Marvel Universe >> View Thread

Author
REED RICHARDS




with civil war, secret invasion and dark reign the books became too dark the heroes took too much punishment we need LIGHT we need HOPE we need our comics to be FUN again!
will marvel do it? even only for a short time?
have CAP come back and SAVE THE WORLD FROM THE BAD GUYS.


Posted with Apple Safari 3.1.1 on MacOS X
Nitz the Bloody




The anthropological theory behind fun is well-documented as a means of survival preparation; young and old animals of sufficient intelligence play games in a safe environment as a means of preparing for challenges in reality. This applies to fiction as well; is it any wonder why violent movies and video games continue to proliferate?

Steve Rogers' resurrection followed by a total victory over Osborn and his thugs would make the heroes happier, it'd make the Marvel Universe safer...and in the end, it wouldn't be as fun. We didn't evolve to enjoy security...


Posted with Apple Safari 4.0 on MacOS X
autochron




I understand where this is coming from, you are correct in part from your anthropological perspective. Nevertheless we human beings aren't just grab-bags of time-worn instinct. There are more constructive and refined modes of thought present within the realm of literature and philosophy. Something in us cannot deny the will to overcome adversity and the repulsion most of us feel when we witness evil and atrocity. Savagery has it's place as an historical precedent but to be fascinated with it to the point of exclusion is folly.

Violent movies and video games proliferate because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. They are part of Jules Pfeifer's pop culture of "trash" that "depresses". Thus they have no redeeming value and are mass-marketed for pure profit.

The question is: will Marvel be part of the solution or a part of the problem? So far most of what we're getting is unenlightening trash that depresses, couched in mordant street slang. This will not change until the "powers that be" at Marvel are DIFFERENT powers that be!


    Quote:
    The anthropological theory behind fun is well-documented as a means of survival preparation; young and old animals of sufficient intelligence play games in a safe environment as a means of preparing for challenges in reality. This applies to fiction as well; is it any wonder why violent movies and video games continue to proliferate?



    Quote:
    Steve Rogers' resurrection followed by a total victory over Osborn and his thugs would make the heroes happier, it'd make the Marvel Universe safer...and in the end, it wouldn't be as fun. We didn't evolve to enjoy security...





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows Vista
Omar Karindu


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,242



    Quote:
    The anthropological theory behind fun is well-documented as a means of survival preparation; young and old animals of sufficient intelligence play games in a safe environment as a means of preparing for challenges in reality. This applies to fiction as well; is it any wonder why violent movies and video games continue to proliferate?


Perhaps, but there are other structural elements of narrative forms of "fun" that Marvel seems determined to run roughshod over. The current Marvel Universe seems to suffer from a dearth of catharsis and resolution, even the limited forms thereof that serial narratives should offer.

Beginning perhaps as far back as Avengers Dissassembled, it's increasingly difficult to find a real victory for the Marvel Universe's ostensible heroic figures. At best, they win absurdly Pyrrhic victories; more often, they seem to unwittingly set the stage for still worse things to happen or hand the world to superhuman lunatics and sociopaths almost on a silver platter.

The Avengers turned out to be an incubator for a reality-warping psychotic who proved incurable, then vanished after decimating a struggling minority population. Nick Fury's attempt to stop Latveria from mounting a terrorist attack via costumed criminals was impeded by the U.S. government for political reasons, and then turned into an excuse to oust him from SHIELD.

The New Warriors contributed to the deaths of 600 civilians. The legislation that followed set up the assassination of Captain America by parties who remain unpunished -- the Red Skull is still at large in an Arnim Zola cyborg body, Doctor Faustus walked away clean, and Crossbones has yet to be recaptured after being broken from jail. The Illuminati's efforts to manage superhuman crises helped provoke World War Hulk and indirectly caused the Secret Invasion. Tony Stark found himself hunting down good people and was powerless to stop the Commission on Superhuman Affairs from letting bad ones take on unwarranted legal authority to do the same.

Doctor Strange's desperate efforts to stop the Hulk's rampage have left Earth without a Sorcerer Supreme and allowed Dormammu to make a serious bid at the title, endangering the entire dimension with the Hood as his proxy. The SHRA, Fury's counter-intelligence efforts against the Skrulls, and the superheroes' distant battle with the aliens all generated a situation in which thrill-killer Norman Osborn, already working his way into legitimate authority, was able to become one of the most powerful and influential men in the world and eplaced SHIELD with his Gestapo-like HAMMER. Oh, and HYDRA has regained its full operational strength because no one's paying them any attention.

