Author intent versus reader perception? Comments on NEWSARAMA re:CW#4 *spoilers* [Archive]

Eallison

09-21-2006, 05:37 AM

I recently read the NEWSARAMA interview with Mark Millar and Tom Brevoort in regards to Civil War #4. The entire interview is here;

http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/CivilWar/WarRoom/04/CWroom04.html

There were a few comments that bothered/intrigued me, because they seemed to fly in the face of the story presented;

Remember, Iron Man set up this sting in order to have a civil conversation with Cap, and Cap's the guy who threw the first punch.

I know many have been over this before in other threads, but I find it interesting that someone inside the creative process of the book made the above statement. As I have already stated before, I can't see any way for Tony to argue that he wanted a civil conversation after the actions he took immediately preceeding Cap's attack.

I know others will disagree, and claim vindication. That's not my point. I simply find it of interest that the intent can differ (IMHO) from the execution so drastically.

In response to the question of whether the Pro-SRA side is indeed being shown in a poor light (ETA: Mark contends it IS an even-keel, my mistake in poor wording here);

Yes. And as the series continues I think you'll see more of that, especially in the main series. Personally, I would support Tony and I think most people in the real world would too.

Now, with the close of CW#4, and the idea that Tony is fielding people like Lady Deathstrike, Bullseye, and Green Goblin (all convicted murderers, I believe), how can that possibly be the case? Given the perception that the Pro-SRA side already overpowers the Anti-SRAs by a significant margin, why field these people specifically? I wonder just what Captain America will have to stoop to (IMHO) to equte to consorting with horrible, unrepentant killers.

I understand Millar's point about supporting Tony in RL. Most people probably would, too -- unless (IMHO) they knew the true, draconian extent of the SRA and what actions have been taken in its name.

In regards to Goliath's death;

I expect that the news in the Marvel U will report that Goliath was killed while resisting arrest, and it'll be seen as tragic, but that's about it. He and the rest of Cap's crew were asked to talk peacefully, responded with violence, and things went the way they did. It's a shame, but I think the average man on the street is going to feel that Goliath brought it on himself, by choosing to operate in violation of federal law, and in opposition to the will of the people as well. After Stamford, this could well be seen as another example of unchecked superhuman aggression (on both sides).

Yikes. Goliath brought it on himself? Intellectually, I understand the comment, and yes, the man-on-the-street in the MU will likely never get the full, unedited story, but that's creepy. I wonder why there are so many live supervillains, still, given that? I mean, all the villains ever did was violate laws (many of them federal in some cases) :D

And again, we have the (unsupported by the text, IMHO) idea that Tony wanted to talk, and Steve and his faction escalated things.

In regards to Clor having his head operated on;

Make no mistake - it's meant to be a creepy sequence, in that this is where the readers become aware of exactly what it is that Tony and Reed and Hank have done at this point. But the ear-probe and the blood are all details that Steve threw into the sequence; presumably to make it even more creepy and unsettling-so don't read too much into them.

Eesh. Um, remember that comics are a VISUAL medium, please. Don't read too much into it? But the visuals are at least half of the only information I as a reader HAVE ...

Again, this seems to be a disconnect between intent and execution. If we the readers shouldn't put too much stock into the scene (the original idea with the interview was, can't Reed do a bloodless procedure?) -- it probably should have been altered in some fashion. Again, the pictures and dialogue are all we have -- if we're supposed to ignore some of it, that lessens the entire story.

Millar's worst (IMHO) comment;

As you'll have seen in Ultimates, I've always had Tony as a guy who thinks 40 steps ahead. He's the kind of guy who has a plan for the human race mapped out on the back of an envelope he's been carrying since he was 12. He has his own demons and his own faults, but he's a Utopian and I like to think of him as a guy who's had a loose plan for all this since he saw his first mutant.

Except this Tony ISN'T Ultimates Tony -- wasn't that the entire freaking POINT of the Ultimates universe, to start fresh without continuity weighing you down? I can see similar traits between the two, but this sounds more like "This is how I wrote Ultimates Tony, so this is how I will have 616 Tony act, too."

And the last sentence, too. Great, Tony has his own Justice League Protocols -- and those worked out so well for Batman, too :rolleyes: I hated the psycho Bat-God at DC, I have no desire to see him in powered armor in the MU.

And this just completely undermines Tom Brevoort's post above about not paying too much attention to detail;

Steve McNiven. He's fantastic. Absolutely brilliant. I love that guy. The stuff he brings to this book is 90% of the reason the book is such a success. I just try my best not to distract the reader too much from the beautiful artwork. Seriously, he's amazing. The next Jim Lee in terms of popularity, I think. His style is obviously very different, but he just pushes all the right buttons for readers.

D'oh! So, ignore those visual touches, except when you shouldn't :D

No, I don't really think either one of them does this deliberately (undercuts or contradicts the other, or lies to anyone), but again, I find it an interesting view of how the creators look at their project versus how a reader might.

There's more, including a comparison of Goliath's death galvanizing more heroes to action under Cap's banner to Muslims being radicalized by the "shock and awe" in Iraq, but the link will let you read the entire interview without my prattling ruining it.

Now, lest anyone misunderstand, I'm not calling for people's heads. This simply reminds me of the season 6 close to a show called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." In it, the vampire, Spike, sets off to Africa to meet a mysterious creature, to undergo trials to have a wish granted.

Without going into too much depth (since we're off topic), Spike triumphs, and the demon grants him ... his soul -- something MANY viewers felt was a cheat given the way the character acted, the request he made ("Make me what I was, so I can give her what she deserves"), and the reason for that quest.

Later, Joss Whedon (creator of BtVS) said Spike had always intended to get his soul, he wasn't "monkey-pawed" (tricked) by the demon.

I get a little of that from the comments above, that the creators of "Civil War" really DO mean for the story to be seen a certain way.

However, some of the intentions seem stymied by the actual execution. On this board, opinion is widely polarized. In and around my LCS (local comic shop), the opinion tends towards Anti-SRA with a lot of complaint about OOC writing.

So, I guess the question is;

What do YOU think? Is there a disconnect between the intentions of the story and the way it is being presented?

Take it and run

Soundrave

09-21-2006, 05:58 AM

What do YOU think? Is there a disconnect between the intentions of the story and the way it is being presented?

Take it and run

No, I think the disconnect is between how Millar perceives these characters and how fans have perceived these characters for the last 40+ years.

StrikeForce Albert

09-21-2006, 06:25 AM

CyberCoyote

09-21-2006, 06:36 AM

That interview proved to me that Millar has no idea what these characters stand for. He just has a story HE wants to tell and will use whatever's laying around to tell it.

Brevoort seems to be there to validate anything any creator does or says anymore. Millar could tell us the ocean is a dry pile of rocks and he'll would explain why it's true. He's effectively the last word on anything at Marvel but whatever the last word is is what's been done and he'll stick to it.

Jmacq1

09-21-2006, 06:42 AM

I think Marvel honestly didn't realize how strong the backlash against the Pro-Reg side would be. Characterization issues aside (and those are bad enough), their actions just aren't really conscionable, and even worse, are hypocritical in relation to the stated goals of the SHRA (IE making the world safer through greater accountability and responsibility. But now we're going to put a bunch of psychopaths on a team and send them out in the world to "do good" and create a living WMD that clearly wasn't fully ready for what we wanted it to do and thus got out of control).

Marvel's statements that make it appear like they are strongly in favor of the Pro-Registration side are likely tailored so that the Pro-Reg fans can still cling to their beliefs that the Pro-Reg side isn't doing anything wrong. It's an attempt at damage control, particularly since it's becoming more and more clear that the Pro-Registration side will ultimately "win" the conflict, given that Millar pretty much makes it clear that the "50 States Initiative" will still be getting implemented after "Civil War." So they have to try to convince the Anti-Reg fans that the Pro-Reg side "isn't so bad" or else they might not by the "Pro-Reg Universe" books that come out after the crossover.

Personally, I'm more concerned about Millar's comments about "reshaping the Marvel Universe". More like "deconstructing" the Marvel Universe. I've read this guy's stuff off and on for a while now, and he likes nothing more than making his heroes into ruthless, mostly unlikeable bastards. If that's the future of the Marvel Universe that we can look forward to, you can count me out.

scratchie

09-21-2006, 07:28 AM

That interview proved to me that Millar has no idea what these characters stand for. He just has a story HE wants to tell and will use whatever's laying around to tell it.Is this a surprise? The only other Millar book I've read is Ultimate Fantastic Four, and in that book, the characterization changed monthly, depending on the demands of the plot, and the only consistent characterization was that everyone usually acted like shallow, immature jerks.

Alan Lynch

09-21-2006, 07:39 AM

What do YOU think? Is there a disconnect between the intentions of the story and the way it is being presented?

Take it and run
No way do Millar and Brevoort think the pro-reg side is favoured by readers IMO. If they do then they haven't been paying attention and Millar is a worse writer than his harshest critic could ever imagine. No, I think they're just fanning flames and trying to create discussion.

CapFan

09-21-2006, 07:43 AM

Either they're playing us and will have a great ending that will satisfy the majority of their readers, or this is a make or break moment for Marvel. :cool:

Majinlex

09-21-2006, 07:52 AM

Well, Bendis had Iron Man proclaim he was a futurist so I think you can lay off Millar on that one (even though I agree, it does sound like he thinks he's writing the same character)

Mark Wallace

09-21-2006, 08:15 AM

Either they're playing us and will have a great ending that will satisfy the majority of their readers, or this is a make or break moment for Marvel. :cool:
Either that or they're playing it the way it would happen in the real world -- which is not a million miles away from what it looks like to me.

Sure, so a few characters have behaved in ways that some people would not have expected, but they are being subjected to circumstances they've never been subjected to before, so reasonably violent swings in behaviour patterns are to be expected, as the characters absorb (and are absoebed into) the situation.

The direction they're going will bring the Marvel world closer to the real world, which, in most ways, is not a bad thing.

But don't worry: Sooner or later it will all be like it never happened -- a way will be found to make everyone forget who Spidey is; It'll turn out that Goliath wasn't really dead; Cappie A will go back to jerking his knee, every time the Pres says jump; and any sign of realism will disappear as completely and suddenly as the damage Kang did to DC.

Let's not forget that this is primarily a money-making exercise (I think the cost to readers of Civil War is already is already almost $200), so things are going to be inserted into the story to make you keep spending, and the guys producing the books are going to play agent provocateur, for the same purpose -- there's more than one way to hype.

CapFan

09-21-2006, 08:23 AM

Let's not forget that this is primarily a money-making exercise (I think the cost to readers of Civil War is already is already almost $200), so things are going to be inserted into the story to make you keep spending, and the guys producing the books are going to play agent provocateur, for the same purpose -- there's more than one way to hype.

Yep! As long as the readers get some sort of emotional hit, they'll most likely keep buying. :)

Kefky

09-21-2006, 08:52 AM

Not to sound rude, but whatever you guys say, this crossover's doing its job tremendously well.

A company-wide crossover has three main goals:

1-) Telling an interesting and exciting story that'll attract readers.

2-) Raise sales.

3-) Reinvigorate the line and open the way for new kinds of stories to be told in the MU.

And wether you like it or not, CW is accomplishing all of that in spades. I don't think it would be an exageration to say that this is already the most succesful crossover's marvel had since AOA or even secret wars.

CapFan

09-21-2006, 08:56 AM

Adam Crocker

09-21-2006, 09:01 AM

Yes. And as the series continues I think you'll see more of that, especially in the main series. Personally, I would support Tony and I think most people in the real world would too.

Yes most people in the real world would, if the real world was awash in super-powered beings. Most people don't tolerate vigilantism in the real-world, and would be less likely to do so if they had superpowers. And in the real-world Goliath's death would be understandable under the circumstances.

Problem is that this isn't the real-world. It's the Marvel Universe. And when you attach all this to the forty some year baggage that is the Marvel Universe it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In this context, the pro-reg side comes off as a bunch of authoritarians whose weapon just killed a good man. And as Eallison said, the "resisting arrest" statement doesn't make much sense in the context of the number of still living supervillains who have resisted arrest numerous times. It's why I had a problem with their attempts to draw a civil rights allegory from this in the earlier interviews (they seem to have changed their tact since then), since vigilantism wouldn't be tolerated in the real world. But it's always worked in the Marvel Universe. And in that sense the series doesn't really jibe either, at least not what the author and editors seem to have intended.

Mark Wallace

09-21-2006, 09:18 AM

Problem is that this isn't the real-world. It's the Marvel Universe.
Exactly, and that's why I can't make up my mind whether I like it or not.

Do we really want US funnybooks to become too much like the real world?

Or do we want Marvel to do what Lee, Kirby, et al did: Give us escapism?

I'm in two minds, which is unusual, because normally I don't even have one.

Eye Doc

09-21-2006, 09:22 AM

Personally, I'm more concerned about Millar's comments about "reshaping the Marvel Universe". More like "deconstructing" the Marvel Universe. I've read this guy's stuff off and on for a while now, and he likes nothing more than making his heroes into ruthless, mostly unlikeable bastards. If that's the future of the Marvel Universe that we can look forward to, you can count me out.

Well said. I don't like Millar's take on the Marvel universe at all. This is the same guy that wrote a 12 issue maxiseries with Spider-Man and revealed that certain people began creating supervillians to take on the superheroes in an attempt to "explain" the presence of supervillians.

I stopped buying Civil War after issue 2 because I think the premise and execution is just plain dumb. However, I did look thru issue 4 in the store. It was ridiculous. To make matters worse, the pro-registration side is about to become even more reviled by using supervillians to bring in the "rogue heroes". ARE THEY SERIOUS?

I don't know how this is going to turn out becuase I haven't read the next issue. Since it's Millar, i'm pretty sure it'll be just as far fetched as this series has been so far. I can say this, the Reed Richards and Tony Stark I grew up would NEVER free dangerous, super powered criminals to bring in the colleagues they've worked with for years, even if the criminal were under "mind control"......which is another offensive concept in and of itself.

It's past time for this series to be over.

The Mirrorball Man

09-21-2006, 09:35 AM

Or do we want Marvel to do what Lee, Kirby, et al did: Give us escapism?
"Escapism" doesn't really exist as a literary category, though. Escapism has more to do with the reader's frame of mind and attitude than with the content and tone of the literary work. You can escape reality by reading almost any kind of fiction (or even non-fiction, actually) - comics need to find other ways to be relevant.

Ben Grimm didn't become popular because he was a vector for escapism, he became popular because he reminded us of something each of us has felt: what it means to be rejected. "Civil War" seems to be following the Lee and Kirby formula pretty closely.

Nate Grey

09-21-2006, 10:02 AM

First Night Thrasher, now Goliath. I'm pretty sure Luke Cage is safe (movie's in pre-pre-production or something), but what about Falcon? Triathlon? Blade? How does Tony feel about Blade?

scratchie

09-21-2006, 10:05 AM

Yes most people in the real world would, if the real world was awash in super-powered beings. Most people don't tolerate vigilantism in the real-world, and would be less likely to do so if they had superpowers.I don't see how it's possible to make any projections about how people would react in the "real world" because the setup in Civil War is so outrageous.

People (in the story and in real life) talk about it as if it's analogous to training police officers or licensing doctors when, as written, the act authorizes the government to both require that certain individuals become government employees (shades of Soviet Russia) and send armed agents to arrest peaceful individuals who have been neither accused nor convicted of any violent crime (shades of every nasty dictatorship). On top of that, it's outrageously expensive, as it requires that the government provide training, wages and benefits to every super-human (or user of advanced technology) in the United States.

Marvel used to be the the company of "realistic" superhero stories (at one point, anyway, when I was a small child). But Civil War is so far beyond any notion of reasonable realism that it (IMO) renders any discussion of what would happen in the real world meaningless.

Alan2099

09-21-2006, 10:11 AM

gorthon616

09-21-2006, 10:44 AM

Either that or they're playing it the way it would happen in the real world -- which is not a million miles away from what it looks like to me.

Sure, so a few characters have behaved in ways that some people would not have expected, but they are being subjected to circumstances they've never been subjected to before, so reasonably violent swings in behaviour patterns are to be expected, as the characters absorb (and are absoebed into) the situation.

The direction they're going will bring the Marvel world closer to the real world, which, in most ways, is not a bad thing.

If you're paralleling Civil War to the real world, then I think you are way off. This is not any sort of decent allegory for real world issues, and for me that is another huge reason why I cannot just let it slide as just-another-bad-story. Because if the intentions were to genuinely help promote thought about these kinds of issues, all they've done is given a poor portrayal for them and ultimately done the reader a huge disservice.

As for unexpected circumstances leading to unexpected reactions, that's a cheap out. Yes, it can be "in character to be out of character," but that does not simply mean you can write off any character-failure as being a result of that. Of course, usually there is some sort of rational explaination, i.e. they mentally broke. Are we saying that the SHRA broke Cap mentally? Are we saying that a school being blown up broke Tony mentally? For people who have been dealing with villains, horrors, and worse on a daily basis, I don't think we can say that they could. And at the very least nothing within the Civil War series ever show how they could, they just asserted that they did.

scratchie

09-21-2006, 10:57 AM

Because if the intentions were to genuinely help promote thought about these kinds of issues, all they've done is given a poor portrayal for them and ultimately done the reader a huge disservice.That's an excellent point. Marvel has made a big deal in publicizing Civil War about how it's supposed to reflect real-life concerns, and how there are no good guys and no bad guys. To then deliver something so outrageously unrealistic, with an obvious moral advantage given to one side from the start, seems to show that either Marvel just doesn't pay much attention to what they're publishing, or they don't hold a particularly high opinion of their readers' intelligence.

Adam Crocker

09-21-2006, 11:05 AM

People (in the story and in real life) talk about it as if it's analogous to training police officers or licensing doctors when, as written, the act authorizes the government to both require that certain individuals become government employees (shades of Soviet Russia) and send armed agents to arrest peaceful individuals who have been neither accused nor convicted of any violent crime (shades of every nasty dictatorship).

This probably wasn't clear in my original post but I was extrapolating a real-world response based on how real-world vigilantism works as opposed to comic-book vigilantism. Vigilantism isn't really tolerated in the real world, and my point was that if superpowered vigilantism was manifested in the real world it would likely be quickly quashed and regulated by the government. And I doubt that people in the real world would be happy with superpowered beings enforcing their own moral codes outside of the law. Then again real-world vigilantism tends to be pretty violent and extreme and are more frequent in societies with weak law maintenance and heavy social problems (such as in Latin America where it is fairly common in Brazil).

Yet this isn't how it works in superhero comics where vigilantism is fairly benigh and is widely practiced in the United States of America, which is fairly stable. Of course the Marvel Universe operates so differently that applying the above assumptions, as Millar does, simply does not work. The setup is outrageous because it applies a real-world scenario for the enforcement of vigilantism to a fictional setting that doesn't correspond to the real world in the first place. (And in the real world we don't draft criminals for law enforcement.)

Which brings me to something I forgot to mention in my earlier post, I just don't buy the set-up for this entirely. I mean the public finally goes into panic over an explosion that kills several hundred people? In the context of the Marvel Universe and the disasters its faced I find this hard to swallow.

(That said wasn't the act more about registering those super-powered beings that want to continue to act as superheroes? My memory is surprisingly sketchy on that point right now.)

Den

09-21-2006, 11:06 AM

Reading that, I don't think Millar really understands what he's writting, who he's writting, or the people he's supposed to be writting for.

It's like he's openly saying, "I have a story idea. if I have to butcher anything and everything in my path to tell it, ... well, I'll just say that's how things are really supposed to be."

I'm inclined to agree. Millar seems to be transfering the Ultimates personalities in large part over their 616 counterparts. The storyline is actually rather intriguing... but the characters are, imo, being railroaded into it even when it doesn't fit.

Adam Crocker

09-21-2006, 11:09 AM

Soundrave

09-21-2006, 11:10 AM

That's an excellent point. Marvel has made a big deal in publicizing Civil War about how it's supposed to reflect real-life concerns, and how there are no good guys and no bad guys. To then deliver something so outrageously unrealistic, with an obvious moral advantage given to one side from the start, seems to show that either Marvel just doesn't pay much attention to what they're publishing, or they don't hold a particularly high opinion of their readers' intelligence.

I totally agree with everything said here. In hindsight, I think Greg Pak would have been the ideal choice to write this. He's demonstrated the intelligence and ability to tell a well-planned, nuanced story. Plus, he was a poli sci major who once worked in politics. Millar . . . not so much, and he's really demonstrated his inability to tackle complex issues with this story (instead, we get pages filled with clones and "kewl" panels of Cap surfing on planes).

It's funny to remember how serious they all were on the NPR interview about this crossover, how it was going to be so different than anything that has come before. Well, I guess that's before they read Millar's clone script. At best, Millar's Civil War is a poor man's Kingdom Come or Squadron Supreme. Waid and Gru did it much better.

Luckily, we'll get Pak on World War Hulk next year.

bulbasteve

09-21-2006, 11:23 AM

Marvel's statements that make it appear like they are strongly in favor of the Pro-Registration side are likely tailored so that the Pro-Reg fans can still cling to their beliefs that the Pro-Reg side isn't doing anything wrong. It's an attempt at damage control, particularly since it's becoming more and more clear that the Pro-Registration side will ultimately "win" the conflict, given that Millar pretty much makes it clear that the "50 States Initiative" will still be getting implemented after "Civil War." So they have to try to convince the Anti-Reg fans that the Pro-Reg side "isn't so bad" or else they might not by the "Pro-Reg Universe" books that come out after the crossover.

No that isn't true. Since practically day one every time Millar has been asked about his own personal side he came down with Iron Man. And he certainly isn't going to change his plans just because some fans are complaining....

Eye Doc

09-21-2006, 11:29 AM

Reading that, I don't think Millar really understands what he's writting, who he's writting, or the people he's supposed to be writting for.

I think that above quote applies to Marvel in general.

Marvel really needs a better EiC, or Quesada is going to have to wake up and do a better job. This story is so implausible and far fectched that I find it strange that no one stepped in and said "We need to to rewrite this and make somewhat believeable"

It's like he's openly saying, "I have a story idea. if I have to butcher anything and everything in my path to tell it, ... well, I'll just say that's how things are really supposed to be."

Once again, this applies to Marvel in general.

Everything from the Illuminati, Avengers Disasembled, Sins Past, The Other, and now Civil War seems as if it's happpening to characters I didn't grow up with but imposters.

Millar is the type of writer who comes up with an idea he thinks is good. He wants to see it in print so he decides to make the characters fit the plot instead of the other way around. A story like Civil War could be interesting if it were better thought out and the characters acted the way they've been portrayed for the past few DECADES.

I bet most of us on this board could write a story premise pitting the heroes on opposite sides that was more credible than CIVIL WAR

Beast

09-21-2006, 11:51 AM

After reading that it's all clear. Both Mark Millar and Tom Brevoot are high. :p

If Tony wanted a sit down to talk with Cap, all he had to do was ask. Cap's reasonable.

Honestly, it's this lack of understanding and respect for characters that really annoys the hell out of me.

kalorama

09-21-2006, 01:51 PM

Now, lest anyone misunderstand, I'm not calling for people's heads. This simply reminds me of the season 6 close to a show called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." In it, the vampire, Spike, sets off to Africa to meet a mysterious creature, to undergo trials to have a wish granted.

Without going into too much depth (since we're off topic), Spike triumphs, and the demon grants him ... his soul -- something MANY viewers felt was a cheat given the way the character acted, the request he made ("Make me what I was, so I can give her what she deserves"), and the reason for that quest.

Later, Joss Whedon (creator of BtVS) said Spike had always intended to get his soul, he wasn't "monkey-pawed" (tricked) by the demon.

Completely off topic, but I have comment on the above. When that episode actually aired, I talked about it with a friend who was also a Buffy fan and put forth what I thought was the obvious idea that Spike went there to get his chip removed/disable, and that the demon gave Spike his soul back because he thought it was what Spike "truly desired." She looked at me like I speaking another language..

kalorama

09-21-2006, 01:53 PM

Which brings me to something I forgot to mention in my earlier post, I just don't buy the set-up for this entirely. I mean the public finally goes into panic over an explosion that kills several hundred people? In the context of the Marvel Universe and the disasters its faced I find this hard to swallow.

That's true in genral, which is why it was contrived for the vast majority of the victims at ground-zero of Stamford to be small children. That changes the emotional equation.

yeoman

09-21-2006, 02:06 PM

Sure, so a few characters have behaved in ways that some people would not have expected, but they are being subjected to circumstances they've never been subjected to before, so reasonably violent swings in behaviour patterns are to be expected, as the characters absorb (and are absoebed into) the situation.

Never subjected to? Cap feels his country has betrayed him and super-heroes are being persecuted? That happens every couple years, much less never happened before.

Even if it had never happened before, that doesn't explain away the characters acting massively out of character. People used that same excuse to ecplain Identity Crisis and it didn't work then either.

Seriously, even before the act went live Tony was hiring the titanium man to attack Congress.

How is this anything but massively out of character?

Mothmonsterman

09-21-2006, 02:07 PM

As I have already stated before, I can't see any way for Tony to argue that he wanted a civil conversation after the actions he took immediately preceeding Cap's attack.

Yeah, I can see how saying "Let's just talk about this" and holding out his hand in a truce offering would be taken as an invitation for battle.

Jmacq1

09-21-2006, 02:10 PM

Yeah, I can see how saying "Let's just talk about this" and holding out his hand in a truce offering would be taken as an invitation for battle.

No, normally that wouldn't.

But doing that -after- you tricked someone there under false pretenses, surrounded them with armed soldiers, and incapacitated two of their comrades (non-lethally or not)? Yeah, pretty stupid to think someone's going to be in a receptive state of mind after that. You're not there "just to talk" (even if you've fooled yourself into believing it). You're there to dictate surrender terms.

When backed into a corner, most wounded animals will bite. In that regard it seems Cap is no different.

And besides. Cap may have thrown the first punch, but Iron Man fired the first shots (even if they -were- tranquilizers). Ultimately Cap's attacks were no more "lethal" than the tranqs, just likely more painful, nor was the device and the punch any more of a "sucker punch" than Tony's tranq-ambush. I fail to see how anyone can claim either side has the "moral high ground" in that one.

bulbasteve

09-21-2006, 02:12 PM

I totally agree with everything said here. In hindsight, I think Greg Pak would have been the ideal choice to write this. He's demonstrated the intelligence and ability to tell a well-planned, nuanced story. Plus, he was a poli sci major who once worked in politics. Millar . . . not so much, and he's really demonstrated his inability to tackle complex issues with this story (instead, we get pages filled with clones and "kewl" panels of Cap surfing on planes).
It's funny to remember how serious they all were on the NPR interview about this crossover, how it was going to be so different than anything that has come before. Well, I guess that's before they read Millar's clone script. At best, Millar's Civil War is a poor man's Kingdom Come or Squadron Supreme. Waid and Gru did it much better.

Luckily, we'll get Pak on World War Hulk next year.

Hey now I was a poli sci major and I like the event :(

I mean...do you really expect something called World War Hulk to be neuanced political tale? I see a lot of smashing...

Gregg Helmberger

09-21-2006, 02:22 PM

Yeah, I can see how saying "Let's just talk about this" and holding out his hand in a truce offering would be taken as an invitation for battle.

If you want to talk to me, you don't lie to get me someplace under the pretense of doing a good deed, shoot two of my friends, and then say, "Hey bud thanks for stopping by, I just wanted to have a little chat." Little chats don't begin by one side shooting the other.

Beside that, what is completely ignored in your argument is that Iron Man didn't want to talk in any commonly understood sense of the term; instead, he wanted to get the surrender of the other side and their aquiesance to his policies by whatever means necessary. He had the place surrounded by superheroes and capekillers, and he had his evil, murderous thunder-monster (I refuse to dignify that thing with the name given it) for backup -- if Cap disagreed with Tony, or just said, "Nope, I'm not in the mood for a chat right now, seeing as how you just SHOT two of my guys, you asshole," Cap and co. weren't going to be able to just up and leave. Tony fired the first shots and made a peaceful resolution on any terms other than complete and utter surrender impossible. So as far as I'm concerned, the "Tony just wanted to talk" argument is an out and out piece of garbage.

And before the "if he hadn't done that, Cap would have just teleported away" line is trotted out, I will answer pre-emptively, "So what?" If Tony really had just wanted to talk, then he would have been fine with that. But that's not what he wanted: he wanted to destroy his opposition. I agree that he preferred to do that with words, but he was more than willing to use violence to get his way. And that means he did NOT just want to talk.

sherlockbones

09-21-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Millar
Yes. And as the series continues I think you'll see more of that, especially in the main series. Personally, I would support Tony and I think most people in the real world would too.

to quote doc house:
people lie.

especially comic book creators ;)

i think it is more some kind of "don´t try this at home" disclaimer than his actual opinion, which is definitly a lot more differentiated.

Mothmonsterman

09-21-2006, 02:29 PM

If you want to talk to me, you don't lie to get me someplace under the pretense of doing a good deed, shoot two of my friends, and then say, "Hey bud thanks for stopping by, I just wanted to have a little chat." Little chats don't begin by one side shooting the other.

They certainly do if one side happens to have a pair of teleporters and won't wait around for even a second to hear what the other guy has to say.

Your silly "so what?" rebuttal to that fact is naught but a side-step.

Gregg Helmberger

09-21-2006, 02:29 PM

Hey now I was a poli sci major and I like the event :(

I mean...do you really expect something called World War Hulk to be neuanced political tale? I see a lot of smashing...

And man, I want the Illuminati to be on the receiving end of that smashing.

kalorama

09-21-2006, 02:34 PM

They certainly do if one side happens to have a pair of teleporters and won't wait around for even a second to hear what the other guy has to say.

Your silly "so what?" rebuttal to that fact is naught but a side-step.

Not really. If the sole purpose of the meeting was to talk (A) what reason would Stark have to think that Cap, a generally reasonable man, would teleport away before listening to Stark's side? (B) if the sole purpose of the meeting was to talk, then it would have been reasonable for Stark to expect Cap to leave when they were done. Clearly that wasn't the case. He was hellbent on not letting Cap and Co. get away, which means talking wasn't the real reason he wanted them there in the first place.

Gregg Helmberger

09-21-2006, 02:38 PM

They certainly do if one side happens to have a pair of teleporters and won't wait around for even a second to hear what the other guy has to say.

Your silly "so what?" rebuttal to that fact is naught but a side-step.

No -- see, if ALL I want is to talk, and the person I want to talk to doesn't want to talk, I don't turn around and attack them for it. I mean, I'm no superhero, but that seems to be an odd reaction if all I want is to talk. The fact that there's going to be an entire comic book showing Cap and IM talking indicates that Cap was willing to talk -- he just wasn't willing to surrender.

Iron Man's entire objective was to gain that surrender, and the fact that he brought so much firepower indicates that he didn't care all that much which means he used to get it. He could have showed up alone and said, "I won't stop you from leaving if you want to leave, but please hear me out." It's not like the combined efforts of all the anti-reg heroes could have hurt him, or stop him from retreating if he'd have wanted to. But no, he brought enough force to put him in a position of absolute power, attacked first, and then said, basically, "Surrender before I hurt you some more." That's an ultimatum. It's a threat. But it isn't negotiation, and it isn't good faith, and it isn't "I only wanted to talk."

My "so what?" is not an evasion or a side-step, it's a legitimate question, as in "So how does the presence of teleporters on Cap's side make it legitimate to lie and attack first if what you really, truly wanted was to talk and nothing more?"

Eallison

09-21-2006, 02:41 PM

They certainly do if one side happens to have a pair of teleporters and won't wait around for even a second to hear what the other guy has to say.

Your silly "so what?" rebuttal to that fact is naught but a side-step.

Ah, yet ANOTHER strawman -- excellent. At this rate, you won't EVER have to take anything in context.

Really, Cap would have run? You know this for absolute fact? Because I don't, and really, neither do you, since it never, you know, actually HAPPENED.

But keep kicking those strawmen over and avoiding real debate.

Again, Tony sent every possible signal that he did NOT want to talk.

He staged an explosion which played on his opposition's better nature (Captain America and the others were there to save lives, not pick a fight).

He surrounded Captain America and his group with overwhelming forces of Pro-SRA heroes, heavily-armed agents, and had (unstable) Clor in reserve.

He shot Cloak and Wiccan in the back, pre-emptively.

Then he claimed he wanted to talk.

