4) What is your favorite Avengers adaptation outside the comics? Least favorite?
Nick: I think we’d all agree the worst has to be that late ’90s cartoon, right? I mean, Hank Pym as the lead character wasn’t wowing anyone. That was a dark period for Marvel’s animated efforts, with that awful show, Iron Man, Hulk, Fantastic Four and Spider-Man Unlimited all running in the same four or five-year span.
For best, however, there are several options. The Marvel Cinematic Universe goes without saying. The Marvel: Ultimate Alliance videogame was also a great effort and probably the best digital interpretation of the team. But, the one I’ll give the nod to is the animated series Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes. DC’s Justice League series was an amazing accomplishment in terms of creating a show that seemed to take place in a universe as big as the one in the comics. Well, I’ve long said that EMH was the closest Marvel has ever come to replicating that sense of size and scope. Not only does the show feel far-reaching, it also gives us some pretty good versions of Cap, Iron Man, Thor, Black Widow and Hawkeye. The show’s Hulk I can take or leave, but I can’t knock the show too much for featuring a version of a character I don’t care for. The only real knock I have on the show is how short lived it was. Jeph Loeb working at Marvel has been a disaster from my viewpoint on almost every level, but the cancellation of EMH on his watch was one of the most frustrating occurrences. The show could have lasted for years and created in-depth storytelling the likes of which superhero animation had never seen. But, instead, we’ve been given the far inferior “Avengers Assemble” as a replacement. Wonderful.
Greg: The 2012 Joss Whedon-directed film and its sequel stand as two of the greatest superhero movies ever made, loving homages to comics as both a medium and a culture. While I love both for different reasons, I’d have to go with the first film as the crowning achievement of Marvel on the big screen thus far. However, I also loved how “Age of Ultron” added in classic characters like the Scarlet Witch and Vision and made me care about them as if they’d been part of the MCU all along.
I honestly haven’t seen many bad Avengers adaptations, having avoided the ’90s cartoon, so I’ll have to go with “Avengers Assemble” as my least favorite. The dialogue is wretched, the characterizations are paper-thin and the uniqueness of EMH is completely gone.
Todd: I think the first Avengers film is terrific, and holds up very well even three years later. Joss Whedon was able to convey the excellent chemistry of the “core three” from the comics onto the big screen in a way that established the Marvel Cinematic Universe as something that would endure.
Even though I’m a fan of the Mark Millar/Bryan Hitch “Ultimates Vol. 1” series it’s based on, the animated “Ultimate Avengers” is fairly weak and lacks heart.
Tim: I am notoriously hard to please, arguably overly-critical, and occasionally outright contrary in my opinions towards most things. Especially so when it comes to comics in other media. My fannish lack of objectivity makes me more sensitive to any perceived transgressions than more forgiving. So when I bought my ticket for the first film, I was anticipating a faithful, but ultimately flawed adaptation. I walked out of the theater with nothing, seriously, NOTHING, to pick apart. This never happens. Even after repeated viewings, scrutinizing every minor detail, my initial conclusion was only reinforced. I couldn’t believe it. They’d done it, they’d actually fulfilled my every whim in a superhero movie.
THE AVENGERS is, of course, imperfect in little ways that plenty of movies generally are. But as an adaptation of a beloved comic, it gets everything right. I’ve yet to hear an argument that’s disavowed me of this notion. It’s truly the pinnacle of the genre, conveying a rare magic that is impossible to recreate. There’s a part of me that never wanted to see another superhero movie again because the bar had been set too high. Subsequent efforts could only pale in comparison, so why not pack it in and go out on a high note. And I still feel that way sometimes.
I’m sure my gushing sentimentality is bound to be sickeningly sweet, but understand that I just don’t heap this kind of praise. The times I feel so passionately towards any piece of entertainment are scarce, so that first film is an extraordinary outlier. Not that we should ever need approval from the masses to justify our fringe interests, but I will forever hold it up as validation for all the time, money, and energy I had invested in these characters over my lifetime. It’s in a class by itself. Oh, and THE AVENGERS: EARTH’S MIGHTIEST HEROES! animated series wasn’t half-bad either. What I’ve seen of it was certainly …preferable… to what followed (which is really an apples to oranges comparison). Definitely taken from us too soon.
I couldn’t stand it, but I really hope someone fondly recalls the 1999 Avengers-meets-Power-Rangers cartoon, AVENGERS: UNITED THEY STAND. From the dark, latter days of Fox-branded Marvel animation. Just for the sake of variety.
Russell: Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes from Disney XD was great! It was a fantastic adaptation of so many excellent story arcs from the team’s history. I loved how accessible it was for just about anyone. Avengers Assemble, also from Disney XD, is pretty much a condescending train wreck of a show that treats kids like they’re idiots. Kind of makes you wonder why they abandoned the much better show in favor of it.
