Jonathan Hickman

[JKtheMac]

Not sure how this will read as a novel, given the way it acts as part of the developing story rather than as a stand alone tale. I wonder if it will be changed up a bit.

[charliehustle415]

Huge fan of his Avengers/New Avengers/Secret Wars epic, all of which I read in trade last year. I can see how it would have been too much in monthly format, with its tangled web and super-slow-burn pacing and cerebral Big Ideas, but binged in a couple months, it was overwhelming in the best way. I rarely see it discussed from this angle, but his Illuminati storyline was one of the best deconstructions/critiques of the superhero myth that I've seen. In fact, I find myself not really wanting to read any Avengers that came after, because the team was so thoroughly deconstructed by Hickman. I mean, Iron Man basically ends up as a villain.

I also love The Black Monday Murders, his recent occult/financial thriller for Image. Delving into his other major work is on my short list, especially Fantastic Four and East of West.

I had no idea Hickman was actually at work on an upcoming Marvel book. Tentatively exciting news... honestly, I'll give anything he writes a shot. I'm surprised nothing seems to have leaked out or been teased about this, at least judging from a quick online search.

I completely agree, after Hickman's Avengers run all other's feel so mundane and low stakes. I mean UNIVERSES ended under Hickman, and what we got after was Kang? Avengers No Surrender? Secret Empire?

Hickman did so much, he redeemed Thor, brought in obscure heroes and brought them to the forefront. Even Aaron's run so far seems to only be a companion to his Thor run. Avengers should be the biggest baddest book out there with ultimate threats, I mean look at Snyder's Justice League

[Yohei72]

Thanks for the replies re. Hickman's Ultimate Ultimate Ultimates. I should clarify my question. What do I need to read first, if anything, to understand what's going on in his run?

[CentralPower]

Wait, what is Hickman allegedly writing for Marvel?

I completely agree, after Hickman's Avengers run all other's feel so mundane and low stakes. I mean UNIVERSES ended under Hickman, and what we got after was Kang? Avengers No Surrender? Secret Empire?

It was not a question of scale. It was a question of quality. The biggest problem is that so much of Hickman's run was, by necessity, ambiguated out by the end. At best, it was like the original "Crisis on Infinite Earths". Many of the best scenes were retroactively impossible after the resolution, but fans insistently cling to them because....they are comic fans. Saying "something different happened" means assuming that some of the best moments are gone.

The scene with Banner and Stark during "Adapt or Die" is still something I point to as an example of how to write. But, it is gone.

Aaron does not have that skill. Having the heroes confront a bad guy in yet another fight across all of space and time does not matter if the outcome is predictable for anybody over the age of 5. (Guess what, the title characters are going to win.) Spencer has enviable technical skill as a writer. But, his polemics weighed heavily on "Secret Empire".

"No Surrender" was probably not aimed at most of the people on this forum. It was aimed at hard-core fans of the Avengers (the people who will read anything with the Avengers in it) and kids. 25 or 30 years ago. "No Surrender" would have been my reason for going to the comic shop. It was not bad. But, it was not worth 19 issues if somebody had been reading comics for more than a few years.

[JKtheMac]

Wait, what is Hickman allegedly writing for Marvel?

Yep. Just like he has suggested all along that he would, and all of the evidence has pointed to.

It was not a question of scale. It was a question of quality. The biggest problem is that so much of Hickman's run was, by necessity, ambiguated out by the end. At best, it was like the original "Crisis on Infinite Earths". Many of the best scenes were retroactively impossible after the resolution, but fans insistently cling to them because....they are comic fans. Saying "something different happened" means assuming that some of the best moments are gone.

The scene with Banner and Stark during "Adapt or Die" is still something I point to as an example of how to write. But, it is gone.

What are you even talking about? What has gone? Are you still all these years later clinging to the totally dead in the water theory that the timeline was changed at the end of Secret Wars? You could do yourself an injury twisting that much. It is a totally illogical notion that doesn't work at all, either as a plot at the time, or to cover the now uncountable references since. I am guessing you just don't read many Marvel comics any more.

