MERGE: Civil War Postgame Analysis Megathread

[Expletive Deleted]

Welcome to the Civil War postgame analysis megathread.

-ED (7/21/07)

[jackolover]

I have been re-reading the CW and tie-ins while we have had these delays and a couple of things are outstanding.

1. I notice in one of the Iron Man issues, either NA or IM, Stark says he will not survive the CW. Does he already know how it is going to go down? Does he have an exit strategy, knowing his tactics would be exposed and he will have to go underground?

2. A guy is talking to Norman Osborn in one of the Frontlines. This guy hands Norman a vial and says this will release him from his handlers. Not long later Norman takes out an Atlantian official. There looks to be somebody deliberately sabotaging the TBolts plan, and, fairly happy to let Osborn run around untethered as a loose cannon. My thinking is this guy is an anti-reg, and is probably Fury, who wants to expose the TBolts as criminals, and seeing as Norman himself thinks himself is crazy, Osborn is glad to go along with it. Sort of like a demented road to hell scenario. This is really going to throw the fox among the chickens. If this mystery guy gives the same vial to Bullseye and some other TBolts, the SHRA might go in whole other direction.

Edit : I must give credit to SnakeEater for the Fury Theory, here. 21 Dec 2006

[a-spidey]

does he say tony stark won't survive or does he say iron man won't survive ?

sorry, haven't read it, but maybe only tony stark as IM won't survive CW.

[StoneGold]

I don't think you can have any loose ends until the story is actually over. Plot threads, maybe. But they still have two issues and a bunch of tie-ins to wrap things up.

[Magneto Rocks]

I have been re-reading the CW and tie-ins while we have had these delays and a couple of things are outstanding.

1. I notice in one of the Iron Man issues, either NA or IM, Stark says he will not survive the CW. Does he already know how it is going to go down? Does he have an exit strategy, knowing his tactics would be exposed and he will have to go underground?

...Nooo, in NA24 he says he MAY not survive.


2. A guy is talking to Norman Osborn in one of the Frontlines. This guy hands Norman a vial and says this will release him from his handlers. Not long later Norman takes out an Atlantian official. There looks to be somebody deliberately sabotaging the TBolts plan, and, fairly happy to let Osborn run around untethered as a loose cannon. My thinking is this guy is an anti-reg, and is probably Fury, who wants to expose the TBolts as criminals, and seeing as Norman himself thinks himself is crazy, Osborn is glad to go along with it. Sort of like a demented road to hell scenario. This is really going to throw the fox among the chickens. If this mystery guy gives the same vial to Bullseye and some other TBolts, the SHRA might go in whole other direction.

Firslty- he won't.
Secondly- that would't change the SHRA. Like, at all
Thirdly- That would do TREMENDOUS harm to the anti-reg cause if it came out, and would certainly be worse than anything Tony has done.

And it's certainly not a loose end, since the series isn't over.

[Psyco panda]

Isn't the entire point of what the anti-regs are doing supposed to show people that heroes can be responsible and safe without government monitoring? This would seriously hurt that claim.

From what i've seen in frontline, i'd almost guess the Atlanteans are behind it, and looking to make an excuse to invade.

[jackolover]

...Nooo, in NA24 he says he MAY not survive.

MAY? Will not survive? What does it matter about the wording? The point is, Stark is pessamistic of his survival, so he either knows he's heading for death, or, the result of final conflict will make Tony an outcast.




Firslty- he won't.
Secondly- that would't change the SHRA. Like, at all
Thirdly- That would do TREMENDOUS harm to the anti-reg cause if it came out, and would certainly be worse than anything Tony has done.

And it's certainly not a loose end, since the series isn't over.

I don't see how anybody will take notice of a ranting Norman Osborn. Would you? No, I think this could spell the death knell of the TBolts, otherwise, what would be the purpose of sabotaging an Atlantian diplomatic mission? (Of cause, Psycho Panda has the answer to that question).

[Magneto Rocks]

MAY? Will not survive? What does it matter about the wording? The point is, Stark is pessamistic of his survival, so he either knows he's heading for death, or, the result of final conflict will make Tony an outcast.

It's a Super Hero Civil War. With some of the most powerful heroes in the world on either side. Which has ALREADY claimed casualties on both sides. Tony is the flagship of one side, their rallying point, their leader. There's OBVIOUSLY a very good chance he won't be coming out alive; it's common sense.

I don't see how anybody will take notice of a ranting Norman Osborn. Would you? No, I think this could spell the death knell of the TBolts, otherwise, what would be the purpose of sabotaging an Atlantian diplomatic mission? (Of cause, Psycho Panda has the answer to that question).

I don't know HOW it would come out, I'm just saying if it was Fury and if it came out it would destory the anti-reg cause because it's worse than anything pro-reg have done.

[superfriend]

I think it's going to be a case like DC is doing saying Infinite Crisis was only the second act.

I think there will be the appearance of the nice guys finishing last and the SHRA will carry forward beyond Civil War and into spin-offs galore but ultimately, I think Civil War will only be like the first or second act of a bigger thing that Marvel will keep doing.

Eventually the SHRA will go away. Just my hunch.

[jackolover]

I I think Civil War will only be like the first or second act of a bigger thing that Marvel will keep doing.

Do you mind elaborating?

[jackolover]

It's a Super Hero Civil War. With some of the most powerful heroes in the world on either side. Which has ALREADY claimed casualties on both sides. Tony is the flagship of one side, their rallying point, their leader. There's OBVIOUSLY a very good chance he won't be coming out alive; it's common sense.

I never took it as fate accomplii that the leaders were a good chance of being the major casualties. That's taking the SHRA far too far. I thought Steve Rogers and Tony Stark would fight the good fight, but to take it to the limit and actually take out the leader? I wouldn't think either of them thought the SHRA was worth that.

[superfriend]

Do you mind elaborating?

I just don't think the SHRA will work as a permanent status quo. If it does, it will have to be defanged. Sort've like Peter revealing his secret ID.

Not all that much has come of that. He's fretted for 40 years about this and the tenets of the importance of an alter ego have been underscored in story after story and then it's undone. These stories are no longer necessary or valid once he's revealed all.

What one would expect is a Pandora's Box effect wherein his enemies come to his residence, work, favorite shopping areas or movie cinemas and hunt him down until he's dead. Sort've like what Bendis did with DD/Matt Murdock reveal (and that was played as unconfirmed rumor in the story).

But having the next 40 years of Spider-Man running and running and running and losing ground to his enduring nemesis and perhaps systematically losing MJ and then Aunt May and then everything he cares about (cause Marvel won't have him kill the villains) seems ill-advised.

But in reality, all they really have to do is not write about it. Nobody has to come after him. Nobody has to be beating down his door. Nobody has to even care.

But that reads as dealing in extremes. To have to write an on the run Peter Parker always trying to be one step ahead of the enemies that hunt him or just dropping it altogether. But what happy medium is left once that reveal is made? Can they revisit those stories where Peter is concerned about his identity being discovered by his enemies? It doesn't seem so. Can they have the villains just give up on the motivation that's been so central to alot of Spider-Man's rogues all this time? They could. It just causes lots of problems.

I think the SHRA is like this. It will be hard to constantly have Iron Man and Captain America at odds. It's not a permanent solution to the next 40 years or beyond. It's got an expiry date.

This is why I think Civil War may be open-ended as far as the resolution of the SHRA but it will have to be addressed and put to bed eventually.

Just a hunch. Any thoughts?

[drwho]

Is the banana man that was in frontline Punisher, or someone else? Who is the traitor? Where is Nick Fury? Who is trying to start a war with the Atlanteans? Who is really in control with shield?

I actually came up with a way to fix this mess some. Just say everyone that was at Stamford were actually clones except the new warriors and the original people were kidnapped and being held in stasis to later reveal this was some evil plan of Apocalypse and no innocent citizens died at Stamford.

[jackolover]

I just don't think the SHRA will work as a permanent status quo. If it does, it will have to be defanged. Sort've like Peter revealing his secret ID.

Not all that much has come of that. He's fretted for 40 years about this and the tenets of the importance of an alter ego have been underscored in story after story and then it's undone. These stories are no longer necessary or valid once he's revealed all.

What one would expect is a Pandora's Box effect wherein his enemies come to his residence, work, favorite shopping areas or movie cinemas and hunt him down until he's dead. Sort've like what Bendis did with DD/Matt Murdock reveal (and that was played as unconfirmed rumor in the story).

But having the next 40 years of Spider-Man running and running and running and losing ground to his enduring nemesis and perhaps systematically losing MJ and then Aunt May and then everything he cares about (cause Marvel won't have him kill the villains) seems ill-advised.

But in reality, all they really have to do is not write about it. Nobody has to come after him. Nobody has to be beating down his door. Nobody has to even care.

But that reads as dealing in extremes. To have to write an on the run Peter Parker always trying to be one step ahead of the enemies that hunt him or just dropping it altogether. But what happy medium is left once that reveal is made? Can they revisit those stories where Peter is concerned about his identity being discovered by his enemies? It doesn't seem so. Can they have the villains just give up on the motivation that's been so central to alot of Spider-Man's rogues all this time? They could. It just causes lots of problems.

I think the SHRA is like this. It will be hard to constantly have Iron Man and Captain America at odds. It's not a permanent solution to the next 40 years or beyond. It's got an expiry date.

This is why I think Civil War may be open-ended as far as the resolution of the SHRA but it will have to be addressed and put to bed eventually.

Just a hunch. Any thoughts?

There are some plot lines for Spidey that could run post-reveal, but it may end with one device, like storing May and MJ in an alternate Universe or something, then he gets along with his life. I mean post-CW, if there isn't going to be winners and loses, they are going to have to address protection for family members. Reed and Sue called MJ and Peter and volenteered assistance if Peter and MJ ever got in trouble, so I think heros are thinking in these terms anyway.

But as to, 'I think Civil War will only be like the first or second act of a bigger thing that Marvel will keep doing', I didn't pick up on what that bigger thing is?

Do you have some vision of what it will be like after CW, superfriend, or is it just these plots can't last for long and Marvel has to get back to heros and villians, because these kinds of conflict stories don't have legs?

I tend to think the CW conflicts have rejuvinated the lines and made them interesting. Making Julia Carpenter an outlaw, Peter, Cap, Wolverine. Even the torment felt by Carol Danvers about putting away her friends Julia and even Jessica Jones-Cage, made her book 10 times better, than ad nauseum fights with people she has no emotional baggage connection too. If they tend to phase out the CW conflicts, I for one will leave again. There is no question, the raw drama involved with beating on people you love and respect, challenges writers to fullfill the reality of it, as against weak, escapist, surface writing that we've had before CW.

