Hickman Calls "Secret Wars" A 'Horror Story,' 'Culmination' Of His Marvel Work

[Mark]

Let's not forget that aside from Sue there is also Ben and Johnny. Really this is the sort of thing that needs at least part of an issue and I really don't think we're going to get it.

[Rosebunse]

Let's not forget that aside from Sue there is also Ben and Johnny. Really this is the sort of thing that needs at least part of an issue and I really don't think we're going to get it.

And the other kids too, and his friends like Spiderman and, um...actually Spiderman is the only sane friend I think he has. That would explain Spiderman's importance to this story.

[Chainsaw Vigilante]

so it seems like Reed is going to be the centerpiece of secret wars..

In that case and after reading someone else's theory that The Beyonders are feeding these realities to the big bad, it'd be cool if he went back to The Black Celestial Saga, somehow the Ultimate Nullifier didn't erase that alternate reality Galactus, perhaps due to Galactus' connection to it, perhaps he was teleported away, maybe it nullified him as in put him into a nulled sleep state, and something in the 616 reality, perhaps something Reed had a hand in, woke him again; they could even use the Abraxas saga and Reed erasing and re-booting the multiverse as a reason as to why the multiverse is screwed up and the big bad exists. Maybe this theory had to do with Galactus and the Celestials disappearing before Reed?
I'm just hoping the big bad isn't someone totally new, there's plenty of continuity to take from and enhance.

[DrTraveler]

In that case and after reading someone else's theory that The Beyonders are feeding these realities to the big bad, it'd be cool if he went back to The Black Celestial Saga, somehow the Ultimate Nullifier didn't erase that alternate reality Galactus, perhaps due to Galactus' connection to it, perhaps he was teleported away, maybe it nullified him as in put him into a nulled sleep state, and something in the 616 reality, perhaps something Reed had a hand in, woke him again; they could even use the Abraxas saga and Reed erasing and re-booting the multiverse as a reason as to why the multiverse is screwed up and the big bad exists. Maybe this theory had to do with Galactus and the Celestials disappearing before Reed?
I'm just hoping the big bad isn't someone totally new, there's plenty of continuity to take from and enhance.

Hickman has said the big bad is something new. That doesn't mean he hasn't been hinted at in other places, but we shouldn't really consider older established foes.

[vitruvian]

Yes, but those stories sucked, so I ignore them. That's why I said "for me". I know we will disagree on this, but I don't care about those other stories really. Viewing it as Hickman's work in and of itself, I don't think it's as bad. I realize you aren't capable of ignoring those past stories, but I am. Screw 'em, they stink and they don't matter to me.

Except it's happened in Hickman's own work, with the whole thing with the Bridge and the Council of Reeds, so even ignoring every other FF writer including Lee/Kirby (which I really don't agree with) , this has happened before. Or are you saying Hickman's past FF stories sucked and don't count too?

And if a story says it's a story about existing characters, their past stories are always relevant. Because if their past stories aren't relevant, they AREN'T existing characters, and the story is contradicting itself by saying they are.

[hawkeyefan]

Hickman has said the big bad is something new. That doesn't mean he hasn't been hinted at in other places, but we shouldn't really consider older established foes.

I don't know if we must take him at his word in that regard. He's very anti-solicit and sharing story info ahead of time. I wouldn't be too surprised if he lied about that.

Comic fans are weird like that. Who would want to know such a vital bit of info prior to its natural revelation in the story? We think we want to know these things....but then when we get that info early, we often then treat the actual story as a formality and wait for it to end.

See the current thread about being burnt out on Secret Wars.

Except it's happened in Hickman's own work, with the whole thing with the Bridge and the Council of Reeds, so even ignoring every other FF writer including Lee/Kirby (which I really don't agree with) , this has happened before. Or are you saying Hickman's past FF stories sucked and don't count too?