Aaron does not have that skill. Having the heroes confront a bad guy in yet another fight across all of space and time does not matter if the outcome is predictable for anybody over the age of 5. (Guess what, the title characters are going to win.) Spencer has enviable technical skill as a writer. But, his polemics weighed heavily on "Secret Empire".

Both totally different types of writer, both with their own excellent qualities. This isn't a quality issue this is a taste issue. Neither Aaron of Spencer are remotely trying to write like Hickman, but Hickman isn't trying to write like them either.

"No Surrender" was probably not aimed at most of the people on this forum. It was aimed at hard-core fans of the Avengers (the people who will read anything with the Avengers in it) and kids. 25 or 30 years ago. "No Surrender" would have been my reason for going to the comic shop. It was not bad. But, it was not worth 19 issues if somebody had been reading comics for more than a few years.

You were not a fan of No Surrender? Well again that's a taste issue, but 'not bad'? It was written to be an old fashioned adventure romp, and they brought it to the page in a way that most reviewers were more than happy with, and brought many fans back to the book.

[charliehustle415]

Yep. Just like he has suggested all along that he would, and all of the evidence has pointed to.





What are you even talking about? What has gone? Are you still all these years later clinging to the totally dead in the water theory that the timeline was changed at the end of Secret Wars? You could do yourself an injury twisting that much. It is a totally illogical notion that doesn't work at all, either as a plot at the time, or to cover the now uncountable references since. I am guessing you just don't read many Marvel comics any more.



Both totally different types of writer, both with their own excellent qualities. This isn't a quality issue this is a taste issue. Neither Aaron of Spencer are remotely trying to write like Hickman, but Hickman isn't trying to write like them either.



You were not a fan of No Surrender? Well again that's a taste issue, but 'not bad'? It was written to be an old fashioned adventure romp, and they brought it to the page in a way that most reviewers were more than happy with, and brought many fans back to the book.

Wait the timeline didn't change? I thought with the folding in of the Ultimate Universe what was problematic was thrown out and then the timeline was kind of rejiggered?

[JKtheMac]

Wait the timeline didn't change? I thought with the folding in of the Ultimate Universe what was problematic was thrown out and then the timeline was kind of rejiggered?

So presumably you didn’t read Secret Wars where the ending was all about rebuilding the multiverse from scratch, or Fantastic Four #1 that again reiterated what Reed et al have been doing. If the incursions never happened there would be no need to rebuild the multiverse because it wouldn’t have been destroyed. It’s simple logic. Secret Wars was built upon the logic reiterated throughout New Avengers that the destruction of the multiverse was inevitable and unstoppable and in the end it was.

The only thing in the whole of continuity that even remotely supported the idea of a reboot was bringing back Wakanda, and Black Pantha books have bent over backwards to show us that this was actually a ressurection of the nation not a reboot. (All except Shuri who was brought back later.)

Every month another book will make some reference to the events of New Avengers or logically rely upon them in some way. It is no longer even a logical devil’s advocate position that there was a reboot. It is just incorrect.

[JKtheMac]

All of the above makes me wonder if Hickman might be tempted to do a Black Panther book. The one character that ended up a little short changed by Secret Wars was T'Challa. He was fundamental to Hickman's New Avengers and yet he had limited agency in Secret Wars, ending up doing what was prophetised by Bast by analogy only. Hickman might feel like he has unfinished business with the character.

[charliehustle415]

So presumably you didn’t read Secret Wars where the ending was all about rebuilding the multiverse from scratch, or Fantastic Four #1 that again reiterated what Reed et al have been doing. If the incursions never happened there would be no need to rebuild the multiverse because it wouldn’t have been destroyed. It’s simple logic. Secret Wars was built upon the logic reiterated throughout New Avengers that the destruction of the multiverse was inevitable and unstoppable and in the end it was.

The only thing in the whole of continuity that even remotely supported the idea of a reboot was bringing back Wakanda, and Black Pantha books have bent over backwards to show us that this was actually a ressurection of the nation not a reboot. (All except Shuri who was brought back later.)

Every month another book will make some reference to the events of New Avengers or logically rely upon them in some way. It is no longer even a logical devil’s advocate position that there was a reboot. It is just incorrect.

