REVIEW: Avengers Arena #1

[gveret]

Well technically even entertainment provides some commentary. Effectiveness is variable.

I find that badly done social commentary is much, much worse than no social commentary at all.

[mikekerrIII]

Because you've never purchased a comic where kids get killed before?

Or every single "violent" comic you've read is "social commentary"?

I have never read a comic before whose main theme is killing kids, have you?

[BrotherUnitNo_4]

Depth? I doubt it the Depth from such stories comes from social commnentary.

Then I guess depth of character is a completely new aspect to this type of story, no? As that is what Hopeless is going for. He's said multiple times that he wants to explore the characters and what a situation like this does to these characters. Or do you believe that depth of character does not exist in the medium? Isn't that why Academy thrived as it did, because the characters were compelling?

[USERNAME TAKEN]

I have never read a comic before whose main theme is killing kids, have you?

No, I haven't.

However, the main theme here is how these kids survive this, not how they die

[USERNAME TAKEN]

That's a false dichotomy. Most books where characters are killed don't have that as the overarching plot of the series.

I didn't draw any dichotomy at all.

That being said, I find it pretty funny that you've said repeatedly before the book came out that you had a problem with the premise but still you post in literally every single Avengers Arena thread.

If you don't like the premise, didn't enjoy the book, disagree with the good reviews and disagree with the people that liked it, why take time to remind us of this all the time?

[gveret]

I didn't draw any dichotomy at all.

I think he meant false equivalence.

EDIT: As in, violent comic with deaths in it =/= comic whose entire premise is built around killing characters.

[JaggedFel]

Then I guess depth of character is a completely new aspect to this type of story, no? As that is what Hopeless is going for. He's said multiple times that he wants to explore the characters and what a situation like this does to these characters. Or do you believe that depth of character does not exist in the medium? Isn't that why Academy thrived as it did, because the characters were compelling?

No I dont believe Hopeless will really bother too much with deep character analysis. Especially since he just started saying that in recent interviews in the early ones its was all about killing a bunch of characters.

[gveret]

No I dont believe Hopeless will really bother too much with deep character analysis. Especially since he just started saying that in recent interviews in the early ones its was all about killing a bunch of characters.

Maybe you're right, but I'm still hopeful (pun not intended, dammit). I liked most of the things by Hopeless that I've read.

[Majin Gojira]

I think he meant false equivalence.

EDIT: As in, violent comic with deaths in it =/= comic whose entire premise is built around killing characters.

Damn, thank you. There are so many logical fallacies that I sometimes cross them.

As to why I continue to post in such threads? Probably the same reason I also argue with Creationists, though to a much lesser overall effect here.

That and believe it or not the idea itself is interesting (blame it on cable TV shows playing Blood Sport way to often in the 80s), but the way it is being described and executed is something else all together.

[Majin Gojira]

No I dont believe Hopeless will really bother too much with deep character analysis. Especially since he just started saying that in recent interviews in the early ones its was all about killing a bunch of characters.

I've read a lot of interviews for the subject and that's the first I've heard of fit. Normally, he states that even those who die early will have some effect on the story.

[USERNAME TAKEN]

I think he meant false equivalence.

EDIT: As in, violent comic with deaths in it =/= comic whose entire premise is built around killing characters.

The premise isn't about the characters dying.

It's about the characters surviving a horrifying situation BUT some of them will die.

Hopeless has said a number of times that the book won't be a kill fest but it won't shy away from deaths either.

[Majin Gojira]

The premise isn't about the characters dying.

It's about the characters surviving a horrifying situation BUT some of them will die.

Tell that to Marvel's Advertizing campaign.

No, really, tell them.

[gveret]

I've read a lot of interviews for the subject and that's the first I've heard of fit. Normally, he states that even those who die early will have some effect on the story.

I read that first interview, and there really was a strong emphasis on Tonight Someone Dies. I think it was mostly a miscalculated advertising effort.

(I like to argue with creationists, too. I don't know, maybe it's the high school debate team thing).

[USERNAME TAKEN]

Damn, thank you. There are so many logical fallacies that I sometimes cross them.

As to why I continue to post in such threads? Probably the same reason I also argue with Creationists, though to a much lesser overall effect here.

That and believe it or not the idea itself is interesting (blame it on cable TV shows playing Blood Sport way to often in the 80s), but the way it is being described and executed is something else all together.

We are all entitled to our opinions. It's very fair that you feel the book wasn't executed very well.

I (and a fair number of people) feel the execution of the book was just fine.

For a first issue of an on-going series, it did exactly what it had to do.

[USERNAME TAKEN]

Tell that to Marvel's Advertizing campaign.

No, really, tell them.

I agree that Hopeless might have gotten a bit too excited with his initial "people will DIEEEEE!!" statements.

However, he's subsequently gone on the record to explain what the book will be like.