I think the editors of Marvel should take note of the attraction and success of the CW conflicts and perpetuate it . That could be what your 'bigger thing' might be, superfriend.

[jackolover]

Is the banana man that was in frontline Punisher, or someone else? Who is the traitor? Where is Nick Fury? Who is trying to start a war with the Atlanteans? Who is really in control with shield?

I actually came up with a way to fix this mess some. Just say everyone that was at Stamford were actually clones except the new warriors and the original people were kidnapped and being held in stasis to later reveal this was some evil plan of Apocalypse and no innocent citizens died at Stamford.

That would be a cop-out. But I don't think it would stop the SHRA from running it's course. The gov have been after the heros for some time, so now that they've started, they are not just going to say - Um, sorry. I guess we made a mistake. We'll take it all back. Please come back, our heros!!!

Too much water under the bridge for SHRA to stop now.

[The Anti-Existence]

Well, the other topic is about CW #7 as a whole and I felt it was necessary for an actual topic on discussing characters now that the fight between Pro and Anti-Reg is over. People have been attacking Tony or Cap all this time...but now that it is actually all wrapped up, we can say what we feel with far more certainty.

Think back over the course of the War.How have your opinions changed or been solidified on the main players in CW?

I'd first like to say I respect Captain America. As anti-climactic as the ending was, it showed that Cap really did care for the people and for the country.

[agrich]

I'm with Cap. And I think he did the right thing at the end.

Tony started out as a reluctant realist who was following the path that entailed working within the system to make an inevitable reality more palatable. He ended as a guy who certainly seemed to be enjoying himself.

I should note that I haven't read many of the tie-ins, so I'm basing this opinion on Civil War proper.

[Jmacq1]

Cap caring for his people and the country is all well and good. But apparently neither Tony nor Cap had the wisdom to figure it out before now. Though of course Cap's side was the one that ended up being portrayed as "wrong" which was no surprise given the fact we knew the Pro-Reg would win a few months ago (if not before the series even began).

Marvel's new motto is apparently: "The ends justify the means!" coupled with "Sacrificing freedom for security is the way to go, kids!"

Tony's portrayal was at least largely in keeping with his past characterization. He often -has- been an "ends justify the means" type.

But Cap was generally just angry and bitter for most of the main series. He never had a clear plan for changing the law, and ultimately accomplished nothing. If Marvel's goal was to destroy Cap's credibility as a leader, they pretty much succeeded. Up until the very end, we got to see the absolute worst in Cap. Now my fear is that this is only the beginning, and it's only going to get worse from here, as far as Cap is concerned.

They've pretty much taken away everything that made Cap who he was at this point. He's no longer the best leader, he's no longer the guy that never gives up, and he's no longer the hero that everyone looks up to. Did Captain America really have to "die" to create "nu-Marvel?"

Nevermind that Spider-Man gets to look like an idiot for switching sides now, too.

[IamtheRock3]

yea Cap was pretty wreckless near the end, Dropping the guys over the city. He didnt plan for an ocean or anything. Or after that they could of made a run for it


And other then PUNCHING something, he had no real plan to stop the war

He only gain some props in knowing when to stop fighting. sense there not going to stop hunting them


Iron man might look good sense the Public unnamoious seem for anything he does. Also so far no Villans have Really taken Advatage of this, no one escape from the Jail FOR NOW.

So the idea for the thing may seem right. So he might be right in that Regard. Still can forgive for what he did on a road to it. Think he Evil

Reed- COMPLETE SOCIOPATH


So basicly made me hate the 3 charcters

[Red Lotus]

I kind of feel like Cap has been tarnished. It felt more like a broken man then anything else. Turning his self in was ok. But how it went down just felt like Steve after seeing what he has done just didn't have the spirit to be Captain America anymore. For some heroes a broken spirit is worse then death. Maybe Cap should give Penance a call.

[agrich]

The case I'd make for Cap is that he gave up the battle but not the war. That it was only here that he realized how strongly "Pro" the public was. And that there was no point in beating Iron Man and his team if he couldn't win the public over.

He gave up a senseless fight that wasn't going to achieve what needed to be achieved, that's all.

Marvel's new motto is apparently: "The ends justify the means!" coupled with "Sacrificing freedom for security is the way to go, kids!"


I don't understand why you say this. The mere fact that Iron Man's side WON doesn't mean they're RIGHT, and it doesn't mean Marvel is saying they're right. I still think they're wrong, all the heroes who sided with Cap presumably still think they're wrong, I'd like to think all the Marvel readers who felt they were wrong still feel they were wrong.

All that happened is that those who think they're wrong are going to have to prove it to the people in some other way besides a slugfest in downtown Manhattan.

[Samuraixsithlord]

I think that this is all going to come back and bite the Marvel universe on its act. making super heroes agents of SHIELD and eveything that Stark and the pro-side fought for looks good at the time. But It will eventually be corrupted by the super rich and the power mongers (the republicans) into their own little secret police. I'm sure Ms. Marvel and the Avengers are ok with fighting monsters, but when the government sends them in to some foreign country to install an american friendly government, or has them arrest protesters as class 3 terrorists, i'd like to see what they say then


Hmmm maybe Cap was right?

[cernunnos]

Does anyone else think that when Cap surrendered, he was portrayed much like Robert E. Lee at Appomattox?

[XPac]

I think that this is all going to come back and bite the Marvel universe on its act. making super heroes agents of SHIELD and eveything that Stark and the pro-side fought for looks good at the time. But It will eventually be corrupted by the super rich and the power mongers (the republicans) into their own little secret police. I'm sure Ms. Marvel and the Avengers are ok with fighting monsters, but when the government sends them in to some foreign country to install an american friendly government, or has them arrest protesters as class 3 terrorists, i'd like to see what they say then


Hmmm maybe Cap was right?

I've argued this before... but I always considered Cap, Spidey, and Ben Grimm the conscience of the MU. If all 3 feel the registration is a mistake, the I think Marvel deep believes that as well, even they don't admit it.

But they're doing in anyway because storywise they'll get more mileage out of the mistake.

[XPac]

yea Cap was pretty wreckless near the end, Dropping the guys over the city. He didnt plan for an ocean or anything. Or after that they could of made a run for it




In all fairness, I'm not sure Cap should take any credit of that. That seemed to be a call made by Panther and Dagger on the fly. I don't think it's a situation Cap knew about ahead of time, nor do I think they had time or opportunity to consult Cap about it.

[Alpow]

I don't understand why you say this. The mere fact that Iron Man's side WON doesn't mean they're RIGHT, and it doesn't mean Marvel is saying they're right.

Millar thinks that though and I think he was rather heavy handed in putting that across in the book.

We could have had Cap losing but looking like the good guy (although stopping the war would have been difficult in that instance) but what we got was Cap giving up and several pages about how great the new America will be because they have registration(and how the MU populace were saints to allow the wild west situation for as long as they did).

[Camron Amaya]

Everything so far has been pointless pretty much now.

I think they could've realized beating them up won't change the law long ago, and came up with a better plan.

[XPac]

Millar thinks that though and I think he was rather heavy handed in putting that across in the book.

We could have had Cap losing but looking like the good guy (although stopping the war would have been difficult in that instance) but what we got was Cap giving up and several pages about how great the new America will be because they have registration(and how the MU populace were saints to allow the wild west situation for as long as they did).

I will agree that I don't believe Millar did a good job offering a balanced ending. Cap's side looked pretty bad, while Tonys obviously came off smelling like roses.

Not sure how that reflects on Millars view of things... but that's certainly how he wrote it.

That being said, I still believe Marvel will be spending the next few months if not YEARS showing how WRONG a lot of things Tony and company were and how it'll come back to bite them in the @$$. The way things are being set up now, there's nowhere to go but DOWN for them.

[sodapop]

Iron Man ,and most of America, felt that untrained super-powered civilians were dangerous. Captain America said: No we’re not, and to prove it we’re going to become criminals, and start a war.

Later, he looks at the damage created and then said "Oh my God. They're right..

[agrich]

Millar thinks that though and I think he was rather heavy handed in putting that across in the book.

We could have had Cap losing but looking like the good guy (although stopping the war would have been difficult in that instance) but what we got was Cap giving up and several pages about how great the new America will be because they have registration(and how the MU populace were saints to allow the wild west situation for as long as they did).

Well, my reading of that was entirely different than yours.

I took those pages of Reed saying how great the new America would be as being IRONIC -- because Reed throughout the series was painted as being a clueless, heartless, and soulless idiot. In my opinion.

If you think we were actually supposed to feel a sense of triumph during those last few pages, all I can say is that I believe you interpreted it incorrectly. To me it looks like new fascism, and we're not supposed to be happy about it -- but very afraid.

Personally, I DO think Cap came off looking like a hero -- for putting an end to a senseless battle when he realized it wasn't going to do what the anti-reg side had to do: win over the public. He took the fall, those who sided with him got amnesty, and he's going to have to find a new way to convince those who weren't on his side what a bad thing the SHRA is.

[tavella]

Everything so far has been pointless pretty much now.

I think they could've realized beating them up won't change the law long ago, and came up with a better plan.

That's really the problem; there's a central incoherence as to what the plan was. I don't think Millar really groks Cap, at least not the 616 version, and couldn't really come up with a sensible reason for him to jump to armed rebellion. So he elided over those critical steps where Cap lands the plane, and calls up the Avengers or whoever and says "WTF? Why did Maria Hill just try to shoot me?" Instead we jump to everyone, _including Cap_, apparently agreeing that Hill indeed had the legal right to shoot someone _not under military command_ over refusing to _enforce_ (not submit to) a _law that hadn't passed yet_.

[Phrozen]

Does anyone else think that when Cap surrendered, he was portrayed much like Robert E. Lee at Appomattox?

Lee didn't get thrown in jail at the end of the war. He went on to become a university president.

[bulbasteve]

I took those pages of Reed saying how great the new America would be as being IRONIC -- because Reed throughout the series was painted as being a clueless, heartless, and soulless idiot. In my opinion.

If he was being ironic why mention world poverty and climate change? That is like the least fascist things possible to mention if they were portraying it in a bad light.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Captain America giving up is never a good sight to see in a comic book. He had the thing won. Tony was beaten. Just because some NY citizens grabs him doesn't mean that he had to fall before the system. It's a JOKE to see Captain America in jail.

As for Tony Stark? He's gonna have to take a fall at some point. Whether it's the Hulk or Sinister's big move later this year, he needs to come down a few pegs. Enough is enough.

[roundman]

If he was being ironic why mention world poverty and climate change? That is like the least fascist things possible to mention if they were portraying it in a bad light.

