Creative changes? Relaunch? What's next for the the Avengers?

[XPac]

So I guess if a writer or Marvel comes out and says Tony Stark was right about Civil War... that's the end all of THAT debate too.

Or if a writer or Marvel comes out and says the holocaust was cool... I guess that's that. No debate whatsoever there.

Marvel doesn't own the rights to the holocaust, so their opinion on the matter is no more or less valid than anyone elses.

They DO however own the Avengers. That's something they get to decide. Just to flip the issue... is there any particular reason they shouldn't be able to decide that? Seems pretty fair to me... if they own the franchise they should be able to decide who gets to join. Am I missing something there?

[RDMacQ]

So I guess if a writer or Marvel comes out and says Tony Stark was right about Civil War... that's the end all of THAT debate too.

They did say that. According to the creators, the pro-registration side was the right one.

Or if a writer or Marvel comes out and says the holocaust was cool... I guess that's that. No debate whatsoever there.

Now we're stepping into Godwin's law territory.

Again, someone can debate it. But- as it has been said before- it helps if they have sound arguments and their reasoning is logical. Having the central points to one's thesis be where the Avengers had their meetings, or claiming something happened that clearly didn't, doesn't help one's position.

[Specimen 297]

You're missing the point entirely. I'm saying something is perfectly acceptable to be debated. You're saying it's not because Marvel and Bendis says its not.

Im not arguing it, Im arguing people are free to debate that. You two are jumping all up in my grill because I'm saying people have some actual footing in that debate BECAUSE IT WAS A DEBATE IN THE BOOKS.

I don't care if they eventually decided whow as the avengers or not, it was a debate in the book so therefore is a viable debate in our reality. they might've come to a conclusion, but does that mean we have to accept their conclusion? the same way they "came to the conclusion" steve was probably right about civil war. i guess that means tony was completely wrongly and anyone who disagrees isn't entitled to an opinion because MARVEL SAID ITS WRONG.

[XPac]

You're missing the point entirely. I'm saying something is perfectly acceptable to be debated. You're saying it's not because Marvel and Bendis says its not.

Im not arguing it, Im arguing people are free to debate that. You two are jumping all up in my grill because I'm saying people have some actual footing in that debate BECAUSE IT WAS A DEBATE IN THE BOOKS.

I don't care if they eventually decided whow as the avengers or not, it was a debate in the book so therefore is a viable debate in our reality. they might've come to a conclusion, but does that mean we have to accept their conclusion? the same way they "came to the conclusion" steve was probably right about civil war. i guess that means tony was completely wrongly and anyone who disagrees isn't entitled to an opinion because MARVEL SAID ITS WRONG.

If marvel says that the New Avengers are Avengers, then yeah you have to accept that conclusion. You don't have to like it... but you have to accept it because it's a matter of a fact.

[RDMacQ]

You're missing the point entirely. I'm saying something is perfectly acceptable to be debated. You're saying it's not because Marvel and Bendis says its not.

Im not arguing it, Im arguing people are free to debate that. You two are jumping all up in my grill because I'm saying people have some actual footing in that debate BECAUSE IT WAS A DEBATE IN THE BOOKS.

And- as it keeps getting pointed out- the debate was answered in the books. And not only that, it took place IN the New Avengers title.

Again, this isn't standing by a legitimate argument. It's digging one's heels into one point and ignoring everything else to the point of lunacy. If someone wants their point to have weight and validity, they can't just stick by a superficial issue.

I don't care if they eventually decided whow as the avengers or not, it was a debate in the book so therefore is a viable debate in our reality.

It can be debated. But the arguments need to be stronger than just a superficial claim that because it was debated ONCE in an issue, it therefore gives people a legitimate claim to say that the team aren't "real" Avengers. Especially if they ignore the REASON that point was brought up, to address the whole issue of whether or not that team has a claim to the title, and the fact that the issue was addressed and answered in the SAME title and issue.

It's like debating whether or not a single X-Wing fighter could blow up the Death Star because ONE pilot brought up the fact that it was an impossible shot, ignoring all the stuff that came afterwards.

they might've come to a conclusion, but does that mean we have to accept their conclusion? the same way they "came to the conclusion" steve was probably right about civil war. i guess that means tony was completely wrongly and anyone who disagrees isn't entitled to an opinion because MARVEL SAID ITS WRONG.

Again, this is the problem. Marvel never said Tony was wrong. If anything, they said he was right. At least the creators did.

If a person is GOING to argue something, it helps to have sound arguments rather than hypebole. Otherwise, no one is going to take that argument seriously.

[Specimen 297]

I give up. When you maul some kid to death for saying that post-Civil War New Avengers aren't really Avengers, let the records show I tried to stand up for his right to debate it instead of being shot on sight.

[RDMacQ]

I give up. When you maul some kid to death for saying that post-Civil War New Avengers aren't really Avengers, let the records show I tried to stand up for his right to debate it instead of being shot on sight.

You can claim the right to debate. But the other side to that is that people are allowed to debate themselves, and point out the holes and flaws in people's reasonings.

It's a two way street. To get to say what you want, you have to put up with people who'll say stuff you don't want to hear. It's called the free exchange of ideas.

[Zero Hunter]

You 3 want to take your pissing match somewhere else. Jesus. Your all acting like idiots here.

[Specimen 297]

The whole thread is basically a pissing match so it's not like its out of place...

[marvell2100]

The whole thread is basically a pissing match so it's not like its out of place...

Don't piss on my thread!

[Specimen 297]

Whether its YOUR thread or the FORUM's thread is UP FOR DEBATE!!!

[RDMacQ]

Whether its YOUR thread or the FORUM's thread is UP FOR DEBATE!!!

Yes it is.

But if someone argues the thread isn't valid because the person who started it was using a Mac and not a PC, they should probably find a stronger argument to back up their position.

And if someone doesn't like the fact that people actually DO debate and have a difference of opinion, then trying to take your ball and go home because the other team won't play fair isn't the best way to respond either.

[marvell2100]

Whether its YOUR thread or the FORUM's thread is UP FOR DEBATE!!!

I claim this thread in the name of marvell2100! All usurpers will be met with scorn, ridicule and disdain!

[RDMacQ]

I claim this thread in the name of marvell2100! All usurpers will be met with scorn, ridicule and disdain!

Are you posting this from a PC? If so, then you aren't the real marvell2100. Someone else asked if posting from a PC makes your posts valid, therefore it must mean that that argument must have merit. What was said afterwards doesn't matter. Also, the people who started CBR condemned those that post from a PC. At least, maybe they did. They might not have said that.

The arguments still valid, anyway.

[marvell2100]

Are you posting this from a PC? If so, then you aren't the real marvell2100. Someone else asked if posting from a PC makes your posts valid, therefore it must mean that that argument must have merit. What was said afterwards doesn't matter. Also, the people who started CBR condemned those that post from a PC. At least, maybe they did. They might not have started it.

The arguments still valid, anyway.

I think it's time for some creative changes around here.

But in staying with the current discussion we've been reading about the Avengers for the past7+ years in whatever shape or form they've taken. The team may not have had the traditional makeup, but they were Avengers nonetheless. We've seen in the past where the team has consisted of non traditional members.