Avengers Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion (spoilers!)

E

Moderator
Excelsior Club
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
33,346
Location
MI
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=29984

Brevoort acknowledged that fans had asked for a break from big events and Marvel largely took the last year off, but is now returning with a story "as ambitious as 'Civil War.'" The series itself will be 7-issues, and Ed Brubaker will be writing a prelude with Cap and Namor, with a title to be named later.

"There is a concealed act at the center of the Marvel universe that was committed a number of years ago, and it will change everything," Brevoort said. "And that, in essence, is what 'Fear Itself' is all about."

Brevoort brought Alonso on stage and, before handing the mic over, noted that readers can choose to just read the core series but many series will also be involved.

Alsono took over saying "Fear Itself" is "an extinction-level event." "It's a major event that involves everyone--expect major participation from X-Men, from Dracula ... and alliances you wouldn't have expected."

Brevoort added that Marvel had been "setting up some dominoes" for a while now, some of which readers will have recognized and others will have been glossed over.

This will change everything - you heard it here first.

It's about time they had an ambitious event that changes everything.

Seriously though - it's hard to care about something when they don't tell you anything about it other than how awesome it is.
 
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

Agreed 100%, E.

You can cut and paste this for a few years back and suddenly it's advertising THE ILLUMINATI. Or SECRET INVASION. Or AVENGERS DISASSEMBLED. It's such a futile exercise, these big events.
 
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

I usually like Fraction.

It will probably be better than the last batch of events. We'll probably get a couple of really fun series that don't last more than a few months by the end of the series. But I'm not going to pay for it.

Bass said:
You can cut and paste this for a few years back and suddenly it's advertising THE ILLUMINATI. Or SECRET INVASION. Or AVENGERS DISASSEMBLED. It's such a futile exercise, these big events.

When you say "futile", I take it you mean all the money Marvel makes? ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

I usually like Fraction.

It will probably be better than the last batch of events. We'll probably get a couple of really fun series that don't last more than a few months by the end of the series. But I'm not going to pay for it.



When you say "futile", I take it you mean all the money Marvel makes? ;)

I think he means futile in the sense that they're not the best stories.
 
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

Brevoort:
There is a concealed act at the center of the Marvel universe that was committed a number of years ago, and it will change everything

Identity Crisis?




(why can't all event miniseries be as good as that was?)
 
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

Civil War was supposed to change everything. The Initiative was supposed to change everything. Annihilation was supposed to change everything. Except for the fact that many who have died in these events or have been affected, have all been reverted with the exception of Black Giant Man dying in Civil War. He's never coming back.
 
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

When you say "futile", I take it you mean all the money Marvel makes? ;)

Civil War was supposed to change everything. The Initiative was supposed to change everything. Annihilation was supposed to change everything. Except for the fact that many who have died in these events or have been affected, have all been reverted with the exception of Black Giant Man dying in Civil War. He's never coming back.

That's what I mean by futile. It changes 'everything' but it doesn't really, and it's futile because no one wants it to. No one wants the Marvel or DC universes to change. We don't want Batman to get married or Spidey to lose his powers or have Superman continue his adventures in Paris.

Yet at the same time, stories are all about change, so how the hell do you do it? Well, this is the problem of franchises. And big events are problematic because of the ludicrous hype for such little substance. The truth is, the big events are rather poor, shallow stories, but aren't particularly abhorrent (there are exceptions; ULTIMATUM is particularly abhorrent, while SUPERMAN/GEN 13 is particularly good) and what has made them so unpalatable in recent years is the combination of their frequency and their hyperbole.

Before 2004's IDENTITY CRISIS (which was a huge success despite being rather poor) crossovers were not an annual thing. But since then, we've had a continuous number of events. The law of diminishing returns applies here; the more often you do something, the less effect it has, and eventually, it will have the opposite effect. Crossovers are supposed to be huge, important, exciting spectacle featuring everyone that upsets the status quo, but due to their frequency, adequate if poor crossovers (like INFINITE CRISIS) now appear to be predictable, uneventful incidents with an unwieldy cast that only reinforce a status quo (albeit a new one). That's bad enough, but it's coupled with excessive hyperbole promising us something that it can't and won't deliver, and something we don't want, and suddenly you're actively hating something before you even see it.