Even on a smaller scale, you've got Spider-Man making a deal with Mephisto in the midst of a personal tragedy and winding up an incredibly ineffectual vigilante and human being as a side effect. And Daredevil...well, after Mister Fear flat-out won and now gets to use mind-control rape his own guards in prison with impunity and the Hand started butchering superhumans and reviving them as super-assassins yet again, and all that after Matt's "I'm the Kingpin" declaration got him jailed for a while and his identity opened up before that...who the hell needs Daredevil around?

If the superheroes started committing mass suicide and leaving notes inviting the villains and monsters to take over, I'm not sure things would be all that much different.


    Quote:
    Steve Rogers' resurrection followed by a total victory over Osborn and his thugs would make the heroes happier, it'd make the Marvel Universe safer...and in the end, it wouldn't be as fun. We didn't evolve to enjoy security...


Perhaps, but neither did we evolve into fundamentally asocial, unempathetic beings either. Yet in the current Marvel Universe, empathy and social conscience seem to be utterly, damningly futile. Trying to reign in unlicensed vigilantism simply creates a war-like situation followed by a world where the villains have essentially taken over. Superheroes no longer stop villains from causing mass casualty events or bringing about corruption and totalitarianism: instead, they show up after the bad guys have killed countless people or prove utterly useless against a flagrant psychopath like Norman Osborn.

More to the point, we seem to be seeing little more than a shallow, shock-oriented and ongoing dismantling of the MU's heroic archetypes. Steve Rogers is dead and has been replaced by a conflicted successor who commands none of his moral authority nor wishes to. Tony Stark is a mentally-addled fugitive. Reed Richards is a reactive dawdler in the main FF book and utterly lost in his own head (and various parallel worlds) in his current miniseries. Spider-Man has become someone incapable and somewhat uninterested in the "responsibility" part of the slogan. Professor X has turned out to be a manipulative bastard, and Cyclops has become the kind of guy who runs secret death squads and unwittingly sleeps with the enemy.

Who's left, really? Where are the superheroes in this alleged superhero genre?




- Omar Karindu
"For your information, I don't have an ego. My Facebook photo is a landscape."
Posted with Apple Safari 3.2.1 on MacOS X
The GoldenAger





    Quote:
    The anthropological theory behind fun is well-documented as a means of survival preparation; young and old animals of sufficient intelligence play games in a safe environment as a means of preparing for challenges in reality. This applies to fiction as well; is it any wonder why violent movies and video games continue to proliferate?



    Quote:
    Steve Rogers' resurrection followed by a total victory over Osborn and his thugs would make the heroes happier, it'd make the Marvel Universe safer...and in the end, it wouldn't be as fun. We didn't evolve to enjoy security...


Whilst I agree with you that violent movies and video games continue to proliferate, not everyone enjoys them. I won't watch a violent movie or play a violent video game as these things don't interest me. In fact, I've never seen the sense in violent video games.

I hope that Steve Rogers' resurrection does lead to the defeat of Osborn and a healing of the Marvel Universe. A healing that will slowly bring the light and fun back to the Marvel Universe, as I'm sure that was one of the reasons we became interested in the first place, I know it's what interested me.

There has to be a balance, light and dark. For too many years it's been getting darker. It's about time things started getting lighter again. With heroes being heroes, beating the bad guys, not causing problems.

We evolved in a violent past, but also in that past we developed social interaction, art, culture and other enlightened things we now take for granted. Where's the enlightenment in the Marvel Universe? The villains are winning and it's getting as depressing as the real world. All the Marvel Universe needs now is a major recession.

This is my own opinion, but Joe Quesada has been in the position of Editor In Chief for too long and a "regime change" needs to take place.

Personally I'd like to see the return of the mutants, but that's just me. They were already a minority before being turned into an endangered species.

The GoldenAger


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows Vista
DavidS







    Quote:
    Who's left, really? Where are the superheroes in this alleged superhero genre?


In Britain (but only for another three issues, unfortunately)

In Space (Nova and the Guardians of the Galaxy)

Travelling across the rest of the world outside the US as EARTH's Mightiest Heroes (Hank Pym's REAL Avengers)




Posted with Apple Safari 4.0 on MacOS X
Omar Karindu


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,242



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Who's left, really? Where are the superheroes in this alleged superhero genre?



    Quote:
    In Britain (but only for another three issues, unfortunately)



    Quote:
    In Space (Nova and the Guardians of the Galaxy)



    Quote:
    Travelling across the rest of the world outside the US as EARTH's Mightiest Heroes (Hank Pym's REAL Avengers)


Aren't they pawns of Loki-as-Wanda?






