MERGE: Civil War Postgame Analysis Megathread [Archive]

jackolover

12-19-2006, 06:22 PM

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

12-20-2006, 12:39 AM

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

12-20-2006, 01:39 AM

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

12-20-2006, 10:03 AM

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

12-20-2006, 10:23 AM

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

12-20-2006, 10:52 PM

...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

12-21-2006, 02:54 AM

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

12-21-2006, 03:21 PM

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

12-21-2006, 04:35 PM

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

12-21-2006, 04:39 PM

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

12-22-2006, 07:56 AM

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

12-22-2006, 09:53 AM

jackolover

12-22-2006, 06:37 PM

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

12-22-2006, 06:41 PM

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

02-21-2007, 12:44 PM

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

02-21-2007, 12:48 PM

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

02-21-2007, 12:49 PM

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

02-21-2007, 01:06 PM

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

02-21-2007, 01:06 PM

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

02-21-2007, 01:07 PM

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

02-21-2007, 01:08 PM

cernunnos

02-21-2007, 05:08 PM

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

XPac

02-21-2007, 05:34 PM

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

02-21-2007, 05:39 PM

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

02-21-2007, 06:08 PM

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

02-21-2007, 06:10 PM

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

02-21-2007, 06:14 PM

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

02-21-2007, 06:17 PM

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

02-21-2007, 06:23 PM

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

02-21-2007, 06:32 PM

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

02-21-2007, 07:05 PM

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

02-21-2007, 08:30 PM

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

02-21-2007, 09:14 PM

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

02-21-2007, 09:49 PM

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

02-21-2007, 10:03 PM

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

02-21-2007, 10:10 PM

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

02-21-2007, 10:14 PM

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

02-21-2007, 10:46 PM

bulbasteve

02-21-2007, 11:05 PM

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

02-21-2007, 11:20 PM

Jmacq1

02-22-2007, 05:30 AM

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

02-22-2007, 05:32 AM

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

02-22-2007, 06:34 AM

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

02-22-2007, 07:10 AM

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

02-22-2007, 07:22 AM

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

02-22-2007, 07:50 AM

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

02-22-2007, 08:03 AM

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

02-22-2007, 08:08 AM

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

02-22-2007, 08:27 AM

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

02-22-2007, 08:28 AM

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

02-22-2007, 08:31 AM

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

02-22-2007, 08:36 AM

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

02-22-2007, 08:38 AM

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

02-22-2007, 08:43 AM

myslead

02-22-2007, 08:44 AM

Civil War was Captain America's Vietnam.

XPac

02-22-2007, 08:57 AM

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

02-22-2007, 09:00 AM

XPac

02-22-2007, 09:08 AM

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

02-22-2007, 09:15 AM

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

02-22-2007, 09:18 AM

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

02-22-2007, 09:29 AM

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

02-22-2007, 09:32 AM

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

02-22-2007, 09:38 AM

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

02-22-2007, 09:41 AM

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

02-22-2007, 09:42 AM

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

02-22-2007, 09:53 AM

XPac

02-22-2007, 09:59 AM

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

02-22-2007, 10:06 AM

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

02-22-2007, 10:07 AM

Your Imaginary Pal

02-22-2007, 10:41 AM

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

02-22-2007, 10:50 AM

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

02-22-2007, 11:13 AM

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

02-22-2007, 11:31 AM

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

02-22-2007, 11:32 AM

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

02-22-2007, 11:32 AM

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

02-22-2007, 11:47 AM

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

02-22-2007, 11:47 AM

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

02-22-2007, 11:48 AM

sodapop

02-22-2007, 11:54 AM

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

02-22-2007, 11:58 AM

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

02-22-2007, 12:05 PM

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

02-22-2007, 12:06 PM

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

02-22-2007, 12:07 PM

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

02-22-2007, 12:09 PM

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

02-22-2007, 12:09 PM

XPac

02-22-2007, 12:14 PM

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

02-22-2007, 12:33 PM

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

02-22-2007, 12:44 PM

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

02-22-2007, 12:47 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:01 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:08 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:08 PM

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

sodapop

02-22-2007, 01:11 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:15 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:15 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:18 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:19 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:21 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:23 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:24 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:24 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:26 PM

..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

02-22-2007, 01:27 PM

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

02-22-2007, 01:28 PM

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.
Yeah, what about the draft?

XPac

02-22-2007, 01:31 PM

Jmacq1

02-22-2007, 01:32 PM

Yeah, what about the draft?

Works off of an entirely different system. One that's more randomized and generally more fair.

The SHRA on the other hand, allows the government to "pick and choose" who they draft rather than any sort of lottery or randomization process. -That's- what makes it discriminatory. It's the equivalent of saying "Hmmm, we think those hispanics are expendable/hardworking/whatever. Let's only draft them."

Yeah yeah, you can claim the Draft discriminates against males, but at least in theory, it doesn't distinguish between -types- of males, barring those medically unfit for service.

Furthermore, Drafts are called up in times of war. The "war" is now over. The Initiative has dozens, if not hundreds of heroes that could fill any given role, yet still they're exercising their "draft" powers. What precisely is the emergency? Crime is at an all-time low, after all. They're shuffling people around with no regard for their wishes simply because three unelected smart guys think that's what needs to be done. And the public eats it up cause it ain't -them- that's getting messed with. It's them freaky superhumans! They deserve it!

Morw

02-22-2007, 01:34 PM

Jmacq1

02-22-2007, 01:37 PM

Except we already know the "draft" can extend to heroes that are registered but don't -want- to be superheroes. Iron Man pretty much confirmed that when Jessica Jones asked that very same question. Because otherwise, there wouldn't be any need for her to register at all.

"No no, we won't send a new mother to go fight Dr. Doom." Doesn't imply she's not subject to the draft. It implies that once the kid gets older they -might- draft her mother. Not to mention likely drafting the almost-certainly superhuman child herself as soon as she's old enough to be useful to them.

Alpow

02-22-2007, 01:42 PM

And the public eats it up cause it ain't -them- that's getting messed with. It's them freaky superhumans! They deserve it!

Bingo, the problem here is that unlike a regular draft (where the government can't abuse it without oversight form the people) the super humans don't have the electoral power to defend themselves.

Or to put it another way

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

XPac

02-22-2007, 01:42 PM

the draft is something that can be worked on within the system, but come on. A person that is allreay activly in the crimefighitng busniss get told to work with people who have fare more backup then she/he can ever dream about. And its bad?

I call it a draft when they draft somebody who dont on a regular base is going out and fight crime. Any legal agancy can expect to be sent to areas where they are more needed. its part of the JOBB. If they dont like it. quite beeing a superhero then.

Yes, I'd say that's bad.

The fact is, they probably could have had Jens' cooperation of they asked for it. But they didn't, because they didn't need it. They just took what they wanted. She had a job, she had a home, and SHIELD decided to remove her from that without notice.

And this is like DAY ONE of the new Marvel era, and we're seeing this. This is how the heroes are being treated. Jen, one of the most supportive people behind the registration so far is beng treated this way.

I'll say there's a potential problem here, even taking into account that Jen is going along with this. This kind of treatment is ASKING for the heroes to rebel against the system.

sodapop

02-22-2007, 01:43 PM

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.
All that ranting won't change anything.

If the govenment and the majority of the people are behind it, then yes. Just look at Venezuela.

XPac

02-22-2007, 01:48 PM

All that ranting won't cahnge anything.

If the govenment and the majority of the people are behind it, then yes. Just look at Venezuela.

The ranting isn't suppossed to change anythign... it's merely speculation on what some believe is to come.

Some believe that because of the way this house of cards was built, it will inevitably topple. Others clearly don't. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Stark has the majority of people behind him... I give him 3 issues MAX before he finds out that's starting to change.

Jmacq1

02-22-2007, 01:48 PM

All that ranting won't cahnge anything.

If the govenment and the majority of the people are behind it, then yes. Just look at Venezuela.

OH, OK. Pro-reg side won, I'm not allowed to debate anymore, nor point out hypocrisies in other peoples' arguments. Got it.

Silly me, I thought expressing opinions and voicing dissent were still allowable, and indeed one method of initiating change. Guess I won't make that mistake again.

sodapop

02-22-2007, 01:48 PM

Funny, I'll bet the British thought the same thing back in the day.

Or in the Civil War, when people decided to start a war over a bunch of slaves. I guess that's what happens when some people do think they know what's better.

As I've argued before, history will ultimately be the judge of who, if anyone, was right here.

It wasn't one man or even a handful that decided to fight the U.S. Civil War. BOTH sides had the support of their respected constituents.

XPac

02-22-2007, 01:51 PM

It wasn't one man or even a handful that decided to fight the U.S. Civil War. BOTH sides had the support of their respected constituents.

That's very true. Cap in the end lacked support, and that's why he lost. Whether that means his side was wrong or not is a different matter though.

I wouldn't say slavery was right even if the South did win. Just like I'm not gonig to argue that the registration was right simply because the PRO side won. As I argued in another thread, what they won was the opportunity to prove that they were right. We'll know one way or the other in the upcoming months.

sodapop

02-22-2007, 01:52 PM

Works off of an entirely different system. One that's more randomized and generally more fair.

The SHRA on the other hand, allows the government to "pick and choose" who they draft rather than any sort of lottery or randomization process. -That's- what makes it discriminatory. It's the equivalent of saying "Hmmm, we think those hispanics are expendable/hardworking/whatever. Let's only draft them."

Yeah yeah, you can claim the Draft discriminates against males, but at least in theory, it doesn't distinguish between -types- of males, barring those medically unfit for service.

