Hickman Sets the Stage for His "Avengers" Finale & Marvel's "Secret Wars" - Part 1

[TresDias]

Personally, I've never felt more rewarded for my longtime fandom than I have over the course of Hickman's run.

That's exactly how I feel! This is basically the story I've waited for since I was four years old.

AGREED!* My favorite moment from the series is when Panther was holding the detonator, and (I think it was) Reed asked What he was waiting for. He replies, "I'm remembering who we used to be."** This moment was chilling when I read it.

That really was something. I got those chills again just from reading you quote him.

And I certainly understand that, but I think there's a happy medium to be found between one dimensional heroism (Dudley Doright-ism) and having heroes through up their hands and moral compasses and participate in the literal destruction of worlds, mind-wiping long time comrades, etc.* At that point they kind of lose the privilege of being classified as heroes, in my opinion.

How important is that title, though? For so much of their history, the conflicts they faced were cut and dry -- e.g. stop the bad guy before he crashes the Moon into the Earth, or something like that. Getting to be called a hero was pretty easy most days, even though that wasn't the goal (saving people was).

At some point, though, getting to feel like a hero mattered to those who comprised the Illuminati, and when they could no longer save people while still feeling like a hero, they seemed to grieve that loss as much or more than being unable to save everyone. This led most of them to do nothing at more than one critical moment.

If that's what being a hero amounts to, I wouldn't want the title. That preoccupation with it sounds decidedly unheroic to me. I'm not saying Namor has been particularly heroic lately, but he wouldn't claim to be either. He would say that being a hero was a luxury -- a privilege, as you put it -- that the goal of saving others couldn't afford him every single time.

I think Hickman's story has been great. At times brilliant, although there are a couple of criticisms I have. But overall they are minor.

I do think it was designed to be a bit depressing. I mean, from a purely metaphorical standpoint, they are battling death. And that's one foe none of us will beat. So that is a bit depressing, and it should be.

I think that it's fine to actually have one story where the superheroes are not able to overcome the threat. Sure, this will lead to Secret Wars and things will get resolved there, and I'm sure it'll all be a (mostly) happy ending. But this part of the story is about what happens to people who always win when they find out they can't win this time. I think that's a worthwhile story just because it's different than all the other stories told with these characters.

Agreed on all points.

And as for the "permanent effect" this will have on the characters...I think that's pretty much a choice these days. We're way past the point where we should really expect these stories to permanently affect the characters. We passed that point long ago. So even if there is not some out built into the story, there's no reason Marvel can't present any of the characters as heroes going forward. They can do whatever they want because the characters are fictional.

The decision to accept what they portray or not is up to us.

Here too.

The notion that a tainted character can't be a hero is soundly refuted by many villains who have changed for the better. That's even been the schtick for characters like Xena.

I will say it's harder, though, to rehabilitate a hero who becomes a villain back into a hero. If no one ends up dead or suffering all that much because of them, it's not too difficult (why it was easy with Quicksilver), but if that does happen, there are three requirements for bringing that character back:

-They were acting with the best intentions/working for the greater good

-They took the most rational route available to them at the time

-They acknowledge their sins

Meeting these requirements is why it's not difficult at all to bring Namor or Dr. Strange back while Bishop -- who had been one of my favorite X-Men from the time he was introduced -- is unsalvageable. He met the first requirement, didn't acknowledge the third until long after his crimes, and never got anywhere near the second. He's the perfect example of how not to attempt this.

Hell, I know you disagree with me about this, but I still haven't forgiven Clint for murdering that Skrull who thought she was Mockingbird. He didn't meet any of these three requirements, and even if you do give him a pass on the first and second because of his emotional turmoil at the moment, he still failed to meet the third requirement.

Frankly, any time Clint tries to get high and mighty on anybody now, I just want to see him get punched in the face. =P

[Biclopcicle]

Well, I think we will have to agree to disagree that it's diminishing. I think everyone has a breaking point and I find it really interesting that Hickman is exploring that aspect of these characters--how much can they bend before they break? What do they do in the face of a true no-win scenario? How someone handles the inevitability of death is, to me, one of life's great questions. Everything dies, after all

It is a depressing topic, sure, but one worth exploring.

Yes. I'm not saying anything terribly new here, but I am a little surprised at the opposition voiced in this thread regarding Hickman's treatment of these characters. I think it's great that he's looking at these characters simply as men and women who have been given extraordinary minds and powers, placed in an extraordinary situation- one they have never faced.

