I agree in a sense, but I think its a comic book wide thing. Like they know doing certain things will incite a negative or positive reaction. Oh we're killing Ted Kord, that will piss people off. Oh, lets unmask Spider-Man, that will be controversial.
Indeed, and after 2+ years it is growing annoying. Maybe it's more honest than the jovial "Bullpen" facade of the Silver and Bronze Age, but I am getting annoyed by it. A story has to be about more than inciting a reaction. Again, an explosion will always generate attention. But context, build-up, follow-through, execution, and aftermath make the difference between a special effect and a moment. And, especially, a story is NOT a series of moments.
I tend to think it's kind of like poking a bear with a stick. You'll get a reaction sure but eventually you'll get mauled.
Any class clown can get a reaction. A writer has to tell a cohesive story and it is astonishing that professionals could misread things that poorly. If they'd cared more about flow than about shocking moments or misleading readers, they could have had a stronger story. I mean, it was obvious how ANNIHILATION was ending by #2. But did Giffen screw with his story to "fool" people? Not really. The work stood by itself. No needing Millar, Joe Q, or Tom B. to come onto Newsarama and need 2-3 articles defending crap. This is supposed to be Marvel's beacon for a new age, and any reaction that is not excited doesn't bode well.
I'll concede to enjoying (on some level) the reactionary nonsense, it's when it comes at the expense of the story or blatant lying that I have problems.
Yeah.
Dear. god. yes.
The more I think about caps words (they're arresting steve rogers) the more I think this story simply hasn't ended. As you've pointed out it can feel hollow when there is no villain to triumph over, it's even more hollow when our heroes can't actually resolve their differences by the end of the mini.
Events are simply steroids to pump up the main titles and they usually were not always the deepest on actual story, but we have entered an age where the Big Two are so eager to keep the train moving that they forget the passangers need some stops. By all means have aftermath and whatnot, but you have to have a beginning, middle, and end, not beginning, muddle, middle, muddle, link to new beginning, mix, repeat. This was what drove the 90's into the ground. INFINITY GAUNTLET kept getting crappier and crappier sequals for instance (INFINITY WAR, INFINITY CRUSADE, INFINITY CASH IN). I get the impression sometimes that the big two are so constantly competing and attempting to keep sales high and everything interconnected that they are losing sight on delivering a satisfying story that works on all levels and doesn't need your entire editorial elite coming online to defend the flaws.
They need to stop treating fan "satisfaction" as some unholy demon and sacrificing a good story to keep people guessing. Joe Q cites ARMAGEDDON 2001 as a bad DC blunder but CW in some ways was worse because it could have worked had they not been so eager to misslead people that they made their winning side into unrootable fascists, just so Cap can get misty eyed and forgive their sins, going, "You fascists have a point." Magneto ALWAYS had a point and the X-Men didn't surrender to him. Dr. Doom just wants to spread the "nirvanna" he made Latvernia into for the rest of the world and you don't see everyone lining up to join him.
If you didn't read ASM one could make a convicing case for the unmaking have nothing to do with the story.
I'd argue that all it really contributed was an easy hook to give something for writers to play with for a year, because lord knows Spidey is tapped. I just am numb to it all now. Unmasking, killing May, I don't care anymore.
The inconsistancy between some titles (ie in ASM the prison was permanent in CW temporary) didn't help this. That aside the main issue I have is with letting bullseye and osborn in, there are plenty of villains that aren't mass murdering psychos if you need to go down that route of having a trained back up army (which I can at least understant) hire villains that don't kill for fun (taskmaster is a decent fit for example, he'll do what he's paid to do).
In the interests of fairness there were some bits in CW in frontline and CW itself that could be described as pro pro-side but the problem was they didn't try to justify the Act itself but the mistakes that pro-side had made (ie when fosters widow talks to iron man it doesn't justify the Act just his killing). Plus we really needed some panels of tony arguing against the less savory aspects if the act to balance him and it out (ie drafting).
Not only Bullseye and Goblin, but Venom, Lady Deathstrike, etc. Agreed on the lack of cohesion and they seriously overplayed their hand in the beginning.
Yeah, Spidey was badass in #7.
Definately. Taskmaster had some wins, and Herc beating Clor was pretty. CW had a lot of good moments. But a parade of moments is not a story. It's a parade.
BTW, psyche on the whole biatch of the week thing.
