General Marvel Comics thread

[GameSpawn]

I like the new costume, it has very 70-era spy show feel to it. It's very reminiscent of Kate Bishop's garb. I don't know if the same artist did them or not.

Kris Anka designed the new Spirder-woman costume. I assume Kate's newest costume was designed by David Aja, but I don't know that.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Runaways vol.1 #1-18, Runaways vol.2 #1-24 - Brian K. Vaughan's run. There is also free comic book day one-shot written by BKV where Runaways meet X-Men.

From othe stuff, if you want to follow after that, vol.2 #25-30 is Joss Whedon. Othe than that miniseries about their two team-ups with Young Avengers are good (but tie to big events that were going on at the time, Civil War and Secret Invasion). Vol.3 is forgettable aside from issue #10, where Molly visits X-Men and annoys the hell out of Wolverine. Rest of vol.3 is weaker and you can skip it if you want to. Kathryn Immoen's run got cut short, but thee is Runaways guest appeance in Avenges Academy (issues, I think, #27-28) which undoes that run AND is quite fun on it's own merit.

From things to avoid: their apperance in Daken: the Dark Wolverine, because it's stupid. Avengers A.I. because it's dumb, writer has no idea how bipolar personality disoder works, Victor is written out of character, Vision is absolute jerk and at one point has Heny Pym talks @#$% about Runaways. Avengers Arena and Avengers Undercover, because they are absolute garbage and some of most misgonistic, racist, ableist, misanthropis rip-off books relying on cheap controversy and shock value I've ever seen and saying they deserve to burn is an insult to fire.

Right now I'm middway through volume 3 and I am really liking it, but yeah the first volume is by far the best, though I'm quite surprised they dealt with "The Pride" so quickly, I figured it would taken them more time.

[Man on Fire]

I'm glad you're enjoying it
Personally I preffer BKV's run in vol.2, I love how much everyone grew as characters.
MCU talk:
If Marvel gets to do a Runaways movie (there are chances for that) it'll be probably based on vol.1 through, probably because of how quickly they dealt with Pride. Maybe they would drag it more if they instead gave Runaways Netflix show, but I don't see that happening. Not after DC announced to give Teen Titans a TV series.
I really wish Runaways will get into MCU through, it's probably the only chance for them getting some good comics again.

[Clertar]

Thor 03 was pretty good, the series looks so promising :3

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think that a Runaways series would be better than a movie, the comics are't episodic per say, but I think the format would be better than a full blown out movie. Not why you think Marvel wouldn't do it due the new Titans' series. I guess it will all depend on how successful Daredevil and the other Netflix series en up being.

[Man on Fire]

I think that a Runaways series would be better than a movie, the comics are't episodic per say, but I think the format would be better than a full blown out movie.

Agreed, Runaways series would be awesome.

Not why you think Marvel wouldn't do it due the new Titans' series. I guess it will all depend on how successful Daredevil and the other Netflix series en up being.

Because James Gunn once said that he had a conversation with Joss Whedon that went like this
-"Man, I wish I could make Thunderbolts movie."
-"If Guardians are a hit, they'll let you do whatever you want."

However, recently Gunn has said this

"Well, I have old answers that I used to say which were like Hit-Monkey and Thunderbolts and the like, but DC is doing Suicide Squad, so I'm not so sure Thunderbolts are applicable anymore

source

By that logic it would seem unlikely for Marvel to announce Runaways tv series after DC announced Titans. Movie - maybe.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Agreed, Runaways series would be awesome.

It just occured to me that it would need a really generous special effect budget, between Niko's and Karolina's abilities it would probably take most of it, and Molly would have to be retconned into being an inhuman instead of a mutant.

Because James Gunn once said that he had a conversation with Joss Whedon that went like this
-"Man, I wish I could make Thunderbolts movie."
-"If Guardians are a hit, they'll let you do whatever you want."

However, recently Gunn has said this

"Well, I have old answers that I used to sa
y which were like Hit-Monkey and Thunderbolts and the like, but DC is doing Suicide Squad, so I'm not so sure Thunderbolts are applicable anymore

source

By that logic it would seem unlikely for Marvel to announce Runaways tv series after DC announced Titans. Movie - maybe.

I wasn't aware of that, however I don't think there is as much overlap between the Titans and the Runaways as it is between Suicide Squad and Thunderbolts, though I see why one would think that.

[GameSpawn]

...

I wasn't aware of that, however I don't think there is as much overlap between the Titans and the Runaways as it is between Suicide Squad and Thunderbolts, though I see why one would think that.

To be honest, I don't think there's any real similarity besides "both are a group of teenagers with superpowers". Of course, people may lump them together anyway, or execs may be afraid they will.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Yeah that is my reasoning as well. Still one can hope.

[Man on Fire]

To be honest, I don't think there's any real similarity besides "both are a group of teenagers with superpowers". Of course, people may lump them together anyway, or execs may be afraid they will.

Well, Thunderbolts and Suicide Squad don't have much in common (granted, some versions of T-Bolts do) and yet it seems announcment of one getting a movie didn't do well for the other.
Still, I really wish for Runaways series, this is the kind of thing that would work much better in this format than a movie. But something tells me movie may be more likely at some point anyway.

[Tyrant]

I have a few timeline/publishing order questions if anyone can help me out. I got back into HeroClix several months ago and with that I started to buy up more collected editions of comics (mainly Marvel). So, I am left wondering when certain events/collections happen in relation to one another. Any help would be appreciated. To be clear, I do not yet own all of the books I am asking about otherwise I could probably figure it out myself.

1) Which happens first, Realm of Kings or War of Kings? Where do they take place in relation to the Guardians of the Galaxy DnA run?

2) Where does the X-Men Schism happen in relation to anything else?

3) Where does the Uncanny X-Force Remender series take place in relation to the Schism? Is it concurrent with Wolverine and the X-Men?

4) Does anyone have a list of major X-Men events from the Schism through say Avengers vs X-Men?

5) Apparently there is an issue just prior to Avengers vs X-Men where Cable warns the Cyclops about the impending actions of the Avengers but it was not in the A vs X collection. Is it part of any other collected series and if not does anyone have any idea which issue of what book it is?

6) All advice I come across says to not even bother with the Bendis GotG books. Is it really that bad?

7) Why does everyone seem to hate Age of Ultron? I thought it wasn't great but I don't get the hate I see for it.

[GameSpawn]

I have a few timeline/publishing order questions if anyone can help me out. I got back into HeroClix several months ago and with that I started to buy up more collected editions of comics (mainly Marvel). So, I am left wondering when certain events/collections happen in relation to one another. Any help would be appreciated. To be clear, I do not yet own all of the books I am asking about otherwise I could probably figure it out myself.

1) Which happens first, Realm of Kings or War of Kings? Where do they take place in relation to the Guardians of the Galaxy DnA run?

War of Kings happens first. I'm not sure about Guardians.

2) Where does the X-Men Schism happen in relation to anything else?

It happens before the last issue of Uncanny X-Men Vol 1. (Issue #544), and after every other issue of that series. Other relevant issues include Uncanny X-Men Vol 2. Issue #1, Wolverine and the X-Men #1, and X-Men: Regenesis #1. Generation Hope #10-11 happen concurrently, primarily between Schism #3 and #4.

3) Where does the Uncanny X-Force Remender series take place in relation to the Schism? Is it concurrent with Wolverine and the X-Men?

It starts before Schism and ends afterwards. The series mostly don't affect each other. If you're so inclined, you could read Uncanny X-Force up through the end of The Dark Angle Saga before Schism and the rest afterward.

