I am really, really trying to give Hickman the benefit of the doubt, but, man, he does not make it easy.
OK, I'll start with the good. He does at least explain the events that occurred last issue and are driving this first arc. The mysterious woman who seemed to destroy a planet actually destroyed it because it was occupying the same time-space as our Earth. She reveals to Reed that Earth is the focal point of a series of ongoing collisions between universes. The premature destruction of one universe has resulted in a chain reaction, pushing one universe after another into one another. In each collision, if one Earth isn't destroyed, both universes die, exacerbating the ongoing chain reactions and shortening the life of the multiverse all the more. I actually sort of get that part. I also get the question that Reed and T'Challa pose at the end, whether this process is an inevitable function of the multiverse's eventual destruction or is someone specifically trying to bring about the end of the multiverse early.
Moreover, I applaud Hickman having the Illuminati decide to use the Infinity Gauntlet. The possibility of doing so during "Avengers vs. X-Men" was mentioned, I believe, only once and it seems absurd to believe that the Illuminati would allow Scott to destroy the world rather than using all the power that they had at their disposal to stop him. Here, Hickman is at least intellectually honest about the Infinity Gauntlet and actually has Cap make the case that they need to use it to avoid having to choose between destroying their Earth or another one. Although it's a little surprising that it's Cap arguing for it (since he was against the Illuminati in the first place), his argument that these sorts of decisions always leave the decision-makers more compromised that they expect to be.
But, I do have problems with this series so far and they are two-fold. The first problem is fairly mundane. Although we learn all about the upcoming "incursion" and how we'll occupy the same space as other Earth for eight hours, Hickman never actually describes how we'll both actually occupy the same space. Why can the two planets be in the same space for either hours without combusting? Why the window? Wouldn't they just immediately combust? If not, wouldn't our universe merge with their universe to create some sort of third universe? But, that didn't happen last issue, when we did actually go through an incursion with another universe.
But, more importantly, I feel like this whole story has a certain eye-roll factor. I mean, it's not even that the possibility that the Illuminati could fail and the multiverse winds up destroyed could be on the table. (Of course, that, in and of itself, would have a high eye-roll factor.) It's more that I'm not sure if we're going to get an interesting story from it. As it stands now, we've just gotten a lot of male posturing and it seems like we're just going to continue to get male posturing. I anticipate a lot of 'But, Steve!" and "But, Tony!" arguments while they race to save the multiverse that we all now that they're going to save. These stories only work if the threat that everyone knows isn't going to be realized at least inspires some interesting moments among the characters, moments that you probably wouldn't see if the heroes weren't facing such a tremendous threat (Although I disapproved of it greatly, I am thinking of Fraction having Spider-Man leave the battle in "Fear Itself" to go find Aunt May.) Here, when you're dealing with such morally compromised characters from the start, characters that pride themselves on making the hard decisions, then it's unclear what new ground you're going to be able to cover. Do we really think Namor is going to lament destroying some other Earth to save our Earth? It seems unlikely.
In other words, I'm bored. I used a lot of words here, but I'm bored. I'm at least not confused, as I am in "Avengers," but it's not exactly an improvement to applaud.
No comments:
Post a Comment