Marvel Boy? Vault? The Cube!
Alan Travis
really bad Sons of Yinsen story connect with Dr. Midas from Morrison's
limited series.
So, that means the Marvel Universe has a new super-prison called The
Cube. I hope we'll get to see this structure in the USAgent limited
series and any other Marvel book that needs to lock up the dangerous
pyschos they capture at the end of the issue.
Alan
Pfpsquared
From: Alan Travis alnt...@earthlink.net
Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 8:22 AM
Message-id: <3A90D706...@earthlink.net>
Alan
>>
Fine idea, but based on the creative destruct-o-meter of the first Marvel Boy
series I'll bet my favorite leather jacket that the Cube is (a): a smoking
crater, (b): folded into a billion alternate universes, (c): reduced to quark
particles or (d) transformed into a quik-e-mart by the time Morrison's through
with it. Just a guess.
Paul F. P. Pogue
Aaron Michael Newton
: Fine idea, but based on the creative destruct-o-meter of the first Marvel Boy
: series I'll bet my favorite leather jacket that the Cube is (a): a smoking
: crater, (b): folded into a billion alternate universes, (c): reduced to quark
: particles or (d) transformed into a quik-e-mart by the time Morrison's through
: with it. Just a guess.
Heheh, wouldn't surprise me if one or ALL of the above don't occur before
the first issue of the next series. ;)
-Aaron
--
****
Aaron Newton - fign...@louisville.edu - IRC: FigNewton
Alan Travis
> Fine idea, but based on the creative destruct-o-meter of the first Marvel Boy
> series I'll bet my favorite leather jacket that the Cube is (a): a smoking
> crater, (b): folded into a billion alternate universes, (c): reduced to quark
> particles or (d) transformed into a quik-e-mart by the time Morrison's through
> with it. Just a guess.
Oh, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean they won't rebuild it, especially if another writer
out there wants to use it. Once it's been established, these kind of things have a
tendency to stick around.
Alan
Todd Kogutt: Scavenger
<alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Quesada said that Marvel Boy was canon in the Marvel U and had that
> really bad Sons of Yinsen story connect with Dr. Midas from Morrison's
> limited series.
>
the only hope for enjoyment of this book is that if It's not canon.
Otherwise, why aren't the Avengers going and pounding on him? The FF?
The X-Men? This guy with his Ellis-powers is like an Onslaught level
threat.
---SCAVENGER
><FISH*>
> the only hope for enjoyment of this book is that if It's not canon.
> Otherwise, why aren't the Avengers going and pounding on him? The FF?
> The X-Men? This guy with his Ellis-powers is like an Onslaught level
> threat.
>
Not really.
The FF did appear in #2 I believe, in only for one panel.
And all he did extraordinary was maybe make some buildings fall down.
What'd he use? A really big gun.
Shit, Paste Pot Pete can do that.
I don't think he has overly powerful...uhh...powers...but since he
explained all of them all big-like they seem like they are.
Sean_Walsh
news:3A916B7A...@earthlink.net...
But would someone bring it back, since a similar concept (the Vault) was
destroyed quite effectively by Brevoort's editorial edict (with honorable
mention to Ostrander's writing hand, Pascal Ferry's pencilling hand)?
Mind you, I didn't like seeing the Vault up and disposed of like it was.
Anyplace that gathered all sorts of villains (especially the obscure ones)
is a wonderful place to me...
Sean,
who'll be buying that Marvel Boy TPB for myself so that I can see what this
place is like...
:)
--
"Crime yes! Criminals no!"
New Gods Library: http://fastbak.tripod.com
Homepage: http://www.mponte.com/sean
Pfpsquared
From: "Todd Kogutt: Scavenger" to...@toddkogutt.com
Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 8:51 PM
Message-id: <190220011351049500%to...@toddkogutt.com>
>>
This actually ties into some of the neat tweaks Morrison seems to like putting
onto the Marvel Universe: i.e., the tendency of books to exist in their own
universe even as part of the greater Marvel Universe. For example, when the
Examplars, a massively powerful group of bad guys capable of laying waste to a
medium-sized country in hours, show up in New York, the Avengers head to the
rescue. Where's the Fantastic Four? Or the X-Men -- they're connected to the
Examplars through Juggernaut, after all? Why doesn't every superhero in the
Marvel Universe turn out to stop them?
Answer: None, really (although half the marvel universe *does* appear to show
up in that issue, Avengers 25.) Meta-answer: If every world-class team showed
up to fight every world-class threat, every storyline would be Secret Wars or
Onslaught. The Avengers were the ones to fight the Exemplars because it
happened in their own book.
Or all those times the Sub-mariner would trash New York city, and nobody
outside the Fantastic Four would seem to take much notice. Heck, the Juggernaut
once wiped out city block after city block and nobody but Spider-Man seemed to
notice (because it was in Spidey's book.)
Point being, I see no problem, meta-wise, with someone trashing New York City
and not all the superheroes showing up to stop him. And it's not like he was
left to rampage free; SHIELD brought out some of their biggest guns to bring
Noh-Varr down.
Paul F. P. Pogue
Alan Travis
> But would someone bring it back, since a similar concept (the Vault) was
> destroyed quite effectively by Brevoort's editorial edict (with honorable
> mention to Ostrander's writing hand, Pascal Ferry's pencilling hand)?
Tom wanted it destroyed? Or Tom let Ostrander do it?
> Mind you, I didn't like seeing the Vault up and disposed of like it was.
> Anyplace that gathered all sorts of villains (especially the obscure ones)
> is a wonderful place to me...
especially during a riot.
> Sean,
> who'll be buying that Marvel Boy TPB for myself so that I can see what this
> place is like... :)
Don't get your hopes up too high. It only makes an appearance on one page and
we don't get to see if they are using Guardsmen or Mandroids to keep the
inmates inline.
Alan
Gorok190
It is. I bet you you'll be seeing the Skull Kill Krew making an appearance in
the Cube.
>Otherwise, why aren't the Avengers going and pounding on him? The FF?
>The X-Men?
Why aren't you asking that same question every time the X-Men have an
extinction-level event and the Avengers don't show up? Or the other way around?
Or what about every other mini-series or ongoing series that had some
ridiculous battle and only the title characters showed up?
>This guy with his Ellis-powers is like an Onslaught level
>threat.
Oh, really? Then why is he in the cube?
-Drew
"What do the Republicans have to do with cancer?"
"Nothing. They just go where the evil is."
- Duckman
Todd Kogutt: Scavenger
<goro...@aol.com> wrote:
> >the only hope for enjoyment of this book is that if It's not canon.
>
> It is. I bet you you'll be seeing the Skull Kill Krew making an appearance in
> the Cube.
>
> >Otherwise, why aren't the Avengers going and pounding on him? The FF?
> >The X-Men?
>
> Why aren't you asking that same question every time the X-Men have an
> extinction-level event and the Avengers don't show up? Or the other way
> around?
> Or what about every other mini-series or ongoing series that had some
> ridiculous battle and only the title characters showed up?
>
Because someone is dealing with it. In this, the "hero" is going
around blowing stuff up and killing people left and right. His
follower destroyed Disney World and executed people on tv, proclaiming
this is just the begining. If it gets to pretend that it's "real
Marvel Universe" then it has to deal with that..which is right now the
pro-active Avengers and a Wolverine who's a big mouseketeer fan.
---SCAVENGER
Todd Kogutt: Scavenger
>
> >This guy with his Ellis-powers is like an Onslaught level
> >threat.
>
> Oh, really? Then why is he in the cube?
>
>
"Welcome to the capital of the new Kree empire" tells me that he's in
the cube because he wants to be in the cube.
--SCAVENGER
KurtBusiek
> destroyed quite effectively by Brevoort's editorial edict (with honorable
> mention to Ostrander's writing hand, Pascal Ferry's pencilling hand)?
>>Tom wanted it destroyed? Or Tom let Ostrander do it?>>
Tom didn't even edit HEROES FOR HIRE.
kurt
Sean_Walsh
> Sean_Walsh wrote:
>
> > But would someone bring it back, since a similar concept (the Vault) was
> > destroyed quite effectively by Brevoort's editorial edict (with
honorable
> > mention to Ostrander's writing hand, Pascal Ferry's pencilling hand)?
>
> Tom wanted it destroyed? Or Tom let Ostrander do it?
I recall hearing (around here) that Brevoort put out some general
"announcement" that he (or everybody - whomever *they* are - and he was just
speaking on their behalf) wanted the Vault gone (as well as Ravencroft,
which was being shut down in Spectacular Spidey and the second Carnage
special around the same time). Ostrander happened to do the deed in H4H #1.
> > Mind you, I didn't like seeing the Vault up and disposed of like it was.
> > Anyplace that gathered all sorts of villains (especially the obscure
ones)
> > is a wonderful place to me...
>
> especially during a riot.
Exarctly. :)
> > Sean,
> > who'll be buying that Marvel Boy TPB for myself so that I can see what
this
> > place is like... :)
>
> Don't get your hopes up too high. It only makes an appearance on one page
and
> we don't get to see if they are using Guardsmen or Mandroids to keep the
> inmates inline.
No problem. I was planning to get that TPB nonetheless... :p
Sean
Gorok190
>follower destroyed Disney World and executed people on tv, proclaiming
>this is just the begining.
You're referring to a scene depicted in the last issue of the mini-series. No
one can deal with her because she's in Morrison's series and she's his
character. Therefore the way editorial works at Marvel is that it will be
addressed when Morrison is good and ready. Your logic doesn't stick because
it's the same with any other book in Marvel comics. Apocalypse tried to murder
tons of Marvel heroes, including his follower Moses Magnum attacking the
Avengers, yet they do nothing about it. Why? Because editorial says it's the
writers' on X-Men decision. Why did SHIELD never go after Sub Mariner, why
haven't the Fantastic Four trounced Magneto? You're arguing silly politics that
have never made a difference in the history of that company.
Gorok190
>"Welcome to the capital of the new Kree empire" tells me that he's in
>the cube because he wants to be in the cube.
Riiiiiight. And it's the same for letting SHIELD take his gear and almost
getting killed by Midas several times. Again, your logic seriously falters.
Alan Travis
I'm confused, then. Did Tom have anything to do with the destruction of the
Vault storyline.
Alan
KurtBusiek
>>I'm confused, then. Did Tom have anything to do with the destruction of the
Vault storyline.>>
Not that I'm aware of.
We used the Vault in the first T-BOLTS annual, a flashback to how Moonstone got
out, but coordinated with the HFH editor, since at the time we were working on
it the destruction of the Vault had been written but not yet published, but Tom
didn't seem to have any great knowledge of the story being done in HFH. And we
chose to establish a new, decentralized penal system for super-types, largely
because I think the Vault is a dramatically-flawed idea -- either villains
escape a lot (which is what happened) and the result is that this
supposedly-cool place looks like it's made of cardboard, or they don't, in
which case villains get captured and vanish from the Marvel U. forever, since
Marvel time mitigates against their sentences ever being naturally completed.
I think spreading the super-convicts out recognizes that there will be
breakouts (and there will be; that's just how it's going to work), without them
being mass breakouts.
But that's my thinking, not an editorial imposition. And I didn't have
anything to do with that story in HFH either.
kurt
Alan Travis
> Not that I'm aware of.
Good.
> We used the Vault in the first T-BOLTS annual, a flashback to how Moonstone got
> out, but coordinated with the HFH editor, since at the time we were working on
> it the destruction of the Vault had been written but not yet published, but Tom
> didn't seem to have any great knowledge of the story being done in HFH. And we
> chose to establish a new, decentralized penal system for super-types, largely
> because I think the Vault is a dramatically-flawed idea -- either villains
> escape a lot (which is what happened)
Yeah, but... if my memory serves me right, there was only 1 mass prison break and
it was caused by an external party. So, spreading the villains out all over the
country in a decentralized system only prevents a mass breakout, which didn't
happen very often. Of course, there are those that would say that once is too
much, but the other times there was a prison break it was contained by heroes on
the scene or arriving in time to prevent escape.