4) Does anyone have a list of major X-Men events from the Schism through say Avengers vs X-Men?

To be honest, I'm not sure there are any. Schism and AvX happen very close together.

5) Apparently there is an issue just prior to Avengers vs X-Men where Cable warns the Cyclops about the impending actions of the Avengers but it was not in the A vs X collection. Is it part of any other collected series and if not does anyone have any idea which issue of what book it is?

I think you're looking for Avengers: X-Sanction, maybe? It's its own mini-series.

6) All advice I come across says to not even bother with the Bendis GotG books. Is it really that bad?

7) Why does everyone seem to hate Age of Ultron? I thought it wasn't great but I don't get the hate I see for it.

I read a few issues of GotG and thought it was decent. I don't really have a strong opinion on either one of these though.

[Man on Fire]

1) Which happens first, Realm of Kings or War of Kings? Where do they take place in relation to the Guardians of the Galaxy DnA run?

I don't know how much have you read, so I'll lay it out like to newbie
Reading order for cosmic Marvel is like this:
Drax the Destroyer
Annihilation event - Annihilation has odd reading order (all 4 tie-in miniseries happen before main miniseries and are important) but luckily is collected in three trades, also featuring Drax miniseries, and in a omnibus.

DnA's Nova #1-3
Annihilation: Conquest Event Nova ties in in issues #4-10, Annual, #11-12 (read Nova before last issue of Conquest) - again, the same problem but luckily this year an omnibus comes out, collecting both Conquest and Nova. I recommend picking it up because earlier trades collect it wierdly - Conquest trades have only issues of Nova officially labeled as tie-ins (#4-7) while Nova trades have nothing of Conquest except opening one-shot - Omnibus is an easy way to get it all without buying some of the same material twice.

DnA's Guardians of the Galaxy #1-12
Nova #13-22
War of Kings event. Nova ties in issues #23-28, Guardians in issues #13-19.
Realm of Kings - one-shot, Inhumans and Imperial Guard miniseries, Nova #29-36, Guardians #20-25
Thanos Imperative event

6) All advice I come across says to not even bother with the Bendis GotG books. Is it really that bad?

He flipped everyones personalities, turned Star-Lord into manchild with daddy issues and Rocket into murderous caricature of himself. He also made series horribly Earth-centric and have been ranting about how Guardians need to be close to Marvel Earth and team-up with Avengers, while most of fans (and director of Guardians movie, James Gunn) agree thy should be in space, doing their own thing and rarerly interacting with non-cosmic part of Marvel Universe. And then he wrote horrible story that was supposed to explain some differences between his Guardians since the start and where Thanos Imperative left them, that reads more like he just tried to flip DnA fans a bird.

7) Why does everyone seem to hate Age of Ultron? I thought it wasn't great but I don't get the hate I see for it.

I'll repeat why my friends are saying (didn't read it myself - it's Avengers, that's in my book guarantees it sucks): Horribly decompressed, stuff barerly happens in some issues and if it does it's horribly dragged out to take more space. Big splash page reveal of first issue is Captain America siting and of issue two - Captain America standing up (at this rate, people sid, he will walk to the phone and order pizza by the end of the series). Ultron barerly shows up in event that is suppsoed to be about him. Entire event instead of being about Ultron, Pym and Avengers is about Wolverine. There was more but I don't remember.

[Tyrant]

GameSpawn, I appreciate the answers that was what I was looking to find. One last general question for now. I have been looking into the Uncanny X-Men issues in question just before the Schism. There are three Matt Fraction collections (or a collection in three volumes if one prefers) but they stop about 10 issues short and I can't find which collection the last 10 issues are in. Any ideas?

More general Marvel questions/topics:

1) Is any older (pre-Annihilation) Star Lord stuff (there's a collection of some of it out now) worth checking out?

2) Am I the only person who doesn't think Cyclops is a complete jerk?

I don't know how much have you read, so I'll lay it out like to newbie
Reading order for cosmic Marvel is like this:
Drax the Destroyer
Annihilation event - Annihilation has odd reading order (all 4 tie-in miniseries happen before main miniseries and are important) but luckily is collected in three trades, also featuring Drax miniseries, and in a omnibus.

DnA's Nova #1-3
Annihilation: Conquest Event Nova ties in in issues #4-10, Annual, #11-12 (read Nova before last issue of Conquest) - again, the same problem but luckily this year an omnibus comes out, collecting both Conquest and Nova. I recommend picking it up because earlier trades collect it wierdly - Conquest trades have only issues of Nova officially labeled as tie-ins (#4-7) while Nova trades have nothing of Conquest except opening one-shot - Omnibus is an easy way to get it all without buying some of the same material twice.

DnA's Guardians of the Galaxy #1-12
Nova #13-22
War of Kings event. Nova ties in issues #23-28, Guardians in issues #13-19.
Realm of Kings - one-shot, Inhumans and Imperial Guard miniseries, Nova #29-36, Guardians #20-25
Thanos Imperative event

I read Annihilation and most Annihilation Conquest when the issues came out. The last bit of Conquest happened right as I got kind of burnt out on comics (even though I liked that series). I haven't had the time to check through my stuff to see if I have the last few issues or not. I've got (and read) the first half of the DnA run. I have the Thanos Imperative but haven't read it yet. I still need to get caught up on Nova up to that point too.

He flipped everyones personalities, turned Star-Lord into manchild with daddy issues and Rocket into murderous caricature of himself. He also made series horribly Earth-centric and have been ranting about how Guardians need to be close to Marvel Earth and team-up with Avengers, while most of fans (and director of Guardians movie, James Gunn) agree thy should be in space, doing their own thing and rarerly interacting with non-cosmic part of Marvel Universe. And then he wrote horrible story that was supposed to explain some differences between his Guardians since the start and where Thanos Imperative left them, that reads more like he just tried to flip DnA fans a bird.

That does sound awful.

I'll repeat why my friends are saying (didn't read it myself - it's Avengers, that's in my book guarantees it sucks): Horribly decompressed, stuff barerly happens in some issues and if it does it's horribly dragged out to take more space. Big splash page reveal of first issue is Captain America siting and of issue two - Captain America standing up (at this rate, people sid, he will walk to the phone and order pizza by the end of the series). Ultron barerly shows up in event that is suppsoed to be about him. Entire event instead of being about Ultron, Pym and Avengers is about Wolverine. There was more but I don't remember.

It had it's problems, lack of Ultron being the primary one for me. I just didn't feel it was terrible. Probably because the part of me that dislikes the overuse of Wolverine was satisfied to know his awful plan came pretty close to breaking the space time continuum.

[Man on Fire]

2) Am I the only person who doesn't think Cyclops is a complete jerk?

Since AvX many people see him as true hero and "Cyclops was wright" became a meme.
I don't care, call me when X-Mn stop being circlejerk over whom Jean preffered.

[Tyrant]

Since AvX many people see him as true hero and "Cyclops was wright" became a meme.
I don't care, call me when X-Mn stop being circlejerk over whom Jean preffered.

