PREVIEW: New Avengers #31

[somebody]

@vitruvian: No actually it isn't. It's relevant to all forms of fiction and more, Bellisario's Maxim as well to Hot Fuzz which isn't specific to mocking the film rather the idea is that the audience member may in fact be hindering their own enjoyment of a work for over-thinking the process that went into the art itself. Hence " Repeat to myself it's just a show and I should really just relax. " La la la. You must know if you do not that 1.) Most of the writers and artists more likely than not did not put the amount of thought and detail into these works that you yourself have and 2.) Neither do most of the readers. Logic works from all angles rather than just your own. Compromising with the intellectual state of those around you is crucial to building a bridge in communication.

Heh. Didn't know this.

Yeah I'm just letting myself suspend a bit more disbelief than usual and enjoying it much more. I see people here trying to tie every little piece they can from all of Marvel's books together thinking there's some grand tapestry...when there most likely isn't.

Honestly, it's worse when the writer themselves flub over their own stuff with blatant mistakes, like Bendis. At least this plot is enjoyful, unlike Bendis's Avengers run which was written like it was aimed for middle schoolers.

[Rosebunse]

I really don't hate Bendis, but he's one of those writers who work best with smaller casts. Hickman is doing pretty good with what he has.

[jiazhouhuaqiao]

Since no one else has mentioned the possibility yet, I'm going to go for the Destroyer being the AI that Eton gives birth to in 12,000 AD, which may or may not be Worldcore.

The last issue of Age of Ultron we have time fracturing (leading to 616 Galactus sent to the 1610 universe). It was speculated that this was due to abusing the timeline, but I think what happened was the 616 timeline changed, leading to Rabum Alal being born in the future.

What changed?

Pym created an evolving virus to defeat Ultron. In Avengers AI, we find out that this virus in turn evolved into The Six- super AI, including Dimitrios.

In the last issue of Avengers AI (#12) we find out that Dimitrios wants to confront the creator of all (i.e. The One Above All). In 12,000 AD, he uses the severed head of Galactus to pass into The Golden Knot, the nexus of time and space and ends up in the white beyond infinity. Doombot releases the singularity in his chest to try to stop Dimitrios. This might be the singularity that creates the multiversal collapse, since it is approximate to the Golden Knot. We never find out what happens to Dimitrios or Alexis after that, but this is also when Alexis tells Eton her child will be born. Perhaps Dimitrios allies with or corrupts the Beyonders (so the Beyonders are being controlled by Dimitrios).

12,000 AD is between the Planet Ultron/ Avengers World timeline (2435-5000 AD) and Worldcore (50,000 AD).

[Rosebunse]

Has any of Avengers AI been brought up in any of Hickman's work?

[SickAlice]

@somebody: Sorry if I stepped on your toes but I noticed the wall of text forming, nor any insult to anyone else just trying to untangle it a bit. My take on your explanation of time scale was that Marvel themselves didn't put that much detail into it anyways so the detail didn't exist to be found. Likewise as you say " suspension of disbelief " and they were relying on the reader to go there as well. This would be the sum of a Marvel " No-Prize answer " where Marvel really hadn't thought it through and just went/goes with a " whatever sort of works " explanation to holes in the fiction. I would more believe that is the nature of said time scale. I doubt they have every number worked out exactly into a precise system of measurement nor do any of the writers, whom are specifically on a deadline and have lives outside work, adhere to and put into the works. This is me noting again there's more often than not a lack of anything resembling real science at all half the time in a comic anyways, or even reasoning and sometimes math. But honestly this is all drift. I considered a No-Prize thread may be in order or something. Then again this is Preview thread so it will sink anyways when the Review/Spoilers one hits. Gosh I can't believe the 11th isn't here yet. I'll take some of that sliding time now that I think about it.

I give Bendis slack speaking of life priorities. The man stretched himself utterly thin just over various projects in different ends of the company alone. He's going to miss beats here and there and the work he does apply himself to 150% shows he's otherwise capable of keeping the pace.

