FF: Future Foundation (Hickman/Epting)

Re: Goodbye Fantastic Four, Hello FF

Interesting. We'll see how it goes, and I trust Hickman, but I personally don't see how this makes sense. Spidey and Torch are very similar people, and Spidey's whole 'secret identity' thing doesn't mesh with the F4. Peter Parker makes some sense though. I personally, can't see how this will be good, but I trust Hickman to deliver.
 
Re: Goodbye Fantastic Four, Hello FF

Wasn't there an issue with Franklin's birthday and he wanted to see Spidey the whole issue?

Considering Franklin can alter reality again, couldn't this be a byproduct of that?
 
Re: Spider-Man Joins the FF

Besides, this makes sense considering Spidey's friendship with Johnny.
I agree with that, but...
Not really and he's been doing it since before wolverine anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean. They both joined the New Avengers around the same time, but Wolverine was also on at least two X-Men teams and had at least one solo book going as well. Spidey has only had ASM and New Avengers for the past few years. Before that he had a couple of other solo titles as well (Friendly Neighborhood SM and Sensational SM) but it makes more sense (to me at least) that one character could have enough going on to fill three solo series than that he's on call for three different teams AND still has time for solo stuff and a life (going to work, dating, being with his family)

But anyway, I don't think he's a bad fit for the team. He's always been tight with the FF - He even asked to join back in ASM #1
 
Last edited:
So, this was alright. What was up with the white variant cover though? I mean, there where 5 covers already, did we really need a completely white one?

And you're just going to take that costume Spidey? No questions asked? Okay. It's not like getting a high tech costume from someone you trust ever bit you in the ass.
 
I enjoyed the first issue. I still don't care for the uniforms, but I like the idea of the kids playing a larger role and having Nathaniel hanging around. The inclusion of Spider-Man seems forced; maybe it's supposed to feel like that but I'm not sure.

There is a problem I have conceptually with this that I've always had with Fantastic Four but it's even more of an issue here, and that's with the poor use of Reed as a scientist. Reed is humanitarian enough that the inventions he creates and concepts he comes up with should benefit more of the general population than they do now. Why hasn't he invented anything that addresses famine or cancer (yeah, I know he's not a biologist but he's smarter than 99% of them anyway)? Or has this been addressed before and I'm just not aware of it?

I don't think its a problem strictly with Hickman, and every other writer I've read on the book has had the same problem. I realize that if you aren't careful with it it quickly turns into Miracleman and you hit a dead end, but it can be distracting. Maybe it's just a matter of bringing out character flaws in Reed that prevent him from doing this; I don't know.

The reason I mention it here is that with the wider membership of the FF it seems like this should be taken care of even more quickly. I dunno.
 
I enjoyed the first issue. I still don't care for the uniforms, but I like the idea of the kids playing a larger role and having Nathaniel hanging around. The inclusion of Spider-Man seems forced; maybe it's supposed to feel like that but I'm not sure.

There is a problem I have conceptually with this that I've always had with Fantastic Four but it's even more of an issue here, and that's with the poor use of Reed as a scientist. Reed is humanitarian enough that the inventions he creates and concepts he comes up with should benefit more of the general population than they do now. Why hasn't he invented anything that addresses famine or cancer (yeah, I know he's not a biologist but he's smarter than 99% of them anyway)? Or has this been addressed before and I'm just not aware of it?

I don't think its a problem strictly with Hickman, and every other writer I've read on the book has had the same problem. I realize that if you aren't careful with it it quickly turns into Miracleman and you hit a dead end, but it can be distracting. Maybe it's just a matter of bringing out character flaws in Reed that prevent him from doing this; I don't know.

The reason I mention it here is that with the wider membership of the FF it seems like this should be taken care of even more quickly. I dunno.

I feel like this kind of thing comes up in most superhero comics. Why doesn't Superman take a more proactive role in fixing the world? Why is the X-Men presented as a very simple metaphor for prejudice when the real world implications of mutation would scare anyone with a functional mind? Why are the ethical implications of Batman's incredibly illegal and somewhat fascist mission statement never really explored?

Because it's a monthly comic that lives in a shared universe and insists on a status quo being maintained. Why doesn't Reed Richards fundamentally change the way the world works? Why haven't the dozens of hyper-geniuses brought Earth to a singularity? Becauses that would upturn the setting.

I like the Planetary explanation. They don't change anything 'cuz they're dicks.
 
Re: Spider-Man Joins the FF

Spidey is on two avengers teams, the FF, and does his own stuff. He's the new Wolverine.
Back in the 70s and 80s, Spidey was always in every book Marvel needed to promote, so technically up until now Wolverine was the new Spider-Man.
 
