Avengers: Unleashed Vol. 2: Secret Empire

This is a slim trade, aren't they all? But you look online you can get copies cheap enough -full price is waaaay too much for 131 pages (five I will explain further on why I do not include).

It says:

"Collecting Avengers (2016) #7-11.

"Doctor Doom: Avenger?! The impossible is real! Doom has turned to the light side in a fresh suit of armor as the Infamous Iron Man. And now he is about to take Shell-Head's place in the Avengers -or, to hear Victor tell it, they're joining him! But how will Earth's Mightiest Heroes react to one of its greatest villains joining their ranks?"

Someone asked whether I wanted a copy as they were finished with it.  I don't say "no" to free trades.  But I had seen and heard all the stuff about this title online.  I was not too impressed by the first collection: Kang War One which still seems a mess: 

http://hoopercomicart.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/avengers-kang-war-onebeing-brutally.html

I am not a fan of the big gun toting Hercules.  He is the fecking Scion of Olympus and his weapon was a big feckin club -I'll accept the mace Marvel gave him when they started using him. But big gun -no. Can American comic readers not understand a character unless he has a gun?  Seriously.  "Nay, Captain, but tis a worthy foe! My weapons glance off as if I had but the power of a small girl!"  (1) he has ONE weapon. (2) "...I had but the power of a small child!" would be more apt  and (3) it isn't Hercules who "had but the power..." but his weapon.  It seems like a throw-away line for Ms Thor's come-back of her being a "girl" and thrashing him before -(1) she is currently god of thunder (I say nowt) so not a "girl". This was pure awkward and bad writing.

So Dr Doom, the new reformed guy turns up. Then we get the next bit of bad dialogue.  Captain asks where a certain place is that Doom cannot simply walk into.  Doom: "Why waste words when...." Next panel: "...We can simply arrive?"  Is that an Americanism because it is BAD.  "Why waste words telling you....when we can simply go there?" would have been better?

I took a deep breath, sat back and thought "start again".  So I did.  Ignoring those two pieces of dialogue. 

The first story I liked and the new Wasp, Nadia, geeking out over meeting the Dr Doom was well written.  "Avenger X" confused the crap out of me.  This was Cassandra -from the Gatherers??  Looked nothing like her and my mind must be faulty because I cannot recall her absorbing the powers of others....this is her...

I think they mean Cressida.  And this is that character....

See the very 'subtle' difference. 

What the feck do editors get paid for these days?  That mistake should have been spotted straight away (as well as that bad dialogue)?  Oh, Brevoort...Asst. Ed. Smith should have checked as mid-life crisis boy hasn't worked for years.

That writ, I have to say that it wasn't the most original story ever (there are very few of those anywhere!) but the characterisation and dialogue as well as how the villain is dealt with was well done.  

Which brings us to the solo Thor adventure  -why a solo Thor adventure in an issue of The Avengers, the character has her own title, right?   But go with the flow. Again, it is not an original story idea but readers have to realise that comics -like TV shows and movies- only have a certain number of stories and we accept that.  It is how the writer paces and uses that concept that matters and whether it looks and flows well when drawn. Here it was.  I enjoyed it.

What would have been issue #10 had me asking "WTF??" several times. I am guessing that this had something to do with the Secret Empire farce?  It was pointless.   See, in previous trades you would get the issue from the tie-in that explains what is going on.  This story just happened completely out of context with the rest of the book and I can see why I was advised "Don't read the issue 10 story!" I did. Disliked it immensely.

I'll put it this way.  You are reading the hefty Avengers Vs  X-Men trade and suddenly there has been inserted a 1965 Two Gun Kid comic after which it is Avengers Vs X-Men.  No explanation.  Just there.  That is what issue #10 was.  With the Ms Thor story you can read it and assume that Ms Thor had gotten to where she was during another adventure. So it flows. Not #10, though.

With #11 we get the Avengers finding Parker Industries is no more and there HQ in Parker Tower is a ruin.  The dialogue gives you some explanation so you do not have to go trawling the internet to find out "Why?".  Vision discusses immortality and its problems with Hercules and those scenes were quite fun.  The Wasp and Spider-Man scenes and snappy dialogue were excellent and had me smiling.  Cap ...who is now the Falcon again?...telling Ms Thor that he wants her to lead the Avengers had some good scenes and dialogue.

I really did not need the five pages of filler to see how Del Mundo's thumbnails look like splodges.

Apart from #10 this was a very enjoyable read. Bad editorial work (even excluding the dialogue problems and not spotting that the villain was called by the wrong name) since #10 definitely needed some context for someone picking it up to read. I will not be reading it again.  To be honest I cannot see why those You Tubers have literally screamed how totally and utterly and awfully SJW bad this series is. That has to be just to get attention because mummy isn't there for them. #s 7, 8, 9 & 11 were good reads and even the sub-plot of which Avenger Dr. Doom was checking and his reason -good stories.

The art is much, much better -even in #10.  The colour work is vibrant and what I would have liked to have seen as a youngster.  As comic reading veteran of ....uh, a "good while" (1963/64) it made a change from the "no lights on" dark art of a few years back that meant it was a struggle to see what the hell was going on.  This is as it should be: colourfully garbed heroes in light of day fighting the good fight. 

I will not object to Phil Noto's art as there were a couple "odd spots" but over-all it was okay and there was some very nice pages. Del Mundo - you will recall I did not really like his work on this book.  Loved it.  Normally with trades I speed read for review (after 40+ years that is just automatic), then read again paying more attention.  That's it.  Here I read the book a third time.

The main faults seem to be editorial.  The stories are what you would expect from Waid considering how long he has written comics. The art -lovely. I think the criticism proves you should always read-for-yourself and not listen to flamers or internet trolls.  If I enjoyed this something must be right and as I'm in a lot of pain at the moment and niggly as hell if something was bad I'd be screaming it.