New Avengers #24 Review (w/spoilers)

[ShaokhaN]

I accept that both planets and universes would die anyway, what I am saying is that Namor choose to save one universe and he did so by destroying the other, giving the surviving universe just a bit more time and thus he chose who lived and who died. This especially holds true if the incursions are eventually solved and Namor's Earth remains un-harmed. I can accept that it was understandable that he chose his own universe, but never the less it was a choice.

You are getting it wrong: Namor saved BOTH universes, NOT one. The universe of the destroyed Earth was also saved. The only population which could not be saved was the population of the destroyed Earth. Two universes lived except for one planet. That's a MUCH better result than your choice of letting two universes (including the two Earths) get obliterated.

[DeamonSnow]

That there could be the reason no one knows where Tony is. Tony was warned that the Illuminati were outed. This could be the escape plan where he can hide and also get research to how to stop the incursions.

She also told him that all his friends would be trying to kill him. That could explain his absence. Also Cho was trying to steal his data in Avengers 35 so I'm sure he has made some progress on incursions.

[PocketfulofKryptonite]

By that logic, doctors should just stop. They're just delaying the inevitable anyway, and nobody is really saved.

Hell, we all die eventually, why even have doctors? Why have life support machines? Why install pacemakers, if their hearts are damaged or defective and can't function without assistance, why bother helping them keep beating?

The extension and preservation of life is a fundamental principle of humane behaviour. These worlds being exploded are basically collateral damage in the big scheme of things.

[Mr MajestiK]

You are getting it wrong: Namor saved BOTH universes, NOT one. The universe of the destroyed Earth was also saved. The only population which could not be saved was the population of the destroyed Earth. Two universes lived except for one planet. That's a MUCH better result than your choice of letting two universes (including the two Earths) get obliterated.

Which would have been the cleaner option? (in your opinion.)

[ShaokhaN]

Which would have been the cleaner option? (in your opinion.)

What do you mean, "cleaner option"?

Between (1) destroying one world and saving the rest of the two universes, and (2) letting two universes get obliterated, I would undoubtedly choose the first option.

[neohuey89]

One comment, from one person that the writer of the comic felt was necessary to focus on. Plus we've seen the LT knocked out or dead for some reason, it seems strange that you'd handwave stuff that was obviously deliberately put in a book as esssentially just noise.

It's not like it was just some random guy in the street speaking, it was a group of characters with the ability to apparently jumpstart stars and quickly terraform planets.

whatever it takes to make their fan fiction work.

[Mr MajestiK]

What do you mean, "cleaner option"?

It was a straight forward question.....

Between (1) destroying one world and saving the rest of the two universes, and (2) letting two universes get obliterated, I would undoubtedly choose the first option.

Which you still haven't answered.

It's okay though.

[ShaokhaN]

It was a straight forward question.....

Which you still haven't answered.

It's okay though.

I don't understand your question. English is not my first language, so maybe it's a language issue. Again, what do you mean by "cleaner option"? "Cleaner" in what respect?

[Mr MajestiK]

I don't understand your question. English is not my first language, so maybe it's a language issue. Again, what do you mean by "cleaner option"? "Cleaner" in what respect?

Apologies.

I had no idea English wa not your first language because your posts indicate otherwise.

Which option do you feel would have been the morally acceptable one?

[ShaokhaN]

Apologies.

I had no idea English wa not your first language because your posts indicate otherwise.

Which option do you feel would have been the morally acceptable one?

No worries, and thanks for the compliment ,-)

I would consider blowing up a planet to save two universes to be the morally acceptable choice if the only other option was to let two universes (including the aforementioned planet) be obliterated.

edit: of course, if better options were available and known to the person making the choice (such as using a working infinity gauntlet to end the incursion with no loss of life), then it would no longer be morally acceptable to choose blowing up a planet instead of a different option resulting in nobody losing their life.

[Mr MajestiK]

I would consider blowing up a planet to save two universes to be the morally acceptable choice if the only other option was to let two universes (including the aforementioned planet) be obliterated.

edit: of course, if better options were available and known to the person making the choice (such as using a working infinity gauntlet to end the incursion with no loss of life), then it would no longer be morally acceptable to choose blowing up a planet instead of a different option resulting in nobody losing their life.

I would have chosen obliteration rather than sacrificing innocent lives to preserve my personal reality.

This however does not give me cause to disregard or denigrate your honest answer.

[Mark]

I don't know why, but I genuinely expected better from Hickman.

I expected more sophistication and a recognition of the pre-established pedigree of the characters he's currently depicting so badly.

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.

[ShaokhaN]

I would have chosen obliteration rather than sacrificing innocent lives to preserve my personal reality.

This however does not give me cause to disregard or denigrate your honest answer.

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.

[ShaokhaN]

I don't know why, but I genuinely expected better from Hickman.

I expected more sophistication and a recognition of the pre-established pedigree of the characters he's currently depicting so badly.

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

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.

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 :-)

[Mark]

You are getting it wrong: Namor saved BOTH universes, NOT one. The universe of the destroyed Earth was also saved. The only population which could not be saved was the population of the destroyed Earth. Two universes lived except for one planet. That's a MUCH better result than your choice of letting two universes (including the two Earths) get obliterated.

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