REVIEW: Avengers #2

[Rheged]

But why are you concluding that this is the case?

We don't know anything yet, other than their general schtick and the fact that they are probably about to lose a fight.

Which is to say that we don't know how the things - the threads and motifs - they've introduced are going to play out.

How are we defining "lasting impact", though, is the issue.

I think Hickman fans might have a different way of looking at such a thing than Bendis fans do.

Exactly.

So it's entirely a matter of how well they sustain a physical presence, then, and of how tangible a threat they are?

Look, Zen-aku doesn't know what he's talking about, as demonstrated by how much he's jumping around on what he thinks is 'wrong' with the Gardeners. He's ASSuming they are jobbers only created to make the make the heroes look good, because he 'sees' a pattern. There's no evidence they are jobbers.

And it completely ignores the pattern we've seen with Hickman's work. He doesn't make throwaway villains / antagonists. His initial set-ups play out through his runs -- i.e. the Bridge and the Council of Reeds in FF. Hickman has said there's also going to be some connection between Avengers and New Avengers, so we'll probably see something of the Gardeners or fallout from them, in NA.

And more characters than not are introduced beating up the heroes out of the blue.

And really? Predicting no other writer is going to use a villain is supposed to be 'proof' villains are jobbers? How long do we have to wait for this 'proof'?

[Zen-aku]

Not really, I don't think.

Well, they might be "jobbers" fight-and-feat-wise, but I don't think the notion that they exist only to make the heroes look better necessarily holds even if they are atomized in issue 3 and never seen again.

If they're serving as an introductory vehicle for Hickman's take on some metafiction that continues to play out, which they seem like they might be, then that's continued relevance to the overall substance of the run that has nothing to do with their martial potency.

If their dialog with, say, Thor or whoever continues to affect the narrative, both as an expository thing and something that serves as an impetus for that character's subsequent actions, that's continued relevance to the run that has nothing to do with their martial potency.

Even if just their visual motifs are being introduced as a vocabulary for the artists to play with, their presence in these first three issues have continued relevance.

I think thematic callbacks and so on are as important as the villains continued ability to threaten the heroes, is what I'm saying.

The Wizard appeared in the first issue of JH's F4 run and was easily defeated, never coming across as a physical threat again, but his presence in that issue and the specifics of Reed's encounter with him after the battle was directly relevant to the way certain central themes were addressed later in the run, and so he would have been a good thing to have there even if he'd never appeared again.

That still makes him a jobber however, that still means he was just their to show off the hero, which makes it a waste esepcaily in the case where hickman could of just used the High evolutionary or some one estbleshed

further more seeing as thor has his own ongoing i doubt any thing ex said to him will have much importance.

additionally so far the things the The avengers narrative have been trying to push seems to have nothing to do with what the villains are ranting about which further alienates them for me and makes their actions seem meeningless

[Zen-aku]

Exactly.



Look, Zen-aku doesn't know what he's talking about, as demonstrated by how much he's jumping around on what he thinks is 'wrong' with the Gardeners. He's ASSuming they are jobbers only created to make the make the heroes look good, because he 'sees' a pattern. There's no evidence of they are jobbers.

And it completely ignores the pattern we've seen with Hickman's work. He doesn't make throwaway villains / antagonists. His initial set-ups play out through his runs -- i.e. the Bridge and the Council of Reeds in FF. Hickman has said there's also going to be some connection between Avengers and New Avengers, so we'll probably see something of the Gardeners or fallout from them, in NA.

And more characters than not are introduced beating up the heroes out of the blue.

And really? Predicting no other writer is going to use a villain is supposed to be 'proof' villains are jobbers? How long do we have to wait for this 'proof'?

ive explained why they are clearly set up as jobbers, Hickman has used thro away villains before as Pups showed, Wizard was thoraway, further more Hickman created throway characters in Secret warriors as well, so this pattern you think you know about is wrong.

You are also assuming that Hickman has some thing planed for these guys after the avengers trounce them, I and others are not convinced.

