What did you think of the Hickman Trilogy?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I thought it was great. A small part of me wishes all this HoX and X-Men fun came before Secret Wars, so it really was a culmination of EVERYTHING.
Thor was written fantastically, and there were some great moments throughout.
Doom was written arguably the best I’ve seen.

Hickman did write Cyclops well in the closing issues of Time Runs Out and the early part of SW'2015.

If you compare SW'84 and SW'2015 in a Marvel Universe Then and Now sense, you'll find that the X-Men have a smaller role in the latter than the former, yet at the same time the Avengers also have a smaller role in 2015 than in 1984. One thing that hasn't changed, total lack of Tony Stark, but also Captain America, leader in the first comic is missing here. T'Challa has a bigger role in 2015, as does Thanos. Peter Parker has a smaller role but he's joined by Miles. It's still essentially Doom's story, but this time Reed takes Cap's place and it becomes a Reed and Doom story.

I think Hickman in HoX/PoX and DoX is simply showing his versatility and flexibility. In his run on FF, Avengers and SW and also Shield and Secret Warriors, he went for big ideas, big scale, and universe shaking things. Whereas in HoX/PoX and DoX while the ideas are still pretty big it's largely focused in one corner looking out to the rest.

Likewise in the first time, it was Hickman by himself, here he's basically put together a band, and taken on the mantle of "Head of X" i.e. lead showrunner of the X-Line which has never happened before. It's certainly a more interesting direction to go, and quite radical. We tend to think of writers like Hickman or Morrison as "auteurs" who get total license to tell their vision and that was certainly the sense when Bendis was at his apogee or when he wrote FF-Avengers-SW, but here Hickman is creating a sandbox and a lot of talented young writers are getting attention because Hickman's given them a platform. Like Gerry Duggan's Marauders, Benjamin Percy for X-Force. It's pretty rare and quite commendable. And it also fits the ethos of the X-Men which is about all mutants rather than just one guy and it's about the diversity and strength of the line and Hickman is aware that no one writer can do justice to every kind of story that has been told, can be told, and will be told with the X-Men at any time. So it's pretty great that he can do that.

But yeah, Hickman's X-Men which might be some 3-4 years (Same time as his FF and Avengers) will be his final hurrah at Marvel, and when he walks away he will have had a defining run on all three of Marvel's major teams -- Fantastic Four, Avengers, X-Men -- under his name. There probably isn't anyone else in the history of Marvel who comes close.

[Devaishwarya]

I really enjoyed them all...for many of the reasons already posted.

[H-E-D]

Secret Wars is highly overrated and didn't fit at all as a capstone to his Avengers work in any substantive way.

Great art, though.

Trilogy?

1. Secret Warriors/SHIELD
2. Ultimates/Ultimate Hawkeye
3. Fantastic Four/FF
4. Avengers/New Avengers

There was a throughline in all of them.

Makes more sense. Secret Warriors seems oft forgotten but it's a big thing.

[gurkle]

I've said before that I liked his Fantastic Four and didn't like his Avengers, which seemed to be written from a place of contempt for or at least indifference to the Avengers (Bendis, I think, treated the Avengers as a team with its own history and lore; Hickman didn't).

One thing I'll add is that Hickman's writing style is built so heavily on slow-burn, long-form storytelling that I find it hard to enjoy a lot of his work in the short-term, because he's always teasing big things that are about to happen, which makes what's currently happening seem almost insignificant. It didn't surprise me at all when I listened to him on a podcast and he mentioned how he dislikes episodic television (i.e. television where each episode tells its own story), because I definitely get that from his work. With his Avengers I almost felt like it was asking me to accept being bored in the short term for the promise of a long term payoff to come.

Again, this is a bigger issue with his Avengers/New Avengers than the FF and X-Men stuff.

[JKtheMac]

And sure, people can scream about dem themes and meanings, but if I can't like the characters, can't find the plot by itself compelling, and find the artwork grating at times, why should I care about the messages here?

Right there is the issue. You are challenging the writer to do things your way or you won’t engage. Guess what? Nobody at Marvel is listening to those kinds of challenges. You already ranked this highly popular and influential run low on your ranking so what would be the point of changing it to suit a different market?

