RSS Feed
Dec 29

Avengers vs X-Men: Axis

Posted on Monday, December 29, 2014 by Paul in x-axis

I already wrote about this series halfway through its run, and not much has changed since then (and, as previously noted, we’re behind in the reviews department) – so this is one I can probably keep short.

For the assistance of anyone stumbling upon this post years after the plot has faded from memory, Axis is the lynchpin series of a three-month crossover in which the Avengers, the X-Men and a bunch of random villains team up to fight the Red Skull, and can only defeat him by using magic to invert the morality of everyone in the area.  So the Avengers and the X-Men are both evil now and they have a big fight and the villains stop them because they’re heroes now and basically everything is back to normal at the end except for a few characters who aren’t.

It doesn’t really work.  Axis is plainly a transition between the two volumes of Uncanny Avengers, and its biggest problem is that the inversion concept is a cute little gimmick that might have worked just fine in single arc of a few issues.  Instead, it’s been pumped full of steroids and forcibly converted into a multi-title crossover, and the idea just won’t bear that weight.  It’s simply not interesting enough.  That’s why it’s precisely well suited for a single arc; it looks more interesting than it really is, and if you get out after a couple of issues, you leave ’em wanting more.

You might think that that would only be a problem for the tie-ins, rather than the core series itself.  But the overexposure of the idea drags down the original story too.  And besides, as I wrote about with Death of Wolverine, the way a story is presented and promoted is all part of the storytelling these days, because it primes how the reader reacts.  The inversion gimmick is silly, and it belongs in a camp, fun little piece, if you’re going to do it at all.  When it’s forced to be Big and Important and World Changing, it’s not up to the job.

Not that all that much actually changes as a result of Axis – again, presumably a result of its origins as a transition arc in Uncanny Avengers.  Yes, Iron Man gets a revamp, but we all know he’ll be reset in the end.  Sabretooth and (less expectedly) Havok also remain changed.  Evan turns into Apocalypse and vanishes from the story about halfway through the final issue, after somehow becoming the only character to restore his normal personality by force of will – something which I was initially tempted to write off as contrived drama, but could just about be justified as a mirror of his normal angst point, surrendering to his inner evil nature.

But am I interested in where any of these characters are going?  Not really, no – which brings us to the other problem with Axis.  If you’re going to do the inversion schtick as anything more than a short term gimmick, it’s essential that the characters still somehow feel like themselves.  That’s not easy, but it’s the challenge you take up by writing the story.  And pretty much none of the characters felt recognisable at any point, resulting in several issues of everyone acting wildly out of character for reasons that can’t be ascribed to any sort of conventional motivation.

With minor exceptions, everyone who gets inverted ends up as either a one-dimensional villain or a one-dimensional hero.  So not only are they not their regular characters, they’re not really any other sort of character either.  They’re pod people.  And this doesn’t seem like a promising – or even viable – starting point for any kind of storytelling with the characters who remain inverted.  What will happen in practice, of course, is that later writers will simply ignore the ravings of Axis and treat the inversions of these laggards more subtly.  They’ll have to, because the characters are unusable otherwise – and indeed the epilogue with Sabretooth seems to suggest some backing away towards a more rounded character.

A bit of a write-off then – which is a shame, as Uncanny Avengers has done some good stuff in the past.  But like I say, this would probably have worked better as a gaudy confection in a single title.  It’s a gimmick, and it should never have been pressed into service as a crossover premise like this.

Bring on the comments

  1. Thom H. says:

    @Luis: Wonder Woman by Greg Rucka was my favorite book for a time. The best characterization of her I have ever read, honestly. His interrupted run on that book is exactly the example I think of every time the discussion turns to endless crossovers v. stand-alone titles. It was the first time a book I really loved reading was derailed that way.

