Hickman's Three-Peat: Defining Runs on Fantastic Four/Avengers/X-Men

[CaptCleghorn]

Well the fact was that it was still a surprise since most of the story revolves on black swans, Rabum Alal, Ivory kings and other stuff. It was only later that the Ivory Kings were revealed to be beyonders that it became clear it was going to be secret wars.

And even then it was still a new thing and a surprise forReed to play such a role in 2015. In 1984 it was Cap who stopped Doom. Likewise 2015 had Tchalla and Namor and other no-shows of 1984.

The last time Reed had such a big role in an event was Acts of Vengeance. After that it’s being Tony’s sidekick as in Civil War. And before reed was Cap’s sidekick in 1984.

Reed and Doom were big players in Hickman's New Avengers. Sure, there were surprises, but a story has a surprise when we don't see the development coming. Hickman's Avengers and New Avengers run were designed to set up the new Secret Wars. The magnitude of the mission was set up from the beginning of his run. All I'm saying is the characters of reed and Doom were the big players because that's the way the story was written, not because Doom was the character who could beat the Beyonders.

[H-E-D]

I really enjoyed Hickman's Avengers, and I also enjoyed Secret Wars, but I thought Secret Wars didn't function very well at all as a conclusion to his Avengers.

[Frontier]

I really enjoyed Hickman's Avengers, and I also enjoyed Secret Wars, but I thought Secret Wars didn't function very well at all as a conclusion to his Avengers.

I definitely agree with that. New Avengers less so.

[H-E-D]

I definitely agree with that. New Avengers less so.

Yeah, it's a decent conclusion to New Avengers. Though I do still feel like Doom and Molecule Man should've been involved a little earlier than Time Runs Out if they were going to be as important to the conclusion as they were. (Honestly, I found the revelation of Doom as Rabum Alal very underwhelming and would have preferred them to be separate players in the whole thing.) And that there wasn't enough payoff on all the different factions involved with the incursions. In the end, it was pretty much only the Black Swans and Ivory Kings that mattered.

[JKtheMac]

The Avengers as a whole are "superheroes fight bad guys" so there's no team identity to it unlike Fantastic Four (which is about the Family dynamic of the four) and X-Men (saving the world that hates and fears them). Unintentionally it has had team identities (being a place for second-stringers, rejects, prospective reformed villains) that had nothing to do with being "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" (which they rarely were) and more recently fighting each other and splintering and forming factions. Historically it has been assembled, disassembled, combined, recombined multiple times by different writers. And of course Hickman had a second hero civil war so he kept on-brand there.

So I think there was a fair degree of freedom available to Hickman with it. And as such his take on the team introduced a level of horror, dread, and anguish you don't get in Avengers stories as a whole and it defamiliarized and changed what people expected from the team.

That is a controversial statement for sure, but you are absolutely correct IMO.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That is a controversial statement for sure, but you are absolutely correct IMO.

Thanks. Wasn't expecting that.

Hickman latched on to Illuminati because it's an Avengers adjunct that actually does have a team identity. A bunch of self-appointed, unelected, unregulated super-geniuses who decide unilaterally that they and they alone can save the world (which has shades of Watchmen's Ozymandias and the JLU Cadmus Story)...and given Hickman's science-fiction leaning and so on, that's quite interesting to explore. So Hickman decided to go big by giving them a really big challenge...so big that Black Panther who went "nope" on the first Illuminati decided he needed to call them (even Namor) even though he'd rather not.

The Illuminati was a natural segue to his run on Fantastic Four because Reed Richards was obsessed there with the idea he could "Solve Everything" and he starts feeling miserable for his failures in backing the wrong side in the Civil War and that going belly-up with Norman Osborn using that to become top guy.

[DurararaFTW]

I think Hickman was awesome on New Avengers, his X-Men is lacking the dissenting voices that defined his Avengers run, not my cup of tea.

[Force de Phenix]

The Avengers as a whole are "superheroes fight bad guys" so there's no team identity to it unlike Fantastic Four (which is about the Family dynamic of the four) and X-Men (saving the world that hates and fears them). Unintentionally it has had team identities (being a place for second-stringers, rejects, prospective reformed villains) that had nothing to do with being "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" (which they rarely were) and more recently fighting each other and splintering and forming factions. Historically it has been assembled, disassembled, combined, recombined multiple times by different writers. And of course Hickman had a second hero civil war so he kept on-brand there.

