his teammates. It would be an obvious weakness to the team if an Avenger can be "got to" by taunts, ultimately selfish on that team member's part. Any good leader would need to address that, at least. (Ask any member of the military it they could do their own thing rather than follow orders because of some racial taunting. How quickly would things break down.)
As you say, they are all guilty of it at some point. Still doesnt mean it should be excused or explained away because responding to racism is more important that doing your job.
But maybe Im coming at it differently.
Posted by: kveto from prague | September 26, 2017 4:10 PM
Sad end to a title and team that began with so much promise in Stern's limited series. Englehart had some great issues, but most of his run was mediocre. I liked Byrne's run, but I know that it is extremely controversial with lots hating it. The Roy Thomas run was just mediocre despite some good ideas inadequately developed (like giving the team rivals in a Pacific/Asian villain team).
That the West Coast team simply changes names makes the ending even more bizarre.
Posted by: Chris | September 26, 2017 5:59 PM
Kveto, what happened was this- the Avengers are fighting Exodus for the first time so they're unsure of the limits of his powers. Exodus taunts Rhodey about belonging to an inferior race, so Rhodey slams into him like a battering ram. Exodus is unharmed. Worse, it turns out that Exodus can shut down people's minds but they have to be within a couple feet of him, so he shuts down Rhodey's mind. The problem is that Rhodey had no idea how Exodus's powers worked- for all he knew slamming into him would have knocked him out. If Rhodey had been fighting an established villain like Grey Gargoyle or the Absorbing Man, and he responded to racial insults from them by getting close enough for them to touch him and use their powers, then his teammates might have cause to criticize him. But in this situation, slamming into him seemed as good a tactic as any.
Posted by: Michael | September 26, 2017 8:19 PM
It baffles me to this day that the main reason the books were out of sync was never addressed by Marvel's management: that the books were now part of two different editorial offices. They weren't even under the same group editor.
Posted by: Tenzil | September 26, 2017 8:36 PM
"would arise where the West Coast Avengers wanted to do"
Wanted to do what? Please continue, Michael.
Posted by: clyde | September 26, 2017 8:43 PM
...something one way and the East Coast Avengers objected and the Whackos would respond that they have their own way of doing things. That would have been a good way of setting up Force Works. Unfortunately, we saw nothing of the sort during Bloodties.
Posted by: Michael | September 26, 2017 8:46 PM
Michael- thanks for the further info. I do agree with you as the villain was unknown so Rhodey's tactic could have worked, he could have been the big hero. But cap has shown in the past that he doesnt like granstanders, even if they are successful. In Avengers 303, Reed Richards saved the day but Cap got pissed because he hadnt followed the chain of command. Cap is still in his heart military in outlook. While he shouldnt be able to tell a black guy how to react to rascism on his own time, he should be able to tell a subordinate how to react in a team situation. maybe not kick him off the team, but at least point it out because it could be a liability in the future. At least thats the point i was trying to go for. thanks for the response.
Posted by: Kveto | September 27, 2017 2:51 AM
Hawkeye and possibly Wonderman should have been granted a vote. This would have saved the WCA. Of course as you say, the decision was already made up by the editors.
Posted by: Urban Commando | September 27, 2017 4:42 AM
In the first scan with Kree troops, either Abnett & Lanning or the letterer seems to have mixed up the words "quarrel" and "quarry".
Posted by: Tuomas | September 27, 2017 4:43 AM
The really baffling thing to me was that at the time, East Coast team was Captain America, Vision, and the second string, while for the last several years, the West Coast team had consisted of Iron Man, Hank, Jan, Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Wonder Man and (also) the Vision ...pretty much all of the most popular/powerful Avengers of all time. The West Coast had absolutely the better line-up. Marvel definitely should have just shifted the membership around to make them more even instead of cancelling.
Then again without cancelling AWC, maybe we don't get Heroes Reborn, which means we wouldn't have gotten Heroes Return. And Heroes Return avengers by Busiek is one oft he best Avengers runs ever. So maybe this is for the best after all.
Posted by: Jeff | September 27, 2017 5:20 PM
The arguments against the West Coast Branch are interesting because the East Coast team basically gave up entirely on being Avengers (circa 297), had their mansion destroyed because Hercules thought with his dick (277), lost hydrobase because they didn't have proper protections in place, and lost most of Avengers Park for the same reasons. This is a team that had stretches where the only active members were Cap, Gilgamesh, and Thor.