Of course, individual heroes broke loose from time to time, but this is going to be
happening at any of the facilities spread out all over the country.
Which brings us to...
> or they don't, in which case villains get captured and vanish from the Marvel U.
> forever, since Marvel time mitigates against their sentences ever being naturally
> completed.
But that's true about the individual prison sites across the U.S. So, the only
benefit for ditching the Vault is to prevent all the villains from being in one
place and breaking out. Imagine a hundred pissed off villains rampaging through
the local towns if the Avengers and the others happend to not be around that week.
I propose rebuilding the Vault and keeping a superhero team on the premises. You
could make them an all-new team. You could use a team of B & C characters with out
a book to call their own or, and this one's even more fun, you could make up a
Dirty Dozen / Suicide Squad type of team. This would be especially attractive as
the Thunderbolts become more and more accepted by the public and there isn't
another villain/hero team out there.
They would, of course, be backed up by an army of Guardsmen.
Which, brings us back to the idea of the villains not being able to escape with
enough regularity to populate the MU, but I think this is a problem regardless of
whatever system the MU folk set up.
It seems to me that it's less plausible that the government of the MU would allow
assorted penal systems of varying professionalism (as such things always are) to
house these dangerous villains. It seems more likely that the government would
spend inordinate amounts of money to create a Super Alcatraz. To me, at least.
> I think spreading the super-convicts out recognizes that there will be
> breakouts (and there will be; that's just how it's going to work), without them
> being mass breakouts.
How many mass breakouts were there? I mean, how many can you remember? I can only
think of Heroes for Hire #1 (if we're counting ones where the villains actually
escaped en masse).
Alan
KurtBusiek
Ostrander wrote one, I wrote one, Gru wrote one -- so that's at least three,
and I believe there were more.
You note that spreading out the prisoners only prevent mass breakouts, since
minor breakouts are going to happen under either system. I think there are two
benefits to that:
First, it prevents mass breakouts. This is a good thing, and it's benefit
enough by itself.
Second, the minor breakouts can be spread around, so no one prison looks like
Schmuck Central over and over and over, like the Vault did.
>>I propose rebuilding the Vault and keeping a superhero team on the premises.
You could make them an all-new team.>>
I think the Vault is a bad idea, as already noted. I think the end result of a
new Vault with a super-team in residence would be that every time a writer
wanted a villain -- say, the Rhino -- he'd escape, and the resident superhero
team would end up looking like bozos. Instead of just Guardsmen looking like
bozos. Either way, having a super-prison that people break out of a lot
doesn't enhance the rep of the super-prison, which kills its "cool" factor.
Decentralization doesn't actually offer the concept of a badass cool
mega-inescapable joint, so they don't suffer as much as story elements when
escapes happen.
So I'm the wrong guy to propose this to.
kurt
Alan Travis
> >>How many mass breakouts were there?>>
>
> Ostrander wrote one, I wrote one, Gru wrote one -- so that's at least three,
> and I believe there were more.
Ostrander's was in Heroes for Hire #1. Gru's was in Avengers Spotlight at the end
of Acts of Vengeance, yeah? Where did the one that you wrote appear?
> You note that spreading out the prisoners only prevent mass breakouts, since
> minor breakouts are going to happen under either system. I think there are two
> benefits to that:
>
> First, it prevents mass breakouts. This is a good thing, and it's benefit
> enough by itself.
Yep. Can't argue with that. Best defense I can muster is that I don't believe
that there has been a mass breakout where the prisoners actually escaped into the
community (except, of course, H4H, which was the deathblow for the concept). In
the Avengers: The Vault OGN, only a handful made it to the surface and they were
captured instantly.
In the Avengers Spotlight story, it was Hawk and Iron Man against the cons, IIRC.
They never made it out of the structure, either.
I should say that there hasn't been one to my knowledge.
> Second, the minor breakouts can be spread around, so no one prison looks like
> Schmuck Central over and over and over, like the Vault did.
Well, I'd argue that it just looks like a schmuck system, but you're right; this a
better way to diffuse the blame over a larger group.
> >>I propose rebuilding the Vault and keeping a superhero team on the premises.
> You could make them an all-new team.>>
>
> I think the Vault is a bad idea, as already noted. I think the end result of a
> new Vault with a super-team in residence would be that every time a writer
> wanted a villain -- say, the Rhino -- he'd escape, and the resident superhero
> team would end up looking like bozos.
True, but I'd counter that they wouldn't look like schmucks anymore than when
heroes allow the villains to escape during an encounter. Also, perhaps the idea
that they are outclassed and being asked to handle more villains than any other
team has had to deal with at any one time would be part of the idea. Or, maybe it
could be a Freedom Force situation and they'd be corrupt, allowing villains to
escape who had their freedom paid for by guys like the Kingpin or Justin Hammer.
Am I really reaching now?
> So I'm the wrong guy to propose this to.
Jeez, you're right. I should have started one of those "Hey Quesada" threads!
Alan
KurtBusiek
the end of Acts of Vengeance, yeah?>>
In CAPTAIN AMERICA around the time of Armor Wars, I believe.
>>Where did the one that you wrote appear?>>
The first T-Bolts annual.
> First, it prevents mass breakouts. This is a good thing, and it's benefit
> enough by itself.
>>Yep. Can't argue with that. Best defense I can muster is that I don't
believe that there has been a mass breakout where the prisoners actually
escaped into the community (except, of course, H4H, which was the deathblow for
the concept).>>
Doesn't really matter how far they get -- if they get out, the prison doesn't
look terribly effective.
A super-prison that depends on unaffiliated strangers to happen buy during
breakouts and save the day is Schmuck Central.
> I think the Vault is a bad idea, as already noted. I think the end result of
a
> new Vault with a super-team in residence would be that every time a writer
> wanted a villain -- say, the Rhino -- he'd escape, and the resident superhero
> team would end up looking like bozos.
>>True, but I'd counter that they wouldn't look like schmucks anymore than when
heroes allow the villains to escape during an encounter.>>
Except that those heroes (a) aren't being funded by the government, and (b)
aren't being presented as a cool inescapable prison. Spider-Man has other
strengths that make readers like him -- a prison is pretty solidly focused on
_not_ allowing that sort of thing. When it happens, the prison comes off as a
failure at its very intent. Spidey can track down the bad guy, and he comes
off as relentless and determined. But as soon as the cons are outside the
prison, the prison looks like a failure. Even if they go get them back, the
prison has failed in its basic intent.
>>Also, perhaps the idea that they are outclassed and being asked to handle
more villains than any other team has had to deal with at any one time would be
part of the idea. Or, maybe it could be a Freedom Force situation and they'd
be corrupt, allowing villains to escape who had their freedom paid for by guys
like the Kingpin or Justin Hammer.>>
Both of these ideas try to justify why the Vault would seem like Schmuck
Central, but it wouldn't stop the fact that the Vault wouldn't live up to its
core concept. A super-team that can't handle the job is not a strong
commercial idea. A corrupt administration is a story waiting to happen -- when
do the Marvel heroes find out and fix the problem? And once fixed, you're back
to the basic problem -- the dramatic requirements of the Marvel Universe
mitigate against the core concept of a cool super-prison. The prison depends
on effectiveness to be believably cool, but it will by dramatic necessity be
ineffective.
So to my mind, the idea just doesn't play as an ongoing concept.
>>Am I really reaching now?>>
At the very least, you're trying to convince the wrong guy...
kurt
coeur de Designers
> I propose rebuilding the Vault and keeping a superhero team on the premises. You could make
> them an all-new team. You could use a team of B & C characters with out a book to call their
> own or, and this one's even more fun, you could make up a Dirty Dozen / Suicide Squad type of
> team. This would be especially attractive as the Thunderbolts become more and more accepted by
> the public and there isn't another villain/hero team out there.
I think they should do a mini on a group like CODE:Blue was for Thor, but on the
Guardsmen.
--
Whereas a lot of men used to ask for conversation when they really wanted sex,
nowadays, they often feel obliged to ask for sex even when they really want
conversation. - Katherine Whitehorn
Happy Valentines day, folks. :)
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~jamesony/d_text/sigs.htm - 'coeur'
CleV
<jame...@usc.edu> wrote:
>Alan Travis wrote:
>> I propose rebuilding the Vault and keeping a superhero team on the premises. You could make
>> them an all-new team. You could use a team of B & C characters with out a book to call their
>> own or, and this one's even more fun, you could make up a Dirty Dozen / Suicide Squad type of
>> team. This would be especially attractive as the Thunderbolts become more and more accepted by
>> the public and there isn't another villain/hero team out there.
>I think they should do a mini on a group like CODE:Blue was for Thor, but on the
>Guardsmen.
(To combine the two ideas ...) Make it into a soap opera type thing on
the inmates of the Vault and their complicated day to day
relationships with the Guardsmen who guard them. Good writing and
good art - that's all you need.
John B 821
>(To combine the two ideas ...) Make it into a soap opera type thing on
>the inmates of the Vault and their complicated day to day
>relationships with the Guardsmen who guard them. Good writing and
>good art - that's all you need.
Oz with capes?
Todd Kogutt: Scavenger
wrote:
>
> (To combine the two ideas ...) Make it into a soap opera type thing on
> the inmates of the Vault and their complicated day to day
> relationships with the Guardsmen who guard them. Good writing and
> good art - that's all you need.
Hmmm...and call it Supervillian Team-up, have Priest write it, and we
gots a winner!
---SCAVENGER
Alan Travis
> >>Ostrander's was in Heroes for Hire #1. Gru's was in Avengers Spotlight at
> the end of Acts of Vengeance, yeah?>>
>
> In CAPTAIN AMERICA around the time of Armor Wars, I believe.
I'll have to track that one down.
> >>Where did the one that you wrote appear?>>
>
> The first T-Bolts annual.
Great! Got that one already.
> >>Yep. Can't argue with that. Best defense I can muster is that I don't
> believe that there has been a mass breakout where the prisoners actually
> escaped into the community (except, of course, H4H, which was the deathblow for
> the concept).>>
>
> Doesn't really matter how far they get -- if they get out, the prison doesn't
> look terribly effective.
Not terribly, no.
> A super-prison that depends on unaffiliated strangers to happen buy during
> breakouts and save the day is Schmuck Central.
I guess I just don't seem to care who the Schmuck may or may not be. Local cops,
Seagate, U.S.Agent's crew, federal penitentiaries spread out all over the country
or the Vault. Doesn't matter. They all have to constantly lose their guests for
the villains to trouble the heroes.
I know you'll counter that the Vault is supposed to be better at doing so than the
rest of these institutions, but I don't think anyone's going to be able to do it
consistently well. These are the baddest villains the MU has to offer. They're
just not going to be held by anyone. I doubt the Avengers would do that great a
job if they started incarcerating villains in the Mansion.
I'm not trying to convince you, though. Just stating my opinion for the sake of
those reading the thread.
> The prison depends on effectiveness to be believably cool, but it will by
> dramatic necessity be ineffective.
I just have a fondness for prison flicks like Riot in Cell Block 11 or Bad Boys.
I'd like to see those kind of stories told in the MU and I like the Guardsmen. I
don't really care about its effectiveness. It provides an arena for fun stories
that the other prisons of the Marvel U don't exactly offer. There are many aspects
of the Marvel U that don't exactly fit logically but they are utilized because the
fun outweighs the problems.
I understand everything that you are saying and I basically agree. However,
regardless of whatever logic flaws it has, I think the concept is fun enough that
it should be continued.
You're not the guy to do it and that's fine. Hopefully, some other writer / editor
will reinstate the Vault or will continue the Cube facility we're being introduced
to in Marvel Boy.
If not, maybe I'll just have to follow Grant Morrison's advice and do something
about it myself.