[vitruvian]

@vitruvian: No actually it isn't. It's relevant to all forms of fiction and more, Bellisario's Maxim as well to Hot Fuzz which isn't specific to mocking the film rather the idea is that the audience member may in fact be hindering their own enjoyment of a work for over-thinking the process that went into the art itself. Hence " Repeat to myself it's just a show and I should really just relax. " La la la. You must know if you do not that 1.) Most of the writers and artists more likely than not did not put the amount of thought and detail into these works that you yourself have and 2.) Neither do most of the readers. Logic works from all angles rather than just your own. Compromising with the intellectual state of those around you is crucial to building a bridge in communication.

See, you're misusing it to derail all criticism of fiction, basically telling people to think less. That I or any other person likes to analyze these things does not mean that I'm saying every member of the audience must do so, they're free to just relax and enjoy it... but the MST3K Mantra, applied outside the type of framing sequence for a show that itself is about mocking bad movies, suggests that it's bad and wrong for anybody to engage in critical analysis. Also, the idea that any analysis equates to 'over-thinking' things, or even that if it were 'over-thinking' it would necessarily be hindering my enjoyment of things, is a big presumption to make. How do you know that plugging plot holes isn't one of my favorite things about engaging with fiction?

I'd also say that when a writer, such as Hickman in this case, engages in what is really a rather ambitious storyline that tackles weighty moral dilemmas, even Bellisario's Maxim loses a lot of its applicability. If you're trying to go all serious and profound, even with four color characters as in this case, then you by that same token take on a responsibility to think your story through sufficiently to carry that weight, just as when somebody sets out to write hard SF, they do have to worry about the air and food supply for their characters or they're doing a crappy job of it.

Moff's Law rules.

[SickAlice]

@vitruvian: No again because I'm not a debater as you are so derailment is no more important to me than " being right ". No one cares if you criticize fiction, though that does make it your own opinion and not fact for anyone else, though we all do criticize. I myself go as far as to hold my opinions even when I'm chatting with the very writer or artists so I would be a hypocrite to do otherwise. But your arguing with other users that there is in fact a vast technically detailed system in play in the fiction that actually isn't there and in fact is no more or less than head canon from your own person. Others and myself are just trying to tell you that fact and only that fact. That you dug all of that out of what I said and didn't say more than testifies to the fact. And the fact is your missing the point by miles because again your under the presumption that everyone not only thinks as you, but they have a responsibility to cater to your intellect. As an intelligent person you must be able to figure out that not only am I not as versed as you are, most are not. So why would we would be able match your speed and more why should we be held accountable to do so. What we are saying is very simple " tone it down please for the sake of the rest of us. " The rest of us aren't obligated to cater to your desire here, neither is Marvel nor Hickman and again I don't think any even capable. None of it relevant to the actual discussion here which quite frankly most of us have been drowned out of by your all of text obsessive off topic bickering with other users. Let other users get a conversation in once awhile. A lot of people are excited about these books and maybe would like to have actual discussions about them, without discussing everything from scientific acumen to etymology and more to spending time defending to very context and diction of there own posts. As well some of these users are children, they haven't gone to college yet. And I mean this as a request for me to you, please. I mean your literally over-thinking a trope that's very message is to not over-think things. What should you take away from that? I'm adding that I'm leaving it here because engaging you is just perpetuating this. Just please think about it, or if you must take these off topic arguments to PM's or something.

[TresDias]

Which I would submit really only applies to bad movies (or other works of fiction) that you're specifically there to mock... or the framing mechanism for that mocking, in this case. I certainly don't agree that 'science facts' are irrelevant to all science fiction, even in the movies, or that fiction in general ought to be immune from criticism on the basis of story logic or plausibility given its particular premise.

I agree with both you and SickAlice. Obviously literary analysis is enjoyable, and -- just as obviously -- turning one's brain off to bask in whatever is thrown at it can be too.

Likewise, just the fact that something is sci-fi doesn't mean it can't be analyzed in light of real science -- but I will say that if you're holding it to a standard that it never made an attempt to meet, nor ever implied it was trying to meet, then you yourself are being illogical. With a movie like "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within," if you're going to get upset that it doesn't feature a depiction of the Earth's core that lines up with reality, then you're wasting your time since the premise of the film demanded that the Earth's core as seen in the movie doesn't line up with reality.