Felt like a very standard "This is the first issue" issue too me, I'm intrigued by the ending though

at the same time it just felt like Fantastic Four #589 tho, wich is a good thing

Nathaniel being the only dissenter at the table was a nice touch, would have liked to see him and Reed have a proper debate about it instead of cutting to the obligatory action scene
 
I feel like this kind of thing comes up in most superhero comics. Why doesn't Superman take a more proactive role in fixing the world? Why is the X-Men presented as a very simple metaphor for prejudice when the real world implications of mutation would scare anyone with a functional mind? Why are the ethical implications of Batman's incredibly illegal and somewhat fascist mission statement never really explored?

Because it's a monthly comic that lives in a shared universe and insists on a status quo being maintained. Why doesn't Reed Richards fundamentally change the way the world works? Why haven't the dozens of hyper-geniuses brought Earth to a singularity? Becauses that would upturn the setting.

I like the Planetary explanation. They don't change anything 'cuz they're dicks.

Except that while that works GREAT for Randall Dowling, it doesn't fit for Reed Richards at ALL. He's most certainly NOT a dick.

I agree to a point with your examples and won't answer to each individually, but it's .... different with Reed Richards. If that is the logical progression of having a man that is that much of a genius, and that's not the direction they take it in, then they are failing and need to fix something. Either make him not as smart, or give us a good reason why he can't or won't solve problems that are, in the grand scheme of things, more mundane.
 
Except that while that works GREAT for Randall Dowling, it doesn't fit for Reed Richards at ALL. He's most certainly NOT a dick.

I agree to a point with your examples and won't answer to each individually, but it's .... different with Reed Richards. If that is the logical progression of having a man that is that much of a genius, and that's not the direction they take it in, then they are failing and need to fix something. Either make him not as smart, or give us a good reason why he can't or won't solve problems that are, in the grand scheme of things, more mundane.

Evidence to the contray:

reed4.jpg


am6s08.jpg


kak2he.jpg


machism4.JPG



What a jerk.

I'd be fine if they mention that he contributed a lot to medical research pushing it forward 20 years, he doesn't need to cure them to show he's not a jerk
 
Read FUTURE FOUNDATION #1 and it was terrific. Spidey on the team just works so well for the reasons Mightygodking so eloquently puts out on his blog, which is Spidey is kinda like the uncle that moves in to check everyone's okay. I agree wholeheartedly. My distaste for Spidey on the Avengers made me think this was inherently a bad idea, but Spidey with the F4 makes a lot of sense, whereas he doesn't with the Avengers. I also don't think he works to well with the X-Men because he's kinda already got that whole "everyone hates and fears me" soap opera stuff so putting him with Wolverine and Cyclops seems more gratuitous because it all disappears in the background.

Regardless, this issue is the same goodness that Hickman's been delivering, and I can't wait to see where Doom is going. Loving it.

I feel like this kind of thing comes up in most superhero comics. Why doesn't Superman take a more proactive role in fixing the world? Why is the X-Men presented as a very simple metaphor for prejudice when the real world implications of mutation would scare anyone with a functional mind? Why are the ethical implications of Batman's incredibly illegal and somewhat fascist mission statement never really explored?

Superman doesn't take a more proactive role in fixing the world because he lives in an awesome world where the only real problem is the occasional natural disaster or supervillain. It doesn't need fixing. THE AUTHORITY on the other hand, live in a nightmarish dystopia where the governments of the world are not only completely monstrous, but insane and frighteningly competent. They're as much as an exaggeration as Superman's Metropolis!

Take these two brilliant cop shows: COLUMBO and THE WIRE. In THE WIRE, the detectives are not just trying to catch criminals, but they have to deal with the incompetence and treachery of the institutions they work for. COLUMBO, on the other hand, works for a police force that supports everything he does and backs him up. Even in the episode where the commissioner is the killer, no one stops Columbo's investigation. Now, you may not care for this, you may say one is more realistic than the other, but it's a question of emphasis. One of the reasons Superman goes so horribly wrong is that writers give him socio-political 'relevance' but then that means he's not punching Moons back into orbit. By removing conflict in one area, it allows the writers to maximize conflict elsewhere. If Columbo had to deal with paperwork and politics, he wouldn't be talking to the murderer and solving the case. By the same token, if McNulty was faced with a super-intelligent master criminal, he wouldn't have time to get drunk and **** around because he'd be too busy solving the case. (Okay, McNulty would still do those things, but you get my point.) So it's the same for Superman. Superman doesn't put up with institutional politics because he's punching giant robots. The Authority doesn't have fun personal problems at work because they're too busy murdering the most despicable people on the planet.

