Comics Creators

DC Comics - The Rebirth is Here


The Bendis Star-Lord happened before the movie.

I do remember the…Miller rehash. A good rehash, but it was the same basic story. I read the tail-end of it and then the Brubaker run, but that was very obviously trading on familiar territory. Never quite figured out why fans didn’t seem to care.


DD’s identity being public knowledge and Matt Murdock winding up in prison is not even close to a Miller rehash.


He’d been doing his version of Luke Cage quite a while before Avengers, in both Alias and Daredevil.

As someone who was reading his books around that time, I remember the buzz around him for Alias, Daredevil and Ultimate Spider-Man. Those books really made his name for a wide audience I think.

When he took over the Avengers there was a lot of fanfare, but I feel as though “Disassembled” and his run on New Avengers was the first time readers started to see chinks in his armour, with his style not suiting big epic team books as well as it suited the more personal, street-level/crime-oriented ones.

His recent Jessica Jones was a great return to that kind of thing, my favourite thing he’s done in years.


I agree totally. Bendis needs the tight focus on individual characters to do his best work. I found all of his team books lacking, if I’m honest. With the exception of Defenders. Which I loved, but there he benefitted from years of working with these characters elsewhere, amazing artwork, and frankly it was too short a run for it to get annoying.


I don’t think you’re alone, many people think Bendis lost his touch someway through the Avengers. Tony is right they did sell very well but I think he returned to form in his last year or so at Marvel, working with solo characters or primarily ones he crated or held dear.

If I had to list my favourite Bendis work none of it is going to be on the team books (Avengers/X-Men/Guardians).


But that’s kind of the point where you know there were new readers checking out his stuff. This inevitably happens when people are checking out hyped talent and/or material. They want to see whether or not it lives up to it. That’s also when the caricature of Bendis’s approach to dialogue came about. No surprise, right? It’s like JJ Abrams and lens flares. Longtime Abrams fans knew his biggest signature was the Big Red Ball, but the casual observers fixated on lens flares, and that’s what you still hear about.

@Monk, the idea of putting Matt Murdock through the wringer, compromising his secret identity, it’s the same thing. Snyder was doing the same thing, a “Knightfall” template, as early as his Court of Owls. I’m not saying that the resulting material isn’t good, but that in others contexts (such as the Star Wars sequels), fans loudly hate that sort of thing.


In such broad terms, though, that kind of thing is the bread-and-butter of superhero comics in general.

Bendis definitely drew on Miller for some of the tone of his run, and paid homage to some classic Miller stories at times. Working on DD I think it’s impossible to get out from under Miller’s shadow altogether, no matter who you are.

But overall I think Bendis’ style is different enough and his stories original enough for his run to stand as much more than a mere Miller imitation.


I don’t mean to bog down this conversation. It’s my impression that the stories themselves are similar enough where obvious comparisons can be made. Miller set a new standard and template for Daredevil. If nothing else he made the character into the same hounded archetype as Spider-Man or the X-Men. Honestly, this is the first time I’ve thought of it in those terms. It was also my thought that Miller used Daredevil as a kind of testing ground for his later Batman stories. Daredevil was a character you could do anything with, because at that point he wasn’t important enough for Marvel to protect. Now of course because of stories like that every major character has a crisis of that magnitude…every other month. Especially at Marvel.


I don’t think it’s bogging it down, I agree that there are similarities but I think you read enough superhero comics and you see those kinds of broad parallels in a lot of ways, even in very different stories.

For me, Bendis really got into Matt’s head in a way that few writers ever have, even more so than Miller. You really ‘saw’ the world from his perspective, which meant that when he had his moments of realisation that he was acting badly you really felt the fall of the character. I remember being thrilled by those issues even when it wasn’t ‘big’ stuff happening, just Matt wrestling with his conscience over his lying to the press or his deciding to become Kingpin.


That’s definitely one of Bendis’s strengths, and why he and Johns were always thought in parallel to each other, as the guys who were for their respective companies opening up new possibilities for well-established characters.



So that’s just the 75th anniversary short, but at the end they’ve changed it to eighty years.
Good work.


I think Johns is a lot better than Bendis at large scale worldbuilding and creating “fanboy moments” though.


I would agree. But they were also following classic company templates. Marvel revels in smashing things together, DC in exploring what new combinations look like.



Yeah. Bendis based his Guardians on the Abnetting/Lanning team. Anyone who’s read that material knows the style was already there. Marvel decided to capitalize on the cult following of that run, and Bendis put a huge spotlight on Star-Lord in the run-up to Marvel Now! I don’t know when, but at some point the Guardians were chosen to join the MCU, and the rest is history. That decision might have been based on Abnett/Lanning, and it might have been based on Bendis. Timeline-wise, the Bendis Guardians existed before the movie, but the movie convinced Marvel to put an even bigger spotlight on them, including a slew of spinoffs.


It wasn’t based on Bendis. Bendis’s run didn’t even start until they were in production on the movie. Also, everyone involved has always said it was based on the DnA run.


I’m not saying “based on” as in based on the material, but “based on” as in the fact that Bendis took on the material, or had agreed to, and suddenly the Guardians looked cinema-ready. Bendis has a remarkable adaptation record. As much as the tone of the Abnett/Lanning Guardians was retained, their Guardians were embroiled in a story that featured them, rather than being about them. Bendis is most famous for putting his characters front-and-center. The Guardians of the movies are undeniably front-and-center.


I think Paul’s right, all the movie stuff happened way before Bendis was involved. I don’t think he influenced the movie much, if at all - I think it was more a case of getting a big-name creative team on a book that was going to be getting more attention because the movie was on the way.

(And Bendis’ take on the team didn’t even end up feeling like it had much in common with the movie version anyway.)