Furthermore, in a case like that, where the scientific logic of the film is internally consistent (i.e. lines up with its own logic/science/rules), if you're holding its lack of real-world accuracy against it, then you're arguing the film is bad for achieving its intended goal. Which is simply bonkers.

So, there is such a thing as being so logical that you're being illogical when it comes to literary analysis. Like everything else, there's a balance -- a happy medium. If you get enjoyment out of analyzing everything in relation to real-world scientific accuracy, then have at it, of course. But if you are doing so while intending to use it as a mark against the work, you need to stop and consider whether that was anything the artist or those it was intended for would even care.

Otherwise, you can end up taking yourself too embarrassingly seriously like whoever wrote that Moff's Law thing you linked to. And, yeah, you can even prevent yourself from enjoying something on its own merits. I know because that used to be me. It was just something I had to learn to do when it mattered.

Will I analyze something like "Interstellar" or "Gravity"? Definitely. Will I do it with "Guardians of the Galaxy" or "Star Wars"? Probably, but to a lesser extent. Will I do it with "Dragonball Evolution" or the "Super Mario Bros." movie? Hell to the no.

[Rosebunse]

See, you're misusing it to derail all criticism of fiction, basically telling people to think less. That I or any other person likes to analyze these things does not mean that I'm saying every member of the audience must do so, they're free to just relax and enjoy it... but the MST3K Mantra, applied outside the type of framing sequence for a show that itself is about mocking bad movies, suggests that it's bad and wrong for anybody to engage in critical analysis. Also, the idea that any analysis equates to 'over-thinking' things, or even that if it were 'over-thinking' it would necessarily be hindering my enjoyment of things, is a big presumption to make. How do you know that plugging plot holes isn't one of my favorite things about engaging with fiction?

I'd also say that when a writer, such as Hickman in this case, engages in what is really a rather ambitious storyline that tackles weighty moral dilemmas, even Bellisario's Maxim loses a lot of its applicability. If you're trying to go all serious and profound, even with four color characters as in this case, then you by that same token take on a responsibility to think your story through sufficiently to carry that weight, just as when somebody sets out to write hard SF, they do have to worry about the air and food supply for their characters or they're doing a crappy job of it.

Moff's Law rules.

I think my problem with these long debates is that no one is going to be persuaded. Now, it's fine and all if you want to state your points, but if you've gone this long without convincing someone, then they probably aren't going to be convinced.

At the same time, it's really been the same thing. It makes it hard to get involved when you guys keep going on and on and on about the same things.

[somebody]

@somebody: Sorry if I stepped on your toes but I noticed the wall of text forming, nor any insult to anyone else just trying to untangle it a bit. My take on your explanation of time scale was that Marvel themselves didn't put that much detail into it anyways so the detail didn't exist to be found.

Man, I really try not to do that. But yeah, my personal "head canon" is that the stories happened when they were published, with all the societal norms of those times. To kind of drift away from that takes away from certain stories. So to believe that the MU is hyper-condensed and a lot happens in their year works for me. Or that living beings just on average age slower. Tons of evidence to go against it, but if you take away something like Magento being a concentration camp survivor you miss a great aspect of his personality. So when the stories call on societal events to deliver an impact, I don't discount them. That's what makes those stories work. So to me, just making everything that happened from 1960-2015 squeeze into 14 years of characters aging works very well for me.

Likewise as you say " suspension of disbelief " and they were relying on the reader to go there as well. This would be the sum of a Marvel " No-Prize answer " where Marvel really hadn't thought it through and just went/goes with a " whatever sort of works " explanation to holes in the fiction. I would more believe that is the nature of said time scale. I doubt they have every number worked out exactly into a precise system of measurement nor do any of the writers, whom are specifically on a deadline and have lives outside work, adhere to and put into the works. This is me noting again there's more often than not a lack of anything resembling real science at all half the time in a comic anyways, or even reasoning and sometimes math. But honestly this is all drift. I considered a No-Prize thread may be in order or something. Then again this is Preview thread so it will sink anyways when the Review/Spoilers one hits. Gosh I can't believe the 11th isn't here yet. I'll take some of that sliding time now that I think about it.

I get it. Especially when they do updated origins and stuff...but I don't personally like them. Give me one origin and I'm done, unless you add something exponential. The FF going to Mars over the Moon to beat the Russians doesn't matter much to me. Same story, different era. Bores me to death.