Alan
Alan Travis
> >I think they should do a mini on a group like CODE:Blue was for Thor, but on the
> >Guardsmen.
>
> (To combine the two ideas ...) Make it into a soap opera type thing on
> the inmates of the Vault and their complicated day to day
> relationships with the Guardsmen who guard them. Good writing and
> good art - that's all you need.
This is what I've always wanted to see. A Vault series that dealing with inmates, guards, etc. and
the life on the inside. I don't know if it's enough for a on-going, but a limited would be fun.
Alan
Alan Travis
> Alan Travis wrote:
> > I propose rebuilding the Vault and keeping a superhero team on the premises. You could make
> > them an all-new team. You could use a team of B & C characters with out a book to call their
> > own or, and this one's even more fun, you could make up a Dirty Dozen / Suicide Squad type of
> > team. This would be especially attractive as the Thunderbolts become more and more accepted by
> > the public and there isn't another villain/hero team out there.
>
> I think they should do a mini on a group like CODE:Blue was for Thor, but on the
> Guardsmen.
Code: Blue was a DeFalco creation during his Thor run, yeah? New York cops trained to deal with
super-heroes a al Metropolis Special Crimes Unit for DC?
I haven't seen many of their appearances. Anyone know the first appearance?
Alan
Alan Travis
Sure. Hydro-Man gets a shiv between the ribs from Wrecker during the meal break.
Guardsmen toss the Wizard's cell and find weird gadgets made out of McGyver
material.
Rhino deciding whether Blizzard or Boomerang will be tossing his salad.
Alan
Dave God King Littler
> >"Welcome to the capital of the new Kree empire" tells me that he's in
> >the cube because he wants to be in the cube.
>
> Riiiiiight. And it's the same for letting SHIELD take his gear and almost
> getting killed by Midas several times. Again, your logic seriously falters.
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that Noh-Varr is full of himself enough
to actually convince himself that he planned on getting captured and
brought there all along in order to keep his massive ego in check when he
was brought in.
i love the character, mind you, but he really is both nuts and an
egomaniac. :)
--
Don't take yourself too seriously.
-Dave
quimico
>Mind you, I didn't like seeing the Vault up and disposed of like it was.
>Anyplace that gathered all sorts of villains (especially the obscure ones)
>is a wonderful place to me...
Would you accept the Wardenship of that "place"?
Ralf Haring
> This is what I've always wanted to see. A Vault series that dealing with inmates, guards, etc. and
> the life on the inside. I don't know if it's enough for a on-going, but a limited would be fun.
You might want to check out http://www.dreamwater.com/silkee/vaultgate.htm
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon
KurtBusiek
> breakouts and save the day is Schmuck Central.
>> I guess I just don't seem to care who the Schmuck may or may not be. Local
cops,
Seagate, U.S.Agent's crew, federal penitentiaries spread out all over the
country or the Vault. Doesn't matter.>>
But the only one of those things labeled "way-cool tough-ass prison!" is the
Vault. So when it fails, it looks stoopid. Cops looking less than effective
is a standard thing, as are "normal" prisons. USAgent's crew are hopped-up
federal marshals -- it's not their job to keep prisoners in, but to chase 'em
down when they break out (or to extradite them, transport them for trial,
etc.).
>> They all have to constantly lose their guests for
the villains to trouble the heroes.>>
This is why I think it's a bad idea to invent a special place that's supposed
to be cool but which is guaranteed to fail.
>> I doubt the Avengers would do that great a job if they started incarcerating
villains in the Mansion.>>
Which is a good reason for them not to do that; setting up your heroes to look
like incompetents on a regular basis is a bad idea. Letting the prison system
look like they're not up to the job is standard procedure for superheroverses.
Setting up a special thing that'll wind up looking incompetent seems like a
waste of set-up.
>>I just have a fondness for prison flicks like Riot in Cell Block 11 or Bad
Boys.>>
No reason you couldn't do that in the Superhuman Wing of Seagate, if you
wanted...
kurt
Alan Travis
> >> I guess I just don't seem to care who the Schmuck may or may not be. Local
> cops, Seagate, U.S.Agent's crew, federal penitentiaries spread out all over the
> country or the Vault. Doesn't matter.>>
>
> But the only one of those things labeled "way-cool tough-ass prison!" is the
> Vault. So when it fails, it looks stoopid. Cops looking less than effective
> is a standard thing, as are "normal" prisons.
But these can't be normal cops or normal prisons holding the likes of the Rhino or
the Wizard or Hydro-Man. They's have to mini-Vaults just spread out across the
country. I can't believe that normal cops in blue are going to push the Rhino
around a cell block.
They might not have the same rep that the Vault has to live up to, but they have
the same
expectations from the government and the public. They're going to end up failing
just as often.
They're all going to look "stoopid". Now, it's true that the Vault will get more
bad PR within the MU because it's a very high profile government program and a
solitary target but the overall success rate of keeping villains behind bars isn't
going to be better served in either situation. Unless you can quantify the odds
for breakout exponentially with each new prisoner brought to the Vault, but that's
probably taking things a little far for fiction.
> >> I doubt the Avengers would do that great a job if they started incarcerating
> villains in the Mansion.>>
>
> Which is a good reason for them not to do that; setting up your heroes to look
> like incompetents on a regular basis is a bad idea. Letting the prison system
> look like they're not up to the job is standard procedure for superheroverses.
> Setting up a special thing that'll wind up looking incompetent seems like a
> waste of set-up.
What's the difference between Seagate's super-villain incarceration tactics that we
saw in T-Bolts #26 and the Vault? It failed to prevent a riot. Abe had to stop
it.
To the eyes of a MU citizen, Seagate isn't doing any better of a job than the
Vault. In fact, the Vault seems more likely to do a better job in the long run
because it's not trying to meld a super-villain program onto its regular prison
role. The Vault is set up from the beginning to keep villains in check.
Of course, from a meta author standpoint, both are going to fail every time you
need them to, so I don't see the difference.
To my mind, worrying about logic problems for the Vault doesn't make much sense.
It's a conceit to the genre along the same lines of citizens living in Manhattan
although it's attacked by aliens and Atlanteans on pretty much a daily basis. How
many people would still live in the city if the Exemplars, Pagan, that robot guy
the Avengers fought with Cable, Galactus, Terrax, Blastaar, Magneto, and Red Skull
in the Helicarrier come bombin' through constantly? People rebuild in flood plains
and earthquake zones but the space of time between killer quakes or devastating
floods is quite a bit longer than the time between waves of super-villains hitting
NY.
I know you don't agree, but...
> >>I just have a fondness for prison flicks like Riot in Cell Block 11 or Bad
> Boys.>>
>
> No reason you couldn't do that in the Superhuman Wing of Seagate, if you
> wanted...
Except it appears to me that Seagate only had a handful of superhumans to worry
about. Not nearly as exciting. If they had a large contingent, I'd have to ask
again what's the difference between the Vault and Seagate outside of the name.
Alan
Matt Adler
> But the only one of those things labeled "way-cool tough-ass prison!" is
the
> Vault. So when it fails, it looks stoopid.
I think considering the toughness of the baddies they had, they did a fairly
good job.
Cops looking less than effective
> is a standard thing, as are "normal" prisons. USAgent's crew are
hopped-up
> federal marshals -- it's not their job to keep prisoners in, but to chase
'em
> down when they break out (or to extradite them, transport them for trial,
> etc.).
I don't see why USAgent and crew couldn't be used in the same capacity with
a central super-prison like the Vault.
> >> They all have to constantly lose their guests for
> the villains to trouble the heroes.>>
>
> This is why I think it's a bad idea to invent a special place that's
supposed
> to be cool but which is guaranteed to fail.
There could be plenty of in-story explanations for why the Vault is the only
super-prison. Cost, location, management, etc. Out-story, bottom line: It's
much more interesting to have a single center of big trouble, than a bunch
of minor trouble spots all over.
--
"Hmm, Mr. Immortal has the makings of an interesting concept, but c'mon,
Flatman is kind of dopey."
"Dopey? Where's your SENSE OF WONDER? Your vacant eyes betray the DEADNESS
OF YOUR VERY SOUL!"
-- As told by Adam Cadre
KurtBusiek
Rhino or the Wizard or Hydro-Man. They's have to mini-Vaults just spread out
across the country.>>
So what? They're still not being presented as the be-all and end-all in
superhuman confinement.
>>They might not have the same rep that the Vault has to live up to, but they
have the same expectations from the government and the public. They're going
to end up failing just as often.>>
The government and the public are fictional.
I'm talking about the readers.
>> Now, it's true that the Vault will get more bad PR within the MU -->>
PR is irrelevant. Making up a cool super-prison that will fail all the time is
a bad idea from the standpoint of publishing comics. Having a bunch of
facilities, none of which are set up as the coolest thing in incarceration
since sliced bread, does not present you with the same problem -- it doesn't
say "Look at this cool thing! Watch it fail repeatedly!"
I'm not talking about how Marvel citizens view it -- they get hosed either way.
I'm talking about publishing.
>>What's the difference between Seagate's super-villain incarceration tactics
that we saw in T-Bolts #26 and the Vault?>>
Tactics, shmactics. Seagate wasn't presented as the coolest thing in prisons,
so if it doesn't work, there's not _dramatic_ downside.
>>To the eyes of a MU citizen, Seagate isn't doing any better of a job than the
Vault.>>
MU citizens don't buy the comics.
>> Of course, from a meta author standpoint, both are going to fail every time
you need them to, so I don't see the difference.>>
The difference is one of salesmanship. If you introduce a group of commando
villains, and they always lose, well, so what? If you introduce the toughest,
best-trained, unbelievably skilled commando villains in the known universe --
and then they always lose, too -- then the claim you made upon introducing them
is clearly wrong.
It's not a matter of which will be most effective to a citizen of the MU, but
of making comic books. The Vault is presented in a way that Seagate is not.
When the Vault fails, it's not just a matter of what it means to the Marvel U,
but of it not living up to the concept as presented to the reader. Seagate is
not presented that way.
>> To my mind, worrying about logic problems for the Vault doesn't make much
sense. >>
That's fine. But this is another reason I'm not the guy to pitch new Vault
ideas at -- I think that the Vault itself is a bad fictional concept, because
it's going to fail. Thus, the idea that it's very good at what it does -- a
claim not made of Seagate -- is a claim doomed to be exposed as untrue. The
end result is that the Vault looks like a crackerbox.
I don't think it hurts Seagate if Seagate looks like a crackerbox, because
Seagate's just a prison. The Vault is supposed to be more than that, so if it
comes off as a crackerbox, the concept is damaged.
>> How many people would still live in the city if the Exemplars, Pagan, that
robot guy the Avengers fought with Cable, Galactus, Terrax, Blastaar, Magneto,
and Red Skull in the Helicarrier come bombin' through constantly? >>
I don't care -- I'm talking about the Vault as part of an entertainment
structure, not as part of an alternate reality. The people in the alternate
reality do what I tell them to.
>>I know you don't agree, but...>>
It's not that I don't agree, it's that you're looking at it from inside the
universe, and I'm looking at it from outside.
> Except it appears to me that Seagate only had a handful of superhumans to
worry about.>
So load it up. Prison overcrowding is hardly a difficult thing to establish.
>> If they had a large contingent, I'd have to ask again what's the difference
between the Vault and Seagate outside of the name.>>
And the answer, again, is that nobody made any highfalutin claims for Seagate.
If it fails, it's a prison failing. If the Vault fails, it's the prison that
isn't supposed to fail failing.
Next time, Seagate doesn't look any worse -- any more than the cops look worse
for getting overwhelmed time after time. That's just how fiction goes. But
the Vault looks worse, because its basic premise -- that it's better at the job
than Seagate -- is an unworkable premise due to Marvel's need for its
incarceratees to escape.
kurt
Rob Hansen
>The difference is one of salesmanship. If you introduce a group of commando
>villains, and they always lose, well, so what? If you introduce the toughest,
>best-trained, unbelievably skilled commando villains in the known universe --
>and then they always lose, too -- then the claim you made upon introducing them
>is clearly wrong.