  2. Living Tribunal says:

    Luis Dantas hit the nail on the head. The events have driven away old time fans that just want to read an ongoing series that does not get editorially sidetracked to incorporate an event. Notice how may titles no longer have a supporting (no superhuman) cast any longer. That’s because the narrative is no longer about that particular character in his/her own book any more. It is about the tie in with the “Shared Universe” and the next event. Remember when Irons Man’s supporting cast was Mrs Arbogast, Bethany Cabe, and Rhodey. Or even before, Pepper and Happy. Iron Man no longer has a supporting cast (except for the occational appearance of Pepper), and IMHO the book suffers as a result.

  3. Luis Dantas says:

    Also, am I the only one who thinks of this event mentality as self-consuming?

    After a while, following a character as opposed to an event becomes a difficult proposition.

    And without the solo characters (and to a lesser extent, the team books), what will the events be about?

  4. Jamie says:

    “those who care more about the characters or specific books than about events have all but been driven away completely”

    Yet those people apparently won’t shut up about it. Methinks they’re still buying the books just so they can complain with their left hand and hate-sturbate with their right.

  5. Brian says:

    It’s problematic how situations, supporting characters, even archenemies are unique to the runs of writers (which are increasing, especially with Marvel, set to ‘volumes’ of books which start and end with these big events, if they don’t peter out from sales, so they tend to have issues with drama or lack thereof). It’s whiplash as a reader who’s used to following the story of the whole world of a character – even if the voice shifts a bit when the writer changes – to see that entire world change with just the face of protagonist remain like this.

    I”m reminded of the old idea, decades ago, that comics would be read by a child for only a few years and then quit, so certain story devices could be repeated for a new “generation” of readers. Having a new “volume” every 2-3 years is almost better set to that zeitgeist than today’s longterm readers. I understand having the main plotlines change with the new writers (and the story that they want to tell), but shouldn’t the responsibility of the editors partly be to see that the continuing B-plots/C-plots/supporting cast – the elements that would keep a readership ongoing from volume to volume even if a new reader might not even notice it – be maintained?

  6. Nu-D. says:

    @Jaime–Are you this much of a dick in real life? Or only on the internet where nobody can punch you in the face?

  7. Luis Dantas says:

    @Jaime:

    “Yet those people apparently won’t shut up about it.”

    That is what being a fan is all about, isn’t it?

    Do we need a license now, or something?

    “Methinks they’re still buying the books just so they can complain with their left hand and hate-sturbate with their right.”

    Have you noticed that plenty of people are buying far less books than they used to just a few years ago? And not a few stopped entirely?

  8. Thom H. says:

    @Jamie: I can only speak from my own experience, but I buy the books I like (free from crossovers), read about the characters I still love (and wish were free from crossovers) here at House to Astonish, and comment on message boards when the subject comes up because I feel strongly about it.

    So no buying of the event books (or hate-sturbating) is necessary. From other comments I’ve read here, I have to think I’m not alone in my habits.

  9. Living Tribunal says:

    @Jaime

    I wonder. Could it be you started reading comics from 2002 on (i.e.: Bendis and Fraction, etc.) and never went back to read Marvel runs from the ’70s and ’80s; and that as a result you have nothing with which to compare this “Modern” age of comics.

  10. Jamie says:

    “That is what being a fan is all about, isn’t it?”

    No, being a fan isn’t about hate-sturbating about stuff you don’t like. Maybe to you it is.

  11. Jamie says:

    “Have you noticed that plenty of people are buying far less books than they used to just a few years ago? And not a few stopped entirely?”

    No, I really don’t give a shit what other people claim to not be buying (but probably still are). I only see the sales figures which suggest a different story from your own desperate narrative.

  12. Jamie says:

    “Could it be you started reading comics from 2002 on (i.e.: Bendis and Fraction, etc.) and never went back to read Marvel runs from the ’70s and ’80s; and that as a result you have nothing with which to compare this “Modern” age of comics.”

    I’ve read it all. However, I don’t keep crying that comics aren’t written like they were 40 years ago.

  13. Living Tribunal says:

    @ Jaime

    No one’s crying, I just ain’t buying.