Thought experiment: lets go back to New Avengers #4 (I think) and Tony doesnt tell Strange to mindwipe Rogers. Rogers then stays part of the Illuminati, and they don't reverse-engineer the antimatter bomb from Black Swan's trigger. Next issue, a blue incursion occurs over Latveria. The Illuminati have no means of dealing with the Sidera Maris or the Mapmakers, because they've never seen them, and they don't have a means of destroying their base earth. Earth 616 gets mapped and a small chunk of it (presumably) gets plugged into Battleworld.... I mean, that's not exactly a riveting story. It doesn't make the reader think, and it doesn't explore all the psychological phenomena that occur when one is confronted with their own mortality. Furthermore, as we saw in NA 13 and 14, there's a possibility that the Mapmakers would have simply made it GAME OVER for earth's heroes. Lame. Now we can see that those "filler" issues serve a purpose- we see how being purely heroic, static kind of character will fare against the Beyonders' experiment. It ends poorly for everyone, but at least for our group, there is a story to be told.

This is one of those stories where it's not about what happens in the end or who wins, its about how the characters deal with their fate. And we see that exploration into the different options: you have Rogers and co. being Rogers, you have the Illuminati trying to outthink the problem, you have the Cabal punching the problem in the face, and then you have Sunspot, Doom, and Strange literally going outside the box trying to solve their dilemma. I can't say it enough times, I think this has been a great ride. It's not been an Avengers book, and some characters have been marred by their interesting choices. I get that it sucks for some people. But who have been marred? Tony? He's walked outside the lines before. and now he's inverted. Strange? He's played with dark forces as well. Namor has always been about Namor and Atlantis. That's about it. I don't think the rest of the Illuminati are complicit in the Cabal- they were dealing with the Great Society when the Cabal took control of the antimatter bombs. For me, the story works

[JohnLynch]

I think that it's fine to actually have one story where the superheroes are not able to overcome the threat.

There's a difference to having a story where the heroes lose and a story where the "heroes" do such despicable acts that their character is toxic for years to follow. Look at Hank Pym. A single (incorrectly drawn) panel has ruined that character for years and has made him unusable as a hero to be admired. Look at Scarlet Witch and how much venom has been aimed at that character. Tony Stark's actions in Civil War and afterwards were so awful the writer felt they needed to have Stark reboot his entire brain to get to a pre-Civil War state.

If the heroes are committing genocide on a global scale then this story will either be ignored or we'll get a similarly stupid plot device where everyone reboots their brains.

[marveluted]

I just finished re-reading Hickman's entire Avengers/New Avengers run so far. I'm not sure what else to add that hasn't already been said, so I'll say this: The complete story so far reads really well as a whole.

Moreover, I absolutely love Hickman's take on certain characters. He gave me a reason to care about Hyperion. Sunspot and Cannonball are electric on the page. Strange going completely off the magical reservation is spellbinding. And Doom... I always love Hickman's take on Doom. It makes me want to go back and re-read his Fantastic Four/FF run.

I think some of his characterizations are likely to be adopted by other writers in the future. Certainly, this was one of the cleanest takes on Hyperion in ages.

[Rosebunse]

There's a difference to having a story where the heroes lose and a story where the "heroes" do such despicable acts that their character is toxic for years to follow. Look at Hank Pym. A single (incorrectly drawn) panel has ruined that character for years and has made him unusable as a hero to be admired. Look at Scarlet Witch and how much venom has been aimed at that character. Tony Stark's actions in Civil War and afterwards were so awful the writer felt they needed to have Stark reboot his entire brain to get to a pre-Civil War state.

If the heroes are committing genocide on a global scale then this story will either be ignored or we'll get a similarly stupid plot device where everyone reboots their brains.

I think it's the context that sets Secret Wars apart. The sheer hopelessness of the situations allows for them to do the things they do without the worry of them being toxic for years to come.

I just finished re-reading Hickman's entire Avengers/New Avengers run so far. I'm not sure what else to add that hasn't already been said, so I'll say this: The complete story so far reads really well as a whole.

Moreover, I absolutely love Hickman's take on certain characters. He gave me a reason to care about Hyperion. Sunspot and Cannonball are electric on the page. Strange going completely off the magical reservation is spellbinding. And Doom... I always love Hickman's take on Doom. It makes me want to go back and re-read his Fantastic Four/FF run.