Not every franchise has a responsibility to say everything about everything and pour its way into every facet of life. It can do, of course, as Alan Moore's career is built on that idea, but having every superhero waxing political about strife in the Middle East is as idiotic as everyone deciding (and they did at one point) that the heroes aren't film noir tragic enough and ripped off Frank Miller.

The X-Men don't go outside prejudice because that's what they're about. There's no reason someone couldn't come along and try to answer that question, though. Batman's facist mission statement isn't explored because the people he fights are mass-murderers who laugh and leave clues and the fun is we want to see him catch them.

The reason these guys don't answer the questions you're asking is because they never asked them.

I am all for original, insightful takes on characters, but no character or franchise is obligated to deal with anything other than what it brings up.

Because it's a monthly comic that lives in a shared universe and insists on a status quo being maintained. Why doesn't Reed Richards fundamentally change the way the world works? Why haven't the dozens of hyper-geniuses brought Earth to a singularity? Becauses that would upturn the setting.

I like the Planetary explanation. They don't change anything 'cuz they're dicks.

Forget what I said.

They are dicks.
 
Last edited:
Read FUTURE FOUNDATION #1 and it was terrific. Spidey on the team just works so well for the reasons Mightygodking so eloquently puts out on his blog, which is Spidey is kinda like the uncle that moves in to check everyone's okay. I agree wholeheartedly. My distaste for Spidey on the Avengers made me think this was inherently a bad idea, but Spidey with the F4 makes a lot of sense, whereas he doesn't with the Avengers. I also don't think he works to well with the X-Men because he's kinda already got that whole "everyone hates and fears me" soap opera stuff so putting him with Wolverine and Cyclops seems more gratuitous because it all disappears in the background.

I feel the opposite, Spidey in Avengers works for me because the Avenger's very nature is the "world's mightiest heroes unite" and Spidey fits that, even though he's more of a loner his character can easily fit in with them. The Fantastic Four is exclusive by their nature, they are a family with a shared origin. Too me when ever anyone out side joins the team it just feels weird because they are not apart of that origin or the very nature of their family. Spidey as an Uncle is an interesting idea and I haven't read the issue, but the idea of a replacement or new team member in FF just never seemed right to me.
 
All threads should be about The Wire.
 
I feel the opposite, Spidey in Avengers works for me because the Avenger's very nature is the "world's mightiest heroes unite" and Spidey fits that, even though he's more of a loner his character can easily fit in with them. The Fantastic Four is exclusive by their nature, they are a family with a shared origin. Too me when ever anyone out side joins the team it just feels weird because they are not apart of that origin or the very nature of their family. Spidey as an Uncle is an interesting idea and I haven't read the issue, but the idea of a replacement or new team member in FF just never seemed right to me.

Well, I never thought Spidey work's in the Avengers because from the Avengers' point-of-view, Spidey isn't a mighty hero. From our point of view, Spidey is awesome, and we love him more than the Avengers, but because he's a loser. While Cap and Iron Man and Thor would probably be somewhat nice to Peter, I think they'd treat him more in a, "Well, if you apply yourself, one day you might be an Avenger" because Captain America is the legend of World War 2, Iron Man is one of the richest, most powerful industrialists on the planet, and Thor is a god. Spidey is so out of place.

But if you look a couple of pages back I too felt the same way in regards to him being on the FANTASTIC FOUR, and thought (as you do), "This doesn't seem right to me", but MGK hit it on the head: Hickman makes it work because Spidey is a surrogate Johnny, the kind uncle or cousin who's there temporarily to help out. Also, because of the Future Foundation which is super-intelligent kids working together, Spidey makes even more sense because he's a bookworm. All the reasons why the F4 work when they guest star in his book are why it works that he's helping them out through this time. It's one of those things that makes more sense the more you think about it. It's really well done.
 
Well, I never thought Spidey work's in the Avengers because from the Avengers' point-of-view, Spidey isn't a mighty hero. From our point of view, Spidey is awesome, and we love him more than the Avengers, but because he's a loser. While Cap and Iron Man and Thor would probably be somewhat nice to Peter, I think they'd treat him more in a, "Well, if you apply yourself, one day you might be an Avenger" because Captain America is the legend of World War 2, Iron Man is one of the richest, most powerful industrialists on the planet, and Thor is a god. Spidey is so out of place.