Furthermore, Drafts are called up in times of war. The "war" is now over. The Initiative has dozens, if not hundreds of heroes that could fill any given role, yet still they're exercising their "draft" powers. What precisely is the emergency? Crime is at an all-time low, after all. They're shuffling people around with no regard for their wishes simply because three unelected smart guys think that's what needs to be done. And the public eats it up cause it ain't -them- that's getting messed with. It's them freaky superhumans! They deserve it!
And so you're saying that a law, such as that, can only be changed by declaring war??? Yes, war is always the best answer. Why does anyone even want out of Iraq? We're having such a good time there.

stur

02-22-2007, 01:52 PM

A Super hero draft? I can't help but wonder what kind of world we would live in if President Bush has 250 of the most powerful being on the planet to fight his war on terror. Having that much of an advantage in sheer power, would he decide to stop with putting down the Axis of evil? Would he reside that other threats to his idea of global peace be put down before they got out of hand? Disarm china? Don't laugh, with the power at his disposal, Sentry along could send China back to the stone ages. Russia next. In the "real world" that kind of power would most likely end the world as we know it, but comics aren't the really world, they care comics. Where we root for larger than life super heroes use their powers to save humanity, day after day. I get enough of the real world on FOX news.

KWillyVox

02-22-2007, 01:55 PM

I've been a Cap fan for over 25 years. NEVER have i seen CAP stand down...EVER!! It's a CIVIL WAR. People fight and kill to change government. If Cap had any balls he would have smoked Tony and then challenged the government to change. Cap would have turned into who he hated most...the PUNISHER. Now that would have been years of great storytelling for Cap.

Barticus

02-22-2007, 01:56 PM

I'm quite stunned on how awful the ending was...i've read all those comics and thats it? I thought it was part of a master plan at first when Cap stops fighting...hadn't realised he was so gutless. I guess no one will ever follow him again if he sells out so easily, you'd be running into battle with him and half way there he'd change his mind and run off. I'd always thought he was a pompous idiot but with Civil War he had perhaps changed. Ah of course..he reverted to type.. he's now a gutless pompous idiot.
And who is he to have the audacity to say 'troops. stand down. that's an order'??? Hope he rots.
Oh and the emotive use of firemen and cops was out of order as well.
But personally i think the whole of Civil War was written without an end....and what they came up with was laughable. What we're supposed to be happy that Tony Stark won? Whoopeee.....wouldnt trust him as far as i could kick him.
A major cop out.
p.s.Thankfully at least both Luke Cage and Spiderman were true to themselves.

Alpow

02-22-2007, 01:56 PM

It wasn't one man or even a handful that decided to fight the U.S. Civil War. BOTH sides had the support of their respected constituents.

Cap had the support of his constituents, the super heroes.

sodapop

02-22-2007, 01:57 PM

OH, OK. Pro-reg side won, I'm not allowed to debate anymore, nor point out hypocrisies in other peoples' arguments. Got it.

Silly me, I thought expressing opinions and voicing dissent were still allowable, and indeed one method of initiating change. Guess I won't make that mistake again.

Maybe you should start a war over it...

Anyway it's been fun. I'm done now. I apologize to anyone I may have upset. It was all in the spirit of debate. Feel free to blast away now.

XPac

02-22-2007, 02:04 PM

Cap had the support of his constituents, the super heroes.

After the Clor fiasco, both Tony and Steve confirmed that Cap did have the majority of the superhero community behind him.

But unfortunately that's a pretty small minority. It proved enough to win a fight, but not a war.

But that's one of the downsides of democracy... the minority will LOSE everytime. If something effects or worse case scenario screws over only a small population (even a very important one from a universal standpoint), the majority might not care.

Course, they may start caring down the line as they'll likely now have to pay BILLIONS of dollars to pay for a service that once upon a time they delivered for free. Time will tell.

Jmacq1

02-22-2007, 02:05 PM

Anyway it's been fun. I'm done now. I apologize to anyone I may have upset. It was all in the spirit of debate. Feel free to blast away now.

I disagree with many of your points, but you're a fine debater. I'm sure we'll argue more later. Ciao! ;)

scratchie

02-22-2007, 02:10 PM

If they dont like it. quite beeing a superhero then.I guess you missed the part where superheroes are no longer allowed to quit.

Haunt

02-22-2007, 04:38 PM

I guess you missed the part where superheroes are no longer allowed to quit.

Firestar quit.

XPac

02-22-2007, 05:40 PM

Firestar quit.

That will be one of the more interesting issues of the registration as time goes on.

Jessica Jones quit YEARS ago and they were still trying to get her to register. Of course, her registering didn't necessarily mean she would be drafted... just that she COULD be.

The tricky thing about the registration is that as worded, the heros have very few rights protecting them. The upside is that Tony Stark is in charge... and whatever other reservations I have about him, I do think he's trying to protect his community.

However, the potential problem is the arguement Nighthawk gave Hyperion in Squadron Supreme. They system they had only worked if they had GOOD people running it. The tools for a totalitarian state were there, if a lesser person got their hands on it. Stark, within reason, can be trusted. Can the guy after Stark be? What about the guy after that?

This is exactly the fear Cable had with the 50 States Initiative.

Alpow

02-22-2007, 06:05 PM

The tricky thing about the registration is that as worded, the heros have very few rights protecting them. The upside is that Tony Stark is in charge... and whatever other reservations I have about him, I do think he's trying to protect his community.

True but he isn't going to have any compunction about forcing somebody to do his bidding if he thinks it is for the greater good.

If he decides Iowa needs extra super humans and he only has the option of forcing somebody to go there then he will do it (witness his choice not to cure the Wendigo because he needs the creature for his schemes).

XPac

02-22-2007, 06:12 PM

True but he isn't going to have any compunction about forcing somebody to do his bidding if he thinks it is for the greater good.

If he decides Iowa needs extra super humans and he only has the option of forcing somebody to go there then he will do it (witness his choice not to cure the Wendigo because he needs the creature for his schemes).

Well, he had no problems shipping Jen off to do his bidding without even bothering to give her notice.

Though he knows Jen well enough to the point where she probably thinks she's be okay with it.

But how he treats or mistreats his allies can and probably will return to bite him in the @$$ if he doesn't watch it. Given their friendship, there's no reason Jen ahd to be treated the way she did. Again, Jen was reasonably cool with it so far... but right out of the gate Stark seems to be pushing it a bit.

Red Lotus

02-23-2007, 06:19 PM

Well, he had no problems shipping Jen off to do his bidding without even bothering to give her notice.

Though he knows Jen well enough to the point where she probably thinks she's be okay with it.

But how he treats or mistreats his allies can and probably will return to bite him in the @$$ if he doesn't watch it. Given their friendship, there's no reason Jen ahd to be treated the way she did. Again, Jen was reasonably cool with it so far... but right out of the gate Stark seems to be pushing it a bit.

How many times did Nick Fury blackmail, strong-arm, threaten, kidnap and mind wipe heroes to get them to work for him. Almost every time. Compared to Fury Hill went easy on them. I think its almost a Head of SHIELD requirement to mistreat your allies.

XPac

02-23-2007, 06:29 PM

How many times did Nick Fury blackmail, strong-arm, threaten, kidnap and mind wipe heroes to get them to work for him. Almost every time. Compared to Fury Hill went easy on them. I think its almost a Head of SHIELD requirement to mistreat your allies.

I don't know... how many times did he do that stuff? I ususally just see him asking, and they usually just say yes.

No doubt about it... Fury is a dick. But he does respect the heroes, and they for the most part do respect him. For Fury, there's a lot of good with the bad. Whatever justifably complaints a lot of them may have for Fury, I don't think ANYONE believes there's a better person for the job than him.

Calybos

02-24-2007, 09:34 AM

A lot of these arguments seem to get sidetracked into discussing "the majority opinion" or "what the law says"... neither of which has ANYTHING to do with right and wrong.

If the majority of the public supports a bad idea, it's still a bad idea. If the bad idea is made law, it's STILL a bad idea. Right and wrong don't change with public opinion or with the passage or repeal of a law.

Red Lotus

02-24-2007, 06:30 PM

I don't know... how many times did he do that stuff? I ususally just see him asking, and they usually just say yes.

No doubt about it... Fury is a dick. But he does respect the heroes, and they for the most part do respect him. For Fury, there's a lot of good with the bad. Whatever justifably complaints a lot of them may have for Fury, I don't think ANYONE believes there's a better person for the job than him.

Not counting when Fury mind wiped Captain America and others after his Secret War. He blackmail Spider-man to help on a SHIELD mission. He kidnap Scott and Jean and use them for a mission. Fury is the type of guy who gets things done no matter what the cost.

The heroes all respect Fury and they know he is the best man for the job, but at the same time Cap and Spider-man both have punched him because like you said he is a dick and if it wasn't a Civil War chances are some heroes would be trying to find Nick because they want payback.

I think Stark is doing pretty much the same thing with She Hulk as Fury has done with Cap in the past.

Iceburgeruk

03-01-2007, 10:13 AM

Everyone seems to have focused on the efects upon america but how will this effect the international situation?

One minute SHIELD is an international force and america has a lot of vigilantes dashing around.

Next minute SHIELD is controlled directly by the u.s and has an army of super human beings who could be sent against any country who wouldn`t buy american goods or agree with what george bush says.

Surely this (hopefully) will have a massive effect on the international make-up of the world.

Where before the heroes of america protected everyone they now might not come to aid in a crisis beyond the u.s borders. I`m not saying SHIELD wouldn`t let the fantastic four stop a crisis in switzerland but surely the rest of the world will now wonder whether the u.s government might in theory at some point use the super hero community as a blackmail tool.