- Omar Karindu
"For your information, I don't have an ego. My Facebook photo is a landscape."
Posted with Apple Safari 3.2.1 on MacOS X
eugenio abraham: the ex exposed guy





    Quote:
    with civil war, secret invasion and dark reign the books became too dark the heroes took too much punishment we need LIGHT we need HOPE we need our comics to be FUN again!
    will marvel do it? even only for a short time?
    have CAP come back and SAVE THE WORLD FROM THE BAD GUYS.



not that I like the current Dark tone of the 616 Marvel Universe, but it seems the Marvel Adventures line is the one with the Ligth, the Hope and the Fun you are asking for.






Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Nitz the Bloody




If we're talking about morally uplifting art, then let's ask the question, why are we doing it in the context of superhero franchise comics? Certainly they're entertainment capable of a lot more intellectual merit than most would give them credit for, but not the category of art ( with some exceptions like Frank MIller's Daredevil work ).

If we're talking about fun, why put judgments of right and wrong on virtual worlds? Enjoying killing a Nazi in a WW2 shooter game, and enjoying killing a real human being, are two different things. What people find fun shouldn't be judged as long as it isn't a detriment to themselves or others.

If we're talking about the moral structure of the superhero genre...well, personally I find both traditional Silver Age superheroes and the modern stuff as celebrations of might making right, just that the modern stuff actually shows how unsavory using violence can be ( on either side ), whereas the traditional superhero is capable of just leaving it at knocking out the bad guy with a punch to the face, putting them in jail, and putting the flag back on top of the capital. Denying the existence of moral complexity is worse than wallowing in it, me thinks; to quote a great Jedi master, " Only a Sith deals in absolutes ".


    Quote:
    I understand where this is coming from, you are correct in part from your anthropological perspective. Nevertheless we human beings aren't just grab-bags of time-worn instinct. There are more constructive and refined modes of thought present within the realm of literature and philosophy. Something in us cannot deny the will to overcome adversity and the repulsion most of us feel when we witness evil and atrocity. Savagery has it's place as an historical precedent but to be fascinated with it to the point of exclusion is folly.



    Quote:
    Violent movies and video games proliferate because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. They are part of Jules Pfeifer's pop culture of "trash" that "depresses". Thus they have no redeeming value and are mass-marketed for pure profit.



    Quote:
    The question is: will Marvel be part of the solution or a part of the problem? So far most of what we're getting is unenlightening trash that depresses, couched in mordant street slang. This will not change until the "powers that be" at Marvel are DIFFERENT powers that be!



    Quote:

      Quote:
      The anthropological theory behind fun is well-documented as a means of survival preparation; young and old animals of sufficient intelligence play games in a safe environment as a means of preparing for challenges in reality. This applies to fiction as well; is it any wonder why violent movies and video games continue to proliferate?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Steve Rogers' resurrection followed by a total victory over Osborn and his thugs would make the heroes happier, it'd make the Marvel Universe safer...and in the end, it wouldn't be as fun. We didn't evolve to enjoy security...



Posted with Apple Safari 4.0 on MacOS X
Omar Karindu


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,242



    Quote:
    If we're talking about morally uplifting art, then let's ask the question, why are we doing it in the context of superhero franchise comics? Certainly they're entertainment capable of a lot more intellectual merit than most would give them credit for, but not the category of art ( with some exceptions like Frank MIller's Daredevil work ).



    Quote:
    If we're talking about fun, why put judgments of right and wrong on virtual worlds? Enjoying killing a Nazi in a WW2 shooter game, and enjoying killing a real human being, are two different things. What people find fun shouldn't be judged as long as it isn't a detriment to themselves or others.



    Quote:
    If we're talking about the moral structure of the superhero genre...well, personally I find both traditional Silver Age superheroes and the modern stuff as celebrations of might making right, just that the modern stuff actually shows how unsavory using violence can be ( on either side ), whereas the traditional superhero is capable of just leaving it at knocking out the bad guy with a punch to the face, putting them in jail, and putting the flag back on top of the capital. Denying the existence of moral complexity is worse than wallowing in it, me thinks;


I don't disagree with your final sentiment, but the situations created in most superhero comics do posit the existence of one morally simplistic formulation even now: there are plain evil people. We've reached a point where even characters like Doctor Doom, who once had a patina of moral complexity, have absolutely none in most of their 21st-century appearances. Essentially, doing the right thing is to wallow in such complexity that you achieve nothing. If you want to actually affect the world in the MU, it's far smarter to be a villain without limits.