Yeah that's definitely true, but I can still seem him being an Avenger, not being the lead character, but as a supporting member I think works. As in, he's not the character everyone surrounds on the cover, he's not taking charge, just a member of the team. But I feel it's easy for me to believe he can be a member for a team that's basically a "team-up" group.
But if you look a couple of pages back I too felt the same way in regards to him being on the FANTASTIC FOUR, and thought (as you do), "This doesn't seem right to me", but MGK hit it on the head: Hickman makes it work because Spidey is a surrogate Johnny, the kind uncle or cousin who's there temporarily to help out. Also, because of the Future Foundation which is super-intelligent kids working together, Spidey makes even more sense because he's a bookworm. All the reasons why the F4 work when they guest star in his book are why it works that he's helping them out through this time. It's one of those things that makes more sense the more you think about it. It's really well done.

I may just check this out then.
 
but it's .... different with Reed Richards. If that is the logical progression of having a man that is that much of a genius, and that's not the direction they take it in, then they are failing and need to fix something. Either make him not as smart, or give us a good reason why he can't or won't solve problems that are, in the grand scheme of things, more mundane.

Except Reed Richards, for most of his publication, kind of is a dick.

reed4.jpg


am6s08.jpg


kak2he.jpg


machism4.JPG



What a jerk.

See?

Superman doesn't take a more proactive role in fixing the world because he lives in an awesome world where the only real problem is the occasional natural disaster or supervillain. It doesn't need fixing. THE AUTHORITY on the other hand, live in a nightmarish dystopia where the governments of the world are not only completely monstrous, but insane and frighteningly competent. They're as much as an exaggeration as Superman's Metropolis!


Not every franchise has a responsibility to say everything about everything and pour its way into every facet of life. It can do, of course, as Alan Moore's career is built on that idea, but having every superhero waxing political about strife in the Middle East is as idiotic as everyone deciding (and they did at one point) that the heroes aren't film noir tragic enough and ripped off Frank Miller.[/QUOTE]

I think you misinterpreted me. I wasn't saying that Superman and Batman and all the other big comic characters should be tackling serious real world issues. In fact, my policy to these characters is largely opposed to that thought. I was just pointing out that this sort of detachment from reality is par for the course for superhero comics in general and that's due primarily to the nature of perpetual monthly publication. Superman started out as a strongman for Roosevelt's ideology. Batman started out as a hard-line boy's revenge fantasy. Both became something else because that style isn't sustainable in the format they follow.

It's part of the reason I tend to gravitate more towards DC characters. While Marvel has these (loose) pretenses of existing in the "real world", DC's characters are better equipped for allegorical stories: All-Star Superman, Arkham Asylum, New Frontier. On the other hand, stories that try to tackle real world issues head on in these shared settings tends to come across as heavy-handed and driven more by a chip on the writer's shoulder than the need to tell a good story: JMS' Superman, Dennis O'Neil's Green Lantern/Green Arrow, 80% of the comics published in the nineties. The best mainstream superhero stories with the longest shelf life tend to be mythological, rather than realist. Sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough.

Bass said:
The X-Men don't go outside prejudice because that's what they're about. There's no reason someone couldn't come along and try to answer that question, though. Batman's facist mission statement isn't explored because the people he fights are mass-murderers who laugh and leave clues and the fun is we want to see him catch them.

See, the X-Men is the only one of these examples that never really worked for me. The whole prejudice angle has always seemed shallow to me. It's a softball approach to prejudice. After all, "Racism/misogyny/religious intolerance is bad" is hardly a difficult argument. In my experience, X-Men stories of that type just tend to be weak straw men diatribes.

Bass said:
The reason these guys don't answer the questions you're asking is because they never asked them.

I am all for original, insightful takes on characters, but no character or franchise is obligated to deal with anything other than what it brings up.

Nor am I saying that I should. Again, sorry if I didn't clarify enough.

I'd go one step further and say that mainstream superhero comics probably isn't the place to approach these takes on the characters. As I said in my earlier post, a story where Superman fixes the world's problems in the mainstream universe or where Batman uses all his resources to finding a social solution to crime might make some insights into the characters, but it will also just overturn the apple cart. It would fundamentally undermine the universe the characters live in.

As an example, I'm working on a prose novel that approaches the idea of this American infatuation with the sort of hard-nosed ideology Batman represents and I know DiB is working on a similar deconstruction with a Superman or Superman-like character (and I'll admit, my urge to steal his ideas from him is strong), but I'd never try to sell it as an arc in Batman or Detective Comics. If an editor called me right now and told me I had license to tell whatever story I wanted in the main Batman title, it would be an entirely different story because it simply doesn't fit.

Let's put it like this:
greenlantern1.jpg


I'll tell you why, old black man. Because he's a space cop who fights space aliens and that's eventually what he's going to go back to doing.

All threads should be about The Wire.

I second that emotion.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top