Yeah, that works :rolleyes: In Bizzaro-World, maybe. I know *I'd* trust a guy that lied to me, surrounded me with armed men, sucker-punched my ride home, and said he "just wanted to talk."

I mean, really, who WOULDN'T trust a guy like that?

Justify it all you want. Tony set the tone, and it was not a tone conductive to "just talking." If you cannot see that, cannot even entertain the notion that others might see this differently, than you are simply incapable of debate.

You might THINK Tony believed Steve would run, but you don't know it any more than I do. In fact, if Tony HADN'T surrounded them with troops and had Wiccan and Cloak shot, it'd be one less black mark against him, wouldn't it? It really might have played to Tony's side that he actually tried.

But, hey, let's play "I'm going to make up a 'what might have been' to silence my opposition."

I guess that, if Steve hadn't shorted Tony's armor, he would have used a wide-beam repulsor blast to kill them all.

Yup, that's why Steve did what he did -- totally justified, and not a cheap shot at all.

What's that, you say? No proof of that in the story? Ah, well, it's no worse than the "Captain America would have run so Tony had to have someone shoot people in the back" claim, is it?

Disagreeing is one thing - making things up whole-cloth is quite another.

Take it and run.

Mothmonsterman

09-21-2006, 02:48 PM

If you cannot see that, cannot even entertain the notion that others might see this differently, than you are simply incapable of debate.

How precious.

Coming from the guy who started this thread by saying:

As I have already stated before, I can't see any way for Tony to argue that he wanted a civil conversation after the actions he took immediately preceeding Cap's attack.

When you "can't even entertain the notion that others might see this differently," it is indicative of your moral high ground, but when somebody else does it, it means they are incapable of debate, is that it?

Eallison

09-21-2006, 03:10 PM

How precious.

Coming from the guy who started this thread by saying:

When you "can't even entertain the notion that others might see this differently," it is indicative of your moral high ground, but when somebody else does it, it means they are incapable of debate, is that it?

Did you miss the IMHO in the very next sentence? Or the whole idea behind the post, that while the writers might WANT me to see it that way, I feel that their execution is the problem, and running counter to it?

You know, not for nothing, but you really have a problem with context. I don't know how, on the one hand, I can claim the moral high ground when I've made it clear that this is MY interpretation. I didn't state that Tony didn't want to talk, I said that I CAN'T SEE ANY WAY. Me. Personally. I really can't make it clearer than that.

I didn't make statements about things that never actually happened to make my view stronger.

Now, I don't want every sentence everyone writes to have IMHO or JMO or the like, but then again, I'd really like it ever so much if people could stick to what DID happen instead of what they think MIGHT have happened differently. Or, if you insist on it, make it clear that it is an OPINION. Maybe Tony had them shot because HE believed Cap would run. I don't agree with it, and I would argue the point, but it's entirely different from "Tony did it BECAUSE (stating a fact) Cap would run."

Tony had Cloak and Wiccan shot. End of story. Maybe Captain America would have ran if Tony hadn't had it done. Maybe he wouldn't have. But, unlike what Captain America MIGHT have done, we KNOW what Tony did, because it's right there in the story. You might attach less weight to it, but it is THERE. It is not a matter of opinion, it is fact.

Take it and run.

jaxcs

09-21-2006, 03:12 PM

They certainly do if one side happens to have a pair of teleporters and won't wait around for even a second to hear what the other guy has to say.

Your silly "so what?" rebuttal to that fact is naught but a side-step.

This isssue has been gone over many times already. But I have to tell you, your argument is new - they shot the teleporters to be sure the opposing side would listen to what is said. Creating a real world analogy is hard but imagine your ex-girl friend says she wants to talk to you and ensures that you will listen to what she has to say by taking out the spark plugs to your car and she brings her new boy friend and a bunch of his buddies who stand around you. What do you think? Is this just a friendly conversation? At the best it's akward - at the worst it's hostile. I don't have any problem if you say the conversation between IM and Cap was part of a sting and as an attmept to arrange for a peaceful surrender but I really can't understand the claim that all IM wanted was a conversation.

If Cap listend What would likely have happened afterward - battle.

bulbasteve

09-21-2006, 03:20 PM

And man, I want the Illuminati to be on the receiving end of that smashing.

It will just be their clones :(

sherlockbones

09-21-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Millar
Yes. And as the series continues I think you'll see more of that, especially in the main series. Personally, I would support Tony and I think most people in the real world would too.

now that i thought about this statement for a while, i wonder if the opposite message of the above quoted ("YES I THINK IF THE GOVERMENT IS CORRUPT WE ALL SHOULD FORM TERRORIST CELLS AND FIGHT THEM") is protected by the freedom of speech.

(cinematic product produced by voluminous man from flint which was broadcasted last week featured a man claiming he had been reported to the police for expressing his dislike of recent governmental decisions in his gym.)

i don´t live in the usa, so tell me: is it possible to get expelled off the country (no green card) for harshly criticising the current administration?

IamtheRock3

09-21-2006, 06:34 PM

well they got to undestand REAL WORLD stuff work in Ultimates for a story reason

It that the ultimate heroes are realtivly new to the world, and they started teh REAL WORLD STUFF..right there

Marvel and DC that hard to do. It hard to Intrdouce Real World stuff NOW..when the story been so Crazy. It like watching a bugs Bunny Cartoons where half way they try to make it a Drama about the Enviroment and Elmer Fudd dealing with Metal retardation.

Doesnt Work

Plus, some of the Shady stuff would put some of the citezens off down the line. Yea cops can shoot people, but there HUGE paper work and investigations after like each shot, they dont jsut send the dude out

And look How People In the REAL world react to Wire Taping, and Guatamo Bay. People were upset..and those people that were being tortured were CUTTING PEOPLE HEADS OFF, Imagine how they feel if they did it some of the heroes that been saving the world for years.

imagine how the REAL WORLD would react to 42, Not saying the Majaroty of people would be upset...but it wouldnt be 90 percent approval

Ultimates actully got it good cause I think they showed BOTH SIDE more

It hard for me to beleave the way there WRITING cival war, that they SURPRISE that people Think Iron man a Jerk

The writers got to take some responbillity for that
I think they blamming it on the fans to much

Haunt

09-21-2006, 06:42 PM

bulbasteve

09-21-2006, 06:43 PM

i don´t live in the usa, so tell me: is it possible to get expelled off the country (no green card) for harshly criticising the current administration?

... aside from the fact I don't even think he is living in America. No...no...you can't. Even the MU government isn't that evil...much less our own...

IamtheRock3

09-21-2006, 07:01 PM

none of my co-workers were upset. i believe the prevalent reaction was, "I don't have anything to hide! go ahead and use wiretaps!"

Your co workers wasnt upset

but according to the polls most People against it
And again guatamom Bay and torture

That stuff SMALL POTATOES compare to Stark Ideas

let me put it this way

When you have people here who PRO Registration saying

"Man I really wish the writers stop making the Pro side look like Villans"

"Or this is not really fair and balance, or FAIR AN BALANCE MY ASS"

Well then you have a promblem

marcfiveone

09-21-2006, 07:06 PM

Hail Emperor Iron Man

When a hero no matter how well intentioned startes playing god and creating

Clones of so called gods what does that tell us about his state of mind and

when said clone murders another hero in cold blood and then the Pro Side

sits and debates why the clone did it. There is something really wrong with

how this is written and to use the analogy from the mother at her sons
funeral it is just like a punk pulling a gun

on a cop i could jut not belive they wrote this in the story 42 bullets all over

again. And to have the mother of the hero that was slain by Tony starks

creation and then tell stark that she was not here to to give a hard time

that if only if her son had registered he would be still alive it says his

personal beliefs meant nothing to her. is just insulting and bad story writing and

says my son was a hero for nothing. Tony Stark is Creating Storm Troopers

and the writers would have us believe that nobody has a problem with is just

plain crazy.

All Hail the fourth reich

CyberCoyote

09-21-2006, 07:44 PM

Creating a real world analogy is hard but imagine your ex-girl friend says she wants to talk to you and ensures that you will listen to what she has to say by taking out the spark plugs to your car and she brings her new boy friend and a bunch of his buddies who stand around you. What do you think? Is this just a friendly conversation?

I love it. Actually though, instead of spark plugs she tazes the guy who's driving the car and leaves him in a puddle of his own mess :)

roundman

09-21-2006, 08:37 PM

First Night Thrasher, now Goliath. I'm pretty sure Luke Cage is safe (movie's in pre-pre-production or something), but what about Falcon? Triathlon? Blade? How does Tony feel about Blade?

I'd be glad if they killed off Triathlon. Lame character.

Loestal

09-21-2006, 08:40 PM

I'd be glad if they killed off Triathlon. Lame character.

Aye, I second that.

kalorama

09-21-2006, 08:42 PM

Blade just got a new book and a TV series. I'd say he's okay.

Loestal

09-21-2006, 08:46 PM

roundman

09-21-2006, 08:47 PM

Blade just got a new book and a TV series. I'd say he's okay.

I'd bet that more non-comic book readers know about Blade than most Marvel Characters, and maybe even more than major characters like Thor or Iron Man. There's no way that Blade gets killed off.

StoneGold

09-21-2006, 08:53 PM

Or do we want Marvel to do what Lee, Kirby, et al did: Give us escapism?

Yeah, escapism like when your uncle dies.

Or your best friend gets hooked on drugs.

Or when the guy who just joined the team turns traitor, then kicks the bucket.

Seriously, you do realize that Lee, Kirby, et al are the guys who invented realism in superhero comics?

spyridona

09-21-2006, 09:03 PM

Yeah, escapism like when your uncle dies.

Or your best friend gets hooked on drugs.

Or when the guy who just joined the team turns traitor, then kicks the bucket.

Seriously, you do realize that Lee, Kirby, et al are the guys who invented realism in superhero comics?

Escapism doesn’t mean “fluff’, there has to be traces of human struggle in order for it to be popular. What makes it escapism is seeing how people overcome or deal with the said situation in ways that you cannot. Usually, they're supposed to give you hope or empathy or at the very least, "Man, I'm glad my life doesn't suck that much!"

StoneGold

09-21-2006, 09:38 PM

Escapism doesn’t mean “fluff’, there has to be traces of human struggle in order for it to be popular. What makes it escapism is seeing how people overcome or deal with the said situation in ways that you cannot. Usually, they're supposed to give you hope or empathy or at the very least, "Man, I'm glad my life doesn't suck that much!"
Actually, no, it doesn't. That might be your interpretation of it, but that's not actually what the word means. Escapism is the habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine. But in these little discussions, it generally is about modern storytelling vs., oh, let's say your average issue of Marvel Team Up. Which ignores all the not so happy, real world problem stuff that Stan used to stick in his stories.

jackolover

09-21-2006, 09:48 PM

jackolover

09-21-2006, 09:56 PM

Because if the intentions were to genuinely help promote thought about these kinds of issues, all they've done is given a poor portrayal for them and ultimately done the reader a huge disservice.

It's caused the most discussion on the political significants of CW, related to our understanding in law, I've ever read in threads. And as for the characters, even more! Is it my imagination, but have these threads been galloping along at an enormous pace since CW started. (I don't know because I just came on this board when CW began)

jackolover

09-21-2006, 09:59 PM

Iron Man's entire objective was to gain that surrender, and the fact that he brought so much firepower indicates that he didn't care all that much which means he used to get it. He could have showed up alone and said, "I won't stop you from leaving if you want to leave, but please hear me out." It's not like the combined efforts of all the anti-reg heroes could have hurt him, or stop him from retreating if he'd have wanted to. But no, he brought enough force to put him in a position of absolute power, attacked first, and then said, basically, "Surrender before I hurt you some more." That's an ultimatum. It's a threat. But it isn't negotiation, and it isn't good faith, and it isn't "I only wanted to talk."

I wonder what would have happened if Cap did listen to Tony for the 5 minutes? What would he have heard Tony say, and what would Cap have replied?

Slade.

09-21-2006, 10:04 PM

Hey I might get cruicified by some of you but...... I like Civil War so far, I like Millar's style and what he does. The realism and less cornyness appeals to me and I enjoy it. WHat I also found is I've turned alot of people into comic fans with the Ultimates and other stuff of Millar for the same reason. They always thought comics were nothing but childish nerdy corny things becuz of the image they got in their heads from the older comics in the 60's and 70's and etc... So I mean he must be doing something right, cuz while some of the older "die-hard" guys might be upset everyone else seems to love it. I was a little dissapointed with the clone, even mad for a few minutes at first, but now I'm fine with it since it does make sense. I think the art is GREAT, I'm becoming a real big fan of this guy's style too.

And no matter who wrote this story, and which way it went there'd still be SOMEONE who isn't satisifed and always someone complaining so it's whatever. Can't please everyone.

StoneGold

09-21-2006, 10:05 PM

I wonder what would have happened if Cap did listen to Tony for the 5 minutes? What would he have heard Tony say, and what would Cap have replied?
Guess what Christos Gage is writing?

But seriously, yeah, he's writing that story.

gorthon616

09-21-2006, 10:06 PM

It's caused the most discussion on the political significants of CW, related to our understanding in law, I've ever read in threads. And as for the characters, even more! Is it my imagination, but have these threads been galloping along at an enormous pace since CW started. (I don't know because I just came on this board when CW began)

Well, the argument isn't that it hasor hasn't created a discussion, but rather that it is a poor vehicle given it's (poor) storyline. Just because X-Men are supposed to symbolize racism/nameless distrust, doesn't mean that every story that they ever had was a good vehicle to discuss the issue or that it would ever be worthwhile to look at the story in that manner.

I was actually going to make a thread on this, but perhaps it'd be better just to ask directly. What insights have you exactly gleaned from Civil War? Or discussions? Curious.

Siddon

09-21-2006, 10:35 PM

Somebody complaining about Goliath being black and getting killed reminds me of when there was a group of people who got all hot at Spielberg for having a black man to be the first to die in Jurrasic Park. Seems just silly, that's like women getting mad at him because he killed a girl first in Jaws.

Well they have killed four characters, two where black, one was a woman and one was a character who was in less then 7 issues total. Also putting all the black characters on one-side I find very troubling and border-line offensive except for the ones who become full fledged cops (Bishop, War Machine).

On the other hand Marvel seems to be getting rid of all the characters that don't work anymore and a lot of these black characters where just created as "black" characters.

I would say that with all that said this is the best Mini-series Marvel/DC has ever released, they have three more chapters to tell so it is a little early but no mini (Secret Wars, IF, IC, HOM, etc) has been this good this far into a series.

What I really like about the book is how each issue is an "icon" type issue where the status quo is changed for the characters involved.

Issue 1 - Cap
Issue 2 - Spider-man
Issue 3 - Thor
Issue 4 - Fantastic Four
Issue 5 - Punisher (spec)
Issue 6 - Namor (spec)
Issue 7 - Iron Man (spec)

bulbasteve

09-21-2006, 10:56 PM

I was actually going to make a thread on this, but perhaps it'd be better just to ask directly. What insights have you exactly gleaned from Civil War? Or discussions? Curious.

I've learned an undying hatred for anti-establishment types.

jackolover

09-21-2006, 10:59 PM

Well, the argument isn't that it hasor hasn't created a discussion, but rather that it is a poor vehicle given it's (poor) storyline. Just because X-Men are supposed to symbolize racism/nameless distrust, doesn't mean that every story that they ever had was a good vehicle to discuss the issue or that it would ever be worthwhile to look at the story in that manner.

I was actually going to make a thread on this, but perhaps it'd be better just to ask directly. What insights have you exactly gleaned from Civil War? Or discussions? Curious.

I can't give specifics because I just don't have the posts in front of me but lets see...

I found out about rebellions from the past
That Lincoln had a whole section of community arrested during the US CW.
An African-american perspective on the Luke Cage arrest.
The forum community is very willing to discuss and expand on questions by other posters. I think it has been a very possitive exercise.
I have learnt about alternative plots (Thanks to yourself and others)
I have alternative insights on what I see and how others see the same thing, and this expands my appreciation of the event.

I mean these are just some of the positives I have experienced, and Conn has at least kept my posts, that were bumped, or threads, so they weren't completely lost, just placed under other headings.

i hope that helped.

jackolover

09-21-2006, 11:11 PM

Guess what Christos Gage is writing?

But seriously, yeah, he's writing that story.

I'm sorry. Who is Christos Gage? Is he a marvel writer? Please explain who is writing the conversation between Cap and IM and what it's about.

gorthon616

09-21-2006, 11:47 PM

I can't give specifics because I just don't have the posts in front of me but lets see...

I found out about rebellions from the past
That Lincoln had a whole section of community arrested during the US CW.
An African-american perspective on the Luke Cage arrest.
The forum community is very willing to discuss and expand on questions by other posters. I think it has been a very possitive exercise.
I have learnt about alternative plots (Thanks to yourself and others)
I have alternative insights on what I see and how others see the same thing, and this expands my appreciation of the event.

I mean these are just some of the positives I have experienced, and Conn has at least kept my posts, that were bumped, or threads, so they weren't completely lost, just placed under other headings.

i hope that helped.

But see my point is that none of that stuff really had anything to do with the story. I'm flipping through the story trying to see the substance behind it, and I don't really see that much. The question that was purportedly behind Civil War was were you for or against Registration. However, it really has nothing to do with that, that was just the starting point. The story is not about Registration anymore, but just about character's reaction to Registration. The crux of the story isn't "Registration," it is Iron Man is doing X and Captain America is doing Y and the inevitable fall out because of it. If you are being pulled in one direction or another, is it because of some sort of issue or reason that they are showing or telling? Or is it just because of someone's action? Did Tony doing this, or Cap saying that sway your opinion? Then ask yourself, did the fundamental question about the validity/necessity of registration suddenly change because of that? And if so, why should it? Is it because "at any cost" suddenly went up in price?

This is the reason why I feel the comic has done a diservice to readers. Because rather than providing a forum for the idea to form and characters to react and respond to that idea to further an understanding of it, the character are reacting as means to force opinion on the issue without ever really touching it. We should not be forming our opinions (whatever they may be) because of someone saying this or doing that, we should be forming them based on the substance of the issue being expressed and as a natural result of being exposed to it. But instead we are being slighted in directions. Whether or not they are balanced is to me a moot point.

What relevance would it be to say that I'm more "anti-registration" now that I know that Iron Man is enlisting super-villains to hunt down heroes? Well, I can say that I dislike Iron Man. I can say that I dislike how is going about registration. But can I say anything about whether registration itself is good or bad? Not really, as "siding with villains" is not strictly within the realm of being "pro-registration" and so the influence that fact would have on my feelings towards registration should be irrelevant. This is merely something the writer has tagged onto it to influence the reader.

The same goes with Cap. What can I say about him viewing a friend (presumably) dying as merely being a publicity vehicle? Well, I can say I dislike him. But it has nothing to do with whether or not registration is bad or good. Again, it's just meant to influence the reader.

And so what? Maybe Captain America will go kill Franklin Richards in the next issue. Maybe I'll be Pro-Registration. Or maybe next Iron Man will decide that nuking the state to get Captain America will be worth it and I'll be Anti-Registration. But at the end of the day, the influence that the story has given me will have not addressed any of the issues about the whether or not Registration is a good thing or a bad thing. Instead it will only have side-stepped that issue and given us the impression that it was designed to give us.

The Shadow

09-22-2006, 12:00 AM

Just to play devils advocate on two points here:
it's just meant to influence the reader.
1) ANY story is meant to influence the reader and pull him/her along. That's the very nature of it.

When Zemo ripped up the picture of Cap's mom in Under Seige it was a plot device designed to make us hate Zemo and show how resolute Cap is. Of course there's an intention to influence the reader... that's what good fiction does... it engages you nand makes you think. Each issue of this series has shown both sides to give it balance.

If it doesn't influence the reader it's probably not a very good story.

the influence that the story has given me will have not addressed any of the issues about the whether or not Registration is a good thing or a bad thing. Instead it will only have side-stepped that issue and given us the impression that it was designed to give us.
2) People complain about "talking heads" and "decompression" in comics. Do you want ANOTHER whole issue where people stand around and debate the pro's and cons of registration???

Perhaps they could/should have touched on it more in the actual mini series, but the tie-in's have done a fantastic job of getting peoples ideas and opinions out and rounding out the thoughts and opinions of the characters.

These 7 issues are the ass-kicking, knock down, drag out FIGHTS. The talking is being done elsewhere.

I think that 7 issues is too short to tell the whole story if you don't want the tie-ins... but in a story this complex I believe they are needed.

jackolover

09-22-2006, 12:06 AM

But see my point is that none of that stuff really had anything to do with the story. I'm flipping through the story trying to see the substance behind it, and I don't really see that much. The question that was purportedly behind Civil War was were you for or against Registration. However, it really has nothing to do with that, that was just the starting point. The story is not about Registration anymore, but just about character's reaction to Registration. The crux of the story isn't "Registration," it is Iron Man is doing X and Captain America is doing Y and the inevitable fall out because of it. If you are being pulled in one direction or another, is it because of some sort of issue or reason that they are showing or telling? Or is it just because of someone's action? Did Tony doing this, or Cap saying that sway your opinion? Then ask yourself, did the fundamental question about the validity/necessity of registration suddenly change because of that? And if so, why should it? Is it because "at any cost" suddenly went up in price?

This is the reason why I feel the comic has done a diservice to readers. Because rather than providing a forum for the idea to form and characters to react and respond to that idea to further an understanding of it, the character are reacting as means to force opinion on the issue without ever really touching it. We should not be forming our opinions (whatever they may be) because of someone saying this or doing that, we should be forming them based on the substance of the issue being expressed and as a natural result of being exposed to it. But instead we are being slighted in directions. Whether or not they are balanced is to me a moot point.

What relevance would it be to say that I'm more "anti-registration" now that I know that Iron Man is enlisting super-villains to hunt down heroes? Well, I can say that I dislike Iron Man. I can say that I dislike how is going about registration. But can I say anything about whether registration itself is good or bad? Not really, as "siding with villains" is not strictly within the realm of being "pro-registration" and so the influence that fact would have on my feelings towards registration should be irrelevant. This is merely something the writer has tagged onto it to influence the reader.

The same goes with Cap. What can I say about him viewing a friend (presumably) dying as merely being a publicity vehicle? Well, I can say I dislike him. But it has nothing to do with whether or not registration is bad or good. Again, it's just meant to influence the reader.

And so what? Maybe Captain America will go kill Franklin Richards in the next issue. Maybe I'll be Pro-Registration. Or maybe next Iron Man will decide that nuking the state to get Captain America will be worth it and I'll be Anti-Registration. But at the end of the day, the influence that the story has given me will have not addressed any of the issues about the whether or not Registration is a good thing or a bad thing. Instead it will only have side-stepped that issue and given us the impression that it was designed to give us.

Simply put, (and I have stated this elsewhere), my change from being anti-registration to being pro-registration (I changed), was not influenced by any action by the characters, as used by the writer. My reason for changing was more vague than clear.

I had originally been strongly against registration because I felt it impinged on an area (the superhumans) that civilians had never tried to influence. That was my whole disagreement with the SHRA.

Progressively, as more discussion erupted on the forum, I became interested in the concept of policing done by superheroes. And for the life of me, I cannot tell you why. I just did. I think some ideas act on a subconcious level, sometimes, and eventually penitrate out into the conscious, at odd times.

I wish I could counter your argument, that my stance on Registration was not due to writer tricks with characters, but it's hard to argue. Who knows if some of the antics of Cap led me to change? Maybe I have a a deep seated knowing, that Cap will fail, and the pro-side would win. I still like to think that it is my great curiosity that makes me want to see how the SHRA act out, now that the writers have gone to all this trouble to plot, this CW.

XPac

09-22-2006, 12:33 AM

I wonder what would have happened if Cap did listen to Tony for the 5 minutes? What would he have heard Tony say, and what would Cap have replied?

Is it me, or does Tonys plan seem LESS appealing as more if it is being revealed? Thor clones? Supervillian armies?

If Caps reaction is anything like a lot of other peoples view, then I think Tony talking to Cap will cause more harm than good.

Mark Wallace

09-22-2006, 12:40 AM

"Escapism" doesn't really exist as a literary category, though. Escapism has more to do with the reader's frame of mind and attitude than with the content and tone of the literary work. You can escape reality by reading almost any kind of fiction (or even non-fiction, actually) - comics need to find other ways to be relevant.

Ben Grimm didn't become popular because he was a vector for escapism, he became popular because he reminded us of something each of us has felt: what it means to be rejected. "Civil War" seems to be following the Lee and Kirby formula pretty closely.
Escapism is about vicariously living somone else's life, be it Ben Grimm's, Peter Parker's, or George Bailey's. Comics these days have moved away from that, in the "OMIGOD! GODZILLA'S DESTROYED TOKYO AGAIN!" direction.

Me, I don't see that as being particularly entertaining (at least, not after the 33rd time that 20 million people or an entire world has been killed off).

Lee's Marvel was all about personal feelings and interpersonal relationships (and Hulk smashing), not about mass death or 'submersion and alignment', which is what CW is based on.

The Shadow

09-22-2006, 12:53 AM

Lee's Marvel was all about personal feelings and interpersonal relationships, not about mass death or 'submersion and alignment'
I disagree. Totally.
Well... sort of ;) ... parts of it were about what you mentioned but it was alot deeper than you are giving Lee credit for.

The whole X-universe is about Civil rights!!!!
The supression of one group of people and the "normal" persons reactions!
Lee was doing all this 40 years ago!

Granted he may have had less blood and guts, but he was also writing during the height of the comics code when things like what happened in CW 4 might not have gotten past a sensor.

Mark Wallace

09-22-2006, 12:54 AM

If you're paralleling Civil War to the real world, then I think you are way off. This is not any sort of decent allegory for real world issues, and for me that is another huge reason why I cannot just let it slide as just-another-bad-story. Because if the intentions were to genuinely help promote thought about these kinds of issues, all they've done is given a poor portrayal for them and ultimately done the reader a huge disservice.
It's an "it had to happen sooner or later" story the mutant registration thing's been hovering for years, and someday such a story had to be told.
We should think ourselves lucky that they got someone of Millar's standards to do it -- can you imagine the kind of mess a Thomas or an Engelhart would have made?

As for unexpected circumstances leading to unexpected reactions, that's a cheap out. Yes, it can be "in character to be out of character," but that does not simply mean you can write off any character-failure as being a result of that. Of course, usually there is some sort of rational explaination, i.e. they mentally broke. Are we saying that the SHRA broke Cap mentally? Are we saying that a school being blown up broke Tony mentally? For people who have been dealing with villains, horrors, and worse on a daily basis, I don't think we can say that they could. And at the very least nothing within the Civil War series ever show how they could, they just asserted that they did.
What's been done is that the country has been mobilised against general super-dupers the way it has always been against mutants. The standard super-dupers can't handle it, because it has never before been part of their world (even Spidey's), and are overreacting (in different directions).

Given that, it is perfectly normal to expect people to act out of character, because they don't really know what the Hell they're doing. Note that the mutant populace is behaving perfectly in character, because they've been prepared for such occurrences, and are more or less taking it in their stride.

All in all, I'd say the core story has been well written.

jaxcs

09-22-2006, 01:31 AM

I'm flipping through the story trying to see the substance behind it, and I don't really see that much. The question that was purportedly behind Civil War was were you for or against Registration. However, it really has nothing to do with that, that was just the starting point. The story is not about Registration anymore, but just about character's reaction to Registration. The crux of the story isn't "Registration," it is Iron Man is doing X and Captain America is doing Y and the inevitable fall out because of it.

Although many of us are familiar with the MU, the details of the registration are not known to us. Without this knowledge and without the privilege of living in a world populated with actual super heroes who battle villains in the streets and without an actual Stamford incident it is difficult to be fiercely pro or anti SHRA. You are right to say that we react to the events surrounding the SHRA but all we know about the SHRA is how the MU citizens respond and how we are told the SHRA is enforced. Is is possible to create a comic of the kind you seem interested in but I don't believe Millar is interested in providing you with that sort of experience. This story is very much about heroes acting heroically and heroes failing to act heroically. You may think I am reaching a bit, but I think it's operatic - a super hero opera if you will.

jaxcs

09-22-2006, 01:41 AM

Simply put, (and I have stated this elsewhere), my change from being anti-registration to being pro-registration (I changed), was not influenced by any action by the characters, as used by the writer. My reason for changing was more vague than clear.

I had originally been strongly against registration because I felt it impinged on an area (the superhumans) that civilians had never tried to influence. That was my whole disagreement with the SHRA.

Progressively, as more discussion erupted on the forum, I became interested in the concept of policing done by superheroes. And for the life of me, I cannot tell you why. I just did. I think some ideas act on a subconcious level, sometimes, and eventually penitrate out into the conscious, at odd times.

I wish I could counter your argument, that my stance on Registration was not due to writer tricks with characters, but it's hard to argue. Who knows if some of the antics of Cap led me to change? Maybe I have a a deep seated knowing, that Cap will fail, and the pro-side would win. I still like to think that it is my great curiosity that makes me want to see how the SHRA act out, now that the writers have gone to all this trouble to plot, this CW.

I am very interested in hearing why you changed your position. Would you be willing to share your reasoning? I am certain that Millar does not intend for us to hate either IM or Cap at the end of the story but a little momentum is starting to build for readers to feel ill at ease with the pro side - cloning, extra-dimensional gulag, violent death of Giant Man, use of nanobots to control villains, coalition with villans etc. Despite all this, you actually became more interested in the pro side. I am curious about your reaction.

StoneGold

09-22-2006, 02:06 AM

I'm sorry. Who is Christos Gage? Is he a marvel writer? Please explain who is writing the conversation between Cap and IM and what it's about.
Read, because I'm too much of a lazy bastard to explain.

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=84440

Mark Wallace

09-22-2006, 04:31 AM

I disagree. Totally.
Well... sort of ;) ... parts of it were about what you mentioned but it was alot deeper than you are giving Lee credit for.

The whole X-universe is about Civil rights!!!!
And megadeaths. Don't forget megadeaths. Very important, these days -- even the Civil War could result in the end of the universe, do'tcha know? So a few cities or planets are bound to be blown up.

Whoops! There goes Atlantis again! *sigh* I suppose this means Subby will be invading the surface world, yet again.

The supression of one group of people and the "normal" persons reactions!
Lee was doing all this 40 years ago!

Granted he may have had less blood and guts, but he was also writing during the height of the comics code when things like what happened in CW 4 might not have gotten past a sensor.
Nah, I don't think we're seeing "normal" behaviour, because most characters' normalcy has been submerged into one political mob mind or another. The only "normal" reaction in CW 4 was Spidey's, wondering if they were in the right; just about every other character has been aligned and is acting obsessively (which is the way real life works, in such heated times, but it's still not "normal").

It's an extreme situation, and one that can't be handled by people whose speciality is jumping around and and hitting people, so they're all fish out of water, gasping for breath and overreacting -- either by becoming too emotional or too cold. That's a normal enough outcome, so far as psychology and behavioural science are concerned, but it doesn't result in "normal" behaviour at the individual level.

gorthon616

09-22-2006, 07:15 AM

Just to play devils advocate on two points here:

1) ANY story is meant to influence the reader and pull him/her along. That's the very nature of it.

When Zemo ripped up the picture of Cap's mom in Under Seige it was a plot device designed to make us hate Zemo and show how resolute Cap is. Of course there's an intention to influence the reader... that's what good fiction does... it engages you nand makes you think. Each issue of this series has shown both sides to give it balance.

If it doesn't influence the reader it's probably not a very good story.

We're using the word "influence" in a slightly different way though. If we're trying to invoke a "he's the evil guy" influence, we can do what you said Zemo did or play the Jaws music or whatever. But isn't this story supposed to be about a morally grey area? But yet we're using the same tools (to a degree) in Civil War. And if the idea is to encourage thought on the topic, then we are going against the grain. Did the act that Zemo did make you think that Zemo might just have a different, but entirely legitimate, world-view that Captain America? That's my problem with the influence of the book, it's not designed to open thought, but rather channel it in this direction or that direction.

2) People complain about "talking heads" and "decompression" in comics. Do you want ANOTHER whole issue where people stand around and debate the pro's and cons of registration???

I complain about it if it's bad (if it's good, I enjoy it). But I would say that we can have a story that expresses the underlying issues of registration, without having to result to talking heads. Like if the issue is dangerous heroes or untrained heroes, why not portray situations where the threat and it's subsequent solution is in play? Civil War has pretty much avoided actually assessment of the threat. It's not that we need more talking, but the actions of the characters are largely not driven by the act and its underlying reasons, but rather their own actions. Civil War is less about registration and more about Captain America vs. Iron Man.

