|
|
|
Exiles #55 is the book at
its most formulaic. Take the Exiles, dump them in an
issue of What If?, and then play around merrily with
the alternate universe while not doing very much with the
Exiles themselves.
This time round, it's a timeline
where Manhattan was permanently transmuted into a fantasy
world by Kulan Gath after Uncanny X-Men #190-191, back
in 1985. But it's not the local X-Men who are leading
the resistance - it's Spider-Man, on the rather obscure basis
that he once fought Kulan Gath in an issue of Marvel
Team-Up. You get the distinct impression that Tony
Bedard really likes those old storylines, and is enthralled by
the prospect of revisiting them.
Bedard also uses the concept as a
springboard to bring together loads of mystical or
pseudo-mystical characters, like the Werewolf by Night or
Morbius, to round out the government thugs. In short,
it's a fairly shameless exercise in playing in the sandbox.
The Exiles aren't so much the focus of the plot, as an excuse
to get here.
Of course, one of the strengths
of the Exiles as a concept is that they're always the fish out
of water. That's central to the set-up, and it means
that you can take them almost anywhere without it seeming
alien to the story. They'll still be fish out of water,
wherever they go. Even so, the Kulan Gath concept isn't
that great - and at three issues, this arc is actually longer
than the original story. It's all very well to send the
Exiles to an oddball universe from time to time, but when it's
a world based specifically around one minor storyline, and the
Exiles get shoved to the margins of the plot, it starts to
become an exercise in telling us how great Uncanny X-Men
#190-191 were, rather than a compelling story in its own
right.
Yes, the original storyline is
quite good, but I've read it already - besides which, I'm not
particularly keen on fantasy stories. This is okay at
what it does, and if the idea of messing about in medieval New
York appeals, then you'll be perfectly happy with it.
But it's setting its sights a bit low, isn't it?
Rating: B-
back |
continue |