  14. Luis Dantas says:

    @Jaime: there is this thing about real money – it tends to be used in things we like as opposed to those that we do not.

    In these Internet days, it is entirely possible to hold a lot of opinion and awareness about titles we never read or even saw.

    But hey, don’t let facts stand in the way of your… unusual… “insights” and rather “peculiar” expression.

  15. errant says:

    What you see is sales figues that show that barely any one even buys comic books any more. The bumps are akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as they continually and increasingly rely on the gimmicks (never-ending, all-encompassing events; paper stock; inflated cover prices; stunt and variant covers) to prop up a sinking bottom line (of the publishing aspect) of the industry. Ironically, all of those things are what got them to this point in the first place.

  16. Jamie says:

    “The bumps are akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”

    Oh golly gee whiz, the comics industry is dying! So how long do we have left, six months? A year?

  17. Dave says:

    Nah, obviously a move to doing not just an event a year, but TWO events a year, will work as a form of life support for a while. Then they can do 3 and 4 events a year. Then…um…they can do a lot more new Star Wars comics?

  18. Jamie says:

    Yeah, remember when they did multiple events in the ’90s? It killed the comics industry! It’s dead! It never recovered!

  19. Living Tribunal says:

    @ Jamie

    Maybe this will put it in perspective for you. I used to buy about 20 Marvel titles per month a few years ago, not including one-shots and mini series. I am now down to 5 Marvel titles because the overall quality of the storeytelling (IMHO) is not worth the $$$. That does not mean the industry will collapse. It means that I and other like minded people think that most of Marvel’s output is mediocre and they refuse to shell out their hard earned $$$ for it.

  20. errant says:

    Compared to what it was in the late 80s and early 90s, it IS dead.

  21. Dave says:

    Yeah, I don’t get how that comparison is supposed to be pro-event. Early ’90s was the all-time boom, and by the late ’90s Marvel was bankrupt. Besides which, from reading almost exclusively X-books then, it seemed like they were the only ones that did events, and only once a year.

    92: X-Cutioner’s Song
    93: Fatal Attractions
    94: Phalanx Covenant
    95: AOA
    96: Onslaught
    97: Zero Tolerance

  22. Jamie says:

    “I used to buy about 20 Marvel titles per month a few years ago, not including one-shots and mini series. I am now down to 5 Marvel titles”

    Oh no, you’re going to kill Marvel Comics single-handedly! They’d better start catering all their titles to you!

  23. Living Tribunal says:

    @ Jamie

    Clearly your elevator does not reach the top floor. All you can do is bang a hollow drum.

  24. Nu-D. says:

    Time to stop feeding the troll, folks. He never contributes anything positive. He just comes in and makes sarcastic and rude criticisms of other posts to get you to argue with him.

  25. Living Tribunal says:

    @ Nu-D

    Word!

  26. Jamie says:

    I correct you on your incorrect facts and I mock you for your fanboy entitlement. You nerds need me.

  27. Dave says:

    While your own ‘facts’ indicate that ’90s events were good for the industry?

    Buyers of comics are ‘entitled’ to get comics they want to read, or they stop buying them. Strangely enough, that’s what some people are doing. Of course, facts show events sell better, so they must be lying to hide the ‘fact’ that they’re hate-sturbating.

    Hate-sturbating, mock-sturbating…let’s call the whole thing off?

  28. Jamie says:

    “While your own ‘facts’ indicate that ’90s events were good for the industry?”

    I never stated nor “indicated” such a thing.

  29. coursework says:

    Your style is unique in comparison to other folks I’ve read stuff from.
    Thanks for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I’ll just book
    mark this site.

  30. puzzleddaily says:

    Long time X-Axis follower here. Since the move to hta.com I’ve really enjoyed the mostly smart and funny comments. Catching up on the last 7 months of reviews, though, and I have to say I’ve never seen such an obnoxious know-nothing twit as Jamie polluting every thread. He belongs in some Internet pit far away from X-Axis.

Leave a Reply