I give Bendis slack speaking of life priorities. The man stretched himself utterly thin just over various projects in different ends of the company alone. He's going to miss beats here and there and the work he does apply himself to 150% shows he's otherwise capable of keeping the pace.

I think he does this to himself. He works on too many things, spreading quality too thin. Then, I think he'll find a "Bendisism" online through criticism, be it constructive or negative, and work it into his books. I think it's a type of reflective behavior that he thinks makes him cool. You buy a Bendis book, you're going to get the Bendisisms, even if it doesn't flow with the narrative or tone of the title. I loathe him for this. He is a very creative dude, he just loves to rely on his moves instead of branching out and trying something different. His MOON KNIGHT was an idea that could have worked, but it was too cheesy with the quips and dialog. That's a Bendism. Unfortunately, for fans who favor characters/themes over writers, you're SOL.

[somebody]

It's pretty nonsensical and so not what I choose to imagine. Imagining that when Marvel says 13-14 years they mean it, and that means the FF's rocket goes up in 2001 during the Bush Administration and not 1961 (or 2001) during the Kennedy Administration, leads to a better overall story of the Marvel Universe - since to my mind a story that makes some sense is a better story. It's not like topical references to Presidents or events are all that important to most of the earlier stories, apart from the overarching fear of the Cold War, and we've now slid to a point where that can quite easily be replaced by post-9/11 paranoia.

Hey, whatever floats your boat. I just think it's pointless to spend time on a message board discussing the pieces that bother you, or think that it's something that Marvel needs to do better. We obviously have different tastes, so to come here and write about how your perception of what goes on is something that is a fault of the publisher kind of irks me, with all due respect. Like, not all readers are so anal about the sliding timescale and just accept it for what it is, and all your interjections about it feels like you're fighting against Marvel for your personal agenda. To me, it comes off obnoxious and pompous, like Marvel should run itself to your liking. Again, with all due respect -- that's just how I personally take it.

Thing is, he is in his late twenties in the stories currently being published, so there's no more pretending involved than there usually is in talking about the age of a fictional character in other than publishing terms. In terms of age within the story, it's whatever the story tells us it is... but what the story tells us it is has certain logical implications. Unless you're Nero Wolfe, who scoffs at chronology of any kind.

Maybe I'm Nero Wolfe? Who's he?

Anyway, far from being an alternative to Peter being in his twenties, the 'fill-in' stories such as Lost Generation actually support the conceit of the sliding timeline, by filling in the decades left kind of vacant by moving the start of the modern heroic era with the advent of the FF ever forward. Or maybe it's just that I liked those stories better than you did and therefore am more inclined to include them in my own head canon than you are; we can all be blind to our own biases sometimes.

Anyway, in this case my bias is not to crunch up the real world events of the last five decades plus into 13-14 years, because the world that would result just seems too screwy to me. I'm generally fine with the way the sliding timeline is usually presented, as requiring you to just ignore topical references from the earlier decades (and also ignore that some plots would be short circuited by, say, the availability of cell phones or Google).

I personally dislike it because I didn't like the story, and eventually you'll have to keep adding. I like the idea of WW2 started the heroes, the monster time happened, then FF and MU up to now. I feel like it's a cheat to insert invisible stories and characters where there are no callbacks to. To me, my line of thinking is less insulting than say, Blue Marvel existed for all these years but he was never called upon. But again, it's personal.

There is another alternative I'm kind of partial to, though... one in which you keep 'Marvel time' since the FF fought the Mole Man down to a span of 13-14 years, but keep things anchored not in the present publishing year, but rather back in 1961. This would make it only the mid-70s in the MU, with the reason for all the technology looking like that of 2015 being guys like Reed Richards and Tony Stark actually advancing things for the general public. You still have to ignore some topical references like Presidents and hot bands, of course, just in the later rather than the earlier decades, but I find it a neat exercise in world building... but not one particularly related to anything Marvel is publishing right now, of course.

Yeah that's kind of where I'm at, just add in shorter president reigns or whatever. I think the social aspects of some great stories are intrinsically tied to the time period in which they are published, so I don't want to ignore things like a pre-Giuliani New York. As someone who's in the tri-state area, I think the history of NYC is one of the coolest in all of America, and considering I love that Marvel is "the world outside your window" reading older stories as if they did take place in those time periods makes my experience more enjoyable.