I think some of his characterizations are likely to be adopted by other writers in the future. Certainly, this was one of the cleanest takes on Hyperion in ages.

I've been surprised by Sunspot and Cannonball. Those kids really came a long way, right?

[hawkeyefan]

Agreed on all points.

Here too.

The notion that a tainted character can't be a hero is soundly refuted by many villains who have changed for the better. That's even been the schtick for characters like Xena.

I will say it's harder, though, to rehabilitate a hero who becomes a villain back into a hero. If no one ends up dead or suffering all that much because of them, it's not too difficult (why it was easy with Quicksilver), but if that does happen, there are three requirements for bringing that character back:

-They were acting with the best intentions/working for the greater good

-They took the most rational route available to them at the time

-They acknowledge their sins

Meeting these requirements is why it's not difficult at all to bring Namor or Dr. Strange back while Bishop -- who had been one of my favorite X-Men from the time he was introduced -- is unsalvageable. He met the first requirement, didn't acknowledge the third until long after his crimes, and never got anywhere near the second. He's the perfect example of how not to attempt this.

Hell, I know you disagree with me about this, but I still haven't forgiven Clint for murdering that Skrull who thought she was Mockingbird. He didn't meet any of these three requirements, and even if you do give him a pass on the first and second because of his emotional turmoil at the moment, he still failed to meet the third requirement.

Frankly, any time Clint tries to get high and mighty on anybody now, I just want to see him get punched in the face. =P

This...this is crazy talk!

Yeah we disagree about that bit with Clint, but I agree with a lot of the rest of what you said. Although I don't even mean that they need to redeem the character and to do so they need to address those three points you list. It doesn't even have to be as overt as that.

There could be an out built into the story. Especially with the whole Secret Wars thing looming. They can magic it away or come up with some kind of possession take or what have you. Not all options would work in this specific case, but they could come up with a few options that would work.

Like the Bishop example you gave...that's an easy fix. He's a character from the future, or a possible future. All they need to do is have another version of him show up and kill the deranged one. Or something very similar to that.

Most of the time, there are options. No toy is permanently broken, in that sense.

It's just whether the readers will accept any such restoration of the character. But like I said, I think that's a choice. Some people are adamant about these characters and their depiction and place a great amount of importance on them. They look at them as role models or examples to try and live by. Others view them for simple fictional constructs that exist solely for our entertainment. it varies from person to person. But it's a choice that we make.

Yes. I'm not saying anything terribly new here, but I am a little surprised at the opposition voiced in this thread regarding Hickman's treatment of these characters. I think it's great that he's looking at these characters simply as men and women who have been given extraordinary minds and powers, placed in an extraordinary situation- one they have never faced.

Thought experiment: lets go back to New Avengers #4 (I think) and Tony doesnt tell Strange to mindwipe Rogers. Rogers then stays part of the Illuminati, and they don't reverse-engineer the antimatter bomb from Black Swan's trigger. Next issue, a blue incursion occurs over Latveria. The Illuminati have no means of dealing with the Sidera Maris or the Mapmakers, because they've never seen them, and they don't have a means of destroying their base earth. Earth 616 gets mapped and a small chunk of it (presumably) gets plugged into Battleworld.... I mean, that's not exactly a riveting story. It doesn't make the reader think, and it doesn't explore all the psychological phenomena that occur when one is confronted with their own mortality. Furthermore, as we saw in NA 13 and 14, there's a possibility that the Mapmakers would have simply made it GAME OVER for earth's heroes. Lame. Now we can see that those "filler" issues serve a purpose- we see how being purely heroic, static kind of character will fare against the Beyonders' experiment. It ends poorly for everyone, but at least for our group, there is a story to be told.

This is one of those stories where it's not about what happens in the end or who wins, its about how the characters deal with their fate. And we see that exploration into the different options: you have Rogers and co. being Rogers, you have the Illuminati trying to outthink the problem, you have the Cabal punching the problem in the face, and then you have Sunspot, Doom, and Strange literally going outside the box trying to solve their dilemma. I can't say it enough times, I think this has been a great ride. It's not been an Avengers book, and some characters have been marred by their interesting choices. I get that it sucks for some people. But who have been marred? Tony? He's walked outside the lines before. and now he's inverted. Strange? He's played with dark forces as well. Namor has always been about Namor and Atlantis. That's about it. I don't think the rest of the Illuminati are complicit in the Cabal- they were dealing with the Great Society when the Cabal took control of the antimatter bombs. For me, the story works

Interesting. If Cap had remained with them all along, perhaps they could have used Starbrand to destroy the Mapmaker world? Although I think Starbramd was still imprisoned on Sol's Hammer at that point. But they would have had the whole Avengers machine at their disposal.