This is what I always liked about the Fury in the Moore/Davis CAPTAIN
BRITAIN. It was presented as an almost unstoppable killing machine,
and it was. Every time it appeared, a regular character died - even
Captain Britain was blasted to pieces by it (though later recreated by
Merlin) - and it even escaped the destruction of an entire parallel
universe in it's pursuit of him. Burying it under several hundred tons
of rock merely delayed it for a while, and it was only finally
destroyed after first being softened up in battle with a man who had
the power to reshape reality, whom it killed.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.
Alan Travis
> >>But these can't be normal cops or normal prisons holding the likes
of the
> Rhino or the Wizard or Hydro-Man. They's have to mini-Vaults just
spread out
> across the country.>>
>
> So what? They're still not being presented as the be-all and end-all
in
> superhuman confinement.
Right. So... Let's contrast the Vault with, say...SHIELD. SHIELD has
a track record of being shown as inept and corrupt. But, there is
nothing about SHIELD as a literary concept that requires these kind of
stories be told. The Vault, on the other hand, is a flawed concept so
the kind of stories that show the Vault in the unflattering way are
unavoidable.
Yeah?
Again, I guess this just comes down to subjective opinions of how much
this built-in flaw bothers people. It doesn't really affect me.
I don't see how it's possible for the idea of the Vault to do a better
job than it does, therefore it's still a workable concept for inclusion
within the MU.
I see the Vault as being the one place where the government is trying
their VERY BEST to keep these insanely dangerous villains incarcerated,
but escapes are inevitable. However, due to the special nature of the
Vault, it does a better job than any other facility. It's an impossible
gig, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted.
Within the context of the MU, I think the Vault must do a better job
than regular facilities like Seagate or... what was the name of the
prison off Manhattan?
Which is more than enough to justify its existence as a story element
within the tapestry of the Marvel Universe.
I know that it's not for you, though. Still not trying to convince ya.
> The difference is one of salesmanship. If you introduce a group of
commando
> villains, and they always lose, well, so what? If you introduce the
toughest,
> best-trained, unbelievably skilled commando villains in the known
universe --
> and then they always lose, too -- then the claim you made upon
introducing them
> is clearly wrong.
Well, isn't Dr. Doom presented as the most nefarious super-villain?
Isn't Magneto presented as the world's most dangerous mutant? They
consistently lose to the FF and such.
By that logic, doesn't the fact that these supposedly dangerous men keep
failing month in and month out diminish them as threats?
Especially when more and more heroes are added to the lists of those
that have defeated them.
> It's not a matter of which will be most effective to a citizen of the
MU, but
> of making comic books. The Vault is presented in a way that Seagate
is not.
> When the Vault fails, it's not just a matter of what it means to the
Marvel U,
> but of it not living up to the concept as presented to the reader.
Seagate is
> not presented that way.
Well, who says what the concept of the Vault is to the reader? Why
can't the concept be that it's the most dangerous place in the world?
> That's fine. But this is another reason I'm not the guy to pitch new
Vault
> ideas at -- I think that the Vault itself is a bad fictional concept,
because
> it's going to fail. Thus, the idea that it's very good at what it
does -- a
> claim not made of Seagate -- is a claim doomed to be exposed as
untrue. The
> end result is that the Vault looks like a crackerbox.
>
> I don't think it hurts Seagate if Seagate looks like a crackerbox,
because
> Seagate's just a prison. The Vault is supposed to be more than that,
so if it
> comes off as a crackerbox, the concept is damaged.
So you don't think that a MU that doesn't have a place to hold these
guys that is not a crackerbox is a illogical place?
It seems far more logical to me to think of the MU as a place that has a
Vault (a place more prepared than a standard prison to incarcerate these
guys) than a regular prison. Even if it is incapable of living up to
its intended goal, it's better than continually funnelling these guys
into a system that is even more unprepared to hold them.
The Vault will do a better job of holding these guys than Seagate.
> >> How many people would still live in the city if the Exemplars,
Pagan, that
> robot guy the Avengers fought with Cable, Galactus, Terrax, Blastaar,
Magneto,
> and Red Skull in the Helicarrier come bombin' through constantly? >>
>
> I don't care -- I'm talking about the Vault as part of an
entertainment
> structure, not as part of an alternate reality. The people in the
alternate
> reality do what I tell them to.
I guess this is why we differ on this point. I think of the Vault as
fictional place within a fictional world. I'm less interested in meta
story aspects than I am in how this alternate universe where all the
stories happen works.
> >>I know you don't agree, but...>>
>
> It's not that I don't agree, it's that you're looking at it from
inside the
> universe, and I'm looking at it from outside.
Right. Isn't it more important to look at what makes the Marvel
Universe a more believable and entertaining place than what makes the
most story sense? I'm more concerned with how the Vault works within
the MU than I am in how the Vault holds up to critical analysis.
> > Except it appears to me that Seagate only had a handful of
superhumans to
> worry about.>
>
> So load it up. Prison overcrowding is hardly a difficult thing to
establish.
>
> >> If they had a large contingent, I'd have to ask again what's the
difference
> between the Vault and Seagate outside of the name.>>
>
> And the answer, again, is that nobody made any highfalutin claims for
Seagate.
When you say "nobody" to whom are you referring?
> If it fails, it's a prison failing. If the Vault fails, it's the
prison that
> isn't supposed to fail failing.
Can there be such a thing as a prison that can't fail?
> Next time, Seagate doesn't look any worse -- any more than the cops
look worse
> for getting overwhelmed time after time. That's just how fiction
goes. But
> the Vault looks worse, because its basic premise -- that it's better
at the job
> than Seagate -- is an unworkable premise due to Marvel's need for its
> incarceratees to escape.
Oh, I think it's better at the job than Seagate. If such a thing could
be tracked, I'm sure that it did a better job of holding more prisoners
for longer periods than Seagate.
Alan
KurtBusiek
Magneto presented as the world's most dangerous mutant? They consistently lose
to the FF and such.>>
Actually, they don't. Over the years, they stopped losing anywhere near as
much -- used to be they'd die or get captured, but nowadays they walk away
unscathed, more often than not. They have setbacks far more often than
outright failures.
The villains who lose all the time get reps like the Beetle...
>>By that logic, doesn't the fact that these supposedly dangerous men keep
failing month in and month out diminish them as threats?>>
It certainly did for the Beetle, and many others like him. Heck, when I picked
up Baron Zemo, he'd been involved in one impressive story and a bunch of
stories in which he whined, cried, got henpecked and lost, over and over.
First thing I resolved was that as long as I was writing him, he'd never lose,
not completely. A scheme might fail, but he'd get away, at least. Or he might
appear to die, but was actually safe in a hidden stronghold, activating Plan B.
Did wonders for his reputation.
>> Well, who says what the concept of the Vault is to the reader? Why can't
the concept be that it's the most dangerous place in the world?>>
Could be, of course. But that's not what it was intended to be -- that's not
the concept as it was presented, which is what I'm talking about.
>>So you don't think that a MU that doesn't have a place to hold these guys
that is not a crackerbox is a illogical place?>>
I don't think there's any choice in the matter. They're going to escape.
Thus, the places they end up imprisoned are going to seem like crackerboxes --
especially if you (a) name them, and (b) send all the super-villains to the
same place. I don't really care if that makes the Marvel U. an illogical place
-- logic comes in second to entertainment, and should.
>>The Vault will do a better job of holding these guys than Seagate.>>
No, it won't. They'll get out. Every time a writer needs them, they'll get
out -- regardless of where they are. There is literally no prison imaginable
that can hold even a powerless criminal like, say, the Penguin, if a writer
wants him out.
>> Right. Isn't it more important to look at what makes the Marvel Universe a
more believable and entertaining place than what makes the most story sense?>>
Hell no. For one thing, I have to write stories in it, so story sense matters.
For another, it's the stories that make it entertaining, not the framework of
the alternate universe. The stories are the meat -- the cross-connections are
the gravy.
And if an idea looks cool on paper but is going to look ineffective and stupid
in practice, then it's what it'll look like in practice that matters. How many
Vault stories have been published that didn't involve prisoners escaping from
this supposedly nigh-impregnable place?
>> I'm more concerned with how the Vault works within the MU than I am in how
the Vault holds up to critical analysis.>>
I'm more concerned with how the Vault works as a storytelling element. I'm not
a critic; I'm a storyteller.
>>When you say "nobody" to whom are you referring?>>
Er, nobody. I specifically meant those who presented Seagate to the readers;
the writers, editors and artists -- they presented it as a hellhole, but not as
the be-all and end-all of incarceration. But I can't recall anyone, within or
outside the Marvel Universe that made such a claim about Seagate.
> Can there be such a thing as a prison that can't fail? >
Not if you put Dr. Octopus in it. It's not that he's so capable or smart --
it's just that he's needed on the outside on a reasonably regular basis.
And if you establish one supposedly-capable place that can't even hold, say,
the Rhino, then even if you want to do an Oz-like story about the worst
super-villain hell-hole in the world, it's going to make the people stuck there
look even lamer if they can't get out, but the Rhino's been in and out nine
times during their sentence.
Better, to my mind, to spread 'em out. That way, if the Rhino escaped from
Seagate, when you catch him again you can send him somewhere else. Or better
yet, send him somewhere unnamed, so you don't repeatedly establish one location
as an easy-to-get-out place. It's the most-often used prison locations in the
Marvel U. (the Vault and Riker's) that look the most like pushovers, because
we've seen so many people break out.
> Oh, I think it's better at the job than Seagate. If such a thing could be
tracked, I'm sure that it did a better job of holding more prisoners for longer
periods than Seagate.>
I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong. Offhand, I can think of one successful
breakout from Seagate -- Luke Cage. I can think of many, many more instances
of escapes -- both singleton escapes and mass escapes -- from the Vault. Even
if I've missed four or five Seagate escapes, it'd have a long, long way to go
to catch up with the boondoggle that was the Vault.
The Vault existed for a comparatively short time, where it was subject to
numerous breakouts. Seagate was around far longer -- especially since it was
introduced as an old facility -- and if it had as many breakouts over its
history as the Vault did in its, we sure didn't hear about it. Riker's Island
had more breakouts, but they didn't involve mass escapes, and Riker's was never
presented as state-of-the-art.
kurt
Matt Adler
> The villains who lose all the time get reps like the Beetle...
I gotta disagree. I think the Beetle, and others like him, have the rep they
do because their powers aren't part of them, ie; you take away the Beetle's
armor and he's pretty much helpless.
> >> Well, who says what the concept of the Vault is to the reader? Why
can't
> the concept be that it's the most dangerous place in the world?>>
>
> Could be, of course. But that's not what it was intended to be -- that's
not
> the concept as it was presented, which is what I'm talking about.
Heh. C'mon Kurt. You're the master of taking poor concepts and developing
them into interesting ones.
> >>The Vault will do a better job of holding these guys than Seagate.>>
>
> No, it won't. They'll get out. Every time a writer needs them, they'll
get
> out -- regardless of where they are. There is literally no prison
imaginable
> that can hold even a powerless criminal like, say, the Penguin, if a
writer
> wants him out.
Isn't that the fault of the writer rather than the concept?
> > Can there be such a thing as a prison that can't fail? >
>
> Not if you put Dr. Octopus in it. It's not that he's so capable or
smart --
> it's just that he's needed on the outside on a reasonably regular basis.
Then don't put him in it. Or don't make his escape look so easy.
> The Vault existed for a comparatively short time, where it was subject to
> numerous breakouts. Seagate was around far longer -- especially since it
was
> introduced as an old facility -- and if it had as many breakouts over its
> history as the Vault did in its, we sure didn't hear about it. Riker's
Island
> had more breakouts, but they didn't involve mass escapes, and Riker's was
never
> presented as state-of-the-art.
