Chad Nevett considers the end of Avengers Vs. X-Men, and how it ties into All-New X-Men and the all-new X-Men status quo in general:
The goal is the event was to get here. Sorry, a goal of the event was to get here. The story told in the event was a goal as well. But, ever since Bendis took over the Avengers titles, one of the major patterns in the Marvel Universe was that each event or new status quo seemed to exist to lead to the next, usually in an alternating pattern. Event A led to New Status Quo A, which led to Event B, which led to New Status Quo B, which led to Event C, which led to New Status Quo C, etc. There were stories in there and I enjoyed quite a few of them. But, there was also a general feeling of the events and new status quos not delivering all that they could, because part of their function was to produce what came next. That was something that I felt really hindered Avengers vs. X-Men where there was such a focus on hitting All-New X-Men #1 that the story being told didn’t match the story they were trying to tell. Cyclops needed to be in this role, so everyone ignores that he was right and they never gave him any credit, nor recognised their roles in driving him to extreme measures by the end. There was a sense that they failed to see that, by the end of Avengers vs. X-Men, Cyclops was the hero and Captain America was the villain who just happened to win…
That last line put me in mind, more than anything else, of Civil War back in 2006/2007; it felt, at the time, that Iron Man was definitely the “villain” of that event who again “just happened to win,” and that throughline was somewhat followed through and somewhat ignored in the many comics that followed (Certainly, Cap-as-martyr was a big thing afterwards, underscoring his role as hero-who-fell, and Iron Man seemed to be played up as undeserving ruler somewhat, at least through World War Hulk). It makes me wonder if, as Marvel continues to set characters against each other for these types of storylines, the way that “everyone” can win is that the loser is given the moral upper hand in some way…
November 23rd, 2012 at 4:17 pm
So basically Chad Nevett wants stories that have no long term planning, don’t lead anywhere, and don’t flow into one another in any logical way. He’s actually bitching that a writer is structuring an ongoing narrative in a way such that one story leads into the next. What an idiot.
November 24th, 2012 at 8:59 am
There is nothing wrong with one story leading into another, that is the nature of a serial, after all. However, when you ONLY have Huge, Multi-Book Spanning Crossovers, and never have intimate, One-Book Only stories, the chance for it all to get muddled is very high indeed.
I can remember when a Cross-Over was a relatively rare event, and that it actually WAS a big deal when all of the characters and stories interacted. Now, it just never ends, and we rarely get to get a story about “our” favorite character that has a beginning, a middle and and end, that naturally flows into a new arc…as opposed to an editor mandated ending, which forces characters to act OUT of character.
November 24th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
“we rarely get to get a story about “our” favorite character that has a beginning, a middle and and end, that naturally flows into a new arc”
But then that new arc also has to flow into another new arc eventually; which flows into another new arc, which flows into arcs D, E, and F. And now the writer is approaching each arc as a lead-in to the subsequent arc. And it never ends. And it’s so cynical, isn’t it? And now Chad’s crying again.
November 24th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
@Voivode I think what he’s saying is that the need to get from point A to point B sometimes takes over the story, so we’re left with a bad story that often doesn’t make sense but has to exist because point B is already about to launch.
DC’s done it, too. They had a point A (52) and a point B (Final Crisis) and decided they need a story in between. And since Countdown’s only purpose was to bridge those two points it was, as expected, really, really bad.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
That’s a bad example, though. After all, Final Crisis itself was also really, really bad and Grant Morrison made absolutely no effort to make that story consistent with anything that came before or after, so editorial interference is not always the problem.
November 26th, 2012 at 10:50 am
“Now, it just never ends, and we rarely get to get a story about ‘our’ favorite character that has a beginning, a middle and and end, that naturally flows into a new arc…”
Not sure who “our” favorite characters are, but there are certainly loads of Marvel comics out there that roll along quite nicely on their own. I don’t have a list in front of me, but I would wager MOST of them went unmolested by the most recent event thingy.
I enjoyed Chad’s write-ups and think he made some good points. I’m not sure why he put himself through all that — I read a buncha AvX comics because I thought I’d enjoy them and I was right. He seemed to have different expectations and goals, but God bless him for taking one for the team.
I am a little confused that some of our brightest readers/commentators have such a problem with ambiguous characters and complicated motivations, however. Calling Cap a villain seems kinda silly, not matter how invested you are in a fake minority group.
But on the whole, he did a real nice job!
November 28th, 2012 at 8:39 am
why didn’t marvel just completely reboot for Marvel Now? that way they can retell all of the old 616 events in the New Marvel 52, err i mean the Naked Marvel Now. All New X-Men is the All New Coke.
November 28th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Except Cyclops wasn’t the hero. Cyclops was the one willing to risk the lives of everyone on Earth (and perhaps beyond) to bring back a strand of DNA. This really was a Magneto-level, playing-with-the-lives-of-nonconsensual-participants, ends-justify-the-means kind of villain move.