And if a story says it's a story about existing characters, their past stories are always relevant. Because if their past stories aren't relevant, they AREN'T existing characters, and the story is contradicting itself by saying they are.

Yes, I said within the context of Hickman's own work. I acknowledged it had happened before. I don't think the two examples constitute enough to consider Sue weak, especially given the scale of the second instance and the fact that we don't yet have all the details about how the two characters view it.

And I disagree about past stories. But you and I have had this discussion before. I respect your opinion, you refuse to even acknowledge mine. I don't think you are wrong for wanting all the past stories to matter, but I do think you're wrong that that MUST be the case. To me, it is a matter of opinion, and we all know of plenty of past stories that are blatantly ignore or outright changed in order to make the current stuff make sense.

So again, for me, Hickman's work is consistent and does not portray Sue as a weak character at all.

[Rosebunse]

I think comic book fans are in a different positions than many fan communities are. We're not a very big community, and very often, the people who create comics are members. This creates a pesudo-closeness between creators and fans, and fans expect certain things, like spoilers...lots of spoilers.

On top of that, a lot of these books are weeks or months apart, and people can get a bit crazy waiting for their comics.

[vitruvian]

I don't know if we must take him at his word in that regard. He's very anti-solicit and sharing story info ahead of time. I wouldn't be too surprised if he lied about that.

Comic fans are weird like that. Who would want to know such a vital bit of info prior to its natural revelation in the story? We think we want to know these things....but then when we get that info early, we often then treat the actual story as a formality and wait for it to end.

See the current thread about being burnt out on Secret Wars.

I don't think it's weird either to object to being lied to, or to speculate about such things. What would be weird would be to feel entitled to answers to such questions before the writer is able or willing to provide them, or for a writer to feel it was better to respond to questions about it with a falsehood rather than simply say, "I'm not going to tell you that because I feel that knowing it in advance might well ruin your enjoyment of the story." Or the tl;dr version, "Not telling."

Yes, I said within the context of Hickman's own work. I acknowledged it had happened before. I don't think the two examples constitute enough to consider Sue weak, especially given the scale of the second instance and the fact that we don't yet have all the details about how the two characters view it.

Okay, I can see that if you don't include earlier examples with them than the one in Hickman's past work, it might not come off as being as egregious... although I'm uneasy about excluding all other writers' use of it, particularly the one with the FF's bodies breaking down from the cosmic radiation and Reed not telling them (leading to their space-time journey while Scott Lang and co. held the fort at home), that comes in between the two instances Hickman writes about, since it came so quickly on the heels of the mess in Hickman's Fantastic Four and there was quite a bit of reference on Sue's part to this being a pattern that Reed was repeating.

And I disagree about past stories. But you and I have had this discussion before. I respect your opinion, you refuse to even acknowledge mine. I don't think you are wrong for wanting all the past stories to matter, but I do think you're wrong that that MUST be the case. To me, it is a matter of opinion, and we all know of plenty of past stories that are blatantly ignore or outright changed in order to make the current stuff make sense.

So again, for me, Hickman's work is consistent and does not portray Sue as a weak character at all.

Let me acknowledge your point to some extent, then... certainly, I don't want to say that all past stories with a character, even if they were originally meant to be part of the same continuity, must always and ever count and matter. There are definitely lots of retcons going on on a frequent basis, for things ranging from topical references having to be ignored for the sliding timeline to certain things like some of Mjolnir's weirder powers or Reed Richards being a judo master just getting forgotten and going by the wayside. And there are some stories so bad or nonsensical that they're gone (except perhaps as a tall tale told within the setting) almost as soon as they're published, like Hercules towing Manhattan around with a big chain. So, no, it's not all the past stories that I want to matter.

However, if at least some, if not most, of the past stories don't matter, then it is not really the same character in this story that appeared in the past stories, any more than the Garfield Spider-Man is the same guy as the Maguire Spider-Man in the movies. And if it's not the same character, then don't tell us it's the same character in the text of this story, and don't market the story on the basis that it's a continuation of that character's saga.... which Hickman and Marvel have done. Once you do those things, you have committed to it.