That doesn't make the Vault a failure. By the laws of statistics, if you
hold more and tougher criminals, you're going to have more escapes. The
Vault had a pretty good record, considering how many bad-asses they held on
a regular basis.
Michael Alan Chary
KurtBusiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>The villains who lose all the time get reps like the Beetle...
Besides, whenever you beat Doomsy, it's a robot.
One of my favorite FF moments was Dr. Doom coming back to Earth in Walt
Simonson's run.
>>>So you don't think that a MU that doesn't have a place to hold these guys
>that is not a crackerbox is a illogical place?>>
>
>I don't think there's any choice in the matter. They're going to escape.
>Thus, the places they end up imprisoned are going to seem like crackerboxes --
>especially if you (a) name them, and (b) send all the super-villains to the
>same place. I don't really care if that makes the Marvel U. an illogical place
>-- logic comes in second to entertainment, and should.
If the Marvel Universe was serious about prison security, or at least if
superheroes were, people like Reed and Dr. SWtrange or at least Rick Jones
would go for the Phantom Zone solution: they'd say: build a prison in an
alternate dimension. Then when they escape, where are they going to go.
Of course, that only works until Loki decides he wants an army of
supervillains, and it makes it that much harder for Spidey and the others
to respond.
--
"Since Auschwitz we know what man is capable of. And since Hiroshima we know
what is at stake." -Viktor Frankl, author, neurologist and psychiatrist,
Holocaust survivor (1905-1997)
Leviathan
> If the Marvel Universe was serious about prison security, or at least if
> superheroes were, people like Reed and Dr. SWtrange or at least Rick Jones
> would go for the Phantom Zone solution: they'd say: build a prison in an
> alternate dimension. Then when they escape, where are they going to go.
Oh, Bob Ingersoll could have some fun with that! Does time pass at the
same rate in this alternate universe? Suppose you can serve 20 years
over there, and show up on Earth five seconds later? Just 'cause the
passage of time between the two universes is linked through Reed
Richards' portal doesn't mean that it is everywhere else. How can that
possibly be constitutional?
Moreover, these alternate dimensions aren't within the territory of the
USA, nor any given city nor state within them. Does _any_ part of the
United States have a legal right to stash its prisoners outside of the
country? Why can't the prisoners kill the guards and leave? They didn't
do it in the US. Are there local laws in the other dimension against it?
I see serious jurisdictional issues.
--
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
Leviathan of the GEI - Detached
jsh...@leviathanstudios.com
http://www.leviathanstudios.com/
"Talk about passing the time!"
-Special Agent Fox W. Mulder, FBI
Paul O'Brien
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>This is what I always liked about the Fury in the Moore/Davis CAPTAIN
>BRITAIN. It was presented as an almost unstoppable killing machine,
>and it was.
Yes, but that could only be maintained because it was used sparingly.
In the context it appeared in, the Fury could maintain it's near-
unbeatable track record. Dramatic requirements of the Marvel Universe
make it simply impossible for the Vault to hold villains in, and that
means it's doomed to end up looking like a joke.
It's a more serious example of what's happened to the Juggernaut,
who in the last decade or so has seemed to become the Marvel Universe's
designated punching bag who gets beaten up to establish somebody else
as being even more powerful than he is. At least when the X-Men were
beating him, they had his built-in weakness to take advantage of; his
credibility as an unstoppable villain was pretty much dead when he
started jobbing to Spider-Man.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
Relax - Bush can't count as far as World War III.
KurtBusiek
powers aren't part of them, ie; you take away the Beetle's armor and he's
pretty much helpless.>>
I don't think that's the case at all -- there are powered villains who are
thought of as schmoes, and non-powered villains thought of as impressive. I
mentioned Zemo last time -- he's got no powers, and he's been both dismissed as
a loser (when he lost all the time and acted like one) and thought of as
impressive when he stopped losing. Powers weren't necessary.
> C'mon Kurt. You're the master of taking poor concepts and developing them
into interesting ones.>
You assume that I could do it with anything,then -- but I picks and chooses, so
maybe it's that I've got an eye for which comcepts have unrealized potential
and which just don't work.
> >>The Vault will do a better job of holding these guys than Seagate.>>
> No, it won't. They'll get out. Every time a writer needs them, they'll get
> out -- regardless of where they are. There is literally no prison imaginable
> that can hold even a powerless criminal like, say, the Penguin, if a writer
> wants him out.
>>Isn't that the fault of the writer rather than the concept?>>
If the concept is, "This is where we put the super-villains so they don't get
out," and you've got a world that requires the super-villains to get out, then
it's the fault of whomever introduced a concept like that into a world that
mitigates against it.
But I'm not assessing fault -- I'm simply pointing out why I think the Vault's
a bad idea.
> Then don't put him in it. Or don't make his escape look so easy. >
If you don't put him -- and the others like him -- in it, then it's not the
Vault. And enough villains are going to need to get out that it's going to
look easy by default, since it happens often enough.
> That doesn't make the Vault a failure.>
Sure it does.
> By the laws of statistics, if you hold more and tougher criminals, you're
going to have more escapes.>
Then don't put 'em all in the same place. The purpose of the Vault was to
overcome that, not to have the same results but all in one place, so each
breakout carries with it the likelihood of mass breakout by dangerous and
violent super-criminals.
>> The Vault had a pretty good record, considering how many bad-asses they held
on a regular basis.>>
The Vault had a terrible record. Virtually the only criminal they could hold
was the Armadillo, who didn't want to break out -- and even _he_ broke out
once, gasses into thinking he wanted to do it.
During the Vault's short existence, they had a near-constant stream of
breakouts. For a prison that was supposed to be actually good at keeping
precisely this kind of convicts in, they failed at their purpose over and over
and over.
kurt
Michael Alan Chary
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <9lgf9t02v70s9hea7...@4ax.com>, Rob Hansen
><r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>This is what I always liked about the Fury in the Moore/Davis CAPTAIN
>>BRITAIN. It was presented as an almost unstoppable killing machine,
>>and it was.
>
>Yes, but that could only be maintained because it was used sparingly.
>In the context it appeared in, the Fury could maintain it's near-
>unbeatable track record. Dramatic requirements of the Marvel Universe
>make it simply impossible for the Vault to hold villains in, and that
>means it's doomed to end up looking like a joke.
>
>It's a more serious example of what's happened to the Juggernaut,
>who in the last decade or so has seemed to become the Marvel Universe's
>designated punching bag who gets beaten up to establish somebody else
>as being even more powerful than he is. At least when the X-Men were
>beating him, they had his built-in weakness to take advantage of; his
>credibility as an unstoppable villain was pretty much dead when he
>started jobbing to Spider-Man.
Spidey's not a light-weight. And the story in which he beat Juggy was
believable. I agree with you in principle.
Paul O'Brien
<mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
>
>Spidey's not a light-weight. And the story in which he beat Juggy was
>believable. I agree with you in principle.
If Spider-Man beats the Juggernaut once, it's an upset win for the
underdog. But when poor old Cain keeps losing to heroes on those
power levels, it's a difficulty. The way the character's established,
after all, he should steamroller anyone who isn't either a telepath or
a mystic.
Michael Alan Chary
><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
>>
>>Spidey's not a light-weight. And the story in which he beat Juggy was
>>believable. I agree with you in principle.
>
>If Spider-Man beats the Juggernaut once, it's an upset win for the
>underdog. But when poor old Cain keeps losing to heroes on those
>power levels, it's a difficulty. The way the character's established,
>after all, he should steamroller anyone who isn't either a telepath or
>a mystic.
Spidey should beat Juggernaut consistent because a) Spiderman is not a
lightweight b) Spiderman is a *lot* smarter than Marko and c) Spiderman
has a fantastic speed advantage.
Ali beat Foreman, after all.
Matt Adler
> I don't think that's the case at all -- there are powered villains who are
> thought of as schmoes, and non-powered villains thought of as impressive.
I
> mentioned Zemo last time -- he's got no powers, and he's been both
dismissed as
> a loser (when he lost all the time and acted like one) and thought of as
> impressive when he stopped losing. Powers weren't necessary.
Well, in his case, his being a brilliant schemer is a sort of power. Of
course, you could write the Beetle as a master inventor, but I don't see him
being on the level of say, Techno.
> You assume that I could do it with anything,then -- but I picks and
chooses, so
> maybe it's that I've got an eye for which comcepts have unrealized
potential
> and which just don't work.
Maybe. Or maybe every concept has unrealized potential, and you pick the
ones that occur to you :)
> If the concept is, "This is where we put the super-villains so they don't
get
> out," and you've got a world that requires the super-villains to get out,
then
> it's the fault of whomever introduced a concept like that into a world
that
> mitigates against it.
But the concept is "This is where we put super-villains where they have the
least chance of doing anyone harm". And that was true of the Vault.
> If you don't put him -- and the others like him -- in it, then it's not
the
> Vault.
I mean, don't constantly write stories where he gets caught and imprisoned.
That, in and of itself, makes the bad guy look weak, no matter where you
lock him up.
And enough villains are going to need to get out that it's going to
> look easy by default, since it happens often enough.
If their escape is written well, rather than just "Doc Ock escaped again,"
then it doesn't look so easy.
> Then don't put 'em all in the same place. The purpose of the Vault was to
> overcome that, not to have the same results but all in one place, so each
> breakout carries with it the likelihood of mass breakout by dangerous and
> violent super-criminals.
By concentrating them in one remote area, you're limiting the area of
danger. Also, funding and other resources are more centralized and can be
put to better use than with a few dozen miniature Vaults.
Matt Adler
news:UdSp4MAQ...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> In article <97c1c3$8ps$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Michael Alan Chary
> <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
> >
> >Spidey should beat Juggernaut consistent because a) Spiderman is not a
> >lightweight b) Spiderman is a *lot* smarter than Marko and c) Spiderman
> >has a fantastic speed advantage.
>
> any damage. He could ESCAPE the Juggernaut no problem, but in terms
> of stopping the Juggernaut from doing anything, he really shouldn't
> stand a chance. The Juggernaut simply ignores him and walks onwards.
Juggy isn't smart enough to do that, plus he's got a bad temper, which
Spidey is skilled and practiced at exploiting in more powerful foes.
Paul O'Brien
<mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
>
>Spidey should beat Juggernaut consistent because a) Spiderman is not a
>lightweight b) Spiderman is a *lot* smarter than Marko and c) Spiderman
>has a fantastic speed advantage.
Doesn't matter; Spider-Man shouldn't be able to do the Juggernaut
any damage. He could ESCAPE the Juggernaut no problem, but in terms
of stopping the Juggernaut from doing anything, he really shouldn't
stand a chance. The Juggernaut simply ignores him and walks onwards.
Paul O'Brien
KurtBusiek
least chance of doing anyone harm". And that was true of the Vault.>>
No, not really. The Vault was supposed to be a prison -- a place that was
escape-proof. That was its intent as introduced. If they just wanted a place
that villains would have the least chance of doing any harm, there's always the
morgue.
>>I mean, don't constantly write stories where he gets caught and imprisoned.>>
We're not talking about one guy. Doc Ock was shorthand for all the villains
like him that are regularly needed for stories. If introducing the Vault as a
concept means that from then on, none of the really valuable villains can get
caught, I think it's not just a bad idea, but it's limiting on what kind of
stories you can write.
>>If their escape is written well, rather than just "Doc Ock escaped again,"
then it doesn't look so easy.>>
I disagree, since it's going to be happening so often. But I'm just repeating
myself at this point.
>>By concentrating them in one remote area, you're limiting the area of
danger.>>
No, not really -- not when multiple mass breakouts free villains who can leave
the area. Putting them in various remote prisons has the same geographical
effect, without the danger of mass breakouts.
