Tag: who would win in a fight

Why does Marvel comics rely on hero vs hero events so much? From Civil War to World War Hulk, Avengers vs X Men, Original Sin (I’m counting it because the main purpose of Uatu’s secrets was to turn the heroes against each other even more), AXIS, even Standoff had plenty of hero vs hero and now we’ve gotten Civil War II and Inhumans vs X men before Civil War II even ended.

Good question!

I think one basic reason is that hero vs. hero is super easy – there’s a reason that went Marvel started the big line-wide crossover thing with Secret Wars, they went with the simplest possible story where everyone gets teleported to an arena and told to punch everyone. You don’t need backstory, you don’t need interesting motivations or a good setup, you just smash action figures together (literally, in the case of Secret Wars, which was created at the behest of Mattel to get them to do a series of Marvel figs, and Mattel’s focus groups decided everything from the name to what characters would look like) for 12 issues and call it a day. 

Another basic reason is that editorial and publishing focuses a lot on trying to replicate past successes – sometimes this works ok, and sometimes this doesn’t. I would argue that Infinity Gauntlet and Infinity War build on one another nicely, but it’s patently clear that the only reason Civil War II happened is because Civil War sold despite Civil War’s garbage quality, so surely Civil War II will sell as well? Turns out not so much. So it’s a bit like movie studios trying to chase past trends instead of understanding what underlying features made those trends popular. 

A third basic reason is that, for a long time (up until Time Runs Out/Secret Wars) Marvel didn’t really do line-wide continuity reboots that require crossovers, especially in comparison to D.C. who did a lot of these, primarily to “solve” various problems with alternate Earths and timelines, conflicting character identities and backstories, and the like. While Marvel did have alternate Earths/realities, it didn’t go in for them nearly as much as D.C did and historically it was perfectly comfortable leaving those alternate scenarios as What Ifs? or cordoned off in their own times, as opposed to trying to bring everything together into one Earth/universe. So if you don’t have that as a guiding principle for the story and your genre’s fundamental mode of expression is action, you can see why people keep reaching for “Who Would Win in a Fight?” 

Jimmy Asks: Ned as a swordsman

Hi,

I have read the analysis of Ned’s chapter when he breaks his leg during the scuffle with Lannister’s. In the ‘What if’ section it only discusses Jaime beating Ned in a duel. Why do so many fans doubt Ned’s sword fighting ability? He survived the rebellion without many scars (physically at least) and killed the sword of the morning. He is even modest enough to give the credit for that kill to Howland Reed. He must have been a seriously skilled swordsman to achieve what he did.

Well, GRRM has said that Ned was an average swordsman, although an excellent general, and that Jaime is one of the best swordsmen alive. So odds are Ned loses that fight. 

OTHO, as Ser Barristan says in ASOS:

 “I have seen a hundred tournaments and more wars than I would wish, and however strong or fast or skilled a knight may be, there are others who can match him. A man will win one tourney, and fall quickly in the next. A slick spot in the grass may mean defeat, or what you ate for supper the night before. A change in the wind may bring the gift of victory.“ He glanced at Ser Jorah. "Or a lady’s favor knotted round an arm.”

So it’s certainly possible that Ned could beat Jaime. Maybe because Jaime’s overconfident and Ned’s fired up, but more likely in that scenario is that the  rain/cobbles/horse situation applies to both men.