And once you do include some past stories as part of the history of the characters in your current story... which Hickman does extensively, there are lots of references to past continuity in his stories in general, even beyond characters' origins and so on... the presumption then becomes that most (not all, no, not dumb or obscure stories nobody remembers) of those past stories are 'in continuity' with the current story, not that only those specifically referenced count and all others are presumed null and void.

I can see where you prefer an interpretation where no past story is included unless it is explicitly or (strongly) implicitly referenced, whereas my sense of it has always been that past stories are included unless explicitly or implicitly excluded... and we could probably debate for ages where the balance should be ideally struck between those two approaches... but let's not pretend for a moment that a story as absolutely steeped in at least some continuity as Hickman's is actually a thing that is complete unto itself, with no references to other stories.

[hawkeyefan]

I think comic book fans are in a different positions than many fan communities are. We're not a very big community, and very often, the people who create comics are members. This creates a pesudo-closeness between creators and fans, and fans expect certain things, like spoilers...lots of spoilers.

On top of that, a lot of these books are weeks or months apart, and people can get a bit crazy waiting for their comics.

I prefer not to have spoilers. I don't check out the solicits...I wasn't even aware that this was a huge thing fans did until recently. I check out sites like CBR and I take notice of things like upcoming books and creative team changes so that way I know I be on the lookout for things. But I don't want an issue synopsis before I read the issue. I don't want to know before Axis even ends that Stark will remain inverted (just an example, I bowed out of Axis at issue 2).

There's another thread that recently started about next week's solicits...I guess a lot of Secret Wars related stuff will be in the solicits. I was going to comment there about not wanting to know this stuff ahead of time, but decided not to throw my two cents into it. Why disagree just to disagree? Those folks are excited about the solicits, that's cool for them.

But then I look at the thread about being burnt out on Secret Wars already, and I can't help but see a connection. I guess the way I see it is They've decided Secret Wars is a 5 month story, right? So for me, I want those 5 months to be the 5 months when the issues are coming out. I don't want it to be 3 months before issue 1, and then 2 more months and then by issue 4 I'm like enough already.

But that's just me....and I realize how way off topic that discussion is hahah

I don't think it's weird either to object to being lied to, or to speculate about such things. What would be weird would be to feel entitled to answers to such questions before the writer is able or willing to provide them, or for a writer to feel it was better to respond to questions about it with a falsehood rather than simply say, "I'm not going to tell you that because I feel that knowing it in advance might well ruin your enjoyment of the story." Or the tl;dr version, "Not telling."

Sure, I agree with you totally. Sometimes though, I think that to nip that line of questioning in the bud, it might be easier to give a seemingly definitive answer once rather than a nebulous answer fifty times.

And let me clarify a bit...I'm not sure he would outright lie. But I think there'd be a technicality he'd use so that his statement was true, even though not in the way we take it.

To use a rough example, describing Penance as a new character post Civil War would be technically correct; Penance is a separate copyright than Speedball, with a different look and power set. To readers he was the same character as speedball, but they could certainly bill him as new.

Something to that effect I would not be surprised of at all .

Okay, I can see that if you don't include earlier examples with them than the one in Hickman's past work, it might not come off as being as egregious... although I'm uneasy about excluding all other writers' use of it, particularly the one with the FF's bodies breaking down from the cosmic radiation and Reed not telling them (leading to their space-time journey while Scott Lang and co. held the fort at home), that comes in between the two instances Hickman writes about, since it came so quickly on the heels of the mess in Hickman's Fantastic Four and there was quite a bit of reference on Sue's part to this being a pattern that Reed was repeating.