>>Also, funding and other resources are more centralized and can be put to
better use than with a few dozen miniature Vaults.>>
I disagree. Repairing the Vault must have eaten up huge amounts of money.
Breakouts at smaller prisons -- which don't have to be "mini-Vaults" -- seem to
have done far less damage, based on reading the stories.
kurt
Alan Travis
> Juggy isn't smart enough to do that, plus he's got a bad temper, which
> Spidey is skilled and practiced at exploiting in more powerful foes.
He's not smart enough to stand there while Spider-Man uselessly pounds on him?
What's he going to do? Take a swing and knock himself out?
Alan
Michael Alan Chary
><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
>>
>>Spidey should beat Juggernaut consistent because a) Spiderman is not a
>>lightweight b) Spiderman is a *lot* smarter than Marko and c) Spiderman
>>has a fantastic speed advantage.
>
>Doesn't matter; Spider-Man shouldn't be able to do the Juggernaut
>any damage. He could ESCAPE the Juggernaut no problem, but in terms
>of stopping the Juggernaut from doing anything, he really shouldn't
>stand a chance. The Juggernaut simply ignores him and walks onwards.
That's what *we* would do if we were Juggernaut. When has Juggernaut ever
ignored anyone? Spidey can guide Juggy anywhere he wants. And he didn't
really stop Juggernaut because he showed up months later.
I have a theory about all of Juggy's defeated through pure strength, well
three theories:
One, there's another guy called Juggernaut. Kane Marko. His power is from
Sytorrac. He's the secondary Juggernaut, that's who everyone keeps
beating. Chuck screwed him over too. Sort of like Secondary Adamantium
without Kurt Busiek to do promotion.
Two, Juggy got sick of fighting Chuck all the time and decided he wanted
the occasional vacation. He bought some Jugbots from Doom, and whenever
Onslaught or Apocalypse or Cable or whoever is beating the crap out of
Juggernaut, it's a robot, and Cain is, in fact, on a beach somewhere,
probably the Provence, drinking fine wine and watching bikini bottoms with
his buddy Black Tom.
Three, Juggernaut is still a human being, so he sees Onslaught or whoever,
and it startles him for a split second, and he stops. Since he has to move
for his power of unstoppability to work, that split second is long enough
for Mr. Super Duper Badass to clock him.
Matt Adler
news:3A99D015...@earthlink.net...
No, he'll chase Spidey into a quagmire of cement and get stuck.
thad a doria
Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <20010225011550...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
>KurtBusiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>>The villains who lose all the time get reps like the Beetle...
>
>Besides, whenever you beat Doomsy, it's a robot.
>
>One of my favorite FF moments was Dr. Doom coming back to Earth in Walt
>Simonson's run.
That was a stroke of genius. Shame it was undone a few months later.
--
"Let's get this ballgame on the road."
Michael Alan Chary
Kevin J. Maroney
>any damage.
Note that in the story in question, *Spidey* didn't do the Juggernaut
any significant damage. He tricked the Juggernaut into imprisoning
himself in a construction site.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Unplugged Games | kmar...@ungames.com
"Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Maroney. You are free
to leave."--Hyperion, _Squadron Supreme_ (by Mark Gruenwald)
Kevin J. Maroney
>If the concept is, "This is where we put the super-villains so they don't get
>out," and you've got a world that requires the super-villains to get out, then
>it's the fault of whomever introduced a concept like that into a world that
>mitigates against it.
That isn't the concept of the Vault, though. The Vault is "where we
put super-villains so they don't get out so often".
It is an inescapable law of the universe that super-villains can't be
kept in prison. No one is to blame for that.
thad a doria
Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <ynum6.3$e22...@newsfeed.uchicago.edu>,
>thad a doria <do...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>In article <97b87j$g1s$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <20010225011550...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
>>>KurtBusiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>>>>The villains who lose all the time get reps like the Beetle...
>>>
>>>Besides, whenever you beat Doomsy, it's a robot.
>>>
>>>One of my favorite FF moments was Dr. Doom coming back to Earth in Walt
>>>Simonson's run.
>>
>>That was a stroke of genius. Shame it was undone a few months later.
>
>What happened?
In a back-up story in the following FF annual (by Art Adams and I think
Tom DeFalco), the whole "coming back to Earth/you haven't seen the real
Doom in years" thing was retconned as just another bluff. IIRC, they
pretty much said that Doom lies about the Doombots impersonating him, in
order to avoid admitting failure...
Rob Hansen
I thought it was a terrible idea. The real Doom was supposed to have
been in space since, what - FF #6? This would have made a mockery of
most of the Doom issues after than. This was worse than Spidey having
been replaced by a clone for the past 20 years.
Shawn Hill
: But the only one of those things labeled "way-cool tough-ass prison!" is the
: Vault. So when it fails, it looks stoopid. Cops looking less than effective
: is a standard thing, as are "normal" prisons. USAgent's crew are hopped-up
: federal marshals -- it's not their job to keep prisoners in, but to chase 'em
: down when they break out (or to extradite them, transport them for trial,
: etc.).
Does Takron-Galtos fall into that category too?
Shawn
KurtBusiek
super-villains so they don't get out so often". >>
Aside from the fact that that's not how the Vault was introduced -- it fails at
that concept, too. They get out just as often. Thanks to mass escapes,
perhaps more often.
kurt
KurtBusiek
Takron-Galtos has the advantage of being series-specific, set in the future,
and attached to a series that doesn't overwhelmingly use super-criminal as its
antagonists. If it were where they send all of Superman, Batman and the
Flash's villains when they get caught, it'd look like a crackerbox, too.
kurt
Michael Alan Chary
Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:12:30 GMT, do...@midway.uchicago.edu (thad a
>doria) wrote:
>
>>In article <97b87j$g1s$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <20010225011550...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
>>>KurtBusiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>>>>The villains who lose all the time get reps like the Beetle...
>>>
>>>Besides, whenever you beat Doomsy, it's a robot.
>>>
>>>One of my favorite FF moments was Dr. Doom coming back to Earth in Walt
>>>Simonson's run.
>>
>>That was a stroke of genius. Shame it was undone a few months later.
>
>I thought it was a terrible idea. The real Doom was supposed to have
>been in space since, what - FF #6? This would have made a mockery of
>most of the Doom issues after than. This was worse than Spidey having
>been replaced by a clone for the past 20 years.
I saw Walt Simonson's FF run as a lampoon of all the things bad comics
writers were doing at the time: gratuitous guest shots, mindless battles
scenes, alternate realities, huge retcons. It was great riproaring
entertainment.
Shawn Hill
:>>Does Takron-Galtos fall into that category too?>>
Still, most of the stories that have used it have involved breakouts, thus
fitting your theory.
I just always really liked the idea of a completely artificial world.
Shawn
Alan Travis
> "Alan Travis" <alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3A99D015...@earthlink.net...
> > Matt Adler wrote:
> >
> > > Juggy isn't smart enough to do that, plus he's got a bad temper, which
> > > Spidey is skilled and practiced at exploiting in more powerful foes.
> >
> > He's not smart enough to stand there while Spider-Man uselessly pounds on
> him?
> >
> > What's he going to do? Take a swing and knock himself out?
>
> No, he'll chase Spidey into a quagmire of cement and get stuck.
And that's going to work consistently?
Alan
Alan Travis
> >>Well, isn't Dr. Doom presented as the most nefarious super-villain? Isn't
> Magneto presented as the world's most dangerous mutant? They consistently lose
> to the FF and such.>>
>
> Actually, they don't. Over the years, they stopped losing anywhere near as
> much -- used to be they'd die or get captured, but nowadays they walk away
> unscathed, more often than not. They have setbacks far more often than
> outright failures.
What's so threatening about a guy that is consistently handed setbacks? I mean,
with Ultron, you had him kill a whole country. Now, he ended up losing but he
still maintains that he is one dangerous threat. When was the last time that Doom
or Magneto did anything more than chew up the heroes weekend plans?
> The villains who lose all the time get reps like the Beetle...
Reps is a good word. When Beetle was first introduced, he didn't have a rep for
being a loser. His threat level has been downgraded over time, beginning with his
very first encounter where he loses to... Spidey, was it?
Now, the Vault is set up as the mother of all prisons but gains a rep for being a
fallible institution. It was intended by its builders (within the MU and without)
to be a very effective prison for the super-villain community but ends up suffering
the same or even more number of escapes because its improved defenses are balanced
out with a larger number of a more dangerous variety of inmates.
> >>By that logic, doesn't the fact that these supposedly dangerous men keep
> failing month in and month out diminish them as threats?>>
>
> It certainly did for the Beetle, and many others like him. Heck, when I picked
> up Baron Zemo, he'd been involved in one impressive story and a bunch of
> stories in which he whined, cried, got henpecked and lost, over and over.
> First thing I resolved was that as long as I was writing him, he'd never lose,
> not completely. A scheme might fail, but he'd get away, at least. Or he might
> appear to die, but was actually safe in a hidden stronghold, activating Plan B.
> Did wonders for his reputation.
And I thank you for restoring one of my favorite villains to prominence. Can you
do the same for the Taskmaster?
> >> Well, who says what the concept of the Vault is to the reader? Why can't
> the concept be that it's the most dangerous place in the world?>>
>
> Could be, of course. But that's not what it was intended to be -- that's not
> the concept as it was presented, which is what I'm talking about.
But why can't that concept change over time as characters change with the years?
Why must the Vault be disqualified because of problems with one aspect of the
concept?
> >>So you don't think that a MU that doesn't have a place to hold these guys
> that is not a crackerbox is a illogical place?>>
>
> I don't think there's any choice in the matter. They're going to escape.
> Thus, the places they end up imprisoned are going to seem like crackerboxes --
> especially if you (a) name them, and (b) send all the super-villains to the
> same place. I don't really care if that makes the Marvel U. an illogical place
> -- logic comes in second to entertainment, and should.
I have to tell you, Kurt, that, IMO, it seems that logic is getting in the way of
the entertaining concept known as the Vault.
> >>The Vault will do a better job of holding these guys than Seagate.>>
>
> No, it won't. They'll get out. Every time a writer needs them, they'll get
> out -- regardless of where they are. There is literally no prison imaginable
> that can hold even a powerless criminal like, say, the Penguin, if a writer
> wants him out.
Right. Have there been any Vault stories that didn't involve a break? Have there
been any Seagate stories that haven't involved a break? Just curious.
The Vault has many appearances where no one escapes. I wouldn't say that they were
Vault stories, per se, but there are numerous appearances where people are dropped
off at the Vault, IIRC.
> >> Right. Isn't it more important to look at what makes the Marvel Universe a
> more believable and entertaining place than what makes the most story sense?>>
>
> Hell no. For one thing, I have to write stories in it, so story sense matters.
> For another, it's the stories that make it entertaining, not the framework of
> the alternate universe. The stories are the meat -- the cross-connections are
> the gravy.
>
> And if an idea looks cool on paper but is going to look ineffective and stupid
> in practice, then it's what it'll look like in practice that matters. How many
> Vault stories have been published that didn't involve prisoners escaping from
> this supposedly nigh-impregnable place?
I'm going to find out.
> I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong. Offhand, I can think of one successful
> breakout from Seagate -- Luke Cage.
Well, if you're talking about breakouts, then the only Vault breakout I know about
is the one where the U-Foes attacked with the Hulk. All the other times they've
had breaks but they haven't actually escaped the prison. Which is the same
situation as the riot that Abe shut down in T-Bolts.
> The Vault existed for a comparatively short time, where it was subject to
> numerous breakouts.
Do you remember any offhand? I'm not asking you to do any research.
> Seagate was around far longer -- especially since it was
> introduced as an old facility -- and if it had as many breakouts over its
> history as the Vault did in its, we sure didn't hear about it.
But we can assume they existed. You've reminded readers that things can happen
off-panel between issues or storylines, etc. Why can't we assume that (although we
haven't seen all of them on-panel) that places like Seagate and Riker's had 4-5
times as many breaks as the Vault. Still, we tend to see the Vault escapes because
they are more dramatic (more interesting?).