5) The Avengers concept is often seen as a direct parallel to DC’s Justice League. Do you agree with this interpretation, or should the teams be presented in different ways?
Nick: I’ve touched on this a bit before, but I’ll restate briefly. While the two concepts are undoubtedly similar, there should be some differences. I want to see the Avengers working as a team. I want to see each character finding a role to play and figuring out how they all fit together. I want to get the impression that the characters who make up the Avengers are actually a unified team when conflict begins. The Justice League, meanwhile, is where I want to see the seven or eight most popular characters in the DC Universe come together, regardless of how similar their power sets or personalities may be (Superman and Captain Mar… I mean Shazam, for example).
Greg: On the surface, I agree. After all, it wasn’t fans who came up with the monicker “Earth’s Mightiest Heroes.” That tagline seems to indicate the biggest and best of Marvel’s superhero lineup, much like the Justice League indicates the heaviest hitters in DC’s pantheon. But the history of Marvel’s team doesn’t exactly fit that narrative, as seemingly every Avengers team had at least one or two less-popular members or outliers with … questionable powers. Ultimately, I do feel the main Avengers title should include a good number of Marvel’s biggest (popularity-wise) guns: some combination of Cap, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, maybe even Spider-Man. But, unlike the Justice League, it should also include characters that fit specific roles on the team: The Magician, The Thinker, The Technician, The Spy, whatever. Of course, in the end, both comic book companies have tried opposite approaches and succeeded with them on their books (Justice League International, New Avengers, etc.), so maybe there’s no one hard, fast rule.
Todd: It’s a different deal. For most of its run, The Justice League has been more about the most popular icons of the DCU uniting as a team, but Avengers has usually been about presenting a team with the most chemistry … that is, until Spidey and Wolverine suddenly became Avengers, and then it was basically just like the JL for a while. Avengers should be about how the team is greater than the sum of its parts, while Justice League is more about the larger-than life battles of the “Greek Pantheon” (even though Thor is a god himself).
Tim: Factually speaking, both teams were conceived with the same premise in mind: throw all your highest-profile characters together in one series and sell copies by the truckload. For DC, that meant Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Lantern, and so on. For Marvel? Well, they had Iron Man, the Hulk, Thor, umm Ant-Man, and… the Wasp..? That was kind of it as far as the headliners of their day. Notably absent is Spider-Man, but we can chalk that up to a “fit issue” of which Stan Lee was keenly aware. The same problem emerged almost immediately with the Hulk, and he was swiftly swapped out for Captain America (who had been out of circulation for a decade).
Superficial similarities in the membership composition of DC’s Justice League and Marvel’s Avengers very quickly fell away as each “family” of characters came to embody the difference in philosophies of the parent companies. Marvel didn’t really do iconic solo heroes the same way as DC. Their major characters were largely defined by a baked-in association with one of the many disparate teams of the Marvel Universe, or by their LACK of such an association. A great many of Marvel’s most popular characters fit the loner or street-level mold (or both). Consequently, the Avengers came to be populated by characters not nearly bankable enough to headline titles on their own, but perfectly at home in a team setting as lifelong supporting players. It’s just what made the most sense in staying true to Marvel’s characters.
So when NEW AVENGERS happened in 2004, it kind of broke the storytelling engine for me. It was now lifting not just the idea, but the approach popularized by DC, of folding all the most recognizable characters under one banner. Captain America, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Wolverine… fundamentally, these guys do NOT mix well. It seems like the natural conclusion to any story that does try to test the waters. Creatively, it’s good for a short-term gimmick or in-joke (remember “New Fantastic Four”?), but not for the long haul.
And hey, I get it. Characters evolve and no company should be beholden to doing something because that’s the way it’s always been done. More importantly, you have to follow the money. Still, hasn’t it always been touted that one of the contrasts between the Big Two publishers is their attitude towards the nature of heroism, and how the characters interact with one another (not to mention the world they inhabit)? NEW AVENGERS felt like a forced, poor man’s imitation of DC’s “spirit of cooperation” amongst its heroes. I put it down as decidedly not for me and was relieved by the move away from this model a few years ago. (To be fair, the era began so long ago and was so enduring that these concerns are likely lost on all but the curmudgeons like me. I won’t begrudge anyone for enjoying NEW AVENGERS – look no further than its sales figures to conclude that my tastes are clearly in the minority. Considering the way “my” Avengers was endlessly mocked and reviled as a testament to ‘90s speculator excess, I cannot in good conscience visit the same judgment on younger/newer fans today.)
At the end of the day, both teams should be looked to as the varsity squad of their respective universe. But that ought to intrinsically mean different things to the two different companies.
Russell: The teams are very similar in a lot of ways. They have their differences, sure, but the parallels are undeniable. I don’t see anything wrong with both companies having similar sets of teams.