And indeed, the reader reaction to Dark Reign seems to support that: from sales and commentary, watching Norman Osborn dispense with civil liberties and employ psychopathic and gleeful murderers like Bullseye is quite popular, and Norman seems to many fans like someone who actually gets results.

More to the point, we don't seem to be seeing any protagonists who can really navigate the moral complexities of superheroing. That is to say, we have lots of protagonists being thoroughly undone by their failure to appreciate such complexities, but we're not seeing what a successful or even partially successful strategy for dealing with ethical problems might be.

I'm not necessarily asking for didacticism or aspirational writing, but for heaven's sake, wouldn't it be narratively satisfying to see someone with a conscience make out alright using thought, empathy, and, yes, even healthy cynicism more often than not? I really question what sort of fantasy is being indulged at Marvel currently, and what sort of psychic architecture underlies it. From here, it looks less like "Black and Gray Morality" than like an amoral cosmos in which only an imbecile would try to be moral in the first place. Being good (or trying) is utterly without practical, social, narrative, or thematic value in the current Marvel Universe as a whole.

It's one thing to have the solution of a major problem produce unforeseen consequences or fallout; it's another to have every crisis be not only worse than the prior one but a direct result of it as well. Political inaction or wickedness become the only sane options at a certain point.

If we're simply giving up on the idea of superhero fiction and enjoying Dark Reign as a Grand Guignol sort of sensationalist pleasure, that's fine -- not worth 4 bucks a pop, but unobjectionable. If it's anything else, though, it's failing at it and badly.


    Quote:
    to quote a great Jedi master, " Only a Sith deals in absolutes ".


Isn't that statement itself an absolute?




- Omar Karindu
"For your information, I don't have an ego. My Facebook photo is a landscape."
Posted with Apple Safari 3.2.1 on MacOS X
The GoldenAger





    Quote:

      Quote:
      with civil war, secret invasion and dark reign the books became too dark the heroes took too much punishment we need LIGHT we need HOPE we need our comics to be FUN again!
      will marvel do it? even only for a short time?
      have CAP come back and SAVE THE WORLD FROM THE BAD GUYS.



    Quote:

    not that I like the current Dark tone of the 616 Marvel Universe, but it seems the Marvel Adventures line is the one with the Ligth, the Hope and the Fun you are asking for.


Before I sound like to total moron, I know the comics medium was supposed to be for children until we all grew up and became fanboys and fangirls, but the Marvel Adventures line IS specifically for children as a way to get them into comics.

We would like the fun put back into the mainstream Marvel Universe (616) not have to rely on a line of comics set in an alternate reality.

The GoldenAger


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows Vista
Nitz the Bloody




The respective costs and benefits of being a hero or a villain may have tipped towards the villains in quantity ( Norman Osborn, instead of just being a corrupt CEO, is now a corrupt world leader ), but the qualities of both sides' costs and benefits remain the same. If you choose to be evil in the Marvel Universe, you are unburdened of conscience, whereas if you're a superhero, life is full of hard choices. But if you choose to be a hero, you are rewarded with the most important human qualities, such as the appreciation of those you save ( if only a few actually get over their social mores against vigilantes to show it ), the ability to have a close friendship or relationship, and the certainty that you're trying to help your fellow man ( which, if you're a religious hero, will give you a spiritual sense of well being ).

Catching up on Brand New Day Spidey, I actually see this quite a bit in the controversial take on Peter; Peter may be irresponsible in his personal life, but it's because he has such a burden as a superhero that he can't manage anything else. The early idea of Peter as Hamlet figure is again on display here, as it hasn't been in years, by having him pulled in multiple directions; if he needs money for webbing and Spider-tracers and other gadgets, he would do best taking the paparazzo job, even if it's morally questionable work that alienates him from his friends. It's a situation that has no easy answer; hell, I personally think it would have been smarter for him to remain a paparazzo, since the amount of money Dexter Bennet was paying would really help fund his crimefighting. Here the complaint isn't against Peter for " selling out ", but against capitalism for its tendency to force people to do unethical things to make the money needed to live.

But even though Peter ditched the paparazzo job in the end, he was rewarded with the gathering of friends and family to help him move; people who were angry with him like Robbie Robertson and Harry Osborn forgave him, even without knowledge of the dual identity motivating his choices. The " poor on money, rich on friends " motif is a cliche, but it's also what drives almost all heroic fiction to some extent.

