CBR NEWS: Broken Bonds: Gage Talks "Iron Man/Captain America: Casualties of War"

[Jonah Weiland]

This December, two heroes at the center of Marvel's "Civil War" will try one last time to resolve their differences in the pages of "Iron Man/Captain America: Casualties of War." CBR News spoke with writer Christos Gage about the book.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/ne...em.cgi?id=8568

[CMBMOOL]

Could this be during Civil War #5, when the anti-squad is attacked by the "Thunderbolts" of Tony's ?

[sherlockbones]

spoilers:

"They meet in the ruins of Avengers Mansion," Gage stated. "It was a location that made a lot of sense within the logic of the story and characters - a place that's almost hallowed ground to both of them; neutral territory where they're not likely to be disturbed.

end of spoilers

sounds like highlander to me.
hope they refer to the armour wars in this one shot, since i missed the book in which they settle their conflict from that story

[MJ Norton]

I know nothing of Gage's ability to pull this off - either as a writer or as someone with solid background on the characters, though he's talking the talk - but I'm interested in the concept behind this one-shot. That this is an add-on - and therefore not something in the heads of the principle architects of the Civil War arc - is just another incidence of Marvel lacking a serious handle on the story. Then again, it isn't as if Tony, Reed or even Hank Pym (poor, repeatedly abused Hank) have been much in character during it.

Still, having been a fan of Jeremy Haun's nuanced and expressive work since before he and Matt Cashell took a stab into self-publishing with Paradigm back in '02, I'm strongly looking forward to seeing him approach these characters, and having it done in a 48-page story is all the more appealing.

So, while poor decisions have made me, too, weary of much of Civil War, I'm actually interested in seeing this one.

[Jmacq1]

For the second time, get the quote right. The review said it could be the "Watchmen" of the modern age. Not that it was. As in "if it lives up to its' potential it could be". Ask the same reviewer once the story is completely told, and I'm betting he (or she) will say it didn't. I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but if you're going to quote someone on something like that, you should portray it accurately, not out of context. Because otherwise you're making the reviewer look like an idiot for making a proclamation like that before the story was even halfway over.

Secondly, massive sales do not equal quality, and there's just about as many negative reviews as there are positive. All you have to do is dig and not be wearing rose-colored glasses. Just because it doesn't come from the keyboard of some official "internet reviewer" doesn't make the opinions any less valid.

[Miss Kitty Fantastico]

I'm keen to see this. As someone who doesn't really know Iron Man or Captain America that well prior to CW, an examination of their histories would be interesting. And the prospect of a 'talky' book about their stances in Civil War is very welcome.

[MJ Norton]

I'm a big fan of the Marvel universe, having been buying them since '68, and the concept behind Civil War is a winner - it's a natural progression, as close to inevitable as can be - I simply wish more thought and research put into it. I'll be seeing it through to the end and beyond, but Marvel's not making it easy for me.

Too often I'm getting the sense that it's more about the people behind the scenes (creative teams) than it is about the characters. Some choices were made sloppily, and others made because they'd be more sensationalistic rather than, well, making sense from a character perspective. (e.g. The existence of the Thor clone can't help but re-cast Tony and Reed, well, as ghoulish monsters. What the rationale behind doing it was isn't clear; claiming it was meant to shock and suprise Cap's side isn't cutting it for me. Raising a clone of a fallen/missing comrade isn't something done quickly and on a whim.)

Still, all that said, doesn't calling it "the Watchmen of the modern age" seem... a tad overstated?

Watchmen was a groundbreaking genre deconstruction, while Civil War is a means of polarizing the Marvel universe for a time. The Avengers went through a similar split back at the end of the Kree/Shi'ar War, when one side decided to execute the Kree Supreme Intelligence and the other opposed it. Cap and Iron Man were at odds when Tony's "Armor Wars" actions saw him deleting SHIELD tech files and deactivating technology the federal government was using.

As I look over some of what I'm seeing in the story so far, I'm wondering if we're going to need a Kurt Busiek/Avngers Forever type "fix" somewhere down the line.

[Magneto Rocks]

For the second time, get the quote right. The review said it could be the "Watchmen" of the modern age. Not that it was. As in "if it lives up to its' potential it could be". Ask the same reviewer once the story is completely told, and I'm betting he (or she) will say it didn't. I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but if you're going to quote someone on something like that, you should portray it accurately, not out of context. Because otherwise you're making the reviewer look like an idiot for making a proclamation like that before the story was even halfway over.