The thing is, if you look at the more popular crossovers like THE AGE OF APOCALYPSE, THE INFINITY GAUNTLET, SEVEN SOLDIERS OF VICTORY, JLA: THE NAIL, SECRET WARS, SUPERMAN/GEN 13, KINGDOM COME, the EARTH X trilogy, and even pseudo-crossovers like WATCHMEN and TERRA OBSCURA, you'll notice that all of them are self-contained. They take place in their own little world and have almost no impact outside themselves. This is true even of Alan Moore's pitch for TWILIGHT OF THE SUPERHEROES which took place in a potential future. The reason is simple; a hypothetical future or parallel continuity (or even a distant battleground as in the case of THE INFINITY GAUNTLET) allows you to change while keeping everything the same. THE AGE OF APOCALYPSE was particularly brilliant in this regard. This also works if you're trying to reboot continuity. But the current slew of crossovers are not written particularly well (but this is nothing new) and are repetitive drops in the ocean of continuity. They have ripples and tides, but they are so predictable and quickly reversed, that any promise of change is hollow.

I mean, if I were told by Joe Quesada "Write a 'big event' crossover that changes everything" I'd do this: I'd have Uatu watching a parallel Marvel universe that is identical to the current one, and it's slowly coming undone. Treacheries and murders and so on, and while everything is going horribly wrong there, over here, you'd have Uatu scramble desperately to protect this one. You could call it THE ARMAGEDDON CATALYST, and have the idea that there is a conflux of events that destroys Marvel Earth. Happens all the time. And the Watchers try to stop it from happening. So what happens is Uatu sees one universe collapse due to the Catalyst, and while studying one, he manages to prevent it here. But of course, at the end, we get the sense that he has simply postponed it...

That way, when you advertise it, you don't promise it'll 'change everything' because the point is everyone in the story is trying not to change everything, and it's very self-contained and has a simple through-line that can be easily followed. At the same time, you can have anyone in it do anything you want to anybody, and create excitement in the idea that anything could go wrong at any time. Of course, you have to watch out for all the cliches, but it solves the inherent problems of the poor crossovers we've had so far; their futility in trying to make big events seem special by over-hyping them and releasing so many of them.
 
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

I will read this just for Fraction and Immonen.

I can't stand Brevoort. He's just a parrot.

Brevoort acknowledged that fans had asked for a break from big events and Marvel largely took the last year off

My favourite line.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

I think he means futile in the sense that they're not the best stories.

:D I was kidding.

Brevoort:


Identity Crisis?




(why can't all event miniseries be as good as that was?)

Ew. I really, really, REALLY didn't like Identity Crisis.

I know it's an expected thing to say, but I think 52 and Final Crisis are the best examples for events that succeed in their objectives. For 52, that was giving a bunch of B-list characters a chance at the spotlight and a work at revisionism, as well as introducing the idea of a new multiverse. For Final Crisis, it was one writer telling a personal narrative involving the whole universe. Neither story tried to change everything. Instead they seeded plotlines for the creators directly involved in the stories and left potential plot hooks for a wide range of writers to pick up in a wide range of books. And while the follow-through wasn't great, the stories themselves were sound.

Civil War was supposed to change everything. The Initiative was supposed to change everything. Annihilation was supposed to change everything. Except for the fact that many who have died in these events or have been affected, have all been reverted with the exception of Black Giant Man dying in Civil War. He's never coming back.

The thing is, these events could have signified tectonic changes in the status quo. Civil War and Secret Invasion suffered for opposite reasons. The Initiative is a really brilliant idea, one that could have possibly helped with the endemic problem in comics of creating new, lasting properties. Secret Invasion failed because it didn't have the proper lead-in and it just emptied its load all at once. If there had been a longer time to breathe between these two events, and if both had given time to flourish, they both would have been far more rewarding. Instead, these companies feel obligated to proceed from one event to the next year after year and as a result, the implications of each "big new thing" is just steamrolled over.

That's what I mean by futile. It changes 'everything' but it doesn't really, and it's futile because no one wants it to. No one wants the Marvel or DC universes to change. We don't want Batman to get married or Spidey to lose his powers or have Superman continue his adventures in Paris.

Yet at the same time, stories are all about change, so how the hell do you do it? Well, this is the problem of franchises. And big events are problematic because of the ludicrous hype for such little substance. The truth is, the big events are rather poor, shallow stories, but aren't particularly abhorrent (there are exceptions; ULTIMATUM is particularly abhorrent, while SUPERMAN/GEN 13 is particularly good) and what has made them so unpalatable in recent years is the combination of their frequency and their hyperbole.