You're not familiar with the history of Fascism. Believe it or not, the Nazis regularly campaigned against poverty (German poverty, that is). They also had a significant green streak, and they proposed some cutting edge positions on environmentalism.

[bulbasteve]

You're not familiar with the history of Fascism. Believe it or not, the Nazis regularly campaigned against poverty (German poverty, that is). They also had a significant green streak, and they proposed some cutting edge positions on environmentalism.

That's a good point, but this seems more than just proposing though. Granted Time made me the person of the year so they aren't a very good standard but they gave it to Hank Pym and even Panther was in on it...he has a pretty big anti-american streak wouldn't you say? It would take a lot more than empy promises to get him to shake hands with pro-regs.

[roundman]

That's a good point, but this seems more than just proposing though. Granted Time made me the person of the year so they aren't a very good standard but they gave it to Hank Pym and even Panther was in on it...he has a pretty big anti-american streak wouldn't you say? It would take a lot more than empy promises to get him to shake hands with pro-regs.

I'm not saying that they were just empty promises. The Nazis were genuinely concerned with the environment, and most likely would have carried out their environmental programs had they won the war. They lost, so they couldn't carry them out. Hank's side won, and apparently they were able to put some of their environmental plans into action.

What I'm trying to say is this: Even Fascist governments can have some "good" or "progressive" policies. You can't just point to one good policy and say "Look, that government is implementing that good idea. Therefore, they can't possibly be Fascist."

[XPac]

I'm not saying that they were just empty promises. The Nazis were genuinely concerned with the environment, and most likely would have carried out their environmental programs had they won the war. They lost, so they couldn't carry them out. Hank's side won, and apparently they were able to put some of their environmental plans into action.

What I'm trying to say is this: Even Fascist governments can have some "good" or "progressive" policies. You can't just point to one good policy and say "Look, that government is implementing that good idea. Therefore, they can't possibly be Fascist."

Truthfully I think Fascist can exectue that sort of stuff more quickly and efficiently. Dictators deal less with politics and red tape. When they see a need, they can address it quickly and without opposition.

In his own way, Dr. Doom make the world a paradise when he conquered it in Emperor Doom. THat's an extreme comic example... but nonetheless good can come out of what we perceive as horribly unjust potitical models.

[Knightmare]

Captain American didn't give up. He didn't even say Ironman was right. That's also a very narrow minded view for either side to have been "right."

The huge panel with New York covered in war, heroes laying on the ground. The flames on the building. Yes, Captain America did have this "war" won. But look what winning was costing him. Steve saw this and he didn't say it wasn't worth it. But he realized this wasn't about the people anymore. This was about them. And it shouldn't have been.

He didn't quit. He simply decided that this war had to end. And he ended it. And I think he came off as more of a hero because of it.

Personally, I'm interested in seeing if the scene where Punisher was holding Caps mask grows into anything.

[bulbasteve]

I'm not saying that they were just empty promises. The Nazis were genuinely concerned with the environment, and most likely would have carried out their environmental programs had they won the war. They lost, so they couldn't carry them out. Hank's side won, and apparently they were able to put some of their environmental plans into action.

What I'm trying to say is this: Even Fascist governments can have some "good" or "progressive" policies. You can't just point to one good policy and say "Look, that government is implementing that good idea. Therefore, they can't possibly be Fascist."

The person I was quoting was talking about the authors intention. If you are going to portray a group as fascist you simply are NOT going to use those things, you will agree to that won't you? Regardless of what is theoretically possible in any political system...

Of course we could get really poli sci and diffentiating Nazism from Fascism but I think we are really starting to split hairs here...

[Drakonnen]

I know Tony Stark is a womanizer, but did he really need to be hitting on the still-grieving mother on the final page of Civil War 7, giving her that look, calling her Sweetheart and saying the best is yet to come?

I guess the ends of getting in her pants justify the means of exploiting her grief and proping himself of as her knight in shining armor via the Civil War, eh Tony?

[Jmacq1]

Captain American didn't give up. He didn't even say Ironman was right. That's also a very narrow minded view for either side to have been "right."

The huge panel with New York covered in war, heroes laying on the ground. The flames on the building. Yes, Captain America did have this "war" won. But look what winning was costing him. Steve saw this and he didn't say it wasn't worth it. But he realized this wasn't about the people anymore. This was about them. And it shouldn't have been.

He didn't quit. He simply decided that this war had to end. And he ended it. And I think he came off as more of a hero because of it.

Personally, I'm interested in seeing if the scene where Punisher was holding Caps mask grows into anything.

Sorry, I don't see things this way. Cap putting an end to the fighting is one thing, but giving up his mask and submitting himself to imprisonment is basically handing the Pro-Reg side all the legitimacy (in the minds of most of the heroes) that it needs. Cap may not have become Pro-Reg precisely, but ultimately his actions showed that he ended up believing they were more "right" than "wrong." Otherwise he'd just take his pardon, get his license, and hop right back into the superhero thing, or conversely would have put an end to the fight and then escaped to carry out whatever non-plan he had from a different angle. Instead, he's a broken man, giving up the Captain America identity for the fourth time. Couldn't Marvel have come up with a different shtick? We've seen this song and dance before....(Nomad, "The Captain", "Man Without A Country")

Ultimately this just reinforces what a lot of people have been saying all along: Cap has been portrayed as nothing but an angry man lashing out at the system. He didn't really have any plan, had no effective way of fighting the law, and basically Marvel's trying to portray him as the "villain" of Civil War. They've completed the transformation they started in "New Avengers": Captain America is no longer the "great leader" nor the "ideal." Marvel's new motto is: "Trading freedom for security is the way to go, kids!" coupled with "The ends justify the means!" (At least for the time being).

At this point, I'm expecting that "World War Hulk" ends with Tony lecturing all Earth's heroes that the destruction the Hulk just caused just proves that the Illuminati were right to launch him into space in the first place.

[Jmacq1]

I know Tony Stark is a womanizer, but did he really need to be hitting on the still-grieving mother on the final page of Civil War 7, giving her that look, calling her Sweetheart and saying the best is yet to come?

I guess the ends of getting in her pants justify the means of exploiting her grief and proping himself of as her knight in shining armor via the Civil War, eh Tony?


Yeah, that whole epilogue was jarring, particularly in terms of Tony's suddenly-sunny outlook. It just seemed really "off" that Tony goes from "weight of the world on his shoulders" to "happy go lucky playboy" as soon as Cap surrenders and he gets put in charge of SHIELD. You'd think he'd be taking things a little more seriously. Maybe he's not as "changed" as he thinks he is.

And I'm sorry, but Maria Hill fetching coffee was just wrong. After their little bonding session in New Avengers #25, you'd think they would've come to some kind of understanding.

[agrich]

If he was being ironic why mention world poverty and climate change? That is like the least fascist things possible to mention if they were portraying it in a bad light.

Certainly there was some good in Reed's breakdown of the new reality. But the overall tone showed a clinical, detached view that was oblivious to the problems and certainly not entirely sympathetic. The murderous Clor, for example, is referred to as a "painful thing we had to do to achieve respectability." Do you think we're supposed to agree with Reed on that? I don't.

I guess the point is, do you think we're supposed to read those pages and feel a sense of triumph or victory at how wonderful the world is? I don't. I think we're supposed to see how wonderful REED thinks it is, but Reed -- as a detached, emotionless scientist -- hasn't been a sympathetic character throughout the series. Basically I just don't see any hero there, just someone who shrugs off Cap being in jail and Bill Foster being dead as the result of "painful things that had to be done."

And I'm sorry, but Maria Hill fetching coffee was just wrong. After their little bonding session in New Avengers #25, you'd think they would've come to some kind of understanding.

I'm hoping that Tony was kidding there, and her glare was more disgust with his sense of humor. But maybe not. If he was serious, I'd take it as just another example of the implication that although Tony and Co. are the WINNERS, they're not the good guys.

[Pro]

Marvel's new motto is apparently: "The ends justify the means!"

I don't get how you read that into it. If anything cap's surrender shows that he does NOT believe the ends justify the means whereas the proside who use clones, experiments on humans to make them metahumans, imprisons heroes merely because they don't divulge their identity obviously do believe the end justifies the means.

The fact the Pro side won the war doesn't mean they are right, they merely won the war. To use the tired old nazi parallel i don't think most people would agree that the nazis would be morally right had they won the war. Victory and morality don't go hand in hand, they are two separate issues alltogether. Cap's surrender was the right thing to do despite the fact that i still believe the SHRA damages the superhero community more than it does good. I also understand the Pro side's arguments but their policy of "the end justifies the means" is exactly what corrupts their moral standpoint and will in the end likely corrupt their masterplan. They turned superhuman volunteers into bureacrats and bureacracies are very prone to corruption. The Thunderbolts book underlines this. So no, i don't see how you come to the conlcusions you made.

No we’re not, and to prove it we’re going to become criminals, and start a war.

Following that logic the american rebels in the 18th century were criminals for opposing english rule, the french population were crminals for opposing their tyrant king during the french revolution and the dutch for opposing the spanjards. Things just aren't as black and white as some make them out to be. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe is right and sometimes you have to back down when your means tarnish the ideals you fight for.

[Jmacq1]

I don't get how you read that into it. If anything cap's surrender shows that he does NOT believe the ends justify the means whereas the proside who use clones, experiments on humans to make them metahumans, imprisons heroes merely because they don't divulge their identity obviously do believe the end justifies the means.

The fact the Pro side won the war doesn't mean they are right, they merely won the war. To use the tired old nazi parallel i don't think most people would agree that the nazis would be morally right had they won the war. Victory and morality don't go hand in hand, they are two separate issues alltogether. Cap's surrender was the right thing to do despite the fact that i still believe the SHRA damages the superhero community more than it does good. I also understand the Pro side's arguments but their policy of "the end justifies the means" is exactly what corrupts their moral standpoint and will in the end likely corrupt their masterplan. They turned superhuman volunteers into bureacrats and bureacracies are very prone to corruption. The Thunderbolts book underlines this. So no, i don't see how you come to the conlcusions you made.

Uh...did you just skip those last few pages of the book? You know, the ones where everything is shiny and happy, and the world is marching towards its' utopian future because Reed and Tony were right all along?

If you did, you sure must've seen them differently than I did. Looked a whole lot like Millar/Marvel pointing their fingers at all the Anti-Reg readers and going "See how stupid you were for supporting Cap's side? We told you Tony and Reed had it all figured out but you didn't believe us. Haw Haw!"

Basically, it looked to me like it was supposed to be the grand "vindication" of the Pro-Reg side that Tom Brevoort and Millar and Quesada had been hinting about since about issue #2 of the series. Remember when they kept telling us that we'd see them in a different light after the end of the series?

