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.