[hawkeyefan]

There's a difference to having a story where the heroes lose and a story where the "heroes" do such despicable acts that their character is toxic for years to follow. Look at Hank Pym. A single (incorrectly drawn) panel has ruined that character for years and has made him unusable as a hero to be admired. Look at Scarlet Witch and how much venom has been aimed at that character. Tony Stark's actions in Civil War and afterwards were so awful the writer felt they needed to have Stark reboot his entire brain to get to a pre-Civil War state.

If the heroes are committing genocide on a global scale then this story will either be ignored or we'll get a similarly stupid plot device where everyone reboots their brains.

I disagree. None of the characters you listed were unusable as heroes after those events. And the examples you gave ran the gamut of possession, an out, and the dark event remaining unchanged.

Honestly, Namor is the only character that seems truly tarnished. But many readers seem to support what he did. There's always a way out.

I'll admit that some of the ways they come up with to do these fixes are bad, but that's not always the case, and not does it need to be.

I just finished re-reading Hickman's entire Avengers/New Avengers run so far. I'm not sure what else to add that hasn't already been said, so I'll say this: The complete story so far reads really well as a whole.

Moreover, I absolutely love Hickman's take on certain characters. He gave me a reason to care about Hyperion. Sunspot and Cannonball are electric on the page. Strange going completely off the magical reservation is spellbinding. And Doom... I always love Hickman's take on Doom. It makes me want to go back and re-read his Fantastic Four/FF run.

I think some of his characterizations are likely to be adopted by other writers in the future. Certainly, this was one of the cleanest takes on Hyperion in ages.

I agree. Lots of characterization that I really enjoyed throughout this run.

[LightningBug]

All this talk about unsalvageable characters... I don't think any of these characters are unsalvageable. I think their motivations are driven by extreme circumstances and a writer with any creativity could vindicate any one of them, and likely will in the months and years ahead.

[hawkeyefan]

All this talk about unsalvageable characters... I don't think any of these characters are unsalvageable. I think their motivations are driven by extreme circumstances and a writer with any creativity could vindicate any one of them, and likely will in the months and years ahead.

Exactly right. Well said.

[davew128]

I am so with you on this. This has to be THE most depressing series in comic book history.

No, think Stirkeforce: Morituri where the heroes expect to die, and Earth 2 and World's End, where WE know the heroes fail but they keep at it.

[JohnLynch]

Isn't Hickman's point that there aren't any heroes or villains in this?

Does that really work when the genre your writing in is superheroes and the medium is serial comics though? Is that not like saying there is no magic in the second book of Harry Potter? You've still got all these books to go exploring kids attending magic high school?

[TresDias]

That's not quite a perfect comparison since this is supposed to be an ending of sorts.

Anywho, this may be the superhero comics genre, but so was "Watchmen." As in that case, genre expectations are being defied here for a reason.

[JohnLynch]

Most of the time, there are options. No toy is permanently broken, in that sense.

No-one is saying they're permanently broken (I'm certainly not). What was said was that if they've done what has been described in this thread, they're broken and absent a plot device as silly as Stark literally rebooting his brain back to a pre-Civil War state, the event will either be ignored by all future writers or they'll be forever tarnished by it. I'm sure Marvel will either ignore the event or use a plot device for the most famous of these characters. They are their money makers after all.

Some people are adamant about these characters and their depiction and place a great amount of importance on them. They look at them as role models or examples to try and live by. Others view them for simple fictional constructs that exist solely for our entertainment. it varies from person to person. But it's a choice that we make.

Enjoying reading about these characters acting in a certain way is not choosing to be unable to enjoy the comic. It's having a different taste. The Superior Iron Man who helps hunt down people the government deems undesirable or plots to destroy worlds will appeal to a certain segment of the audience. Iron Man the hero will appeal to a different segment of the audience. Some will enjoy both portrayals, some will only enjoy Superior Iron Man. Some will only enjoy the heroic Iron Man.