I don't know how successful they were at changing peoples' minds, but it seems to me that was definitely the intent of Cap's surrender and the jarringly bright and hopeful "epilogue."

[sodapop]

What part of Captain America realizing he was wrong did so many people miss? He had it won, then realized that what he was doing was wrong. He allowed himself to be arrested because he knew he was acting like a criminal.

True change needs to come from within the system. When you attack it, you run the risk of destroying it. At the end Cap realized the futility of his crusade.

[agrich]

Uh...did you just skip those last few pages of the book? You know, the ones where everything is shiny and happy, and the world is marching towards its' utopian future because Reed and Tony were right all along?

If you did, you sure must've seen them differently than I did. Looked a whole lot like Millar/Marvel pointing their fingers at all the Anti-Reg readers and going "See how stupid you were for supporting Cap's side? We told you Tony and Reed had it all figured out but you didn't believe us. Haw Haw!"


I at least did see them a lot differently than you did, as I've posted here and in another thread I think.

No, I do NOT think we're supposed to think Reed is right all along when he calls the murderous Clor one of the "painful steps we had to make." I DEFINITELY don't think we're supposed to think that employing supervillains like Bullseye is part of any utopian future. Do you? If so, then you're right, I saw it a whole lot differently than you did.

Sure, REED and TONY's view of everything is shiny and happy. But does this mean we're supposed to think Luke Cage's New Avengers team is a bunch of foolish losers, while Norman Osborn's Thunderbolts are part of some grand new world order?

I didn't skip those last few pages, but I definitely didn't see them as Millar saying readers who supported the anti-reg side were stupid. I saw them as him saying Welcome to the new fascism, where roguish businessmen (Stark) and scientists (Reed) can shrug off things like the Thunderbolts and Clor while building their utopian ideals. Enjoy!

You call the ending "jarringly bright." Doesn't that alone suggest we're maybe not supposed to take it entirely seriously as such a wonderful thing? It certainly does to me.

[Jmacq1]

I at least did see them a lot differently than you did, as I've posted here and in another thread I think.

No, I do NOT think we're supposed to think Reed is right all along when he calls the murderous Clor one of the "painful steps we had to make." I DEFINITELY don't think we're supposed to think that employing supervillains like Bullseye is part of any utopian future. Do you? If so, then you're right, I saw it a whole lot differently than you did.

Sure, REED and TONY's view of everything is shiny and happy. But does this mean we're supposed to think Luke Cage's New Avengers team is a bunch of foolish losers, while Norman Osborn's Thunderbolts are part of some grand new world order?

I didn't skip those last few pages, but I definitely didn't see them as Millar saying readers who supported the anti-reg side were stupid. I saw them as him saying Welcome to the new fascism, where roguish businessmen (Stark) and scientists (Reed) can shrug off things like the Thunderbolts and Clor while building their utopian ideals. Enjoy!

You call the ending "jarringly bright." Doesn't that alone suggest we're maybe not supposed to take it entirely seriously as such a wonderful thing? It certainly does to me.


Not when it's backed up by a plethora of writer and editor quotes stating that the Pro-Reg would be vindicated and/or that they Pro-Reg was the right side all along.

I can see how one could interpret those pages they way you have, certainly. I'm just doubtful that was the intent behind them. Comics aren't known for the levels of subtlety that you're ascribing to them here. Much less comics written by Mark Millar.

But I could definitely see that there's room for discussion either way.

[Pro]

You know, the ones where everything is shiny and happy, and the world is marching towards its' utopian future because Reed and Tony were right all along?

You know perfectly well that Reed and Tony's utopia will never come to pass so really how can it be anything other than a moment of quiet before the whole cardhouse crumbles? It shows that Reed and Tony believe their masterplan has accomplished what they set out to do but do you honestly believe that it will? What it does show is an opinion, Reed and Tony's opinion. It is adequately countered by other events such as the creation of the new Thunderbolts, a bunch of criminals hunting down volunteers who risk their lives on a daily basis. How exactly do they fit in with this supposed utopia you claim the writer wants us to believe in? It's not all roses and butterflies but that is what Reed and Tony believe at the moment. They believe they've proven that they did the right thing.
It's not the writer rubbing our noses in it, it is a onesided perspective on the events, Reed and Tony's perspective. I doubt it should be read as the writer's confirmation that they were actually right. How could it when as readers we know perfectly well it's not going to be utopian marvel from here on?

[Machinedude]

And they all lived happily ever after!.........Untill the next story comes out!

Giving a happy ending to any story is practicaly a must in story telling. You need to give some type of closure for the reader so that they don't feel like they wasted time reading the story in the first place. Millar chose the "everything is looking up" aproach alltho we aready know that's not going to happen with World War Hulk and other events coming up!

[Pro]

the jarringly bright and hopeful "epilogue."

World war I was louded as the war to end all wars. After the war was won people were hopefull that there would never be war on that scale ever again. 20 years later the nazis gassed 6 million jews, Stalin killed 10 million russians, the japaense killed and enslaved thousands of people and eventually they in turn were nuked. So much for a happy epilogue to world war I ..

[XPac]

Not when it's backed up by a plethora of writer and editor quotes stating that the Pro-Reg would be vindicated and/or that they Pro-Reg was the right side all along.

I can see how one could interpret those pages they way you have, certainly. I'm just doubtful that was the intent behind them. Comics aren't known for the levels of subtlety that you're ascribing to them here. Much less comics written by Mark Millar.

But I could definitely see that there's room for discussion either way.

I do recall some statements saying we would see where the PROs were coming from, but I don't recall any saying the PROs were right all along. Where were those. Do you have links?

Cause I sort of assumed marvel was shying away from saying who was right or wrong.

[XPac]

You know perfectly well that Reed and Tony's utopia will never come to pass so really how can it be anything other than a moment of quiet before the whole cardhouse crumbles? It shows that Reed and Tony believe their masterplan has accomplished what they set out to do but do you honestly believe that it will? What it does show is an opinion, Reed and Tony's opinion. It is adequately countered by other events such as the creation of the new Thunderbolts, a bunch of criminals hunting down volunteers who risk their lives on a daily basis. How exactly do they fit in with this supposed utopia you claim the writer wants us to believe in? It's not all roses and butterflies but that is what Reed and Tony believe at the moment. They believe they've proven that they did the right thing.
It's not the writer rubbing our noses in it, it is a onesided perspective on the events, Reed and Tony's perspective. I doubt it should be read as the writer's confirmation that they were actually right. How could it when as readers we know perfectly well it's not going to be utopian marvel from here on?


Franky, it's almost a given to me that when government (anyone for that matter) tries to bring about utopia, they end up being the badguys. And they end up failing.

Though not identical, it almost reminded me a bit of Squadron Supreme.

[Jmacq1]

They didn't state it in so many words. But Millar kept saying from the get-go that he was Pro-Reg (basically). And every single statement Tom Brevoort gave in his Q&A thread was almost -always- slanted in favor of the Pro-Reg side (which was another failing of the main story anyhow: You shouldn't have to go to an online Q&A thread to have an editor explain why the Pro-Reg aren't horrible villains).

Also, given that we see members of the Thunderbolts being herded back to the Negative Zone prison, it seems like Millar was pretty much ignoring "New Thunderbolts."

Besides, as the pro-reg posters have been happy to point out, the New Thunderbolts are perfectly hunky-dory 'cause they've got those nanites controlling them. And the Marvel public adores them so much that they get their own action figures.

I know the Marvel Universe -isn't- going to be sunshine and roses from here on out, because we all know if Reed and Tony's utopian future comes to pass, there really won't be much in the way of stories to tell.

But my concern is that the Initiative/SHRA isn't going to fall apart because of any flaw in Tony and Reed's reasoning and morality, but simply because of outside forces working against it (IE the Hulk). If Tony and Reed don't get painted as "wrong" at some point in the future, and/or the SHRA/Initiative isn't destroyed by its' own internal flaws and weaknesses, then it's tacit confirmation by Marvel that they were "right" and someone/everyone else just mucked it up despite their best efforts.

And once again, everyone assumes that "World War Hulk" will be undoing everything "Civil War" brought about. I personally don't think it's going to go down the way people think it will (particularly because it's already confirmed as a much smaller series/crossover). I'm finding it more likely that World War Hulk will be what cements the Initiative as the future of the Marvel Universe for the forseeable future (IE at least the next couple years).

[myslead]

Civil War was Captain America's Vietnam.

[XPac]

They didn't state it in so many words. But Millar kept saying from the get-go that he was Pro-Reg (basically). And every single statement Tom Brevoort gave in his Q&A thread was almost -always- slanted in favor of the Pro-Reg side (which was another failing of the main story anyhow: You shouldn't have to go to an online Q&A thread to have an editor explain why the Pro-Reg aren't horrible villains).

Also, given that we see members of the Thunderbolts being herded back to the Negative Zone prison, it seems like Millar was pretty much ignoring "New Thunderbolts."

Besides, as the pro-reg posters have been happy to point out, the New Thunderbolts are perfectly hunky-dory 'cause they've got those nanites controlling them. And the Marvel public adores them so much that they get their own action figures.

I know the Marvel Universe -isn't- going to be sunshine and roses from here on out, because we all know if Reed and Tony's utopian future comes to pass, there really won't be much in the way of stories to tell.

But my concern is that the Initiative/SHRA isn't going to fall apart because of any flaw in Tony and Reed's reasoning and morality, but simply because of outside forces working against it (IE the Hulk). If Tony and Reed don't get painted as "wrong" at some point in the future, and/or the SHRA/Initiative isn't destroyed by its' own internal flaws and weaknesses, then it's tacit confirmation by Marvel that they were "right" and someone/everyone else just mucked it up despite their best efforts.

And once again, everyone assumes that "World War Hulk" will be undoing everything "Civil War" brought about. I personally don't think it's going to go down the way people think it will (particularly because it's already confirmed as a much smaller series/crossover). I'm finding it more likely that World War Hulk will be what cements the Initiative as the future of the Marvel Universe for the forseeable future (IE at least the next couple years).


I kind of assumed Breevorts threads were almost always pro slanted because he was responding to posts that were almost always anti slanted. If the posts he was responding to were all pro slanted, I kind of assumed his responses would be the other way around. Though I suppose that's just speculation on my part.

Millar didn't ignore New Thunderbolts. The Thunderbolts that were being put in jail were the ones that Ellis isn't using (Lady Deathstrike and Taskmaster). As for the TBolts... perfectly hunky dory wouldn't be the description I personally would use to describe them after reading the first 2 issues. In fact I'd love to see the look on Warren Ellis face if he found out that's how some pro fans were describing the way his team was acting.