Before 2004's IDENTITY CRISIS (which was a huge success despite being rather poor) crossovers were not an annual thing. But since then, we've had a continuous number of events. The law of diminishing returns applies here; the more often you do something, the less effect it has, and eventually, it will have the opposite effect. Crossovers are supposed to be huge, important, exciting spectacle featuring everyone that upsets the status quo, but due to their frequency, adequate if poor crossovers (like INFINITE CRISIS) now appear to be predictable, uneventful incidents with an unwieldy cast that only reinforce a status quo (albeit a new one). That's bad enough, but it's coupled with excessive hyperbole promising us something that it can't and won't deliver, and something we don't want, and suddenly you're actively hating something before you even see it.

The thing is, if you look at the more popular crossovers like THE AGE OF APOCALYPSE, THE INFINITY GAUNTLET, SEVEN SOLDIERS OF VICTORY, JLA: THE NAIL, SECRET WARS, SUPERMAN/GEN 13, KINGDOM COME, the EARTH X trilogy, and even pseudo-crossovers like WATCHMEN and TERRA OBSCURA, you'll notice that all of them are self-contained. They take place in their own little world and have almost no impact outside themselves. This is true even of Alan Moore's pitch for TWILIGHT OF THE SUPERHEROES which took place in a potential future. The reason is simple; a hypothetical future or parallel continuity (or even a distant battleground as in the case of THE INFINITY GAUNTLET) allows you to change while keeping everything the same. THE AGE OF APOCALYPSE was particularly brilliant in this regard. This also works if you're trying to reboot continuity. But the current slew of crossovers are not written particularly well (but this is nothing new) and are repetitive drops in the ocean of continuity. They have ripples and tides, but they are so predictable and quickly reversed, that any promise of change is hollow.

I mean, if I were told by Joe Quesada "Write a 'big event' crossover that changes everything" I'd do this: I'd have Uatu watching a parallel Marvel universe that is identical to the current one, and it's slowly coming undone. Treacheries and murders and so on, and while everything is going horribly wrong there, over here, you'd have Uatu scramble desperately to protect this one. You could call it THE ARMAGEDDON CATALYST, and have the idea that there is a conflux of events that destroys Marvel Earth. Happens all the time. And the Watchers try to stop it from happening. So what happens is Uatu sees one universe collapse due to the Catalyst, and while studying one, he manages to prevent it here. But of course, at the end, we get the sense that he has simply postponed it...

That way, when you advertise it, you don't promise it'll 'change everything' because the point is everyone in the story is trying not to change everything, and it's very self-contained and has a simple through-line that can be easily followed. At the same time, you can have anyone in it do anything you want to anybody, and create excitement in the idea that anything could go wrong at any time. Of course, you have to watch out for all the cliches, but it solves the inherent problems of the poor crossovers we've had so far; their futility in trying to make big events seem special by over-hyping them and releasing so many of them.

I agree with you for the most part. I think the solution is to have smaller events that can be orchestrated by a single writer or small team of writers with a focused vision for a franchise or segment of characters. And we've seen that executed well in the past before. Change isn't antithetical in comic books. Under the direction of two creators, the Marvel cosmic books have gotten the model just about perfect. Events are spaced far enough apart that the independent series have the opportunity to dovetail from one to another. The tone and configurations of the series' match to fit the new status quo. The events themselves serve as springboards to test out new franchises. While I'm not a huge Green Lantern fan, I can agree that, under Geoff Johns' direction, it's shown a pretty strong forward narrative progression. Same with Batman under Grant Morrison. Will these changes eventually be undone? Sure. These are indefinite run franchises and once a new creative team comes on, they'll eventually revert to the status quo, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy these stories while they're around. While none of these might fit the expected criteria for "event books" I think they're strong contenders as the new model. They aren't events for the sake of events. They're events that serve as bridges between major milestones in the careers of the characters. War of Kings transitioned into story lines that explored the Bleed, before resolving the problem (a little prematurely, but still). Sinestro Wars led to the formation of the various Corps, which led into a war of the corps which led to a new status quo where the corps have to interact with one another to achieve their ends. Batman RIP led into an exploration of the idea of legacies which led into Batman Inc. All of these stories were either under the complete control of a small group of creators or else created an inclusive universe that opened the door for new stories to be told by a wide range of creators. The problem with events like Secret Invasion and Civil War is that they stunt this growing narrative. They're placed too closely together, so the fallout of the events aren't properly given the opportunity to expand, and they cast so wide a net that they insist all the in-universe books work in conjunction with each other to work.

