New Avengers #24 Review (w/spoilers)

[Mark]

I agree wholeheartedly. His depiction of Reed, in particular, is extremely frustrating to me.


Given the extremely slow pace in some of the issues he's been writing for Avengers and NA, I think that he would have had more than enough space to get the characters right and find ways to avoid mischaracterizing them for the sake of the plot :-)

Maybe, but that depends on how much time he's giving to this story.

[ShaokhaN]

But could he have achieved the same result by blowing up his own Earth? Not that I'd expect him to do it.

Yes. But you'd still be complaining about the same thing, namely him acting instead of not acting.

[Mr MajestiK]

Maybe he's constricted by space and editorial. I once thought the same thing about many Golden Age stories, but it was pointed out to me that in a seven page story you've got to be able to get the character into the story very quickly. We have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

I agree with you especially as regards the bolded but as ShaokhaN has pointed out, Hickman has had more than enough issues between Avengers/New Avengers to flesh out the major players characteristics.

[Mark]

Yes. But you'd still be complaining about the same thing, namely him acting instead of not acting.

No, you see this is what I mean when I say he had a choice. He could choose to destroy his Earth or he could chose to destroy the other Earth. I understand the choice he made and I do not like it, but the fact remains that there was a choice to make. Not much of one, not a great choice, but a choice was there to be made so you can't really say he had no choice, merely that he had a very limited choice and almost no time time make it.

[Mr MajestiK]

But that's the thing, though - those innocent lives would be lost anyway a few minutes later. And it's not only about saving yourself but about saving two entire universes minus one planet. Even if my own life was not on the line, and I was a spectator to two other universes colliding with each other, I would consider intervening to blow up one planet to be the morally acceptable choice as opposed to just watching these two universes be destroyed, that planet included.

Let's imagine a different scenario: 10.000 people, which were living normal lives, are suddenly falling from the sky. They will unmistakeably, and unavoidably, die when they hit the ground. It is impossible to save them, EXCEPT for one way: to have one of them die a few seconds before hitting the ground. It is clear to me that between those two possibilities, I would without hesitation consider the few-seconds-early death of one person to save the 9.999 others from certain death to be the morally acceptable choice.

Put yourself in the position of the people whose Earth gets destroyed as well. Imagine you have to choose between living eight hours more and having two universes die with you, or living 7,5 hours more and having two universes survive the event of your death. Would the first option not be clearly more morally acceptable to you? To me, it would. I would gladly sacrifice 30 min of my life to ensure the survival of two entire universes.

I can honestly say that I would have been like Steve Rogers.

[ShaokhaN]

I can honestly say that I would have been like Steve Rogers.

And what about my last question? Imagine you have to choose between living eight hours more and having two populated universes die with you, or living 7,5 hours more and having two populated universes survive the event of your death. Would the first option not be clearly more morally acceptable to you?

[Mr MajestiK]

And what about my last question? Imagine you have to choose between living eight hours more and having two populated universes die with you, or living 7,5 hours more and having two populated universes survive the event of your death. Would the first option not be clearly more morally acceptable to you?

Both options would involve me ending something I had no right to end though. (namely life.)

To be honest, my reponse i really based on my faith and as such, may not really be in line with other peoples perspective on subjects of this nature.

[ShaokhaN]

No, you see this is what I mean when I say he had a choice. He could choose to destroy his Earth or he could chose to destroy the other Earth. I understand the choice he made and I do not like it, but the fact remains that there was a choice to make. Not much of one, not a great choice, but a choice was there to be made so you can't really say he had no choice, merely that he had a very limited choice and almost no time time make it.

I don't deny at all that he had a choice with regards to which Earth to blow up. But so far you've clearly been arguing for several threads that in your view, when their backs were against the wall and it was either use a bomb or do nothing and have two universes die, they should have let the two universes die. That's a different choice than choosing which Earth to blow up.

[ShaokhaN]

Both options would involve me ending something I had no right to end though. (namely life.)

But imagine that if only you lived thirty minutes less, everyone else in two universes would be spared. You would only shorten your own life. Would that not be your choice over living 30 minutes more and have two populated universes dying with you?

[Mr MajestiK]

But imagine that if only you lived thirty minutes less, everyone else in two universes would be spared. You would only shorten your own life. Would that not be your choice over living 30 minutes more and have two populated universes dying with you?

But that would mean I'd have to commit suicide, yes?

I'm morally opposed to suicide. (assisted or otherwise)

[ShaokhaN]

But that would mean I'd have to commit suicide, yes?

I'm morally opposed to suicide. (assisted or otherwise)

I see. Well, it would not necessarily involve suicide, but instead, let's say, a lightning bolt striking you from the sky. I'm just asking you if you'd rather die 30 minutes early and have two universes survive the event of your death, or live 30 minutes longer and take two universes with you in your death.

[The "you" that would be dying 30 minutes early would of course have no idea about this discussion and would not be making a conscious choice to die early, but I'm asking you from an "outside" perspective on yourself ,-)]

[Mark]

I don't deny at all that he had a choice with regards to which Earth to blow up. But so far you've clearly been arguing for several threads that in your view, when their backs were against the wall and it was either use a bomb or do nothing and have two universes die, they should have let the two universes die. That's a different choice than choosing which Earth to blow up.

True, but everyone kept telling me that he had no choice at all so I wanted to specify what I meant. For myself I probably would have done nothing because I don't believe that a person has the right to choose who lives and who dies.

[Mr MajestiK]

I see. Well, it would not necessarily involve suicide, but instead, let's say, a lightning bolt striking you from the sky. I'm just asking you if you'd rather die 30 minutes early and have two universes survive the event of your death or live 30 minutes longer and take two universes with you in your death.

But that's not the same scenario that Namor was faced with though.

Why would the fate of two seperate universes hinge on me being hit by a bolt of lightning?

[Mr MajestiK]

True, but everyone kept telling me that he had no choice at all so I wanted to specify what I meant. For myself I probably would have done nothing because I don't believe that a person has the right to choose who lives and who dies.

I'm with you on this, Mark.

[Mark]

But that's not the same scenario that Namor was faced with though.

Why would the fate of two seperate universes hinge on me being hit by a bolt of lightning?

They might if the bolt granted you Captain Marvel powers