Surely then you will proabaly find a lot of lost-in-limbo heroes and villains from foreign nations being signed up by their respective governments and research labs will be set up across the world to create british, french, indian and countless versions of super-heroes.

Hopefully this will now mean we will have a more realistic marvel world where it isn`t just us (superheroes of america and her allies) and them (the red meance super-villains of china and russia) but a world where there is now at least a sizable super powered force for nearly every developed nation in the world.

If marvel doesn`t go down this route then their post-SHRA universe will not make sense. No other developed nation would be happy with the vast majority of super-heroes being on the american government paycheck as it essentially puts a gun against their head with shield saying "Play by our rules and do as we command or we will not protect you from the next alien invasion."

If they do do this superhero arms race thing iv`e suggested i hope they don`t just make them all bad guys. It would be cool to see a mexican super hero team in mighty avengers or a british super-hero force assisting new excalibur.

It just seems a super hero arms race is the logical follow on to the SHRA and civil war. Doesn`t it?

Additionally: On another note surely based on the steps SHIELD took in civil war surely a lot of countries would be withijn their rights to demand the extradition of various foreign nationals from the u.s. What with all the bloodshed and clones and forced registration surely a country like germany could draw up a similar act and demand that nightcrawler be sent back to germany to sign up to their super hero force.

That also draws up the point of what kind of boundaries will super heroes have now? Before they were free citizens and thereby they could go to egypt and fight a monster. But now they are agents of the american government then surely there would be a lot of red tape and legal problems that would tie them up for days before they could jet off to anotehr country to fight a villain.

Harding Prime

03-01-2007, 10:17 AM

Just another reason of the countless out there of why the SHRA is a bad idea...

XPac

03-01-2007, 10:19 AM

Absolutely. The US now has a giant superhero army. Every superpower on earth will now attempt to do the same thing. It'll be the equivalent of an arms race.

They can no longer count on SHIELD to act as sheriff since SHIELD seemingly is falling under US law.

With the US taking a more direct control of SHIELD plus amassing a giant army, other nations realistically would attempt to build up their power base and ammass Superhuman armies of their own "just in case."

The registration has made the entire plane a much for frightening place.

NickThompson

03-01-2007, 10:25 AM

One minute SHIELD is an international force and america has a lot of vigilantes dashing around.

Next minute SHIELD is controlled directly by the u.s and has an army of super human beings who could be sent against any country who wouldn`t buy american goods or agree with what george bush says.

I'm pretty sure it's the same as it previously was - an internationally sanctioned US organisation.

Iceburgeruk

03-01-2007, 10:25 AM

Just another reason of the countless out there of why the SHRA is a bad idea...

True but maybe marvel can now catch up to dc on the international front. Marvel has never demonastrated good amounts of respect for other nations really. DC had the global guardians, rocket reds, a european justice league and several others. Marvel had a canadian team, one british team that was half american and a lot of red spies.

I think its time that we saw more super heros from the middle east for example who aren`t just aladdin rip-offs with big scymtars or some post cold war german heroes perhaps. Or perhaps a japanese superhero who isn`t a) a samura b ) a ninja or c)obsessed with the honor code.

Hopefully this is the one good thing that will come out of civil war. A more fleshed out international community of super heroes. Only they won`t be a very friendl;y community as iron man`s machinations means every superhero in the world is now essentially part of each nation`s armed forces.

I can`t wait till 2011`s crossover. Euro-American War. Which side of the atlantic are you on? lol.

bulbasteve

03-01-2007, 10:31 AM

It's the same as ever, it's not U.S. based now. Hell read this weeks Iron Man, that isn't America!

Iceburgeruk

03-01-2007, 10:31 AM

I'm pretty sure it's the same as it previously was - an internationally sanctioned US organisation.

Yeah but SHIELD made sense during the cold war. It was either america or the soviets.

Now that america is the only super power most nations would probably feel threatened by the activities of SHIELD and the super hero army of america.

XPac

03-01-2007, 10:48 AM

Yeah but SHIELD made sense during the cold war. It was either america or the soviets.

Now that america is the only super power most nations would probably feel threatened by the activities of SHIELD and the super hero army of america.

There's a consolidation of power taking place. Previous checks and balances that were in place are now gone. And I imagine many people will feel threatened by that... this was sort of demonstrated with the concerns Black Panther, Namor and Black Bolt had. This is a comicbook so readers for the most part won't care to see the leaders of France or Britian or China... marvel is givng us comicbook leaders instead and using them to frame the concerns.

Iceburgeruk

03-01-2007, 10:54 AM

There's a consolidation of power taking place. Previous checks and balances that were in place are now gone. And I imagine many people will feel threatened by that... this was sort of demonstrated with the concerns Black Panther, Namor and Black Bolt had. This is a comicbook so readers for the most part won't care to see the leaders of France or Britian or China... marvel is givng us comicbook leaders instead and using them to frame the concerns.

I know but wouldn`t it be cool if when the avengers went to another country there was another superhero team there to help minimize damage or to provide assitance?

Like i said up until now the only representation muslim super beings have gotten is that of being sword weilding maniacs. Perhaps it is time for marvel to present a less stereotyped offensive view of the other countries of the world. You know a view of japan that doesn`t have that every super hero or villain is a samurai or lives by an honor code. And so on.

XPac

03-01-2007, 11:10 AM

I know but wouldn`t it be cool if when the avengers went to another country there was another superhero team there to help minimize damage or to provide assitance?

Like i said up until now the only representation muslim super beings have gotten is that of being sword weilding maniacs. Perhaps it is time for marvel to present a less stereotyped offensive view of the other countries of the world. You know a view of japan that doesn`t have that every super hero or villain is a samurai or lives by an honor code. And so on.

There certainly is a good platform for more international teams.

Many countries at one point or another did have their own local superhero team. But aside from a few like Alpha Flight and to a degree the Soviet (whatever they were called), they all feel into obscurity. This is definately a chance to bring them back.

Soundrave

03-01-2007, 01:40 PM

Since this a thread about the international fallout of Civil War, I thought I'd bring this thread (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=4462546#post4462546) to your attention.

Karthak

03-01-2007, 03:19 PM

I foresee a new cold war, with superheroes instead of nuclear weapons. The US is already one of the most unpopular countries in the world, and a development like the registration act has surely frightened a lot of people who are intimidated by Americas actions.

Frank

03-02-2007, 09:57 PM

On Newsarama
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=103544

Maybe it's just me but Captain Marvel got unbelievably screwed.

He could have appeared like they planned, then everybody would have been in a state of shock. Then The Watcher takes him out of the fight "because he's an anomaly" and shows Mar-Vell(from a time reviewing machine) the full scope of the magnitude why this happened. Can you imagine him seeing what's happening and all this fighting being the result of actions taken by his Nemesis, Nitro. And then learning he's gonna die of cancer at the same time? With his son also dead? This in turn could lead to his own series with the Watcher as his guide of sort and supporting character. It would have made for a more interesting take on the character and great potential for the new series.

Captain Marvel appearing when Cloak teleported everybody would have been a great last page shocker a la when DC's Captain Marvel appeared in Kingdom Come, took Superman down and stood there, smiling. It was a great striking image. As an homage, Millar could have done this with the "other" Captain Marvel. It would have been a "awesome, Captain Marvel is back!" moment. Better than the depressing story we had in The Return mini-series.

SUPERECWFAN1

03-02-2007, 10:21 PM

They could have done so many things right to at least make that final issue of Civil War end on a high note. Instead we all saw what we got. Marvel's return would have been a great touch and been something that could tie things togethor that he's back looking for Nitro who started this whole ball rolling.

XPac

03-02-2007, 10:33 PM

Honestly, I didn't see the point in Mar-Vell returning at all.

If they wanted to bring him back fine... save it for later. It was an unecessary tangent in CW, and certainly didn't give his return the emphasis it deserved.

Save it for later. Give it it's own mini even... there's no reason it needed to be a part of Civil War.

xarathos

03-02-2007, 11:10 PM

Maybe AICN was right. They should of just stopped the series and issued an apology. I know it sold well, but I can never refer to it as a success.

Vaal

03-02-2007, 11:19 PM

I think he explained it fairly succently: The outcry from the readers is against crossovers -- but who cares what we say when we keep buying them?

StoneGold

03-02-2007, 11:47 PM

Maybe AICN was right.

By even thinking that, in any context, you are forever wrong.

Loren

03-03-2007, 06:46 AM

There are a couple of questions and answers on the subject that interests me most, but they don't seem entirely consistent:

Q: Why was registration switched halfway in the series to be from "Just registration with the possibility to work for S.H.I.E.L.D. for benefits" to "Now you're drafted.”?

It seems like it was changed halfway through just to make registration look like a bad idea, which in all fairness it isn't when it stands alone as initially shown in the series.

TB: The terms of Registration didn’t change halfway through, or at all. I’ve been working off of the same definition since the beginning. The only thing that may have become clearer over time is the language that’s being used, which became better fine-tuned as we saw the points of confusion that some readers had.

If it's just a matter of the language getting fine-tuned as the series went on, then why does Tom give *this* answer a few paragraphs up?

Q: So, what are the specifics of the SHRA? What organization should it be compared to?

TB: The Superhuman Registration Act isn’t an organization, it’s a Federal Law. It requires anybody possessing superhuman abilities to register themselves and those abilities with duly-appointed agents of the government. Additionally, if an individual intends to use those super-normal abilities as an independent peace officer, they must qualify on a training evaluation, be licensed and submit to some level of oversight in terms of their activities. The closest equivalent, although it’s not quite the same thing, is gun legislation. If you want to own a firearm in this country, you need to register that weapon. If you want to use that weapon and carry it, as a private detective or a bodyguard or in any other legal way, you need to be licensed and cleared on a firing range, demonstrating that you have the necessary knowledge, skill and responsibility to use that firearm responsibly. And if you discharge that weapon outside of an authorized firing range, or in the course of one of those jobs, there’s going to be paperwork that needs to be filled out.