[PupsOfWar]

That still makes him a jobber however, that still means he was just their to show off the hero, which makes it a waste esepcaily in the case where hickman could of just used the High evolutionary or some one estbleshed

further more seeing as thor has his own ongoing i doubt any thing ex said to him will have much importance.

additionally so far the things the The avengers narrative have been trying to push seems to have nothing to do with what the villains are ranting about which further alienates them for me and makes their actions seem meeningless

Wait, dogg, if you say that you consider characters "jobbers" if their only function is to make the heroes look good, through their defeat, then how are they still jobbers if we can demonstrate that the characters have narrative utility beyond making making the heroes look good through their defeat?

Now I am confused.

[Zen-aku]

Wait, dogg, if you say that you consider characters "jobbers" if their only function is to make the heroes look good, through their defeat, then how are they still jobbers if we can demonstrate that the characters have narrative utility beyond making making the heroes look good through their defeat?

Now I am confused.

well first because your wizard example was really really poor, saying X mad X think about this dosent work cause while that may create a theme the character still has no real impact, if hes not seen again then he is forgotten what ever theme may or may not of been planted is the focus and would exist with out him.

Why do you think People hated how Johns Used Darksied.

[PupsOfWar]

well first because your wizard example was really really poor, saying X mad X think about this dosent work cause while that may create a theme the character still has no real impact, if hes not seen again then he is forgotten what ever theme may or may not of been planted is the focus and would exist with out him.

Why do you think People hated how Johns Used Darksied.

Well, the example was poor in that it wasn't actually an example of what you say a "jobber" is, in that the Wizard did reappear a few time throughout the run and exerted a continued presence in the form of his clone-son, who was added to the cast and turned into his own character.

But what I said was "would have still been a good thing to have in there even if he hadn't appeared again"

Which is a hypothetical that's directly relevant to what you're talking about, showing that a villainous character's presence at one point can continue to influence the narrative even if the character doesn't continue to endanger the hero.

I don't think these things are as ephemeral as you're presuming when you dismiss them in such a way. The character's impact is preserved - not forgotten just on the grounds of not appearing for a while - if the things the character does are used as weighty touchstones for further development, and if the mood the character sets is preserved and further explored regularly. These things are generally the case with JH.

A better example might be the Council of Reeds, which Rheged mentions. They first appeared in a mini before the run proper began, then were dealt with over the first short, three issue arc, and then didn't appear again for a fairly long time, in a very different capacity even then. While they became villainous and threatened the heroes, the threat they presented wasn't that big a deal considering that it was concurrent with several other threats of equal or greater magnitude, many of which exacerbated.

Were they "jobbers" because the physical threat they represented was insignificant and easily dealt-with compared to their main function, which was that their appearance in the first arc set the tone for the whole run and allowed Hickman to explore what made his hero, Reed Richards, tick?

Edit: I'm pretty sure people's dislike of Geoff Johns' use of Darkseid was because it was a dorky misinterpretation of the things that make an iconic villain iconic, but I don't read Johns' Justice League so I'm not gonna get into it.

[Zen-aku]

Well, the example was poor in that it wasn't actually an example of what you say a "jobber" is, in that the Wizard did reappear a few time throughout the run and exerted a continued presence in the form of his clone-son, who was added to the cast and turned into his own character.

But what I said was "would have still been a good thing to have in there even if he hadn't appeared again"

Which is a hypothetical that's directly relevant to what you're talking about, showing that a villainous character's presence at one point can continue to influence the narrative even if the character doesn't continue to endanger the hero.

I don't think these things are as ephemeral as you're presuming when you dismiss them in such a way. The character's impact is preserved - not forgotten just on the grounds of not appearing for a while - if the things the character does are used as weighty touchstones for further development, and if the mood the character sets is preserved and further explored regularly. These things are generally the case with JH.

A better example might be the Council of Reeds, which Rheged mentions. They first appeared in a mini before the run proper began, then were dealt with over the first short, three issue arc, and then didn't appear again for a fairly long time, in a very different capacity even then. While they became villainous and threatened the heroes, the threat they presented wasn't that big a deal considering that it was concurrent with several other threats of equal or greater magnitude, many of which exacerbated.

Were they "jobbers" because the physical threat they represented was insignificant and easily dealt-with compared to their main function, which was that their appearance in the first arc set the tone for the whole run and allowed Hickman to explore what made his hero, Reed Richards, tick?

