Also: I really disliked the way Karnak was written in issue 2. I've been reading his current solo series, wherein he's portrayed as cold, strange, and having no qualms about using violence when necessary, but not as the kind of rage-filled hothead who would pointlessly yell at an AI and tear a building down to express his anger. The Karnak of the solo series is ascetic, monkish, sort of like a Zen master without any kindness.
Moreover, the idea that a decoy robot built by Tony Stark has literally no flaws or weaknesses that can be found by Karnak is... just nonsensical. Karnak is the guy who can find the flaws in everything. It's a dark, interesting, weird power. This is a humanoid-shaped robot - not a particularly perfect shape. It's going to have weaknesses at every joint. Stark's suits have been defeated by lots of adversaries. He's a smart guy, but not some kind of omnipotent unbeatable engineer. This whole thing just made no damn sense.
Whylock, correct me if I'm misreading you, but you seem to have been saying that CW2 so far has a big "Tony is right!" theme/subtext. I see this differently: to me it looks more like Tony has a valid point but is acting like a complete idiot.
Tony blaming Carol and Ulysses for the death of Rhodey and possible death of Jen is incredibly stupid and unfair. The only way to explain it at all is as an extreme emotional reaction caused by grief. On this point, he is not right in any way, and Carol is the one who's obviously right.
Tony's decision to kidnap Ulysses and experiment on him, without even trying first to ask for permission to study him, is likewise really stupid. By proceeding in that way, Tony puts himself at odds with the Inhumans and many of the other heroes and makes it less likely that his valid concerns about Ulysses will be listened to. He could have resorted to kidnapping if the Inhumans had refused all access to Ulysses. He could have let Beast be the one to study Ulysses. So, again, Tony is being a dumbass here.
In issue 3, the dumbass decision to have everyone suddenly confront Banner (thank you for pointing out that that was a terrible move!) seems to have been made by all the heroes together, so I guess Tony is not being any worse than anyone else here, but he's not right either.
Bottom line: This does not look to me like a story where Tony is supposed to be seen as being obviously in the right.
I would be more-or-less Team Carol based on issues 1 and 2 alone, but after issue 3 I'm basically Team Nobody.
I suppose Clint may have thought that if he told anyone else of his intentions, they might try to stop him. There's a reason Banner asked Clint, and not Carol or Tony, to kill him.
Whylock, I believe you're mistaken about this point: Before we continue I'm going to mention this little plot hole. In this issue there is panel that claims by a couple of heros that Ulysses can make other people experience his visions. Part of the argument up to this point was about only him seeing his visions. but sure whatever who cares....
Actually, in the last few pages of CW2 #2, several heroes including Tony and Carol directly experience Ulysses's vision of the Hulk killing everyone.
I really liked J&M's thoughts on the ANXM issue and the character development of Evan and Hank.
Next issue of CW2: Amadeus Cho learns of Banner's death, hulks out, and kills all the heroes, fulfilling Ulysses's prediction!
Seriously, thanks for posting this very interesting explanation.
I've enjoyed the ANXM piece of Apocalypse Wars.
I agree with a lot of this. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
Trying out the new Android app for Imzy, so I hope this comment comes out right...
I've been critical of some other CW2 books, but I don't have any huge problem with #3 that just came out, so I'm wondering what specifically you disliked, whylock.
I don't know much about Bruce Banner's recent history, so I don't know if it's plausibly in character that he'd have asked Clint to kill him. I can see Clint agreeing to do it, though.
There are a bunch of ways in which the courtroom scenes were unrealistic, but that's stuff that I unfortunately expect comics to routinely get wrong, unless Soule is the writer. I didn't think those scenes were bad in a dramatic or character-oriented sense.
I really liked that Carol and Tony and the other heroes were making a sincere effort to work together despite their disagreements.
I do think there was an apparent plot hole regarding the arrow that Bruce gave to Clint: If he killed Bruce while Bruce wasn't hulked out, why'd he need a special arrow? If the arrow was special enough to kill the Hulk, why didn't he wait for the Hulk to appear before using the arrow? But maybe a Hulk fan would know more about how this works and could make sense of it?
I liked that this book (unlike some) raised legitimate thoughtful questions about using the predictive power. This time, the prediction caused a confrontation which could easily have precipitated the massacre that was predicted in the first place, whereas if the heroes had disregarded the prediction this time (unlike with Thanos), nothing bad might have happened at all. So this turn of events deepened the argument in a way that wasn't dumb (unlike some books).
So those are my initial thoughts anyhow...
There's no realistic possibility that Marvel is going to stop making X-books. Not everything has been announced yet. Don't be sad!
I'm somewhat looking forward to when the podcast reaches the reputedly terrible parts of the '90s. I have confidence that Jay and Miles can make those books entertaining to hear about - probably much more so than just reading them (which I haven't done and may never do) would be.
Bummer.
It was a bad comics week for me too, simply because none of the books I'm reading came out this week..