Really? I haven't met any online or in real life. Everyone I come across in either realm with an opinion on the matter is pretty firmly in the "Cyclops is a total jerk" camp. I don't think he was completely right but I thought in AvX he was far more in the right than the Avengers and Wolverine. I also don't understand the constant "you killed Xavier" that keeps getting thrown at him. Wanda wipes out 99% of the mutant race (which had to have lead to some deaths) and essentially nothing happens to her. No prison, no everyone and their brother hating her. Wolverine has killed god only knows how many people and he's an Avenger. Beast, in an attempt to make Cyclops somehow pay in a rather petty move risks breaking the space time continuum to bring the younger X-Men to the present, in the process causing some serious stress on young Jean and Warren (who have nothing to do with Cyclops actions years later for which they are now Beast's pawns in his revenge scheme). I'm pretty sure one issue of AvX had Thor bulldoze some X kids for no real reason. This is not even mentioning all of the bologna I have read about going down during the Civil War. Meanwhile, Cyclops kills Xavier, who was actively antagonizing him while he knew Scott could obliterate him with a thought. While Scott was possessed by a cosmic being. I just can't take the charges against him seriously in light of the circumstances and that his supposed jury has a lot more to answer for but gets a pass mainly because, hey they're Avengers.

That's not to say Cyclops was completely in the right and isn't generally a little abrasive.

[Man on Fire]

Well, among my comics peers generally feelings are similiar to yours - Wolverine and Beast are seen as kings of hipocrisy.

[GameSpawn]

Well, Thunderbolts and Suicide Squad don't have much in common (granted, some versions of T-Bolts do) and yet it seems announcment of one getting a movie didn't do well for the other.
Still, I really wish for Runaways series, this is the kind of thing that would work much better in this format than a movie. But something tells me movie may be more likely at some point anyway.

I'm not very familiar with either Thunderbolts or Suicide Squad, but as I understand it, both are villains forced into a dysfunctional team to work for a big good. That strikes me as more similar than both teenagers with superpowers. That said, I know Teen Titans and Runaways much better.

As for whether Runaways would do better as a movie or a tv series...I don't know. I feel like the pacing and characters arcs are better suited to TV, but a TV series would also run into the same problem the comic eventually did; you can't be a runaway forever. Of course, in theory, there's nothing stopping them from doing a one or two season tv show and stopping...

GameSpawn, I appreciate the answers that was what I was looking to find. One last general question for now. I have been looking into the Uncanny X-Men issues in question just before the Schism. There are three Matt Fraction collections (or a collection in three volumes if one prefers) but they stop about 10 issues short and I can't find which collection the last 10 issues are in. Any ideas?

That's where Matt Fraction's run ends. The rest is collected in Uncanny X-Men: Breaking Point and Fear Itself: Uncanny X-Men. The latter volume contains Uncanny X-Men #544, which has nothing to do with Fear Itself (I mentioned this before, but make sure you read Schism first).

...

2) Am I the only person who doesn't think Cyclops is a complete jerk?

No, I like Cyclops and generally agree with the statements you made further down. I think Wolverine is acting emotionally (as he often does) and is unfairly lashing out at Scott because he cared about Xavier and always has felt some rivalry towards Scott. And yeah, the Avengers (minus T'Challa) are massive hypocrites during AvX ("you can't have the power of a god!...We can, but you guys can't").

[Man on Fire]

I'm not very familiar with either Thunderbolts or Suicide Squad, but as I understand it, both are villains forced into a dysfunctional team to work for a big good. That strikes me as more similar than both teenagers with superpowers. That said, I know Teen Titans and Runaways much better.

Generally Suicide Squad is pretty much that - secret goverment taks force composed of supervillains who agreed to work for shorter sentences and superheroes with more relaxed moral code, to perform black-ops missions. Thunderbolts started like completely different concept - bunch of supervillains pretending to be new superheroes as a part of evil plan. Since then they went through several different takes and interpretations. Some of which were closer to Suicide Squad - Between Civil War and Secret Invasion Bolts were pretty much Suicide Squad only aimed against unregistered superheroes, during Dark Reign they were Normal Osborns personal black ops team, then they were prety much Suicide Squad with emphasis on redeemign the villains. And then Daniel Way came along and nobody knows what the hell they are anymore.

As for whether Runaways would do better as a movie or a tv series...I don't know. I feel like the pacing and characters arcs are better suited to TV, but a TV series would also run into the same problem the comic eventually did; you can't be a runaway forever. Of course, in theory, there's nothing stopping them from doing a one or two season tv show and stopping...

Didn't Agents of SHIELD wrecked down SHIELD after Winter Soldier and then rebuilt it?
Besides, I've never got that "you cannot be a runaway forever" argument. Mostly because again, I preffer vol.2 to vol.1 and for me being runaways is more their origin story than status quo. There is nothing wrong with a story of teens who try to repar the evil their parents commited. This entire argument "the story that was driving the series ended" doesn't hold water when you take in consideration vol.2 sold better than vol.1. And if it's really such a problem, it's not like Marvel Universe lacks villains who could put them o nthe run again, right?
Besides, you cannot be a villain pretending to be a hero forever and look, Thunderbolts abbandonned that in the 90s and were selling okay to survive without restarts up until 2010s (I think they renamed them Dark Avengers in 2011, then cancelled and restarted in 2013), all the time evolving with times. That's how you do it. But no, Marvel just gave @#$% up on Runaways because they got bored with them. And then they betrayed their fans with last two godawful years or horrible garbage that is so out of touch with reality and demand of modern fans that it might have buried Nico and Chase as characters forever.
If anything I would say Runaways problem was that vol.3 dropped the ball by keeping them away form Dark Reign - you have a group of rebelious, clearly anti-authority teens trying to make the world better and powermad top cop Norman Osborn and you DON'T bring them on a collision course? That was a waste of potential that bleed out the readers. Terry Moore didn't really knew what to do with them and couldn't create soild threat for them. But that doesn't mean their potential ran out for the @#$%s sake!

[Tyrant]

That's where Matt Fraction's run ends. The rest is collected in Uncanny X-Men: Breaking Point and Fear Itself: Uncanny X-Men. The latter volume contains Uncanny X-Men #544, which has nothing to do with Fear Itself (I mentioned this before, but make sure you read Schism first).

The Amazon description for Breaking Point had me wondering because it sounds like it's right around there in terms of events but didn't have issues listed. Thanks again.

No, I like Cyclops and generally agree with the statements you made further down. I think Wolverine is acting emotionally (as he often does) and is unfairly lashing out at Scott because he cared about Xavier and always has felt some rivalry towards Scott. And yeah, the Avengers (minus T'Challa) are massive hypocrites during AvX ("you can't have the power of a god!...We can, but you guys can't").

Yeah I had some issues with AvX. I didn't care for Captain America acting the way he did, with Stark pointing out how his stance was the opposite of his stance during Civil War no less. My biggest issue was anyone going to Wolverine for information about the Phoenix. Beast would know more about it in general and Rachel Summers, former wielder of the Phoenix Force, was in the same building as Wolverine. She was the one to talk with. Team Avengers was reckless trusting Wolverine about an obviously emotional issue and not going to a better source and Wolverine was reckless in not pointing them to a better source of info. I'm just glad she double crossed them.

Aside from Magik's Limbo prison (which it is once more hypocritical of a number of Avengers to criticize it given their own Negative Zone prison during Civil War), was there anything the Phoenix Five were doing on page that was awful before they were provoked by the Avengers? They seemed to be helping make things better. I think Mr. Fantastic had it right.