As for whether or not things fall apart and why, I guess we'll have to wait and see. My perspective is this... Civil War was a story where BOTH sides ended up acting wrong. At the end of Civil War, Cap saw his mistakes and admitted them and is paying for them. Whereas Tony on the other hand won the war and was given all the power he could hope for. Kharmically speaking... Tony didn't pay for his mistakes, he benefit from them. And that's why narratively speaking I think he's building a house of cards that will eventually topple because of the way he built it.

Or at least that's my interpetation... we'll see.

[myslead]

I kind of assumed Breevorts threads were almost always pro slanted because he was responding to posts that were almost always anti slanted. If the posts he was responding to were all pro slanted, I kind of assumed his responses would be the other way around. Though I suppose that's just speculation on my part.

Millar didn't ignore New Thunderbolts. The Thunderbolts that were being put in jail were the ones that Ellis isn't using (Lady Deathstrike and Taskmaster). As for the TBolts... perfectly hunky dory wouldn't be the description I personally would use to describe them after reading the first 2 issues. In fact I'd love to see the look on Warren Ellis face if he found out that's how some pro fans were describing the way his team was acting.

As for whether or not things fall apart and why, I guess we'll have to wait and see. My perspective is this... Civil War was a story where BOTH sides ended up acting wrong. At the end of Civil War, Cap saw his mistakes and admitted them and is paying for them. Whereas Tony on the other hand won the war and was given all the power he could hope for. Kharmically speaking... Tony didn't pay for his mistakes, he benefit from them. And that's why narratively speaking I think he's building a house of cards that will eventually topple because of the way he built it.

Or at least that's my interpetation... we'll see.

exactly, because you know what they say, what we launch in space, comes back angrier than ever ... or something like that :x

[XPac]

exactly, because you know what they say, what we launch in space, comes back angrier than ever ... or something like that :x

Yeah... more times than not, launching Hulk into space will come back to haunt you. Jen I imagine will have a little something to say about that too.

And I'll wager the rest of the hero community find out about the Illuminati Tony and Reed among others will have a few issues there too.

And as we've seen in Fantastic Four, Reed has an entire agenda that Tony doesn't even know about. Is he going to completely abandon that to get his wife back? I don't know... he impled he would cut the shady stuff in that letter, but if he geniunely believes he needs to commit these 30 attrocities to save the world then he might do them anyway.

As bright and shiney as the registration looks now, we can already see tiny cracks here and there. Cracks not from outside forces, but from their own actions.

[Jmacq1]

I kind of assumed Breevorts threads were almost always pro slanted because he was responding to posts that were almost always anti slanted. If the posts he was responding to were all pro slanted, I kind of assumed his responses would be the other way around. Though I suppose that's just speculation on my part.

Millar didn't ignore New Thunderbolts. The Thunderbolts that were being put in jail were the ones that Ellis isn't using (Lady Deathstrike and Taskmaster). As for the TBolts... perfectly hunky dory wouldn't be the description I personally would use to describe them after reading the first 2 issues. In fact I'd love to see the look on Warren Ellis face if he found out that's how some pro fans were describing the way his team was acting.

As for whether or not things fall apart and why, I guess we'll have to wait and see. My perspective is this... Civil War was a story where BOTH sides ended up acting wrong. At the end of Civil War, Cap saw his mistakes and admitted them and is paying for them. Whereas Tony on the other hand won the war and was given all the power he could hope for. Kharmically speaking... Tony didn't pay for his mistakes, he benefit from them. And that's why narratively speaking I think he's building a house of cards that will eventually topple because of the way he built it.

Or at least that's my interpetation... we'll see.

Once again, you assume Marvel's intent is that Tony did make mistakes rather than "they looked like mistakes but because it was all for the greater good, they weren't really. After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and sometimes you have to give up some of your liberty to have greater security." After all, Millar/Marvel seems to be making a point of stating that every thing readers find controversial (The Negative Zone Prison, the Thunderbolts, etc...) is embraced wholeheartedly by the MU public.

At this point, Tony's actions are accomplishing everything he set out to do: Winning back the public's trust, giving him the opportunity to continue his and Reed's "list" and generally making him the most powerful superhero on MU Earth in terms of influence. As I said before, if the Pro-Reg side is so "flawed" (or that was the intent of Marvel's writers) it should have been foreshadowed in the epilogue. The story should have ended with much more uncertainty, rather than the shiny "the best is yet to come" ending. I just don't think Millar is subtle enough to be trying to show us the cracks and flaws in the armor in the manner Agrich described.

I'm not talking about so much what will happen, as intent from the writers. By my interpretation, the epilogue of Civil War's intent was to convince readers that ultimately the Pro-Reg side was the right one, hence their "victory". Thus assuring them that "Yes, you should still read our comics even if you weren't rooting for this side! They're not such bad guys! Buy Avengers: The Initiative on sale (whenever)! ;)

[isaaklown]

Ok after having a full twenty four hours to think about this... this is what I've come up with.

Civil War truly showed what Mark Millar's opinion of current day politics is. There are so many connections and similarities with current day situations it's ridiculous. The ultimate message he tried to put through was "hitting things doesn't fix them" and then to have Captain America, the symbol of patriotism... SURRENDER to the Registration side? That was simply Mark Millar saying that that if America wants to succeed we need to surrender our pride (patriotism).

Ok off that rant because it will probably open a can of worms.

As for the actual story. I believe it ended the only way it could end making both main characters look like heroes. In that ending there was no bad guy, but there was a definite winner. It was written very well and it still leaves the ending open to discussion (like we're doing right now). That's the true test of a good comic story... how much discussion can come out of it... and how entertaining it was to read.

I was throughly entertained. I do want to see if anything comes of Punisher grabbing Cap's mask. I want to see what Reed and Sue do to try and patch up their marriage. I'm not quite sure if I want to see what Tony does as leader of SHIELD, unless it's in the Mighty Avengers or the New Avengers. I want to see what happens with Captain America in jail. I want to know how Peter handles watching his idol, who will "never give up" (according to ASM 538), giving up to the "enemy."

So as of now, my pull list post-civil war will be:

The Mighty Avengers
The New Avengers
Captain America
Fantastic Four
Amazing Spider-man
Wolverine
Moon Knight
and of course the last little bit of Civil War stuff: Confessions, Fallen Son, etc.

[XPac]

After all, Millar/Marvel seems to be making a point of stating that every thing readers find controversial (The Negative Zone Prison, the Thunderbolts, etc...) is embraced wholeheartedly by the MU public.



Did you see the Revenge of the Sith? "So this is how liberty dies- with thunderous applause."

Once upon a time slavery and Japanesse internment camps had public support too. Not saying the registration is just as bad... just saying that the public can really really really be stupid.

That was the commentary I get from public support of the Negative Zone prison and the Thunderbolts. And I think you can even make parallels between the public support Bush got in 9/11 to this as well (not trying to add my own beliefs, just arguing that I think to some degree there was an intentional parallel there).

Something is wrong when the public are supportive of Venom and Bullseye while distrustful of Captain America.

That's why watching the end of this story for me was so errie. The very things that I found an abomination about the registration were being cheered. I seriously got a Squadron Supreme vibe off of that... but it wasn't an alternate reality or a what if. This was the 616 universe.

[agrich]

The ultimate message he tried to put through was "hitting things doesn't fix them" and then to have Captain America, the symbol of patriotism... SURRENDER to the Registration side? That was simply Mark Millar saying that that if America wants to succeed we need to surrender our pride (patriotism).

I'm going to suggest that Millar is presenting a slightly different message. If we can agree that Captain America is the heart and soul of the best of what America has to offer, the message is that America has turned its back on that, with the government (and the public) fighting his ideals, jailing him, and turning its back on him in favor of a soulless, unemotional new world where businessmen and heartless scientists carry the day.

I guess I'm giving Millar a little more credit for subtlety than some are, but to me it's clear that Captain America surrendered because he'd lost the public -- lost the America he was fighting for. It doesn't mean his ideals were wrong; it's a cynical observation that the bad guys are winning/have won.

[XPac]

I'm going to suggest that Millar is presenting a slightly different message. If we can agree that Captain America is the heart and soul of the best of what America has to offer, the message is that America has turned its back on that, with the government (and the public) fighting his ideals, jailing him, and turning its back on him in favor of a soulless, unemotional new world where businessmen and heartless scientists carry the day.

I guess I'm giving Millar a little more credit for subtlety than some are, but to me it's clear that Captain America surrendered because he'd lost the public -- lost the America he was fighting for. It doesn't mean his ideals were wrong; it's a cynical observation that the bad guys are winning/have won.

I agree.

Cap and Tony, though both heroes, represent very different ideals. And american has (at least in the MU) has clearly choosen one set of ideals over another.

This is not longer Steves America... it's Tony. It's big, bright, shiney and powerful... but somewhere in there it lost its heart. That's the one casualty of the civil war. And it died to the sound of thundering applause.

[Jmacq1]

OK, that's putting your insight in a way that makes perfect sense to me. But like I said before, I totally see where you guys are coming from, and I really want to believe you're right. I'm just not sure if Marvel's writers are that subtle/subversive.

[isaaklown]

I'm going to suggest that Millar is presenting a slightly different message. If we can agree that Captain America is the heart and soul of the best of what America has to offer, the message is that America has turned its back on that, with the government (and the public) fighting his ideals, jailing him, and turning its back on him in favor of a soulless, unemotional new world where businessmen and heartless scientists carry the day.

I guess I'm giving Millar a little more credit for subtlety than some are, but to me it's clear that Captain America surrendered because he'd lost the public -- lost the America he was fighting for. It doesn't mean his ideals were wrong; it's a cynical observation that the bad guys are winning/have won.

I can agree on that point as well. Just with the quote from the issue of "But we're winning the war!" "But not the argument". To me that takes on a (no offense) liberal sense to war. That hitting things may win wars, but not the arguments that start them. And with Cap surrendering at the end... to me it was as if Millar was saying "the hitting things method isn't working. give up."

I did forget to mention in the last post... I also enjoyed the transformation of Speedball into Penance. I mean how else could a character that I used to make fun of as a child now turn into a brooding BAMF of a character in just one story? I picked up the New Thunderbolts run at first just for Penance, but I love the angle they are taking with it and how it is being written.

[Alpow]

Jmacq1 is spot on, just look at the epilogue, Millar almost does a blow by blow rebuttal of anti arguments, Tony is going to protect everybody's ID (did you really think I would let anybody else do it he says, breaking the 4th wall to deliver the message), the public approves of the zone, Stark is going to take care of SHIELD corruption and we even get to see Hill brought down a peg or two because the anti fans hate her.

