Editor's Note: Deathlok #1 arrives in stores tomorrow, November 4.

"Chapter One: For One Purpose Trained"

I'm walking into this review from a strange place.

I've been a fan of Deathlok, specifically, Luther Manning, since I was a child. A few years ago I was able to complete my collection of the original run of Deathlok stories in Astonishing Tales by Rich Buckler and friends (plus his appearances in Marvel Team-Up, Marvel Spotlight, Marvel Two-in-One, and Captain America). While I could appreciate the idea behind the reboot of Deathlok in the '90s (putting the brain of a pacifist into the body of a war machine), the execution really didn't speak to me, and I don't approve of or appreciate what they did to the Luther Manning character when they brought him back into the story at the end of the run.

I've never been able to figure out whether or not the Joe Casey Deathlok comic from 1999, published under the short-lived Marvel Tech imprint, was supposed to be in-continuity or not. Either way, it was an interesting use of the Deathlok idea, was well-written, and had beautiful art. Of course, it only lasted eleven issues.

And I was particularly offended when Bendis specifically tagged his use of Deathlok in New Avengers as being the original Luther Manning version. First, for apparently having no idea that he had been brought back in the '90s. Hell, I found out he'd been brought back after just a few minutes online. Bendis couldn't do just that bit of research? It's not even research. It's a damned Google search.

Secondly, Bendis then didn't actually use him as a character, instead turning him into some sort of suicide bomb during a bank robbery, blowing him to bits. It was an insult to the character, to the readers, and to the fans. It was horrible work all around, and I take that sort of thing personally. Especially when it involves attempts to ruin characters I love. There was no reason to name him Luther Manning when any generic Deathlok cyborg would have done the trick. And they're around, trust me.

Anyway, as you can see, I'm probably coming at this book with too much history.

But when I heard that Huston and Medina were going to be re-imagining Deathlok, I was still excited. I read the interviews and drooled over the preview art. And I can honestly say that this is a well-done first issue. My biggest complaint is a technical and editorial one. I really can't understand why this is a Marvel Knights title.

When Daniel Way and Darick Robertson were planning a Deathlok mini-series, Deathlok Detour, back in 2003, it was going to be a MAX title and looked insane and twisted enough to justify it. I really can't see any reason not to go MAX with a concept that is this ripe for extreme violence and social commentary, especially when that seems to be what Huston is going for here.

My understanding was that Marvel Knights were supposed to be closer to the mainstream versions of Marvel characters, but with a little more editorial freedom to allow for "mature" storytelling. Not too "mature," of course. For that we have MAX, which happens to be where artist Len Medina has been most visible at Marvel over the past couple of years, illustrating Foolkiller and the "Widowmaker" arc on Punisher - both superb jobs, like his work here: highly detailed photo-realism without allowing the characters to look like models. He's done other work around the industry, but these are the only things I've actually read or seen (not counting his run on Silver Surfer back in 2004 that I loved).

So this looks like a MAX title. It's a flat-out reboot of the character, just like most MAX titles from Devil-Slayer to Werewolf by Night to The Eternal to Foolkiller, where the names are the same but the relationships and details are changed.

The only Knights imprint book I can think of that made this radical a change in the concepts and relationships of a character was Grant Morrison's Marvel Boy, and that was presented as a proto-Ultimate title before Bendis again worked his magic and hamhandedly shoehorned the character into the mainstream Marvel Universe.

I really can't imagine that a mini-series using a B-list (at best) character with a creative team that, while good, aren't big names, is going to do enough business to justify pushing this title into the Marvel Knights imprint instead of Marvel MAX, where it belongs. If only to avoid blocking out the non-stop barrage of swearing that fills this first issue. I don't think there's a page without cursing.

But it's okay for younger readers because its all blocked out.

Throw us old folks a bone and go ahead and let the writer write, slap a MAX tag on it, and don't worry about selling ten or so fewer copies.

It's like comparing that stupid PG-13 version of Die Hard to the hard R version of Rambo. Sure, Die Hard With a Vengeance was probably an okay film, but I have no interest in seeing my Die Hard action whitewashed to make a few negligible bucks. I want to see my action brutal and extreme, which was what Stallone heard from his fans and then delivered. Rambo was exactly what it should have been, no apologies.

Deathlok is kind of apologizing for itself and hedging its bets by going under the Knights imprint, all for the sake of miniscule slice of possible audience.

The original stories in Astonishing Tales back in 1974 got away with more daring and mature material while working under the restrains of the Comics Code. Hell, they inspired other works in the genre (Robocop, anyone?), rather than just being a pastiche of concepts that are already old and tired.

Huston does well enough with what he's trying to do. This is an effective critique of the commercialization and privatization of the military. But in his interviews he says that this was plotted three to four years ago, with the final script coming in last year. Honestly, this wasn't fresh when he was writing it, a few years ago.

I'm afraid this book is trying to update a concept that was already ahead of its time. Adding Running Man elements only "updates" the concept to 1987. Adding Starship Troopers elements only "updates" the concept to 1997. We've still got a long way to go before this concept is as innovative or imaginative as the original. Until then, I'm not really sure what the point of it even is, beyond making me sad about the loss of Deathlok Detour.

---

What did you think of this book?
Have your say at the Line of Fire Forum!

---