Much like Dark Phoenix, pretty sure it's because most of them haven't actually read it. Or if they have, they've forgotten it pretty quickly. Busiek obviously has, and from the looks of it, weren't terribly impressed.
(Speaking as someone not terribly fond of DPS even without the mess it caused, it's still a damn sight better than this story. At least stuff happens in it...)
I read it while it was coming out, and I think it's great. Maybe not as good as Dark Phoenix, but easily beating the Kree-Skrull War (my choice for "most overrated Avengers story").
Good grief... That was a lot. So many smart-arse remarks that could be made about this... er, story. Slideshow would be more accurate, actually.
I just don't think Mantis's destiny of falling in love instantly with a tree and then having its tree baby is quite the impressive, life-affirming action Englehart seems resolutely convinced it is. And then she becomes a deadbeat mother to a whiny genocidal twerp of a son. Hooray for destiny(!)
Think Moondragon got the better deal being rejected, all things considered. (Sure, she ends up possessed by the Dragon of the Moon, twice. But still the better deal!)
It's never a good sign when even the characters are commenting on the ridiculousness of the plot, such as the Avengers pointing out they've been reduced to glorified extras in their own freaking title. (Except for Wanda.)
Avengers: Forever would later say this Kang is not actually The Kang, just A Kang, at least as far as Kang's concerned. And who can blame him for wanting to keep this and all the other times Englehart wrote him off the CV?
Still, Englehart's gotten his actually kind of alarming Mantis obsession out of his system for the moment, so the Avengers no longer have to deal with someone forcing their way onto the team and being really obnoxious about it. Except Moondragon. But the narrative's not on her side. Oh, and Patsy Walker...
If you've gotten to the point where a talking head in a panel only takes up a quarter of the space, dwarfed by their own paragraphs of speech, you should maybe think about finding a different way to deliver your exposition.
I forget, is this the character MCU Mantis is based on, or was that another Mantis?
And maybe I missed it in my eyes glazing over, but did they explain what this Celestial Madonna actually is? Is it just being treewife? And why did Kang want in on that so bad, if that's what it was?
Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.
Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, scans_daily is probably not for you.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-14 01:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-15 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-15 05:18 pm (UTC)Edit - And, hey, it's all free time from having to deal with Mantis' rubbish.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-14 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-14 05:11 pm (UTC)Or if they have, they've forgotten it pretty quickly.
Busiek obviously has, and from the looks of it, weren't terribly impressed.
(Speaking as someone not terribly fond of DPS even without the mess it caused, it's still a damn sight better than this story.
At least stuff happens in it...)
no subject
Date: 2024-07-14 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-14 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-14 04:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-14 04:44 pm (UTC)That was a lot.
So many smart-arse remarks that could be made about this... er, story.
Slideshow would be more accurate, actually.
I just don't think Mantis's destiny of falling in love instantly with a tree and then having its tree baby is quite the impressive, life-affirming action Englehart seems resolutely convinced it is.
And then she becomes a deadbeat mother to a whiny genocidal twerp of a son.
Hooray for destiny(!)
Think Moondragon got the better deal being rejected, all things considered.
(Sure, she ends up possessed by the Dragon of the Moon, twice. But still the better deal!)
It's never a good sign when even the characters are commenting on the ridiculousness of the plot, such as the Avengers pointing out they've been reduced to glorified extras in their own freaking title.
(Except for Wanda.)
Avengers: Forever would later say this Kang is not actually The Kang, just A Kang, at least as far as Kang's concerned.
And who can blame him for wanting to keep this and all the other times Englehart wrote him off the CV?
Still, Englehart's gotten his actually kind of alarming Mantis obsession out of his system for the moment, so the Avengers no longer have to deal with someone forcing their way onto the team and being really obnoxious about it.
Except Moondragon.
But the narrative's not on her side.
Oh, and Patsy Walker...
no subject
Date: 2024-07-14 06:29 pm (UTC)If you've gotten to the point where a talking head in a panel only takes up a quarter of the space, dwarfed by their own paragraphs of speech, you should maybe think about finding a different way to deliver your exposition.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-14 08:37 pm (UTC)"Woman, have you not seen you are to marry that tree?"
"Completing his mental powers till he is the perfect plant"
"If there's any mingling going on, the Vision and I want in on it!"
no subject
Date: 2024-07-15 02:12 am (UTC)I forget, is this the character MCU Mantis is based on, or was that another Mantis?
And maybe I missed it in my eyes glazing over, but did they explain what this Celestial Madonna actually is? Is it just being treewife? And why did Kang want in on that so bad, if that's what it was?
no subject
Date: 2024-07-15 06:52 am (UTC)The Celestial Madonna is fated to give birth to the Celestial Madonna, but that does basically boil down to being a treewife, yes.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-15 11:01 am (UTC)Awful lot got cut out.
Kang wanted in on marrying the Celestial Madonna so she could be his babymama, and use the resulting Celestial Messiah to conquer the universe.
Instead of just cutting out a lot of middlemen and doing it himself.
By conquering.
(Ravonna? Who dat?)