Millar would have been more subtle if he had driven to my house, hit me over the head with a hammer and shouted "Tony Stark is your god now".

Of course I will admit that Millar essentially adopting a pro reg line in interviews may have influenced me, I just don't see the negative judgement on the page that some believe is there (and I wish was there).

[XPac]

Jmacq1 is spot on, just look at the epilogue, Millar almost does a blow by blow rebuttal of anti arguments, Tony is going to protect everybody's ID (did you really think I would let anybody else do it he says, breaking the 4th wall to deliver the message), the public approves of the zone, Stark is going to take care of SHIELD corruption and we even get to see Hill brought down a peg or two because the anti fans hate her.

Millar would have been more subtle if he had driven to my house, hit me over the head with a hammer and shouted "Tony Stark is your god now".

Of course I will admit that Millar essentially adopting a pro reg line in interviews may have influenced me, I just don't see the negative judgement on the page that some believe is there (and I wish was there).

The think the fact that Millar was completely without subtly is the very reason why I think there's more to it than that.

This was basically the equivalent of storm troopers marching down the street in a parade.

A more balanced finish would have done a better job in telling me that the right side won. The fact that this new bright shiney government utopia is coming about (those words should be a warning bell to anyone in fiction, comic or otherwise) from all that we've seen without consquence to a thundering applause is just errie. It LOOKS right... but it doesn't feel right.

[Jaykob]

I'm pretty indifferent to registration. I followed the Civil War because it was an interesting story. If I lived in the Marvel universe as a regular civilian, I'm not sure which side I'd land on honestly. With that said, I viewed the events that occured with detachment and I have, what I consider, a very balanced view of the situation, how it ended, and why the writers may have chosen to tell the story this way.

First, I want to address the "Richards Epilogue". It was always more logical to have the pro-registration side win. That, most of us agree on. It's obviously a better catalyst for future story telling. Therefore, I think it was only rational to have the epilogue told from the point of view of the victor. This was a "war" afterall and history is always written by the victorious. I'm not sure if this necessarily reflects the political motivations of the writer or just a literary device. In the end, I'm not sure it matters. The Marvel Universe is bigger than Millar and we all know that nothing in the MU is permanent or not subject to change or overhaul. At least Millar was able to paint a compelling story, enough to keep us buying issues every month.

Second, I want to touch on Captain America's "surrender". I'll admit, it was not the climactic ending I had expected and I was a little dissapointed, but in hindsight I think it works and is consistant with what we know about Captain America. He has always been the idealistic hero, so him putting what is right in his mind above victory makes all the sense in the world to me. Tony, on the other hand is an ends-justifies-the-means type of guy. I guess how you feel about these characters and their actions depends a lot on what type of person you are.

From a tactical standpoint, the Pro-registration deserved to win. Poor planning by Captain America if he didn't want to deal with collateral damage.

I also think that both Captain America and Tony Stark's respective character development became progressively more dynamic and interesting because of the "Civil War" event and, in the end, I think that will be the defining achievement of the whole concept.

[Jmacq1]

Jmacq1 is spot on, just look at the epilogue, Millar almost does a blow by blow rebuttal of anti arguments, Tony is going to protect everybody's ID (did you really think I would let anybody else do it he says, breaking the 4th wall to deliver the message), the public approves of the zone, Stark is going to take care of SHIELD corruption and we even get to see Hill brought down a peg or two because the anti fans hate her.

Millar would have been more subtle if he had driven to my house, hit me over the head with a hammer and shouted "Tony Stark is your god now".

Of course I will admit that Millar essentially adopting a pro reg line in interviews may have influenced me, I just don't see the negative judgement on the page that some believe is there (and I wish was there).

Hahaha! Yeah, you just did a better job of putting my thoughts down than I was doing myself.

[Your Imaginary Pal]

It was odd to me that they chose the Baxter Building just because that's the entry/exit point the Pro Side designated. Cloak could have chosen any location, Black Panther should have factored something a little more logical, considering all the events of CW came about because there was a tragic battle in a suburban setting, to bring the fight to an urban population was a bit odd.

Cap's surrender wasn't to just average citizens, from what I saw it was to the civic servants(fire fighters, EMT and police). America's day in and day out heroes. Heroes who get the training and put their identies and families on the line. That plus seeing the destruction around the city, where there was now threat to to citizens at all. The fight wasn't about saving the world or the city or even a person, it was an argument that took a physical manifestation. They weren't attempting a coup to change the law, they were just kicking eachothers assets for the sake of doing it.

As bad as Stark's characterization has been, when he would stage these battle royals, they would be on his property and there would be NO civilians around at all. ANY damage done would be his problem, not the city's. I think the steps he took to get there were pretty unsavory. Cloning, mind control by way of nanites, using known criminals, with extremely violent histories and genuine hate for some members of the Anti Registration Rebelion was not a more he could make logically and feel good about himself. He said he wasn't going to trust SHIELD/The Gov't with his friends information, but he would use people on his side that would kill his "friends" at the drop of a dime given the opportunity. Also how is it gurading your friends secret identity by holding a press confernce live for an international audience having one of your friends reveal his secret ID to the world?

There were many inconsistancies, character wise, but people in the "real" world can be pretty inconsistant.

Overall I think my opinions of some of the heroes is a little bit lower now, but they are not beyond redemption. And World War Hulk is going to be a reckoning I don't expect the Illuminati to be ready for.

[TheCrisisKid]

Actually, it's really hard to say that either Ironman or Captain America was in the wrong. Both were doing what they felt was best. Ironman was capturing those that defied the law, and Captain America just wanted to fight crime and not register. Two great ideas but they clashed with each other and devolved into the whole mess you saw in CW#7.

[sodapop]

If we can agree that Captain America is the heart and soul of the best of what America has to offer, the message is that America has turned its back on that, with the government (and the public) fighting his ideals, jailing him, and turning its back on him in favor of a soulless, unemotional new world where businessmen and heartless scientists carry the day.

Who, in their right mind, would agree with that?

Like Iron Man, Captain America has changed a lot over the years. Back in the 60’s, and 70’s, he would have been the first to hunt down anyone that opposed the government. He was supposed to be the living embodiment of the ideal soldier.

He was a President-loving, Flag-saluting, patriot who wore his hair short when the hippies were preaching flower power and wearing theirs long.

At the end of the day, he’s only one man, with one opinion. His values are not America’s values. He’s not Jesus Christ, he’s just one man. Men make mistakes.

In current day politics, our President is often criticized, for not listening to the voice of the people. Well, Captain America did not listen to the voice of America. He thought he knew better. If anything, HE TURNED HIS BACK ON THEM!

Let’s not romanticize this (soulless, unemotional new world:rolleyes: ). He acted without authority. He caused a lot of damage. In the end he KNEW he was wrong.

[tavella]

I'm finding it more likely that World War Hulk will be what cements the Initiative as the future of the Marvel Universe for the forseeable future (IE at least the next couple years).

That's what I've been thinking. We'll get Tony smugly explaining that they won because they were able to organize all the superheros properly and isn't it a great thing that we have the SHRA?

[agrich]

I'm not talking about what I personally believe about America. I'm talking about the Marvel Universe, in which I believe that yes, Captain America has long been considered its heart and soul. And I'm talking about what message Mark Millar is sending here, which to my mind is NOT that Reed and Tony were right and Cap is wrong. Just that Cap's position wasn't being listened to by the public, and that's why he stopped.

I'm not sharing my politics, nor am I trying to argue yours. Somebody wrote what message they felt Millar was sending; I felt he intended an entirely different one.

[XPac]

Who, in their right mind, would agree with that?

Like Iron Man, Captain America has changed a lot over the years. Back in the 60’s, and 70’s, he would have been the first to hunt down anyone that opposed the government. He was supposed to be the living embodiment of the ideal soldier.

He was a President-loving, Flag-saluting, patriot who wore his hair short when the hippies were preaching flower power and wearing theirs long.

At the end of the day, he’s only one man, with one opinion. His values are not America’s values. He’s not Jesus Christ, he’s just one man. Men make mistakes.

In current day politics, our President is often criticized, for not listening to the voice of the people. Well, Captain America did not listen to the voice of America. He thought he knew better. If anything, HE TURNED HIS BACK ON THEM!

Let’s not romanticize this (soulless, unemotional new world:rolleyes: ). He acted without authority. He caused a lot of damage. In the end he KNEW he was wrong.

Cap did in fact go against the will of the people. I'm just not sure we can look down on him for that or not.

Would anyone today have looked down on Cap for going against the will of the people if he were fighting slavery? The treatment of the Native Americans? Japanesse internment camps? Not saying the registration is as bad as those things... but I don't think Cap has an obligation to follow something purely because it's the will of the people.

[shaunyc56]

Everything so far has been pointless pretty much now.

I think they could've realized beating them up won't change the law long ago, and came up with a better plan.

You know in an issue of BP, BP is shown attacking registration from a politcal front, through lobbyists if you can beleive it. But a tense political drama w/ nobody getting punched in the face probably wouldn't work in a comic.

[tavella]

The think the fact that Millar was completely without subtly is the very reason why I think there's more to it than that.

This was basically the equivalent of storm troopers marching down the street in a parade.

But there's really nothing in Millar's past work (or the last six issues of Civil War) that suggest he _does_ subtlety. Ultimates? _Not_ subtle. That seems to be what Millar likes as heroes, and it's pretty much the same sort of thing Reed and Tony are now taking 616 Marvel into.

[sodapop]

I'm not talking about what I personally believe about America. I'm talking about the Marvel Universe, in which I believe that yes, Captain America has long been considered its heart and soul. And I'm talking about what message Mark Millar is sending here, which to my mind is NOT that Reed and Tony were right and Cap is wrong. Just that Cap's position wasn't being listened to by the public, and that's why he stopped.

I'm not sharing my politics, nor am I trying to argue yours. Somebody wrote what message they felt Millar was sending; I felt he intended an entirely different one.
I'm sorry if I jumped on you with both feet. :o
However, it's kind of the same thing. He ignored what the people wanted and did what he wanted.

[sodapop]

Cap did in fact go against the will of the people. I'm just not sure we can look down on him for that or not.

Would anyone today have looked down on Cap for going against the will of the people if he were fighting slavery? The treatment of the Native Americans? Japanesse internment camps? Not saying the registration is as bad as those things... but I don't think Cap has an obligation to follow something purely because it's the will of the people.
I'm not looking down at him. However, in a democracy the will of the people should always be taken into consideration. Yes, a man needs to be true to himself, and fight for what he believes in, but there are other ways to go about it. He didn’t need to start an underground war, which caused such havoc.