[GameSpawn]

...
Didn't Agents of SHIELD wrecked down SHIELD after Winter Soldier and then rebuilt it?
Besides, I've never got that "you cannot be a runaway forever" argument. Mostly because again, I preffer vol.2 to vol.1 and for me being runaways is more their origin story than status quo. There is nothing wrong with a story of teens who try to repar the evil their parents commited. This entire argument "the story that was driving the series ended" doesn't hold water when you take in consideration vol.2 sold better than vol.1. And if it's really such a problem, it's not like Marvel Universe lacks villains who could put them o nthe run again, right?
Besides, you cannot be a villain pretending to be a hero forever and look, Thunderbolts abbandonned that in the 90s and were selling okay to survive without restarts up until 2010s (I think they renamed them Dark Avengers in 2011, then cancelled and restarted in 2013), all the time evolving with times. That's how you do it. But no, Marvel just gave @#$% up on Runaways because they got bored with them. And then they betrayed their fans with last two godawful years or horrible garbage that is so out of touch with reality and demand of modern fans that it might have buried Nico and Chase as characters forever.
If anything I would say Runaways problem was that vol.3 dropped the ball by keeping them away form Dark Reign - you have a group of rebelious, clearly anti-authority teens trying to make the world better and powermad top cop Norman Osborn and you DON'T bring them on a collision course? That was a waste of potential that bleed out the readers. Terry Moore didn't really knew what to do with them and couldn't create soild threat for them. But that doesn't mean their potential ran out for the @#$%s sake!

Vol. 2 selling better than Vol. 1 doesn't necessarily mean much about their relative quality; it may be that vol. 1 got people interested after it ended, which led to vol. 2 selling better, and various other factors might play into the difference.

Nonetheless, you are correct about two things: one, Runaways can change their premise, and maybe do so well, and two, the problem isn't unique to Runaways. Regarding one, I have nothing really insightful to add; it's just a question of whether you think the series is more defined by the premise or the characters. Regarding two, however, I think there's a few reasons the problem is more relevant to Runaways than to other groups. The first reason is that the characters are really only bound together by opposition to their parents (and to a lesser extent the authority they represent), and later they stay together because they're friends. This isn't a problem per se, but they don't generally have a strong commitment to making the world a better place. So they need to find some form of external motivation for each event, or else experience character growth that takes them back to point 1.

The second reason is that Runaways isn't just defined by the specific plot, but by the characters relative immaturity. Maybe you can't be a villain pretending to be a superhero forever, but you can have the "get yours, screw everyone else" mentality until your old and gray. The Runaways, on the other hand, are in the untenable position of wanting to rebel against society and their parents while still sitting in a giant city and relying on their inheritance to support themselves. Eventually, the group has to either realize that adult society actually has its advantages or else double down on being runaways from society and try to find an uninhabited arable island somewhere and learn to raise food and try not to die. I think this is why I don't see Avengers Arena/Undercover as a "betrayal of fans"; Runaways is about leaving society, Arena is about the dangers inherent in that, and Undercover is about trying to come back to society. Even if you think (as you've made clear you do) that the series were poorly executed, I hope you can see why I consider them to be logical extensions of the events of Runaways.

Don't get me wrong; I love Runaways, but the premise of the series is inherently restrictive.

The Amazon description for Breaking Point had me wondering because it sounds like it's right around there in terms of events but didn't have issues listed. Thanks again.

You're welcome, happy to help .

Yeah I had some issues with AvX. I didn't care for Captain America acting the way he did, with Stark pointing out how his stance was the opposite of his stance during Civil War no less. My biggest issue was anyone going to Wolverine for information about the Phoenix. Beast would know more about it in general and Rachel Summers, former wielder of the Phoenix Force, was in the same building as Wolverine. She was the one to talk with. Team Avengers was reckless trusting Wolverine about an obviously emotional issue and not going to a better source and Wolverine was reckless in not pointing them to a better source of info. I'm just glad she double crossed them.

Aside from Magik's Limbo prison (which it is once more hypocritical of a number of Avengers to criticize it given their own Negative Zone prison during Civil War), was there anything the Phoenix Five were doing on page that was awful before they were provoked by the Avengers? They seemed to be helping make things better. I think Mr. Fantastic had it right.

Emma Frost persuaded Namor to attack Wakanda, for reasons that I don't remember every being satisfactorily explained, but I think were at least partially in response to the Avengers actions. Mostly though, the X-Men were doing things like stopping terrorists and feeding the poor.

[Man on Fire]

Vol. 2 selling better than Vol. 1 doesn't necessarily mean much about their relative quality; it may be that vol. 1 got people interested after it ended, which led to vol. 2 selling better, and various other factors might play into the difference.

That might jsutify good sales for the start, but Runaways vol.2 overall were having stable sales for entire BKV's run, it was only after he left that the book was canceled and that had more to do with Joss Whedon's colossal delays. And even then they were selling so well Marvel published their crossover with Young Avengers as a mini, when the book was still going and another at the time they started vol.3 - hey don't do that for book that don't have decent sales.

Regarding one, I have nothing really insightful to add; it's just a question of whether you think the series is more defined by the premise or the characters.

Runaways for me are more character-focused, like Fantastic Four for me, so premise can change and evolve with time, but I doubt suddenly replacing half of the team would work like with Young Avengers or X-Men, just like they don't work for Fantastic Four for more than an arc (and even then New Fantastic Four is more of a curiosity)

Regarding two, however, I think there's a few reasons the problem is more relevant to Runaways than to other groups. The first reason is that the characters are really only bound together by opposition to their parents (and to a lesser extent the authority they represent), and later they stay together because they're friends.

Same with FF, bound over being radiated, stick for year because they're friends, didn't stop them from having 600+ comics.

This isn't a problem per se, but they don't generally have a strong commitment to making the world a better place.

They do. Early issues of vol.2 eastabilished that they do feel guilty over the evil their parents commited and over power vaccum they created by defeating them, that became open invitation for many supervillains.

So they need to find some form of external motivation for each event, or else experience character growth that takes them back to point 1.

Or you can just put some other evil authority figure against them. Nothing hard to do, especially in Marvel Universe.

The second reason is that Runaways isn't just defined by the specific plot, but by the characters relative immaturity. Maybe you can't be a villain pretending to be a superhero forever, but you can have the "get yours, screw everyone else" mentality until your old and gray. The Runaways, on the other hand, are in the untenable position of wanting to rebel against society and their parents while still sitting in a giant city and relying on their inheritance to support themselves. Eventually, the group has to either realize that adult society actually has its advantages or else double down on being runaways from society and try to find an uninhabited arable island somewhere and learn to raise food and try not to die.

Their inheritance is just superpowers at this point and it's not liek living in big city is such a big deal. Don't we have entire book running now about how much of a @#$%hole LA is by the way? To the point it needs a Ghost Rider?! You can rebel agaisnt the society even by takign advantage of the good sides, because there are still many rotten parts that need to be healed. This argument is based on such complete extremes I don't even know where to start. Runaways aren't trying to tell entire society to flip itself, it's about trying to live inside it by your own rules and trying to make it better, one person at the time.

I think this is why I don't see Avengers Arena/Undercover as a "betrayal of fans"; Runaways is about leaving society, Arena is about the dangers inherent in that, and Undercover is about trying to come back to society. Even if you think (as you've made clear you do) that the series were poorly executed, I hope you can see why I consider them to be logical extensions of the events of Runaways.