Perhaps they could/should have touched on it more in the actual mini series, but the tie-in's have done a fantastic job of getting peoples ideas and opinions out and rounding out the thoughts and opinions of the characters.

These 7 issues are the ass-kicking, knock down, drag out FIGHTS. The talking is being done elsewhere.

I think that 7 issues is too short to tell the whole story if you don't want the tie-ins... but in a story this complex I believe they are needed.

Perhaps that is true. I haven't particularly cared to read any of the tie-ins. My opinion of Civil War is purely based on the main series, and it might change if I read the tie-ins. If the pitch of Civil War is that the main series is the fun super-hero slobberknocker, then I guess they're doing a decent job in that regard.

gorthon616

09-22-2006, 07:27 AM

Simply put, (and I have stated this elsewhere), my change from being anti-registration to being pro-registration (I changed), was not influenced by any action by the characters, as used by the writer. My reason for changing was more vague than clear.

I had originally been strongly against registration because I felt it impinged on an area (the superhumans) that civilians had never tried to influence. That was my whole disagreement with the SHRA.

Progressively, as more discussion erupted on the forum, I became interested in the concept of policing done by superheroes. And for the life of me, I cannot tell you why. I just did. I think some ideas act on a subconcious level, sometimes, and eventually penitrate out into the conscious, at odd times.

I wish I could counter your argument, that my stance on Registration was not due to writer tricks with characters, but it's hard to argue. Who knows if some of the antics of Cap led me to change? Maybe I have a a deep seated knowing, that Cap will fail, and the pro-side would win. I still like to think that it is my great curiosity that makes me want to see how the SHRA act out, now that the writers have gone to all this trouble to plot, this CW.

I'm not trying to point out that you or anyone is being influenced by *suchandsuch*. I whole-heartedly believe that your reasons for falling on Pro-Reg/Anti-Reg have not as much to do with Cap/Tony doing this or that, and more to do with your own personal ideas on the topic. My point is that the Civil War story is virtually all writer's tricks, and thus comes short on substance. That people can still read it, discuss it, and make substantive realizations from it is a testament to the people who are reading it and discussing it, but I don't think it's any indication of the value of the story. And if this was meant to be the new "Watchmen," then I feel it falls woe-fully short.

gorthon616

09-22-2006, 07:38 AM

Although many of us are familiar with the MU, the details of the registration are not known to us. Without this knowledge and without the privilege of living in a world populated with actual super heroes who battle villains in the streets and without an actual Stamford incident it is difficult to be fiercely pro or anti SHRA. You are right to say that we react to the events surrounding the SHRA but all we know about the SHRA is how the MU citizens respond and how we are told the SHRA is enforced. Is is possible to create a comic of the kind you seem interested in but I don't believe Millar is interested in providing you with that sort of experience.

If I have a failing as a reader I would have to say it's that, at heart, I'm too much of a writer. And often times the story presented must compete with the story that I start coming up as I'm reading the story. So I would have to admit that, in all likelihood, that is influencing my opinion of the story.

This story is very much about heroes acting heroically and heroes failing to act heroically. You may think I am reaching a bit, but I think it's operatic - a super hero opera if you will.

I would agree with that if not for the characterization of the characters. Ignoring how they "should" or shouldn't act, I don't feel they are acting particularly admirably or nobly. There is only if you, detached from the story, would be pro or anti registration; and reading to see if they people who agree with you end up being less-jerks than the other guys.

Bobster777

09-22-2006, 08:25 AM

You know what. Whatever they say about the story now is just bull to me. I don't think that they can say with a straight face that they are not purposefully trying to make the pro side look like the bad guys in this story. There is just no other way to look at it. Throughout this whole story, they have made it so that the actions of the pro side is indefensible. They solidified it with this issue. You know, I think I would have been able to forgive what happened if they would just admit that they had no intention of writing a fair and balanced story. However, they still have to keep trying to insult my intelligence and say otherwise. Like I said, I'm going to keep reading considering the time and money have have spent for this storyline. After this though, I won't be buying anything of Millar's anymore.

spyridona

09-22-2006, 09:23 AM

Hey I might get cruicified by some of you but...... I like Civil War so far, I like Millar's style and what he does. The realism and less cornyness appeals to me and I enjoy it.

No offense, but how is 'surfing' on a fighter plane, burying a 60+ foot man, cloning a god, or having a furious wife having sex with her husband before she leaves him, realistic and 'not corny'? :rolleyes: That's why I cannot stand Millar, because everything he does is immature and blind nummingly unbelieveable.

I disagree. Totally.
Well... sort of ;) ... parts of it were about what you mentioned but it was alot deeper than you are giving Lee credit for.

The whole X-universe is about Civil rights!!!!

Yes, but Lee's X-Men failed. It wasn't until the second generation that introduced the Soap Opera elements and interaction between the characters did X-Men began to get popular.

Effect

09-22-2006, 09:57 AM

After Ultimate X-men I had my misgivings about Millar. I knew there was a very good reason why I didn't like his work after I read some issues of the Ultimates. Civil War has just locked it for me that I'll never read his work again. For those that said he doesnt' understand what his writing, the characters he's writing, etc I agree completely.

Just like Ultimate X-men, he doesn't care I feel. He has a story he wants to tell and he'll tell it no matter what it does to the characters or who has to clean up the mess. Look at the over the top, lack of logic and sense Ultimate X-men arcs he wrote at the beginning of that series. That is a series for those that are suppose to be new to the X-men, who had no knowledge of it. He wrote it assuming the reasons know full well who the X-men are. He spent no time developing said characters or giving a reader a reason to carea about them. That only started when the other writers took over the title.

The same thing with Civil War I feel. He knows others are writing more detailed tie ins so its almost like he doesn't even bother trying to do things reasonabliy. It isn't his concern clearly so he piles shit on top of shit like he's down for the last few issues and let the other writers work things out.

It now falls to JMS to deal with the mess the Fantastic Four are in. It falls to Bendis and the writer of IM's solo title to damage control Iron Man and to justify his actions. It falls to the other authors as well to pick up the pieces of all the other characters. Millar has nothing to deal with the results of his storytelling. That alone, because I feel it's true by what I"m reading, is why I hate his writing and why in the end I'll not like Civil War. Already I have a distaste for it.

Fair and balance my ass. The whole story is so one side it isn't even fun. There is no way the anti-side could put up a decent fight. There is no way the Pro-side can be shown as having any sort of positive nature. There doesn't even seem to be any personal struggles here cause the situations don't make any sense.

Planet Hulk and Annihilation in terms of quality greatly out do Civil War at the moment. I have no problem saying that now. I had hoped once Civil War got going it would be deep and no seem shallow or to one sided but not it's just that. It will change the Marvel Univere I don't doubt that but really into what is the issue.

I do know I'll not be reading any Pro-side titles once this is over. I can't see any reason to now. I'll stick with New Avengers but Mighty Avengers wont' even get a flip through. Omega Flight might get picked up but anything with Millar's name on it won't be touched by my hands or even downloaded thats how far the dislike goes.

Is it so much to ask for a balance story where both sides have the positive and negative? Where Reed is actively torn about what he's doing and actually trying to tone things down while Iron keep pushing things? Or having Captain America lead the good fight while some other hero pushes to far in the name of Freedom and has to be checked by someone else?

That's the type of story I though were getting when it came to the name Civil War. Guess I was foolish into thinking I wouldn't get a story that insulted me.

jackolover

09-22-2006, 05:15 PM

Read, because I'm too much of a lazy bastard to explain.

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=84440

Oh, yes. I have that printout. I just haven't read it yet. Thanks for the reminder.

jackolover

09-22-2006, 05:33 PM

I'm not trying to point out that you or anyone is being influenced by *suchandsuch*. I whole-heartedly believe that your reasons for falling on Pro-Reg/Anti-Reg have not as much to do with Cap/Tony doing this or that, and more to do with your own personal ideas on the topic. My point is that the Civil War story is virtually all writer's tricks, and thus comes short on substance. That people can still read it, discuss it, and make substantive realizations from it is a testament to the people who are reading it and discussing it, but I don't think it's any indication of the value of the story. And if this was meant to be the new "Watchmen," then I feel it falls woe-fully short.

Okay. I hadn't realised you only look at the main series. I had read the Road To CW in Amazing Spiderman that prequels the main series, and JM Straczinski did a marvelous job of talking-heads discussion in 3 issues, which really tore open the issue of Registration. Mind you, it was probably biased towards Tony's veiws considering Tony convinced Peter Parker to join him. But there was a moment of hesitation, when Peter looked at his bank accounts and was ready to flee to Canada till this whole thing blows over. But his family spoke to him, and he was convinced to stick it out, no matter what. That was a poignant moment in the debate, and Peter will look back at his decision to stay, with the 'familys' argument on his conscience.

This lead to lots of forum discussions on threads, where posters debated the relevant pros and cons of their respective sides. This, to me, was very relevant to how people chose their sides, or at least why they stuck to the side they chose.

So, even though you insist the story was not written to invoke enough debate out of the readers, I saw tremendous debate throughout the event, so far. Many of the issues conveyed in the earlier Road to CW books, gave a pretty solid idea as to what the SHRA was. The details eventually came out, in Frontline and Ms Marvel and NA. Sure, the main series had lots of action and controversy. But a lot of the tie-ins gave fans lots to discuss, and I noticed, quite a few changed sides because of the details. But mostly, like you say, it was because of the actions of IM and Cap.

However, I dispute that the issue of registration was not properly conveyed throughout the series.

jackolover

09-22-2006, 05:58 PM

I am very interested in hearing why you changed your position. Would you be willing to share your reasoning? I am certain that Millar does not intend for us to hate either IM or Cap at the end of the story but a little momentum is starting to build for readers to feel ill at ease with the pro side - cloning, extra-dimensional gulag, violent death of Giant Man, use of nanobots to control villains, coalition with villans etc. Despite all this, you actually became more interested in the pro side. I am curious about your reaction.

Jacxs, you are really pushing me here. I tried to explain to gorthon616 why I changed, but it became very hard. My reasons are not like other posters who cite a disgust with Iron Mans actions and plans, and change sides. I am not that fussed with the tactics used by the combatants, because, like the US CW, alls fair in love and war. So I don't judge either the pro side or the anti side by their actions. I just sit back and look at behavior of characters, put under pressure, and see how the writer has handled it.

I enjoyed the controversy. The harder and more bizzarre the the tactics used, the better I liked it. To me, it wasn't so much the evil with which men approach each other, but the responses to what gets done to them, that intrigued me. So that eventually, it was not so much the vehicle of the conflict, (the registration), but almost the Star Wars melodrama played out by people, who basically loved each other, but were forced by conscience to take sides, for whatever moral reasons.

So, though I disagreed with the whole concept of superheros registration, as being an infringement on superhero jurisdiction, the very idea of breaking open this very staid institution, then began to inflame my imagination. What would happen if all super heroes were forced to register?

And then I went on from there. I changed sides, because I wanted to see superheroes put in awkward positions. At this point, I don't know whether I will even get my wish. CW 4 has really opened a can of worms, so that the whole concept of registration could go belly up. I hope it doesn't. Once you start this juggernaut (the SHRA), I think you should let it run it's course.

Shyft

09-22-2006, 06:17 PM

If Millar and Brevoort think their writing is making us sway to the Pro-side, and that the majority of people sympathise more with pro then anti, then they obviously have no idea what they are writing.

I find it very surprising that Marvel representatives are also taking the line of "breaking a federal law is wrong no matter what the situation" and "going against the will of the people". These seem such baseline arguments im frankly surprised that anyone uses them in a serious debate. if tomorrow the Government passed a law making all black people second class citizens, or saying all Muslims have to "register" with the Government, would people really be held to account for not going through legal channels? Especially if those legal channels dont seem particularily open? Look Speedballs situation. Anyone who says "they should do this the legal way" is naive. In order to not get thrown in 42, where they become "unregistered combatants" with no rights, they would have to sign up, ie the thing they are trying to fight against.

And to hear Brevoort saying "IM just wanted to talk" is ridiculous as well. If the anti's didnt like what IM had to say, would they have been let go? No, they would have been arrested for breaking a law they feel is unjust. So where was the point where violence could have been avoided?

THat would have been a funny talk too.

IM: just give me five minutes.

Cap: ok, five minutes.

IM: Great! So what we've done is we've cloned all of you without your consent, and have brainwashed the clones into doing whatever we say! Isnt that great!

I honestly hope this is just Marvel playing devils advocate. Because if this is the POV of the people WRITING civil war, i am very worried about how it will end.

gorthon616

09-22-2006, 07:44 PM

jackolover: Sorry if you feel like I'm pushing you. I tend to be very hardline and make people work for every point they try to hold when I get argumentative.

That there is more written in the Spider-Man story, is something that I don't have an answer to however. The story that you convey is one that I actually find to be quite interesting. I only wish that I could see more of that in the Civil War main series.

jackolover

09-22-2006, 08:12 PM

stillanerd

09-22-2006, 10:20 PM

The backpeddling and damage control by Marvel over at Newsarama continues in this weeks New Joe's Fridays column (http://www.newsarama.com/NewJoeFridays/NewJoeFridays14.html)

NRAMA: We spoke with Tom [Brevoort] and Mark [Millar] about this earlier, but with the Pro-Registration side as it’s shown, can you honestly say they're still being shown in an even-handed manner? After all, Cap may have thrown the first punch, but Tony's side killed someone, is cloning an army, and sticking things in Clor's ear (that's what we call cloned Thor around here)…

That said - can you see the point of view of fans who say that you're only presenting Cap in a sympathetic light?

JQ: We are only on issue #4; can we just let the story play itself out? That said, I don't know if you can convince someone about one thing or another once they have their hearts set on something. I personally believe that many people were inclined to root for

Cap at the very onset as he is clearly the underdog and fighting against the big machine that is Tony, his troops and the government. Like so many things in life that affect people at their most base emotional levels, it would take a pretty harsh action to have them change their minds otherwise. But, with that in mind, do you think for a second that we didn't know where people were going to be instantly leaning?

Even before the first page of Civil War was read, we were 100% sure of who fandom was going to be rooting for, but that's pretty true of any story. What's key here is that that is how great writers construct their stories and they use those tools and manipulation of a reader's emotions in order to keep them guessing and surprised with how things turn out. Sometimes the butler has done it, sometimes not.

The Shadow

09-22-2006, 10:53 PM

The backpeddling and damage control by Marvel over at Newsarama continues in this weeks New Joe's Fridays column (http://www.newsarama.com/NewJoeFridays/NewJoeFridays14.html)
Ummm... what are you talking about?

What backpeddling?
What damage control?

They don't need to justify or correct anything with us. It's THEIR property.

Nothing in your quote suggests backpeddling or damage control. Perhaps YOU are looking for something that isn't there.

TotalWorldDomination

09-22-2006, 11:28 PM

Ummm... what are you talking about?

What backpeddling?
What damage control?

They don't need to justify or correct anything with us. It's THEIR property.

Nothing in your quote suggests backpeddling or damage control. Perhaps YOU are looking for something that isn't there.

No, it's backpedling over them saying that no-one would be portrayed as a bad guy in this. They start off saying that they expect fandom to be split, but now claim they knew that cap was going to be hevily favored?

If they KNEW cap would be heavly favored, but wanted to make things balenced then why is the first half of the series OVERWHELMINGLY Pro-Anti-Registration? They keep telling us to wait, that it will get even. Well, even if every issue from now till the end are totaly even handed, the series AS A WHOLE would go Anti-reg since the whole first half is Anti-reg. They are going to have to REALY step up and have some tie-ins that make the anti-regs look worse then tony and reed for them to keep there balenced promises.

The Shadow

09-22-2006, 11:46 PM

it's backpedling over them saying that no-one would be portrayed as a bad guy in this.
No one has. Iron Man is doing what HE thinks is right and so is Cap.

They start off saying that they expect fandom to be split
And it has been.
but now claim they knew that cap was going to be hevily favored?
... people always root for the underdog.

It's not uncommon. Hell, I knew Cap would be favoured before CW was released because no one likes rules forced upon them... and what the SHRA sounds like is something a fascist government would do... and no onelikes that.

If they KNEW cap would be heavly favored, but wanted to make things balenced then why is the first half of the series OVERWHELMINGLY Pro-Anti-Registration?
I don't think it is.

But assuming it is, I believe Quesada in that very same interview addressed that. He said in that same article - JQ: We are only on issue #4; can we just let the story play itself out? meaning there's plenty of story to tell.

They are going to have to REALY step up and have some tie-ins that make the anti-regs look worse then tony and reed for them to keep there balenced promises.
How about a BETTER idea... how about they step up and have some tie-ins that make the pro-regs look fantastic (Isn't that better than negative) and 100% justified in their convictions?
And by the way, they HAVE done that... the Ms Marvel tie in, the FF issues, the Amazing Spider-Man issues have ALL done a great job highlighting the Pro side.

Vaal

09-22-2006, 11:55 PM

I feel Millar personally wants Pro-Reg to win and even though he's the writer, he's stacking the deck with literally every dirty trick in the book.

Clones! Hyper-dimensional prisons! Dark Alliances!

I half expect Tony to pop in on Cytorrak and ask for the Crimson Bands so he can bust Cap up. Hey, maybe Sinister can whip up some clone troopers. And what's that fine young man Victor Doom doing Tuesday? Tony simply must have him over for dinner.

Whatever wins, eh, Millar? As long as you get to restructure the MU in your image.

bulbasteve

09-23-2006, 12:03 AM

How about a BETTER idea... how about they step up and have some tie-ins that make the pro-regs look fantastic (Isn't that better than negative) and 100% justified in their convictions?
And by the way, they HAVE done that... the Ms Marvel tie in, the FF issues, the Amazing Spider-Man issues have ALL done a great job highlighting the Pro side.

Really the FF ones, didn't they just fight Doom the whole time? Geez man that is delayed still, right?

Also Heroes for Hire has been made pro-reg look good, some debate (which every pro-pro-reg book has, instead of just saying REGISTRATION = SLAVERY) but the gals sign up for the cause of cleaning up the streets of some villains, with PAY!!

The latest X-Men sorta did, The President has stopped the O*N*E Camps, and Bishop is being portrayed pretty well.

The Illuminati Special did as well, showing some of Starks motivations.

I half expect Tony to pop in on Cytorrak and ask for the Crimson Bands so he can bust Cap up. Hey, maybe Sinister can whip up some clone troopers. And what's that fine young man Victor Doom doing Tuesday? Tony simply must have him over for dinner.

Whatever wins, eh, Millar? As long as you get to restructure the MU in your image.

Dude, they HAVE to do that. Didn't you read that latest Astro City special? The whole thing was about Samaritan doing an annual dinner with his evil nemisis. It rooooooocked.

blackv8

09-23-2006, 12:16 AM

Very few writers have the skill of a Moore or a Busiek at weaving plots and concepts "from the real world" into the hyper-unreal superhero worlds of DC and Marvel. I think that Civil War was a good idea as a sort of funhouse mirror allegory of the kinds of individual liberty vs. societal security issues that our current administration has been such a hamhanded flashpoint for.

Unfortunately, the execution of the main Civil War title is also best described as ham-handed. If this is not to be a "What If?", "Ultimate", "imaginary story", etc.- then it is a reasonable and fundamental expectation for the fans that there be some continuity here with the basic makeup of the characters they have come to care about. Unfortunately, in too many cases there is not. And despite any protestations to the contrary, the disconnect is on the side of the "pro-registration" forces.

Reed Richards and Tony Stark come across not just as arrogant, but also as stupid. These guys are supposed to be geniuses? Richards refusing to let his wife know about the plans for a Negative Zone prison? A registration act that has no grace period but starts with the jackboots Midnight on day one? Iron Man is clearly in "Ultimate" mode (that other version of the Avengers where they are all complete tools and felons). Setting aside the question of godhood, would anyone with even the slightest claim on moral behavior be willing to make a clone of their friend? Ask the question out loud: "Would Thor accept me making a clone of him?" and feel foolish for the asking. Of course not. Layers upon layers of fuzzy thinking would be required to commit to the kinds of plans attributed to these guys: ambushes, murder, extradimensional illegal secret prisons, cloning, utilizing psychopathic supervillains to "arrest" anti-registration heroes, sorry.

The premise flies but the characterization is plodding. If we are to accept that these heroes can be drawn into the complex issues of the real world, then their behavior should be more nuanced, not less. So far, Maria Hill just comes across as the type-A witch; one half expects her to be revealed as the Supreme Hydra. Spider-Man reveals his identity and puts his family forever in mortal danger because of feelings of a debt to Stark, but a month later is bugging out? Just how much thought went into that decision? So we can't expect these characters to be consistent with their heroic past behavior, but neither can we expect them to be fleshed out with real-world sophistication. Would the traumatized soccer moms of America be any more accepting of seeing Venom or Bullseye "apprehending" unregistered metahumans than they were of seeing an explosion wipe out a school? These "plans" are impolitic- they would not play in Peoria. They would immediately cause a groundswell of support for the anti-registration crowd. Not, as Millar and Brevoort assert, because they are the underdogs, but because the pro-registration forces are practicing behavior that is clearly immoral and, were it in the real world, grossly illegal. There Reed and Tony are, trying to figure out how to patch up their Thor-Frankenstein, having learned nothing from the experience.

We are told to wait, that we have only seen half the story. But pretty much nothing at this point could justify the behavior already seen. In the real world, registration would have to be more accomodating because the US would have to consider the impact on "Homeland Security" should all their metahumans be given a reason to immigrate elsewhere. In the real world, cloning is illegal, and Hank Pym, Tony Stark and Reed Richards would be jailed. In the real world the issues would be further muddied by corporate sponsorships, etc.- and the dissonance of debate on Capitol Hill.

It's a good thing we don't have superhumans in the real world. But if we did, I don't think it would bear much of a resemblance to this comic.

The Shadow

09-23-2006, 12:24 AM

But pretty much nothing at this point could justify the behavior already seen.
Stamford

In the real world /snip/ and the dissonance of debate on Capitol Hill.
You shoot yourself in the foot with the first sentence of your next paragraph.

It's a good thing we don't have superhumans in the real world.
This ISN'T the real world. It's a comic book world where OUR rules don't apply.

If someone like Reed DID exist perhaps cloning wouldn't be illegal.

It really doesn't matter though... you can't put a real world MENTALITY on a fictional world where superheroes exist. It doesn't work, can't work and won't work.
Jeez... why do you people take this thing so literally?

Alan2099

09-23-2006, 12:30 AM

bulbasteve

09-23-2006, 12:39 AM

I don't buy for a minute that Stamford could justify anything.

If the Kany Dynasty, maximum Carnage, Inferno, and all those other storyline with much higher body counts couldn't do it, there's no reason this should.

Heck, Ultron killed a Nation of people before and it didn't have the same outrage this is showing.

I guess a lot of the time a lot of the sort of "mythology" of heroes were still in place. You know a sort of Marvels mentality (and most of the time the Bugle has been seen in the MU as disreputable). But only in Stamford have the citizens really seen this stuff done in the first person and just how recklessly a lot of these guys behave.

Plus you know...kids....dead kids is never cool.

TotalWorldDomination

09-23-2006, 12:52 AM

No one has. Iron Man is doing what HE thinks is right and so is Cap.

Yes, but as someone once said, actions speak louder then words. Marvel has Iron Man creating borderline insane Clones, Making Deals with Supervillians to hunt down there friends, and Imprisoning people in the Negative Zone (that last one isn’t that bad IMO but the way it has been presented is pretty negative.

On the flip-side Cap has been trying to save people from supervillians despite being hunted and saving children from being shot at.

My Debate teacher once said, you never have to prove yourself right; you just have to prove the other person wrong. Marvel has been doing a wonderful job of proving that the Pro-Reg side is acting like utter jerks.

... people always root for the underdog.

It's not uncommon. Hell, I knew Cap would be favored before CW was released because no one likes rules forced upon them... and what the SHRA sounds like is something a fascist government would do... and no onelikes that.

Hmmmm, so they created a perfectly reasonable political dispute and then had one side choose to create a program to support their side that sounds fascist? That still seem fair to you?

I don't think it is.

But assuming it is, I believe Quesada in that very same interview addressed that. He said in that same article - JQ: We are only on issue #4; can we just let the story play itself out? meaning there's plenty of story to tell.

There are plenty of stories left to tell, and that's what has me concerned. Because of how biased the first half has been, they have to switch things around considerably to make things work out, and I can't see that.

How about a BETTER idea... how about they step up and have some tie-ins that make the pro-regs look fantastic (Isn't that better than negative) and 100% justified in their convictions?
And by the way, they HAVE done that... the Ms Marvel tie in, the FF issues, the Amazing Spider-Man issues have ALL done a great job highlighting the Pro side.

Ms. Marvel and ASM... I'll give you that. ASM has done a good job of making both sides look human (Ms Marvel being the only line I think even leans a little pro). But then again you have Tony acting downright villainies in ASM with Cap giving a great little speech. Spidy is suspicious of Tony, and nearly worships Cap. Who’s being better portrayed?

Fantastic Four leans pretty heavily on the Anti, mostly due to the makeup of the team. Sue Storm, Johnny Storm, and Ben Grimm all disagree with the act (been is staying uninvolved but came write out and said that he didn’t agree with the act, but he loved the government). The only Pro-Regger is the robotic, unemotional Reed Richards, who as everyone will agree is being portrayed as the biggest %$&*#$ in CW.

New Avengers has been OVERWHELMINGLY Anti-Reg, and before you bring up the fact that there are 2 pro-reg titles coming, lets remember that those issues are Sentry and Stark, making one from the position of a deranged man who takes his orders from a computer and the other having to do with stark making a "Fatal Mistake". Even if those two were overwhelmingly pro like the first 3 were anti, that's still 3 on 2, Anti-reg wins.

Frontline's main characters are 1) an overwhelmingly anti-registration reporter, 2) a moderately anti-registration reporter and 3) speedball. There have been 2 moments I consider truly pro-reg, one being speedballs mother turning on him, and the other Bantams death, a moment that is totally invalidated in the next issue where sally decides to make it into a conspiracy theory.

Young Avengers & Runaways has been horrible with SHEILD using Sympathy ratings to rank whom to kill and showing many SHEILD agents as sub-humans with total bloodlust.

Cable/Deadpool has been the most amusing title, but shows the president as a snotty smarmy politics obsessed ass, not someone who generally believes in the act. It has the Anti-Reg character, cable, make a big speech about fascism and has be Pro-Reg character, deadpool, talk about shiny badges and peeing.

X-Factor was a rant against the Pro-Reg side, with almost no one making an ideological argument for, and with Madrox seeing the "Horrors" of the act firsthand.

I'd say She-Hulk was pretty even, all things considered.

X-Men seems to have almost nothing to do with the act, but I'll give it an even since the X-Men are modestly anti and the government is actually shown acting like human beings in it.

Thunderbolts was almost even until Radioactive Man, a founding master of evil, decided to tell Reed and Hank that they were fascists. Good Times.

Wolverine dwells little on the act, so we'll put it in the even column.

Finally the Main Book is leaned on the Anti-Reg and the E-i-C and author admit it, telling us to wait for the Pro-Reg stuff to come up. I thought the main title was the most even book until the last issue, but that sort of went out the window by having the pro-reg side indulge in acts of Villainy.

So in summation, we've got 1 Pro-Reg title (Ms. Marvel), 3 even titles (X-Men, Wolverine and She-Hulk), and 9 Anti-Reg Titles (Main Title, Thunderbolts, ASM, FF, New Avengers, Frontline, YA&Rs, C/D and X-Factor)

Is this Marvel's Idea of Fair?

bulbasteve

09-23-2006, 01:23 AM

So in summation, we've got 1 Pro-Reg title (Ms. Marvel), 3 even titles (X-Men, Wolverine and She-Hulk), and 9 Anti-Reg Titles (Main Title, Thunderbolts, ASM, FF, New Avengers, Frontline, YA&Rs, C/D and X-Factor)

You forgot to put in Heroes for Hire, which at the end of the day would be pro-reg seeing as how they decided to work for the government rounding up villains and all.

And I suppose you can add the one shots to the fair or slightly pro side. The Illuminati Special showed that the act wasn't simply knee jerk and Stark discussed why it was needed and predicted Stamdord.

The Daily Bugle Special had an article by She-Hulk arguing for the constitutionality of the act as opposed to the Mutant Registration Act.

Civil War Files had Stark's letter to the President, his atoning of this own past actions, and discussions of C.S.A's role in the future.

Also I would say ASM would be fair at least based on the issues taking place in Washington, seeing as how the scenes in Congress had some good debate which ended in the pro-side winning the argument I guess.

As well I might put She-Hulk on pro side, but actually based on the issues AFTER the Civil War tie-in's which she recruits Hell Cat peacefully and rationally argues for registration and she signs on the spot.

Possibly Cable/Deadpool to fair. Seeing as how on this forum Nicieza talked about how Cable was really abusing his so called knowledge of the future for political ends. Plus the GLA owned Deadpool and they are registered...plus we all know Deadpool is the star and he is working for the governemnt

Heh, and as for more that don't count I guess Eternals would work :p Man if only Gaiman were writing a tie-in that would be awesome.

Oh and add Black Panther to the "WTF is this piece of ****, this sucks!" category. Actually I think it alone should subtract points from the anti-reg side :D

stillanerd

09-23-2006, 01:43 AM

No one has. Iron Man is doing what HE thinks is right and so is Cap.

However, just because you think something is right doesn't mean that it is. Which is the point Civil War is really trying to make. Which implies that, yes, it's the anti-registration side which are actually in the right.

And it has been.
Fandom is split, yes, but there haven't been many voices who have been all that supportive of Iron Man at this point. However, what Quesada actually said was that the fans automatically root for Captain America. Except before the series even came out, Marvel was saying that it wouldn't be that easy. Now we have Joe Q saying Cap "is clearly the underdog and fighting against the big machine that is Tony, his troops and the government," (his words) and thus fueling the idea that Cap side is the one we're supposed to root for.

... people always root for the underdog.

It's not uncommon. Hell, I knew Cap would be favoured before CW was released because no one likes rules forced upon them... and what the SHRA sounds like is something a fascist government would do... and no onelikes that.

So you're saying that there actually IS a right and wrong side in Civil War? Funny, Marvel claimed over and over that there wasn't.

Also there were quite a few people who were guessing as to which side Cap and Tony were going to be on even up to the first issue of Civil War #1, even though Marvel practically hinted at the sides in various promotional shots. And there were some (myself included) who assumed that Captain America, because he was a soldier, would be leading the registration side. In fact, it is on record that THAT was the original plan. But even though Cap was on the anti-registration side, there have been quite a number of people, even by those who like Cap, who have admitted that they would support registration in real life. Even Millar claims that. Of course, as a person on a blog (I forget which one) stated that when you put Cap on a side of a fight, then the debate is over because it automatically implies that the side he's on is the correct one.

And yes, naturally, Americans are going to want to root for Captain America over Iron Man. The problem is that Civil War and its tie-ins haven't done an effective job of making readers NOT see Cap as the underdog, implying (and in some cases outright saying) that if you support registration, you're equated with the nazis, or you're a racist, or you're against freedom and civil rights. And (as the newsarama questioner asked and which Quesada, Breevoot and Millar tried to dodge) you have people hoping that guys like Iron Man and Mr. Fantastic, because of their actions, get their asses handed to them, when almost this same time last year, nearly every comic book fan would've considered them heroes and above such things as hiring super-villains to do their dirty work, imprision their one time friends in a gulag, and create an army of clones. Traditionally, those are the actions the bad guys would do. And when the perception is that one side looks more heroic than the other when the intention was to present both sides as equals is not a failure of the readers - that's the failure of the writers and the editoral staff. In fact, the clincher was that we shouldn't be supporting the registration side is when Mr. Quesada himself stated:

[registration] is absolutely no different than mutant registration. For once, the whole of the super powered Marvel Universe knows what it feels like to be a mutant.

http://www.newsarama.com/NewJoeFridays/NewJoeFridays03.html

I don't think it is.

But assuming it is, I believe Quesada in that very same interview addressed that. He said in that same article - JQ: We are only on issue #4; can we just let the story play itself out? meaning there's plenty of story to tell.