[XPac]

I'm sorry if I jumped on you with both feet. :o
However, it's kind of the same thing. He ignored what the people wanted and did what he wanted.

People also apparently want the Thunderbolts... should Cap assume that having Venom and Bullseye acting as "heroes" is a good idea just because the people (who are frankly in the dark about a lot of things) think it is?

There's a reason we don't have a true democracy... many reasons actually, but one of the bigger ones is simply the fact that the common Joe Schmoe is ignorant about a lot of things.

Tom Breevort said one of the reasons why the people support Norman Osboard is because they don't believe he's actually the Green Goblin. People like Cap and Spidey know that, and I imagine would rightly believe that doing anything with him other than throwing him behind bars would be absolutely ludicrous. But the people don't know that. They're simply ignorant about a lot of things.

And that's why there's a danger about letting the masses call the shots. That's why the US has so many checks and balances to ensure that the will of the masses is kept in check.

I'm of course not saying the will of the people should always be ignored... but it shouldn't necessarily be the in the "right" especially when we KNOW that the people are outright ignorant about a lot of things.

[agrich]

But there's really nothing in Millar's past work (or the last six issues of Civil War) that suggest he _does_ subtlety. Ultimates? _Not_ subtle. That seems to be what Millar likes as heroes, and it's pretty much the same sort of thing Reed and Tony are now taking 616 Marvel into.

But once you try to take everything at face value, you run across things that it's impossible to believe Millar is seriously endorsing (teams of supervillains like Thunderbolts). I agree Ultimates isn't subtle, but even looking solely at this series, all you can definitively say the epilogue is presenting is the viewpoint of the winners. If it was so clear that they were RIGHT, why have heroes split down the middle? Why have everyman Peter Parker switch sides from Pro to anti? (As an aside, in Millar's Ultimates Cap was branded a traitor and thrown in jail, too -- unjustly, as it turned out.)

[XPac]

I'm not looking down at him. However, in a democracy the will of the people should always be taken into consideration. Yes, a man needs to be true to himself, and fight for what he believes in, but there are other ways to go about it. He didn’t need to start an underground war, which caused such havoc.

I'd argue that actually needed to be done.

If not for Hill, Cap driving him underground Cap obviusly would have tried handling things a different way (which as well all know would have resulted in a pretty boring comicbook).

Once fighting the law by conventional means became an impossibility, he tried resisting it. And really all he did was fight to free prisoners. Outside of that, he basically just went around fighting badguys then going into hiding.

But because he resisted, a lot of the things Tony was doing was exposed... the negative zone prison, the clone, and the supervillian army. And all that actually suceeded in swaying the majority of the superhero community against Tony. I'll wager Cap was hoping it would have the same effect on the general public... but it didn't (which in my mind is a very very poor commentary on the american public, though sadly I can't say it's as unrealisitic as I wish it was).

Cap in the end made the mistake of giving the public too much credit. He thought he was fighting for a people that would oppose such things as negative zone prisons and supervillian tast forces... he surrendered when he realized his mistake. He was fighting for an america that no longer existed (at least according to Millar).

[Jmacq1]

Well, I asked Tom Brevoort about the intent of the "epilogue" in the Q&A thread. Hopefully he'll drop in at least one more time to give us some insight on things.

[XPac]

But once you try to take everything at face value, you run across things that it's impossible to believe Millar is seriously endorsing (teams of supervillains like Thunderbolts). I agree Ultimates isn't subtle, but even looking solely at this series, all you can definitively say the epilogue is presenting is the viewpoint of the winners. If it was so clear that they were RIGHT, why have heroes split down the middle? Why have everyman Peter Parker switch sides from Pro to anti? (As an aside, in Millar's Ultimates Cap was branded a traitor and thrown in jail, too -- unjustly, as it turned out.)

Also, the epilogue is framed from the perspective of a guy trying to win his wife back. A wife who was very outspoken about what they were going... I beleive she even outright make compared them to Nazis.

Given the context we were givent he epilogue in, there was simply a natural bias attatched. Which isn't to say that anything we saw or heard was outright wrong... but I'll wager if the epilogue was a letter from Peter to MJ things would have looked a whole lot less shiney at the end.

[Valen]

Reflecting on this story a day after reading it, I can't begin to stress how haunting the look on Cap's face is in the final couplle of panels of the battle. I can feel the heartache oozing off of the pages.

For those who see MIllar's ending as being heavy-handed, I have to agree with others who say it is that way on purpose. The quote used during this thread from Star Wars is quite good. Just because there is massive public support and celebration doesn't make something right. The relocation of the Native Americans, Slavery, Seperate but Equal, Japanese Internment during WWII, Discrimination against women and races, and the current laws limiting the rights of homosexuality have all be met at first with wide support. To me, it seems like Millar is setting the stage for a Fall from Grace for the Pro side at some point in the future. Marvel may not choose to go this route, but the building blocks have been put in place if they so choose to use them.

[XPac]

Well, I asked Tom Brevoort about the intent of the "epilogue" in the Q&A thread. Hopefully he'll drop in at least one more time to give us some insight on things.

From a purely character driven standpoint, I think the intent was obviously to get Sue back in bed with him (but I know what you mean).

[tavella]

But once you try to take everything at face value, you run across things that it's impossible to believe Millar is seriously endorsing (teams of supervillains like Thunderbolts). I agree Ultimates isn't subtle, but even looking solely at this series, all you can definitively say the epilogue is presenting is the viewpoint of the winners. If it was so clear that they were RIGHT, why have heroes split down the middle? Why have everyman Peter Parker switch sides from Pro to anti? (As an aside, in Millar's Ultimates Cap was branded a traitor and thrown in jail, too -- unjustly, as it turned out.)

Thunderbolts isn't Millar's book, though. *Ellis* clearly thinks it's a bonkers idea and is happily having them be nasty bastards, but there's nothing in the main book that suggests that it's any different than previous Thunderbolts where they were questionable antiheroes but still doing useful work.

The fact that they've left Spidey on the New Avengers rather than Mighty does at least give a fraction of hope for some sort of redemption in the future, but again, that may be *Bendis'* opinion of the whole thing, not Millar. There's absolutely nothing in CW itself that suggests anything but Millar being sincere in his ending.

[Morw]

Well well.. The anti side still say they where right?

They still say that its fascism to give up some freedom to gain more safety.

Sorry the world doesn’t work that way. You have to give up your freedom on a daily bases to gain safety:

- You give up freedom by accepting that your country have a law and follow it so the same law protects you.
- You accept that you need a driving license to be legally allowed to drive on the road, so you are proper trained to drive and, hopefully, so are all the other people on the road. The result is less car accidents.
- But most important. You decide to belong to a society for protection, so you don’t stand-alone. Open to attacks from all around.

But lets see what signal that MU would send if Cap won:
- We don’t need trained superheroes.
- And superheroes need hidden identities to do their work.
But lets take it further shall we?
-If we don’t need to train those superheroes that bring in criminals, then why do we need trained policemen?
- We cant use undercover cops because those files are constantly hacked and given to the criminals and undercover police/ agents are killed within a week and so are their whole families.

We know that the last to are unrealistic and stupid assumptions. Booth in our world and MU. So the whole deal with registration would be bad for superheroes are just as silly. Most of the superheroes where already in the SHIELD database. Spiderman was for a long time. Yet with all its corruption he was never revealed. So they have already proven that the database is safe.

And anybody calling giving superhuman training for stupid is not thinking it threw. Just because we follow the successful superheroes like Spiderman and cap doesn’t mean there are 100 bad ones for each good one.

Then to those of you who bring in the Nazi’s.. Get real. None of you have any idea of how it was during nazi Germany. You talk about slave camps, concentration camps etc.
There is no Slave camps put in effect because of SHRA
There is no concentration camps put in effect of SHRA. There is a new prison. A prison where those who have not done anything wrong can get out by signing a registration. You can’t get out of a death camp or concentration camp by signing a paper.

And before you say “ they didn’t do anything.” No but they have a potential to destroy/kill people accidentally by powers. You can say they are constantly wearing a concealed weapon and that weapon needs to be reiterated for the common good. If they refuse then they are putting themselves along, outside the society that they want to belong to. The society is not just USA it’s the world they are living on. Some few have potential to destroy it.

The Pro side have been right all along. The anti side where nothing but criminals who could not see the big picture. The whole law was bigger then them. And any changes to the law must come from within the system not outside force.

[agrich]

There's absolutely nothing in CW itself that suggests anything but Millar being sincere in his ending.

Well sure, if you're going to dismiss things that were introduced in Civil War itself (like that Thunderbolts lineup, and Spidey switching sides) as being the will of other writers. Of course Ellis got his say as to who was on the team, as did Bendis, but for you to assume that Millar had those things forced on him is pretty presumptuous.

Look, at the end of Civil War we got Reed and Tony's perspective of the world, and Millar absolutely presented Reed throughout the series as being insensitive and clueless. "Give Johnny my best..." "Sorry Sue, that's classified." "Kay, let's get this cyborg/clone assassin up and running." If we're supposed to agree 100 percent with Reed at the end, why make him such a jerk throughout the series?

[sodapop]

People also apparently want the Thunderbolts... should Cap assume that having Venom and Bullseye acting as "heroes" is a good idea just because the people (who are frankly in the dark about a lot of things) think it is?

There's a reason we don't have a true democracy... many reasons actually, but one of the bigger ones is simply the fact that the common Joe Schmoe is ignorant about a lot of things.

Tom Breevort said one of the reasons why the people support Norman Osboard is because they don't believe he's actually the Green Goblin. People like Cap and Spidey know that, and I imagine would rightly believe that doing anything with him other than throwing him behind bars would be absolutely ludicrous. But the people don't know that. They're simply ignorant about a lot of things.

And that's why there's a danger about letting the masses call the shots. That's why the US has so many checks and balances to ensure that the will of the masses is kept in check.

I'm of course not saying the will of the people should always be ignored... but it shouldn't necessarily be the in the "right" especially when we KNOW that the people are outright ignorant about a lot of things.

First off, No one is saying that everything Tony and Reed did was right, so let’s not go there. The question is whether the good Captain was in the right. The answer is NO.

We can wax theoretical about true democracy all day, but the simple fact is that we do live in a democracy, as do the people in the MU. We do not get to chose which laws we follow and which we don’t. Captain America is not above these laws, regardless as to your believe that he knows more than the average man about right and wrong.

We either live in a democracy, where the rules are obeyed, or we don’t. Perhaps a dictatorship would be better? That way anytime Cap feels like storming the castle everyone can get behind him.

I'd argue that actually needed to be done.