Additionally it completely ignores the argument that Cap made for one team in 305 - which was a notion that was dropped very soon after it was established (and then picked up wherever convenient)- it just seems out of character for the immediate solution to be a total dissolution of the West Coast branch.
The reasons behind the dissolution just didn't ring true to me - now and when I first read it. I never read Forceworks and had to google Moonraker when he was mentioned on this site. I feel like I dodged a bullet, but probably not one much larger than the Roy Thomas issues.
Posted by: Mark Black | September 27, 2017 6:13 PM
I agree with Jeff and Mark Black. AWC actually had a remarkably stable roster compared to the East Coast team in this period. And it was a pretty powerful and well-balanced team, although Spider-Woman and Living Lightning never did completely fit. The main criticism I'd make of AWC was that it prevented the East Coast team from ever feeling like a complete A-list team. The whole original point of Avengers was to bring together the big solo heroes, and that element faded during the AWC period: the East Coast team rarely had both Cap and Thor, whole AWC only had Iron Man, and much of the time a substitute. IM is more interesting with Cap or Thor than Cap and Thor are together: the science/magic contrast with Thor is good, and the friendship-but-clashing-views dynamic with Cap works well. Hawkeye and Cap are best together as well. Hawkeye plus IM just doesn't work: they're both headstrong.
The way the major villains were divided up also made the era seem less-than-great. Ultron stuck to AWC, Kang was mostly East Coast. Instead of one team with a rich rogues' gallery, it was two teams with one top-tier villain apiece and a lot of filler villains.
Of course, canceling AWC to make way for Force Works doesn't solve any of these problems. What the supposed editorial deliberations about the AWC's cancellation don't say is that the busines side was calling the shots at this time and wanted to see other lines grow by adding #1s and x-treme attitudes the way the X-Men line had done
Posted by: Walter Lawson | September 27, 2017 8:48 PM
West Coast Avengers was one of my favorite comics as a kid. Avengers West Coast not so much. I can't really be surprised by how little care was given to it after Byrne when Marvel was actively destroying more important titles around the same time.
Posted by: Robert | September 27, 2017 9:10 PM
The West Coast branch did have remarkable stability for most of its tenure. Hawkeye, Iron Man, and Wonder Man were there fore most of its run, and most of the other members served long time - Mockingbird, Tigra, Henry Pym, USAgent. And those that served for less length were still stalwart Avengers - Vision, Scarlet Witch, and Wasp. Even the hangers on were there for a long time. In contrast, the East Coast team went through a lot of changes especially once Stern left.
Walter made a good point on the villains. West Coast did lack a lot of good villains and interesting plots.
Posted by: Chris | September 27, 2017 10:24 PM
What Michael says about Marvel Age claiming that the Whackos would want to do things one way and the East Coasters would object comes back to fnord's point about the split in Galactic Storm not falling along West/East lines and the missed opportunity of Hawkeye pulling the Avengers out of the UN.
On the entry for AWC #101, fnord wonders if Roy Thomas was trying to "guess at the reasons that will be given in an issue he won't write". This is pure speculation, but Michael's comment makes me wonder if Thomas wasn't "guessing" at all, but that this was actually planned out between him, DnA, and whoever wrote that Marvel Age blurb, but not, apparently, the X-Men writers who had Black Widow pull the Avengers out of their charter, perhaps because Bob Harras wasn't on board with the plan (perhaps Harras didn't like a character from the "other" Avengers book, the one about to be cancelled and the one he didn't write, speaking for the Avengers as a whole, but there wasn't any other way to move the plot forward?), forcing DnA to cobble together some other excuse that didn't make sense. More likely there was a different plan for what would happen that wound up falling through, Thomas tried to salvage the situation the best he could, and Scott Lobdell didn't follow through on that for whatever reason. Regardless, in light of that comment this issue comes off as DnA making the best of a bad situation when something they expected to happen in Bloodties didn't for whatever reason.
Posted by: Morgan Wick | September 28, 2017 1:28 AM
fnord, the Kree at the end re-appear in a bunch of Force Works issues. The main one is Kalum Lo and the other is called Bo'Sun.
Posted by: AF | September 28, 2017 4:49 AM
And I'm surprised nobody has shown up to moan about U.S.Agent being an awful character and the real reason why the West Coast book was cancelled.