Let me acknowledge your point to some extent, then... certainly, I don't want to say that all past stories with a character, even if they were originally meant to be part of the same continuity, must always and ever count and matter. There are definitely lots of retcons going on on a frequent basis, for things ranging from topical references having to be ignored for the sliding timeline to certain things like some of Mjolnir's weirder powers or Reed Richards being a judo master just getting forgotten and going by the wayside. And there are some stories so bad or nonsensical that they're gone (except perhaps as a tall tale told within the setting) almost as soon as they're published, like Hercules towing Manhattan around with a big chain. So, no, it's not all the past stories that I want to matter.

However, if at least some, if not most, of the past stories don't matter, then it is not really the same character in this story that appeared in the past stories, any more than the Garfield Spider-Man is the same guy as the Maguire Spider-Man in the movies. And if it's not the same character, then don't tell us it's the same character in the text of this story, and don't market the story on the basis that it's a continuation of that character's saga.... which Hickman and Marvel have done. Once you do those things, you have committed to it.

And once you do include some past stories as part of the history of the characters in your current story... which Hickman does extensively, there are lots of references to past continuity in his stories in general, even beyond characters' origins and so on... the presumption then becomes that most (not all, no, not dumb or obscure stories nobody remembers) of those past stories are 'in continuity' with the current story, not that only those specifically referenced count and all others are presumed null and void.

I can see where you prefer an interpretation where no past story is included unless it is explicitly or (strongly) implicitly referenced, whereas my sense of it has always been that past stories are included unless explicitly or implicitly excluded... and we could probably debate for ages where the balance should be ideally struck between those two approaches... but let's not pretend for a moment that a story as absolutely steeped in at least some continuity as Hickman's is actually a thing that is complete unto itself, with no references to other stories.

That's understandable. And I get your view...I used to share it. And my stance doesn't necessarily come from wanting to dismiss specific stories so much as wanting to let the current creator fudge things a little if needed. I don't want blatant contradictions (unless they're there for the sake of the sliding timeline or something like that) but I want the writer to have some freedom to interpret the characters a bit. I find that the stories that do that are the ones that stand out as then most memorable.

So, having adopted that view, when I see in Hickman's run that he is taking a certain approach with the characters, and it may not incorporate everything everyone else had done but doesn't in any way contradict anything, then I recognize that. I realize what's happening and I accept it. It's one of the real world impacts on the fictional world.

And then the work itself can also justify "breaking the rules".

[TresDias]

And let me clarify a bit...I'm not sure he would outright lie. But I think there'd be a technicality he'd use so that his statement was true, even though not in the way we take it.

To use a rough example, describing Penance as a new character post Civil War would be technically correct; Penance is a separate copyright than Speedball, with a different look and power set. To readers he was the same character as speedball, but they could certainly bill him as new.

Something to that effect I would not be surprised of at all.

Something like "This character wasn't known as The Great Destroyer before. That identity is new"?

[vitruvian]

Something like "This character wasn't known as The Great Destroyer before. That identity is new"?

The actual line was that it wasn't 'somebody we've seen before', I believe. With that kind of wording, if it were a Penance situation, I would regard that as a lie, since we've seen Robbie Baldwin before even if not in that costume. On the other hand, if it were an alternate universe version of some familiar character, or some kind of merger or transformation with existing characters, it could be true on a technicality.

[hawkeyefan]

Something like "This character wasn't known as The Great Destroyer before. That identity is new"?

That is indeed what I meant, but I was not sure of the wording as Vitruvian explains.

The actual line was that it wasn't 'somebody we've seen before', I believe. With that kind of wording, if it were a Penance situation, I would regard that as a lie, since we've seen Robbie Baldwin before even if not in that costume. On the other hand, if it were an alternate universe version of some familiar character, or some kind of merger or transformation with existing characters, it could be true on a technicality.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a technicality like that, that's all I meant. I don't know if there has been any evidence in the story to support that Rabbum Alal is a pre-existing character. People have put forth some interesting theories here on the forums, but most are based on no evidence from the story.

So I expect he's being honest and it is a new entity, but I just wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the case.