There's nothing in there about a draft. Sure, its closest equivalent in theory is gun registration...that is, if owning a gun obligated you to join the state militia and fight.

(Also, he's incorrect in much of his detail about gun laws. For instance, "If you want to own a firearm in this country, you need to register that weapon." Handgun licenses exist in some states, but there's no national requirement to register any gun one owns. Ask anyone who owns a shotgun or rifle.)

rerun

03-03-2007, 09:35 AM

Captain Marvel's return was just an issue added to make more money. Did he appear at all in Issue 7? (That's actually a question- I don't remember seeing him) Heck, Barney Fife could have been running that prison for the impact it had on the final story.

And is the reason they called it 42 the lamest reason for anything ever?

ForEverAncien

03-03-2007, 10:17 AM

After reading the entire Newsarama thread, including the after comments.

The word 'gimmick' comes to mind, ever so often. C Mar-vel's presence was such as so. Those panels were Ms. Marvel & a few others, was looking at a dead 'hero' and at the funeral (we never saw at all, who they mourned, in both instances)

'Gimmick', to serve the purpose of getting your attention first, without a further define...truthfully, explanation.

I am one of those, who deeply felt, that Mar-vel's entry was cheapen.

Cause, those who are currently in office at Marvel Entertainment...just though it would be 'cool' to do so.

That is how. the market is these days.

Will.S

03-03-2007, 10:33 AM

Yeah I disagree with making the Return a seperate issue.

The Captain Marvel return in CW #7 would have enhanced the issue for me as well as having Sentry deciding to register in the epilogue of the book (although I would have excluded the fight with Absorbing Man). I would also have included the Cap vs Sentry thing and expanded upon the fights which is why CW#7 would have been alot more satisfying on that regard if it were double sized.

Unfortunately the clone Thor stuff was expanded in Black Panther and I'm sure the Namor stuff will be shown at a later title.

diana's prince

03-03-2007, 01:39 PM

The thing that bothered me was his statement about continuity between the series and crossovers:

"But in my experience, placing order above storytelling is a recipe for mediocre comic books."

Yeah kids being lazy is ok! Without order what do we have? If they can't get the stories straight then only tell them in one book.

**this was in part 2**

Shyft

03-03-2007, 01:46 PM

would have liked to see the Cap vs. Sentry panels. Also wish he had clarified about the SHRA being a Draft or not, but whatever.

Expletive Deleted

03-03-2007, 01:53 PM

I think reading Brevoort's comments drives home that it all came down to execution.

If the Captain Marvel return had happened during the final battle, as originally planned, it could've worked better. If the Captain America surrender had happened as Brevoort described (I think) last week, it could've worked better. If the SHRA had been consistently presented throughout and had functioned the way he's suggesting, it could've worked better.

The platonic ideal of CIVIL WAR worked fine. The actual reality . . .

myslead

03-03-2007, 02:19 PM

Captain Marvel's return was pointless to say the least. He did NOTHING.

Red Orion

03-03-2007, 02:31 PM

NickThompson

03-03-2007, 02:45 PM

I noticed at least two lies in there. One that Thor was always a misdirect considering Millar said himself that he wanted it to be the real Thor and was made to turn it into a clone. And the second being that the definition of the SHRA was always the same when there was an editorial by She-Hulk in the Civil War Bugle that had a totally different definition.
Bit quick to yell liar aren't you? Millar could have wanted to use Thor AND it was always a misdirect. Depends what stage of planning it was at. As for the second part, you're saying an editorial within a comic proves that the act that the creators planned changed?

Red Orion

03-03-2007, 03:18 PM

Bit quick to yell liar aren't you? Millar could have wanted to use Thor AND it was always a misdirect. Depends what stage of planning it was at. As for the second part, you're saying an editorial within a comic proves that the act that the creators planned changed?

I'm saying the definition of the act changed based on the fact that they let a completely contradictory definition be published. And if Millar intended to use the real Thor then it wasn't always a misdirect and Brevoort is lying.

Shyft

03-03-2007, 04:08 PM

I'm saying the definition of the act changed based on the fact that they let a completely contradictory definition be published. And if Millar intended to use the real Thor then it wasn't always a misdirect and Brevoort is lying.

unless Marvel as a body wanted it to be a misdirect, but Millar as an individual writer wanted it to be the real Thor.

CyberCoyote

03-03-2007, 08:33 PM

I'm saying the definition of the act changed based on the fact that they let a completely contradictory definition be published. And if Millar intended to use the real Thor then it wasn't always a misdirect and Brevoort is lying.

I don't think they're lies, but I really get the feeling there's a lot of confusion staff wise and Brevoort is just the left trying to keep everything looking one way or the other. Writers tend to contradict one another, it's true, maybe a heavier editorial hand is needed?

stingerman

03-03-2007, 09:24 PM

Bottom line for me was that CW 7 was not long enough. They f'd it up. They shouldve put the stuff omitted in. Maybe they should come out with another Civil War called OFF PANEL or something!

ForEverAncien

03-04-2007, 11:16 AM

Time to read, the continuing saga...Return to Civil War, Part 2 (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=103632)

And part 3 (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=103725) is now up

ForEverAncien

03-04-2007, 11:18 AM

Then people would be screaming, on how they are milking the public.

We are a fickle bunch, no?
Bottom line for me was that CW 7 was not long enough. They f'd it up. They shouldve put the stuff omitted in. Maybe they should come out with another Civil War called OFF PANEL or something!

Cthulhudrew

03-05-2007, 10:01 AM

This is the comment that really didn't add up to me:

I have mentioned in the past that, in the initial discussion of CIVIL WAR, we started out with the notion that Captain America would go along with Registration, finding himself compelled by duty to hunt down his friends. That would have cast Tony on the Anti-Registration side. But we very quickly realized that those positions simply didn’t fit the characters, and within an hour or so, they and most of the main characters had aligned much as they were in the series.

Maybe it's not the way he intended to mean it, but read literally, the above suggests heavily that the positions of Cap and Iron Man were shoehorned to put the two men at odds, rather than actually being representations of how they would have responded in character.

I mean, just because Cap comes out on (say) the Pro side, why would that by necessity have made Tony take the opposite position, unless the goal was to set the two against one another? If it was in character for both men to be Pro-Registration, why not simply have them stay that way and write the story accordingly?

Then this comment is followed by a comment on Spidey on Tony's side (and his subsequent decision to unmask) which, again implies heavyhanded mischaracterization to fit a story rather than having the story develop from the characters.

From the start, we knew that we’d be building up the relationship between Peter and Tony, and that Spidey would support Stark at the outset. The element we could never get past was how Tony could have as his right-hand man a hero who refused to unmask himself and still keep the support of the public and the government. We kept trying to rationalize it to ourselves—“Tony pulls some strings and gets special dispensation.”—but it always felt like a cheat, like we were manipulating events to keep Spidey’s identity a secret after all of this was said and done. So at a certain point, I raised the though that the only way this would work is if Spider-man did register, and did publicly unmask, and after much spirited discussion back and forth, that’s what we decided to do.

If it was (and many have argued that it is) so against Spidey's character to unmask, then why would he have been on the Pro-registration side at all, other than it fit the story they wanted to tell (even if it went against past characterizations). Or, even if Spidey was Pro-registration (but not pro-public identity revealing), then couldn't they have done that, and not had him be Tony's right hand man?

kidpernicious

03-05-2007, 01:24 PM

Agree entirely Cthulhu. It's almost insulting how often I've seen Brevoort and others posturing and insisting "oh it all makes sense, think about it", when if you do truly examine these characters it doesn't make any sense at all. They just want to give the illusion of logic, just enough to tell the story they wanted to tell, crammed full with enough grabbers so that at the end of the day, when all the fans are left with a hollow dissatisfying story that ate up more money than it was worth, Marvel can just say hey look, look what we gave you, all those big deals (that aren't big deals), Spidey unmasking, Cap and Iron Man fighting, a changed status quo... Except none of that satisfied because none of it was truly justified. A story has to make sense, and in comic books, you have to hold true to the 40+ years of history these characters have experienced, or the story just doesn't ring true.

But who cares? Civil War sold well. Yay for Marvel. Screw genuine characters with genuine motivations.

John Nowak

03-08-2007, 09:23 PM

A story has to make sense, and in comic books, you have to hold true to the 40+ years of history these characters have experienced, or the story just doesn't ring true.

I'll go along with that; in superhero comics, characterization is pretty much the only thing that does stay more or less consistant; Civil War did a terrible job of that.

I can imagine Tony going evil; I can't imagine him going stupid evil.

DoctorDoom

03-09-2007, 11:09 AM

I give Breevort props for braving fan's questions, and answering most.