To frame it another way, look at Iron Man; too many authors have tended to write him as a complete bastard, but those who don't have demonstrated that Tony is the most Hamletted-out character in the Marvel Universe ( that his high school incarnate in the current animated series had to perform a scene from the play was an irony not lost on the character himself ). Tony has far more power than any Earthbound Marvel hero, and thus far more responsibility; does he take on Project Wideawake, or join up with the Superhuman Activities Commission to try to diffuse such a possibility? Tony's got the weight of the world on his shoulders, but he's also got great friends to help him with it; Tony never admits it and keeps people like Rhodey and Pepper at arm's length, but they always come through for him in the end. That seems to be the way the current story is going; Tony takes his atonement for Osborn's rise to power all upon himself, by independently destroying both his physical tech and his literal intellectual value via the brain deletion sequence. But even with Tony hiding out in all corners on the world, battling debilitating seizures, we see that Pepper and Maria Hill are helping him at grave risk to themselves.

Also consider that the fun in books like Dark Avengers is seeing that Osborn's empire is really on a foundation of sand; the last issue, with a pissed-off Sentry realizing that he's been manipulated, and Norman clearly realizing that he's bitten off far more than he can chew, confirms this.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      to quote a great Jedi master, " Only a Sith deals in absolutes ".



    Quote:
    Isn't that statement itself an absolute?


Well, if the Dark Side of the Force isn't a corrupting influence, I don't know what is.

BTW, new comics up on my site; more confirmation of this Black and Grey Morality, and the benefits trying to do the right thing subtly has ( Ruby's friends are completely committed to her, which may be worth being ostracized from the rest of the world ).



Posted with Apple Safari 4.0 on MacOS X
eugenio abraham: the ex exposed guy





    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        with civil war, secret invasion and dark reign the books became too dark the heroes took too much punishment we need LIGHT we need HOPE we need our comics to be FUN again!
        will marvel do it? even only for a short time?
        have CAP come back and SAVE THE WORLD FROM THE BAD GUYS.

      Quote:

        Quote:

        not that I like the current Dark tone of the 616 Marvel Universe, but it seems the Marvel Adventures line is the one with the Ligth, the Hope and the Fun you are asking for.



    Quote:
    Before I sound like to total moron, I know the comics medium was supposed to be for children until we all grew up and became fanboys and fangirls, but the Marvel Adventures line IS specifically for children as a way to get them into comics.



    Quote:
    We would like the fun put back into the mainstream Marvel Universe (616) not have to rely on a line of comics set in an alternate reality.


Well, I didnt said it was ok for me, just that this is the way it seems to be this days. I know the market for the Marvel Adventures is the kids, so I guess thats why the Fun, the Hope and the Light is into those stories.

But as you said, the current Marvel Universe really need those things. It is all dark and violent this days... the current Marvel Universe has no soul, it lacks of an identity. I mean it just became a mix of the MAX line (where if a story need violent and dark to be told it could be told in that way) and the Ultimate Universe (that was supposed to be ultra realistic).








    Quote:
    The GoldenAger





Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Rion





    Quote:
    If we're talking about the moral structure of the superhero genre...well, personally I find both traditional Silver Age superheroes and the modern stuff as celebrations of might making right, just that the modern stuff actually shows how unsavory using violence can be ( on either side ), whereas the traditional superhero is capable of just leaving it at knocking out the bad guy with a punch to the face, putting them in jail, and putting the flag back on top of the capital.



I would desccribe the Silver Age (and the Golden Age, and most of the Bronze Age) as celebrating "right makes might," rather than the reverse. The good guys were always outgunned yet always won, because their hearts were true, even if they had, as Stan Lee liked to say, "feet of clay."

My sense of United States culture back then is that its bedrock faith was right makes might. This is the bedrock faith of the Old Testament, also, and of the final book of the New Testament. No surprise, then, that when Jewish creators offered super-heroes to a United States audience, the result was sheer magic. Both the seller and the buyer believed the same thing in their souls: right makes might.

Modern comics have lost that faith, because their audience lost it first. I think the bedrock faith of many Americans today is this: "the bad guys rule the world." And so we get comics that reflect what we believe.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Psifaxx




\(beer\) \(beer\) \(beer\) \(beer\)
It's all watered down versions of things we've seen before anyways.
Just takes a few more shots to feel the buzz again.












Every character in BEYOND, since BEYOND, has moved up the Marvel ladder in the past few years. So the next breakout character 0f 2009 should logically be FIREBIRD




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Omar Karindu


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,242



    Quote:
    The respective costs and benefits of being a hero or a villain may have tipped towards the villains in quantity ( Norman Osborn, instead of just being a corrupt CEO, is now a corrupt world leader ), but the qualities of both sides' costs and benefits remain the same. If you choose to be evil in the Marvel Universe, you are unburdened of conscience, whereas if you're a superhero, life is full of hard choices. But if you choose to be a hero, you are rewarded with the most important human qualities, such as the appreciation of those you save ( if only a few actually get over their social mores against vigilantes to show it ), the ability to have a close friendship or relationship, and the certainty that you're trying to help your fellow man ( which, if you're a religious hero, will give you a spiritual sense of well being ).