Except that the writer made it clear he considers the "sidekicks" and was trying to prove how sidekicks are bad idea - there was nothing in his motivation about extending themes of Runaways, he thought they're sidekicks to adult heroes like Robin. He didn't even knew what Runaways were about or didn't care enough, all that mattred was to rant how he hates Robin.
AND THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT REJOINING THE SOCIETY IN UNDERCOVER! UNLESS BY SOCIETY YOU MEAN NEO-NAZIS! How can you make a book about rejoining the society where your characters don't have society to rejoin? They are all the time in world of degenerates, there is nothing making them go back to real society. They to go Bakaland, give in to evil, get betrayed, Avengers save them, and everything is magically fixed? BULLMANURE! If he wanted to do a book about rejoinign the society, he should feature actual society of normal, decent folk, their friends and family trying to mke them be themselves again, not just endless stream of temptations to evil. There is no internal struggle, he is treatign character's personalities as an endless series of flip switches - good/evil, giving in/not giving in.
These books were not "poorly exectued", they were garbage from first page to the last and I'll never forgive Marvel for publishing them.

Don't get me wrong; I love Runaways

After what you wrote above I find your assurements unconvincing.

[GameSpawn]

That might jsutify good sales for the start, but Runaways vol.2 overall were having stable sales for entire BKV's run, it was only after he left that the book was canceled and that had more to do with Joss Whedon's colossal delays. And even then they were selling so well Marvel published their crossover with Young Avengers as a mini, when the book was still going and another at the time they started vol.3 - hey don't do that for book that don't have decent sales.

My greater point isn't that volume 2 was bad or unpopular; it wasn't. My point is that comparing sales of vol. 2 to vol. 1 isn't an effective way to compare the quality because of the various complicating factors.

Runaways for me are more character-focused, like Fantastic Four for me, so premise can change and evolve with time, but I doubt suddenly replacing half of the team would work like with Young Avengers or X-Men, just like they don't work for Fantastic Four for more than an arc (and even then New Fantastic Four is more of a curiosity)

To me, it's about both. Yes, the characters are neat, but without the sense of rebellion I don't think it would have captured readers the way it did.

Same with FF, bound over being radiated, stick for year because they're friends, didn't stop them from having 600+ comics.



They do. Early issues of vol.2 eastabilished that they do feel guilty over the evil their parents commited and over power vaccum they created by defeating them, that became open invitation for many supervillains.



Or you can just put some other evil authority figure against them. Nothing hard to do, especially in Marvel Universe.

The issue isn't "can people come up with plots". The issue is character development; can the characters mature without markedly changing the feel of the series?

Their inheritance is just superpowers at this point

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure last we saw they were living in their parents Malibu beach-house and driving a van Chase's parent bought him? Besides, it's not like their powers are exactly a small deal.

and it's not liek living in big city is such a big deal. Don't we have entire book running now about how much of a @#$%hole LA is by the way? To the point it needs a Ghost Rider?! You can rebel agaisnt the society even by takign advantage of the good sides, because there are still many rotten parts that need to be healed. This argument is based on such complete extremes I don't even know where to start. Runaways aren't trying to tell entire society to flip itself, it's about trying to live inside it by your own rules and trying to make it better, one person at the time.

It's not about trying to tell society "society is bad", but it's about trying to live outside it (consider when they're approached by the X-Men or Captain America, or when they visit Avengers Academy). "Trying to live inside [society] by your own rules" doesn't really make sense; society has rules, and you can live inside it or not, but if you live inside it, you have to accept it's rules. Even if you break the rules, you have to work around them.

Except that the writer made it clear he considers the "sidekicks" and was trying to prove how sidekicks are bad idea - there was nothing in his motivation about extending themes of Runaways, he thought they're sidekicks to adult heroes like Robin. He didn't even knew what Runaways were about or didn't care enough, all that mattred was to rant how he hates Robin.
AND THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT REJOINING THE SOCIETY IN UNDERCOVER! UNLESS BY SOCIETY YOU MEAN NEO-NAZIS! How can you make a book about rejoining the society where your characters don't have society to rejoin? They are all the time in world of degenerates, there is nothing making them go back to real society. They to go Bakaland, give in to evil, get betrayed, Avengers save them, and everything is magically fixed? BULLMANURE! If he wanted to do a book about rejoinign the society, he should feature actual society of normal, decent folk, their friends and family trying to mke them be themselves again, not just endless stream of temptations to evil. There is no internal struggle, he is treatign character's personalities as an endless series of flip switches - good/evil, giving in/not giving in.
These books were not "poorly exectued", they were garbage from first page to the last and I'll never forgive Marvel for publishing them.

Whether it was Hopeless's intent to follow-up on the themes in Runaways isn't really relevant to my point; he did, whether he meant to or not, and I'm arguing that was necessary in order for the Runaways to grow as people. The impetus for Avengers Undercover is that the characters of society viewing them as just the kids that survived Murder World, and about 70% of the series is about getting society (represented by the Avengers and Shield) to accept them as heroes, so I think it's very much fair to say the series is about coming back into society.

After what you wrote above I find your assurements unconvincing.

What did I write that you think is incompatible with me liking the series ?

[Man on Fire]

To me, it's about both. Yes, the characters are neat, but without the sense of rebellion I don't think it would have captured readers the way it did.

Again, it's not hard to give them somethign new to rebel against.

The issue isn't "can people come up with plots". The issue is character development; can the characters mature without markedly changing the feel of the series?

Sure, they already did in vol.2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure last we saw they were living in their parents Malibu beach-house and driving a van Chase's parent bought him? Besides, it's not like their powers are exactly a small deal.

These thigns were destroyed, last time we see them i ntheir series they were pretty much homeless.

It's not about trying to tell society "society is bad", but it's about trying to live outside it (consider when they're approached by the X-Men or Captain America, or when they visit Avengers Academy).

What is your problem here? That they didn't succumb to maisntream approach and gave up Molly to X-Men/Academy? They can live on their own without being ordered by Captain America. Hell, Captain America precisely wanted them to give up being heroes at all, that's not something you can do with ongoign series about heroes.

"Trying to live inside [society] by your own rules" doesn't really make sense; society has rules, and you can live inside it or not, but if you live inside it, you have to accept it's rules. Even if you break the rules, you have to work around them.

That's a fallancy, you can live as a part of society and still rebel against the injustices of that society, Runaways could easily be exatlhy that. All or nothing approach has no ground in reality and only crazy survivalists give to it.

Whether it was Hopeless's intent to follow-up on the themes in Runaways isn't really relevant to my point; he did, whether he meant to or not,

He didn't, we better agree to disagree on this one. As far as I'm concerned he flipped everyone who like Runaways the bird and said captain america was right claiming these kids should never be heroes. So hell with him.

and I'm arguing that was necessary in order for the Runaways to grow as people.

And I'm arguign that a) it wasn't and b) all it did was to revert them in development, so mission failed.

The impetus for Avengers Undercover is that the characters of society viewing them as just the kids that survived Murder World, and about 70% of the series is about getting society (represented by the Avengers and Shield) to accept them as heroes, so I think it's very much fair to say the series is about coming back into society.

NICO AND CHASE DID NOTHING TO DO THAT! THEY SIT ON THER BUTTS WHILE CAMMI SAVED THE DAY AND HAD TO BE SAVED BY AVENGERS! AGAIN: FAIL!
And second, @#$% Avengers and @#$% SHIELD, as far as I'm concerned their acceptance is last thing any real hero needs. Bunch of self-congratulating egomaniacs.

What did I write that you think is incompatible with me liking the series ?

How you do everything to twist themes of the series to give your beloved undercover more ground? How you're hellbent to prove they cannot function and need to be assimilated by Avengers or X-men, two brands I kinda despise and woudl preffer Runaways to have nothing to do with ever again? How you try to force message on comformity on seires that is rebelious at heart? Making up stuff to make Undercover look better? Everything?