Capt USA

03-09-2007, 02:17 PM

from what I can see, the story was set up to have a company wide super hero brawl. For that to work they had to have two of the major characters as leaders. Captain America was one obvious one, the others would have been Iron man, Spider man, Reed Richards, and maybe Professor X and that is about it. regardless of the reason for the war, professor x would unite the mutants vs humans and that isn't the story that they wanted to tell. It's to line specific and deals with characters that don't interact all the time. Spider Man probably wouldn't be able to garner the support to oppose Captain America. So that leaves Reed and Iron Man. Tony works because that essentially forces a split of the Avengers leading to hopefully better anguished storylines. So they start from there, Cap vs Tony is what Civil War is about and then work outwards. At this point it's pretty easy to see how Tony has a stronger chance of joining the Pro side than Cap. (there is almost no way I can find that would justify Cap supporting the pro registration side, it would require a rewriting of his character that makes the character assassination that Green Arrow got in Identity Crisis appear sensible) Mind you they did shoe-horn Tony's character into the role, and the worse part is that they made him behave evil/bad earlier than they should have. I understand that part of the storyline was to show how a war could corrupt a person to get the outcome they want, but it was poorly done and done too early(in fact having tony doing the stuff before the war starts makes him appear evil instead of a guy spiraling downward)

Still it was mostly a good series except the fact that it made Cap appear to be one of the worse tacticians in history.

Sparda

04-03-2007, 01:45 PM

MAK15

04-03-2007, 02:21 PM

Ok this is a thought that I have been wondering the other day. What If the jerks did'nt send Hulk into space and civil war happend. The Hulk would absolutely refuse to register but what about his other alter ego Banner? Banner seems like the kind of guy who would actually register as he has first hand experienced his "hulk outs" have caused lot's of damage and should be held accountable.

So would banner have registered?

wow, good question.
Bruce Banner might register in order to make sure that he's watched and prevented from rampaging, but the Hulk personas might say 'F*** you, Stark' and violate every rule the registration impsoses
Id like to see Fixit's reaction to it, specifically

Expletive Deleted

04-03-2007, 03:08 PM

He'd probably register.

Fat lot of good it'd do, though. I mean, Banner's not exactly the one in charge in there, most of the time.

gunz

04-03-2007, 03:23 PM

they'd kill him first chance they got

JaeYu1

04-03-2007, 03:59 PM

If he intended to register, Banner would have turn himself to the authorities or the U.S. military a long time ago & never bother to do all this fugitive bit...

Joe Acro

04-03-2007, 04:30 PM

He probably would have tried to register. (And heck, he might still.) But short of him and his alter ego finding some sort of compromise, I doubt they'd let him. They might've ended up keeping him imprisoned in 42.

--
Above, there are parentheses.

Mike Smash!

04-03-2007, 04:59 PM

Banner might have tried to register, but I doubt that Stark and others would accept it. They'd probably want to lock him up. He's unpredictable and likely impossible to restrain.

We've seen that SHIELD can draft registrants into doing work for them. Hulk doesn't go where he doesn't want to go -- and SHIELD knows that.

They'd likely just try imprison him or exile him to another dimension or something.

voltron

04-03-2007, 05:10 PM

Was the whole thing with the 'organisation' retconned?
because if it wasnt, i dont think banner would have all that much trust in government organisations. because it might be some geniuses idea to make clones of him in the future
the 'army of hulks' idea.

and if he isnt going to register, i doubt 42 would be even close to sufficient to holding him. he has no weaknesses like the living mummy (fire) or wateva. unless they kept him doped up indefinitely.

PatchMadripoor

04-03-2007, 07:40 PM

Doesn't anyone get that Banner would never register?

He's been on the lam from the US government for so long because he has years of first-hand experience at the abuse from corrupt government agencies, and Banner just wants to be left alone. His greatest benefit in dealing with said agencies is that the Hulk can always push back harder than what anyone can apply pressure on him..

Further, he could have received years of counseling to heal the grossly damaged psyche he has, but as we've sen from many of the pet black ops projects involving superhumans against him. They (the powers that be) have done it before and will do it again - turn super humans in nothing more than weapons. (Hello Weapon X program?)

And forget about a stable private life outside SHRA for Banner.
The more I see of the SHRA after Civil War, the more Cap was right: to give you an example, let's say a firefighter from anywhere in the U.S. The SHRA act is taking away the private lives of said firefighter and almost "drafts" them into becoming trained heroes, instead of just allowing them to live normal lives. You could quit being a firefighter, but not being a registered "hero". Instead, he would be locked into the SHRA's super-human army. MAYBE the Professor Hulk would be up for this, but not the current incarnation, whatever he is.

PatchMadripoor

04-03-2007, 07:42 PM

wow, good question.
Bruce Banner might register in order to make sure that he's watched and prevented from rampaging, but the Hulk personas might say 'F*** you, Stark' and violate every rule the registration impsoses
Id like to see Fixit's reaction to it, specifically

Fixit would register and abuse the "system" of the SHRA from the inside, all the while trying to stay "reputable". Fixit is not above screwing someone else if he suspects they will screw him first, and we all know the SHRA would screw Fixit over.

Stormshadow

04-03-2007, 08:01 PM

Banner, nor any of the Hulks have any love for the government. They would never register.

Ender

04-03-2007, 08:05 PM

I think that the end result of WWH will be the Hulk registering. Joe Q and company are hell bent on making the SRH the shape of things going forward. Would the Hulk registering be anti-climatic? Yes. Marvel wouldn't do that to us would they? Though he'll register and receive immunity for his crimes. How cool would the Hulk be as an Ellis Thunderbolt?

jackolover

04-03-2007, 09:39 PM

Doesn't anyone get that Banner would never register?

He's been on the lam from the US government for so long because he has years of first hand experience at the abuse power corrupts government agencies, and he just wants to be left long. His greatest benefit is that the Hulk can always push back harder than what anyone can through at him.

Further, he could have received years of counseling to heal the grossly damaged psyche he has, but as we've seen from many of the pet black ops projects involving superhumans against him. They (the powers that be) have done it before and will do it again - turn super humans into nothing more than weapons. (Hello Weapon X program?)

First off, you bring up a good point on why Tony and Reed made the decision to send Hulk up into space.

Secondly. Banner has been looking for any way to control the Hulk, inside him, and I would see no trouble with Banner volenteering to register, and have Tony, Hank and Reed, at least, try their methods on him.

But, Tony, Hank, and Reed concocted the FSI with the subsequent new heros they created, (Thor and the Champions).

Tony had the chance, to the clone the Hulk and make that his weapon. He didn't.
Tony had the chance to put nanotech into Banner and the Hulk, to control him like the TBolts. He didn't.

And like you say, Tony had the option to drug Banner, permanently, and store him in 42 for ever. He didn't.

Lots of options were before Tony and Reed, but to decide the best option was banishment, must have meant, they couldn' reasonably carry out any of the above 3. Banner may be the only human who doesn't fit into the SHRA in any shape or form, and that's a failure of the act. If Banner is nanotech resistant, unretrainable, unduplicatable, then Banner has to be a magical figure, above human law, like Thor. So why not let him run around like he normally does?

Footnote: I wonder who they do have locked up in 42 permanently, never to be released?

dreyson

04-04-2007, 08:31 PM

I hope he doesn't end up registering and the result is the SHRA ending and the Hulk proves how worthless the SHRA is.

XPac

04-04-2007, 08:38 PM

Ok this is a thought that I have been wondering the other day. What If the jerks did'nt send Hulk into space and civil war happend. The Hulk would absolutely refuse to register but what about his other alter ego Banner? Banner seems like the kind of guy who would actually register as he has first hand experienced his "hulk outs" have caused lot's of damage and should be held accountable.

So would banner have registered?

Wouldn't make a difference... similiar to Spider Woman, I imagine SHIELD and Tony would want Hulk locked up.

cable guy

04-04-2007, 10:16 PM

Bruce would want to register.

Needless to say, Hulk would not.

Adrian Tullberg

04-05-2007, 04:45 AM

Id like to see Fixit's reaction to it, specifically

Stark had made the offer for registration a number of times by now.

There was either acceptance; co-operative or fearfully, or defiance.

This was the first time someone laughed at him; a bone chilling laugh that resonated through the night and causing the SHIELD troops around him to tighten the grips on their weapons.

"Me? You're tellin' me to sign the dotted lines and say 'yes sir'?"

"It's your obligation to ..."

The grey behemoth leaned down, deep set green eyes staring into Stark's. "Do you think you can push me around like Banner?"

"The Superhuman Registration ..."

" ... or you think I'm as dumb as greenie? It's gotta be one or the other."

"You'll be offered ..."

"What makes you think I'd get the respect I deserve, huh?"

Stark was loosing patience. "This is your only ..."

The Extremis Virus had vastly improved Stark's speed and reaction time in the armour.

However, if the opponent was staring you in the face, blocking your vision and standing right next to you, the odds were slightly more in his favour.

Stark discovered this when Fixit had grabbed and thrown him into the SHIELD platoon a split second later ...

agrich

04-05-2007, 06:53 AM

Banner doesn't have any superpowers, so not only wouldn't he register, but there'd be no point. Turning into a destructive monster that obviously would want nothing to do with SHIELD or the government or its ridiculous initiative isn't a "power."

Radical

04-06-2007, 10:31 AM

I agree with agrich. Having a multiple-personality that manifests by turning you into an uncontrollable engine of destruction isn't a power, it's a curse.

Besides, I think that, like Spider-Man, Banner would initially be pro-reg...but once he knew about Clor, or the Negative Zone gulag, etc., he'd get angry...and you wouldn't like him when he's angry. Of course, as the Hulk (any of them), he'd be more of a conscientious objector, not really caring which side was "right" as long as he was left alone.

jackolover

05-14-2007, 05:00 AM

I know. I can't let it go, so here is a reflection on looking back at the stories in the whole CW collection.

1. I noticed the Civil War ended when the Choosing Sides book came out. Once they had the teams organised, that put an end to any reversal, like Caps side winning. The juggernaut was put in motion and nothing would stop it.