Edit: I'm pretty sure people's dislike of Geoff Johns' use of Darkseid was because it was a dorky misinterpretation of the things that make an iconic villain iconic, but I don't read Johns' Justice League so I'm not gonna get into it.

The council of reeds weren't jobbers because they were actually set up and presented as some thing that would take quite a while to resolve.

where as as Ex and others have so far been set up only to fight and lose and that's it.

[PupsOfWar]

The council of reeds weren't jobbers because they were actually set up and presented as some thing that would take quite a while to resolve.

where as as Ex and others have so far been set up only to fight and lose and that's it.

It's true that the Council of Reeds weren't Jobbers.

But I think they are under your criteria even if the initial, easily-overcome, set-up-to-make-the-hero-look-good challenge they presented was only an emotional one.

I suspect you're maintaining a false distinction because you know the Council of Reeds was rad. Could be wrong, though.

There wasn't any tangible hook at the end of "Solve Everything" that would let you know - even make you suspect - that the Council of Reeds would be a threat in the future. And even if there had been, the next context in which the Reeds encountered the F4 - where a band of Reeds came to Earth 616 and decided to blow it up in order to power their escape back to interdimensional space - wouldn't have flown in an organic way from it.

They were there, and then they were gone. But their presence remained, in the form of the way they were used to characterize Reed and pilot the beginning of the run.

This is all aside from the fact that you haven't provided any reason to believe that Ex-Nihilo and co. won't matter again.

Jerome Opena probably spent a long time doing those character designs. He would probably be mad if he never got to use them again!

He might even pinch Hickman's nostrils.

[Rheged]

It's true that the Council of Reeds weren't Jobbers.

But I think they are under your criteria even if the initial, easily-overcome, set-up-to-make-the-hero-look-good challenge they presented was only an emotional one.

I suspect you're maintaining a false distinction because you know the Council of Reeds was rad. Could be wrong, though.

There wasn't any tangible hook at the end of "Solve Everything" that would let you know - even make you suspect - that the Council of Reeds would be a threat in the future. And even if there had been, the next context in which the Reeds encountered the F4 - where a band of Reeds came to Earth 616 and decided to blow it up in order to power their escape back to interdimensional space - wouldn't have flown in an organic way from it.

They were there, and then they were gone. But their presence remained, in the form of the way they were used to characterize Reed and pilot the beginning of the run.

Exactly.

This is all aside from the fact that you haven't provided any reason to believe that Ex-Nihilo and co. won't matter again.

His proof is in the future. We just have to wait until the end of Hickman's run, or more precisely, the end of comic books, to see that he's right and no one will use the Gardeners ever again.

As opposed to the actual proof that's in the comics themselves and in Hickman's past work. Hickman is building / adding to Marvel's cosmology with the Garden, and Ex-Nilihilo's origin revelation -- just as the Celestials were added in the past. In fact, I'm wondering how he's going to tie them into that lore?

And as if we couldn't tell from the allusions, Hickman clarified recently that "The Garden are the Avatars of all creation myths -- 'ALL'." He's talking about the beginning and the end of worlds / universes, and rebirth cycles (the Burning Cycle and Ex-Nihilo's interest in Thor's Ragnarok) -- so of course, these Creation avatars are going to have a reoccurring and important role.

[EuphemismForSex]

That's a peculiar formspring question.

They have the technology to fire projectiles from Mars to Earth that can rewrite evolution or whatever. You'd figure he'd assume they just Googled the name, and like... the rest of the language.

[shadow panther]

Spider-man likes having money, when he can.

I like having money, when I can.

Most people I know like having money, when they can.

Spider-man is a relatable dude.

spider-man makes excellent money at Horizon Labs....he was never in the hero biz for money, i swear its like these writers dont even know the character

[PupsOfWar]

spider-man makes excellent money at Horizon Labs....

Needs more money.

[SuperCooper]

spider-man makes excellent money at Horizon Labs....he was never in the hero biz for money, i swear its like these writers dont even know the character

The ladies like only the finest things. Excellent money ain't gonna cut it.

[EuphemismForSex]

Needs more money.

Needs all the money.