So I think there was a fair degree of freedom available to Hickman with it. And as such his take on the team introduced a level of horror, dread, and anguish you don't get in Avengers stories as a whole and it defamiliarized and changed what people expected from the team.

The FF and X-Men are very exclusive in and out of universe. The Avengers are more flexible, and with this flexibility comes their carte blanche with their members, villains, and stories. That's why mutants, humans, inhumans, eternals, androids, etc. can join. So expecting a characterization is a contradiction.

It's more like, "If you wanna save the world, sign up!"

The X-Men and the FF has allowed reformed villains, second stringers, and rejects as well. And not being perfect is a part of Marvel comics as a whole. Everyone screws up, but they do their best, and they usually win.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The Avengers are more flexible, and with this flexibility comes their carte blanche with their members, villains, and stories. That's why mutants, humans, inhumans, eternals, androids, etc. can join. So expecting a characterization is a contradiction.

So Hickman's run is fitting and a proper Avengers run in your opinion?

[JKtheMac]

Thanks. Wasn't expecting that.

Hickman latched on to Illuminati because it's an Avengers adjunct that actually does have a team identity. A bunch of self-appointed, unelected, unregulated super-geniuses who decide unilaterally that they and they alone can save the world (which has shades of Watchmen's Ozymandias and the JLU Cadmus Story)...and given Hickman's science-fiction leaning and so on, that's quite interesting to explore. So Hickman decided to go big by giving them a really big challenge...so big that Black Panther who went "nope" on the first Illuminati decided he needed to call them (even Namor) even though he'd rather not.

The Illuminati was a natural segue to his run on Fantastic Four because Reed Richards was obsessed there with the idea he could "Solve Everything" and he starts feeling miserable for his failures in backing the wrong side in the Civil War and that going belly-up with Norman Osborn using that to become top guy.

I also think his main Avengers volume was pretty solid. The premise of ‘we need to be bigger’ with all that this implied and eventually entailed was interesting and the cosmic leaning was in keeping with some classic Avengers stories.

[Woozie]

So Hickman's run is fitting and a proper Avengers run in your opinion?

I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't.

I think most folks are arguing that it's not series defining. Which it isn't.

[Frontier]

So Hickman's run is fitting and a proper Avengers run in your opinion?

It probably depends on what your idea of a "fitting and a proper Avengers" run is.

Like, to some that might he what Hickman did, but to others it might've been more Uncanny Avengers or the Mighty Avengers book by Ewing.

[Force de Phenix]

So Hickman's run is fitting and a proper Avengers run in your opinion?

It was different like every writer's run. And it was good. The Hickman X-Men is being debated on whether it is a fitting and proper run for them too, but no one is saying it isn't good.

[JKtheMac]

It was different like every writer's run. And it was good. The Hickman X-Men is being debated on whether it is a fitting and proper run for them too, but no one is saying it isn't good.

Not much of a debate there really. Most are hailing the X-Men run as pivotal.

[Huntsman Spider]

Thanks. Wasn't expecting that.

Hickman latched on to Illuminati because it's an Avengers adjunct that actually does have a team identity. A bunch of self-appointed, unelected, unregulated super-geniuses who decide unilaterally that they and they alone can save the world (which has shades of Watchmen's Ozymandias and the JLU Cadmus Story)...and given Hickman's science-fiction leaning and so on, that's quite interesting to explore. So Hickman decided to go big by giving them a really big challenge...so big that Black Panther who went "nope" on the first Illuminati decided he needed to call them (even Namor) even though he'd rather not.

The Illuminati was a natural segue to his run on Fantastic Four because Reed Richards was obsessed there with the idea he could "Solve Everything" and he starts feeling miserable for his failures in backing the wrong side in the Civil War and that going belly-up with Norman Osborn using that to become top guy.

And in the end, their arrogance and elitism may well have doomed the entire Multiverse, because their certainty that they were the only ones who knew how to and could save the world from this latest threat prevented them from working with anyone outside their inner circle to find a solution that wasn't blowing up other Earths to preserve their own.