2. The beggining of the final battle really galvanised when Panther came to the US. As soon as he arrived, the conclusion was set in motion, because he now represented the most powerful challenge to Tony's victory, when Panther gave his resources to Cap.

3. Just prior to CW #6 and #7, Tony did everything he could to resolve the conflict with Cap, in Casualties of war, the ambush in War Crimes.

4. Once Tony gave the Battle Damage report to the President, of their victory, the President rewarded him with the Shield Directorship.

5. In all of this, Namor was seen as a coniving, self-interested, detached monarch. His token appearance at the final battle was short lived, and did not have the overwhelming effect it should have. We see this further when Cho tries to get Namor to commit to the Hulks side, and Cho is summararily dismissed. It's typical of his commitment to the surface world.

Finally, what really intrigues me is, if Panther is the leader of the World Alliance, and Black Bolt's Inhumans are, presumably, a member nation, does the whole Alliance come to Bolts rescue on the moon, when Hulk comes to tear him apart?

Citizen V

05-28-2007, 06:53 PM

rZi

05-28-2007, 07:10 PM

Voted great, didn't enjoy it at the time but looking back it was good and has made alot of new stories and directions for characters

rushx5

05-28-2007, 07:12 PM

I enjoyed it. especially the punisher part when super villians walked in

Chiasm

05-28-2007, 07:13 PM

For about five issues it was great. The tie ins were great. Then everything just fell apart at the end and it redefined the term anti-climactic.

Expletive Deleted

05-28-2007, 07:19 PM

The idea was good, the execution was not.

Ult. Fireboy

05-28-2007, 07:23 PM

I think that it was a great idea and a great story.:D I think that Millar did a fantastic job writing, but I thought that it took way to long to come out.

Most of the tie-ins were great too!:D

Dusty.

05-28-2007, 07:28 PM

It was horribly written and conceived drek, plain and simple...

The Marvel Universe is a far more interesting place now than it's been in decades, though.

BeastieRunner

05-28-2007, 07:36 PM

The idea was good, the execution was not.

What ED said.

Will.S

05-28-2007, 07:38 PM

It had it's problems but on the whole I liked what it did as well as all the great moments whether through shock endings or just generally cool stuff throughout.

Rated it "Great" btw.

1WEBHEAD

05-28-2007, 07:40 PM

THE IDEA: Great! :D
THE EXECUTION: Forced yet entertaining.:)
THE AFTERMATH: Totally worth it. :cool:

The art was great and Millar's writing was action paked. It indeed felt more like a "Giant MEGA MARVEL CROSS OVER Event" compared to HOM and Dissassembeled put together.

Almost all of the marvel characters were affected by it, well, except for most of the cosmic characters excluding NOVA and most of the Xmen.

SpiderMan was given a much needed spin. Face it kiddies, SpiderMan fighting the SandMan/Vulture/Electro/Green Goblin is great and fun but Spidey couldn't do it forever without being redundant.

The Fantastic Four disbanded as well as the Avengers.

Thanks to Civil War we now have 3 entertaining Avengers books, Back in Black, The new Fantastic Four, Punisher: War Journal and a crazy new Thunderbolts team.

Bruce Wayne Jr.

05-28-2007, 08:13 PM

Ill-conceived and poorly written.

Captain Shady

05-28-2007, 08:53 PM

Brutally bad. Mischaracterizations abound. Flat finale. Plot holes. Painful. Just got worse as it went. Painful.

jackolover

05-28-2007, 09:32 PM

Civil War is done,and the Marvel Universe is "forever changed".After the War,what did you think?Was this all worth it?Was it a great read?Did you enjoy all that this event had to offer?Were you dissapointed?Leave a comment here.

Also,rate the event from from Fantastic to Poor.

I voted Fantastic.

Was it worth it? Financially - yes. Philosophically - yes

Was it a great read? Yes, in that all the tie-ins had a significance.

Did you enjoy all that this event had to offer? Caps defeat, unmasking SM, the new TBolts, Ms.Marvel vs Julia, Run/YA, X-Men, Wolvy, Frontline - all yes

Were you disappointed? The ending was hurried, but predictable. Cap does not change like that, (snap fingers). TBolts and the key to Cap was a letdown. FF book was soft.

Edit : After CW, I wanted to see emotional conflicts relating to what had changed :-

Tony as Director of Shield, either hanging himself, or, his dirty tricks catching up on him.
Caps imprisonment (spoiled by his death)
Mighty Avengers clashes for leadership, with Caps exit creating a vacuum.
Spiderman being chased down by Iron Man, the Avengers, and Green Goblins TBolts.
New Avengers anger at Caps imprisonment and their subsequent break out attempt on Cap (Irrelevant).
The Initiative showing 10-15 groups in different states.

A special book (like Frontline) that showed the disintegration of society with out the heros in charge of their own affairs.

Will.S

05-28-2007, 10:17 PM

Characters that came off well:

Hercules
Spider-Man
The Falcon
Cloak and Dagger
She-Hulk
Sue Storm
Johnny Storm
Thing
The Young Avengers
Punisher
Cable
Ms. Marvel
Luke Cage
Namor
Emma Frost
Dr. Strange

Now these are the people that acted true to character in the event they were in and based on their interactions with everyone. They also had pretty cool and memorable moments in their own right.

Characters that were controversially transformed or affected so much into what's happening today:

Reed Richards
Iron Man
Captain America
Yellowjacket

Cap is now dead, Iron Man is the biggest dick in MU history now, and Reed is trying to mend his marriage with Sue. All are great concepts and make the MU a more interesting place because of their actions during Civil War. This is a pretty touchy subject which make these guys now the target for pretty much everyone in the MU.

Yellowjacket straddled the line since he was more behind the scenes but his involvement with the clone Thor also makes him a bit dangerous. He's more interesting now being separated from Janet and doing his thing in the Initiative.

Mischaracterized or dodgy behavior:

Iron Fist (as Daredevil) - Both in the beginning with the coin and the end when he was sent to the 42 prison.

Bishop - Who knew he actually wanted to be an Avenger and he just comes off as something of a traitor to the X-Men which I guess was the point of choosing sides. He's going to be character thats going to be harder to bring back the X-Men under good terms.

Wasp - In retrospect, seeing the horrible things she's seen with the Masters of Evil, I would be hard pressed to accept Janet to go with the New Thunderbolts plan as easily as she did.

Karthak

05-29-2007, 01:34 AM

I've got nothing against Millar, but it would have been nice if he could have written a more 616 cap instead of the Ultimate bastard.

Lanowar

05-29-2007, 04:37 AM

What ED said.

Me too I could say alot on Civil War I hated it I like the post civil war universe and the idea is great but the actual mini itself is really bad.

The Confessor

05-29-2007, 05:16 AM

I voted 'Fantastic'.

I really enjoyed following Civil War through all the various titles. I genuinely found it entertaining and I loved seeing all the twists and turns that the story took along the way. Good stuff!

Pro

05-29-2007, 05:52 AM

The idea was good, the execution was not.

That about says it. My main gripe is that the x-men were so obviously editorially mandated to stay out of Civil War which made absolutely no sense whatsoever except from a commercial/editorially mandated perspective. Then it's followed up with the Initiative which deals with storylines that would normally have been x-related. The anger of the general public toward superbeings, registration, training young superbeings in the use of their powers so they don't pose a threat to humans, all x-related storylines now artifically shifted to Avengers in order to boost sales of the Avengers at the expense of the x-franchise.

And then we see constant inconsistencies with regards to how characters react and to the whole idea that training superbeings makes the world safer.
We see superhero trainees being send into aerial combat with equipment they're unfamiliar with and we see proreg heroes using exactly the same tactics as anti regs when fighting and that's supposed to make the world safer? Inconsistencies like not training mutants, the most hated and feared superbeings for the past 50 years or so who are all of a sudden completely forgotten by the general public, inconsistencies like most of the 198 mutants were never trained in the use of their powers by either Xavier or the Initiative and who, after trashing government property, are free to roam america without any supervision.

Meh, i said it all before .. the concept was good, but it feels artificial and sloppy in execution.

Citizen V

05-30-2007, 07:23 PM

I could imagine that people would be unhappy with the result,but i do remember hearing that the eventstarted out good.But then it went downhill,when it was reveiled that Cap`s side would loose no matter what.

Chiasm

05-30-2007, 07:46 PM

That about says it. My main gripe is that the x-men were so obviously editorially mandated to stay out of Civil War which made absolutely no sense whatsoever except from a commercial/editorially mandated perspective. Then it's followed up with the Initiative which deals with storylines that would normally have been x-related. The anger of the general public toward superbeings, registration, training young superbeings in the use of their powers so they don't pose a threat to humans, all x-related storylines now artifically shifted to Avengers in order to boost sales of the Avengers at the expense of the x-franchise.

And then we see constant inconsistencies with regards to how characters react and to the whole idea that training superbeings makes the world safer.
We see superhero trainees being send into aerial combat with equipment they're unfamiliar with and we see proreg heroes using exactly the same tactics as anti regs when fighting and that's supposed to make the world safer? Inconsistencies like not training mutants, the most hated and feared superbeings for the past 50 years or so who are all of a sudden completely forgotten by the general public, inconsistencies like most of the 198 mutants were never trained in the use of their powers by either Xavier or the Initiative and who, after trashing government property, are free to roam america without any supervision.

Meh, i said it all before .. the concept was good, but it feels artificial and sloppy in execution.

Yep. The X-Men's non involvement made absolutely no sense. Ever since the Days of Future Past the one thing that the X-men have repeatedly tried to do is prevent a future where mutants are forced to register. Now comes an event where all with powers, including mutants, must register. And the X-men basically yawn and say who cares. Makes absolutely no sense.