Problem is that Civil War isn't just limited to one series but nearly all of Marvel's comics. In fact, you have to read some of those issues outside of the main series in order to fill in plot points. And is fair to criticize a story as it is being portrayed so far. And sorry, but, for all intents and purposes, so far, the pro-registration side is being presented as legally right but morally wrong, and the anti-registraion side as legally wrong but morally right.

How about a BETTER idea... how about they step up and have some tie-ins that make the pro-regs look fantastic (Isn't that better than negative) and 100% justified in their convictions?
And by the way, they HAVE done that... the Ms Marvel tie in, the FF issues, the Amazing Spider-Man issues have ALL done a great job highlighting the Pro side.

Highlighting, yes. Convincing that this form of registration is a good thing? Not on your life. If anything, Iron Man and Reed come across even WORSE in those tie-ins than they do in the main series. And in the case of Ms. Marvel, FF, and Amazing Spider-Man, the themes all boil down to "Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right," with characters beginning to question whether or not they are doing the right thing. Compare that with how Cap's side is being portrayed. Yes, we've had folks leave Caps Secret Avengers, but not necessarily because they thought Tony was more right than Cap. In the case of Cassie and Nighthawk, it was because they realized that the stakes had gotten too high and so they choose to surrender rather than be killed, while with Cable it was trying a different tactic in combating registration. By contrast, we had the Thing leave the FF because he realized registration was wrong (he just didn't want to fight over it anymore), Sue leaving Reed (and her kids) because she realized her husband and Tony are wrong, and Yellowjacket and Spidey starting to realize that Tony and Reed are wrong. Seems to me that it's pretty apparent that Marvel is setting up the series to happen that while registration will still be the law at the end of the day and that Iron Man's side will "win," because of the actions taken by those who support registration, certain folks like Iron Man will end up being villified and a public relations nightmare with people less trusting of heroes, ironically achieving the opposite outcome Tony was trying to achieve. Sure, the public having a distrust towards certain heroes is how it's supposed to be, but in terms of there being no right or wrong side? Seems we're being told which side we're supposed to be rooting for.

TotalWorldDomination

09-23-2006, 11:06 AM

You forgot to put in Heroes for Hire, which at the end of the day would be pro-reg seeing as how they decided to work for the government rounding up villains and all.

I have not read heros for hire, and thus did'nt include it on the list. I did see a preview for #2 and it looked modestly pro-reg, but I'm with-holding judgement till I read.

And I suppose you can add the one shots to the fair or slightly pro side. The Illuminati Special showed that the act wasn't simply knee jerk and Stark discussed why it was needed and predicted Stamdord.

I'll give you that even with Dr. Strange and Namor's reactions of disgust, it would be considered mildly pro-reg. But remember, the Illuminati one-shot is part of the New Avengers Line (since it's ongoings that have the emotional impact and reenforcement of themes). Even if you had 10 issues that were as vaugely pro-reg as Illuminati, it would'nt make up for one scene in the last 3 issues of NA.

The Daily Bugle Special had an article by She-Hulk arguing for the constitutionality of the act as opposed to the Mutant Registration Act.

and had articles disputing the act. And do you realy think that the Daily bugle one shot can counterbalence the effect of an issue of FF and NA? not very likely.

Civil War Files had Stark's letter to the President, his atoning of this own past actions, and discussions of C.S.A's role in the future.

It also had stark coldly analizing his closest friends. But all in all, it was no even remotly eventful enough to have an impact.

Also I would say ASM would be fair at least based on the issues taking place in Washington, seeing as how the scenes in Congress had some good debate which ended in the pro-side winning the argument I guess.

One of my friends had me read Aunt May's speach again this morning, so I will agree that that nicely balences Cap's speach. However, You still have Tony Acting like the world's biggest you-know-what and Cap acting like a saint. Is that even? no. but I can be persuaded to move this into the middle for the time being since I imagine with the cover of CW#5 as an indication, we'll be getting to the hard anti-reg stuff soon.

As well I might put She-Hulk on pro side, but actually based on the issues AFTER the Civil War tie-in's which she recruits Hell Cat peacefully and rationally argues for registration and she signs on the spot.

I would agree with that, adding that Awesome Andy's argument that you can't use the SHRA to "Out" people was one of the better Pro-Reg arugments. It bothers me however that the only issue in CW was one where she was attacking provisions of the SHRA. if I was to take that issue alone, it would be leaning opposite. I feel that She-Hulk has been pretty even handed, with her Post-tie-in issues representing the new status-quo in Marvel.

Possibly Cable/Deadpool to fair. Seeing as how on this forum Nicieza talked about how Cable was really abusing his so called knowledge of the future for political ends. Plus the GLA owned Deadpool and they are registered...plus we all know Deadpool is the star and he is working for the governemnt

Huh? You're using the president's off-handed remarks that cable only knew HIS future as a reason for it leaning pro? Let's look at the players reasons for picking there sides shall we?

Cable- i want to save people from an evil demented world where a dictatorship runs things, a world where all light and life is lost, so i'm not supporting the SHRA.

Deadpool- They gave me a badge! It's Shiny!

to be fair, C&D has been my favorite tie-in, but mostly because I'm a big fan of deadpool's fourth wall breaking irreverance. If the next issue has potential since apparently Cable has left Cap Am, but who know's what will happen.

Heh, and as for more that don't count I guess Eternals would work :p Man if only Gaiman were writing a tie-in that would be awesome.

I love eternals, and I belive that it SHOULD be considered a tie in, not in the sense of it being an actual tie-in but more of it being a comic that indicates the new way the Marvel U works.

Oh and add Black Panther to the "WTF is this piece of ****, this sucks!" category. Actually I think it alone should subtract points from the anti-reg side :D

yeah, it sucks. and I'm cringing for when the offical BP tie-ins come out. Hudlin makes the baby Jesus cry. :p

Still, even with the consessions above, the Pro-Reg side has been trashed from here to Hong Kong. I'm praying that marvel can pull out some Pro-Reg issues that will realy even it out. I'm not holding my breath though.

TotalWorldDomination

09-23-2006, 11:14 AM

Bravo, stillanerd. Everything you said, and a cherry on top.

loraxxx j zynishter

09-23-2006, 01:06 PM

bulbasteve

09-23-2006, 01:26 PM

Still, even with the consessions above, the Pro-Reg side has been trashed from here to Hong Kong. I'm praying that marvel can pull out some Pro-Reg issues that will realy even it out. I'm not holding my breath though.

Yeah that is true. And even if someone would maaaybe consider more are treated fairly, the fact is still the BIG titles (NA, Frontline especially) are so TOTALLY unfair it kinda takes away from everything else.

Fandom is split, yes, but there haven't been many voices who have been all that supportive of Iron Man at this point. However, what Quesada actually said was that the fans automatically root for Captain America. Except before the series even came out, Marvel was saying that it wouldn't be that easy. Now we have Joe Q saying Cap "is clearly the underdog and fighting against the big machine that is Tony, his troops and the government," (his words) and thus fueling the idea that Cap side is the one we're supposed to root for.

Well I think the reason for that Tom has explained before. It seems most people who are pro are casual or former Marvel fans, guys who aren't don't feel so ingrained with the old status quo and maybe more willing to look at it different ways. And we are afraid to post on these message boards! It's scary....but it must be done...come out of your hidey holes pro-reg people!! :p

the pro-reg forces are flagrantly and willfully violating the civil rights of people simply because they have super-powers--if they changed "super-powered individuals" to "homosexuals" or "blacks" or "religious individuals" it would be a lot more obvious...

You know, if black people could blow me up with their mind I would give a second thought to my views on equal rights too. The fact is people with superpowers ARE different, they even call themselves meta-humans or homo-superior. These aren't guys who just look different and behave different but are still fundamentally human, these guys are DIFFERENT.

garin

09-23-2006, 01:31 PM

the pro-reg forces are flagrantly and willfully violating the civil rights of people simply because they have super-powers--if they changed "super-powered individuals" to "homosexuals" or "blacks" or "religious individuals" it would be a lot more obvious...Sure, and if you change "super-powered individuals" to "sex offenders" then registration becomes fairly well-supported.

The point being, these groups are not interchangeable. There are certainly reasons to want to register superhumans that do not exist for the minorities you mention.

loraxxx j zynishter

09-23-2006, 01:33 PM

loraxxx j zynishter

09-23-2006, 01:58 PM

Sure, and if you change "super-powered individuals" to "sex offenders" then registration becomes fairly well-supported.

The point being, these groups are not interchangeable. There are certainly reasons to want to register superhumans that do not exist for the minorities you mention.

but even "sex offenders" have certain rights inherent to them before the law, because they are human beings--a "sex offender" only has to come before the court system and register if he actually does something, not just because...

the "pro-reg" forces continually arrest individuals with super powers, whether those people are using those powers to fight crime or not--just because they have powers--it's not necessary to be a super-hero/adventurer/crime-fighter to get arrrested under the SHRA...

having powers is, in many cases, a natural condition--like skin color, hair texture, body type or eye color--it's not like contagious desease which can endanger people simply be being in it's pressence--many people are being arrested because of their "natural condition"

additionally, the "pro-reg" forces continually treat "criminals" like "enemies of the state"--but as far as i know, failure to register has not been defined as "treasonous behavior," which would legally give them some standing to do so--so you are essentially winding up with people being actively persued and incarcerated by the gov, or forced into service because of their "natural condition"--which by several provisions of the us constitution is illegal...

CyberCoyote

09-23-2006, 02:04 PM

Sure, and if you change "super-powered individuals" to "sex offenders" then registration becomes fairly well-supported.

The point being, these groups are not interchangeable. There are certainly reasons to want to register superhumans that do not exist for the minorities you mention.

Yes and no. They are forcing the registration of a group that has existed for quite some time without the need for registration although there is an obvious reason for it (as opposed to the minority groups which would be outright racism).

But sex-offenders are and always have been considered criminals. There's no real group in our world that can compare to the super-hero genre. Although in the real world I guess they would all have been labled criminals as soon as they appeared and started acting as vigilantes, which is illegal here already. But it's the MU where it's been accepted for a long while, so again no direct group to indicate.

edited: And as noted above, there seems to be absolutely no due process when they are captured. Where the hell are the courts? She-Hulk's lawfirm gets REAL super-villains off the hook everyday but these guys are shot down tied tortured (Prowler)and sent off world to prison without ever seeing a judge (or if they do it's awfully quick. You can murder 50 people in front of a policeman's ball and your proceedings can take months or years)

loraxxx j zynishter

09-23-2006, 02:09 PM

You know, if black people could blow me up with their mind I would give a second thought to my views on equal rights too. The fact is people with superpowers ARE different, they even call themselves meta-humans or homo-superior. These aren't guys who just look different and behave different but are still fundamentally human, these guys are DIFFERENT.

first of all--we can blow you up with our minds--we simply choose not to--for now...

secondly, that doesn't change the fact that even sentient aliens are protected under the us constituion, same as terrestrial immigrants--so unless there is some legal pressident in the MU that makes all people with powers officially "non-humans" before the law, then even supers have the same rights as everybody else...

and thirdly, to be honest--the average joe-cape-wearer doesn't call himself "meta-anything" anymore than you or i go around referring to ourselves by our ethnicities, unless that's actually the topic being discussed...

garin

09-23-2006, 02:10 PM

but even "sex offenders" have certain rights inherent to them before the law, because they are human beings--a "sex offender" only has to come before the court system and register if he actually does something, not just because...
You were the one who muddied the waters by comparing them to "religious individuals", which is clearly not an attribute an individual has no control over. I thought comparison to sex offenders was fair game after that.
the "pro-reg" forces continually arrest individuals with super powers, whether those people are using those powers to fight crime or not--just because they have powers--it's not necessary to be a super-hero/adventurer/crime-fighter to get arrrested under the SHRA...You might consider it semantics, but they're not arrested for having powers. Their crime is failing to register those powers.

loraxxx j zynishter

09-23-2006, 02:14 PM

edited: And as noted above, there seems to be absolutely no due process when they are captured. Where the hell are the courts? She-Hulk's lawfirm gets REAL super-villains off the hook everyday but these guys are shot down tied tortured (Prowler)and sent off world to prison without ever seeing a judge (or if they do it's awfully quick. You can murder 50 people in front of a policeman's ball and your proceedings can take months or years)

i totally agree--the apparent lack of due process means that these laws may never be challenged in courts of law--which means that abuses of the system may never be addressed...

bulbasteve

09-23-2006, 02:15 PM

i totally agree--the apparent lack of due process means that these laws may never be challenged in courts of law--which means that abuses of the system may never be addressed...

Let me quote my post to you over on the other thread: (we do have WAY too many threads here don't we?)

Actually in Civil War Files Stark says in She-Hulks profile "she has even signed on as defense attorney for the highly-publicized registration trial of Speedball"

So, as nice as your legal lesson was, it is going to be challanged in court

Edit: oh and it seems in the next issue of Frontline they are gearing up for it too...

loraxxx j zynishter

09-23-2006, 02:51 PM

You were the one who muddied the waters by comparing them to "religious individuals", which is clearly not an attribute an individual has no control over. I thought comparison to sex offenders was fair game after that.
You might consider it semantics, but they're not arrested for having powers. Their crime is failing to register those powers.

why should a person have to register with anybody because of a condition natural to them, if it is controlled and benign? especially if by registering those powers, they are agreeing to become a trained operative of the gov.--which is co-ercing individuals into gov service, which as far as i know is still illegal, under the constitution...

and i strongly dissagree with you on the point of "religious individual"--by which i meant someone who believes in some form of religion, not a RELIGIOUS PRACTITIONER which is someone who actually practices a religion...

many forms of belief are notable for not being under the active control of the believer--hard core belief has to be disproven, and is often not subject to logical arguement or persuasion

loraxxx j zynishter

09-23-2006, 02:54 PM

Let me quote my post to you over on the other thread: (we do have WAY too many threads here don't we?)

Actually in Civil War Files Stark says in She-Hulks profile "she has even signed on as defense attorney for the highly-publicized registration trial of Speedball"

and as far as i know, he's the only peson incarcerated under the SHRA who has any form of legal representation or who is even going to any type of trail--which is not the way things are supposed to work...

garin

09-23-2006, 03:10 PM

why should a person have to register with anybody because of a condition natural to them, if it is controlled and benign? (emphasis mine)

That's exactly the rub. Who makes that determination?

We don't trust people to decide whether they're competent enough to drive a car or perform surgery. They are externally audited, and it makes perfect sense to handle superhuman powers in the same way. If you have a weird power of some description, go see SHIELD and they'll analyze it and help you get training to control it if necessary.

especially if by registering those powers, they are agreeing to become a trained operative of the gov.--which is co-ercing individuals into gov service, which as far as i know is still illegal, under the constitution...The possibility of a 'draft' aspect to it is definitely not good, but the books have been wildly inconsistent on this point. I don't think you're actually required to serve under the law. Some SHIELD agents have been trying to blackmail people into it, which clearly has to stop.
and i strongly dissagree with you on the point of "religious individual"--by which i meant someone who believes in some form of religion, not a RELIGIOUS PRACTITIONER which is someone who actually practices a religion...
Alright. In many ways I think that's a distinction actually less meaningful than the one I made about having powers/failing to register.
many forms of belief are notable for not being under the active control of the believer--hard core belief has to be disproven, and is often not subject to logical arguement or persuasion
We disagree about that, then, although it's getting a bit off-topic. If a person isn't responsible for their own thoughts, what are they responsible for?

Let me ask you this: If there was a law requiring everyone to carry an ID card (I know, a lot of people would have a huge problem with this, but bear with me) and you were found without yours and arrested, would you say you were arrested for failing to carry the ID card, or arrested for being a citizen/human being?

bulbasteve

09-23-2006, 03:23 PM

and as far as i know, he's the only peson incarcerated under the SHRA who has any form of legal representation or who is even going to any type of trail--which is not the way things are supposed to work...

Where excactly do you expect to see the story? You are assuming because we haven't seen a random d-list superhero not have representation that he doesn't? We have speedball, that's who the legal story is focusing on...why would they add in the same story for other characters? Best to assume everyone has the same or even better treatment (since they aren't as infamous) than Speedball than to assume something we haven't seen.

jackolover

09-23-2006, 11:37 PM

Spider-Man reveals his identity and puts his family forever in mortal danger because of feelings of a debt to Stark, but a month later is bugging out? Just how much thought went into that decision? So we can't expect these characters to be consistent with their heroic past behavior, but neither can we expect them to be fleshed out with real-world sophistication.

If you're right, and Peter does wimp out and change his mind, going to the anti-reg side, it says a lot about his immaturity, that he can't stick out a bad situation. Or that he cannot take control. If it was my family, and I had Spider powers, I would see one bad situation, and then I would take charge. I would snot Tony Stark for his hollow assurances and get my people out. See you later. It's been nice knowing you, but no thanks.

If, however, you are wrong about Peter, and he stays pro-reg, I feel he will become sterner, and less flippant then he is portrayed in Friendly and Sensational SM. He will bunker his loved ones, or get them real security, or take them to Nevada.

It's a good thing we don't have superhumans in the real world. But if we did, I don't think it would bear much of a resemblance to this comic.

You probably have a point there, but not for the reason you say. The CW comic is an imagination release. It's not supposed to show exact reality. It tinctures the comic book world with aspects of reality, but you are still required to exercise some degree of suspension of belief.

If however you wanted to base the story in reality, you would have exteme carnage, and possibly a world takover by superhumans, not an SHRA. There would be trolls and fire creatures. Ordinary people would be all in therapy, just thinking about what they saw. You would have neighbours floating over your fence, or walking into your house looking for what they can steal. The police would be irrelevant. Law and order would be reigned by whoever had the most power of the superhuman groups. There would be no security, so why should society continue? Normals would become hippies on the shores of the Gitchigumi river. Cities, of course, would become rubblised, and we would have warlords patroling there sections. How in the world you could accomadate superhumans in the real world, I don't know.

XPac

09-23-2006, 11:47 PM

If you're right, and Peter does wimp out and change his mind, going to the anti-reg side, it says a lot about his immaturity, that he can't stick out a bad situation. Or that he cannot take control. If it was my family, and I had Spider powers, I would see one bad situation, and then I would take charge. I would snot Tony Stark for his hollow assurances and get my people out. See you later. It's been nice knowing you, but no thanks.

If Peter decides to change sides, wimping out will have nothing to do with it. Peter has proven his courage and determination more than enough times. It's hardly an area he's lacking in.

If he changes sides, I'll wager it has less to do with him being unable to stick out a situation but rather because he doesn't feel it's right to. His actions will be motivated more by his conscience rather than his inability to handle anything. Because at the end of the day he's a man that can handle just about anything.

The Shadow

09-23-2006, 11:47 PM

Yes, but Lee's X-Men failed.
I don't think it failed at all.

I think it was so far ahead of its time (similar to the original Star Trek) that people just couldn't get past their racially explosive times of the 1960's and early 70's.

jackolover

09-24-2006, 12:02 AM

I guess a lot of the time a lot of the sort of "mythology" of heroes were still in place. You know a sort of Marvels mentality (and most of the time the Bugle has been seen in the MU as disreputable). But only in Stamford have the citizens really seen this stuff done in the first person and just how recklessly a lot of these guys behave.

Plus you know...kids....dead kids is never cool.

This is a very notworthy concept, that most of us need reminding of. The MU citizens see that the workings of the MU are transmitted by the DIREPUTABLE Daily Bugle newspaper, so many of the incidents do go unnoticed, by the wider community. It's sort of like hearing too much bad news, your mind cannot keep being in a state of terror, so you turn off. All those big incidents that should have caused the SHRA a lot earlier, didn't.

Ohh? Atlantis invade again! Well. Too bad. What's for for breakfast dear?

So the SHRA occuring as a result of an incident in a remote community, unfamiliar with the horrific results of superhuman activity, will have caused a backlash, and caught the capes by surprise. Good point.

jackolover

09-24-2006, 12:14 AM

have you considered that based on the events of the story this ISN'T war--basically what's going on is that the gov. is acting as if they are at war with individuals who are only guilty of violation of a federal law--one that probably would only be considered a class 3 misdemeanor or minor felony in the real world...?

Well, contrary to your assertion, this is WAR. Iron Man says so. Cap is now aware it's a war, because he just got his arse kicked, badly, and people are getting killed. The government may think this is purely a legislation being implimented, but to the capes, it's live or die. So yeah, I have considered what is going on in CW, but it's not what you described.

jackolover

09-24-2006, 12:25 AM

If Peter decides to change sides, wimping out will have nothing to do with it. Peter has proven his courage and determination more than enough times. It's hardly an area he's lacking in.

If he changes sides, I'll wager it has less to do with him being unable to stick out a situation but rather because he doesn't feel it's right to. His actions will be motivated more by his conscience rather than his inability to handle anything. Because at the end of the day he's a man that can handle just about anything.

Hmmm. Doesn't sound like the Peter that was checking his bank balance and starting to sneak to Canada, to me. Your premise is fine. Peter has shown he has stamina for the fight, but he always seems to sherk when it comes to close family and friends in danger. I remember that time when Osborns son had the Goblin mantle and was terrorising MJ. I would have taken that guy out secretly and they would have never found the body. Peter cannot find the gumption to do what is neccesary. He leaves his people dangling like bait for the bad guys.

XPac

09-24-2006, 12:31 AM

Hmmm. Doesn't sound like the Peter that was checking his bank balance and starting to sneak to Canada, to me. Your premise is fine. Peter has shown he has stamina for the fight, but he always seems to sherk when it comes to close family and friends in danger. I remember that time when Osborns son had the Goblin mantle and was terrorising MJ. I would have taken that guy out secretly and they would have never found the body. Peter cannot find the gumption to do what is neccesary. He leaves his people dangling like bait for the bad guys.

Again, I would argue the reason he hasn't killed the Goblin has less to do with a lack of gumption on his part and more to do with the fact that he wouldn't feel it is right.

jackolover

09-24-2006, 12:45 AM

Again, I would argue the reason he hasn't killed the Goblin has less to do with a lack of gumption on his part and more to do with the fact that he wouldn't feel it is right.

I'd like to explore that ... he wouldn't feel it is right.

1. It severely restricts him maturely when he is trying to act on things, with this baby, goody-goody, attitude. Fine, it makes him look laudable, but when serious stuff has to be handled, he acts like he has no powers. Which could be true, because he might suffer from a lack of self confidence. Also a restriction.

2.Why can't he behave with more concern for his people when they are in danger? And I mean like in the real world, not the comic world. What is the right thing to do? Let the Goblin easy access to your loved ones, or be the man. Push his throat up against a wall, look him straight in the eye, and say,

"Goblin, there will not be a second warning. You come near my.... and you wake up under the Patomec River".

That's how people work these things out if they are in these positions, where they are dealing with criminals all the time. Not scurry around doingsuperheros work and hang your loved ones out to dry. That has been 'the right thing to do', that Peter has been doing all along.

3. He acts like a spider. Interesting concept. He doesn't have concern for close relatives. He always felt the best way to protect his family, is to keep his identity secret. But look what he does. He scurries about at night, whether MJ tells him not too, or whether he has psychological issues. He just leaves ,and wants to be alone. That's the side of Peters character that I don't think writers have explored.

XPac

09-24-2006, 01:07 AM

I'd like to explore that ... he wouldn't feel it is right.

1. It severely restricts him maturely when he is trying to act on things, with this baby, goody-goody, attitude. Fine, it makes him look laudable, but when serious stuff has to be handled, he acts like he has no powers. Which could be true, because he might suffer from a lack of self confidence. Also a restriction.

2.Why can't he behave with more concern for his people when they are in danger? And I mean like in the real world, not the comic world. What is the right thing to do? Let the Goblin easy access to your loved ones, or be the man. Push his throat up against a wall, look him straight in the eye, and say,

"Goblin, there will not be a second warning. You come near my.... and you wake up under the Patomec River".

That's how people work these things out if they are in these positions, where they are dealing with criminals all the time. Not scurry around doingsuperheros work and hang your loved ones out to dry. That has been 'the right thing to do', that Peter has been doing all along.

3. He acts like a spider. Interesting concept. He doesn't have concern for close relatives. He always felt the best way to protect his family, is to keep his identity secret. But look what he does. He scurries about at night, whether MJ tells him not too, or whether he has psychological issues. He just leaves ,and wants to be alone. That's the side of Peters character that I don't think writers have explored.

Him choosing not to kill people like the Goblin really shouldn't be interpretd to mean that he doesn't have concern for close relatives.

Like I said... he doesn't kill because he doesn't feel it's right. I won't deny there isnt' a practicality to killing the people that threaten him. But whether or not that makes it the right thing to do is debatable. But that's besides the point... regardless of whether you or I believe it's right to kill, he doesn't and that's the reason he chooses not to. It's not a lack of courage or a lack of maturity... it's simply a belief that "People who live can change." Lack of gumption has nothing to do with it.

the Dagman

09-24-2006, 01:36 AM

jaxcs

09-24-2006, 03:08 AM

I would agree with that if not for the characterization of the characters. Ignoring how they "should" or shouldn't act, I don't feel they are acting particularly admirably or nobly. There is only if you, detached from the story, would be pro or anti registration; and reading to see if they people who agree with you end up being less-jerks than the other guys.

Hmmm, after reading your previous posts. I have to say that I think you are right, the nobility of both Cap and IM is repressed and is taking a back seat to action. So it reads less like an opera right now and more like a television script. Now, I like television, but it's a little more interested in being clever than it is with drama.

jackolover

09-24-2006, 03:15 AM

Him choosing not to kill people like the Goblin really shouldn't be interpretd to mean that he doesn't have concern for close relatives.

Like I said... he doesn't kill because he doesn't feel it's right. I won't deny there isnt' a practicality to killing the people that threaten him. But whether or not that makes it the right thing to do is debatable. But that's besides the point... regardless of whether you or I believe it's right to kill, he doesn't and that's the reason he chooses not to. It's not a lack of courage or a lack of maturity... it's simply a belief that "People who live can change." Lack of gumption has nothing to do with it.

So Peter feels the right thing to do is let the bad guy live because people who live can change. How has that been working lately?

Peter has used this philosophy from the year dot with all the psychos he's faced, I grant you that. However, these same psychos are still sharing his universe after all this time. Maybe it's a very immature philosophy now. I mean, it's a pretty important philosophy to keep, and to alter it would be a big decision. Most of the marvel heros adhere to this philosophy, so Peter has many friends.

Now here's the thing. Peter had a secret identity, and with this he felt security for his family. Tony comes along and convinces him to reveal his secret ID and now he is seriously outside his comfort zone. And as Friendly and Sensational SM are now showing, things are getting a little out of control, and guess what? No Iron Man to help him out, either. Now that wasn't supposed to happen.

I think Peter is a little vague sometimes, (living in Luu-Luu land), and got influenced too much by IM and MJ/Aunt May, in CW, that's why I think he acts like a combination of an uncaring Spider, and a teenager lacking self-esteem, instead of a person who knows his own mind. Cap knows his own mind ,and acts like it. If Peter owned the role of spiderman, he would be in charge of the New Avengers. But he likes to keep out of authoritarian situations.

No. All the gushing plaudits that have been cited to defend spideys behavior, were fine in the 80's. But after the CW, and subsequent story arcs from the 90's onwards, I find Spiderman to be responsible for putting his family at risk.

I here and now critisize spiderman for being unable to keep his family safe. Maybe that has more to do with his social status, being poor, which limits his options in that regard. But he is a slow learner. He now has the means to do something, to more permanently secure the safety of his family, and he hasn't done that either.

I was willing to overlook spideys selfish drive to go out superheroing, because of his low social status. I got angry about it, but I accepted it as a character fault, invented by Stan Lee. It can be overlooked, even though I thought it was selfish and dangerous, once he was married. But now that he has the means, he is indefenseable.

I think Peter has a small-town complex, hampering his decision making.

jaxcs

09-24-2006, 03:27 AM

Jacxs, you are really pushing me here. I tried to explain to gorthon616 why I changed, but it became very hard. My reasons are not like other posters who cite a disgust with Iron Mans actions and plans, and change sides. I am not that fussed with the tactics used by the combatants, because, like the US CW, alls fair in love and war. So I don't judge either the pro side or the anti side by their actions. I just sit back and look at behavior of characters, put under pressure, and see how the writer has handled it.

I enjoyed the controversy. The harder and more bizzarre the the tactics used, the better I liked it. To me, it wasn't so much the evil with which men approach each other, but the responses to what gets done to them, that intrigued me. So that eventually, it was not so much the vehicle of the conflict, (the registration), but almost the Star Wars melodrama played out by people, who basically loved each other, but were forced by conscience to take sides, for whatever moral reasons.

So, though I disagreed with the whole concept of superheros registration, as being an infringement on superhero jurisdiction, the very idea of breaking open this very staid institution, then began to inflame my imagination. What would happen if all super heroes were forced to register?

And then I went on from there. I changed sides, because I wanted to see superheroes put in awkward positions. At this point, I don't know whether I will even get my wish. CW 4 has really opened a can of worms, so that the whole concept of registration could go belly up. I hope it doesn't. Once you start this juggernaut (the SHRA), I think you should let it run it's course.

You realize that is precisely that you don't cite a hero's action or inaction as a reason for your switch that interests, me right? I think I think you say in this post rather more than you think. It's a fair enough answer for me.

sodapop

09-24-2006, 12:23 PM

Subotai

09-24-2006, 12:50 PM

The average person is capable of making the distinction between a comic book and real life.

We always tilt at windmills through comics.

Beast

09-24-2006, 12:56 PM

Alan2099

09-24-2006, 01:18 PM

I was willing to overlook spideys selfish drive to go out superheroing, because of his low social status. I got angry about it, but I accepted it as a character fault, invented by Stan Lee. It can be overlooked, even though I thought it was selfish and dangerous, once he was married. But now that he has the means, he is indefenseable.
So, let me get this straight... your upset that Spider-man is acting like a super hero, in a super hero comic.

You're the kind of guy that yells at his dog for not being enough like a cat, aren't you?

bulbasteve

09-24-2006, 01:30 PM

So Peter feels the right thing to do is let the bad guy live because people who live can change. How has that been working lately?

Well I guess at least he won't be that upset with Tony, because that is his plan with the various Thunderbolts programs afterall...

sodapop

09-24-2006, 01:52 PM

The average person is capable of making the distinction between a comic book and real life.

We always tilt at windmills through comics.
We are are all capable of making that distiction. However, our personalities and opinions are are based on real-life experiences and concerns.

What would worry us more? What would worry us the least? Which side makes the world, or our little coner of it, more safe?

THE AVERAGE PERSON DOES NOT READ COMICS. THE AVERAGE PERSON CONSIDERS THEM A STUPID WASTE OF TIME. THEIR OPINIONS ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT THAN YOURS.

BTW I'm very fond of comics. I don't consider them consider them stupid or anyone here stupid for reading them.

sodapop

09-24-2006, 01:56 PM

So it's perfectly reasonable, moral, and justified to create a superpowered clone army? Bwah!?

I would think most people no matter what would see major issues with that aspect of things.
Cloning and stem cell research is a slippery slope both in the real world and the MU.

You keep making these jumps in logic. I don't recall posting anything about morals or justification. I also thought that we were talking about the concept as a whole.

Devil's advocate: I never understood why abortion is good and cloning is bad?

IamtheRock3

09-24-2006, 03:05 PM

actully the Aveage person would be DANG near WORSHIPING some of these heroes

Think about Galactus come, or Thanos come. RED drench with fire,

Pretty much you accepted this the end of Mankind as you know it

Then A hero comes when all said and done and save you

They would gain SOMEWHAT a benifit of the dought after that, to the point of an EXTREMIST dedication to them

Not to mention..in Real life people due root for the underdogs and dont like thier rights being change even in the smallest of ways

Look at the approval raiting
for wire Taps

If Cap were smart he do some PR. Show WHY he doesnt trust shield. Mention the stroyline ICe, and Savage Land

pretty sure the Aveage citezen would be none to please

IamtheRock3

09-24-2006, 03:07 PM

I'd like to explore that ... he wouldn't feel it is right.

1. It severely restricts him maturely when he is trying to act on things, with this baby, goody-goody, attitude. Fine, it makes him look laudable, but when serious stuff has to be handled, he acts like he has no powers. Which could be true, because he might suffer from a lack of self confidence. Also a restriction.

2.Why can't he behave with more concern for his people when they are in danger? And I mean like in the real world, not the comic world. What is the right thing to do? Let the Goblin easy access to your loved ones, or be the man. Push his throat up against a wall, look him straight in the eye, and say,

"Goblin, there will not be a second warning. You come near my.... and you wake up under the Patomec River".