I push most the blame on Nel Yomtov as an editor. He has some absolute clunkers, both in terms of story and editing, under his belt. We've already seen his bad practices as an editor in him threatening to fire Roy from the book if he didn't kill Mockingbird (and then fired him anyway) and they'll only get worse from here with Wonder Man in Force Works, Iron Man during The Crossing, Fantastic Force... taking a look, a lot of the comics edited by him are the real runt's of the litter. When editing Avengers West Coast and Darkhawk are the best things you have on your résumé...
Posted by: AF | September 28, 2017 4:59 AM
Mockingbird was killed off, and then Wonder Man. US Agent should have been killed both times. His survival doomed both AWC and Force Works. US Agent drove readers away from both titles.
Posted by: Steven | September 28, 2017 1:06 PM
But that was always the way his character was written - obnoxious, unlikeable, etc. IMO, it wasn't anything new that changed when he joined the Avengers. I think the real problem was that the expansion of the Avengers was a problem from the beginning. Especially considering the reason it was done was because the Vision had ulterior motives. After that, they should have either disbanded right then or re-evaluated what the purpose of the team would be.
Posted by: clyde | September 28, 2017 1:13 PM
Interesting comments on the final issue. I agree that splitting the team into two books did kind of dilute the concept of 'Avenger'. It might have kind of worked if there had been more cross-references and interaction between the two books. There seemed to be some of that early on but not so much later.
I've only read a small amount of WCA/AWC (mostly early Englehart, which I liked, and some of Byrne, which I didn't like mostly because of the way he dismantled the Vision). So recently, out of curiosity, I sort of did a quick skim of almost the entire run, electronically and via back issues. I'll get around to a careful 'full' read eventually.
My initial reaction is that the series did seem to kind of run off the rails at some point. I liked much of Englehart's run but then that whole business with Mockingbird and Night Rider and Hawkeye being incredibly self-righteous about it really bugged me. Then a steady downward spiral, including Byrne's run, which I thought had good art but not so good stories.
I am an Avengers fan so I'll get through this series eventually, but I fear much of it may end up being more of a chore than a pleasure. Hoping I'm wrong.
Posted by: intp | September 28, 2017 1:15 PM
The odd thing about USAgent is that he keeps being treated as if he had a shot at being a protagonist.
There is one history to tell with him. And it was told in Frank Miller's "Daredevil: Born Again" with Nuke. And it wasn't that good even there.
Posted by: Luis Dantas | September 28, 2017 6:22 PM
I do agree that USAgent's tenure as one of the Avengers was too long. I actually think Byrne handled him well, but he served a particular plot point. That plot point has to end with USAgent leaving the Avengers at some point. He should have left long before this.
I do think there is a role for USAgent and similar characters. Often a story requires an antagonist that isn't quite the enemy, and often that can be when the government wants something done that doesn't match the motives of the published characters. Characters like USAgent, Bullet, and other heavies associated the government serve that kind of role. In fact, it would have been nice to see a new "Freedom Force" made up of such characters (including more sympathetic characters previously associated with the government - and the old team - like Spider-Woman, Crimson Commando, Battlestar, heroes associated with Project: PEGASUS like Blue Shield, maybe an Iron Monger or Firepower). One can probably construct a team comprised of various powers and motivations that can be allies or enemies as needed.
Posted by: Chris | September 28, 2017 7:32 PM
By this point, USAgent was exactly what higher-ups trying to turn every book into an "extreme" "no-nonsense" "violent" X-Force clone loved. His transition to becoming part of some sort of project resembling Force Works was more or less inevitable. Of course, Gruenwald originally created him as the replacement Cap as a commentary on that sort of "grim and gritty" hero.
Posted by: Morgan Wick | September 28, 2017 7:59 PM
U.S.Agent is a perfectly viable character and earned his stripes as an Avenger. His tenure with the team (and frequent returns) amounts to more time spent as a member than Monica Rambeau(!) and although everyone thinks of him as a dick who doesn't play well and struggled with following orders - he actually grew into being a legitimate member and started to tackle those problems. He never outright betrayed or dishonoured the team to the unapologetic levels of Doctor Druid or (ugh) Quicksilver. He was often a butthead but when it comes down to it, he was a dependable backbone for the West Coast team. Once he started making friends with them, and sometimes even before that, he was one of their heavy hitters and was more than willing to save the world at the expense of his own life. He was never particularly "grim or gritty" by comparison to the other characters that that is generally applied to and I don't think U.S.Agent ever was attempting to pander or grab sales (beyond sales to people who actually liked the character).