Except that at this point, I'm not sure the heroes can genuinely think they're helping their fellow man all that much anymore -- after all, most of their efforts to do so seems to have created the conditions for disasters like Dissassembled/the House of M, Secret Invasion, and Dark Reign.


    Quote:
    Catching up on Brand New Day Spidey, I actually see this quite a bit in the controversial take on Peter; Peter may be irresponsible in his personal life, but it's because he has such a burden as a superhero that he can't manage anything else. The early idea of Peter as Hamlet figure is again on display here, as it hasn't been in years, by having him pulled in multiple directions; if he needs money for webbing and Spider-tracers and other gadgets, he would do best taking the paparazzo job, even if it's morally questionable work that alienates him from his friends. It's a situation that has no easy answer; hell, I personally think it would have been smarter for him to remain a paparazzo, since the amount of money Dexter Bennet was paying would really help fund his crimefighting. Here the complaint isn't against Peter for " selling out ", but against capitalism for its tendency to force people to do unethical things to make the money needed to live.



    Quote:
    But even though Peter ditched the paparazzo job in the end, he was rewarded with the gathering of friends and family to help him move; people who were angry with him like Robbie Robertson and Harry Osborn forgave him, even without knowledge of the dual identity motivating his choices. The " poor on money, rich on friends " motif is a cliche, but it's also what drives almost all heroic fiction to some extent.


But Peter's not really "rich in friends" these days. The most recent arcs of Amazing seem to revolve around the idea that he can vanish for months and no one especially cares. Why? Because he's considered an irresponsible flake. His friends have, in essence, already decided that Peter is at best a marginal part of their lives. And when he comes back, he can effectively stay in costume most of the time.


    Quote:
    To frame it another way, look at Iron Man; too many authors have tended to write him as a complete bastard, but those who don't have demonstrated that Tony is the most Hamletted-out character in the Marvel Universe ( that his high school incarnate in the current animated series had to perform a scene from the play was an irony not lost on the character himself ). Tony has far more power than any Earthbound Marvel hero, and thus far more responsibility; does he take on Project Wideawake, or join up with the Superhuman Activities Commission to try to diffuse such a possibility? Tony's got the weight of the world on his shoulders, but he's also got great friends to help him with it; Tony never admits it and keeps people like Rhodey and Pepper at arm's length, but they always come through for him in the end. That seems to be the way the current story is going; Tony takes his atonement for Osborn's rise to power all upon himself, by independently destroying both his physical tech and his literal intellectual value via the brain deletion sequence. But even with Tony hiding out in all corners on the world, battling debilitating seizures, we see that Pepper and Maria Hill are helping him at grave risk to themselves.


Of course, the other side of all of this is that Tony's friends end up being his tools most of the time. He treats them like crap, and they always come back. In the current storyline, he hasn't even explained what Hill; and Pepper are doing in his plan (other than, in Pepper's case, distracting Osborn a bit).

That's not a healthy set of social relationships so much as it is Tony Stark, abuser and his codependent crew.


    Quote:
    Also consider that the fun in books like Dark Avengers is seeing that Osborn's empire is really on a foundation of sand; the last issue, with a pissed-off Sentry realizing that he's been manipulated, and Norman clearly realizing that he's bitten off far more than he can chew, confirms this.


The problem I have with that is that solicitations seem to indicate that Dark Reign will outlast many of these apparent catastrophes, and that, for example, Bullseye's going to get away with the horrible things he's doing in his miniseries and the Sentry will not take down the Dark Avengers as a result of Hawkeye's media blitz. (In fact, recent issues of New Avengers seem to indicate that Clint's news appearance was filed away with the Paris Hilton sorts of stories and did almost no damage at all to Norman.)


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        to quote a great Jedi master, " Only a Sith deals in absolutes ".

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Isn't that statement itself an absolute?



    Quote:
    Well, if the Dark Side of the Force isn't a corrupting influence, I don't know what is.


That's rather dodging the problem with the statement, which is self-negating.


    Quote:
    BTW, new comics up on my site; more confirmation of this Black and Grey Morality, and the benefits trying to do the right thing subtly has ( Ruby's friends are completely committed to her, which may be worth being ostracized from the rest of the world ).


As I said, my problem isn't "Black and Grey," it's more the growing sense of "Black or Futile."