That's how people work these things out if they are in these positions, where they are dealing with criminals all the time. Not scurry around doingsuperheros work and hang your loved ones out to dry. That has been 'the right thing to do', that Peter has been doing all along.

3. He acts like a spider. Interesting concept. He doesn't have concern for close relatives. He always felt the best way to protect his family, is to keep his identity secret. But look what he does. He scurries about at night, whether MJ tells him not too, or whether he has psychological issues. He just leaves ,and wants to be alone. That's the side of Peters character that I don't think writers have explored.

he has made those Threats before
Doest work
because Eventully you got to BACK it up
they know he wont

I mean for it to work..one of his villan got to be in the bottom of the river

jackolover

09-24-2006, 03:36 PM

So, let me get this straight... your upset that Spider-man is acting like a super hero, in a super hero comic.

You're the kind of guy that yells at his dog for not being enough like a cat, aren't you?

My dog, unfortunately, does act like a cat. I am a very poor trainer.

jackolover

09-24-2006, 03:39 PM

Well I guess at least he won't be that upset with Tony, because that is his plan with the various Thunderbolts programs afterall...

Hmm. Yeah. I wonder how he will take out Tony after CW 5? That cover doesn't all go well for Spidey.

bulbasteve

09-24-2006, 03:45 PM

actully the Aveage person would be DANG near WORSHIPING some of these heroes

And they did until you have guys like Magneto taking over New York and sending people to incinerators or Kang destroying D.C and killing millions of people. These are the sort of things people would think the heroes would STOP from happening, not stop it after thousands or millions die. And with Stamford as opposed to the others theses people died because of no real threat, so there is no worshipping some heroes who should have taken out these guys when they were out of town.

Hmm. Yeah. I wonder how he will take out Tony after CW 5? That cover doesn't all go well for Spidey.

Hey I'm just using spidey's logic. If he doesn't kill people because he thinks they can change their ways. And if Spidey tries to repent about Uncle Ben by fighting crime. Then doesn't it logically make the only way for these badguys with "great power" to repent is to fight crime as well?

IamtheRock3

09-24-2006, 04:19 PM

And they did until you have guys like Magneto taking over New York and sending people to incinerators or Kang destroying D.C and killing millions of people. These are the sort of things people would think the heroes would STOP from happening, not stop it after thousands or millions die. And with Stamford as opposed to the others theses people died because of no real threat, so there is no worshipping some heroes who should have taken out these guys when they were out of town.

Hey I'm just using spidey's logic. If he doesn't kill people because he thinks they can change their ways. And if Spidey tries to repent about Uncle Ben by fighting crime. Then doesn't it logically make the only way for these badguys with "great power" to repent is to fight crime as well?

when the last time the GOVERMENT stop them. The heroes enssential been the only guys doing anywhere close a Good Job at that

If I was aveage Citezen..I been wonder

Why Exactuly is Dok Ock escaping every week when the heroes put him in Jail.

Thing is The Registration act is about Abusing power. Snapping a dude neck in cold blood, no matte how bad is doing just that

If I was Joe Scomoe

Shield Saying

"Ok where hunting Down Cap. BUT it cool because where got a TEAM made up of BULLSEYE, VENOMN and lady Deathstrye patrolling your street"

Yea I would feel REAAAL safe

To me I be looking at it like this

"Hey DD clean up Hell Kitch Saved me and my kids for MR HYDE..he cool with me"

Really if the ANTI side had ANY PR skills

They really could tear Shield a new butthole in the media if people heard about some of the stuff they did and how they were carrying this out

XPac

09-24-2006, 08:18 PM

I think the average man-on-the-street would agree with the pro-reg side.

The average comic book collector, the average peep in these forums, the average fantasy lover and dreamer is not an average person.

Most of us are idealists, while the rest of the world are realists.

In the real world people with kids, responsibilities and taxes don’t want to have worry about super powered lunatics with powers that can level cities. They may not want someone who can read their minds, go invisible, or shoots laser beams from their eyes living next door to them without knowing about their special abilities.

The average person isn’t going to want super villains living next to them, or super heroes that might attract super villains, or just a super-powered nutcase that may one day get mad because your dog crapped in his yard!

The average man or woman on the street has enough to worry about with gang violence, guns, drugs, police brutality and child molesters. If some of you can’t understand that I suggest that you get your head out of the clouds. It would be nice to live in a perfect world, but that’s never going to happen.

That’s where the rub is, they’re thinking about people who don’t buy comic books.

The average citizen in the MU are simply less informed than we are. Not their fault... but they obviously don't see anywhere close to as much as we do. If they did, there wouldn't be a 90%+ approval rating of the registration.

That's the downside with democracy... if the masses aren't informed they can make bad choices. I'll wager if the masses had an idea that SHIELD was a corrupt organization led by a murder like comic book readers do, more would be against it. If they knew about the homicidal clones and the supervillian army, likewise more would be against it. The average citizen I'll wager would rather have Captain America free and Green Goblin locked up rather than the other way around.

If the average citizen in the MU knew as much as the average comicbook fan, they'd have the same reservations about the registratrion. There's a descent idea in there SOMEWHERE, but there's far too much garbage stuck on it really be a preferable sollution to the current status quo.

The Mandarin

09-24-2006, 08:55 PM

Subotai

09-24-2006, 10:14 PM

We are are all capable of making that distiction. However, our personalities and opinions are are based on real-life experiences and concerns.

What would worry us more? What would worry us the least? Which side makes the world, or our little coner of it, more safe?

THE AVERAGE PERSON DOES NOT READ COMICS. THE AVERAGE PERSON CONSIDERS THEM A STUPID WASTE OF TIME. THEIR OPINIONS ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT THAN YOURS.

BTW I'm very fond of comics. I don't consider them consider them stupid or anyone here stupid for reading them.

Shouting doesn't help a person make more sense. But good to know you're fond of comics, etc...Wouldn't make much sense for you to be here otherwise.

stillanerd

09-24-2006, 10:43 PM

The more I think about it, the more vile cloning Thor becomes. A clone is no more or less than a twin. The only difference between a clone and a twin is one is an accident in the womb and the other is deliberate. But the result is exactly the same: a genetically identical brother/sister of the one who was cloned/twinned. That makes Clor Thor's baby twin brother. To take control of Clor, it's pretty clear they did something involving at least partial lobotomizing and brain implants. They lobotomized and brain-implanted Thor's baby twin brother. Yes, baby, because despite artifically speeded growth Clor can't be more than a month old. So, they lobotomized and enslaved a baby.

This story takes elements of characters and exagerates them to the point of parody. Yes, Stark would sneakily take some samples of Thor's hair from his sofa. Yes, he would study those hairs intensely and never tell Thor a word. No, he would not use the knowledge gained thereby to create a physically adult and powerful baby and lobotomize/enslave that baby. Yes, Stark is a bit of a bastard, but that is just a line he would never cross. Most likely he would do something like invent nanotech keyed to Thor's DNA designed to render Thor unconscious if he ever went evil. Something along those very general lines. Anti-Thor protocals designed for an emergency. The lobotomized baby slave story exagerates Stark's tendency to be a bit of a villainous bastard in the name of a greater good into something monstrous.

The really sad thing is I belive the Pro-SHRA side is inherently the correct side. Masked vigilantes are elitists to take a great big crap on democracy by insisting that they have the "right" to enforce their own private moralities and that this "right" trancends the laws enacted by the democratically chosen representatives of the American voters. That's you and me, or the Marvel Universe versions of us at any rate. If I want to enforce justice I have to become a cop, getting trained and becoming accountable in the process. But they can ignore this because they are vaslty stronger than me? That's the "right" they insist upon? The anti-side is full of crap, but this is being lost because the pro-side have been turned into monsters.

This story is the equivalent of having a Jews vs Nazism story that glosses over the actual philosophy and instead shows Jews murdering the children of the Nazi's. Instead of an actual debate, which the Nazi's would lose instantly, the other side is simply shown as monstrous.

Well said. And you also touch on an excellent point with regards how the characters are being portrayed. Some of the criticism has been that Iron Man, Reed, Spider-Man, and even Captain America are acting out of character and are being forced to do certain things for the sake of the story rather than having their character influence the story. Actually, what's going on is a gross exaggeration of their character. Yes, Iron Man is manipulative and a strategist, but so manipulative that he hires super-villains to do his dirty work or use a friends tissue samples to create a clone army (which also makes him a hypocrite when it comes to him following the law since he's using a law to hide behind other illegal activities like cloning); Reed is aloof and a little absent-minded, but not to the point where he dismisses and ignores his wife and kids and an injured brother-in-law for the sake of experimenting with clones and inter-dimensional gulags; Spider-Tool is at times a little too trusting and does want to be appreciated for what he does, but not to the point where he sacrifices his own prinicipals, much less put his loved ones at risk by revealing his identity, all for the sake of keeping a high-tech bodysuit; and Captain America does believe in truth, justice and freedom, but he doesn't brow beat his allies over the head with it to the point where he comes across as a fanatic (at least he hasn't done anything close to what the pro-registration side has done, such as hiring psychooathic murderers to hunt down your former friends).

And the lack of a balanced perspective on SHRA in Civil War was apparent as soon as Marvel started overplaying the notion that there was "no right or wrong side" while trying to compare it to today's political climate with regards to the Patriot Act and Guantanemo Bay which have been seen overwhelmingly by the media and some members of the public as negative, so it wasn't hard to imagine that Marvel wouldn't follow suit. Add this Mark Millar, author of "The US is the epitomy of evil (a.k.a. Ultimates 2) was slated to write the series and when Jenkis started promoting Frontline with flattering portrayals of the Sally character, all while claiming he was a moderate, then the handwriting was on the wall.

Qwathings

09-25-2006, 12:16 AM

I wonder what would have happened if Cap did listen to Tony for the 5 minutes? What would he have heard Tony say, and what would Cap have replied?
Tony: Um, wow, I wasn't actually expecting you to listen. Huh. Well, I guess should sit down and work out a fair and... EAT TRANQUILIZER DART FLAG MAN! VIVA LA REGISTRATION!!! Bwa-hahahahaha!

And then Tony twirls his mustache or some such bad guy mannerism.

StoneGold

09-25-2006, 12:25 AM

I think part of the problem is looking at real clones vs. looking at the way cloning has worked in comic books for years. Hell, as recently as a couple of months ago, FabNic had Deadpool hacking up dozens of clones, simply because they were clones, and the clones having no problem dying because they knew there were more fully-grown clones ready to be birthed any second. That was definitely less than a year ago. Comic book clones tend not to be real people, they tend to be expendable soldiers who inevitably melt into goo.

XPac

09-25-2006, 02:18 AM

Tony: Um, wow, I wasn't actually expecting you to listen. Huh. Well, I guess should sit down and work out a fair and... EAT TRANQUILIZER DART FLAG MAN! VIVA LA REGISTRATION!!! Bwa-hahahahaha!

And then Tony twirls his mustache or some such bad guy mannerism.

Seriously though... what would Tony have said if Cap gave him those 5 minutes?

I would have LOVED seeing the expression on his face while Tony went over his plans for the Thor clone and the supervillian army.

Nomad

09-25-2006, 02:57 AM

Does Clor have a soul?:eek:

He could be like those artificial, meat puppet, waxy faced, bio-clones, like in Star Trek TOS.

jackolover

09-25-2006, 03:39 AM

Hey I'm just using spidey's logic. If he doesn't kill people because he thinks they can change their ways. And if Spidey tries to repent about Uncle Ben by fighting crime. Then doesn't it logically make the only way for these badguys with "great power" to repent is to fight crime as well?

Well yeah. Using Spideys logic, badguys who repent would fight crime as well.

However, I don't think that's what is happening with these badguys of the New TBolts. These guys are only doing it because they have nanites in their body, controlled by the goodguys. I don't think repentance comes into it. I think the badguys are just as crazy, as evidenced by Osborns behavior in Frontline 5.

jackolover

09-25-2006, 03:47 AM

Seriously though... what would Tony have said if Cap gave him those 5 minutes?

I would have LOVED seeing the expression on his face while Tony went over his plans for the Thor clone and the supervillian army.

I don't know if Tony would have put that spin on it. He might not have mentioned clones and supervillian armies. He may just have used advertising jargon, outlining the general plan for the fifty state initiative, without the details. And as far as the supervillians, I don't think Tony would tell Cap about them, until Cap came over to his side. Then Cap would have kicked Tony's face in.

I think Cap would still have kicked Tony's face in after the 5 minutes, anyway, come to think of ot.

AllisterH

09-25-2006, 05:58 AM

Jmacq1

09-25-2006, 08:09 AM

I've given these things a lot of thought over the past few days, and I think I've come to a couple of realizations about this whole "intent vs. perception" thing.

A: Marvel grossly underestimated how -little- effect the "Secret Avengers" lawbreaking would have on readers' opinions/viewpoints. Every single pseudo-criticism of the Anti-side and rationalization for the Pro-Reg side's actions from Marvel's official reps has been couched in the premise of "Well Cap and Company are breaking the law!" While there are certainly a few here that have latched onto that fact and wave it about as if that alone were enough to completely condemn them, the fact remains that superheroes have been breaking laws semi-regularly for the last 40 years. Just because this particular law affects them more directly, and is getting more spotlight, doesn't change the fact that many readers are quite accustomed to seeing the superheroes defy law and government on a regular basis, and thus take it in stride. In short, it doesn't come across as the "cardinal sin" that some are trying to make it out to be.

B: The Pro-Reg side has certainly been engaged in a rapidly-growing number of questionable decisions that in some cases may border on outright evil, or at the very least highly unethical. In all truth though, these "questionable" decisions are in fact necessary, not from an in-universe perspective, but rather from a storytelling/reader perspective. Because let's face it...if all the Pro-Reg sides actions were completely above-the-board, and there were -no- problems or "slippery slopes" presented in its' execution...there would be no grounds for opposition to it. In other words, if everything were going perfectly over on the Pro-Reg side and nothing questionable was going on with it, there'd be no logical reason for anyone to oppose it.

Thus the "balanced" portrayal that Marvel keeps touting isn't so much in terms of "making both sides look equally bad". It's a matter of making the law-abiding side (Pro-Reg) look questionable enough that the lawbreaking side (the Anti-Reg) may have legitimate cause and rationalization for their actions.

Because without reason to question the Pro-Registration faction, the whole conflict gets boiled down to simply "Legal vs. Illegal" (as some folks here still insist that it is) rather than a combination of that with "Right vs. Wrong/Ethical vs. Unethical." Then the portrayal of the Anti-Registration faction would be "unbalanced" because they'd have no possibility of claiming the "moral high ground."

Alan2099

09-25-2006, 08:29 AM

gorthon616

09-25-2006, 09:10 AM

And the lack of a balanced perspective on SHRA in Civil War was apparent as soon as Marvel started overplaying the notion that there was "no right or wrong side" while trying to compare it to today's political climate with regards to the Patriot Act and Guantanemo Bay which have been seen overwhelmingly by the media and some members of the public as negative, so it wasn't hard to imagine that Marvel wouldn't follow suit. Add this Mark Millar, author of "The US is the epitomy of evil (a.k.a. Ultimates 2) was slated to write the series and when Jenkis started promoting Frontline with flattering portrayals of the Sally character, all while claiming he was a moderate, then the handwriting was on the wall.

I'm going to step in here to defend Ultimates 2, as I can't say that "The US is the epitomy of evil" is a fair portray of the book. Sure, the new masters of evil refer to the US/Ultimates as the epitomy of evil (but I mean of course they would), but really I don't see anything in the characterization of the US that seems unfair. (Well, Fury is kind of a dusche-bag).

Yeah, and didn't the Sally's opposite as a writer, Ben Urich, only have that position because he was forced to by Jameson, (who apparently has become Rupert Murdoch somewhere along the lines).

StoneGold

09-25-2006, 10:02 AM

Deadpool drinks for those bottles under the sink just to see what they taste like. His idea of a warning shot is anything that doesn't immeditaltey kill a person. He's NOT somebody you should base your decissions on.
No, however the clones' willingness to throw themselves into the carnage would be. The clones had no problems killing themselves, as long as there were backup clones. So as long as they had some level of genetic immortality, they were cool with it. Which generally is not the way real life clones work. That's how comic clones work.

kalorama

09-25-2006, 10:41 AM

Well yeah. Using Spideys logic, badguys who repent would fight crime as well.

However, I don't think that's what is happening with these badguys of the New TBolts. These guys are only doing it because they have nanites in their body, controlled by the goodguys. I don't think repentance comes into it. I think the badguys are just as crazy, as evidenced by Osborns behavior in Frontline 5.

Or the look on Bullseye's face at the end of CW #4. He didn't look very repentant to me.

No, however the clones' willingness to throw themselves into the carnage would be. The clones had no problems killing themselves, as long as there were backup clones. So as long as they had some level of genetic immortality, they were cool with it. Which generally is not the way real life clones work. That's how comic clones work.

Well, we don't really know how real life human clones would work because there aren't any. (At least none that we know about.) And if there were, they wouldn't be artificially aged from birth to adulthood (which we can assume was the case with Clor, since it's unlikely Stark has been cooking up a Thor clone for the past century). Perhaps breeding them with no conscious thought or free will is an innate part of the process.

Alan2099

09-25-2006, 11:01 AM

No, however the clones' willingness to throw themselves into the carnage would be. The clones had no problems killing themselves, as long as there were backup clones. So as long as they had some level of genetic immortality, they were cool with it. Which generally is not the way real life clones work. That's how comic clones work.
Look at it this way. They're basically told that if they die, they're just going to wake back up with no memory of it ever happening.

StoneGold

09-25-2006, 06:38 PM

Look at it this way. They're basically told that if they die, they're just going to wake back up with no memory of it ever happening.
Exactly. But that's not how real cloning, with all the "ethical qualms" and stuff works. And that's the thing, in comics, there are two types of clones, the kind for your moral quandry stories, and your random clones that inevitably melt into goo and make for good cannon fodder.

bulbasteve

09-25-2006, 07:09 PM

Exactly. But that's not how real cloning, with all the "ethical qualms" and stuff works. And that's the thing, in comics, there are two types of clones, the kind for your moral quandry stories, and your random clones that inevitably melt into goo and make for good cannon fodder.

You also don't tinker with a clone by going through it's ear, since it's just a person. They have to be some sort of special clone/robot thing...why else are they going in it's ear, does it have an ear infection or something?

stillanerd

09-26-2006, 01:16 AM

The Pro-Reg side has certainly been engaged in a rapidly-growing number of questionable decisions that in some cases may border on outright evil, or at the very least highly unethical. In all truth though, these "questionable" decisions are in fact necessary, not from an in-universe perspective, but rather from a storytelling/reader perspective. Because let's face it...if all the Pro-Reg sides actions were completely above-the-board, and there were -no- problems or "slippery slopes" presented in its' execution...there would be no grounds for opposition to it. In other words, if everything were going perfectly over on the Pro-Reg side and nothing questionable was going on with it, there'd be no logical reason for anyone to oppose it.

Thus the "balanced" portrayal that Marvel keeps touting isn't so much in terms of "making both sides look equally bad". It's a matter of making the law-abiding side (Pro-Reg) look questionable enough that the lawbreaking side (the Anti-Reg) may have legitimate cause and rationalization for their actions.

Because without reason to question the Pro-Registration faction, the whole conflict gets boiled down to simply "Legal vs. Illegal" (as some folks here still insist that it is) rather than a combination of that with "Right vs. Wrong/Ethical vs. Unethical." Then the portrayal of the Anti-Registration faction would be "unbalanced" because they'd have no possibility of claiming the "moral high ground."

I understand what you're saying, but there's bit of a problem with your argument.

First of all, no one expects that the pro-registration side had to be sweaky clean; what Marvel kept implying with their claims there are "no right or wrong sides" was that BOTH sides would be treated with equal weight, with each side doing heroic and not so heroic actions. That's what being "fair and balanced" truly means.

And while we have gotten the PERSPECTIVES of both sides, so far the pro-registration side has been been portrayed - based on their actions - in a far more UNSYMPATHETIC LIGHT in comparison to the anti-registration side. Joe Quesada is now saying that they expected people to root for Cap all along because he's the underdog fighting against the machine of the government, but has there been any real attempt by the comics themselves to suggest that Cap's side ARE NOT freedom fighters up against a corrupt reigme?

Okay, sure, we've seen an unregistered hero accidently kill someone in Frontline (not to mention this whole event started because of civilains being killed because of a fight between the New Warriors and Nitro - although from the looks of things in Wolverine, it seems the Riverbank Massacre was the result of a conspiracy by Damage Control) but what about any of Cap's Secret Avengers? What if, instead of Clor killing Golitah, someone on Cap's side, in the heat of the moment, say Hercules, accidently kills Yellowjacket or some other character? That way, you actually see that while Tony Stark's actions may be questionable, maybe the registration side has a point, plus it really puts the question to Cap as to whether or not his actions are creating more problems than it solves. Instead, the pro-registration side, who makes the point about accountability for one's actions and proper training of heroes, has a psychotic clone kill a guy who, even though he was resisting arrest, was also saving lives. Couple this with the revealation of the clone army, the hiring of supervillains to hunt down other heroes and members in their ranks beginning to realize they're on the wrong side, along with the fact that Cap's team is actually capturing super-villains instead of recruiting them and it's not anywhere close to being balanced.

Although, the only place where Civil War makes "both sides equally bad" is its exaggerated portrayal of the characters. Even so, while Cap comes across as a hard-ass borderline zealot, Stark and Reed look far worse in that they're cloning technology has caused a person's death and yet they are going ahead with it, not to mention hiring super-powered killers which could potentially kill more people.

I'm going to step in here to defend Ultimates 2, as I can't say that "The US is the epitomy of evil" is a fair portray of the book. Sure, the new masters of evil refer to the US/Ultimates as the epitomy of evil (but I mean of course they would), but really I don't see anything in the characterization of the US that seems unfair. (Well, Fury is kind of a dusche-bag).

Hey, Ultimates is a consistantly great and exciting book. However, the undrlining theme Millar is suggesting is that there wouldn't be a Masters of Evil (or terrorists for that matter) if the United States wasn't so dominate a force in the world and that perhaps it deserves what it gets for butting its nose into other countries business, and that way Americans will become more "enlightened" and "change their ways," Cracks about the Masters of Evil deciding to hold free elections and killing the first lady not withstanding. (Never mind of course terrorism has been around long before the current President got into the White House, but hey, Millar believes Democrats are less fun to write about because they aren't evil enough - yes, he's on record saying that, although perhaps he was kidding...maybe.) Not to mention that Captain America, the guy that's supposed to be the living symbol of what the United States is supposed to represent, is an unapologetic jinogist even though he's the hero. And yes, Fury IS a douche-bag. Course what do you expect from a secret paramilitary spy organization? Maxwell Smart? :D

Yeah, and didn't the Sally's opposite as a writer, Ben Urich, only have that position because he was forced to by Jameson, (who apparently has become Rupert Murdoch somewhere along the lines).

That's exactly what I was referring to. Frontline claimed, just like Civil War, we would get a balanced perspective of both sides of the conflict. But when you have one reporter championing the anti-registration side and another reporter who is also anti-registration but forced to write pro-registration articles to keep his job, that's not getting both perspectives, that two seperate versions of the same perspective.

Jmacq1

09-26-2006, 05:58 AM

I understand what you're saying, but there's bit of a problem with your argument.

First of all, no one expects that the pro-registration side had to be sweaky clean; what Marvel kept implying with their claims there are "no right or wrong sides" was that BOTH sides would be treated with equal weight, with each side doing heroic and not so heroic actions. That's what being "fair and balanced" truly means.

And while we have gotten the PERSPECTIVES of both sides, so far the pro-registration side has been been portrayed - based on their actions - in a far more UNSYMPATHETIC LIGHT in comparison to the anti-registration side. Joe Quesada is now saying that they expected people to root for Cap all along because he's the underdog fighting against the machine of the government, but has there been any real attempt by the comics themselves to suggest that Cap's side ARE NOT freedom fighters up against a corrupt reigme?

Okay, sure, we've seen an unregistered hero accidently kill someone in Frontline (not to mention this whole event started because of civilains being killed because of a fight between the New Warriors and Nitro - although from the looks of things in Wolverine, it seems the Riverbank Massacre was the result of a conspiracy by Damage Control) but what about any of Cap's Secret Avengers? What if, instead of Clor killing Golitah, someone on Cap's side, in the heat of the moment, say Hercules, accidently kills Yellowjacket or some other character? That way, you actually see that while Tony Stark's actions may be questionable, maybe the registration side has a point, plus it really puts the question to Cap as to whether or not his actions are creating more problems than it solves. Instead, the pro-registration side, who makes the point about accountability for one's actions and proper training of heroes, has a psychotic clone kill a guy who, even though he was resisting arrest, was also saving lives. Couple this with the revealation of the clone army, the hiring of supervillains to hunt down other heroes and members in their ranks beginning to realize they're on the wrong side, along with the fact that Cap's team is actually capturing super-villains instead of recruiting them and it's not anywhere close to being balanced.

Although, the only place where Civil War makes "both sides equally bad" is its exaggerated portrayal of the characters. Even so, while Cap comes across as a hard-ass borderline zealot, Stark and Reed look far worse in that they're cloning technology has caused a person's death and yet they are going ahead with it, not to mention hiring super-powered killers which could potentially kill more people.

Still kind of not seeing my point, I don't think:

If the Anti-Reg faction (and by that I mean the "Secret Avengers", not independent heroes that are against registration) did do something like killing a fellow hero in a fit of rage, etc... then just as the Pro-Registration position is inarguable if everything goes perfectly/smoothly without any ethical questions involved, it becomes equally inarguable because Captain America's faction has, in effect, proven them completely right.

In other words if the Anti-Registration faction starts taking the same level of extreme actions (more so than they already have, as I realize attacking SHIELD and not following the law automatically makes them "terrorists" in some people's eyes) that the Pro-Registration side has, then the Anti-Registration side has -no- legitimate reason for existence. The Pro-Registration can at least argue that they have the law/government on their side. Once the Anti-Reg faction crosses any of those same moral/ethical boundaries that the Pro-Reg has, they really are "terrorists" or "supervillains" and their behavior can no longer really be rationalized by sane and logical people. The Anti-Registration forces by nature must maintain some semblance of the "moral high ground" because while illegal but moral can still be argued as potentially "right", illegal and immoral is basically indefensible.

Basically, either scenario ruins the opportunity for true moral/ethical/philosophical conflict, which undermines the crossover in and of itself.

gorthon616

09-26-2006, 08:22 AM

Hey, Ultimates is a consistantly great and exciting book. However, the undrlining theme Millar is suggesting is that there wouldn't be a Masters of Evil (or terrorists for that matter) if the United States wasn't so dominate a force in the world and that perhaps it deserves what it gets for butting its nose into other countries business, and that way Americans will become more "enlightened" and "change their ways," Cracks about the Masters of Evil deciding to hold free elections and killing the first lady not withstanding.

That's certainly what the theme is, but my point is that it was actually done well. There is the "fall of the empire" angle to the story, but the story is also done well enough that there is the straight-beligerent (but articulate) terrorist group attacking America angle as well. So it's not so much that I am surprised at the story, but he had touched the issue much better in Ultimates that I feel that (if he really wanted to) he could have done a much better job.

Not to mention that Captain America, the guy that's supposed to be the living symbol of what the United States is supposed to represent, is an unapologetic jinogist even though he's the hero.

That's your take on Ultimate Cap? I never got that. Where exactly do you get that from?

stillanerd

09-26-2006, 10:13 PM

Still kind of not seeing my point, I don't think:

If the Anti-Reg faction (and by that I mean the "Secret Avengers", not independent heroes that are against registration) did do something like killing a fellow hero in a fit of rage, etc... then just as the Pro-Registration position is inarguable if everything goes perfectly/smoothly without any ethical questions involved, it becomes equally inarguable because Captain America's faction has, in effect, proven them completely right.

In other words if the Anti-Registration faction starts taking the same level of extreme actions (more so than they already have, as I realize attacking SHIELD and not following the law automatically makes them "terrorists" in some people's eyes) that the Pro-Registration side has, then the Anti-Registration side has -no- legitimate reason for existence. The Pro-Registration can at least argue that they have the law/government on their side. Once the Anti-Reg faction crosses any of those same moral/ethical boundaries that the Pro-Reg has, they really are "terrorists" or "supervillains" and their behavior can no longer really be rationalized by sane and logical people. The Anti-Registration forces by nature must maintain some semblance of the "moral high ground" because while illegal but moral can still be argued as potentially "right", illegal and immoral is basically indefensible.

Basically, either scenario ruins the opportunity for true moral/ethical/philosophical conflict, which undermines the crossover in and of itself.

Actually, the way I understand your point is that it's okay for the pro-registration side to come across as quasi-villains because this provides "true philosophical conflict" and "balance" while showing that the Cap's Secret Avengers, while legally wrong, are morally right. Fine. That's certainly the Marvel writers' perogative. However, you're also acknowleging that Marvel lied when they said - and in some cases are still trying to claim - that there's "no right or wrong side" because "there are heroes on both sides" and that it wouldn't be easy to see who the bad guys really are. That's how it was marketed and so far Civil War is not doing this. It isn't just the "law-abiding side (Pro-Reg) look questionable enough that the lawbreaking side (the Anti-Reg) may have legitimate cause and rationalization for their actions." So far, the actions by the Pro-Reg are far more insiduous than the Anti-Reg side has done. When you see the accumulated actions that the Pro-Reg side has taken:

They are more concerned about hunting down their friends than they are villains;
They hire these same villains to go after their friends;
Thay have cloned one of their friends who is also psychotic who;
Killed someone they know, so now they have a death on their conscience;
Have a plan in the works to create an army of clones;
Have imprisioned their friends in an interdimensional prison;
Deliberately mislead their friends by falsely leaking that innocent people were in danger in order to ambush them;
Are working with an organization who tends to shoot first and act questions later and;
Who imprisions Speedball without any due process rights and who;
Drafts and blackmail superheroes to do their own bidding under the cloak of congressional legislation;
Who are mostly composed of scientists, businesspeople, military types and government wonks - you know, those who follow "The Man;"
Where their main guy, Iron Man, has been manipulating his own allies for his own purposes and who seems more concerned about how the public percieves superheroes rather than doing the right thing regardless;
Where Reed Richards is seen as neglecting his own family to the point where even his own wife calls him a facist;
Where you have members of that side leaving or think about leaving because they realize they are morally wrong.

Compare this to Cap's side, who have:

Been shot at without just cause, or where about to be shot at;
Had their leader Cap almost apprehended by S.H.I.E.L.D. for not complying with Registration BEFORE the act even passed;
Are out there actually saving lives and fighting the bad guys, just like superheroes have always done;
Haven't killed a single person even in self-defense (to elaborate on this, I, in the post you quoted stated that they could have had one of the Anti-Regs ACCIDENTLY, not deliberately, kill one of the pro-regs - a.k.a. they acted in self-defense and it wouldn't "automatically" prove the pro-registration side right, especially if that side was still doing unethical tactics);
Are severly outgunned when it comes to raw power;
Have pretty much acted in self-defense this whole time, and yes, Cap shorting out Iron Man's armor after his side was ambused can be seen as an act of self-defense;
Have had members leave and surrender [I]not because they changed their minds about registration but because they realized they could get killed - in other words they were coorcerred and pressured;
Are considered outcasts and outside the system, which is a clear sign they're the heroes and are sticking it to the man;
Who have rescued their allies from prision;
Who are comprised of mostly of younger people, minorities, and blue-collar types;
Whose leader, Cap, hasn't manipulated his own allies or done anything behind their back, and has been pretty upfront and confident in what he believes (although he's starting to sound like a nut, probably because Stark made him punch drunk).

So far, there isn't any question as to who is in the right, or at least who is being portrayed in the right, so there are no moral ambiguities or ethical/moral/philosophical conflicts, only the pretense of one - because Civil War is making it very clear that Cap's side is the morally correct one and whatever arguments made about registration (notice that Marvel keeps redifining it to make it appear worse) is moot. And that is picking a side which Marvel claimed they wouldn't do.

stillanerd

09-26-2006, 10:32 PM

That's certainly what the theme is, but my point is that it was actually done well. There is the "fall of the empire" angle to the story, but the story is also done well enough that there is the straight-beligerent (but articulate) terrorist group attacking America angle as well. So it's not so much that I am surprised at the story, but he had touched the issue much better in Ultimates that I feel that (if he really wanted to) he could have done a much better job.

