Originally Posted by
Reviresco
It's not an assumption, it's my interpretation of the story. You can disagree with it, but there's evidence in the story for it, so at this point, I wouldn't say it's incorrect.
Yes, that's the in story cause for T'challa's threat, but that's not what was I talking about. I was responding to the idea put forth by others that T'challa's threat is supposed to be foreshadowing of him literally keeping that promise. And thus the story calls for Namor death. I disagree, because it's the exact same thing T'challa's ancestors want made good on, and we're shown that they are wrong. We're shown repeatedly that revenge doesn't end well and is not the answer.
I'm pretty sure Hickman didn't inherit the Atlantis / Wakanda fallout, but instead created it, and in fact wanted it. He was one of the 'architects' of AvX. He was the one 'architect' that had everyone scratching their heads, cause he wasn't an X-Men writer and he wasn't an Avengers writer -- but unknown to readership, he was the next Avengers writer. He was setting stuff up for the New Avengers run waaay back in his FF run, and he was doing the same in AvX. I would even say, Gillen was asked to put Namor on his run with the Extinction Team, specifically so Namor could trash Wakanda, so Hickman could create the conflict in New Avengers, that would lead to T'challa (like all the Illuminati, being deconstructed). It's the same contrivance that had T'challa or Shuri (something that was never revealed) suddenly hiding the Avengers in Wakanda, instead of telling them to take a hike, or putting them elsewhere. It's the same sort of contrivance that has T'challa hiding Thanos and the bombs in Wakanda.
No, that's incorrect. Atlantis and Wakanda had actually gone to war previously, in Christopher Priest's Black Panther run. And they weren't allies any time before that, as they didn't get along, and had other confrontations, like the Kiber Island affair. It's only Reginald Hudlin, who completely disregarded previous continuity, who wrote them as allies and embarrassingly chummy during his run. And even in his / Mayberry's run, they tried to put Wakanda and Atlantis in conflict with that jumbled mess of the attempted assassination of T'challa and then Shuri and the Power arc.
Because Hickman wanted it that way, to elevate the exterior and interior conflicts and, deconstruct the kings, and to show the futility of retribution, and how T'challa's ancestors were wrong.
I do have problems with some of Hickman's portrayal of Namor, and I think it's far too subtle and there's far too much left unsaid / unexplained, judging by some people's reactions. I also think his genius are written as anything but, to fit his plot.
Well, I'm going to have disagree with that also. At least, as it pertains to Namor and Doom's relationship. Doom lives for finding Namor in this exact situation, on the ropes, as that's when he wants to ally with Namor. And it's usually the only time Namor will ally with Doom. He did it in Namor Goes to Hell, he did it in Sub-Mariner Revolution, he did it in Super-Villain Team Up, he did it twice in Namor's own book, once when he had amnesia and once when he lost his gills -- all the way to their first team up in FF, after Namor had been defeated by the FF. And Doom is almost always Namor's second, if not last choice, and knows it -- see Sub-Mariner Revolution. Doom doesn't care, cause he would be figuring out some way to use Namor to make Thanos his pet.
I think Hickman has a good handle on the voices of characters and their personalities, but he's compromising the characters to make them fit his plot, and not bothering to show or explain things that would mitigate him doing so.