- Omar Karindu
"For your information, I don't have an ego. My Facebook photo is a landscape."
Posted with Apple Safari 3.2.1 on MacOS X
Nitz the Bloody





    Quote:
    \(beer\) \(beer\) \(beer\) \(beer\)
    It's all watered down versions of things we've seen before anyways.
    Just takes a few more shots to feel the buzz again.



    Quote:

    Every character in BEYOND, since BEYOND, has moved up the Marvel ladder in the past few years. So the next breakout character 0f 2009 should logically be FIREBIRD



    Quote:





Posted with Apple Safari 4.0 on MacOS X
Nitz the Bloody






    Quote:
    Except that at this point, I'm not sure the heroes can genuinely think they're helping their fellow man all that much anymore -- after all, most of their efforts to do so seems to have created the conditions for disasters like Dissassembled/the House of M, Secret Invasion, and Dark Reign.


From a systematic sense, no, but superheroes have always been troubling from a systematic sense. Tony Stark learned that the hard way from Civil War onwards, by trying to reform society via iron heel ( no pun intended ). But if you think of a superhero as a fantastical samaritan, a cop or a firefighter or a soldier, then the saving of innocent lives is help enough.


    Quote:
    But Peter's not really "rich in friends" these days. The most recent arcs of Amazing seem to revolve around the idea that he can vanish for months and no one especially cares. Why? Because he's considered an irresponsible flake. His friends have, in essence, already decided that Peter is at best a marginal part of their lives. And when he comes back, he can effectively stay in costume most of the time.


Haven't read the more recent issues ( up to Kraven's First Hunt ), but don't Peter's friends always come through when he really needs it? Furthermore, isn't Peter's mission based on responsibility instead of recognition-- his self-centered dismissal after refusing to stop that burglar ( " It's not my problem " ) being what resulted in his uncle's death ( a fate a bit worse than a temporary falling out with a loved one )?


    Quote:
    Of course, the other side of all of this is that Tony's friends end up being his tools most of the time. He treats them like crap, and they always come back. In the current storyline, he hasn't even explained what Hill; and Pepper are doing in his plan (other than, in Pepper's case, distracting Osborn a bit).


    Quote:
    That's not a healthy set of social relationships so much as it is Tony Stark, abuser and his codependent crew.


But by being " co-dependent " on Tony, his friends save lives. They recognize that Tony is a force for tremendous good in the world, even if he's an emotional mess. It's no more co-dependent than Alfred Pennyworth ( in that while you can make the argument that Alfred has sacrificed his own life to indulge Bruce's unhealthy lifestyle, when the benefits so far outweigh the costs on the karmic scale, what's the point in arguing against it? )

Also, it's been shown time and time again that it's not just Tony's closest " enablers " that devote themselves to him, but even his employees. When Iron Man was pit against the Titanium Man, Happy Hogan nearly sacrificed himself to give Tony the weapon he needed to survive ( despite the fact that Tony was an obstacle for Happy and Pepper ). When Obadiah Stane took over Stark International, almost all of Tony's best employees quit in protest ( the exception being security chief Vic Martinelli, whose reaction was still the other side of the coin; so hurt by Tony's alcohol-induced dereliction of responsibility that he practically worked for Stane out of spite ). The early Director of SHIELD issues of Iron Man had the organization's troops quickly warm up to him and his utopian views. And the conquest of SHIELD by Osborn has shown a similar response from Tony's loyalists.


    Quote:
    The problem I have with that is that solicitations seem to indicate that Dark Reign will outlast many of these apparent catastrophes, and that, for example, Bullseye's going to get away with the horrible things he's doing in his miniseries and the Sentry will not take down the Dark Avengers as a result of Hawkeye's media blitz. (In fact, recent issues of New Avengers seem to indicate that Clint's news appearance was filed away with the Paris Hilton sorts of stories and did almost no damage at all to Norman.)


As early as the " Secret Invasion: Dark Reign " one-shot, it's been established that Norman's in control of everything but himself, and to keep up his Iron Patriot charade, he has to hold on by his fingernails. Even if Lester remains Hawkeye by the end of his mini, he still caused Norman a lot of grief, and it's going to take its toll.


    Quote:
    That's rather dodging the problem with the statement, which is self-negating.


Referencing Star Wars was me being somewhat facetious; Lucas' universe is even less morally complex than Marvel at its most simplistic , but those heavy-handed messages carry a point.