If not for Hill, Cap driving him underground Cap obviusly would have tried handling things a different way (which as well all know would have resulted in a pretty boring comicbook).

Once fighting the law by conventional means became an impossibility, he tried resisting it. And really all he did was fight to free prisoners. Outside of that, he basically just went around fighting badguys then going into hiding.

But because he resisted, a lot of the things Tony was doing was exposed... the negative zone prison, the clone, and the supervillian army. And all that actually suceeded in swaying the majority of the superhero community against Tony. I'll wager Cap was hoping it would have the same effect on the general public... but it didn't (which in my mind is a very very poor commentary on the american public, though sadly I can't say it's as unrealisitic as I wish it was).

Cap in the end made the mistake of giving the public too much credit. He thought he was fighting for a people that would oppose such things as negative zone prisons and supervillian tast forces... he surrendered when he realized his mistake. He was fighting for an america that no longer existed (at least according to Millar).

Whatever Hill did to Cap was no excuse for him to start a war, and drag other people into it. To cause massive destruction, the extent of which would put the average man in prison for life.

It was no ones fault, but his own, that he foolishly believed that he knew the heart of the country.

[XPac]

First off, No one is saying that everything Tony and Reed did was right, so let’s not go there. The question is whether the good Captain was in the right. The answer is NO.

We can wax theoretical about true democracy all day, but the simple fact is that we do live in a democracy, as do the people in the MU. We do not get to chose which laws we follow and which we don’t. Captain America is not above these laws, regardless as to your believe that he knows more than the average man about right and wrong.

We either live in a democracy, where the rules are obeyed, or we don’t. Perhaps a dictatorship would be better? That way anytime Cap feels like storming the castle everyone can get behind him.



Whatever Hill did to Cap was no excuse for him to start a war, and drag other people into it. To cause massive destruction, the extent of which would put the average man in prison for life.

It was no ones fault, but his own, that he foolishly believed that he knew the heart of the country.


Actually we don't REALLY live in a democracy... we live in a republic. It's a representative democracy. By and large we the people don't make decisions... we just pick the people that do and hope we pick the right ones. That's why we have a Congress.

As for laws and such... they should be followed MOST of the time. And Cap does follow them most of the time. But the tricky situation comes from when you're confronted with an unjust law. Do you follow it, or do you follow what you believe is right?

During the time of slavery, people who freed slaves were considered criminals. Now many of them are considered heroes. History will ultimately be the judge of the registration, and whether or not Cap was right or wrong in opposing it.

[Magneto Rocks]

Fantasitc post sodapop. Said just what I wanted to say.

[sodapop]

Reflecting on this story a day after reading it, I can't begin to stress how haunting the look on Cap's face is in the final couplle of panels of the battle. I can feel the heartache oozing off of the pages.

For those who see MIllar's ending as being heavy-handed, I have to agree with others who say it is that way on purpose. The quote used during this thread from Star Wars is quite good. Just because there is massive public support and celebration doesn't make something right. The relocation of the Native Americans, Slavery, Seperate but Equal, Japanese Internment during WWII, Discrimination against women and races, and the current laws limiting the rights of homosexuality have all be met at first with wide support. To me, it seems like Millar is setting the stage for a Fall from Grace for the Pro side at some point in the future. Marvel may not choose to go this route, but the building blocks have been put in place if they so choose to use them.
Comparing Slavery to super hero registration is just plain silly and overblown.

In this country you have to register your gun, and you may not be allowed to own one if you have a criminal past. Most people agree that's a good thing.

However, it would be perfectly ok for any lunatic to make a nuclear super powered battle suit, in his basement, and fly around calling himself Captain Craptastic?

Please... If someone next-door to you, had so much as a bazooka in their basement, you'd want to know about it!

[XPac]

In this country you have to register your gun, and you may not be allowed to own one if you have a criminal past. Most people agree that's a good thing.



Yes, but would most people think it's a good thing if registering for a gun also was effectively signing up to go to war in Iraq if they needed you?

As we're seeing in She-Hulk, there's more to it than simply registering you. It can mean them literally going into your home and forcing you to move and enlist without notice into SHIELD.

I don't think most gun owners would appreciate coming home one day and seeing a much of soldiers packing up their belongings and telling them they've just been drafted into service.

If the registration was nothing more than the equivalent of a gun registration, we might not have had a Civil War.

[Valen]

Comparing Slavery to super hero registration is just plain silly and overblown.

In this country you have to register your gun, and you may not be allowed to own one if you have a criminal past. Most people agree that's a good thing.

However, it would be perfectly ok for any lunatic to make a nuclear super powered battle suit, in his basement, and fly around calling himself Captain Craptastic?

Please... If someone next-door to you, had so much as a bazooka in their basement, you'd want to know about it!

I'm not camparing the two. I am simply stating that overwhelming support by the general public, either in fiction or in real life, doesn't equal morality, continued support, or a happy ending. The general public in this country were ready to fight terrorism following the events of 9-11-01. Almost 6 years later though, the majority of the public have switched positions and are now anti-military conflict. Once again, I am not saying the attack on NY is on the same level as a fictional event. I am simply appying real life reactions over time to the fictional works.

[tavella]

Well sure, if you're going to dismiss things that were introduced in Civil War itself (like that Thunderbolts lineup, and Spidey switching sides) as being the will of other writers. Of course Ellis got his say as to who was on the team, as did Bendis, but for you to assume that Millar had those things forced on him is pretty presumptuous.

Well, will you take _Millar's_ word (http://forums.millarworld.tv/index.php?showtopic=68398) for it?

"The fact that all those spin-off books were clearly marking a pro-reg win nobody (and I mean nobody) called Cap's surrender after realizing his guys were wrong. Crime was down, the public felt safer and Tony only had the best of intentions."

(I'm amused by Millar's belief that no one called Cap surrendering; I did so weeks ago (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=4242444#post4242444), and I wasn't the only one.)

[Jmacq1]

Nevermind the fact that I could give two hoots about the government or public of the MU. They can be victimized all to heck if it makes for a more entertaining story.

What we like in our comics and what we'd prefer in the real world don't necessarily have to be the same thing. Some people here seem to have a hard time figuring that out.

We either live in a democracy, where the rules are obeyed, or we don’t. Perhaps a dictatorship would be better? That way anytime Cap feels like storming the castle everyone can get behind him.

You mean like a place where two or three smart guys get to decide the fate of all mankind, because they're smarter than everyone else? Bearing in mind these people hold no elected office.

Oh wait....

[sodapop]

Actually we don't REALLY live in a democracy... we live in a republic. It's a representative democracy. By and large we the people don't make decisions... we just pick the people that do and hope we pick the right ones. That's why we have a Congress.

As for laws and such... they should be followed MOST of the time. And Cap does follow them most of the time. But the tricky situation comes from when you're confronted with an unjust law. Do you follow it, or do you follow what you believe is right?

During the time of slavery, people who freed slaves were considered criminals. Now many of them are considered heroes. History will ultimately be the judge of the registration, and whether or not Cap was right or wrong in opposing it.

..and to the Republic, for which it stands... Yeah, your right. Same rule applies though, and once again we can wax theoretical about it, or we can look at the hard facts.

Captain America is no more above the law than me, you, or the average man in the MU. He had absolutely no business starting a war. A F@#KING WAR! People were hurt. People were killed! Property was destroyed. All because he though that he knew better than everyone else...

[sodapop]

I'm not camparing the two. I am simply stating that overwhelming support by the general public, either in fiction or in real life, doesn't equal morality, continued support, or a happy ending. The general public in this country were ready to fight terrorism following the events of 9-11-01. Almost 6 years later though, the majority of the public have switched positions and are now anti-military conflict. Once again, I am not saying the attack on NY is on the same level as a fictional event. I am simply appying real life reactions over time to the fictional works.

Yes. The public has a right to switch positions.

[XPac]

Well, will you take _Millar's_ word (http://forums.millarworld.tv/index.php?showtopic=68398) for it?

"The fact that all those spin-off books were clearly marking a pro-reg win nobody (and I mean nobody) called Cap's surrender after realizing his guys were wrong. Crime was down, the public felt safer and Tony only had the best of intentions."

(I'm amused by Millar's belief that no one called Cap surrendering; I did so weeks ago (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=4242444#post4242444), and I wasn't the only one.)

I guess no one reads TBolts. Zemo outright said that's what Cap was gonna do months and months ago.

[sodapop]

Nevermind the fact that I could give two hoots about the government or public of the MU. They can be victimized all to heck if it makes for a more entertaining story.

What we like in our comics and what we'd prefer in the real world don't necessarily have to be the same thing. Some people here seem to have a hard time figuring that out.



You mean like a place where two or three smart guys get to decide the fate of all mankind, because they're smarter than everyone else? Bearing in mind these people hold no elected office.

Oh wait....
With the support of the government and the people? Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Thank you.

[Jmacq1]

..and to the Republic, for which it stands... Yeah, your right. Same rule applies though, and once again we can wax theoretical about it, or we can look at the hard facts.

Captain America is no more above the law than me, you, or the average man in the MU. He had absolutely no business starting a war. A F@#KING WAR! People were hurt. People were killed! Property was destroyed. All because he though that he knew better than everyone else...

You mean exactly like Reed and Tony have been doing for years in the Illuminati, and just carried it one step further with the Initiative?

Oh right, they get a pass because their plans just happen to coincide with public opinion for the moment. Wonder what happens when Reed and Tony get to "#78 Eliminate World Poverty" and try telling the US public they need to become a socialist state so that good chunks of their money can be funneled to third-world countries so everyone can be brought up to the same level.

You can't make a "perfect world" without having to seize and/or exercise absolutist powers at one point or another. It's simply not possible. Sooner or later Reed and Tony will reach that point. We'll see how many of you are singing their praises then.

[agrich]

I've never criticized Tony's intentions. And at least a lot of us knew the Pro-registration side was going to win.

All you can definitively take from Millar's words is what was right in the comic itself: Cap realized his approach was wrong. Beating Iron Man's army wasn't going to do any good, since he'd lost the public.

Crime was down and the public felt safer. That alone doesn't mean the Pro side was right, and Millar doesn't say it in the comic (Tony does) or on his site. And you, me, and Mark Millar all know what they say about good intentions.

[sodapop]

Yes, but would most people think it's a good thing if registering for a gun also was effectively signing up to go to war in Iraq if they needed you?

As we're seeing in She-Hulk, there's more to it than simply registering you. It can mean them literally going into your home and forcing you to move and enlist without notice into SHIELD.

I don't think most gun owners would appreciate coming home one day and seeing a much of soldiers packing up their belongings and telling them they've just been drafted into service.

If the