[GameSpawn]

Again, it's not hard to give them somethign new to rebel against.



Sure, they already did in vol.2

I'd have to re-read vol. 2 (which I may do), but my recollection is that the character development was fairly minor.

These thigns were destroyed, last time we see them i ntheir series they were pretty much homeless.

Ah, OK. I'd forgotten about that; it's been a few years since I read vol. 3. Still, we haven't seen much of them (except Nico and Chase) since then. EDIT: Also, they still have the property, which puts them in a significantly better position than people who are actually homeless.

What is your problem here? That they didn't succumb to maisntream approach and gave up Molly to X-Men/Academy? They can live on their own without being ordered by Captain America. Hell, Captain America precisely wanted them to give up being heroes at all, that's not something you can do with ongoign series about heroes.

I have no problem here; I think it was a decision that made sense for the characters and led to a better series; I just think it demonstrates that they wanted to live outside of society.

That's a fallancy, you can live as a part of society and still rebel against the injustices of that society, Runaways could easily be exatlhy that. All or nothing approach has no ground in reality and only crazy survivalists give to it.

I think my original point was poorly stated, so sorry about that; you absolutely can try to change the rules of the society you live in. However, society does have rules, almost by definition. Trying to change those rules is very different from trying to live outside of society all together.

I might surprise you here by agreeing with part of what you say, though; I can see a longer Runaways series where the group tries to effect structural change within the superhero community (or society at large) working nicely. That said, the Runaways would still need significant impetus to get them from the end of Runaways Vol. 3 to the point of trying to effect larger societal changes.

He didn't, we better agree to disagree on this one. As far as I'm concerned he flipped everyone who like Runaways the bird and said captain america was right claiming these kids should never be heroes. So hell with him.

I can agree to disagree with you on this. Can you agree to stop offering vitriolic criticism every time someone mentions anything vaguely relating to Hopeless or Avengers Arena/Undercover? Because if not, I'll reply when I see fit to.

And I'm arguign that a) it wasn't and b) all it did was to revert them in development, so mission failed.



NICO AND CHASE DID NOTHING TO DO THAT! THEY SIT ON THER BUTTS WHILE CAMMI SAVED THE DAY AND HAD TO BE SAVED BY AVENGERS! AGAIN: FAIL!
And second, @#$% Avengers and @#$% SHIELD, as far as I'm concerned their acceptance is last thing any real hero needs. Bunch of self-congratulating egomaniacs.

Even if you don't feel it was well done, the series was still (partially) about them coming back to society.

How you do everything to twist themes of the series to give your beloved undercover more ground?

I thought both Runaways and Avengers Undercover had good points and bad points. Actually, I liked Runaways better. I haven't even really criticized Runaways as a series; I just think the characters aren't living a tenable lifestyle, and that Undercover built on that.

How you're hellbent to prove they cannot function and need to be assimilated by Avengers or X-men, two brands I kinda despise and woudl preffer Runaways to have nothing to do with ever again?

The group can't function long term as they are. Neither can the X-Men. Neither can the Avengers. I don't want any of the groups to assimilate the others; I want them to grow as characters and address the challenges they face. I think the nature of Runaways, and the problems they face, means they need to do so somewhat more immediately.

How you try to force message on comformity on seires that is rebelious at heart?

I'm not trying to force a message of conformity on Runaways: 1. Living within society isn't about conformity, beyond a general set of rules like "you need to get a job or find some other way to support yourself". 2. I don't think Runaways had the message that you need to live within society. I read Runaways as an escapist fantasy and Arena/Undercover (partially) as a criticism presenting dangers of that fantasy. Now, plenty of people may have read it differently, and that's fine, but it doesn't make my enjoyment of the series somehow invalid.

Making up stuff to make Undercover look better?

I haven't made anything up. I did forget about the house and stuff getting destroyed, but otherwise I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Everything?

Well, at the end of the day I can't prove I liked or disliked it. But then, neither can anyone else.

[Man on Fire]

[QUOTE=GameSpawn;18612808]I'd have to re-read vol. 2 (which I may do), but my recollection is that the character development was fairly minor.[/quote

For me it was mayor, it showed charcters mature and evolve way beyond what they were in vol.1

Also, they still have the property, which puts them in a significantly better position than people who are actually homeless.

What property? House and land weren't theirs, they were living there kinda illegally. They have flyfrog and their powers and that's kinda it. And still, they don't need to actually be homeless, I don't get what you're arguing here.

I have no problem here; I think it was a decision that made sense for the characters and led to a better series; I just think it demonstrates that they wanted to live outside of society.

Again, we have to disagree on this one.

I think my original point was poorly stated, so sorry about that; you absolutely can try to change the rules of the society you live in. However, society does have rules, almost by definition. Trying to change those rules is very different from trying to live outside of society all together.

And Idon't belive they tried to live outside the society altogether. As far as I see it this is all purerly your interpretation with no ground in the actual comics, in other words what I mean about making stuff up.

I can agree to disagree with you on this. Can you agree to stop offering vitriolic criticism every time someone mentions anything vaguely relating to Hopeless or Avengers Arena/Undercover? Because if not, I'll reply when I see fit to.

Reminder I've only mentioned these books in this conversation briefly in one sentence and you jumped to defend it.
And no, I cannot. It is pivotal for me that fans of these book will nto spread futher their propaganda without someone representign the other side.

Even if you don't feel it was well done, the series was still (partially) about them coming back to society.

Disagree, for me nothing in the comics support this statement.
You know what I think? Something I've noticed a lot - fans of Hopeless ted to see things in his books that aren't there, making up some "deep" interpretations that have no gorunding in the text, while his critics see an apple for what it is - an apple.
And even if, it could be done without all the misogyny, racism, writing Nice guys manifesto, insulting millions of people with ptsd, turning Nico in character inherently offensive to everyone who ever had a real prosthetic, potrayal of neo-nazis as misunderstood heroes (Baron "Only I can save you from evil government which is why I'm dressed like I just came back from Heinrich Himmler's suprise birthday party at Wermacht" Zemo) and reducing characters to losers who need approval of garbage characters like Avengers to live. And no, I will not explain any of these points - they touch topics we're not allowed to discuss here and I do not want to get banned.
You want a story about coming back to society? Watch G Gundam.

I just think the characters aren't living a tenable lifestyle, and that Undercover built on that.

And I think you should stop buying into Hopeless/Aaron's horrible ideas that there is something wrong with being teen superheroes in Marvel, as far as I am concerned, there is 4-letter world and they are full of it.

The group can't function long term as they are. Neither can the X-Men. Neither can the Avengers. I don't want any of the groups to assimilate the others; I want them to grow as characters and address the challenges they face. I think the nature of Runaways, and the problems they face, means they need to do so somewhat more immediately.

From what you wrote it looked like you want them to make itdiots of themselves to win Avengers' approval.

I'm not trying to force a message of conformity on Runaways: 1. Living within society isn't about conformity, beyond a general set of rules like "you need to get a job or find some other way to support yourself". 2. I don't think Runaways had the message that you need to live within society. I read Runaways as an escapist fantasy and Arena/Undercover (partially) as a criticism presenting dangers of that fantasy. Now, plenty of people may have read it differently, and that's fine, but it doesn't make my enjoyment of the series somehow invalid.

