Should there be a Mastermind behind Civil War?

[Dark Soul # 7]

Since this seems to be a bit of a hot topic I decided to make a post out of it.
Now remember that the question isn´t if you wether you think there is or there isn´t a mastermind behind Civil War.
The question is if you think there SHOULD be a mastermind behind Civil War or not.

[lordlad]

No way !!! Having a mastermind or a main villian just sounds so 'cliche' like the billion of events out there.

[mattspideyrocks!]

No. This is a unique and great story. Let villains capitalize on it, not be behind it. This isn't the last hundred big events where someone is behind everything. This is Civil War. The heroes are the focus. Leave it be. No mastermind.

[phantom1592]

I don't have a problem with a Mastermind. Anytime you get heroes to tear each other apart, the villians job is half done ;)

[Kevinroc]

No, that would be a cheap way out.

"Oh, the government and so many of the heroes were being manipulated by *insert evil mastermind here*."

[annihilator]

No, that would be a cheap way out.

"Oh, the government and so many of the heroes were being manipulated by *insert evil mastermind here*."

I agree.

[Young Avenger]

No. This is a unique and great story. Let villains capitalize on it, not be behind it. This isn't the last hundred big events where someone is behind everything. This is Civil War. The heroes are the focus. Leave it be. No mastermind.

What he said. Also, having a mastermind behind it will be cliche.

[Doom Hammer]

No. This is a unique and great story. Let villains capitalize on it, not be behind it.

Well said, and I agree. The central theme of Civil War is something that NEEDS to be touched on, it's not some scheme cooked up by Scary Villain Guy.

[The Foreigner]

*sigh*

I can't believe there are people that think a mastermind behind Civil War is actually a good idea. I swear 99% of hero vs. hero fights are because one or more of the parties were either a) brainwashed into fighting another hero, or b) manipulated/tricked into fighting another hero. For once we're getting a big event in which heroes are fighting for something they actually believe in-- And not because some mastermind villain coaxed them into it. It would be such a cliche move.

Take a look at Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The fight between Batman and Superman was brilliant because both characters truly believed what they were fighting for. Their rivalry became infinitely less interesting in The Dark Knight Strikes Again when it was revealed that the only reason Superman was working for the government was because they were holding Kandor.

Everyone always says that the most important villains don't think that they are evil (Magneto, Doom, etc.). In this case, we have two sides fighting who both think that they are doing the right thing, but they just both happen to be "heroes" in our eyes. I think that's so much more interesting than being manipulated by a "mastermind" villain.

I think Civil War itself is a brilliant idea, and I can't wait to see how things end up.

[mandog]

I think the Civil War is a great idea that will fall apart if someone is infact pulling the strings. Please Please dont let that be the reason all of this is going down.

[leg end]

Oh yeah, it's a great idea- let's make it.....






Norman Osborne. he hasn't been behind anything for a good year and a half, which is about a month comic book wise, so yeah, it should be him. :D

[Zombienorthstar]

What i like about Civil War is that the villain is really dependant on who you agree with.

[EZMOHR]

I don't think there needs to be one...but I would like to see some out of left-field rogue completely turn into an all-time heel after the events of Civil War.

[Sabrinaset]

The identity of this person should be obvious to all:

[StoneGold]

If there was a mastermind, once Civil War was over, it would be over. Oh, it was all Mole Man's fault, we can all go back to being friends now. With Tony Stark and Reed Richards as the masterminds, now you have some actual reprecussions.