I understand the powers that be wanted this to be largely a non X related event but they should have put a little more thought into how they were going to keep the X-men out of it. It could have been simple with a little foresight. One X-team is currently offworld, another just got back from being offworld, and they could have had the third team offworld as well. Then the whole thing would have made sense since none were around. But instead they totally ignored 20+ years of X-continuity.

Will.S

05-30-2007, 07:56 PM

Yep. The X-Men's non involvement made absolutely no sense. Ever since the Days of Future Past the one thing that the X-men have repeatedly tried to do is prevent a future where mutants are forced to register. Now comes an event where all with powers, including mutants, must register. And the X-men basically yawn and say who cares. Makes absolutely no sense.

I understand the powers that be wanted this to be largely a non X related event but they should have put a little more thought into how they were going to keep the X-men out of it. It could have been simple with a little foresight. One X-team is currently offworld, another just got back from being offworld, and they could have had the third team offworld as well. Then the whole thing would have made sense since none were around. But instead they totally ignored 20+ years of X-continuity.
I dunno, I actually thought that was handled rather well.

They all got registered after House of M so it's not like they have to forcibly fight against it since the damage was done. I also thought it was nice to see the situation reversed on the regular superhero folk when the X-Men have gone through years of it enough to know that it sucks to be on the receiving end.

There was some involvement with X-Factor since they had their own little rebellion which was pretty cool but I thought that the mutants were better off neutral given their current situation and their view towards the outward community towards them over the years. Plus they did help in the clean-up of Stamford.

XPac

05-30-2007, 08:02 PM

Yep. The X-Men's non involvement made absolutely no sense. Ever since the Days of Future Past the one thing that the X-men have repeatedly tried to do is prevent a future where mutants are forced to register. Now comes an event where all with powers, including mutants, must register. And the X-men basically yawn and say who cares. Makes absolutely no sense.

I understand the powers that be wanted this to be largely a non X related event but they should have put a little more thought into how they were going to keep the X-men out of it. It could have been simple with a little foresight. One X-team is currently offworld, another just got back from being offworld, and they could have had the third team offworld as well. Then the whole thing would have made sense since none were around. But instead they totally ignored 20+ years of X-continuity.

Yeah, the X-Men's role was kind of disappointing. Part of me was hoping that they would show up in the 11th hour like some kind of calvary. But it just wasn't meant to be.

And their rationale for helping, while sensible enough, was kind of unheroic sounding. It's one thing if they absolutely agreed with one side or the other. But to sit on the sidelines because others didn't help them kinda comes off as petty.

Will.S

05-30-2007, 08:11 PM

And their rationale for helping, while sensible enough, was kind of unheroic sounding. It's one thing if they absolutely agreed with one side or the other. But to sit on the sidelines because others didn't help them kinda comes off as petty.
Hmm, well really that was Emma's rationale but we never got a whole lot of the rest of their reasons for staying out other than Emma vouching for them.

The X-Men have been isolationist in the past too like in Secret Wars and generally just deal with their own problems unless it's forcibly put upon them.

XPac

05-30-2007, 08:18 PM

Hmm, well really that was Emma's rationale but we never got a whole lot of the rest of their reasons for staying out other than Emma vouching for them.

The X-Men have been isolationist in the past too like in Secret Wars and generally just deal with their own problems unless it's forcibly put upon them.

But that's kind of what made Emma's rationale so hypocritical. The X-Men have often been isolationists by choice... yet they are critical of others for not being there helping them in their business.

Like I said, I do understand their rationale for sitting on the sidelines. It was reasonable enough, despite the manner in which Emam argued it. But something about it just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Bryson the Red

05-30-2007, 09:18 PM

There were a lot of things I think I would have changed in Civil War if given the chance, but after it's all said and done Civil War was really amazing. It was an interesting story that sparked more discussion and heated emotions in fans than I have seen in a long time. I would also say that (at least in my area) it drew in so many new and old readers who had fallen out of comics. Civil War, for all its wins and loses as a story was truely a boon to comics as a whole.

Question_Authority

05-30-2007, 09:49 PM

Civil War as a Mini series was average in my opinion due to a number of factors. First was the director of SHIELD suddenly ordering her "cape killer" goons to arrest Captain America because he had a difference of opinion on a hypothetical situation. Second was Clor, which was a huge cop out, since there was a good build up to Thor's potential entrance into the conflict. Unfortunately, that was wasted and we got a cheap copy that killed avenger, Goliath. When Daredevil was arrested, I thought that the cell he was put into would nullify his radar power and mess up his hearing, but since it was really Iron Fist, he wouldn't be as affected. I thought that was Cap's plan to have IF break out and help the other super heroes being held in the negative zone; my mistake, I gave Millar too much credit in his portrayal of a military genius like Captain America. The final issue where cap was attacked by firemen and workers was really forced and contrived. Only now when wrestled by a bunch of ordinary people he sees the effects of the "war?".
The art in CW was good tho. Overall, a great idea, good hook, good build up (until it got derailed with issue 4 Clor) and a lousy ending IMHO. Typical company crossover in other words. My vote was average.

jackolover

05-30-2007, 10:05 PM

Second was Clor, which was a huge cop out, since there was a good build up to Thor's potential entrance into the conflict. Unfortunately, that was wasted and we got a cheap copy that killed avenger, Goliath.

Not to be argumentative, but I wonder if you considered if the real Thor was introduced into the war on Tony's side? What would have happened?

scratchie

05-31-2007, 07:01 AM

Brutally bad. Mischaracterizations abound. Flat finale. Plot holes. Painful. Just got worse as it went. Painful.What he said. Turned me off from reading any Marvel Universe titles for the forseeable future.

Animation

05-31-2007, 08:06 AM

I hope "forever changed" doesnt mean Registration is forever. If so, I guess I'm "forever done." My Marvel titles are all on hold for however long that takes. Plenty of cool stuff from DC to buy, plus lots of cool comics from other companies.

Lewis

Question_Authority

05-31-2007, 09:27 AM

Billy Parker

05-31-2007, 03:22 PM

Fantastic!!! Only I wish Cap was defeated, instead of surrendering.

Magneto Rocks

05-31-2007, 03:27 PM

Adored it. Spectacular main series which kept you on the edge of your seat with some incredible tie-ins (Spider-Man, I'm looking at YOU!) and some not so good ones of course. (*coughfantasticfourcough*) And of course, for like the only time since the first Crisis it really did *change everything*.

jackolover

05-31-2007, 05:32 PM

I meant that the build up to Thor's introduction should have actually introduced Thor as opposed to a cheap clone of the thunder god. I would have hoped he would have picked the Anti-registration side so that would have equaled the scales a bit and set up a Thor vs Sentry battle.

So you think that Thor on the anti-side would still not give them a win? Or does Sentry wimp out and not confront Thor?

XPac

05-31-2007, 06:03 PM

So you think that Thor on the anti-side would still not give them a win? Or does Sentry wimp out and not confront Thor?

In terms of the fight, Caps side ended up arguably dominating Tony's side even without Thor. Or at least that's how it looked in the final battle.

Cap in the end didn't need extra muscle. What he needed was a bit of advice in battling legistation... and Thor really couldn't have helped him there.

PastePotPete

05-31-2007, 06:24 PM

I gave it an average rating because I'm torn...

The main series was, in my opinion, very bad. The pacing was the biggest problem for me. Each plot point felt as if it was glossed over, as if Millar were just checking off items on a list instead of really getting into the meat of his story. He had a lot of ground to cover, but it was still unacceptable. The characterizations of some of the Marvel characters were way out of line with the way we've known them up until CW. Whatever. You've all heard this before.

Civil War gets high marks from me, however, in how it changed the MU. I really like the new status quo. I think it's exciting, drastic and different. I think the potential for great stories has been kicked up a notch. The secret of Civil War was basically that it would continue indefinitely and I like that many great writers are going to get to dip their hand in that pool and play with the registered vs. unregistered conflict, the implications of The Initiative, and all the other new toys in the sandbox.

I also thought that many of the Civil War tie-in stories were very well done.

jackolover

05-31-2007, 06:38 PM

The main series was, in my opinion, very bad. The pacing was the biggest problem for me. Each plot point felt as if it was glossed over, as if Millar were just checking off items on a list instead of really getting into the meat of his story. He had a lot of ground to cover, but it was still unacceptable. The characterizations of some of the Marvel characters were way out of line with the way we've known them up until CW. Whatever. You've all heard this before.

I know Millar has to take the criticism over the pacing of the main book. (You described it eliquently). But I imagine Millar would have fleshed this out better, if he was doing this as a stand-alone arc. However, the editor had his directives as to how long CW should take, and waved his editorial sword, and that's how we got the 'checking off items' feel about the writing. I would have liked CW fleshed out better in the main book, but editing had to match the main book to all the tie-ins, to make the whole cross-over flow, so something had to suffer, and that made the book look 'glossed over'. I'm not an apologetist, because I liked the epic, it's just that practicality conspired to take something divine, and give it constraints, unfortunately.

jackolover

05-31-2007, 06:44 PM

In terms of the fight, Caps side ended up arguably dominating Tony's side even without Thor. Or at least that's how it looked in the final battle.

Cap in the end didn't need extra muscle. What he needed was a bit of advice in battling legistation... and Thor really couldn't have helped him there.

But would advice on legislation have mattered? If Thor had defeated the whole friggin' pro-reg army, so there's nothing left that the government could do to enforce the SHRA (in this scenario). Thor becomes King of the SH's. The government does a backflip and the SH's deal like they used too. Or no?