Secondly, massive sales do not equal quality, and there's just about as many negative reviews as there are positive. All you have to do is dig and not be wearing rose-colored glasses. Just because it doesn't come from the keyboard of some official "internet reviewer" doesn't make the opinions any less valid.

Actually, again I must correct YOU.

The reviewer said that SO FAR, after CW4, the comic was probably the Watchmen of the modern era. So at the moment, given all we have so far, which is all we CAN judge, the reviewer thinks it may be the Watchmen of the modern era if it keeps up it's CURRENT quality, not if it increases.

Oh of course the sales do not equal good, etc. I am merely pointing out that people who hate CIvil War need to stop acting as though their will alone is the gospel truth and should matter more than sales or the opinions of informed reviewers. I, at least, try to cite sources rather than proclaiming my own divinity.

Watchmen was a groundbreaking genre deconstruction, while Civil War is a means of polarizing the Marvel universe for a time. The Avengers went through a similar split back at the end of the Kree/Shi'ar War, when one side decided to execute the Kree Supreme Intelligence and the other opposed it. Cap and Iron Man were at odds when Tony's "Armor Wars" actions saw him deleting SHIELD tech files and deactivating technology the federal government was using.

I assume they meant in quality, rather than aftermath etc.

Although, as a result of CW- directly or indirectly- there has been a huge hero split, the Avengers and Fantastic Four have/will change line-ups substantially, some villains and teams are being redefined, the Hulk has been significently affected, Spidey has unmasked...

We're 4 issues into a 7 issue story and this has done more to affect the future of the in-comics Universe, at least in the short term, than any other major company-wide crossover, at least as far as I'm aware.

[Jmacq1]

I must have missed the portion where "informed reviewers" opinions were somehow inherently more important/valuable than casual readers' opinions. There's plenty of people complaining about Civil War, in terms of quality, characterization, continuity, scheduling, number of tie-ins, and otherwise. About the only thing I haven't seen many people complaining about is the art (and rightfully so). Whether their complaints are contrary to others' doesn't really matter. The opinions themselves are perfectly valid. Doesn't mean one has to agree with them, just that the viewpoint is valid, and does exist. Neither side can "proclaim their own divinity."

Whether they have "sources" or not.

[Quasar's Bands]

Yes, because clearly Marvel should end a MASSIVELY selling comic which has gotten EXTREMELY positive reviews from many sources and indeed been called the Watchmen of the modern age, just because many internet fanboys are annoyed by it.

CW might be OK, but comparing it to Watchmen is like comparing a Ford Escort to a Ford Mustang. Absolutely no comparison, even if they both have their own strengths.

[Vaal]

Yes, because clearly Marvel should end a MASSIVELY selling comic which has gotten EXTREMELY positive reviews from many sources and indeed been called the Watchmen of the modern age, just because many internet fanboys are annoyed by it.

Who would have the painful gall to call it that?!

[Magneto Rocks]

Who would have the painful gall to call it that?!

Hmm, don't worry, it's only IGN. I'm sure they're a tiny force in the modern era.

Anyway, what I was trying to illustrate is that it's all point of view. You can't state for a fact that it isn't as good as Watchmen, nor can anyone else state that it is. But some people seem convinced ALL true fans hate it when that's simply not so.

And for myself, in my OPINION, I give more credit to comprehensible, well thought out reviews from trustworthy sources than I do fanboys, even comprehensive, well-thought out fan reviews. And to be faire, there are very few of those.

[Vaal]

I can state my 'opinion' that being set on fire feels better than having beautiful women rub honey on me, but that doesn't make it a good opinion.

[-S-Man-]

I'm truely looking forward to this one off edition because it might actually do what Frontline promised to do. But I was wondering way back at CW #2 why Tony and Steve didn't meet up before they went into a full scale war with each other.
I hope the art and the story go really well together unlike the Frontline - The Accused and Wolverine series with totally suck. Theres nothing worse than a good story with really bad art and visa-versa, its just demeaning.

[Subotai]

This is promising. Hopefully he can do justice to the characters and their history and satisfy CW fans and disapointees alike.

Personally, Gage is a strong writer - wish they'd had him on CW. They could've used him.