[somebody]

Since no one else has mentioned the possibility yet, I'm going to go for the Destroyer being the AI that Eton gives birth to in 12,000 AD, which may or may not be Worldcore.

The last issue of Age of Ultron we have time fracturing (leading to 616 Galactus sent to the 1610 universe). It was speculated that this was due to abusing the timeline, but I think what happened was the 616 timeline changed, leading to Rabum Alal being born in the future.

What changed?

Pym created an evolving virus to defeat Ultron. In Avengers AI, we find out that this virus in turn evolved into The Six- super AI, including Dimitrios.

In the last issue of Avengers AI (#12) we find out that Dimitrios wants to confront the creator of all (i.e. The One Above All). In 12,000 AD, he uses the severed head of Galactus to pass into The Golden Knot, the nexus of time and space and ends up in the white beyond infinity. Doombot releases the singularity in his chest to try to stop Dimitrios. This might be the singularity that creates the multiversal collapse, since it is approximate to the Golden Knot. We never find out what happens to Dimitrios or Alexis after that, but this is also when Alexis tells Eton her child will be born. Perhaps Dimitrios allies with or corrupts the Beyonders (so the Beyonders are being controlled by Dimitrios).

12,000 AD is between the Planet Ultron/ Avengers World timeline (2435-5000 AD) and Worldcore (50,000 AD).

I think you're reading too closely. I don't think such a D-Level title will have any significance to this story. If it did, wouldn't the title have been around longer, and with a more high-profile team? Or at least, if it was meant to be important and was a bust, pieces that needed to be brought over would have been alluded to already. It makes very little marketing sense to include something from a title that ended years ago that probably isn't even in trade prints anymore. If the pieces were important, I think they would have been moved into a more successful title to keep the ideas fresh in the readers' mind. Even though this is supposed to be a "mystery", pulling in these threads would do little for Marvel. Would they relaunch the line? Would they expect there to be a huge rush for re-printings? Is it in the Secret Wars prelude trade? (that's an honest question). Considering the title was so low-key, I'm sorry friend, I don't think this is the answer.

Has any of Avengers AI been brought up in any of Hickman's work?

I don't think so. I don't even think it's in the prelude trade. I think it was too obscure to the Marvel fanbase that they would pull it out. And if it was, don't you think Hank would have had a bigger role already, to at least prep for the idea that something he did was important to the story?

I think a lot of it will be Reed based, which is fitting. He was the first Marvel hero and it makes sense to highlight him at the end of the Marvel universe. Harmonic, actually.

[jiazhouhuaqiao]

I think you're reading too closely. I don't think such a D-Level title will have any significance to this story. If it did, wouldn't the title have been around longer, and with a more high-profile team? Or at least, if it was meant to be important and was a bust, pieces that needed to be brought over would have been alluded to already. It makes very little marketing sense to include something from a title that ended years ago that probably isn't even in trade prints anymore. If the pieces were important, I think they would have been moved into a more successful title to keep the ideas fresh in the readers' mind.

It's not like I read AI when it was first published either. I followed the story seeds from the Infinite Avengers story to read Secret Avengers v1, which then lead me to read Avengers AI last week.

And AI #12 was published less than a year ago. Age of Ultron was a little over a year ago, and AI began right after that.

Also I hardly think Hickman is making story decisions to sell back issues. If what Secret Wars is going to be about is the Singularity event (the merging of humanity with AI), which is alluded to in Rogue Planet (Avengers #24- in fact, no one has yet answered my question of how Tony Stark would know about the Singularity event), then that's what the story is.

[Rosebunse]

Avengers AI is still rather obscure. It's remembered most by the more, um, hardcore members of the fanbase. If it hasn't been brought up yet, then it's perhaps save to say we can disregard it in our theories.

[frostywontons]

Just occurred to me that none of the alternate Illuminati we've seen thus far have had a Stephen Strange/visible Sorcerer Supreme and Black Swan did not seem to have met a Stephen Strange before either. Wonder if this fact is significant? Perhaps the Black Priests are all alternate versions of Strange?