> Riker's Island had more breakouts, but they didn't involve mass escapes, and
> Riker's was never presented as state-of-the-art.
Just out of pure curiousity, what do you think of Arkham Asylum?
Alan
Matt Adler
Hopefully Spidey won't have to fight Juggy on a consistent basis.
Matt Adler
news:97fg1g$j9o$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
There was prison world for superhuman criminals in Guardians of the
Galaxy... Charlie-27 got sent there when he was framed as the serial killer
Ripjak, who had been blowing up planets... Drax the Destroyer was imprisoned
there too...
Alan Travis
> "Alan Travis" <alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3A9B4D44...@earthlink.net...
> > Matt Adler wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Travis" <alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3A99D015...@earthlink.net...
> > > > Matt Adler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Juggy isn't smart enough to do that, plus he's got a bad temper,
> which
> > > > > Spidey is skilled and practiced at exploiting in more powerful foes.
> > > >
> > > > He's not smart enough to stand there while Spider-Man uselessly pounds
> on
> > > him?
> > > >
> > > > What's he going to do? Take a swing and knock himself out?
> > >
> > > No, he'll chase Spidey into a quagmire of cement and get stuck.
> >
> > And that's going to work consistently?
>
> Hopefully Spidey won't have to fight Juggy on a consistent basis.
But that's what was said...that Spidey could beat the Juggernaut on a consistent
basis.
Chary said it.
Alan
Michael Alan Chary
Alan Travis <alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Hopefully Spidey won't have to fight Juggy on a consistent basis.
>
>But that's what was said...that Spidey could beat the Juggernaut on a consistent
>basis.
>
>Chary said it.
Look, Juggernaut is not the only super strong nigh invulnerable guy
around. Spidey has faught the Hulk and Rhino and has shown that he can
manipulate them.
KurtBusiek
super-villains have to escape from prison frequently.>>
Sure. I'm just saying that taking that into account before packing all the
villains into one supposedly-badass place would be a good idea, since the
supposedly-badass place is going to wind up looking lame.
Packing the supervillains off to the same old places as before will have the
same results, but doesn't result in a supposedly-impressive place looking like
Schmoe City.
kurt
Kevin J. Maroney
>Sure. I'm just saying that taking that into account before packing all the
>villains into one supposedly-badass place would be a good idea, since the
>supposedly-badass place is going to wind up looking lame.
Or, you know, supervillains could escape from it less often.
>Packing the supervillains off to the same old places as before will have the
>same results, but doesn't result in a supposedly-impressive place looking like
>Schmoe City.
If the only time one shows the Vault is when it fails, then yes, it's
going to look lame. One could have a Vault miniseries showing the
staff doing their job well which would make it more respectable.
Not that I'm volunteering to write such a series, mind you.
The problem is, the Vault is a logical answer to an illogical problem:
Given that there are a bunch of supervillains, it makes sense to have
a single containment facility for them, because there are certain
scarce skills and certain expensive pieces of equipment which will be
necessary in the effective imprisonment of superhumans. It makes sense
to concentrate those skills and that equipment rather than
decentralizing them; if you have supervillains stored in 20, or 50,
prisons nationwide, you need 20, or 50, people experienced in running
a supervillain prison to keep them imprisoned. This only becomes a
problem when the supervillain prisons are shown to have revolving
doors because writers keep busting the prisoners out.
KurtBusiek
Well, if you don't find that impressive, I can't imagine why you like the
Vault. But basically, you're saying that there are other flaws -- I can't
argue with you there, though I don't have the same reaction -- but that doesn't
make the Vault not conceptually flawed.
>> Now, the Vault is set up as the mother of all prisons but gains a rep for
being a fallible institution. It was intended by its builders (within the MU
and without) to be a very effective prison for the super-villain community but
ends up suffering the same or even more number of escapes because its improved
defenses are balanced out with a larger number of a more dangerous variety of
inmates.>>
Bingo. Which is why, once someone blows the crap out of it, you don't rebuild
it. It was built for a particular reason, and failed at it spectacularly.
> Can you do the same for the Taskmaster? >
Only if other writers play along.
>>Why must the Vault be disqualified because of problems with one aspect of the
concept?>>
Disqualified from what? If you're arguing that its current concept is "failed
mistake," then I'm with you. I don't think that's a valuable thing, though --
I think the value of the Vault was in its initial concept, which could not,
unfortunately, be delivered on.
> I have to tell you, Kurt, that, IMO, it seems that logic is getting in the
way of the entertaining concept known as the Vault.>
I suspect we're using "logic" in a different way -- you were using it in terms
of "does this world make sense as a hermetic alternate universe," and I was
using it in the sense of "don't introduce things that don't accomplish their
story purpose."
But it may be that I just haven't found the ongoing failures of the Vault
entertaining.
>>Right. Have there been any Vault stories that didn't involve a break? Have
there been any Seagate stories that haven't involved a break? Just curious.>>
>> The Vault has many appearances where no one escapes.>>
You've answered one of your questions yourself, it seems. As for the other, I
expect so, but don't have time to look 'em up.
>>Well, if you're talking about breakouts, then the only Vault breakout I know
about is the one where the U-Foes attacked with the Hulk. All the other times
they've had breaks but they haven't actually escaped the prison.>>
You're mistaken. Venom got out several times. There were two other mass
breakouts, after which superheroes had to round up prisoners who'd gotten
outside. The Jury, in fact, is the result of one of the murders Venom
committed on his way out of the Vault one of the times he blew out of there.
Others have escaped the Vault as well, but those are the breakouts that come to
mind immediately.
> The Vault existed for a comparatively short time, where it was subject to
> numerous breakouts.
>>Do you remember any offhand?>>
Yes. I cited some earlier in the thread, and more here.
>>But we can assume they existed.>>
Why?
>>You've reminded readers that things can happen off-panel between issues or
storylines, etc. Why can't we assume that (although we haven't seen all of
them on-panel) that places like Seagate and Riker's had 4-5 times as many
breaks as the Vault.>>
Because you've got no evidence for it. You're making something up to suit your
argument and declaring it to be true.
There's no evidence that Seagate suffered from massive breakouts -- indeed, I
think when it was introduced, it was established that it had a very low
incidence of breakouts -- so you can't simply assume they happened and declare
it to be just as flawed as the Vault.
You can't assume they didn't happen, either, without evidence. All we can
really say, as I did, is that we don't know of any.
Nor, of course, was Seagate built to be the escape-proof wonder-jail the Vault
was. It was a tough, old-school jail, the kind supervillains have been
escaping from time immemorial. It comes off as a place built with good intent
that's outmatched, not as a place built with a specific intent that it
spectacularly failed at, repeatedly.
>>Just out of pure curiousity, what do you think of Arkham Asylum?>>
I think it's a crackerbox, too, but at least it's mostly confined to one
series. And it gains its power as a concept from being an asylum filled with
lunatics, not from being hard to escape. And it lives up to its concept as an
asylum pretty well.
I liked it better, I'll admit, when it came off as an asylum, full of a variety
of lunatics, including a few of Batman's crazier foes, instead of what it's
been in more recent years, which seems like a collector's carry-case for Batman
foes. Is there anyone in there who isn't a Batman villain? Are they the only
crazy people in Gotham?
kurt
Matt Adler
> > Can you do the same for the Taskmaster? >
>
> Only if other writers play along.
That sounds ominous...
> >>Well, if you're talking about breakouts, then the only Vault breakout I
know
> about is the one where the U-Foes attacked with the Hulk. All the other
times
> they've had breaks but they haven't actually escaped the prison.>>
>
> You're mistaken. Venom got out several times. There were two other mass
> breakouts, after which superheroes had to round up prisoners who'd gotten
> outside. The Jury, in fact, is the result of one of the murders Venom
> committed on his way out of the Vault one of the times he blew out of
there.
>
> Others have escaped the Vault as well, but those are the breakouts that
come to
> mind immediately.
Sigh. But it was fun to see them break out. In the stories you're writing,
will we see exciting breakouts from the smaller prisons? Or will it just be
like "Venom broke out again"? I mean one thing about the Vault, if you
wanted to break out, you had to have a good plan.
> >>Just out of pure curiousity, what do you think of Arkham Asylum?>>
>
> I think it's a crackerbox, too
Of course! Everyone in it is crackers!
John B 821
point of view - the whole story. Start with normal guy, who gets a few bad
breaks, has a freak accident and ends up with super powers. Decides to go on a
crime spree. Has a few run-ins with Spider-Man or Daredevil or something.
Tries to balance having a normal life with life as a supervillain. Ends up
getting caught by the hero and sent to the Vault or the Cube or whatever, maybe
even sentenced to death row. I see it sort of as an experiment in how far the
audience will go in rooting for a bad guy.
Consul de Designers
> "KurtBusiek" <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
> > Others have escaped the Vault as well, but those are the breakouts that come to mind
> immediately.
> Sigh. But it was fun to see them break out. In the stories you're writing, will we see exciting
> breakouts from the smaller prisons? Or will it just be like "Venom broke out again"? I mean one
> thing about the Vault, if you wanted to break out, you had to have a good plan.
And a series about the Vault doesn't have to have a breakout every single issue.
I'm trying to liken it to the fact that Spidey, for example, doesn't fight Doc
Ock every issue. A series about the Vault isn't about the Vault, it's about the
people involved with the Vault. I think it might work. Is the ER about mostly
dead folks, since most folks don't make it in ER, or is it about the doctors?
--
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu, 'mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human'
Shade and Sweet Water, mes amis and Edgerunners
Link at: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~jamesony
KurtBusiek
> Only if other writers play along.
>>That sounds ominous...>>
Wasn't meant to. The advantage I had with Zemo is that as long as I had him as
a regular in T-BOLTS, nobody could write a story treating him like a schmoe
without going through Tom, who'd shut it down.
Taskmaster's a recurring AVENGERS villain, but not an ongoing cast member. If
other writers want to use him, Tom won't be a hardass about it, and won't try
to control some other editor's story. So if those hypothetical other writers
don't care for my take on Tasky, they can make him look like a buffoon again.
I don't have any power over that.
Regular team members who don't have their own books, though, are more easily
controlled.
>>In the stories you're writing, will we see exciting breakouts from the
smaller prisons?>>
If it's appropriate to the story, sure. Nothing's preventing it.
kurt
KurtBusiek
Yep. I consider that unlikely, though. You could also only send loser
villains nobody wants to use much to the Vault, too, but that makes it look
pretty cheesy as well.
>> The problem is, the Vault is a logical answer to an illogical problem:>>
Precisely.
kurt
Alan Travis
> In article <3A9B5F37...@earthlink.net>,
> Alan Travis <alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Hopefully Spidey won't have to fight Juggy on a consistent basis.
> >
> >But that's what was said...that Spidey could beat the Juggernaut on a consistent
> >basis.
> >
> >Chary said it.
>
> Look, Juggernaut is not the only super strong nigh invulnerable guy
> around. Spidey has faught the Hulk and Rhino and has shown that he can
> manipulate them.
Yeah, but we're not talking about them. We're talking about Juggy. Being
unstoppable is his schtick. Outside of the rare occurence of Spidey tricking him
into walking into a pit of wet concrete, Jug can walk up and down Manhattan with
Spider-Man beating on his head like a drum.
Alan
Pfpsquared
From: "Matt Adler" mad...@ic.sunysb.edu
Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2001 2:47 AM
Message-id: <3a9b5...@dilbert.ic.sunysb.edu>
"Alan Travis" <alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A9B4D44...@earthlink.net...
> Matt Adler wrote:
>
> > "Alan Travis" <alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A99D015...@earthlink.net...
> > > Matt Adler wrote:
> > >
> > > > Juggy isn't smart enough to do that, plus he's got a bad temper,
which
> > > > Spidey is skilled and practiced at exploiting in more powerful foes.