I think U.S.Agent by the end was acting as a better team-mate, being more considerate and even more moral than Sersi was being depicted in the other book (and Harras had been making it clear Sersi wasn't very nice even before the "insanity clause" kicked in).
Posted by: AF | September 29, 2017 4:18 AM
I've listed the Kree. Thanks AF.
Posted by: fnord12 | September 29, 2017 11:51 AM
I definitely have to agree with AF. He was brought in as a belligerent character and then got bounced. But once the team brought him back onboard during the Pacific Overlords storyline he became a valuable member of the team. He was still a foil for them, personality wise, but far less of one than a lot of characters over the years and certainly earned his place.
Posted by: Erik Beck | September 29, 2017 5:36 PM
We will have to agree to disagree. Whoever you are describing, it is not the USAgent. Making him a member in any capacity was never anything but a mistake.
Posted by: Luis Dantas | September 30, 2017 2:58 AM
I liked the inclusion of USAgent on the team because it give the team a character/member who was believably at odds with them, but whose intentions weren't entirely terrible. This seemed more the case under Byrne, but the USAgent limited series gets this right too and even Roy Thomas made him a reluctant team player.
There was never much believable conflict within the West Coast team. Simon's pining for Wanda was overdone and poorly written, the Phantom Rider storyline that created a schism in the team just made Hawkeye look like an ass (at best), and the Vision Quest storyline - while it had its moments - seemed a little out of nowhere, especially Bobbi's participation in it. USAgent and Quicksilver to an extent gave the book characters who had axes to grind, who came off as believable and somewhat useful. I kind of liked that USAgent gave us a character who wasn't entirely enamoured with the members of the West Coast team and was able to point out the b.s. and weirdness - even if it was sometimes comedically exaggerated.
I'm not saying he's a great character, but I do think the provides some much needed and believable conflict to the team.
Posted by: Mark Black | September 30, 2017 5:00 PM
@Kveto - I still don't see where Rhodey did anything wrong. He was pissed, but he was going to tackle the guy anyways. Chastising him for being mad at the racism wasn't just offensive, it made no sense. If the Scarlet Witch was all "how dare you!" and hexed a bad guy for making a sexist pass at her, and she got blamed for reacting with anger, that would be the same thing since she didn't do anything that she wasn't going to do anyways - mad or not.
Posted by: Jonathan | October 3, 2017 7:37 AM
Well, he might or might not have tackled the guy but either decision would have been a legitimate tactical decision at the moment. Rhodey can't be expected to clear every little decision in the heat of battle with Cap "Should I punch him in the face?" "Should I zap him with my repulsors?" The difference between this and Reed's plan in issue 303 was that Reed's plan required him and Quasar to leave the battle and fly to another city- something he should have cleared with Cap.
Posted by: Michael | October 3, 2017 8:18 AM
Did they ever explain where Wanda got her trashy new costume from?
Posted by: Jon Dubya | November 21, 2017 4:48 PM
She and John Byrne ordered it together, out of his back issue collection of "Victoria's Secret?"
Posted by: Holt | November 21, 2017 8:13 PM
We first saw Wanda's new costume in Marvel Comics Presents 143. Wanda asks Jan if it's too revealing and Jan comments on how little it leaves to the imagination.
Posted by: Michael | November 21, 2017 8:33 PM
Her newer outfits make her old status-quo outfit look demure by comparison. Her fashion sense and personality change seem to go back to right around AWC #55, and sometime around the end of "Acts of Vengeance." I have to admit I sort of miss the old more demure status quo Wanda, but her costume then was actually pretty racy in its own right, for the times, back in 1963, which is right around when it first appeared in its proto-Kirby form. It got a tiny bit slinkier in later years, but was pretty stable for decades once it was "crystallized."
Posted by: Holt | November 21, 2017 8:43 PM
I always liked Wanda and had a little comic book crush on her and really hated the 90's changes they did to her costume and characterwise.
Posted by: Multiple Manu | December 1, 2017 10:20 AM
Comments are now closed.
|SuperMegaMonkey home | Comics Chronology home|