I'll grant you that. And yes, Millar could've written Civil War like the Ultimates (in terms of exaggerating characters he certainly is), but then it begs the question, especially in terms of creating balance with regards to registration - is he really incapable of making both sides equally sympathetic, or did he have no intetntion of presenting both sides equally?

That's your take on Ultimate Cap? I never got that. Where exactly do you get that from?

Well, there was that time when he was ordered to surrender: "Surrender? Do you think this letter on my forehead stands for France?!" :D (great line BTW :cool: )

Seriously, about the Ultimate version of Cap being a jingoist, he kind of fits the definition, in that he "is a person who professes belligerent patriotism and favors an aggressive foreign policy" or at least he was that way initially. If not a jingoist then certainly the superhero equivalant of the "ugly American." I believe Millar argued that since Cap was from the 1940s, then he'd still hold onto the cultural prejudices from that period of time. Granted, he seems to have soured concerning his opinion in regards to those in charge of the US, and he's taken by the Wasp who is Asian, but even so, he still is a bit of a flag-waving hothead in the comic, although certainly the coolest character in the series.

PunchesThruWalls

09-26-2006, 10:47 PM

So far, there isn't any question as to who is in the right, or at least who is being portrayed in the right, so there are no moral ambiguities or ethical/moral/philosophical conflicts, only the pretense of one - because Civil War is making it very clear that Cap's side is the morally correct one and whatever arguments made about registration (notice that Marvel keeps redifining it to make it appear worse) is moot. And that is picking a side which Marvel claimed they wouldn't do.

I agree with your analysis. I couldn't find any specific quotes from Millar, but the quotes coming from Marvel about showing balance from both sides are either:

a) made up before writing started
b) a lie
c) made with knowledge about future events in the series

I tend to think a combination of a and b. It seems pretty obvious that Millar is sympathetic with anti-reg. Check out this quote from before issue #1 came out:

"Cap is about freedom more than anything else. He's about altruism and not being in anyone's pocket. He'd be repulsed by the idea of doing this as a job. He's all about civic duty. He's no lapdog and is bigger than any government, whether it's Republican or Democrat. He represents the ideal."

I agree with Millar's assessment of Cap. And I agree with his writing - he's consistently shown Cap's side as the idealist. IM's side are the pragmatists who are vadering themselves. The writing is self-consistent. The marketing isn't.

stillanerd

09-26-2006, 11:09 PM

I agree with Millar's assessment of Cap. And I agree with his writing - he's consistently shown Cap's side as the idealist. IM's side are the pragmatists who are vadering themselves. The writing is self-consistent. The marketing isn't.

Exactly. I believe the reason why Marvel tried to claim there was no right or wrong side was due to being afraid that since the series was supposed to be a critiique against current events, they assumed it would frowned upon and recieve negative backlash by at least half of their readership. So they tried the same tactic used by political "moderates" and "independents" to claim they were giving both sides a fair shake. Bascially, their marketing campaign was done in by their own comics and now, of course, they have to try and save face.

jaxcs

09-27-2006, 06:05 AM

So they tried the same tactic used by political "moderates" and "independents" to claim they were giving both sides a fair shake.

I don't think it's a tactic, I think that you don't get an automatic pass is what upsets you.

jaxcs

09-27-2006, 06:58 AM

Actually, the way I understand your point is that it's okay for the pro-registration side to come across as quasi-villains because this provides "true philosophical conflict" and "balance" while showing that the Cap's Secret Avengers, while legally wrong, are morally right. Fine. That's certainly the Marvel writers' perogative. However, you're also acknowleging that Marvel lied when they said - and in some cases are still trying to claim - that there's "no right or wrong side" because "there are heroes on both sides" and that it wouldn't be easy to see who the bad guys really are. That's how it was marketed and so far Civil War is not doing this. It isn't just the "law-abiding side (Pro-Reg) look [I]questionable enough that the lawbreaking side (the Anti-Reg) may have legitimate cause and rationalization for their actions." So far, the actions by the Pro-Reg are far more insiduous than the Anti-Reg side has done. When you see the accumulated actions that the Pro-Reg side has taken:

So far, there isn't any question as to who is in the right, or at least who is being portrayed in the right, so there are no moral ambiguities or ethical/moral/philosophical conflicts, only the pretense of one - because Civil War is making it very clear that Cap's side is the morally correct one and whatever arguments made about registration (notice that Marvel keeps redifining it to make it appear worse) is moot. And that is picking a side which Marvel claimed they wouldn't do.

In the comics as in reality, the side in power is the side that is most at risk to loose and to abuse that power. They have the ability to create interdimensional prisons, the 50 state initiative and whatever else they can imagine. Caps side is largely limited to reacting to the threats posed by IM's ambitious plans.

I get the sense that what you really want is for IM's side to generate more sympathy, but that's not likely to happen. The claim that the law is the law and that law breakers need to pay the price for their disobedience is not likely to generate much sympathy. Contrast this to the side that breaks the law to do what they think is right because they are following their heart. The kind of sympathy you will see for the pro side is someone like Maria Sharpe thanking IM for doing his job and making sacrifices at the funeral. But lets not be under any illusions, the hometown favorites will be those who do traditional super-heroing.

With the exception of Hill's early attempted shooting of Cap and the decision to use villains to capture heroes, I don't think the story is tipped as strongly in favor of Caps side as you claim. If you take your own list and strip it of emotional and valuative language, it can look like this:

They are more concerned about hunting down their friends than they are villains;
- Cap and co are law breakers and anyway we have only witnessed two pro-anti battles. Once a rescue attempt by the antis, once a sting by the pros. the remainder of the battles involve sheild.

They hire these same villains to go after their friends;
- IM is nuts for allowing this but the reasoning for this seems to be that the clones are not yet ready for active duty.

Thay have cloned one of their friends who is also psychotic who;
Killed someone they know, so now they have a death on their conscience;
Have a plan in the works to create an army of clones;
- Cloning is likely part of the 50 state initiative that may ultimately end up saving lives, that the clone killed Giant Man is the result of untested technology and not deliberate malice

Have imprisioned their friends in an interdimensional prison;
- Interdimensional prison may be necessary to detain super beings

Deliberately mislead their friends by falsely leaking that innocent people were in danger in order to ambush them;
- Part of sting operation; not an illegal tactic

Are working with an organization who tends to shoot first and act questions later and
- they are heavy handed but they do happen to see heroes engaged in the illegal act of super-heroing.

Who imprisions Speedball without any due process rights and who;
- I think he got due process, he got to see a lawyer, he got to see a judge who ruled against him (off story board). He is not likely to get his appeal turn out favorably but he is getting due process.

Drafts and blackmail superheroes to do their own bidding under the cloak of congressional legislation;
- I don't think this occured due to congressional legislation. it's evil shield

Who are mostly composed of scientists, businesspeople, military types and government wonks - you know, those who follow "The Man;"
- this is true but has nothing to do with the pro movement and IM

Where their main guy, Iron Man, has been manipulating his own allies for his own purposes and who seems more concerned about how the public perceives superheroes rather than doing the right thing regardless;
- Not telling Spidey everything about his suit is not really manipulating. You would like him to be more open but it's not an attempt to deceive, to be two-faced.

Where Reed Richards is seen as neglecting his own family to the point where even his own wife calls him a facist;
- I tried finding this, couldn't do it. where does she say this? In any case, it is not Reed's neglect that caused Sue to leave; it's a profound disagreement with the policies of the pro side.

Where you have members of that side leaving or think about leaving because they realize they are morally wrong.
- they are leaving one side for the other not necessarily because they are believe the pro side to be morally wrong but because they do not agree with aspects of the pro side.

gorthon616

09-27-2006, 05:58 PM

I'll grant you that. And yes, Millar could've written Civil War like the Ultimates (in terms of exaggerating characters he certainly is), but then it begs the question, especially in terms of creating balance with regards to registration - is he really incapable of making both sides equally sympathetic, or did he have no intetntion of presenting both sides equally?

My answer. Probably not.

Well, there was that time when he was ordered to surrender: "Surrender? Do you think this letter on my forehead stands for France?!" :D (great line BTW :cool: )

Seriously, about the Ultimate version of Cap being a jingoist, he kind of fits the definition, in that he "is a person who professes belligerent patriotism and favors an aggressive foreign policy" or at least he was that way initially. If not a jingoist then certainly the superhero equivalant of the "ugly American." I believe Millar argued that since Cap was from the 1940s, then he'd still hold onto the cultural prejudices from that period of time. Granted, he seems to have soured concerning his opinion in regards to those in charge of the US, and he's taken by the Wasp who is Asian, but even so, he still is a bit of a flag-waving hothead in the comic, although certainly the coolest character in the series.

I see what you're saying. I guess I took jingoist to be a more straight-yes-man for his country. I wouldn't say he is "beligerent" or necessarily "agressive," but I guess he's the cowboy American, wandering into the wild west trying to set the wrong things right. (which is hella cool).

gorthon616

09-27-2006, 06:40 PM

In the comics as in reality, the side in power is the side that is most at risk to loose and to abuse that power. They have the ability to create interdimensional prisons, the 50 state initiative and whatever else they can imagine. Caps side is largely limited to reacting to the threats posed by IM's ambitious plans.

Why? IM has been driven to the point where "capturing the other side" is the top thing on the agenda, why not have Cap do the same? Run missions and try to blow up and sabatoge and make strikes against the pro-registration people? This isn't just Cap sitting on his sheild, he has plenty of resources to act with.

They are more concerned about hunting down their friends than they are villains;
- Cap and co are law breakers and anyway we have only witnessed two pro-anti battles. Once a rescue attempt by the antis, once a sting by the pros. the remainder of the battles involve sheild.

You're ignoring your "exception" which makes 3. And that's in 4 issues and the third confrontation lasted 2 issues. Now obviously the title is called Civil War and so we're expecting hero versus hero battles, but the reason is why. Is it because there is a threat? Is it because Patriot stopping a mugging was worth chasing him down and blowing up the top of a building? Is there anyway to explain the last two issues of fighting as "things just escalating for no apparent reason?" Obviously we knew that this was going to go to hero versus hero, but they haven't given any ample reason why. And the fact that IM's side has consistently escalated the conflict without any real reason is why, I think its accurate to say their "side" is being portray negatively.

They hire these same villains to go after their friends;
- IM is nuts for allowing this but the reasoning for this seems to be that the clones are not yet ready for active duty.

Umm... I got an idea. Wait. I mean, all that Cap has done so far is refused a job, sit at a coffee shop, set free some kids, and go try to save some people at a plant explosion. And be generally belligerent. REALLY belligerent. And yet IM is basically acting like Cap has declared "war" on IM, which he hasn't really done (yet), so there isn't anything that requires such a "this is our last chance at survival" tactic. Also consider the second point, siding with villains. These villains aren't (at least to my awareness) being used for anything other than heroes. While super-heroes might be illegal now, super-VILLAINS always were, and nothing in Civil War has suddenly made super-heroes a greater threat.

Thay have cloned one of their friends who is also psychotic who;
Killed someone they know, so now they have a death on their conscience;
Have a plan in the works to create an army of clones;
- Cloning is likely part of the 50 state initiative that may ultimately end up saving lives, that the clone killed Giant Man is the result of untested technology and not deliberate malice

His name was Goliath. And that's certainly true, but if the argument is that we're supposed to have a balanced treatment, where is the "Clor" on Cap's side? If Cap freed the some Anti-Hero who ended killing up innocents, I could see this as being a balanced treatment. But as it stands Clor is just another thing that tips the balance of the story.

Have imprisioned their friends in an interdimensional prison;
- Interdimensional prison may be necessary to detain super beings
Deliberately mislead their friends by falsely leaking that innocent people were in danger in order to ambush them;
- Part of sting operation; not an illegal tactic

Again, where is the balance though? Cap's group has done nothing on par with the Pro-Reg's sides actions. And by this time in the story, anything they do will just be "in response" to what the Pro-Reg side did.

Etc.Etc. And that's the common problem with Civil War. Sure, you could fudge this. Ok, maybe they need a huge super prision. You can fudge that. So what they planned a sting. But after awhile you realize that ever act that IM is doing is being played as as being this very Makiavellian act, and when you realize that Cap's side hasn't really done much, you realize just how lop-sided this story is.

jaxcs

09-28-2006, 06:51 AM

Why? IM has been driven to the point where "capturing the other side" is the top thing on the agenda, why not have Cap do the same? Run missions and try to blow up and sabatoge and make strikes against the pro-registration people? This isn't just Cap sitting on his shield, he has plenty of resources to act with.

If Cap were to do as you suggest, he really would be the terrorist some on this forum claim him to be. Is Shield, and by extension, IM, the aggressor in this tale? Well, yes, but by design they also have to be. They have the law to uphold. Their desire to uphold the law is what puts them in opposition with Cap, who wants to continue doing tradition hero work such as capturing bad guys without registering. As for why Cap isn't taking the fight to the pro side, I think Cap will soon be doing exactly that.

You're ignoring your "exception" which makes 3. And that's in 4 issues and the third confrontation lasted 2 issues. Now obviously the title is called Civil War and so we're expecting hero versus hero battles, but the reason is why. Is it because there is a threat? Is it because Patriot stopping a mugging was worth chasing him down and blowing up the top of a building? Is there anyway to explain the last two issues of fighting as "things just escalating for no apparent reason?" Obviously we knew that this was going to go to hero versus hero, but they haven't given any ample reason why. And the fact that IM's side has consistently escalated the conflict without any real reason is why, I think its accurate to say their "side" is being portray negatively.

Exception? you mean the Hill Cap confrontation? That seemed more personal than pro v anti, in any case it wasn't heroes fighting heroes. As to why we they are pursuing the anti side so vigorously, well they are breaking the law aren't they? Why do people still get parking tickets when police officers could put that effort toward fighting drug dealers or terrorists? IM's side may be escalating the conflict but they are doing so to enforce the law. Why do you say that we can't explain the last two issues of fighting as "things just escalating for no apparent reason?" IM didn't intend on killing Goliath, it was a clone who did that.

Umm... I got an idea. Wait. I mean, all that Cap has done so far is refused a job, sit at a coffee shop, set free some kids, and go try to save some people at a plant explosion. And be generally belligerent. REALLY belligerent. And yet IM is basically acting like Cap has declared "war" on IM, which he hasn't really done (yet), so there isn't anything that requires such a "this is our last chance at survival" tactic. Also consider the second point, siding with villains. These villains aren't (at least to my awareness) being used for anything other than heroes. While super-heroes might be illegal now, super-VILLAINS always were, and nothing in Civil War has suddenly made super-heroes a greater threat.

What answer would suffice here? I think getting super-villains to battle heroes is terrible. And, as you note in scare quotes, it is in my list of "exceptions". I repeat the answer that Reed and IM gave to the Wasp. The clones are not ready and they need to move fast. Why do they need to move fast? We aren't told. Perhaps because Cap can cause a great deal of mischief if left unchecked?

His name was Goliath. And that's certainly true, but if the argument is that we're supposed to have a balanced treatment, where is the "Clor" on Cap's side? If Cap freed the some Anti-Hero who ended killing up innocents, I could see this as being a balanced treatment. But as it stands Clor is just another thing that tips the balance of the story.

Must there be a clor on Cap's side to even things out? if one side kills, the other side must kill as well? Although there is some nice symetry, I don't want an anti clor to balance the pro clor. We don't need a dead pro hero to balance out the dead anti hero. It's a boring way of doing things. Why would it be better if Cap had freed an Anti-Hero (villan?) who ended killing up innocents. Why would this be more balanced?

Again, where is the balance though? Cap's group has done nothing on par with the Pro-Reg's sides actions. And by this time in the story, anything they do will just be "in response" to what the Pro-Reg side did.

Etc.Etc. And that's the common problem with Civil War. Sure, you could fudge this. Ok, maybe they need a huge super prision. You can fudge that. So what they planned a sting. But after awhile you realize that ever act that IM is doing is being played as as being this very Makiavellian act, and when you realize that Cap's side hasn't really done much, you realize just how lop-sided this story is.

You call it fudging but I think that if you accept the premise of the storyline that heroes need to register and heroes that do not register deserve to be imprisoned, then super human prisons and law enforcement tactics such as sting operations follows. You don't find it particularly heroic for heroes to act as police officers (I don't), but that is the story. You say IM is Machiavellian and he is, but he has long term goals and his efforts are appreciated by Maria Sharpe who I suppose is a stand in for the normal, unpowered MU citizen.

gorthon616

09-28-2006, 10:53 AM

If Cap were to do as you suggest, he really would be the terrorist some on this forum claim him to be. Is Shield, and by extension, IM, the aggressor in this tale? Well, yes, but by design they also have to be. They have the law to uphold. Their desire to uphold the law is what puts them in opposition with Cap, who wants to continue doing tradition hero work such as capturing bad guys without registering. As for why Cap isn't taking the fight to the pro side, I think Cap will soon be doing exactly that.

But shouldn't Cap's side be just as open to grey area as IM's side?
If the IM question is, are we undergoing a necessary increase in security or is this an unnecessary move towards a more totalitarian state?
Then shouldn't Cap's side be embodying the question of, are we justly defying an unjust action or have we taken such an action that goes beyond what we could have justifiably done?
And why shouldn't there be some basis to say that Cap is the "terrorist" some people think he is, when IM is ACTING like Cap is a terrorist? And it's not like they have given readers ammo to think that IM is basically being a villain. That the other side isn't given the same treatment, shows the lop-sidedness of it.
Sure he might do that now, but doing it now would be making Cap's act based off a reaction from what happened. We're no longer having two sides fighting on the princples of registration, but rather on their own actions which are blantantly being escalated for no reason.

Exception? you mean the Hill Cap confrontation? That seemed more personal than pro v anti, in any case it wasn't heroes fighting heroes. As to why we they are pursuing the anti side so vigorously, well they are breaking the law aren't they? Why do people still get parking tickets when police officers could put that effort toward fighting drug dealers or terrorists? IM's side may be escalating the conflict but they are doing so to enforce the law. Why do you say that we can't explain the last two issues of fighting as "things just escalating for no apparent reason?" IM didn't intend on killing Goliath, it was a clone who did that.

Right, but you don't put Jeffrey Dahmer on the street to stop habitual parking violators. No one is saying that they are surprised that they are enforcing the law, but some people think that this is the equivalent of carpet bombing a shop-lifter. Just tell me what has been done by the anti-side to invoke this response? Cap's job refusal? The statement that he has apprehended around 20 villains (which Maria Hill referred to as their "NIGHTMARE SCENARIO")? Ok, they freed a couple of the Young Avengers. But let's not forget that those Young Avengers (that we know of) had only just stopped a mugging, and we're apprehended via blowing up the top of a building. How can you say that that is NOT blantant escalation for no reason? I'm not even talking about Goliath. But the fight itself pretty much spurned out of nowhere.

What answer would suffice here? I think getting super-villains to battle heroes is terrible. And, as you note in scare quotes, it is in my list of "exceptions". I repeat the answer that Reed and IM gave to the Wasp. The clones are not ready and they need to move fast. Why do they need to move fast? We aren't told. Perhaps because Cap can cause a great deal of mischief if left unchecked?

But my point is WHAT MISCHIEF? Like you said, he's not (or hadn't until things escalated) done anything other than apprehend villains. So what mischief? That is one of the huge problems with the story. They keep acting like Captain America running around stopping super-villains is the end of the world. They keep acting like Cap is a terrorist, when Cap has done nothing of the sort. Unless if being uncharacteristically a bastard is a national security concern.

Must there be a clor on Cap's side to even things out? if one side kills, the other side must kill as well? Although there is some nice symetry, I don't want an anti clor to balance the pro clor. We don't need a dead pro hero to balance out the dead anti hero. It's a boring way of doing things. Why would it be better if Cap had freed an Anti-Hero (villan?) who ended killing up innocents. Why would this be more balanced?

Do you know what balance means? I'm not talking about symetry here, but there is no balance to the story. It doesn't need to be cap freeing an anti-hero, but if you're saying that having Clor/Villains/NegativeZone/etc. on one side and nothing on the other is balanced, then I don't know what to tell you.

You call it fudging but I think that if you accept the premise of the storyline that heroes need to register and heroes that do not register deserve to be imprisoned, then super human prisons and law enforcement tactics such as sting operations follows. You don't find it particularly heroic for heroes to act as police officers (I don't), but that is the story. You say IM is Machiavellian and he is, but he has long term goals and his efforts are appreciated by Maria Sharpe who I suppose is a stand in for the normal, unpowered MU citizen.

Again. if you accept the premise of the storyline that heroes need to register and heroes that do not register deserve to be imprisoned What do you mean "accept"? Sure, I can just accept it. But the fact that I just have to give a blank check to the writers and accept it, just shows how poor the story is. Even if the issue is Neo-Nazism, if you look at a story like American History X or the Believer (i think thats the title), they will not just bald-faced say "accept this premise" but use the story as a tool to show you the reasons why you would accept (or not accept) the premise. Civil War just forces you to assume it but never shows you why.

And lastly they aren't acting like cops, and I would think it would be heroic for them to act like police officers.

Arron

09-28-2006, 11:05 AM

Well, I've dropped all the Civil War titles as of this week. The Nazi bit in Frontline was just way too over the top. I really wonder when they're going to push the big "reset button" on this mess.

Quasar's Bands

09-28-2006, 11:16 AM

Vaal

09-28-2006, 11:21 AM

Well, I've dropped all the Civil War titles as of this week. The Nazi bit in Frontline was just way too over the top. I really wonder when they're going to push the big "reset button" on this mess.
"No more overly political storylines"?

Wanda finally destroys something she should?!

XPac

09-28-2006, 11:22 AM

Anyone notice that that mother appears at the most interesting of times? She is the one that gets the crowd going, and when it is possible Tony is doubting himself, she shows up..... It just has me thinking that there is something going on with her - almost Loki like (I know it isn't Loki, but given the Avenger's history, it isn't beyond him...). Just a thought.

It's certainly an interesting though. Someone could be using the mother to influence Stark, or the mother herself could be someone.

The big about the Iron Man action figure she handed Stark was interesting since the design of the suit was modern. The action figure was probably something she got recently.

Of course there's no evidence to support she's anything other than what she claims she is, but it's something to keep in the back of your mind. If nothing else, there's potential in her as a retcon down the line if a different writer wants her to be.

sephirothskiller

09-28-2006, 11:35 AM

Whilst part of me is shocked at how "lopsided" the Civil War coverage is, the other part of me thinks, "Well its really not."

OOC or not, currently IM is doing some very bad things, and so isn't being shown in a "bad light", he's simply having his actions displayed in plain view, and those actions are reprehensible.

Other things, like the Nazi comparison clearly show Jenkins' views on the subject, but at the same time: "Cape Killers." And, "Forced registration of anyone who is different." I don't like the fact that the Nazi comparison was used, but it does have some validity.

Though Frontline is dissapointing now. While I appreciate "Embedded," its not anything special, and I liked "The Accused" up until the part where Speedball got assasinaited, because for a second I thought that the resolution might just have a political ending, (and because you would think She-Hulk would have been more on the ball. Seriously, if she doesn't beat alot of people up next issue...)

gorthon616

09-28-2006, 12:10 PM

It's certainly an interesting though. Someone could be using the mother to influence Stark, or the mother herself could be someone.

The big about the Iron Man action figure she handed Stark was interesting since the design of the suit was modern. The action figure was probably something she got recently.

Of course there's no evidence to support she's anything other than what she claims she is, but it's something to keep in the back of your mind. If nothing else, there's potential in her as a retcon down the line if a different writer wants her to be.

I just think they made it look like the current Iron Man just for asthetic consistency.

I wonder what relavance that her kid's name was "Damien"? Not that I think there is going to be Mephisto in this or anything, but I wonder if there was a particular reason for picking that name by Millar. Likely, though I think he just found the aspect of the dead martyr kid being "Damien" as being funny.

3D Master

09-28-2006, 02:01 PM

B: The Pro-Reg side has certainly been engaged in a rapidly-growing number of questionable decisions that in some cases may border on outright evil, or at the very least highly unethical. In all truth though, these "questionable" decisions are in fact necessary, not from an in-universe perspective, but rather from a storytelling/reader perspective. Because let's face it...if all the Pro-Reg sides actions were completely above-the-board, and there were -no- problems or "slippery slopes" presented in its' execution...there would be no grounds for opposition to it. In other words, if everything were going perfectly over on the Pro-Reg side and nothing questionable was going on with it, there'd be no logical reason for anyone to oppose it.

Bullshit. Depends purely on your story. If your story is: the pro-reg side are pure evil bastards who'd kill their own mothers; clone super human armies, and happily use villains to do their dirty work for them, and the anti side are saints, then indeed its necessary.

If your story is; a tragic divide between two camps of heroes, both sides being truly heroes, and both sides have all good things going for them, and both sides fighting for what they believe in, and both sides being sympathetic to the reader, even if the reader doesn't agree with their side, and whichever side wins, you can still enjoy the characters and the stories because they are still heroes even if you disagree with them on the registration act; you know the balanced story that Marvel promised, then you're not even close to needing that, in fact, that would become antithetical to the story.

Quite frankly, I'll finish reading the Civil War, because I started it, but I can tell you now that if the pro-reg side wins, and it seems it will, even if the act itself will become less severe, I will stop reading Marvel alltogether. Because the only super humans remaining active will be pro-reg in that case, and they won't be heroes, they'll pure evil super villains that make the average super villian look like nice guys.

Thus the "balanced" portrayal that Marvel keeps touting isn't so much in terms of "making both sides look equally bad". It's a matter of making the law-abiding side (Pro-Reg) look questionable enough that the lawbreaking side (the Anti-Reg) may have legitimate cause and rationalization for their actions.

Bullshit; the Pro-reg side doesn't look questionable; they look like a bunch of evil bastards that make Doom look like a buddhist monk. Plus, neither side should be looking "equally bad", they should be looking equally good.

Because without reason to question the Pro-Registration faction, the whole conflict gets boiled down to simply "Legal vs. Illegal" (as some folks here still insist that it is) rather than a combination of that with "Right vs. Wrong/Ethical vs. Unethical." Then the portrayal of the Anti-Registration faction would be "unbalanced" because they'd have no possibility of claiming the "moral high ground."

Bullshit. The way the registration is handled; people getting locked up without representation, just sitting around, is more than enough to make them questionable; hell they'd be practically just plain bad right there. Clones of Thor, using villains, they're not questionable, they're so bad and evil they make Doom look like a nice guy. Seriously, after that, if it gets out what they did and are doing, then the rest of the world could only look at the American government and the super humans working for them as people on par with Doom/Hitler and co. I'll bet even Europe and allies would be considering leveling the US with the ground before they and the UN organization SHIELD - that are helping out the US to complete the act so SHIELD can have its own super human army - decide their registration should be for every super human in the world and use their super human clone armies to attack the rest of the world.

Nate Grey

09-28-2006, 02:07 PM

dulrik

09-28-2006, 02:42 PM

Bullshit. The way the registration is handled; people getting locked up without representation, just sitting around, is more than enough to make them questionable; hell they'd be practically just plain bad right there.
This goes to the core of my question about Civil War. I am confused about what the terms are of the registration act. The Pro-Reg arguments make comparisons to being a police officer or fire fighter, so this led me to believe at the start that registration was optional. I thought the actual crime was attempting to perform vigilante hero actions if you were not registered.

If this was how it was supposed to work, then if you are an Anti-Reg hero, you should not register, stop performing heroic actions for the time-being, and peacefully and legally protest the act. I see this as a win-win because either the Pro-Reg guys are going to screw it up and political pressure will cause the law to be overturned OR the Pro-Reg guys will do great a great job and vigilante heroes will no longer be required. Either way, you don't have to give up do anything illegal and can keep your secret-identity until things blow over.

But the above description is not how the law was shown in practice. SHIELD will bust down your door at 12:01am if you are a known super hero (aka Luke Cage), even though you've never performed any vigilante actions since the law took affect. In this version, there doesn't seem to be any room to have a Pro-Reg view, which is why I think that the series is completely biased.

Which way is the law really supposed to be? Is it miscommunication on the part of the side-story editors that causes the act to be portrayed in such completely different ways? Or am I the only one confused about it?

3D Master

09-28-2006, 02:43 PM

3DMaster, I just want to say, and excuse me if I'm wrong Jmacq1, but it sounds like you and Jmacq1 are on the same page, its just that Jmacq1 is trying to give the pro side the benefit of the doubt. If you already knew that, apologies, (and again, if I'm speaking out of turn Jmacq1, apologies to you too) but I couldn't tell with all the "Bullshit"s.

No we're not. He says it's balanced. While I say it's the exact opposite; it isn't even CLOSE to balanced. The Pro side are a bunch of super villains (the leaders of them at least; I got a feeling if She-Hulk and Ms. Marvel knew what Iron Man and Reed Richards are doing, they'd be kicking their asses ten ways from sunday... at least I hope so, because they are about the only ones who have any sense of goodness still around them). When the writers said they were making a balanced story, they were lying, or they're stupid if they consider this balanced. Not even for making the Pro-side somewhat questionable would they require them to have villains working for them instead of locking them up where the belong, and cloning super human armies is several hundred mach 1 bursts over the edge of balanced. Both the story in his description, as well as actualy balanced.

Effect

09-28-2006, 02:49 PM

Just realized something and perhaps it was commented on before. Marvel/Millar says to wait for a positive showing of the Pro side or something similar to that. In order for that to happen though you have to show the Anti side in a negative light. Now the thing I realize and I might be wrong, is that to show the anti-side in a negative light and showing them doing something wrong hasn't it reached the point that it will just be taken as being justified and allow the Anti-side to gained even more support among the fanbase, not lessen it?

I can just see the comments now. "It's about time", "The Pro side has had this coming for a long time now.", "It's about time the Anti-side started winning", etc.

At this point is there anything Marvel can do to make it seem like the Pro side has some positives without it ending up benefiting the Anti-side instead in the end?

3D Master

09-28-2006, 03:08 PM

^Yep, indeed.

jaxcs

09-29-2006, 01:02 AM

But shouldn't Cap's side be just as open to grey area as IM's side?
If the IM question is, are we undergoing a necessary increase in security or is this an unnecessary move towards a more totalitarian state?
Then shouldn't Cap's side be embodying the question of, are we justly defying an unjust action or have we taken such an action that goes beyond what we could have justifiably done?
And why shouldn't there be some basis to say that Cap is the "terrorist" some people think he is, when IM is ACTING like Cap is a terrorist? And it's not like they have given readers ammo to think that IM is basically being a villain. That the other side isn't given the same treatment, shows the lop-sidedness of it.
Sure he might do that now, but doing it now would be making Cap's act based off a reaction from what happened. We're no longer having two sides fighting on the princples of registration, but rather on their own actions which are blantantly being escalated for no reason.

Dude, your ratio of questions to declarative statements is excessively high. Elaborate on specific points!

What grey area are you talking about?

I don't see IM asking any questions about totalitarian states and I don't see Cap asking any questions about resistance. Maybe we are supposed to, clearly you want to, but the characters are not doing any such thing.

I don't think IM necessarily acts like Cap is a terrorist, he does act like Cap is a law breaker.

I don't think people give IM enough credit; he has a difficult role to play and the writers are screwing it up. He has to nearly single handedly, develop the technology behind the SHRA, be the voice of SHRA, and be the aggressor in a battle against Cap while generating sympathy among readers. That's a tall order and, I think, a large part of the reason you feel the story is lop sided. CW 4 had a couple of important panels where Maria Sharpe thanked IM for his efforts, but few people commented on this, instead that issue became all about clor and nanite controlled villains. Cap has an easier time becuase he is acting like a traditional super hero.

Yeah, it seems that it's gotten personal.

Right, but you don't put Jeffrey Dahmer on the street to stop habitual parking violators. No one is saying that they are surprised that they are enforcing the law, but some people think that this is the equivalent of carpet bombing a shop-lifter. Just tell me what has been done by the anti-side to invoke this response? Cap's job refusal? The statement that he has apprehended around 20 villains (which Maria Hill referred to as their "NIGHTMARE SCENARIO")? Ok, they freed a couple of the Young Avengers. But let's not forget that those Young Avengers (that we know of) had only just stopped a mugging, and we're apprehended via blowing up the top of a building. How can you say that that is NOT blantant escalation for no reason? I'm not even talking about Goliath. But the fight itself pretty much spurned out of nowhere.