It had better be a really good twist to justify the annoying delay. But maybe it will be really good. I like Charles Soule, and have nothing against Jeff Lemire. I hope Emma Frost will play a big part in whatever happens.
Hope you feel better soon Jay. Hope you guys aren't stressing out too much.
All the stuff I like is old. Tegan and Sara, "Body Work." Peter Gabriel, "Solsbury Hill." Fleetwood Mac, "Go Your Own Way." REM, "End of the World." RATM, "Killing in the Name."
I'd love to see that love triangle. I guess, though, that it would be complicated by the fact that Kitty, presumably, was involved with Illyana pre-Inferno, after which she was de-aged and then killed by the Legacy Virus, and the Illyana who's around right now is... from another universe or something? This is a gap in my knowledge.
I'd like it if someone could expound on the trans Emma Frost theory a bit. I've followed the link that XmenXpert provided elsewhere in the thread, but I still don't understand why it makes sense for her to be trans (like, is there an aspect of her personality that seems particularly appropriate for a trans woman?), and so I'm curious.
There's a fourth one of these posts at CA, which seems to have just gone up this morning, and your link doesn't go to it for some reason, so here it is: http://comicsalliance.com/superhero-color-theory-outliers/
I'll quote a bit from it, as I think these questions are worth discussing: "We hope this series of articles opens the door for more discussion of costume choices for comics criticism. When Wolverine changed costumes, did the brown reflect a more grounded character (taking Kitty under his wing, and rediscovering his Japanese connections), and did the orange reflect a greater sense of humor (albeit dark and snide)? Does Storm’s bare skin relate a racism that ties her powers to barbarism, or reveal a sexualization of female characters, or were sleeveless costumes just the trend with new X-Men like Colossus, Wolverine and Thunderbird? Does the presence or absence of orange in the Joker‘s costume help tell us whether he’s the Clown Prince of Crime or the twisted sicko of The Killing Joke?"
Emma Frost and Mystique. Emma currently needs to sort of reinvent herself (and update her wardrobe) and find her place in the world. Mystique is a similar-but-different morally grey trickster character who could serve as a foil for that process of Emma figuring herself out. They go on a quest together, each expecting the other to double-cross them; maybe the twist is that, for once, there is no doublecross.
You don't have to start at the beginning (or at a version of the beginning, like Season One) in order to avoid being lost. It can be quite fun to jump in at a more recent point, and figure out the stuff you missed using Wikipedia, context, the podcast, or sheer guesswork! And then later you can get around to reading the earlier stuff and filling in what you missed, which can be satisfying too.
Any of the suggestions that were made in the "recommend one book" thread can be a great place to start. What's best for you probably depends a lot on how you feel about the comics of different eras.
The single issues are great because they have a lot of interesting stuff in the back - essays, satirical fake ads, random other stuff. I'm not sure how much of that stuff is being included in the trades, so I'd suggest getting the single issues if you can.
Oh wait, crap, I misremembered: Ghost Box is actually the first volume. Sorry!!
I'll shut up for a while after this but BITCH PLANET! This book is amazing. I love it. I recommend it super highly.
Ms Marvel was good on an emotional level, but I had problems with it. For one thing, it was weird in relation to the overall CWII event, because Ulysses's predictive power worked really differently here than how it was portrayed elsewhere. The other books I've read show him having occasional visions that he has no control over (like Cordelia's visions on Angel, if anyone else remembers that awesome TV show). But in Ms Marvel, he's described as being able to give precise probabilities of things happening -- and he seems to be doing it very frequently, so much so that he predicts an ordinary guy robbing a grocery store in Jersey City. Is he focusing on that city in particular for some reason, or is he similarly predicting vast numbers of relatively petty crimes all over the world?
And why does Kamala's new sister-in-law object to her capturing a guy who had stolen a tank and gone on a joyride, crushing cars? Those things are crimes that the dude already committed! He wasn't being arrested or punished for something he'd do in the future!
And where did Kamala's new team of sidekicks come from? Why does Carol apparently think it's a great idea to sponsor a team of young vigilantes who don't even have powers? That seems hella dangerous -- much more so than preventing major crimes (let alone world-ending catastrophes) through prediction.
CWII seems to be deserving the same type of criticisms that have been levelled at the first Civil War event: it's internally inconsistent and the characters make arguments that don't make sense and take ill-conceived actions in order to further the plot. Dammit, I wanted to like this event...
Also, does anyone know anything about Philip Nelson Vogt, the shadowy guy in the suit who is introduced in Ultimates? He is revealed as if he is someone who readers might recognize, but I googled his name and got nothing relevant.
Just finished Ultimates. Thought it was very good. Some very expressive faces in this one, especially Monica reacting to Rhodey's death. Also nice to see Carol getting the team together.
I also really liked Xander and Dawn's funny, poignant, visually and emotionally diverse interdimensional journey in Buffy.



Jay & Miles X-Plain the X-MenCivil War 2 #3Jul 16, 2016 at 11:00 AM