The thing that many comic book fans don’t want to hear, is that a story is not complete without meaning. That serial fiction in general has a problem with this. There is nothing new about this struggle and the way writers and readers have justified the lack of resolution and meaning. Entire nonsensical theories have been created by more intelligent and learned men than any of us here. But essentially, the solution is to tie themes and meanings into the ongoing narrative and make the ending of your tenure resolve them in a satisfactory way. Not to do what Conan Doyle thought was important, and somehow assert that serial fiction is a different animal with different rules.

This is precisely why A/NA follows on from F4/FF. Because anyone reading and enjoying the Fantastic Four material was left hanging. I remember thinking Marvel were making a huge mistake but with that first issue of New Avengers I breathed a huge sigh of relief. It may have seemed like a new story but it was carrying forward the overall themes and the world building Hickman had been engaged in. Those of us following on knew that this was leading to tragedy and that just as foretold by Bast, Reed and T’Challa’s destinies were bound together beyond this inevitable death of everything and that they would some how be instrumental in building the world anew. Only by paying attention to these deep themes and meanings does the story begin to resolve and become meaningful.

Otherwise you end up with books just churning out character pieces over and over with no substance. A churn of recycled revelations in which we continually learn how patriotic Steve is or how ‘tenacious but driven by guilt’ Peter Parker is. Those stories are all very well and I appreciate them for what they are but if that was all that comics had to offer I wouldn’t be here. Indeed for a long while from the late eighties to the late naughties that summed up what comics were and I wasn’t here. There were not enough gems buried in the catastrophic mess left behind by the adolescent, black painted bedroom that was the nineties.

[numberthirty]

Secret Wars is highly overrated and didn't fit at all as a capstone to his Avengers work in any substantive way.

Great art, though.

Trilogy?

1. Secret Warriors/SHIELD
2. Ultimates/Ultimate Hawkeye
3. Fantastic Four/FF
4. Avengers/New Avengers

There was a throughline in all of them.

Makes more sense. Secret Warriors seems oft forgotten but it's a big thing.

Even more so when it seems like Marvel may have yanked the rug out from under Hickman on that title.

[InformationGeek]

Right there is the issue. You are challenging the writer to do things your way or you won’t engage. Guess what? Nobody at Marvel is listening to those kinds of challenges. You already ranked this highly popular and influential run low on your ranking so what would be the point of changing it to suit a different market?

The thing that many comic book fans don’t want to hear, is that a story is not complete without meaning. That serial fiction in general has a problem with this. There is nothing new about this struggle and the way writers and readers have justified the lack of resolution and meaning. Entire nonsensical theories have been created by more intelligent and learned men than any of us here. But essentially, the solution is to tie themes and meanings into the ongoing narrative and make the ending of your tenure resolve them in a satisfactory way. Not to do what Conan Doyle thought was important, and somehow assert that serial fiction is a different animal with different rules.

This is precisely why A/NA follows on from F4/FF. Because anyone reading and enjoying the Fantastic Four material was left hanging. I remember thinking Marvel were making a huge mistake but with that first issue of New Avengers I breathed a huge sigh of relief. It may have seemed like a new story but it was carrying forward the overall themes and the world building Hickman had been engaged in. Those of us following on knew that this was leading to tragedy and that just as foretold by Bast, Reed and T’Challa’s destinies were bound together beyond this inevitable death of everything and that they would some how be instrumental in building the world anew. Only by paying attention to these deep themes and meanings does the story begin to resolve and become meaningful.

Otherwise you end up with books just churning out character pieces over and over with no substance. A churn of recycled revelations in which we continually learn how patriotic Steve is or how ‘tenacious but driven by guilt’ Peter Parker is. Those stories are all very well and I appreciate them for what they are but if that was all that comics had to offer I wouldn’t be here. Indeed for a long while from the late eighties to the late naughties that summed up what comics were and I wasn’t here. There were not enough gems buried in the catastrophic mess left behind by the adolescent, black painted bedroom that was the nineties.

Well I'm not saying that things should be this way for everything. I'm just speaking from my point of view and how I felt about this comic.

It's not like I cant enjoy a story that puts its themes, concepts, allegories, and ideas forward over everything else. I really like Animal Farm. I can really enjoy stuff that are heavy on the themes and meanings and ideas, even if the subtlety is immensely lacking, like Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs or Dead Dead Demon's Dedede Destruction. And I do like some Hickman projects, like East of West.

