I can't remember what interview it was, but I'm pretty sure it was well before the Mighty Avengers book was even announced.

It's unclear exactly why - seems like some combination of the "Superman in the JLA" problem (too powerful to challenge?), "they have their own titles," and/or Stan's belief that the ideal size for a superhero team was four. Roy Thomas kept *trying* to use the "Big Three," but wasn't able to do so regularly until Stan wasn't actively editing anymore.

One of them is about a group of government agents who fight crime in the state of New York and sleep with each other. The other is about Luke Cage and his Amazing Friends fighting ninjas.

While both of these titles might not be traditional Avengers stories I don't see anything wrong with Luke Cage and his Amazing Friends fighting ninjas, Sweet Christmas!

Yeah, I agree. I'm quite fond of Black Knight, Mantis, Swordsman, Black Widow, Crystal, Thunderstrike, Century... okay, he was on Force Works, but it's close enough for me.

On the one hand, yeah, most of the characters Bendis is using in the Avengers titles nowadays just don't really seem like "real" Avengers to me (but I'm thrilled he added Spider-Woman to the team). On the other hand, fifteen years from now, when whoever is writing the series at that point brings in a bunch of new characters, at least some readers are going to be saying stuff along the lines of "These guys don't feel like real Avengers, not like Luke Cage and Spider-Man and Doctor Strange and Ares did. I miss those guys, and want them back."

Besides, considering I really liked Deathcry on the book, while most other Avengers fans hate her with a passion, I can't really start making smart-alec remarks about readers who like that Bendis had Echo join the team

Not a bad strategy, when you're planning to massively overhaul the tone and direction of your entire line. I mean you'd be stupid not to warn everyone there's going to be a little turbulence ahead, even if only so you can reassure them that it'll all be okay in the end. If you think about it, Marvel and DC are taking substantial risks with their huge never-ending mega-maximum crossover strategies...what if it all sucks? If it all goes like they hope then they'll bump up their bottom line in a big way, but if it falls apart they'll have mired practically all their books in a years-long story that people don't want to read. If it were me, I'd be putting as much spin on that situation as I could...and I would definitely be intending people to understand that everything, everything, has been thought out very responsibly years in advance, and that the roadmap's being adhered to, and nobody's being a cowboy.

Anyway, that's what I'm getting from them. But, as a side note, I actually don't think most of the stories are very good.

As for the Avengers thing: yes, if someone appears in a book with "Avengers" in the title as a member of a team that calls itself the Avengers, they are, technically an Avenger, if that's how you define "Avenger." But what about the Young Avengers? And the Great Lakes Avengers? Some people would say "of course they're Avengers" (making Iron Lad an Avenger, making Kang an Avenger, but that's not really pertinent, just amusing). But the "official" Avengers would disagree. It reminds me of the status of the Thing towards the beginning of the run of the old West Coast Avengers series. He was on a leave of absence from the FF, went on several adventures with the WCA, and Hawkeye was constantly trying to convince him to join. But he never accepted membership and never drew a paycheck. At the time, all the readers considered him a member, and he even appeared on the team roster in an Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe entry for the team, but nowadays no one considers him an "official" Avenger.

Comics in general have a long, proud tradition of characters who may-or-may-not-be members of various teams: Captain Britian and Meggan with the X-Men, Red Tornado with Young Justice, Ratman with the Elementals, Caledonia with the Fantastic Four, Bird Boy and Gossamyr with the New Mutants, Silverclaw with the Avengers. Some were members in all but name, others just tagalongs or supporting cast that happened to have powers, but there was always some criteria by which the charactes in the book didn't consider them "real" members of the team.

By the same logic, if the people SHIELD and the government and the general populace of the Marvel Universe consider the "real" Avengers insist the New Avengers aren't Avengers, and the New Avengers don't get paid or carry Avengers Priority cards or have a copy of the Avengers Charter hanging on the wall of their headquarters, it's not too big a stretch of logic to say that the New Avengers are wannabes, or posers, or pretenders to the throne, or whatever term you prefer. For that matter, isn't the group of pretenders claiming they're "the REAL (name of the title team here)" while the regular cast stare in bemusement a comics staple? It's happened to the X-Men several times. The wannabes just don't usually get their own book.

Or, to use the baseball analogy, if the Mets decided to change their name to the "New Yankees," would you expect Classic Yankees fans to root for them?

Even well thought out plans can change especially if they don't work out. But again who cares? If it's good it's good. If it isn't it isn't.

Either way Dan Didio's or Brian Michael Bendis idea of a well thought out plan could be different from yours. It could be simply various plot points they want to hit in the next couple of years.

Let them hang (or be set free!) by their own words. THEY never have said "oh, this is like Battlestar Galactica"...,rather, they've said "every step of this is according to a well-thought-out plan". Let them hazard the dice they roll.

Sorry couldn't post the rest of your post.

I can buy that some things are planned in advance. I don't see how Civil War alters the basic concept of Secret Invasion.

Either way the Skrull thing makes sense so far. So I buy the fact it was there from the beginning. I don't know how much it changed the story but Civil War actually makes the Skrull subplot more interesting to me. The two opposing Avengers teams and the lack of Cap raises the stakes. So maybe it's for the better.

I think fans kind of over analyze the concept of planning when it comes to serialized fiction. There's isn't a detailed point by point blueprint. There's going to be changes along to way. There's stuff the tv shows like Battlestar Galactica and Lost that was planned from the beginning. And there's stuff they made up at the last minute. It's the way it goes.

Anyways you don't know and does it even matter if it was planned from the beginning. Lot of people loved Sinestro Corps. Does it matter if DC had it planned since 2002 or came up with a few months before? If the story is good who really cares?

The Hood story probably takes place before OMD.

Zeb Wells and Chris Bachalo's story features the Avengers in issues 555-557. So I say yes. I think Bendis is doing a Spider-man spotlight New Avengers issue during Secret Invasion.

Great analogy, I must say, and a good lead-in for next year's summer crossover event: Which Avenger is on Steroids?!?! Guest-starring George Steinbrenner going head-to-head with Tony Stark in a boardroom brawl, whilst on the field Roger Clemens battles the Mighty and New Avengers as the new Ultron. We'll get to see another Suydam zombie homage, this time the cover of Green Lantern/Green Arrow with Speedy shooting up.

For something a little different, check out the "Second Chance Squad" on http://6gp.blogspot.com

Rich