I don't "rather" this comic be anything...I mean, not really. I get what it is and what its purpose is, and I'm not saying that anything needs to be changed. I just think that this comic is basically "Ultimates" in tone and message: heavy-handed socio-political arbitrariness delivered with all the nuance and subtlety of a Michael Moore film...which is to say, not a lot. Only substantial difference is that it's set in the 616 universe, and I didn't like it then so I'm not liable to like it now. I'd practically compare it to the Thunderbolts, although I'm sorta beginning to think that Ellis is attempting to pull a Goddamn Batman with that stunt via "almost-parody" in the deliverance of the subject matter.
Wasn't it you, Dread, who often lamented the fact that most Marvel heroes are anti-heroes now and "grim and gritty" was the unfortunate trend that had to be adhered to? What makes this comic so different from that archetype? If you (all you guys in general) like that sort of thing, well, more power to you and I'm glad you found a book that fits your style; but if you don't, then why make an exception for this particular instance? Is it less stated than how we normally see "grim and gritty" anti-heroics nowadays? Is it just the quality in which the archetype is portrayed? Is it Dan Slott?
Right off the bat, you,
BrianWilly, out of ALL posters, have absolutely NO right to even hint at the possibility that I or other posters are giving A:TI a pass because it is Dan Slott writing. And the answer to why is your very title. You're the
Disciple of Whedon. You worship anything Whedon puts to paper or text. I've never seen you in your number reviews give anything he wrote a score of below 7.5 (out of 10.0). Now, I normally don't hold this against you because we all have our personal biases, and you at least are honest about yours and never try to hide it or walk away from it. But that also means you have no right to criticize whether anyone else has a writer bias, when you wear yours on your sleeve. That's...that's Congress Politician level hypocrisy there, or very close to it.
Maybe I do have a bias towards Dan Slott's work. If so, all you can answer without looking like a complete hypocritical schmuck is, "Fine."
The problem with THE ULTIMATES was that it was, firstly, much more heavy handed, and secondly, AVENGERS: INITIATIVE has more portrayals of "the other side". They also don't have characters acting wildly counter to what they did before. I know, I know, someone will say, Ultimate is Ultimate, and you can have Ultimate creations do whatever. That still doesn't remove the fact that it is jarring to see someone calling himself Capt. America kick a man when he's down, or pull uzi's from behind, or work with a military that shoves children to the ground.
Slott is portraying Gyrich as a major dick. He's BEEN a major dick for about 90% of his written history. Gauntlet is an original creation, and not in the way an "Ultimized" character is, so he can do whatever he wants. Slott is also showing that the Marvel U.S. Government has a shadowy, dasdardly underbelly...something else that has BEEN happening for a good 20 years of comics. Any supervillain, whether mutant terrorist or just superhuman killers who are willing to sign some dotted line for the fed get badges and purged records. Brotherhood of Mutants, Venom, Puppet Master, Sabretooth, the list goes on and on. It never works, they always go back to crime, and the feds NEVER show such leeway for actual bonafide superheroes. The fed sporatically sanctions creation of Sentinal robots to nuke enemies. They've quarenteened mutants. During the ACTS OF VENGENCE story in the 80's, a law very simular to the SHRA was almost passed. Then there was the MUTANT REGISTRATION ACT and all the chaos that caused. All the monsters created in attempts to replicate the Hulk or Captain America. The List goes on and on.
So in spite of that history, had Slott created an Initiative that was all hunky dorey, with little flaws besides not enough soda in the vending machine and spotless from the top down, it wouldn't have worked. CIVIL WAR bogged the entire line down into the depths of darkness in a way, true. But that doesn't mean that every book to rise out of that should be whitewashed, because then it reads phony, like MIGHTY AVENGERS does with former a-hole heroes and backstabbers suddenly looking saintly.
In THE ULTIMATES, the only voice who spoke out against what was going on was Thor, who spent a good chunk of the second volume beaten down and in a cell. In AVENGERS: INITIATIVE, plenty of voices come out against what goes on. The loudest and most frequent is Justice, with Yellowjacket occasionally after him. Many of the recruits have had varying ideas of what they expected and then reality is hitting them. When Komodo, War Machine, and the SPIN tech team went after Spider-Man, what happened? Did they oppress and humiliate him, or did Spider-Man, the character the audience was rooting for in that scene, ESCAPE and PREVAIL? Are there not forces out there looking to undermine the A:I, and made Hardball steal something for them? And is Gauntlet not about to get a well deserved beating?
Plus, AVENGERS INITIATIVE comes out at a rate above 4 times a year, unlike ULTIMATES.
This is a fruitless debate; taste is subjective and after an issue narrated by Gyrich, a rather loathesome character who NEVER should be in charge of a place like this if the world had any fairness, I can understand some bitter feelings. He calls metahumans "human baggage" if they're not automations under his complete control. He cuts breaks to former criminals that he NEVER does to trainees that he himself places in reckless circumstances. But there are some layers in the onion of A:I, there are some likeable characters, there is good art, solid action, some spunky dialogue and a dark sense of humor at times, and a strong sense of continuity, the best in any Avengers title right now. So if I make an exception to the rule against some of the stuff you mentioned, to quote Super-Shredder,
"Then so BE IT!"