But his Avengers stuff just doesn't work for me. It just feels so sterile and dry. I don't feel the life and energy in Avengers as I did East of West, Secret Wars, or even God is Dead. I just dont see this series being good at all.

If you like it, good. That's important. You got something out of it and I'm happy for you. But Hickman's Avengers is just not going to end up working for me.

[gurkle]

A story that is boring for half its length and takes on meaning once you’ve stuck with it long enough is a bad story.

Now, obviously, fans of Hickman’s Avengers don’t consider it boring - the buildup may be slow but it’s not dull. However anyone who was bored by it would not find its ideas to be a compensating factor.

I’m general I think character pieces have more substance than ideas pieces - the best art is the kind where the creator doesn’t get to choose exactly what ideas we take from it - but again I don’t think fans of Hickman’s Avengers find it weak in characterization; it’s just that people who do find it weak on that score have no reason to care about the ideas.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The remarkable thing of Hickman’s run is he got to tell his story. It’s easy to imagine how his run would have looked had he not finished it, got removed, and so on. Think of how some of the stuff in Claremont’s run didn’t get far because he got removed.

But Hickman got to tell his story. That’s impressive. On his part and Marvel’s

[CentralPower]

Hickman's run on "Avengers" and "New Avengers" were exceptional. I have not been able to find the FF and other stuff as compilations, so I (obviously) have not read it and thus cannot comment on it.

Not entirely sold on his X-run at this point. But, I am willing to give it a little more time. (I am a little annoyed that Marvel seems to be planning compilations by issue number of each series, rather than individual series.)

[Iron Maiden]

Hickman's run on "Avengers" and "New Avengers" were exceptional. I have not been able to find the FF and other stuff as compilations, so I (obviously) have not read it and thus cannot comment on it.

Not entirely sold on his X-run at this point. But, I am willing to give it a little more time. (I am a little annoyed that Marvel seems to be planning compilations by issue number of each series, rather than individual series.)

If I were you I would sign up for Marvel Unlimited or Comixology the next time they have one of their $5.00 one month trial offers. It's well worth it IMO. Sometimes the TPBs are easier to find than the Fantastic Four onmibi. I only have one of those.

[your_name_here]

A story that is boring for half its length and takes on meaning once you’ve stuck with it long enough is a bad story.

Now, obviously, fans of Hickman’s Avengers don’t consider it boring - the buildup may be slow but it’s not dull. However anyone who was bored by it would not find its ideas to be a compensating factor.

I’m general I think character pieces have more substance than ideas pieces - the best art is the kind where the creator doesn’t get to choose exactly what ideas we take from it - but again I don’t think fans of Hickman’s Avengers find it weak in characterization; it’s just that people who do find it weak on that score have no reason to care about the ideas.

Did find the New Avengers side of things lacking in characterisation?

[CentralPower]

f I were you I would sign up for Marvel Unlimited or Comixology the next time they have one of their $5.00 one month trial offers. It's well worth it IMO. Sometimes the TPBs are easier to find than the Fantastic Four onmibi. I only have one of those.

I don't like reading comics off a screen, especially large runs.

The omnibus FF started shipping when I was tight on money, and sold through pretty quickly.

the best art is the kind where the creator doesn’t get to choose exactly what ideas we take from it -

There is no point in reading something if the writer does not have ideas or anything to say. There are better reasons to read than justifying one's I-statements.


My biggest problem with Hickman's X-run is that I am not sure what it is about. "Avengers" and "New Avengers" were a thought experiment about no-win scenarios. But, the high-concept for the x-books is (thus far) unclear). (So far, "X-Force" is my favorite, as it has the clearest premise. But, I am willing to give "X-Men" a little more time.)

[charliehustle415]

I resurrected this thread because I didn't think my question warranted a new post.

I just recently re-read Hickman's Marvel oeuvre from the very beginning all the way up to HOX/POX, but I had a question about Secret Warriors.

It may be because I am simply missing some vital information from some tie-in book but for the life of me I cannot figure out why Da Vinci brought all of the secret societies together to find all of those relics.

What purpose was he aiming for? All he did was create multiple superpowered secret organizations hell bent on taking over the world.

What was his plan, has anybody ever picked up this thread? Has Da Vinci showed up anywhere else?

[Triniking1234]

Hmmm... I started SHIELD because I thought Reed and Tony's dads teaming up sounded fun but I had no idea that and Secret Warriors played into his FF and Avengers run.