Super beings tend to be powerful dangerous folk. Shoot a missile at me and I am paste. Shoot a missile at Patriot and he gets up and runs out. Shield is heavy handed, no doubt, but no one is said to have died or to have been seriously hurt - until clor that is.

But my point is WHAT MISCHIEF? Like you said, he's not (or hadn't until things escalated) done anything other than apprehend villains. So what mischief? That is one of the huge problems with the story. They keep acting like Captain America running around stopping super-villains is the end of the world. They keep acting like Cap is a terrorist, when Cap has done nothing of the sort. Unless if being uncharacteristically a bastard is a national security concern.

I guess we will find out soon. Cap isn't a bastard!

Do you know what balance means? I'm not talking about symetry here, but there is no balance to the story. It doesn't need to be cap freeing an anti-hero, but if you're saying that having Clor/Villains/NegativeZone/etc. on one side and nothing on the other is balanced, then I don't know what to tell you.

You want a clor on Cap's side, that denotes symmetry, not balance. Anyway, Cap doesn't have any techo wizards on his side. The villains he apprehends he ties up and leaves for shield to deal with. What would he do with a negative zone prison? Who would he put there?

Again. if you accept the premise of the storyline that heroes need to register and heroes that do not register deserve to be imprisoned What do you mean "accept"? Sure, I can just accept it. But the fact that I just have to give a blank check to the writers and accept it, just shows how poor the story is. Even if the issue is Neo-Nazism, if you look at a story like American History X or the Believer (i think thats the title), they will not just bald-faced say "accept this premise" but use the story as a tool to show you the reasons why you would accept (or not accept) the premise. Civil War just forces you to assume it but never shows you why.

And lastly they aren't acting like cops, and I would think it would be heroic for them to act like police officers.

There have been many posts by people who say IM and Cap act uncharacteristically like themselves. It's not that I fail to see problems, but I don't think it is unredeemable. There are still reasons to believe that IM is a honorable. But, this is offered as of this writing. I haven't picked up the latest ASM yet and if everything turns out as said in the forums, I have to say that IM actions has reached a point that seems inexplicable to me. His search for law and order and desire to put forth his long term plans have become a mania.

If they don't act like police officers, what do they act like to you? Let's rephrase, they are a group tasked with a specific purpose, that purpose being the apprehension of non-registered heroes. This means they have only one responsibility and explains why IM's side are spending so much time looking for other heroes. It's not that Cap is so very dangerous, it's because it's the only thing they have to do for the duration.

Jmacq1

09-29-2006, 05:30 AM

*snip*

I don't recall peeing in your cornflakes anytime recently, 3DMaster, so how about we turn down the expletives? I'd be happy to have a discussion about all this.

My bottom line on the matter is this: If you portray both sides as "equally good", then the Anti-Registration side is the only side that's doing something "wrong" (they're breaking the law). Thus, the story is unbalanced. No law-abiding, reasonable, sane person would be able to point at the Pro-Registration side and say "They're wrong!" Instead, they'd point at the Anti-Registration side and say "What are these idiots doing? They're breaking a perfectly reasonable, non-controversial law just because they're a bunch of crybabies that don't want to answer to anyone for their actions!" (Which is what many Pro-Reg folks have been doing anyway, but I digress....)

In other words, the Anti-Reg starts the whole scenario with a "strike" against them (what they're doing is illegal). If the writers don't make the Pro-Registration side "questionable" then once again...there's no basis for debate or discussion, because the Pro-Registration side is 100% "right" and the Anti-Registration side would simply be criminals. Has Marvel gone overboard on painting the Pro-Reg in a bad light? Yes, it certainly seems that way, though as noted in many places, it's the tie-ins that do this more than the main series itself. Regardless, I understand why Marvel is doing it they way they are (and I'm pretty sure the Pro-Reg side will "win" in the end, though unlike you, I don't think that's by any means going to require that the Anti-Reg heroes "go away"), they've just been overzealous about it. Kinda like the Pro-Reggers themselves.

See? It's not hard to post without swearing, is it?

Nevermind the fact that cloning in and of itself may -not- be "evil". -I- might feel that how the Pro-Reg side is handling things leans more towards "evil/unethical" than "good", but you can't argue that taking a horde of uncontrolled living WMDs and removing them from the dimension entirely isn't one effective way of making sure they don't blow up the United States with their actions. For some people "the ends justify the means"....for others they don't. What you see as "evil supervillain stuff" others may see as "extreme but necessary". Clearly there's a -few- people that still hold to that...since we haven't seen a complete disappearance/defection of Pro-Reg posters.

BigBoss

09-29-2006, 06:05 AM

This series is extremely biased. Anyone says different they are either lying or fooling themselves. That may change during these next issues. Considering my theory is that book was delayed for art and massive re-writes. But right now the pro-side is borderline nazis may I ask what you mean biased I dont understand what you mean using that word in the setence you did. and no I am not being sarcastic.

YinYangDX

09-29-2006, 07:11 PM

TotalWorldDomination

09-29-2006, 07:31 PM

I think the bigger View of observation is not the question of which side is right, but why did Character A chose one side while Character B chose the other.

From what I have read so far, It seems like the Pro-registration act is a bad deal... and thus making whoever is on the anti-reg side the good guys. Then some forums members start bitching how unfair and stupid the writers are for being unbalance on Explaining both sides.

But it seems that they forget that Iron Man "admits" that the Registration Act is Wrong! He even said that he looses sleep over this, its tearing him apart... in the Amazing Spiderman issue he won a $2 bill deal with the government and didnt even know that, and Peter took a shot at him for that. But whats missing is that Tony wasnt concern about making money, but more of the Battle struggling within himself. He doesnt like the reg act nor does he agree with it, but still follow through to carry out that law of his "Country" (even if that will make him an enemy of his friends)! thats what makes Civil War so amazing.

Captain America off all people is a soldier, and should know that if someone of higher ranks order you to do something, you have to obey and follow up with that command even if you dont agree with their decision. Imagine the Pesident ask Cap. America to go fight in the War of Iraq... but Capt said "No! because i believed this war is wrong", so instead of going to war... he goes Awol (That is Treason to the US: like those US soldiers that left and went Canada).

Does this make Capt the Authority to say what is right or wrong? I"ll only comply to the wishes of my Country "If" I agree with it???

Its like this illustration: a Team of Marines are going to charge into a room and fire at the enemy. Now, who's going to be the guy who goes in first? The Team Leader told Marine A to go first.

Marine A: Hell no! I dont want to be first, I'll be more likey to get shot, I dont like this decision... I'm not going.

Marine B: I'll go, someone has to go in first... even if that means I'll be more likely to get shot first.

thats like saying that Even though Tony Stark doesnt like the Registration Act. Someone Needs to uphold that law of the country even if he doesnt agree with it... and it will probably mean him being the poster boy of a traitor of all in the superhero community.

I ramble long enough, but just wanted others to see the deeper side of the civil war.

This is what drives me nuts. How can they have it balenced if even the LEADER of one side has NO FAITH in the act? If only Tony questions himself it makes him look weak. If both he and cap would question themselves, it would be fine, but this damn thing is so imbalanced it's insane.

XPac

09-29-2006, 07:38 PM

This is what drives me nuts. How can they have it balenced if even the LEADER of one side has NO FAITH in the act? If only Tony questions himself it makes him look weak. If both he and cap would question themselves, it would be fine, but this damn thing is so imbalanced it's insane.

It makes sense that Tony is questioning himself of you look at his actual motivations.

In Illuminati, he pretty much was saying that he didn't agree with registration, but felt it was inevitabel and they better to side with it so they could control it. It's a very practical standpoint that the character would believably have... but it's also one that lends itself to second guessing because you are compromising your beliefs right out of the gate.

TotalWorldDomination

09-29-2006, 07:45 PM

It makes sense that Tony is questioning himself of you look at his actual motivations.

In Illuminati, he pretty much was saying that he didn't agree with registration, but felt it was inevitabel and they better to side with it so they could control it. It's a very practical standpoint that the character would believably have... but it's also one that lends itself to second guessing because you are compromising your beliefs right out of the gate.

If the writers were going to make the Pro-Reg side think what they were doing was wrong in almost every issue, and then have the Anti-Reg side be led by someone who belives 100% in there actions, what side would you say was correct?

By having tony NOT be 100% devoted to the SHRA you automaticly slant the whole argument Anti-Reg since the ARE 100% devoted to there cause. They should have had him be 100% since Illuminati, but due to poor planning (at least I hope it's poor planing and not purposefuly) even the Pro-Regisration side is not for Pro-Registration.

Alan2099

09-29-2006, 07:51 PM

Captain America off all people is a soldier, and should know that if someone of higher ranks order you to do something, you have to obey and follow up with that command even if you dont agree with their decision. Imagine the Pesident ask Cap. America to go fight in the War of Iraq... but Capt said "No! because i believed this war is wrong", so instead of going to war... he goes Awol (That is Treason to the US: like those US soldiers that left and went Canada).

Does this make Capt the Authority to say what is right or wrong? I"ll only comply to the wishes of my Country "If" I agree with it???

Its like this illustration: a Team of Marines are going to charge into a room and fire at the enemy. Now, who's going to be the guy who goes in first? The Team Leader told Marine A to go first.

Marine A: Hell no! I dont want to be first, I'll be more likey to get shot, I dont like this decision... I'm not going.

Marine B: I'll go, someone has to go in first... even if that means I'll be more likely to get shot first.
I'm not sure about the marines, but the army tells you outright not to follow unlawful orders no matter who gives them.

Just because the person outranking you tells you to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

For example, if your superior officer order you to run intoa room and blow away a group of innocent noncombatants, you have the right to refuse that order. That's what Cap is doing. he's refusing to follow an order that stomps all over privacy rights, descrimination laws, and all sorts of other things.

bulbasteve

09-29-2006, 07:55 PM

If the writers were going to make the Pro-Reg side think what they were doing was wrong in almost every issue, and then have the Anti-Reg side be led by someone who belives 100% in there actions, what side would you say was correct?

By having tony NOT be 100% devoted to the SHRA you automaticly slant the whole argument Anti-Reg since the ARE 100% devoted to there cause. They should have had him be 100% since Illuminati, but due to poor planning (at least I hope it's poor planing and not purposefuly) even the Pro-Regisration side is not for Pro-Registration.

No, this has nothing to do with planning but everything to do with how at least the main title is presenting the sides. Millar's intention is that we (and Cap's own teammates) question his unflinching pursuit of this, that he is acting high and mighty. We started getting that this last issue and Millar said it will continue into the next one.

Cause really it is HUMAN to question what you are doing. Hell in the latest Cable/Deadpool they even had George "The Decider" Bush saying he worries about the act. That is just how it goes when you are in a position of power, it is not by any stretch of the imagination a character fault.

XPac

09-29-2006, 07:55 PM

If the writers were going to make the Pro-Reg side think what they were doing was wrong in almost every issue, and then have the Anti-Reg side be led by someone who belives 100% in there actions, what side would you say was correct?

By having tony NOT be 100% devoted to the SHRA you automaticly slant the whole argument Anti-Reg since the ARE 100% devoted to there cause. They should have had him be 100% since Illuminati, but due to poor planning (at least I hope it's poor planing and not purposefuly) even the Pro-Regisration side is not for Pro-Registration.

I wouldn't necessarily base what I believe is right off of the level of convinction Tony or Steve have. But yes, I did have a greater innate respect for Caps view than Tonys.

Cap is a bit of an idealist, while Tony is more a pragmatist. And I think it's more realistic that he'd have the doubts he would rather than having him 100% sure he was right. YOu call it poor planning... I just think it's writing him in-character. There may be some aspects of Tony that people can argue is out of character, but him having doubts isn't of them.

He's siding against Captain Freaking America, the man most heroes in Marvel, Tony included, probably considered the conscience of their community. Not to say Cap is right 100% of the time... but almost no hero wouldn't stop and ask themselves whether they were doing the right thing or not if they and Cap were on different pages. That's the level of respect Cap has earned.

TotalWorldDomination

09-29-2006, 08:17 PM

I wouldn't necessarily base what I believe is right off of the level of convinction Tony or Steve have. But yes, I did have a greater innate respect for Caps view than Tonys.

Cap is a bit of an idealist, while Tony is more a pragmatist. And I think it's more realistic that he'd have the doubts he would rather than having him 100% sure he was right. YOu call it poor planning... I just think it's writing him in-character. There may be some aspects of Tony that people can argue is out of character, but him having doubts isn't of them.

He's siding against Captain Freaking America, the man most heroes in Marvel, Tony included, probably considered the conscience of their community. Not to say Cap is right 100% of the time... but almost no hero wouldn't stop and ask themselves whether they were doing the right thing or not if they and Cap were on different pages. That's the level of respect Cap has earned.

Hmmm... good point. I suppose it just ties back into the whole, no matter what side he's on, Cap's side gets the edge argument.

jaxcs

09-29-2006, 08:40 PM

This is what drives me nuts. How can they have it balenced if even the LEADER of one side has NO FAITH in the act? If only Tony questions himself it makes him look weak. If both he and cap would question themselves, it would be fine, but this damn thing is so imbalanced it's insane.

This is an example of where reader perception comes into play. You think that a would be leader that displays doubt (even in private!) over his actions means that the guy is a pussy. I think it shows that the guy is still human, is flexible, and is willing to change course as the situation demands. I like that TS wonders if he is doing the right thing or not. Cap's silence is unnerving. Why are you so certain, ol' wing head, come on, share.

3D Master

09-29-2006, 11:07 PM

I don't recall peeing in your cornflakes anytime recently, 3DMaster, so how about we turn down the expletives? I'd be happy to have a discussion about all this.

My bottom line on the matter is this: If you portray both sides as "equally good", then the Anti-Registration side is the only side that's doing something "wrong" (they're breaking the law). Thus, the story is unbalanced. No law-abiding, reasonable, sane person would be able to point at the Pro-Registration side and say "They're wrong!" Instead, they'd point at the Anti-Registration side and say "What are these idiots doing? They're breaking a perfectly reasonable, non-controversial law just because they're a bunch of crybabies that don't want to answer to anyone for their actions!" (Which is what many Pro-Reg folks have been doing anyway, but I digress....)

In other words, the Anti-Reg starts the whole scenario with a "strike" against them (what they're doing is illegal). If the writers don't make the Pro-Registration side "questionable" then once again...there's no basis for debate or discussion, because the Pro-Registration side is 100% "right" and the Anti-Registration side would simply be criminals. Has Marvel gone overboard on painting the Pro-Reg in a bad light? Yes, it certainly seems that way, though as noted in many places, it's the tie-ins that do this more than the main series itself. Regardless, I understand why Marvel is doing it they way they are (and I'm pretty sure the Pro-Reg side will "win" in the end, though unlike you, I don't think that's by any means going to require that the Anti-Reg heroes "go away"), they've just been overzealous about it. Kinda like the Pro-Reggers themselves.

No, sweetheart. If the law is morally wrong, and unethical than it is people's moral and lawful obligation to fight that law; in court and everywhere else. Fighting that law, and ending it, would not be wrong - AT ALL. Remember that historical event? It's an American event. A woman with skin certain color also broke a law. I believe her name was Rosa Parks... you know, sat down where only white people were supposed to sit, or didn't stand up when she should for a white person, one of the two. Broke a law, and what she did is considered good. It's even got a name "civil disobedience". Hell, she's considered a hero for what she did. Not exactly wrong for her to break the law, was it?

Also remember that little mantra the Nazis put forth: "I was following orders." That was considered not an excuse. Not following orders when they are unlawful or unethical, a courtmartialable offense, is considered the right thing to do, not the wrong one.

For the same reasons, what Captain America and co. are doing, is not wrong.

But I know; such things have long since past in the USA; now it's trying to make torture a lawful thing to do; so it's not surprising that Americans have stopped considering not following/breaking unethical orders/laws as 'good'.

See? It's not hard to post without swearing, is it?

I didn't swear.

Nevermind the fact that cloning in and of itself may -not- be "evil". -I- might feel that how the Pro-Reg side is handling things leans more towards "evil/unethical" than "good", but you can't argue that taking a horde of uncontrolled living WMDs and removing them from the dimension entirely isn't one effective way of making sure they don't blow up the United States with their actions. For some people "the ends justify the means"....for others they don't. What you see as "evil supervillain stuff" others may see as "extreme but necessary". Clearly there's a -few- people that still hold to that...since we haven't seen a complete disappearance/defection of Pro-Reg posters.

Putting them away without trial is violating their civil rights. Putting them somewhere that is basically torture for the rest of their lives; is WAY beyond violating their civil rights. I'm pretty sure Richards the brainiac having gone to multiple alternate dimensions and universes could have found a place that is not eternal torture.

bulbasteve

09-29-2006, 11:20 PM

No, sweetheart. If the law is morally wrong, and unethical than it is people's moral and lawful obligation to fight that law; in court and everywhere else. Fighting that law, and ending it, would not be wrong - AT ALL. Remember that historical event? It's an American event. A woman with skin certain color also broke a law. I believe her name was Rosa Parks... you know, sat down where only white people were supposed to sit, or didn't stand up when she should for a white person, one of the two. Broke a law, and what she did is considered good. It's even got a name "civil disobedience". Hell, she's considered a hero for what she did. Not exactly wrong for her to break the law, was it?

When she was being booked for it did some black people go and blow a hole in the jail and "rescue" her? Way I saw it her definition of Civil Disobedience was non-violence. Cap wants to have a sit in? More power to him. Cap wants to attack officers of the law? Then he crossed the line that makes America a nation of laws.

Also remember that little mantra the Nazis put forth: "I was following orders." That was considered not an excuse. Not following orders when they are unlawful or unethical, a courtmartialable offense, is considered the right thing to do, not the wrong one.

Dictatorship =/= Democracy (and please don't use the example that they said it was a demoracy, I know some guys are still a bit miffed on the election results but this IS still a democracy). So do you have any examples that are like actual comparisons that are worth anything?

Ok sweetypie, dumpling cakes, honeybun?

3D Master

09-29-2006, 11:28 PM

I think the bigger View of observation is not the question of which side is right, but why did Character A chose one side while Character B chose the other.

From what I have read so far, It seems like the Pro-registration act is a bad deal... and thus making whoever is on the anti-reg side the good guys. Then some forums members start bitching how unfair and stupid the writers are for being unbalance on Explaining both sides.

But it seems that they forget that Iron Man "admits" that the Registration Act is Wrong! He even said that he looses sleep over this, its tearing him apart... in the Amazing Spiderman issue he won a $2 bill deal with the government and didnt even know that, and Peter took a shot at him for that. But whats missing is that Tony wasnt concern about making money, but more of the Battle struggling within himself. He doesnt like the reg act nor does he agree with it, but still follow through to carry out that law of his "Country" (even if that will make him an enemy of his friends)! thats what makes Civil War so amazing.

So, the Super Human registration act contains the lines: thou shalt make for the US and Shield armies of brainwashed super humans, and create an army of super human clones? I don't think so. If IM things the SHRA is bad, having him perform pure evil acts to bring it about, is even more out of character than it already is.

Captain America off all people is a soldier, and should know that if someone of higher ranks order you to do something, you have to obey and follow up with that command even if you dont agree with their decision. Imagine the Pesident ask Cap. America to go fight in the War of Iraq... but Capt said "No! because i believed this war is wrong", so instead of going to war... he goes Awol (That is Treason to the US: like those US soldiers that left and went Canada).

Does this make Capt the Authority to say what is right or wrong? I"ll only comply to the wishes of my Country "If" I agree with it???

YES! Exactly! That's EXACTLY what he's supposed to do, in FACT, American soldiers SWEAR to do that, more so, they swear to bring down the American government should they act unethically. They swear the following oath: "I swear to defend and uphold the constitution of America and what it stands for from all enemies, foreign and domestic." That means, that if the American government violates the constitution and what it stands for, by their oath, a soldier is expected to not follow orders, and to even bring down those giving them, all the way up to the president, then start new elections. Remember the Nazis? "I was following orders." "That's not an excuse." And they went to jail. Not only does the American government expect their soldiers to act that way, just about the entire world community expects soldiers to act that way.

When she was being booked for it did some black people go and blow a hole in the jail and "rescue" her? Way I saw it her definition of Civil Disobedience was non-violence. Cap wants to have a sit in? More power to him. Cap wants to attack officers of the law? Then he crossed the line that makes America a nation of laws.

Dictatorship =/= Democracy (and please don't use the example that they said it was a demoracy, I know some guys are still a bit miffed on the election results but this IS still a democracy). So do you have any examples that are like actual comparisons that are worth anything?

Ok sweetypie, dumpling cakes, honeybun?

Doesn't matter. Unethical orders are unethical orders and it doesn't matter where they come from, it being a dictator or a chosen government: unethical is unethical, and it needs to be fought.

El Santo

09-29-2006, 11:39 PM

Anyone notice that that mother appears at the most interesting of times? She is the one that gets the crowd going, and when it is possible Tony is doubting himself, she shows up..... It just has me thinking that there is something going on with her - almost Loki like (I know it isn't Loki, but given the Avenger's history, it isn't beyond him...). Just a thought.
Maybe she's like the imaginary guy and his daughter from A Beautiful Mind...she's just a figment of Tony Stark's imagination that gives him the motivation to do what he "has" to do.

Well, okay, she appears on national television and is a spokesperson, but still, that would be kinda cool.

Firemane

09-30-2006, 12:05 AM

I think the T-bolts are being used so the Pro regs don`t have to dirty theur hands with the blood of heroes anymore. Its easier to spin that some villians snapped and killed a few heroes then it would be to explain why say Ironman killed for example wonder man.

Its like Wanda`s "fix' at the end of House of M wasn`t quite right.That perhaps when every one was returned to "normal" their most striking / noticable personality flaws were amplified by how Wander percived them.

In anycase the anti regs are going to have to pull some serious nasty stuff in the final 3 issues for me to consider them anything but the true heroes in this story.

the Dagman

09-30-2006, 12:09 AM

never mind.

YinYangDX

09-30-2006, 12:59 AM

Nomad

09-30-2006, 01:20 AM

So what if a soldier thinks that the Registration Act is unsonstitutional, does he have the right to kill the president? will it be justified?
Are you serious?

bulbasteve

09-30-2006, 01:42 AM

Doesn't matter. Unethical orders are unethical orders and it doesn't matter where they come from, it being a dictator or a chosen government: unethical is unethical, and it needs to be fought.

Amazing you ignored that fact that your Civil Rights example meant squat. Or maybe the fact that Pro-reg enforcers are acting as police officers simply trying to arrest people, they are not being asked to execute people here so I really don't see how your Nazi example again can at all apply. What is unethical about arresting someone? I think taxes are unethical, should I be bombing the IRS? We are a nation of LAWS here, this is not something decreed by a dictator or something where they are forced to take human life here, it's just a law which damn well which SHOULD be followed.

Pro

09-30-2006, 02:03 AM

this is not something decreed by a dictator or something where they are forced to take human life here, it's just a law which damn well which SHOULD be followed.

Brainacs like reed and Tony should have calculated into their predictions that this would cost lives though so that argument is kinda moot. Whether it was heroes fighting against registration or because people got targetted because some hero's identity was outed registration was going to cost lives, plain and simple. I don't have tony or reed's intellect but even i could predict that from the getgo. Using the unethical means of apprehending unregistered heroes only helps push the envelope and makes resistence against registration all the harsher. iron Man and Mr. Fantastic may be technological geniuses but their futuristic predictions are sorely lacking.

TotalWorldDomination

09-30-2006, 07:03 AM

YES! Exactly! That's EXACTLY what he's supposed to do, in FACT, American soldiers SWEAR to do that, more so, they swear to bring down the American government should they act unethically. They swear the following oath: "I swear to defend and uphold the constitution of America and what it stands for from all enemies, foreign and domestic." That means, that if the American government violates the constitution and what it stands for, by their oath, a soldier is expected to not follow orders, and to even bring down those giving them, all the way up to the president, then start new elections. Remember the Nazis? "I was following orders." "That's not an excuse." And they went to jail. Not only does the American government expect their soldiers to act that way, just about the entire world community expects soldiers to act that way.

No. Just No. The oath to upohold the constution in NO WAY is an invitation to rebllion if you feel the goverment is acting unethicaly. That would mean that whenever the military was upset with a goverment discison that they felt violated any tenent of the consitution, even ones that are implyed, they can pull a Coup.

Imagine the problems your interpretation would bring. Think that Jimmy Carter handling the Iranian hostage crisis is bad? Shoot him! Hate that Reagan Tax Cut because it voilates some imagined tenant of the founding fathers? Storm the White House? Think House Majority Leader Tip O' Neil is an Ass? Bomb his house! Think Clinton Obstructed justice when he hid his affair with [insert name here]? Slaughter him and his whole staff with a squad of like minded marines! Think Bush [insert anything here]? public military execution!

So what if a soldier thinks that the Registration Act is unsonstitutional, does he have the right to kill the president? will it be justified?

No. He could try and refuse orders to enforce it, but since the Millitary is not being used to enforce the act it's a moot point. After all, as an international body, SHEILD takes no oath to the American constiution.

Sijo

09-30-2006, 08:47 AM

SHEILD takes no oath to the American constiution.
Doesn't it? The ORIGINAL version of SHIELD was an international organization with permission to operate abroad; but the current version is acting more like an US covert agency, right down to taking orders from the President (and performing illegal "Black Ops.") That's quite a big change, and it has never been justified, to my knowledge.

And there's a big difference between soldiers and super heroes: soldiers are TRAINED to just obey orders. Heroes do what they do out of their own conscience. A true hero would never blindly obey orders. There might be situations that soldiers would be better fit to handle than superheroes, like open war, but the reverse is also true. And laws are supposed to protects the rights of people, not the other way around. So yes, if a law is unfair, heroes can and should oppose it- at least, in comic books.

TotalWorldDomination

09-30-2006, 09:16 AM

Doesn't it? The ORIGINAL version of SHIELD was an international organization with permission to operate abroad; but the current version is acting more like an US covert agency, right down to taking orders from the President (and performing illegal "Black Ops.") That's quite a big change, and it has never been justified, to my knowledge.

yes, the fact that a UN agency is enforcing a domestic United States Law is somthing that bothers me. It has not been adressed, other then to say that the US knew that SHEILD was the only agency with the power to take in Superhumans.

And there's a big difference between soldiers and super heroes: soldiers are TRAINED to just obey orders. Heroes do what they do out of their own conscience. A true hero would never blindly obey orders. There might be situations that soldiers would be better fit to handle than superheroes, like open war, but the reverse is also true. And laws are supposed to protects the rights of people, not the other way around. So yes, if a law is unfair, heroes can and should oppose it- at least, in comic books.

True, but in the reverse- how can the goverment and people be assured that superheros are looking out for there best interests when they take no oaths, hold no alegancies and are accountable to no-one?

Sijo

09-30-2006, 10:13 AM

yes, the fact that a UN agency is enforcing a domestic United States Law is somthing that bothers me. It has not been adressed, other then to say that the US knew that SHEILD was the only agency with the power to take in Superhumans.
The only explanation I can come up with is that, at some point, SHIELD passed into USA jurisdiction... most likely, after it was dissolved following the Deltite infiltration. In effect, the current SHIELD is a new organization, created by the US and patterned after the first (That would explain the change in the meaning of the name, as well.)
True, but in the reverse- how can the goverment and people be assured that superheros are looking out for there best interests when they take no oaths, hold no alegancies and are accountable to no-one? They probably can't. I understand the fears of the public in the Marvel Universe and their wish to regulate superhumans. On the other hand, without the Heroes, the people would have NO way of protecting themselves, not against the truly big menaces. For better or worse, a compromise has to be reached; just ordering the Heroes to obey the Government is not going to cut it.

3D Master

09-30-2006, 10:50 AM

Amazing you ignored that fact that your Civil Rights example meant squat. Or maybe the fact that Pro-reg enforcers are acting as police officers simply trying to arrest people, they are not being asked to execute people here so I really don't see how your Nazi example again can at all apply. What is unethical about arresting someone? I think taxes are unethical, should I be bombing the IRS? We are a nation of LAWS here, this is not something decreed by a dictator or something where they are forced to take human life here, it's just a law which damn well which SHOULD be followed.

If the law is unethical, then arresting people resisting / breaking that law is also unethical. If a law is unethical, it needs to be abolished, and if the only way to get that law abolished is by an insurgency, than that's the way it has to be done. Just because something is a law, doesn't immediately mean it's good.

No. Just No. The oath to upohold the constution in NO WAY is an invitation to rebllion if you feel the goverment is acting unethicaly. That would mean that whenever the military was upset with a goverment discison that they felt violated any tenent of the consitution, even ones that are implyed, they can pull a Coup.

Imagine the problems your interpretation would bring. Think that Jimmy Carter handling the Iranian hostage crisis is bad? Shoot him! Hate that Reagan Tax Cut because it voilates some imagined tenant of the founding fathers? Storm the White House? Think House Majority Leader Tip O' Neil is an Ass? Bomb his house! Think Clinton Obstructed justice when he hid his affair with [insert name here]? Slaughter him and his whole staff with a squad of like minded marines! Think Bush [insert anything here]? public military execution!

Oh, yeah, brilliant, reduce it to a ridiculous level of trivialities. If someone thinks that a tax cut violates some part of the constitution, he's insane and needs to be put in a psychiatric hospital. If the government of the US orders the army to round up every Hispanic within the US borders and lock them up, most definitely are they supposed to not only not obey that order, but get rid of what is essentially HItler, even if he was chosen.

XPac

09-30-2006, 12:25 PM

TotalWorldDomination

09-30-2006, 12:59 PM

If the law is unethical, then arresting people resisting / breaking that law is also unethical. If a law is unethical, it needs to be abolished, and if the only way to get that law abolished is by an insurgency, than that's the way it has to be done. Just because something is a law, doesn't immediately mean it's good.

Agreed, but an Insurgency? Peaceful protest is one thing, but Insurgency? The time for rebellion with the sword has long passed, in democracies rebellion with the ballot box is so much more effective (and legal ;) ).

Of course on the flip side, just because a group of people belives a law is unethical dosn't automaiticly make it unethical- I would say that is the case in superhuman registration. I myself am conflicted over it's enforcement (because someone at marvel decided to let any writer make SHEILD and tony stark into insane morons) but am 100% convinced that registration is totaly ethical and nessisary.

Oh, yeah, brilliant, reduce it to a ridiculous level of trivialities. If someone thinks that a tax cut violates some part of the constitution, he's insane and needs to be put in a psychiatric hospital.

I am reminded of a student one of my Political Science classes who claimed that the Income Tax was unconstiutional and immoral since it stole money from the poor, that the federal goverment was userping the power of the states (he claimed not to be a United States Citizen but rather a Citizen of the Nation of New York), and that any laws resitricting his personal preferences (Age of Consent, Drug Laws, Anti-Gay Marriage, Gun Controll) were just another sign of the current facist goverment.

I would have loved to lock him in an instiution. He made the class insufferable.

EDIT- I was remineded by a friend of this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester and http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectives/youdecide/pop/incometax/1no.html . Is the income tax unconstiutional? Should the army rise up? No on both counts, but it makes my eariler argument more compelling.

If the government of the US orders the army to round up every Hispanic within the US borders and lock them up, most definitely are they supposed to not only not obey that order, but get rid of what is essentially HItler, even if he was chosen.

And if that happened, by God I'd expect the people to riot, the army to refuse to comply and whoever ordered that to be impeached.

However, Superhuman reigstration is not a racial issue. This is not the Mutant Registration Act. If it was, I'd be against it. This is for EVERYONE with superpowers. It's not about race, it's about power.

The MRA was like saying only Hispanics with guns had to register them, and everyone else could go off scott free. The SHRA is full registration, appropreate and legal.

Now if we could just get SHEILD out of it...

bulbasteve

09-30-2006, 02:58 PM

jaxcs

09-30-2006, 03:00 PM

However, Superhuman reigstration is not a racial issue. This is not the Mutant Registration Act. If it was, I'd be against it. This is for EVERYONE with superpowers. It's not about race, it's about power.

You are just exchanging one group characteristic for another group characteristic. It is bad to discriminate against people by race but not bad if we use a broader category such as hair color? This is an impossible standard to maintain.

bulbasteve

09-30-2006, 03:14 PM

You are just exchanging one group characteristic for another group characteristic. It is bad to discriminate against people by race but not bad if we use a broader category such as hair color? This is an impossible standard to maintain.