XPac

05-31-2007, 06:49 PM

But would advice on legislation have mattered? If Thor had defeated the whole friggin' pro-reg army, so there's nothing left that the government could do to enforce the SHRA (in this scenario). Thor becomes King of the SH's. The government does a backflip and the SH's deal like they used too. Or no?

Defeating Tony's side in one battle hardly means that the war is over. It just means that Tony's side got it's butt kicked, and they'll need to try harder the next time.

We're not talking about Clor here... Thor's not going to kill anyone.

jackolover

05-31-2007, 06:57 PM

Defeating Tony's side in one battle hardly means that the war is over. It just means that Tony's side got it's butt kicked, and they'll need to try harder the next time.

We're not talking about Clor here... Thor's not going to kill anyone.

No Thor wouldn't kill anyone, but he could give TRH a taste of their own medicine and frog-march the Initiative into 42. That makes no SH resistance to the anti-side. No?

nick91884

05-31-2007, 09:41 PM

I grew up reading marvel comics and I never really got into DC comics. Sometime in the mid 90's I stopped reading them. I started to hear alot about the civil war so around early march I downloaded the scans of all the civil war comics and tie ins...(I know not totally legit), but anyways I read them all and loved every minute of it. Since then I have bought every initiative comic I could get my hands on plus a few that have nothing to do with it.

I love how Iron man is becoming the biggest villian in the MU.
I love the Thunderbolts comics.
I can't wait for world war hulk #1.

By the way my rating : Fantastic

TheBest246

06-01-2007, 02:29 AM

i really liked civil war but can some one explain to me what the purpose of civil war: the return was? is Captain Marvel alive now and
i just didnt see the point in it!

Cloud

06-01-2007, 03:02 AM

The Civil War series makes an alright read. There are a lot of flaws. But the art was great and some of the tie-ins were brilliant; Amazing Spider-Man, Front Line and Punisher War Journal especially. As an event though it was pretty stunning and a lot has changed because of it which makes things really exciting in Marvel at the moment. It's more important than it is well-written.

BizarroBeachHead

06-01-2007, 05:20 AM

I am completely serious when I say Civil War is easily seven of the worst comics ever written. I am extra harsh on that book because of what it was supposed to be. A mega event summer crossover that shapes the future of the Marvel Universe should be at least HALFWAY competent. This book fails on all accounts(most of them already mentioned). Robot Clone Thor, seriously? What did Spider-man unmasking have to do with any of the other issues? Remember when both sides were going to be portrayed equally? The absurd motivations invented for the characters. It was terrible.

That being said, the new landscape was a good idea, unfortunately it was buried under committee thinking, editorial mandates(a number of rewrites, I suspect) and, well, Mark Millar.

At least I can take comfort that there are some good writers out there that can take this concept and really run with it.

a-spidey

06-01-2007, 11:51 AM

i voted for "great". Was the best crossover i've read in years from Marvel. Better than Onslaught, House of M etc.

jesse_custer

06-01-2007, 12:23 PM

Probably the worst writing in comics history happened because of this crossover. I seem to remember a few panels where a journalist tells Cap that he doesn't know anything about America because he doesn't watch American Idol or use MySpace. Cap sits there and looks sad.

Worst panels ever.

Overall, though, the crossover was average. Everything you expect from overtly turgid ideas.

Edit: If you think this is better than the Onslaught crossover, I have to strongly disagree. That was a crossover that didn't puss out and resort to using a cloned Thor (lame).

Animation

06-01-2007, 02:02 PM

The secret of Civil War was basically that it would continue indefinitely and I like that many great writers are going to get to dip their hand in that pool and play with the registered vs. unregistered conflict, the implications of The Initiative, and all the other new toys in the sandbox.

I know I'm just repeating myself since I already said this before but I'm just so irritated by this that I had to post again. :) I HATE this registration crap, and I hate how it has changed the MU. I wont read any story in which registration has anything to do with it ... which means I'm off Marvel's main universe. The LAST thing I want is for this to be the perma state of the whole MU but Oh well, I lose. I'm sticking to older trades and to non-main universe stuff like Spider-Girl (until they ruin that universe).

At this point, I'm going to be exploring the DCU a lot more than I have been, as well as more and more independent / alternate stuff.

Lewis

1WEBHEAD

06-01-2007, 02:05 PM

You know what would have made Civil War even Better?

If Gage had co-written it along with Millar. Or atleast wrote more tie-ins.

He would have made Tony and Reed look less like Mad scientist/"The Bad Guys
".

jackolover

06-01-2007, 11:33 PM

Although the other implication is also the use of Reeds own psychohistory. Reed says Tony came to him with his gut feelings and fear and Reed ran the numbers and figured everything out, I assume to know that it would happen and they couldn't win over it and it was either this or total superhuman extinction due to the fight. In which case you probably want to start a "Reed Richards Civil War" topic, which may be even more interesting than Tony's or Cap's :D

Okay, I'll bite Bulbasteve. So here goes.

You would have to start with Reeds utter conviction that statistics show, SH violence shall escalate, and, that by incident Number 10,000, public sentiment will cause the wipeout of all SH's. We are up to incident Number 9,999 with Stamford.

(WWH should trigger Project Wideawake, if Initiative wasn't in place. But because Tony Starks 50 state teams is up and operational, the Humans will no doubt look the other way while Hulk rips apart Times Square).

Has SHRA vindicated Reed Richards conviction that SH's have been saved from annihilation? (Sorry Annihilist fans). Reed is a very powerful scientific thinker. We don't really know if Reed came across this statistic by accident, or whether Reed has far-reaching plans on the go all the time.

Clues like his thrashing his veiwpoint out with his wife, and she couldn't understand them, makes me feel, Reeds determination was very strong. Because you do not take on a woman like Sue Richards, lightly, and stick by your guns and watch your wife walk out of your life, if, you weren't totally convinved of your findings.

So there you have it. Reed Richards, the father of all serenity and security, overseeing all SH activity, so that at no time will he ever lose CONTROL. And from the beginning of his SH carreer, if anyone had to deal with control, it was the liquid body of Reed Richards. Reeds over-ponderance with control, has led him to the Negative Zone, where the 42 eventually was born; the Baxter Building, where it took the Punisher to break in; and Star encompasing space vehicles, that took him to the furthest galaxies in human conception. This is not a man who lets fate take it's course. This is a man who looks at fate and says, I can change this.

Will the CW in fact successfully curtail fate? We will see. Fate has a way of making a mockery of the plans of men and mice.

Okay Bulbasteve, you asked for it.

bulbasteve

06-01-2007, 11:47 PM

Oh no, what hell have I wrought! :eek:

He certainly has A far reaching plan as he told Sue in the last FF issue, but interestingly here is a guy who is on vacation and said he will only go through with these plans with everyones OK. So none of the plans I guess are of the "hey everyone is going to die if we don't register" variety.

jackolover

06-02-2007, 02:05 AM

He certainly has A far reaching plan as he told Sue in the last FF issue, but interestingly here is a guy who is on vacation and said he will only go through with these plans with everyones OK. So none of the plans I guess are of the "hey everyone is going to die if we don't register" variety.

Yeah. They would have to be the ultuistic variety, like invent calipers for invalid kids, bring water to the deserts; stuff like that. But that would be some different FF series wouldn't it? All the FF do all day is work on Reeds projects, of Human Betterment. I'd like to see Ben Grimm come up to an African dictator and say, 'I see anymore of your guntrucks around this compound, I'm going to make a new used parts yard, guarded by Lockjaw'.

(It's funny that Lockjaw has the same little tuning fork on his head as Black Bolt, don't you think?)

dingo

06-02-2007, 04:15 AM

(It's funny that Lockjaw has the same little tuning fork on his head as Black Bolt, don't you think?)

Apparently the inhumans have somewhat...rural ideals.

jackolover

06-02-2007, 06:00 AM

Apparently the inhumans have somewhat...rural ideals.

Sex with dogs?

dingo

06-02-2007, 07:44 AM

Sex with dogs?

That was what I was trying to imply slightly less directly.

Alpow

06-02-2007, 08:55 AM

Will the CW in fact successfully curtail fate?

No it won't, his model can't predict the actions of individuals and when you have individuals that can level cities the model is useless.

If things turn out like Reed thinks they will it will be because of bad luck more than good planning and foresight.

jadrax

06-02-2007, 09:03 AM

No it won't, his model can't predict the actions of individuals and when you have individuals that can level cities the model is useless.

If things turn out like Reed thinks they will it will be because of bad luck more than good planning and foresight.

Yeah, I think the individual it failed to predict wasn't so much Sue as it was the Hulk, who is going to totally change the political map.

Karthak

06-02-2007, 11:37 AM

His brillian plan to save humanity would have amounted to squat if Annihilus had reached earth. And why the hell didn't he inform Stark of the fact that a war much, MUCH more important than that damn civil war altercation was taking place? The Kree whipped, the Skrull empire gone, the Nova corps vaporized...and Richards just ignored it? As seen in Nova 2, he didn't even bother to inform anyone of it. Some genius.:p

PastePotPete

06-02-2007, 11:46 AM

At least McDuffie's psycho-history explanation for Reed's actions is something we can work with. It's enough to suspend disbelief.

Strascynski's "My Uncle was persecuted by HUAC and I'm scared it'll happen to me!" explanation was insulting in the extreme. Completely untenable. I never boycott any writer on the basis of one story, but that story came close to making me never read Strascynski again. Infuriating. Reed Richards, the man that faced Galactus, is afraid of the United States Government? Give me a break.

Now that it seems Reed is returning from his time off with Sue, I'd like to see some of his other Initiative-related projects. What else is Reed working on for this 'brave new world' he and Stark are creating?