PDA

View Full Version : CIVIL WAR = Blowing up Vegas?



MBunge
03-14-2007, 01:49 PM
You've got a point about comparing CIVIL WAR blowing up the Marvel status quo to the re-invention of the Vegas Strip. But when they tore down each and every building on the Strip, I bet they had very detailed plans in place on what would replace it. Compare that to Marvel which seems to think it can turn Tony Stark into Lex Luthor and pretend he's still a good guy. Or the fact that, according to Tom Brevoort over on Newsarama, they never actually wrote out what the Super-hero Registration Act actually did and did not do, leading to completely different interpretations from fans and even in Marvel's own books.

CIVIL WAR has fundamentally altered the Marvel Universe and attracted a lot of attention to it, but I don't think the boys at The House of Ideas really understand just HOW fundamentally it's altered and I sure don't trust them to rebuild it into something bigger and better.

Mike

bartl
03-15-2007, 05:01 PM
Compare that to Marvel which seems to think it can turn Tony Stark into Lex Luthor and pretend he's still a good guy. Or the fact that, according to Tom Brevoort over on Newsarama, they never actually wrote out what the Super-hero Registration Act actually did and did not do, leading to completely different interpretations from fans and even in Marvel's own books.
The latter, there's no excuse for.

The former makes more sense. What's a villain to one is a hero to others. Consider Roy Scheider in Jaws. He essentially overrules the people, the government, the whole town, because he sees a danger that nobody else does. The difference between him being a hero and a villain is only in that he happens to be right; had Jaws just swam to some other beach, he would have been the bad guy.

Tony Stark can walk the think line between hero and villain as long as he:

1) Is sincere about his motives being good.
2) Is not self-deluding.

This means that he will have to do things which are, on an absolute basis, evil, in order to prevent what he considers to be a greater evil. But he will not feel good about it. He will feel the guilt, only partially mollified by the fact that had he not done what he did, he would feel even more guilty.

MBunge
03-16-2007, 10:48 AM
The latter, there's no excuse for.

The former makes more sense. What's a villain to one is a hero to others. Consider Roy Scheider in Jaws. He essentially overrules the people, the government, the whole town, because he sees a danger that nobody else does. The difference between him being a hero and a villain is only in that he happens to be right; had Jaws just swam to some other beach, he would have been the bad guy.

Tony Stark can walk the think line between hero and villain as long as he:

1) Is sincere about his motives being good.
2) Is not self-deluding.

This means that he will have to do things which are, on an absolute basis, evil, in order to prevent what he considers to be a greater evil. But he will not feel good about it. He will feel the guilt, only partially mollified by the fact that had he not done what he did, he would feel even more guilty.

Not all morality is relative nor all ethics situational. There are some things that are just wrong. Doing something wrong doesn't become less wrong if you feel guilty about it.

Put it this way. By your definition, I don't think Osama Bin Laden would qualify as a villian.

Mike

bartl
03-18-2007, 06:15 PM
Not all morality is relative nor all ethics situational. There are some things that are just wrong. Doing something wrong doesn't become less wrong if you feel guilty about it.

Put it this way. By your definition, I don't think Osama Bin Laden would qualify as a villian.
What did he gain? How did his great evil prevent a greater one?

dancj
03-19-2007, 07:29 AM
From Osama's point of view I suspect Americans being alive is a great evil

bat2supe
03-28-2007, 03:33 AM
Hey !!

The question about point of views is interresting, but people better remember that we're dealing with comics & not with real life. Even comics try to give a vision that isn't manichean like in the golden age, we or better I say "I" read comics in order to see heroes live adventures, fight villains & show great act of bravoure (please don't interpret it in the goofy sense that it could have but think EPIC).

Plus, for myself, I think that Civil War great weakness was that it was all about stints: Heroes "responsibles" for a tragedy, Spider-Man unmasking, Goliath death, Clor, Captain America's death (even if it was in his own comic, that was a direct consequence of CW & if you want to boost CA's sales, the death better occurs in his own serie).

At the end, I don't really see the changes in the Marvel U, X-Men aren't concerned & that restraint that said consequences, heroes aren't all friendly (yes, not a big deal), others are considered outlaws & wanted by authorities (like we haven't read about that a zillion time) AND the new statu quo is maybe too fresh to feel it but I don't see the real change in it (oooooh, excuse me 2 others Avengers book, sorry :rolleyes: )