Also, I think the recent New Avengers scene where Peter ( re ) reveals his secret identity to Clint's team was a tremendous positive for the book; even though the Avengers have changed from the professional bright-and-shiny superheroes to the underground resistance, the dynamic has changed from that of an oft-insensitive sports team to an intensely loyal Nakama.


Posted with Apple Safari 4.0 on MacOS X
Vision11




I agree, Marvel 616 does need brighter stories. Marvel is delivering that good feeling with their cosmic line of books. If anyone isn't reading Nova or Guardians of the Galaxy and wants more "light" in their stories, this is a perfect place. Heck, they're in the middle of a war in space right now, and it still isn't as dark as Marvel Earth!




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
FirstChAoS





    Quote:
    with civil war, secret invasion and dark reign the books became too dark the heroes took too much punishment we need LIGHT we need HOPE we need our comics to be FUN again!
    will marvel do it? even only for a short time?
    have CAP come back and SAVE THE WORLD FROM THE BAD GUYS.


I agree on needing more light, I did the long overdue task of organizing and boxing my comics the other day and stumbled on old issues of thunderbolts and avengers and realized how much i missed busiek and the other light writers. I loved that era.

Heck, even the covers look dark. Look at how bright comics covers were in general (with a few exceptions) In thunderbolts before civil war and in avengers before disassembled. Bright greens and blues and reds and yellows. After civil war the colors became blah as everything took on a dull, muddy, painted look.

I know some people see this painted move as a work of art, but to me it is ugly and just one more trace of the darkness growing in marvel.

Mind you I do not want my comics a mindless black and white. (I prefer grey and white, where most villains have motives beyond "I am nasty and evil" and just heros have to deal with them while showing responsibility) but i cannot stand this black and grey outlook where the corrupt and inept futilly fight the evil who are in charge.

The biggest problem I have with the current attitude in comics is it ruins my excapism. Excapism is one of the big reasons I read comics. To lose myself in a world where people can change things and individuals can make a difference. An excape from the dark dreary world where corruption floats to the top.

The current marvel mostly prevents this excape, it shows a world where heros are just as helpless to make a difference and change the world as everyone else. It is a dark dreary trap of a world with no way out.

This attitude was fine in the ultimate universe and in select lines like knights or max, but forcing it on every earthbound 616 title is too much.

And no, i don't find Marvel Adventures a good alternative, I tried reading the MA line and found it too simplistic (as comics written for kids should be expected to be).

FirstChAoS: Oh no, not EGGO THE LIVING WAFFLE!


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
mjyoung




What's "light" mean? Are we talking the tone of the titles, or of the Marvel U itself? Does it mean you want more comedy? Or less violence? Or more throwaway stories? Does it mean you want more books rated PG instead of PG13?

The tone of the Marvel U is up to the books themselves. Shouldn't the fact that people are fighting against the "Dark Reign" instill hope? That no matter how much the odds are against these heroes, they still continue to fight, act like heroes, and stay true to who they are?

There are books that I would consider light, like Incredible Herc, Runaways, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Hulk, the New and Mighty Avengers, GOTG, A:I, etc. Some other books I think just work better as darker titles, like the Dark Avengers, Thunderbolts, Wolverine, Punisher, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, etc.

Saying "the Marvel Adventures line doesn't count" is a stupid argument. If you want lighter comics, you can get them there. So you don't want lighter comics, you want lighter 616 comics? How does that work? Are you willing to buy any 616 title as long as it's light? Then I guess you buy titles like the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph? Is Marvel going to have to create two of each titles, say a Dark X-Men and a Light X-Men, just to suit your needs?

Saying "darker stories don't allow me to escape in the stories" is a stupid argument. None of these characters are real, superpowers don't exist in the real world, HAMMER isn't going to hurt you, etc. Whether a story is dark or light should have no bearing on whether it allows you to "escape". I never understood the "escape in stories" thing either. I read comics because I enjoy them, not because I want to escape. Maybe it's a self esteem thing.

And the Nintendo DS joke was great.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP
Bird-Man of Akah Ma'at


Location: Madripoor
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,427



    Quote:
    with civil war, secret invasion and dark reign the books became too dark the heroes took too much punishment we need LIGHT we need HOPE we need our comics to be FUN again!
    will marvel do it? even only for a short time?
    have CAP come back and SAVE THE WORLD FROM THE BAD GUYS.


I say it's about time ROM shows up and exposes every evil SOB as a Dire Wraith and kicks some serious alien a$$. 8\-\)


Actually Cap(Rogers), Thor, Vision, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch(depowered a bit), Pym as the Wasp and maybe the Black Knight reuniting would kinda do it for me.




"I am made of things your philosophy will never comprehend." -Loki
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software