REVIEW: Avengers Arena #1

[Majin Gojira]

Oh yeah, X-Statix. I'll accept that as a precursor to this book, good point.

But the fact so many people are trying to undo the permanancy of death in this title by finding ways out or excuses just goes to prove how much impact it has when marvel take away the safety net and say "no, they're dead forever if they die here".

Heh. Dead forever in Marvel Comics. That's funny.

Honestly, I have no problem with killing characters (as long as its done well, which I don't think it's done here). The actual problems I have with it beyond that are: pacing, setting up the important points and characterization.

That said, it could very well be a massive case of denial, or the VR may even be Matrix-like in regards to death. We don't know but the hints are there.

[Seresecros]

The pacing, plotting and characterisation were all objectively fine. There's a difference between a poorly-written story and a story you didn't like. It's an easy mistake to make, I don't blame you for making it.

[gveret]

The pacing, plotting and characterisation were all objectively fine. There's a difference between a poorly-written story and a story you didn't like. It's an easy mistake to make, I don't blame you for making it.

Calling anything that has to do with art "objectively fine" is a bit problematic. In my opinion, the excessive focus on Arcade's newfound badassery hurt the pacing, and there were a few lines that were a bit off, characterization-wise. As for the plotting, there hasn't exactly been any yet, so it remains to be seen.

[Seresecros]

You can call art objectively fine and find it subjectively lacking

[Majin Gojira]

The pacing, plotting and characterisation were all objectively fine. There's a difference between a poorly-written story and a story you didn't like. It's an easy mistake to make, I don't blame you for making it.

"Objectively good" is not the best way to describe it, and I've already gone over, at length, the reasons why in other threads on this very board. Sort of tired of it. Hell, I even pointed out where I think it was good (The scenes where the kids were at the Academy) vs. the scenes which didn't work (Arcade in general, the flash forward being unnecessary).

But to be brief:
1) It did not establish the entire cast, when other series #1's managed to do so with even more characters (Runaways #1)
2) Characterization of Mettle was off (reduced to "Loves Hazmat") as was Hazmat's ("Always angry" vs. "Someone who had it all then lost it", lacking of her signature swearing when hurt/injured)
2a) On Mettle's stance, his lines before his sacrifice undermine it heavily. It could have easily been a noble sacrifice and would have been in character, but it's undermined and becomes more selfish and hollow.
3) We still do not know the rules/details of this place which a better paced story could have set up (again, compare to Runaways #1)

There's others, but that's at least enough to start with.

The converse of what you say is also true: just because you like something doesn't mean it has to be good. I like a LOT of things I know are sub-par or even crappy. That doesn't change my liking them.

Also, it's a lot better to address the problems raised rather than repeat your assertions ad nauseum. The later doesn't lead anywhere discussion wise.

Edit to add: I think there are objective aspects to various arts, there's also a lot o subjectivity and separating the two is a big thing. It's part of the reason for the second line in my signature.

[gveret]

You can call art objectively existent. Everything else is your subjective opinion, sometimes framed within pre-established parameters.

[Seresecros]

"Objectively good" is not the best way to describe it, and I've already gone over, at length, the reasons why in other threads on this very board. Sort of tired of it. Hell, I even pointed out where I think it was good (The scenes where the kids were at the Academy) vs. the scenes which didn't work (Arcade in general, the flash forward being unnecessary).

But to be brief:
1) It did not establish the entire cast, when other series #1's managed to do so with even more characters (Runaways #1)
2) Characterization of Mettle was off (reduced to "Loves Hazmat") as was Hazmat's ("Always angry" vs. "Someone who had it all then lost it", lacking of her signature swearing when hurt/injured)
2a) On Mettle's stance, his lines before his sacrifice undermine it heavily. It could have easily been a noble sacrifice and would have been in character, but it's undermined and becomes more selfish and hollow.
3) We still do not know the rules/details of this place which a better paced story could have set up (again, compare to Runaways #1)

There's others, but that's at least enough to start with.

The converse of what you say is also true: just because you like something doesn't mean it has to be good. I like a LOT of things I know are sub-par or even crappy. That doesn't change my liking them.

Also, it's a lot better to address the problems raised rather than repeat your assertions ad nauseum. The later doesn't lead anywhere discussion wise.

Most of your complaints about the book appear to simply be "why aren't I writing this?", to which the answer is - put out work, get yourself seen, give Marvel a reason why they should hire you.

[Majin Gojira]

Most of your complaints about the book appear to simply be "why aren't I writing this?", to which the answer is - put out work, get yourself seen, give Marvel a reason why they should hire you.

While I do wish I was writing it (who doesn't?), that point does not address the objections made in the slightest. It's a blatant Ad Homineim logical fallacy. Try again from the start.

[Seresecros]

While I do wish I was writing it (who doesn't?), that point does not address the objections made in the slightest. It's a blatant Ad Homineim logical fallacy. Try again from the start.

Don't be combatative when receiving critique.

[Majin Gojira]

Don't be combatative when receiving critique.

A critique would address the points made. An ad hominem is a direct attack against the speaker to undermine their argument and by definition combative. Please address the points.

[gveret]

While I do wish I was writing it (who doesn't?), that point does not address the objections made in the slightest. It's a blatant Ad Homineim logical fallacy. Try again from the start.

That's phrased a bit... passive-aggressively, don't you think?

[Majin Gojira]

That's phrased a bit... passive-aggressively, don't you think?

. . . Damn, more than likely. I should have cut "in the slightest". I do not respond well to ad hominem arguments as I find they are by definition an insult.

[gveret]

. . . Damn, more than likely. I should have cut "in the slightest". I do not respond well to ad hominem arguments as I find they are by definition an insult.

Yeah, personal attacks suck. But you might wanna cut down on the condescending tone a little bit. This is the internet. Everything reads the rudest possible way around here.

[Seresecros]

Does anybody know what ad homimen means

[gveret]

Does anybody know what ad homimen means

It's a logical fallacy that suggests a person's argument is false based on something specific to the person themselves. E.g. if Hitler said so, it must be wrong. You can google it for a better explanation, though.