She-Hulk argues in the Daily Bugle special why it is not a descrimitatory law. It is designed with costumed vigilantes in mind (example: tech heroes are covered), it has nothing to do with the state in which you are born just with if you are using your powers and to document who has powers in the country and get them trained and working for the government if they so choose.

AllisterH

09-30-2006, 04:11 PM

The only explanation I can come up with is that, at some point, SHIELD passed into USA jurisdiction... most likely, after it was dissolved following the Deltite infiltration. In effect, the current SHIELD is a new organization, created by the US and patterned after the first (That would explain the change in the meaning of the name, as well.)
They probably can't. I understand the fears of the public in the Marvel Universe and their wish to regulate superhumans. On the other hand, without the Heroes, the people would have NO way of protecting themselves, not against the truly big menaces. For better or worse, a compromise has to be reached; just ordering the Heroes to obey the Government is not going to cut it.

re: SHIELD
SHIELD can't be US. In the conclusion to Secret War, there was a scene where the president congratulated Hill on becoming the new director BUT he also wanted to remind Hill that she was an American and she should have some loyalty to the US.

In Daredevil, there was a storyline where Bendis had Fury threatening the CIA director with exposure of having a CIA operation take place within the boundary of the US. Yet the sHIELD helicarrier was parked right above Langley. If SHIELD's American, no way SHIELD can operate within the US (there's a BIG reason why the FBI & the CIA are two separate organizations).

Those scenes by Bendis makes no sense if SHIELD is a US-controlled
organization.

re: Who do you trust.
The problem with marvel is that in the entire history of the main marvel universe (and the DC universe for that matter) has the government EVER been depicted as in the right (no alternate universe or things like Squadron Supreme) and its a crutch for writers to write about the big bad government. Seriously, can you name one storyline where the government was in the right in the mainstream universe.

We, as readers, can easily understand how the government can be the "HEAVY" versus the small guy. Hell, even MS and Bill Gates are the little guy whenever the government launches an investigation.

However, the JLU cartoon highlighted an important point. If the government can be slapped down with EASE by the heroes, exactly how is the government the HEAVY? Few writers seem to make that connection so they still write as if the hero in question is like Robin Hood versus the Sheriff and the whole might of Nottingham.

3D Master

09-30-2006, 05:35 PM

This is completely contradicting what you were saying about Rosa Parks.

No it isn't.

The only way? This hasn't even been before the Supreme Court yet, how do you know it is the ONLY way to repeal the law? It hasn't even been in court yet.

:rolleyes: So? We're not talking about every wishy washy detail, we're talking about the principal of the thing. Disobeying a law, and fighting to get rid of it, is not by definition 'wrong'.

Wow, so then why didn't Cap kill FDR for the Japanese Internment camps? Just look at that example, they were in the camps for a number of years then were released and the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. An example like that actually HAPPENED and the system WORKED, we didn't NEED an armed rebellion.

Because he was on the other side of the planet fighting the Germans perhaps? Cap's super human, he's not Superman.

She-Hulk argues in the Daily Bugle special why it is not a descrimitatory law. It is designed with costumed vigilantes in mind (example: tech heroes are covered), it has nothing to do with the state in which you are born just with if you are using your powers and to document who has powers in the country and get them trained and working for the government if they so choose.

Which is all real nice, which would mean that simply doing nothing but sitting in your room, deciding not to use your powers anymore, would mean you're not disobeying the law. Look how that worked for Cage. If the ones "enforcing" the law, break that very law by simply rounding up anyone and throwing them in a prison another dimension, it's going to be pretty hard for them getting to the supreme court and appealing the law, no isn't it? Cap and co. have no option left but to fight; I hope they're smart enough they've hired lawyers or some civil liberties organization to take the act to court, as well as all those who break that very law, just throwing everyone in prison with powers, even if they're just sitting around doing nothing.

You should be someone who just had some powers awakened, perhaps just got bitten by a radio-active tick, you'd get locked away in the NZ before you even get the chance to register.

Kid Kamikaze10

09-30-2006, 05:49 PM

For those who believe that the SHRA does no discriminate anyone:

You do know that if you have powers, you need to get registered, right?

And after registration, SHIELD will pretty much has the permission be able to monitor your entire life. That's the discrimination kicker, and that's why non-heroes with powers are also affected.

Kefky

09-30-2006, 05:49 PM

re: SHIELD
SHIELD can't be US. In the conclusion to Secret War, there was a scene where the president congratulated Hill on becoming the new director BUT he also wanted to remind Hill that she was an American and she should have some loyalty to the US.

In Daredevil, there was a storyline where Bendis had Fury threatening the CIA director with exposure of having a CIA operation take place within the boundary of the US. Yet the sHIELD helicarrier was parked right above Langley. If SHIELD's American, no way SHIELD can operate within the US (there's a BIG reason why the FBI & the CIA are two separate organizations).

Those scenes by Bendis makes no sense if SHIELD is a US-controlled
organization.

re: Who do you trust.
The problem with marvel is that in the entire history of the main marvel universe (and the DC universe for that matter) has the government EVER been depicted as in the right (no alternate universe or things like Squadron Supreme) and its a crutch for writers to write about the big bad government. Seriously, can you name one storyline where the government was in the right in the mainstream universe.

We, as readers, can easily understand how the government can be the "HEAVY" versus the small guy. Hell, even MS and Bill Gates are the little guy whenever the government launches an investigation.

However, the JLU cartoon highlighted an important point. If the government can be slapped down with EASE by the heroes, exactly how is the government the HEAVY? Few writers seem to make that connection so they still write as if the hero in question is like Robin Hood versus the Sheriff and the whole might of Nottingham.

Tom Brevoort's cleared plenty of times that SHIELD isn't a US organization. They just chose to side with the U.S. in this situation. They're still independent.

bulbasteve

09-30-2006, 06:10 PM

No it isn't.

Your advocating violence (you even saying they should assassinate the President!). Civil Rights leaders like Rosa Parks and MLK advocated non-violent protest. That is the inherent difference between what Cap is doing (attacking officers, breaking people out of prison transport, and resisting arrest), to what these leaders did.

:rolleyes: So? We're not talking about every wishy washy detail, we're talking about the principal of the thing. Disobeying a law, and fighting to get rid of it, is not by definition 'wrong'.

The Supreme Court has the power to overturn the entire law (not to mention just advocating the Congress repeal the law). You said violence was the "only way" to get the law overturned, that is no true on the very face of it.

Because he was on the other side of the planet fighting the Germans perhaps? Cap's super human, he's not Superman.

But you would have wanted him to assassinate the President, right? That is what you said with the hispanic example, would it have been different for FDR, should we have killed him? Now come on I just do not understand how any reasonable person can be arguing that we should be assassinating our elected leaders cause we disagree with their policies.

Which is all real nice, which would mean that simply doing nothing but sitting in your room, deciding not to use your powers anymore, would mean you're not disobeying the law. Look how that worked for Cage. If the ones "enforcing" the law, break that very law by simply rounding up anyone and throwing them in a prison another dimension, it's going to be pretty hard for them getting to the supreme court and appealing the law, no isn't it? Cap and co. have no option left but to fight; I hope they're smart enough they've hired lawyers or some civil liberties organization to take the act to court, as well as all those who break that very law, just throwing everyone in prison with powers, even if they're just sitting around doing nothing.

You can retire after you register. But everyone still has to register with the government.

Now let's look at the court example, are terrorists being shipped over from Gitomo to hear their cases before the Supreme Court? No, any lawyer can decide they want to defend them. In fact She-Hulk is taking Speedballs case to court, so it isn't like the pro-side is not letting dissenting opinions be held. Cap has no reason not to just wait out the course case.

You should be someone who just had some powers awakened, perhaps just got bitten by a radio-active tick, you'd get locked away in the NZ before you even get the chance to register.

In She-Hulk they had Hellcat allowed the chance to register long after the act was passed, same went for Arena in Ms. Marvel. In ASM Stark says the prisoners are being held until they register, and we saw in Frontline Speedball getting chance after chance to register.

You can keep saying these things but the evidence contradicts it.

3D Master

09-30-2006, 06:43 PM

Your advocating violence (you even saying they should assassinate the President!). Civil Rights leaders like Rosa Parks and MLK advocated non-violent protest. That is the inherent difference between what Cap is doing (attacking officers, breaking people out of prison transport, and resisting arrest), to what these leaders did.

Rosa Parks was not a Civl Rights leader, she simply didn't do something. She disobeyed the law. That's simply the way it is.

The Supreme Court has the power to overturn the entire law (not to mention just advocating the Congress repeal the law). You said violence was the "only way" to get the law overturned, that is no true on the very face of it.

No, I didn't. I said they didn't have any other choice, which they don't. They don't get to go to supreme court; they either fight and resist arrest, or are tossed in a place where they're basically tortured until they either die or a lawyer manages to successfully litigate.

But you would have wanted him to assassinate the President, right? That is what you said with the hispanic example, would it have been different for FDR, should we have killed him? Now come on I just do not understand how any reasonable person can be arguing that we should be assassinating our elected leaders cause we disagree with their policies.

If their policies are pure evil, and you can't get rid of them any other way, indeed. The people who tried to blow up Hitler several times over are considered heroes, not law breakers, and had they succeeded they still would have been. Remember, Hitler didn't take power; he was lawfully apointed the leader of the German Republic.

You can retire after you register. But everyone still has to register with the government.

No, you can't. Iron Man was going to put in a good word for a basically already retired pregnant woman that she didn't have to do much once she registered, and it was obvious he wasn't sure he'd succeed. Once registered, you're an agent of SHIELD and they get to order you around wherever they want you to go; no matter how old, or how young you are, and whether you want to still do stuff or not. She-Hulk and in Ms. Marvel it's presented as register an you're employee no matter what, or no registering and no longer using your power. Of course, we know from Luke Cage how much that works when it comes to SHIELD units; they just toss you into the NZ or force you to register at gunpoint anyway.

Now let's look at the court example, are terrorists being shipped over from Gitomo to hear their cases before the Supreme Court? No, any lawyer can decide they want to defend them. In fact She-Hulk is taking Speedballs case to court, so it isn't like the pro-side is not letting dissenting opinions be held. Cap has no reason not to just wait out the course case.

"Suspects are innocent UNTIL proven guilty
IN A COURT OF LAW. They have the RIGHT to a fair trial with a jury of their peers. They have the right to remain silent, anything they say can be used against them in a court of a law. They have the RIGHT to an attorney, and if they cannot afford an attorney, the STATE WILL APOINT one to them."

Private lawyers can choos to refuse to defend them, but ANY of the (presumed) terrorists, as well as the Super Humans in Civil War, have the RIGHT to an attorney and trial. If they say I want a trial, and no private lawyer wants to take their case, than the state is REQUIRED to appoint an attorney to them, and this public defender doesn't get to choose; he has to do it, PERIOD.

There's no choosing; lawyers don't go to a suspect only at the lawyer's behest, a trial is had, and the suspect gets a lawyer, simple as that. Every single last one of them...

Oh, unless you're designated a 'unlawful/unregistered combatant' and are tossed and tortured in the nearest hellhole. (Why do you think the writers used that 'unregistered combatant' line; the same as the 'unlawful combatant' that apparently doesn't have to be given a trial; to hell with the question whether the man or woman in question is actually a terrorist or utterly, completely and totally innocent; just toss them away.)

It's a clear violation of people's rights, that none of them is given the choice to hire a lawyer and isn't given the trials they deserve. They're just tossed away, without trial, without lawyer; exactly how are they going to get a lawyer, trapped inside cage without electricty/another dimension?

In She-Hulk they had Hellcat allowed the chance to register long after the act was passed, same went for Arena in Ms. Marvel. In ASM Stark says the prisoners are being held until they register, and we saw in Frontline Speedball getting chance after chance to register.

You can keep saying these things but the evidence contradicts it.

Those are only the ones approached by registered heroes who are gently and understanding. SHIELD doesn't give a shit; they prefer to KILL the unregistered combatants rather than arrest them, and if they do, they'll just toss them away. There's no way to register once you're in the NZ: the place is torturing you, driving you physically insane with its influences, and there's nobody there but robot guards. Once in there; it's over. No way out, no way to contact anyone, neither lawyers nor people, not even the ones who could hand you the pen to sign the register.

bulbasteve

09-30-2006, 06:55 PM

Those are only the ones approached by registered heroes who are gently and understanding. SHIELD doesn't give a shit; they prefer to KILL the unregistered combatants rather than arrest them, and if they do, they'll just toss them away. There's no way to register once you're in the NZ: the place is torturing you, driving you physically insane with its influences, and there's nobody there but robot guards. Once in there; it's over. No way out, no way to contact anyone, neither lawyers nor people, not even the ones who could hand you the pen to sign the register.

Only Robot Guards? Tom said on this forum that they are staffed by SHIELD volunteers and in the latest Frontline they even showed the human guards. And Speedball was writing to his mother with... A PEN!

Now I think I'll wait till you read the issues before I'll go over anything else with you. If you just think they are acting a certain way without any evidence or without reading the issues then I don't think anything anyone can say will change your mind. Of course I'm also worried I'm going to hear about a white house bombing in the news soon :p

kalorama

09-30-2006, 07:26 PM

And Speedball was writing to his mother with... A PEN!

Now I think I'll wait till you read the issues before I'll go over anything else with you. If you just think they are acting a certain way without any evidence or without reading the issues then I don't think anything anyone can say will change your mind.

If you'd actually read the issue then you'd have seen where, at the end of the "letter," (in quotes because, in actual fact, we never saw a letter, did we?) Speedball makes a point of saying that it doesn't matter what he writes, since his mother will never get the letter anyway.

Of course, if you'd actually read the issue, you might have thought twice about giddily proclaiming that he was writing a letter to his mother "with..a PEN" since in the actual comic book he was not only never shown with a pen or any other writing implement in his hand, but in a pretty obvious bit of juxtaposition, the text of the "letter" was imposed over images of him being taken to his cell while strapped down to a gurney with inch thick wrist and leg irons while wearing a muzzle.

3D Master

09-30-2006, 07:45 PM

Only Robot Guards? Tom said on this forum that they are staffed by SHIELD volunteers and in the latest Frontline they even showed the human guards. And Speedball was writing to his mother with... A PEN!

Now I think I'll wait till you read the issues before I'll go over anything else with you. If you just think they are acting a certain way without any evidence or without reading the issues then I don't think anything anyone can say will change your mind. Of course I'm also worried I'm going to hear about a white house bombing in the news soon :p

Well, that's I guess one of the problems with this series. One thing is said and shown in one issue of one book, and something else is said and shown in the next one. Earlier, there were only robot guards because of the effects of the NZ on people. This CW business is a mess.

the Dagman

09-30-2006, 08:39 PM

It is becoming all too apparent that when comparing the various titles in this Civil War story line that they have the consistency of diarhea. This is a sign of the overseeing editor's incompetence. Such a sad waste. When the story was initially pitched it seemed like it could have some potential, especially given what we were promised. They may as well forget the last promise they haven't broken and reveal some mastermind behind this whole thing so we can sweep it under the rug and forget about it all the sooner.

bulbasteve

09-30-2006, 08:55 PM

If you'd actually read the issue then you'd have seen where, at the end of the "letter," (in quotes because, in actual fact, we never saw a letter, did we?) Speedball makes a point of saying that it doesn't matter what he writes, since his mother will never get the letter anyway.

Of course, if you'd actually read the issue, you might have thought twice about giddily proclaiming that he was writing a letter to his mother "with..a PEN" since in the actual comic book he was not only never shown with a pen or any other writing implement in his hand, but in a pretty obvious bit of juxtaposition, the text of the "letter" was imposed over images of him being taken to his cell while strapped down to a gurney with inch thick wrist and leg irons while wearing a muzzle.

He only thinks she won't, the anti-side has been shown as fairly paranoid time and time again (yes spidey, one of your catchphrases is "my spider-sense is tingling"). Reed took him to Congress afterall, I think that is a bit more of a threat than writting a letter to your mommy. Anyway he was probably lying about the conditions to his mother too, Millar said the prison is supposed to be the type seen in ASM, so we will wait with baited breath to see what Tom says about it.

jaxcs

10-02-2006, 04:57 AM

kalorama

10-02-2006, 09:36 AM

What you mean is that the SHRA is concerned with the act of being a vigilante and not a personal characteristic. But of course, in actuality, nothing of the sort seems to be evident. If you have powers and your identity is known, you seem to be subject to arrest. For example, consider the attempted arrest of Luke Cage.

Precisely. And, if there was anything to all this talk of being given the option to "retire" then why was Cage attacked by an armed battalion 5 minutes after the law went into effect when he was doing nothing more than sitting quietly on the sofa in his home? He wasn't involved in any vigilante activity when they came busting through his door. Do they give you the retirement papers after you've been subdued and imprisoned?

XPac

10-02-2006, 09:51 AM

bulbasteve

10-02-2006, 03:01 PM

Precisely. And, if there was anything to all this talk of being given the option to "retire" then why was Cage attacked by an armed battalion 5 minutes after the law went into effect when he was doing nothing more than sitting quietly on the sofa in his home? He wasn't involved in any vigilante activity when they came busting through his door. Do they give you the retirement papers after you've been subdued and imprisoned?

Because Cage didn't sign. You have to sign before you can retire. You don't sign, you are breaking the law.

The attempted to give Victor of the Runaways his retirement papers in Young Avengers/Runaways... permananet retirement. Even if the law itself is legal (and that is obviously debatable), the execution of it in a lot of cases leaves a hell of a lot to be desired from both an ethical and legal standpoint.

Well blame can be given to both pro and anti both on that count. I have never seen Cap or Stark or Richards ever speaking in front of Congress about Robot rights. Hell the rules for heroes seems to be "no killing except for Robots, Aliens and Nazis....oh and various forms of monsters and demons". These guys aren't superman who doesn't like killing any sentient life, anything non-human (and nazi!) has a big red target on their heads for heroes, so why would SHIELD be any different?

3D Master

10-02-2006, 03:58 PM

Because Cage didn't sign. You have to sign before you can retire. You don't sign, you are breaking the law.

Not according to She-Hulk. According to her you only have to sign if you('re going to) use those powers to fight criminals and save people from collapsing buildings and such. If you don't, no registration necessary according to her.

loraxxx j zynishter

10-03-2006, 04:33 PM

The really sad thing is I belive the Pro-SHRA side is inherently the correct side. Masked vigilantes are elitists to take a great big crap on democracy by insisting that they have the "right" to enforce their own private moralities and that this "right" trancends the laws enacted by the democratically chosen representatives of the American voters. That's you and me, or the Marvel Universe versions of us at any rate. If I want to enforce justice I have to become a cop, getting trained and becoming accountable in the process. But they can ignore this because they are vaslty stronger than me? That's the "right" they insist upon? The anti-side is full of crap, but this is being lost because the pro-side have been turned into monsters.

This story is the equivalent of having a Jews vs Nazism story that glosses over the actual philosophy and instead shows Jews murdering the children of the Nazi's. Instead of an actual debate, which the Nazi's would lose instantly, the other side is simply shown as monstrous.

i whole-heartedly agree with this statement--the PRO-REG side is correct IN PRINCIPLE--however, the way the story is being written, THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS, continually trampling over the rights of individuals, and engaging in, at best, morally questionable acts simply because there is a law that says it's ok to do so...

but more to my personal objection--i'm not all that interested in reading comics about cops with super-powers--cops do the right thing because it's the job, there are forces in place to control their behavior, and because it's in their character to do so--super-heroes do the right thing, for the most part, based soley on their own character, or the character of their peers, or the examples set for them by personal heroes, not because they can come up for a review board, or because they stand to lose their jobs, or any of the myriad of reasons people in the "real world" choose to do the right thing--super-heroes see the right thing, and they do it...

i like super-heroes because, at the end of the day, they're better than me--i have no interest in idolizing people who are just a messed up as i am, whether they are characters in literature, or celebrities in real life...

i read comics for the same reason many read the new testament--for parables describing the path to moral righteousness--and it bothers me now that so many characters, who have in my past, served as paradigms of moral and ethical behavior, are now acting no better than the so-called "leaders" whose behavior i regularly dismiss--in fact, in some cases they're acting even worse--and in most of these cases without sufficient explaination to justify their actions, at least as far as i'm concerned...

Vaal

10-03-2006, 04:54 PM

i whole-heartedly agree with this statement--the PRO-REG side is correct IN PRINCIPLE--however, the way the story is being written, THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS, continually trampling over the rights of individuals, and engaging in, at best, morally questionable acts simply because there is a law that says it's ok to do so...
Then again, this is how the MU government deals with registration of empowered individuals: by beating them until they do as they're told or thier registration program is dismantled for being too evil.

See also: Sentinels.

Basically, they NEVER consider peaceful negotiations or self policing.

loraxxx j zynishter

10-03-2006, 07:18 PM

She-Hulk argues in the Daily Bugle special why it is not a descrimitatory law. It is designed with costumed vigilantes in mind (example: tech heroes are covered), it has nothing to do with the state in which you are born just with if you are using your powers and to document who has powers in the country and get them trained and working for the government if they so choose.

last i heard government service was mandatory--as far as i know SHEILD has been going after super-powered individuals whether they are costumed vigilantes or not, and whether or not they have used their powers since the law came into action--in this i'm primarily thinking of folks like THE RUNAWAYS, who are not (as far as i know) known supers, and don't seem to be fighting crime...

but once again we stray from important points many of us seem to be using in our opposition of the SHRA

1. the act forces registration AND gov. service;

2. it's enforcement is heavy handed and draconian; SHE-HULK is the only one i've seen register someone by talking to them as her S.O.P--most situations i've seen involve pursuit, arrest, and incarceration, as opposed to simply asking someone to fill out a form, so they can be in compliance...;

3. since for many, having powers is intrinsic to their physcal bodies, then registration does appear to have a lot of similarities to registration based on race, gender, skin color, etc...;

4. not enough effort is being given to demonstrate that people's rights of due process, or habeas corpus are being met which means that legal challenge to the law may be nearly impossible...;

5. the government is not allowing people with powers to leave the country and seek asylum elsewhere--the HFH's first case is a sting op to bring down people (mostly criminals--but not shown to be active criminals) many trying to obtain false papers so they can leave the country--which implies they wouldn't be allowed to leave using their own identities...;

6. people who would normally not qualify for jobs in law enforcement based on their long histories of psychological problems and anti-social behavior are being deputized as officers of the law...;

7. CAPT. AMERICA was placed under arrest for refusal to enforce a law that hadn't even been passed yet...;

the list goes on and on--but for those of you who want to argue the PRO-REG point of view, please take time to address these concerns, because until they are addressed, we are at an impasse...

bulbasteve

10-03-2006, 07:46 PM

1. the act forces registration AND gov. service;

Seems there is some conflict on if it forces registration, She-Hulk seems to say no, others (including it would seem Tom) say yes. Either way I don't see a problem, you should still KNOW there is a walking nuke, even if he doesn't want to be a superhero. They are allowed to retire though from the hero biz like Thing.

2. it's enforcement is heavy handed and draconian; SHE-HULK is the only one i've seen register someone by talking to them as her S.O.P--most situations i've seen involve pursuit, arrest, and incarceration, as opposed to simply asking someone to fill out a form, so they can be in complian

Arana was treated well as well, hell she was excited about the whole training thing. They seem to be nice when they ask (Stark went and talked to Cage as well), but once a superperson starts to resist arrest you gotta get rough.

3. since for many, having powers is intrinsic to their physcal bodies, then registration does appear to have a lot of similarities to registration based on race, gender, skin color, etc...;

Well Firestar was a costumed hero, and she just took off his mask and dropped off the grid since they don't seem to know their ident. They don't seem to be pursuing anyone who isn't a costumed vigilante, we haven't seen any previously-unkown heroes in the event so far. And like I said Tech heroes are covered and that has nothing to do with anything you are born with.

4. not enough effort is being given to demonstrate that people's rights of due process, or habeas corpus are being met which means that legal challenge to the law may be nearly impossible...;

According to CWF, She-Hulk is taking the Speedball trial to court, Reed is letting Speedball speak before Congress. Plus law stories are boring I guess...PUNCH!

5. the government is not allowing people with powers to leave the country and seek asylum elsewhere--the HFH's first case is a sting op to bring down people (mostly criminals--but not shown to be active criminals) many trying to obtain false papers so they can leave the country--which implies they wouldn't be allowed to leave using their own identities...;

I think in the HFH topic they talked about how they were all the Raft escapees. And with Marvel time what it was I doubt any got off with time served. So they wouldn't have been allowed to leave the country anyway since they are wanted criminals. Thing is planning to (and seems to be) moving to France (where he will learn I guess, France probably has the most strict registration policy ever).

6. people who would normally not qualify for jobs in law enforcement based on their long histories of psychological problems and anti-social behavior are being deputized as officers of the law...;

True enough. But Stark was talking at the end of 4 that those really bad guys are being sent back to prison after their mission.

7. CAPT. AMERICA was placed under arrest for refusal to enforce a law that hadn't even been passed yet...;

Agent of SHIELD not following his commanding officer many have guessed.

jaxcs

10-03-2006, 09:11 PM

Seems there is some conflict on if it forces registration, She-Hulk seems to say no, others (including it would seem Tom) say yes. Either way I don't see a problem, you should still KNOW there is a walking nuke, even if he doesn't want to be a superhero. They are allowed to retire though from the hero biz like Thing.

The Thing didn't retire. He said he was going to ex-patirate. Although he hasn't yet

Arana was treated well as well, hell she was excited about the whole training thing. They seem to be nice when they ask (Stark went and talked to Cage as well), but once a superperson starts to resist arrest you gotta get rough.

Cage didn't resist - at first.

Well Firestar was a costumed hero, and she just took off his mask and dropped off the grid since they don't seem to know their ident. They don't seem to be pursuing anyone who isn't a costumed vigilante, we haven't seen any previously-unkown heroes in the event so far. And like I said Tech heroes are covered and that has nothing to do with anything you are born with.

I think it is somewhat unclear whether it is the act of vigilantism that is forces one to register or whether it is the possession of a power.

According to CWF, She-Hulk is taking the Speedball trial to court, Reed is letting Speedball speak before Congress. Plus law stories are boring I guess...PUNCH!

I also thought he was having his case processed but in the most recent CWF, Speedball claims he has not been charged with any crime. So, there is a discontinuity.

I think in the HFH topic they talked about how they were all the Raft escapees. And with Marvel time what it was I doubt any got off with time served. So they wouldn't have been allowed to leave the country anyway since they are wanted criminals. Thing is planning to (and seems to be) moving to France (where he will learn I guess, France probably has the most strict registration policy ever).

Where did you hear this about the Thing and France?

True enough. But Stark was talking at the end of 4 that those really bad guys are being sent back to prison after their mission.

I'm not sure how good a reason that is....

Agent of SHIELD not following his commanding officer many have guessed.

The more I think about this, the more certain I am that Cap is not a Shield agent in any sense of the word. Agent 13 (Sharon Carter) is said to be Cap's liaison. You don't have liaisons with line officers or employees. You do have liaisons when one party is an independent who you work with frequently. That describes Cap and Shield's activities accurately.

bulbasteve

10-04-2006, 12:13 AM

Cage didn't resist - at first.

Then I don't get what you are trying to say. He was breaking the law, they tried to arrest him, he resisted, they got more aggressive, he escaped.

I also thought he was having his case processed but in the most recent CWF, Speedball claims he has not been charged with any crime. So, there is a discontinuity.

Well his crime was not registering. He was possibly talking about the whole Stamford thing, he's pretty out of the loop with the whole law thing...being in jail and all.

Where did you hear this about the Thing and France?

Check out tomorrow (Todays) FF, true believer! Oh and "wait and see". Damn I need to find an excuse to use the rest of the stuff I always wanted to say.

The more I think about this, the more certain I am that Cap is not a Shield agent in any sense of the word. Agent 13 (Sharon Carter) is said to be Cap's liaison. You don't have liaisons with line officers or employees. You do have liaisons when one party is an independent who you work with frequently. That describes Cap and Shield's activities accurately.

In Civil War Files he was given a registration card. Maybe he was promoted to an active Agent when the Act passed. Who knows the internal policies of SHIELD, regardless if he thought SHIELD was so bad he should have retired the moment Hill was in charge instead of using his "champion status" to form the New Avengers. Seems he brought it on himself either way.

But of course Cap and speaking in public suddenly don't seem to mix, who knows I used to think he was good at the whole "giving speeches" thing.

jackolover

10-04-2006, 12:27 AM

But of course Cap and speaking in public suddenly don't seem to mix, who knows I used to think he was good at the whole "giving speeches" thing.

It is curious that Cap never gives speeches in public, or to anyone else. Not even the anti-reg people. All his compatriots seem to instinctively know each others views, like an anti-reg stance means the exact same thing to all.
The other aspect of caps reluctance to give speeches in public, is that maybe the supers exist in their own little world, and regular non-powered humans don't count. Cap is content just to do what he does - lead and fight against opponents. But to my knowledge, I have never seen cap stand up in front of people, (supers or not) and rouse them into cheers. For someone who is supposed to be the symbol of the American Dream he lacks the ability to communicate what this dream is.

Chris Thomas

10-04-2006, 12:56 AM

chiming in here--trudging through the series. my thoughts about the 'author's intent'

1. btw--the cost of this series to the joe-shmoh reader will be huge. so, as readers, we all have a lot of cash invested here. not just the 'integrity and direction' of the MU we all love

2. I have read 'alot' of millar's other works but certainly not all. my worries:

a. he tends to have a strong start, an amazing middle (perhaps the best in comics today?) but weak endings. he certainly has an intent here--he is not hiding that fact. but he likes to keep his true direction hidden until the climax. and, imo, the climax usually crashes and burns--sort of like an indie film that really draws you in and tries to make a 'point' at the end. but that 'point' is heavy handed.

for reference: see Wanted. and tell me what the last panel implied the main character 'wanted' to do to 'me' (the reader.)

b. he is trying to force a huge change into the marvel universe that . well. may not work so well. if this is going like we think it is going--are we really just heading to a new 'event'--maybe 2007's event? can spidey really stay in the open? just not at the core of this character. hiding with a SI was always was of his greatest 'weaknesses. ' is it PART OF HIS CHARACTER. there are other examples here but this seems to be the strongest

I think millar's intent is--with real world examples that are not necessarily my own opinion:

1. pro reg is right idea (going after terrorists)

2. but executed poorly (invading iraq)

3. the poor executions turns to denial and then more poor execution

4. the 'good guys' compromise their principles as a means to an end (guantanamo, etc.)

5. the resolution gets farther and farther from a reasonable solution. escalation. one side will be 'defeated'--my guess anti-reg--but the victor will score a pyrrhic victory (i.e. trust broken, friends dead/alienated.)

I think that millar's intent is not hard to see. in some ways this is an allogory about our modern times. also--this is a way of bringing out in the open a longstanding problem with comics---who are the good guys? who are the bad guys? and why do the bad guys keep getting out and killing people? and what about collateral damage?

millar's killing 2 birds with one stone. see: nytimes/al franken meets ennis' 'the boys'

then next year, bendis will either have hawkeye sacrafice his life with a flaming quiver to bring everyone back to together again...

OR MY BET

Hulk comes back, eats entire pro-reg side.

jaxcs

10-04-2006, 12:00 PM

Then I don't get what you are trying to say. He was breaking the law, they tried to arrest him, he resisted, they got more aggressive, he escaped.

Sigh... if registration is required for those who practice vigilatism, Luke didn't break any laws by sitting at home.

Well his crime was not registering. He was possibly talking about the whole Stamford thing, he's pretty out of the loop with the whole law thing...being in jail and all.

If you kill someone and they put you in jail without charging you, you are not getting due process even if you really are guilty. Speedball knows the SHRA is law of the land but the question is, was he charged or are they simply holding him?

In Civil War Files he was given a registration card. Maybe he was promoted to an active Agent when the Act passed. Who knows the internal policies of SHIELD, regardless if he thought SHIELD was so bad he should have retired the moment Hill was in charge instead of using his "champion status" to form the New Avengers. Seems he brought it on himself either way.

Come on, Cap is leading the anti movement so no way did he sign up for registration. Why would Sheild promote Cap after the Act passed especially since he made it clear that Hill would not be giving him any orders? Using his authority to form the New Avengers doesn't mean you should get guns pointed at your face. BTW, since Hill didn't want the New Avengers formed and Cap invoked his authority to do so in spite of Hill's wishes shows yet again that Cap acts in an independant capacity even prior to the events in CW.