> > >
> > > He's not smart enough to stand there while Spider-Man uselessly pounds
on
> > him?
> > >
> > > What's he going to do? Take a swing and knock himself out?
> >
> > No, he'll chase Spidey into a quagmire of cement and get stuck.
>
> And that's going to work consistently?
Hopefully Spidey won't have to fight Juggy on a consistent basis. >>
More specifically, Spidey's only fought Juggernaut solo *once,* that time he
led him into the concrete. He fought him at least two other times, but he had
heavy-duty help in the form of the X-Men and X-Force both times.
I just know the second I send this, I'm going to remember another time ...
Paul F. P.
Michael Alan Chary
You speak as though Juggy has no free will. He has a temper and Spidey can
exploit that. Daredevil and and Iron Fist probably can't, but Spider-man?
That's his thing.
Kevin J. Maroney
[I said:]
>>> Or, you know, supervillains could escape from it less often. >>
>
>Yep. I consider that unlikely, though.
Why? After all, by the logic you've outlined above--the Vault looks
ridiculous because villains keep "defeating" its purpose--no
supervillain should be used repeatedly, because if they keep getting
defeated by the heroes, they look ridiculous.* Ultron? Hell, the
Avengers have beaten Ultron's ass so often they have to number him to
keep straight which time they beat him.
Note that I'm not actually suggesting that no writer ever re-use a
villain. I'm just pointing out that the fact that something is shown
as being defeated doesn't make it inherently ridiculous or pathetic.
*It's not an accident that Chester Gould never re-used any of his
grotesque villains. (Though he did introduce a couple of annoying
spin-off characters like "Flattop's Daughter".)
Paul O'Brien
Maroney <kmar...@ungames.com> writes
>
>
>Why? After all, by the logic you've outlined above--the Vault looks
>ridiculous because villains keep "defeating" its purpose--no
>supervillain should be used repeatedly, because if they keep getting
>defeated by the heroes, they look ridiculous.*
Well, I'd agree with that. Villains that never win cease being a
credible threat eventually.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
Relax - Bush can't count as far as World War III.
KurtBusiek
>Yep. I consider that unlikely, though.
>>Why?>>
Because I think the likelihood of it happening is low. I don't think Marvel
Comics is going to lock up popular villains and leave them there to make the
Vault more credible. And if the popular villains never go to the Vault, then
the Vault becomes second-rate by dint of its inhabitants.
>>After all, by the logic you've outlined above--the Vault looks ridiculous
because villains keep "defeating" its purpose--no supervillain should be used
repeatedly, because if they keep getting
defeated by the heroes, they look ridiculous.*>>
I'm not sure I agree -- there are a variety of strategies for keeping villains
impressive, from having them not lose (Supreme Intelligence) to mixing
victories and setbacks (Magneto) to their being always out there scheming even
if a few plans go awry (Doom) to showing that they have extensive operations
where they win a lot, even if we don't see those stories (Gruenwald's Red
Skull) and so on. It's not the same as actually having them conquer the world
and keep it forever, but there are mitigating factors, often used to good
effect. The villains that do lose all the time do look like schmucks, but the
general response to such a situation is that creators will try to make the
villain more impressive -- to boost his menace quotient and reestablish him as
a credible threat -- not to lock him up and forget about him.
Maybe you think they should pick the latter course more often, but I wasn't
saying that I think it's a dumb idea; I was saying I think it's unlikely. I
don't think it's going to happen.
>> Ultron? Hell, the Avengers have beaten Ultron's ass so often they have to
number him to keep straight which time they beat him.>>
Yep. And we had to do a lot of work to make him scary again, after almost two
straight decades of his coming off as robo-schmoe.
>>Note that I'm not actually suggesting that no writer ever re-use a villain.
I'm just pointing out that the fact that something is shown as being defeated
doesn't make it inherently ridiculous or pathetic.>>
I don't actually think your argument points that out, myself -- I think it
argues that villains who get treated as badly as the Vault get the same kind of
rep. But the Vault doesn't really have the same options -- if Venom slips
right out again as soon as they put him in on a regular basis, and the Water
Wizard stays successfully confined, the upshot is that the Water Wizard looks
like a schmoe, not that the Vault looks better for being semi-effective. The
Vault can't really have an impressive "victory" that reestablishes its
credibility -- victory, for the Vault, takes twenty-to-life to show, and by
Marvel-time, you'll never get there.
So yeah -- it's possible to have someone or something defeated without making
it look like a loser. Daredevil's classic battle with the Sub-Mariner comes to
mind -- he was outmatched, but his bravery in the face of impossible force made
him look heroic and determined. If he did it three times a year, though, he'd
look like an idiot.
kurt
Rob Hansen
<mad...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>I just don't enjoy thinking of it like that. I mean, part of the thrill of
>watching Spidey and the Panther go up against guys a thousand times stronger
>than them, is that you say "Oh no! The hero is gonna get annihilated!" And
>he doesn't. The hero survives. The villain loses. You stare in amazement,
>and breathe a sigh of relief.
Daredevil has gone against the Hulk and Namor in his own mag and they
annihilated him. This is even more amazing, IMO. Not something you
want to see on a consistent basis, tho', I admit.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.
Alan Travis
> In article <3A9CA16E...@earthlink.net>,
> Alan Travis <alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Michael Alan Chary wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3A9B5F37...@earthlink.net>,
> >> Alan Travis <alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> Hopefully Spidey won't have to fight Juggy on a consistent basis.
> >> >
> >> >But that's what was said...that Spidey could beat the Juggernaut on a
> >consistent
> >> >basis.
> >> >
> >> >Chary said it.
> >>
> >> Look, Juggernaut is not the only super strong nigh invulnerable guy
> >> around. Spidey has faught the Hulk and Rhino and has shown that he can
> >> manipulate them.
> >
> >Yeah, but we're not talking about them. We're talking about Juggy. Being
> >unstoppable is his schtick. Outside of the rare occurence of Spidey
> >tricking him
> >into walking into a pit of wet concrete, Jug can walk up and down Manhattan with
> >Spider-Man beating on his head like a drum.
>
> You speak as though Juggy has no free will. He has a temper and Spidey can
> exploit that. Daredevil and and Iron Fist probably can't, but Spider-man?
> That's his thing.
I know and that it'll work once or twice, but not enough to really matter.
Alan
Paul O'Brien
<kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
>
>Because I think the likelihood of it happening is low. I don't think Marvel
>Comics is going to lock up popular villains and leave them there to make the
>Vault more credible. And if the popular villains never go to the Vault, then
>the Vault becomes second-rate by dint of its inhabitants.
Out of interest, Kurt, what do you think of Arkham Asylum? I've
always felt it had much the same problem as the Vault - it's turned
into a glorified motel for supervillains to spend the night.
KurtBusiek
I covered that elsewhere in the thread -- I think it worked bette when it
didn't seem as if all the inmates were Batman villains, but the multiple
escapes don't bother me, because it's never been billed as the ultimate in
penal security. It's a madhouse, at core, and as long as the people in it are
madmen, it's living up to its core concept, however much of a crackerbox it is.
The Vault, however, isn't simply a prison -- it's supposed to be a _better_
prison, if not actually the best. And it doesn't live up to that, for reasons
that I think are so deeply ingrained in the Marvel U that it _can't_ live up to
it.
kurt
Royce
>>> To my mind, worrying about logic problems for the Vault doesn't make much
>sense. >>
>
>That's fine. But this is another reason I'm not the guy to pitch new Vault
>ideas at -- I think that the Vault itself is a bad fictional concept, because
>it's going to fail. Thus, the idea that it's very good at what it does -- a
>claim not made of Seagate -- is a claim doomed to be exposed as untrue. The
>end result is that the Vault looks like a crackerbox.
>
>I don't think it hurts Seagate if Seagate looks like a crackerbox, because
>Seagate's just a prison. The Vault is supposed to be more than that, so if it
>comes off as a crackerbox, the concept is damaged.
So what if the Vault was only slightly better than a crackerbox, and
it was presented as such? I don't think that the Vault has to be
inescapable to work as a concept. It just has to be a *bit* better
than Seagate & Co.
>>> If they had a large contingent, I'd have to ask again what's the difference
>between the Vault and Seagate outside of the name.>>
>
>And the answer, again, is that nobody made any highfalutin claims for Seagate.
>If it fails, it's a prison failing. If the Vault fails, it's the prison that
>isn't supposed to fail failing.
>
>Next time, Seagate doesn't look any worse -- any more than the cops look worse
>for getting overwhelmed time after time. That's just how fiction goes. But
>the Vault looks worse, because its basic premise -- that it's better at the job
>than Seagate -- is an unworkable premise due to Marvel's need for its
>incarceratees to escape.
Seems to me that if Marvel stopped making it out to be "the coolest
thing in incarceration since sliced bread", then most of the problems
would evaporate. To my mind, as someone who's never read a Vault
story and has only heard of it occasionally, it's always been "The
Vault sucks, but it's the best we have." And I'm fine with that.
Maybe they could make an organization called V.A.U.L.T. which is
responsible for creating/staffing the mini-Vaults in other prisons
(like Seagate), thus maintaining the concept of The Vault while, at
the same time, making it more believable/workable as a fictional
construct?
Ryan
P.S. - It was nice meeting you at MegaCon, BTW. :-)
KurtBusiek
it was presented as such? I don't think that the Vault has to be
inescapable to work as a concept. It just has to be a *bit* better
than Seagate & Co.>>
It hasn't been. If anything, it's been worse.
And I think that's an inherent part of the way the world it operates in works
-- if you put all the dangerous guys in one place, then they will always escape
(because they're needed for stories), and thus that place will look worse than
any other prison, which gets fewer big-name super-villains and suffers fewer
escapes as a result.
kurt
DAMONO
<<And I think that's an inherent part of the way the world it operates in works
-- if you put all the dangerous guys in one place, then they will always escape
(because they're needed for stories), and thus that place will look worse than
any other prison, which gets fewer big-name super-villains and suffers fewer
escapes as a result.
>>
Just out of curiosity, do you think the DCU would be better off without
Arkham Asylum?
Damon
KurtBusiek
Arkham Asylum?>>
I've addressed this point twice already, Damon -- if you're interested, browse
the thread 'til you find 'em.
Short answer: No. Arkham's dramatic function is not to be a hard-to-escape
place; it depends for its inherent appeal on being a loony bin. It fulfils
that dramatic function well, regardless of its laughable security.
kurt
Larry Bernard
just when they fail people laugh
Royce
I see your point, and I agree with it. It's just that The Vault is
such a great name for a prison that it'd be cool to see it used again,
in some way. I suggested creating an agency called V.A.U.L.T., but
I'm sure there are other ways to use it.
Ryan
DAMONO
<<I see your point, and I agree with it. It's just that The Vault is
such a great name for a prison that it'd be cool to see it used again,
in some way. I suggested creating an agency called V.A.U.L.T., but
I'm sure there are other ways to use it.
>>
Its too bad that before they destroyed the Vault they didn't do a limited
series about it. I think it would be very interesting to see how the men and
women that run that place dealt with keeping some of the most powerful and
deadly people in the Marvel Universe incarcerated. How for example, did they
prepare cells to hold people like the Absorbing Man, the Grey Gargoyle, Hydro
Man and so on. To take it a step a further, I would've like to have seen how
the criminal justice system works in the Marvel Universe. Maybe tracing how a
super criminal is processed from the moment he/she is in police custody, to the
trial, to the final incarceration. How do prosecutors deal with trying to
convict the same folks over and over again? How does an attorney defend some
really crazy nutcase like Mr. Hyde, and how does Hyde act when he's on trial?
Where do the police and the prisons get the technology to hold these guys? Who
testifies against them when superheroes (like Spider-Man) won't go to court?
How are Guardsmen trained? There really is a lot of material here for an
intriguing limited series.
Damon