As for the idea that writers only need to write good stories: So long as Marvel produces comics that occur in a shared universe, each writer has an obligation to not just tell an entertaining story, but to ensure that the characters are in a usable state by future writers. When a writer fails to do that, we get brain reboots or characters killed off and dopplegangers from alternate universes brought in to replace them. In a creator owned novel an entertaining story is all you need. It's not quite so simple in a corporate owned fiction that is serailised across literal decades.

Having a hero fall (such as Iron Man did in demon in a bottle) is a great story when it's followed up by Iron Man becoming sober and redeeming himself and continuing to demonstrate he is no longer the man that once fell into the bottom of a bottle of scotch. It's a compelling story that shows the character at his worst and follows his journey as he regains the title of hero and ultimately become stronger at the end of it. Having Iron Man fall into the bottom of a bottle, kill a bunch of innocents and heroes while drunk driving the Iron Man suit and then kill himself off and have a clone awaken with his memories from before he developed his drinking problem isn't as compelling. Some may find it entertaining, but it is (IMO) the weaker story and an example of lazy writing. When writers go on the path of deconstructing a hero and showing them at their worst, they should have a clear plan that they follow that shows the character become redeemed and regain their heroic status, because this is serial fiction. Simply deconstructing the hero and then requiring a reboot or leaving it up to a "future writer" to fix is simply lazy writing.

NOTE: I'm not saying Hickman is lazy or that he doesn't have a clear plan. It's even quite possible (perhaps even likely) that he got told about Secret Wars and how certain characters would be getting replaced and so is making the most of the opportunity by telling the most compelling story he can within the framework Marvel has given him.

I disagree. None of the characters you listed were unusable as heroes after those events.

The writer who took on Iron Man after the whole Civil War/Dark Reign business finished clearly disagreed. After all, he rebooted the character to undo as much of the effects of the event (in a very literal brain reboot) as possible. Hank Pym constantly has writers refer back to that time he had a mental breakdown and made physical offensive contact with his wife (accidental by the writer, deliberate by the artist, mixed portrayals by people ever since). As of today's writers he will never be allowed to have a healthy relationship with his wife ever again. His position as a premiere hero (and a founding Avenger) is forever marred by this one poorly drawn panel. Scarlet Witch spent how long in the sin bin? I know some writers have worked to redeem her (The Young Avengers books went to a great deal of effort), but that requires other writers to actually honour the work and redeem her. Is she finally accepted as a hero again? Or do the events of House of M continue to effect the perception of her?

a writer with any creativity could vindicate any one of them, and likely will in the months and years ahead.

The problem with requiring future writers to fix the toys you broke is that they may not want to. It might be they can't think of a compelling story to do so, it might be that's not the story they wanted to tell. They'll either use a cheap plot device or or simply ignore the character and perhaps even reinforce the negative portrayal of the character by making references to their broken state. Leave a character in that state long enough and they become unusable. Apparently see Bishop as an example based on what another poster said.

so was "Watchmen." As in that case, genre expectations are being defied here for a reason.

The medium Alan Moore wrote in wasn't serial comics. It was a limited series with brand new characters that operated in their own universe and not a shared universe. It was never planned to be an ongoing and was a story with a definite beginning, middle and a finite end. That's not how serial fiction works. There's a good reason DC insisted that the characters be brand new. Also wasn't Watchmen also satire or a parody? The movie certainly came across that way. Is New Avengers meant to be a parody as well? If you want to tell an Elseworlds or a What If story, you have almost all of the same freedoms that a creator owned book has. Mainstream comics produced by Marvel and DC don't allow that same freedom.

[Void-X]

we see his face without mask...

Okay, that's a cool pic.

[DT Winslow]

The writer who took on Iron Man after the whole Civil War/Dark Reign business finished clearly disagreed. After all, he rebooted the character to undo as much of the effects of the event (in a very literal brain reboot) as possible.

Two points here.

Fraction was the second writer to take on Tony after Civil War. The Knaufs had a run where Tony was perfectly heroic. Just like he was in Fractions run.

You didn't read past issue 24 of Invincible Iron Man, did you? Because issue 25 clearly shows him telling Thor he'd do it all the same. Every last bit. He said this to Thor, the dude of whom he made an evil clone. Nothing vanished under there rug, no one was rebooted.