Ah, I was under the impression that, yes the multiverse ended, but when it was rebuilt by the FF the timeline was changed to make things fit better. So there is a in-story reason why Miles is running around with both of his parents still alive and other minor changes, but it isn't a full on reboot.

Do people actually think after Secret Wars there was a full on reboot?

PS: I'm not trying to be obtuse, I don't pop into forums that often

[CentralPower]

Yep. Just like he has suggested all along that he would, and all of the evidence has pointed to.

What is he actually going to write? Is there a link?

I am guessing you just don't read many Marvel comics any more.

Post-"Secret Wars", Marvel was inconsistent about how much of "Secret Wars" (and the lead-in) still "happened" after the universe reset. Bendis treated it like only a few remembered. Spencer acted like it is was common knowledge which nobody cared about. Ewing acted like it was not commonly known. Other writers acted like it was.

Given what happened during the lead-in, and how much of it would have been impossible to come back from (Strange selling his soul, the divisions between the heroes....), it makes more sense to assume that something else happened. The best example is what happened with DC's "Crisis on Infinite Earths". Many of the key moments (and plenty of obscure moments) from that series were retroactively impossible by the end of that story. (Blah blah blah, time travel....blah blah universal changes....blah blah blah.)

The most prominent example of this was "the Losers Special", a one-shot featuring some z-list war comic characters who died during Crisis. Their deaths would have have worked after the event settled down (and herpaspergaderp space-time continuum....). But, DC gave them a proper death in a one-shot. The same principle applied in other cases, even if DC never bothered to address it.

And, it applies here. Much of Hickman's run cannot have happened as originally shown. But, other stuff would have happened. Marvel does not care much about cohesive history at this point, and is unlikely to account for it.

Even comics that referenced Hickman's "New Avengers" (such as Robinson's "Squadron Supreme") actually over-wrote what was actually published in "New Avengers" with bullshit back-writes.

Marvel fans need to give up on the idea of a coherent/unified backstory.

[gifted]

Other than the idea of him taking over the X-Men as the head scribe, I would love him to tackle Captain Britain. Brian is long overdue for a comeback and Hickman would do great at diving into Otherworld and the Arthurian legends.

[kevlon]

Other than the idea of him taking over the X-Men as the head scribe, I would love him to tackle Captain Britain. Brian is long overdue for a comeback and Hickman would do great at diving into Otherworld and the Arthurian legends.

Good call (Captain Britain)

[Digifiend]

Ah, I was under the impression that, yes the multiverse ended, but when it was rebuilt by the FF the timeline was changed to make things fit better. So there is a in-story reason why Miles is running around with both of his parents still alive and other minor changes, but it isn't a full on reboot.

Do people actually think after Secret Wars there was a full on reboot?

PS: I'm not trying to be obtuse, I don't pop into forums that often

Yeah, the timelines of 616 and 1610 were altered after Secret Wars. 616 now incorporates several 1610 elements, namely the Triskelion, Miles Morales and his supporting cast, and the Maker. 1610, when it was eventually restored, ended up without Miles. The Ultimates team had several members resurrected, and Ironheart has apparently replaced Tony Stark (the implication is that her story plays out exactly like in 616 except she joins the Ultimates rather than the Champions, who likely don't exist).

[CentralPower]

Other than the idea of him taking over the X-Men as the head scribe, I would love him to tackle Captain Britain. Brian is long overdue for a comeback and Hickman would do great at diving into Otherworld and the Arthurian legends.

Is Hickman actually confirmed for any of this?

Do people actually think after Secret Wars there was a full on reboot?

Not a full reboot, but Hickman's run is impossible to reconcile with post-"Secret Wars" Marvel, which deliberately ignores his "Avengers" and related runs, because there were too many points of no return. Similarly, "Superior Iron Man" apparently never happened.

[charliehustle415]

Is Hickman actually confirmed for any of this?



Not a full reboot, but Hickman's run is impossible to reconcile with post-"Secret Wars" Marvel, which deliberately ignores his "Avengers" and related runs, because there were too many points of no return. Similarly, "Superior Iron Man" apparently never happened.

Interesting, I wonder why the higher-ups did that? If they were going ignore it then why even allow him to write it in the first place?