Then allow me to reject your intepretation. I see nothing of escapist fantasy in Runaways. I mean their origin is considered mroe tragic than Batman's and large part of the series is them struggling with their emotions and problems and having horrible obstacles - nothing here says escapism. This is the same problem I have with people who defend misuese of SPider-Girl in Spider-Verse - they act as if nothing bad ever happened to the characters and somehow this was first time they ever had traumatic experiences, while ignoring all the drama and tragedies that hit them in their own comics, making me wonder if they ever read them i nthe first place. And then they act as if that trauma somehow made them better heroes, as if somehow it vaildated them, to which I'm going to quote what Mark Waid put in Daredevil's mouth:

Don't you ever say that to me again. That is a repellent statement. It is a vomitous insult to every cop — every fireman — every soldier alive who steps up to fight for those who can't! I am sorry for your loss! But if you genuinely believe that only the death of a loved one can motivate a human being to take up a cause... then get your pathetic, cynical *ss out of my way so I can do my job!

And again, I don't see your idea Runaways are about living outside society, this is what I mean by you making stuff up.

I see we got two compteley different things from Runaways. However, I find your arguments groundless and I reject your interpretation. You like it and your interpretation makes you like Undercover? More power to you. But don't expect those arguments or your defense of Hopeless to reach me.

[BRC]

on Runaways: 1. Living within society isn't about conformity, beyond a general set of rules like "you need to get a job or find some other way to support yourself". 2. I don't think Runaways had the message that you need to live within society. I read Runaways as an escapist fantasy and Arena/Undercover (partially) as a criticism presenting dangers of that fantasy. Now, plenty of people may have read it differently, and that's fine, but it doesn't make my enjoyment of the series somehow invalid.

Runaways is an escapist fantasy, most comic books are. I would call Runaways a little less escapist than most teen-hero stuff because at various points the Runaways have to deal with the basics of survival more so than the standard Teenager sneaking out their bedroom window to go fight crime heroes do.

An obvious comparison point is the Young Avengers, who apparently don't even need to go through the whole "Hide my secret identity from my parents" thing.

That said, I can't see Arena/Undercover as any sort of criticism of escapism. I don't think anybody sees Lord of the Flies as an escapist fantasy, and I doubt anybody who misses the point of The Hunger Games enough to see it as escapist fantasy is going to look at Avengers Arena and say "Oh, Well THIS Teenager death game is SUPPOSED to be a bad thing!".

As for Hopeless himself, I don't think he's quite as, well, Hopeless as Man on Fire seems to think.

I read something somewhere about how his original plans were basically just to continue Avengers Academy, and he planned out a final arc where a bunch of superteens are having some sort of competition, and a supervillain takes out the adults and tries to turn it into a death battle. The kids team up, beat up the bad guy, and escape, huzzah.

He pitched that to editorial, and they said "Just take the last arc and make an entire series about that!".

The parts of Avengers Arena I read came across like that. There were some decent parts, a lot of painful parts, and a basic concept that was a giant steaming turd. Almost like a decent-writer was being forced to turn a three issue arc into a twenty-something issue gimmick standalone.

Undercover just plain sucked. The gimmick was even worse/more tortured.
Both series sucked because they were each based around a terrible central promise. "PEOPLE WILL DIE!" for Arena, and "SOMEBODY WILL TURN EVIL" for Undercover.

I don't hate it with the same degree that Man on Fire seems to, largely because I don't think he "Ruined" the Runaways. Its pretty hard to "Ruin" a comic book character beyond the ability of another writer to fix them through a convenient combination of retcons, retro-justifications, and just plain ignoring everything that happened before. I mean, Hopeless couldn't even write a character he created with any sort of narrative consistency.

The only thing that will be hard to get rid of is Nico's spooky arm, and even that she could learn to illusion/transform it to look normal, and a line about her not liking to use it means that it can go away until they need to pull it out for a cool looking 11th hour power boost.

For all their talk of continuity, comic books are pretty compartmentalized. Its not uncommon to have an alien invasion threaten to destroy new york in one book, a superpowered-brawl over the brooklyn bridge in another, a demon portal open up in Central Park in a third, and an army of evil bugs coming out of the subway system in a fourth book, all published at the same time (And therefore happening semi-simultaneously), with none of the characters mentioning the events in the other books.

The point is, yeah those books sucked, but that doesn't mean they automatically did any lasting damage.

Now, lets talk about other things, lets talk about Hawkeye vs Deadpool.

I am really enjoying Hawkeye vs Deadpool, for a large number of reasons. A primary one being evidence that other writers can successfully bottle the lightning that is fraction's "Hawkeye". They can take the characterization developed there and take it out of the "Clint moping around his apartment" setting. Its a nice how-to guide for writing "Lovable Loser" Clint, while still making him competent enough to be a believable superhero. A man who can save the world, but can ALSO burn his tongue on a slice of pizza.
Also Kate Bishop makes the best faces in that series.

Finally: Agents of SHIELD. The Comic books, not the Show.

Reading the first issue, the real goal seems to be establishing Coulson's role in the comic books, which is basically that he's a huge nerd. He's special because he has an encyclopedic knowledge of heroes that lets him pick the best cape for the best job. I thought he translated pretty well.
May didn't get a lot to do this issue, but I'm confident they can make her work. She's a stoic, intelligent badass. As comic-book heroes go, that's pretty easy. At worst she becomes boring and forgettable.
Fitz and Simmons are a little bit trickier. Too much of what makes their characters work on screen is based on the actors, so porting them into the comic books doesn't really work. Especially when you put them in the Shield-standard figure-hugging jumpsuits that make them look more like "Generic Musclebound SHIELD soldier #24" than a pair of lab techs.

That said, the first issue was fun, but it didn't give me a lot of sense of what the series is going to feel like. All we really learned is that Phil Coulson Is A Huge Nerd. It looks like the series may just be the core cast+Whatever Cameo they want to play with this month.

[GameSpawn]

And Idon't belive they tried to live outside the society altogether. As far as I see it this is all purerly your interpretation with no ground in the actual comics, in other words what I mean about making stuff up.

...

And again, I don't see your idea Runaways are about living outside society, this is what I mean by you making stuff up.

I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted your statements, but it sounds to me like you are saying that because I'm making subjective statements you disagree with, I am making stuff up; this is, of course, not the case. It is true that most of my statements are my interpretation, but it is your interpretation that the series is, for example, misanthropic or misogynistic. I don't think the series is misanthropic or misogynistic, but I think you legitimately believe the things you are saying, and I ask that you accept I legitimately believe it when I say the series has plenty of good aspects, and that I'm grounding my interpretation in the text, just like you. I'm not spouting "propaganda"; I'm just explaining why I liked a series I liked.

Runaways is an escapist fantasy, most comic books are. I would call Runaways a little less escapist than most teen-hero stuff because at various points the Runaways have to deal with the basics of survival more so than the standard Teenager sneaking out their bedroom window to go fight crime heroes do.

There's definitely more than one kind of escapist fantasy, and Runaways certainly plays to a different fantasy than Teen Titans or Young Avengers does. I'm not sure how to classify one as more or less escapist.

That said, I can't see Arena/Undercover as any sort of criticism of escapism. I don't think anybody sees Lord of the Flies as an escapist fantasy, and I doubt anybody who misses the point of The Hunger Games enough to see it as escapist fantasy is going to look at Avengers Arena and say "Oh, Well THIS Teenager death game is SUPPOSED to be a bad thing!".

I think it's the context of Arena/Undercover that lead them to read like a criticism of the particular fantasy in Runaways. Lord of the Flies doesn't read like a criticism of escapist fantasy, but if it was a sequel to a book where several of the characters had run away from their parents, defied traditional power structures, and gone on to have a series of adventures where they grew as friends and learned to stick together, I think it would have.