Each event shouldn't try to change EVERYTHING. Instead, it should try to change one or two things, so it actually has a chance of success.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

Ew. I really, really, REALLY didn't like Identity Crisis.

i can see how a dc fan wouldn't like it, but it was one of the first DC graphic novels i ever read, so all of the continuity stuff didn't bother me. I just thought it was written wonderfully. I literally had NO idea what was going on or who any of the main characters were but I wanted to do research to figure it out b/c i was so drawn into the story.
 
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

i can see how a dc fan wouldn't like it, but it was one of the first DC graphic novels i ever read, so all of the continuity stuff didn't bother me. I just thought it was written wonderfully. I literally had NO idea what was going on or who any of the main characters were but I wanted to do research to figure it out b/c i was so drawn into the story.

:D Well, the truth of the matter is, I read it before I'd started reading any DC stuff, at the recommendation of a friend who told me it was a great way to expose myself to the characters and I found myself hating it then. I didn't really pick up anything DC afterward until 52 came along, in part because it had soured me on the characters, and I found myself disliking it even more.

I don't think there's anything worth liking about it. It's a miserable avalanche of meaningless pathos masquerading as complex Watchmen-style storytelling.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

Under Fraction, this will be the first crossover event where nobody wears costumes or fights anything.

And Identity Crisis sssssssssssucked so bad. That whole era turned me off DC for a number of years.
 
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

I think my biggest problem with some of the most recent events, and Fear Itself in particular. It's been done before, and sometimes done too recently.

I mean, the whole;
There is a concealed act at the center of the Marvel universe that was committed a number of years ago, and it will change everything

You've adequately described Secret War, Illuminati (and by extension Secret Invasion), as well as the X-Men specific Deadly Genesis.

My other problem is, this recent batch is pretty much taking classic arcs from the 70's - 80's and turning them into "The Next Big Event™". I hate to admit, for the first time in a long time, I'm seriously pondering dropping the X-Men. I wish we could get more stuff like Nextwave, Patsy Walker: Hellcat, Iron Fist, etc, and less "This will change EVERYTHING™".
 
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

Dark Reign was actually a 'Trade Dress', not really an event.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fear Itself (Fraction/Immonen) discussion

Change isn't antithetical in comic books. ... Each event shouldn't try to change EVERYTHING. Instead, it should try to change one or two things, so it actually has a chance of success.

I agree, but that's not what I was saying. I was saying that in franchises, especially generational ones, change is undesirable. Consider LAW & ORDER which had a continually shifting cast but was essentially the same, but if they had kept rejigging the entire structure of the show every season it would not have lasted twenty years; the audience gives up after a few years and the characters are eventually exhausted. Not that there's anything wrong with progressive narratives like THE WIRE or AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER in which characters are exhausted throughout the length of the series. I'm saying that change in one of them is a desired convention while change in the other is not.

In the case of superhero comics, the problem is not that they want to change the status quo or that they can't, but rather, you can't continually hype a big event as mattering if you continually do it and never truly change much if anything. Batman is still Batman. Grant Morrison's run is perfectly fine for the most part, but it's still Batman. Being Batman. And there is nothing wrong with that. There is a problem, however, in saying that "Batman won't be Batman anymore!" every year. NO MAN'S LAND was a great idea (if not a great actuality) but you can't have that every year, otherwise it just becomes background noise. If one person is shouting in a room, he's loud. If hundreds of people are all shouting, it's called a "party" and you can block it all out, and there's no such thing as 'loud' or 'quiet'. This is what this scheduling is like, and it's particularly problematic in that Marvel and DC don't consider that the other guy's big events are hurting their big events because they all fill the same space.

In the case of FEAR ITSELF, THE SIEGE just ended not long ago, and it was an anti-climactic resolution to ten years of events. The idea that they're now going to start another one is completely repellent - no matter who's doing it.

What's interesting, is at the moment over on FANTASTIC FOUR they are building up to a huge event that will change the book forever; one of the main four will die.

This is as old as the ****ing title and it just happened already. But you know what? People are digging Hickman's work and they're excited to see where this series is going. But, every time someone at Marvel goes on about "How it will change everything" and "Someone will really properly die this time" and it's getting a new #1 and black polybag, everyone rolls their eyes and goes, "Shut the **** up. Let us be."

People are totally fine with a big event that changes the Marvel universe completely provided the new world is better than the old one. What they are not okay with is that it comes out six months after the last big event and they are told how big an event this big event will be, and then very little happens and most of the characters they like are now alien to them.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top