As for Hopeless himself, I don't think he's quite as, well, Hopeless as Man on Fire seems to think.

I read something somewhere about how his original plans were basically just to continue Avengers Academy, and he planned out a final arc where a bunch of superteens are having some sort of competition, and a supervillain takes out the adults and tries to turn it into a death battle. The kids team up, beat up the bad guy, and escape, huzzah.

He pitched that to editorial, and they said "Just take the last arc and make an entire series about that!".

Yeah, Hopeless mentioned that at the end of one of the issues of Avengers Arena.

Now, lets talk about other things, lets talk about Hawkeye vs Deadpool.

I am really enjoying Hawkeye vs Deadpool, for a large number of reasons. A primary one being evidence that other writers can successfully bottle the lightning that is fraction's "Hawkeye". They can take the characterization developed there and take it out of the "Clint moping around his apartment" setting. Its a nice how-to guide for writing "Lovable Loser" Clint, while still making him competent enough to be a believable superhero. A man who can save the world, but can ALSO burn his tongue on a slice of pizza.
Also Kate Bishop makes the best faces in that series.

Maybe I'll check it out. I read the 0th issue, and thought it was good, but never got around to reading the later issues. I really like the way Kate and Clint interact in Hawkeye; is there a lot of that in the mini-series?

[BRC]

I think it's the context of Arena/Undercover that lead them to read like a criticism of the particular fantasy in Runaways. Lord of the Flies doesn't read like a criticism of escapist fantasy, but if it was a sequel to a book where several of the characters had run away from their parents, defied traditional power structures, and gone on to have a series of adventures where they grew as friends and learned to stick together, I think it would have.

Except that Arena/Undercover isn't a Runaways sequel. There are Runaways characters in it, but I think there are more Avengers Academy characters. Just because Nico and Chase are in it dosn't mean it's a Runaways book.
it's a Lord of the Flies/Hunger Games/Battle Royale book.

Maybe I'll check it out. I read the 0th issue, and thought it was good, but never got around to reading the later issues. I really like the way Kate and Clint interact in Hawkeye; is there a lot of that in the mini-series?

A good deal. Deadpool being in the mix changes the dynamic a bit, and this is more LA Woman-Era Kate than pre-LA Kate, but they play off each other and the dynamic works.

[Man on Fire]

[QUOTE=GameSpawn;18619460]I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted your statements, but it sounds to me like you are saying that because I'm making subjective statements you disagree with, I am making stuff up; this is, of course, not the case. It is true that most of my statements are my interpretation, but it is your interpretation that the series is, for example, misanthropic or misogynistic. I don't think the series is misanthropic or misogynistic, but I think you legitimately believe the things you are saying, and I ask that you accept I legitimately believe it when I say the series has plenty of good aspects, and that I'm grounding my interpretation in the text, just like you. I'm not spouting "propaganda"; I'm just explaining why I liked a series I liked.[/quote

Then feel free to do as. And I will keep bringing up why I hate it every time you do so, because it's my right.
As for making it up, it's just that I find your intepretation to be groundless. I could say "I disagree with you but see where you're coming from" if I saw the basis for your interetation. I don't., so I say it seems to me you're making stuff up.

There's definitely more than one kind of escapist fantasy, and Runaways certainly plays to a different fantasy than Teen Titans or Young Avengers does. I'm not sure how to classify one as more or less escapist.

Digression because this is getting nowhere - I don't see comics as escapism. I might quote Peter David here:

Some readers claim they read comics merely for escapism, so they don’t have to think about reality. But they’re just saying that. The ultimate escapist fantasy would be cosmic-level tales featuring such heros as Silver Surfer or the New Gods. If the escapist philosophy of readership held true, they would be among the most successful characters out there. Instead, their solo books inevitably crash and burn due to low sales, irrespective of the quality of the individual work.

Yeah, I agree with that. Comics are fantasy, but I really don't see most of them as escapist fantasy. For me superhero comics are supposed to inspire us, to show us we could be better people (DC), even if we still have our flaws (Marvel).
Which is why comics telling me "No, if you're not walking perfection then you cannot be hero and should just give up" reads like one giant insult.

Lord of the Flies doesn't read like a criticism of escapist fantasy

You do realize Lord of the Flies was written as a criticism of children's book Coral Island, right?

characters run away from their parents, defied traditional power structures, and gone on to have a series of adventures where they grew as friends and learned to stick together

I know good deconstruction of that type of fantasy. It's called Runaways. Vol.1 and partially vol.2 shows pretty well what kind of heavy emotional tool this took on the characters short and long-term. You should check it out, you might like it

Yeah, Hopeless mentioned that at the end of one of the issues of Avengers Arena.

He also went on podcast to claim Arena/Undercover was dream project of his and his manifesto against teen sidekicks like Robin and superheroes who endanger them. Even through not a single one character in the series was a sidekick. Oh, and rememberthat when Arena has been going he and editor Bill Rosemann wer claiming it came from Mark Waid's idea. But when somebody asked Mark Waid on twitter he said he is getting undeserved credit and suddenly nobody ever mentioned him in the context of this series (knowing what kind of guy Waid is on twitter I like to imagine he stormed in someody's office and yelled at that person to keep his name away from this turd) and suddenly the whole "I've wanted to do normal teen book but Breevoort and Alonso told me to do this" showed up.
Take this man's words with grain of salt, he changes stories so often it seems to me he is lying to cover his four letters and push them blame on somebody else.

I don't hate it with the same degree that Man on Fire seems to, largely because I don't think he "Ruined" the Runaways. Its pretty hard to "Ruin" a comic book character beyond the ability of another writer to fix them through a convenient combination of retcons, retro-justifications, and just plain ignoring everything that happened before.

You're right. I mean, it worked great for Henry Pym and Pymslap. Or for Cassandra Cain and her time as a villain. Or Scarlet Witch and mutant genocide. Stephanie Brown and causing huge gang war. Bane and having his venom tube cut off first time he lost a fight. Umar and raping the Hulk. Aquaman and being lame in Superfiends. Spider-Man, Mary Jane Watson and Mephisto and One More Day. Harley Quinn and murdering children with exploding video games.
Oh whait, it didn't. Every one of these things haunt the characters and destroy their reputation to this day. Some of them have been explained and retconned (Cass, Wanda), some of them have not been character's fault to begin with (Steph), have things putting more positive light on it (Pym) or were never true (Bane). Some were declared non-canon (Harley) or were never canon in the first place (Aquaman). People, writers and fans alike, don't care and these things still put shadow on the characters.
Hell, that's one of the reasons why I keep attacking these books every time they're mentioned - I try to stop people from thinking this @#$% is who Nico and Chase are, because it's not. As you said, this hack couldn't even keep the characterisation consistent.
So don't tell me it's hard to ruin character in comics, while there is so much evidence to the contrary.

The only thing that will be hard to get rid of is Nico's spooky arm

That actually seems to be less of a problem, it seems to have dissapeared without a reason in last issue. Officially Hopeless forgot to tell the artist Nico has it (which only futher proves his incompetence) but I feel it might been silently carried editorial order to get rid of it. I really pray it never shows up, this thing is horribly offensive (google disability superpowers) and reduces her interesting magic to "lol pink lasers!", the same problem that ruined most magic characters in superhero comics.
Biggest problem is Alex Wilder being alive, he needs to be back to being dead. His death was fundamental to who Runaways are, undoing it is like bringing up Batman's parents or Uncle Ben.