Civil War Thoughts

[E. Wilson]

What really turned Tony to an utter bastard from my point of view was how he had the idea to stage a terroristic attack which he would blame on Atlantis in order to have an excuse to annihilate them. Worse was how the writer (don't know anymore who it was) stated that this was a logical thing.

Which is even more ironic considering that a couple months later (in-universe), Atlantis goes ahead and stages a terrorist attack.

[jade_nova]

Something that was bugging me during this story is that before it Robert Kirkman does the miniseries "Fantastic Four Foes" where Reed created a prison in the Negative Zone and no mention of that miniseries was made in Civil War.

[Phantom Roxas]

Yes, except in that case the lady basically had a fit because rather than saving her husband from cancer Superman was busy trying to mediate peaceful co-existence between New Krypton and Earth. It was one thing for the lady to be irrational due to grief, but my interest in Grounded ended when Clark took her nonsense to heart and started thinking that he'd done something wrong by trying to help the New Kryptonians adapt to their new situation rather than automatically siding with completely with Earth and only worrying about the well-being of humans, which was basically what he was being criticized for.


At least with Tony, the situation was that the woman's kid died as collateral damage in a super-human battle. Tony showing respect for the dead wasn't enough, she felt he should be doing something about the causes of her kid's death. The woman in Superman was demanding that Clark take responsibility for every bad thing that happens to anyone on Earth, including death by a disease that an arc of "Supergirl" had shown Clark's powers to be useless against. The woman in CW wanted Tony to take responsibility for the collateral damage caused by super-human battles.

So in short:

Superman should be responsible for things he can't help.
Tony should be responsible for things that he was actually responsible for.

That's understandable.

[jackolover]

Marvel had never done anything like this, so this was breaking new ground, in more ways than one. First, that Marvels promotion would make the fans go feral, and second, that the fans were unprepared for seeing their beloved heroes portrayed in anything but the most glorious good light. Who knew what the VS were going to be like in these battles? Marvel forced their heroes to step out of their comfort zone and the fans with them. The fans couldn't imagine the circumstance where ever Iron Man and Cap would face each other as real enemies, not as outdoor recreation. No wonder everybody disliked what was going on. It was revolution, people. The government never gave the Heroes much chance of doing anything, by enacting a law that gave the heroes no say in the implementation and the severity of the justice. It was a change in the world as great as if everyone was transferred to counter Earth. All the rules were changed. Readers were used to sitting back and relaxing with a good monthly dose of Super Heroes, but what they got was an unmasking of the Super Heroes as villains, and they didn't like it.

[jackolover]

Something that was bugging me during this story is that before it Robert Kirkman does the miniseries "Fantastic Four Foes" where Reed created a prison in the Negative Zone and no mention of that miniseries was made in Civil War.

It got mentioned, but I'm not sure if it was in the books. In TBolts, Reed, Tony and Pym started all their work on that place, so I thought it was mentioned that they are just adapting some place Reed already made in the NZ?

[E. Wilson]

The Negative Zone prison/human rights kerfluffle was another odd point. Whatever your stance on how the issue was portrayed in the series, the simple fact is (and the above-mentioned FF: Foes mini is but one piece of evidence that supports this) Super villains have never been consistently granted due process in the Marvel U, especially when it comes to detainment.

Look at Venom's first appearance. Spidey essentially drops him off a building, then the Fantastic Four lock him in a sonic cage. Based on no evidence other than assaulting Spider-Man, and since Spidey doesn't stick around to press charges...why are the holding Venom? (Granted, the audience knows he's guilty of more, but there's nothing to show that other characters do.)

Why focus on this example in particular? Because the Negative Zone prison is why Spider-Man changes sides. It's a microcosm of the entire event's problems: it asks us to ignore large swaths of how these characters and this universe functions in order for this particular set of stories to work. That's not a good recipe for character-driven story telling.

[Kizmet]

So in short:

Superman should be responsible for things he can't help.
Tony should be responsible for things that he was actually responsible for.

That's understandable.

Not exactly what I was trying to say.

Super-heroes are not responsible for fixing every ill in the world. Super-heroes have limits and can't save every life. Real-world diseases in particular are things Superheroes tend to be incapable of curing. Superman never claimed that he could stop people from dying, never claimed that he could fix every problem that plagued man-kind.

However super-heroes have taken responsibility for policing people with powers like theirs. When they fail in that endeavor, or when superhero battles result in unintended consequences they have to expect the public to crucify them for that, because as an Avenger Tony put himself in a position where he has promised to protect the public from dangerous meta-humans.

In both cases the person is grief-stricken and blaming someone for events out of their control. But the DC lady is blaming a policeman in Phoenix for not stopping an oil tanker from crashing in the Pacific, the Marvel lady is blaming a policeman for not catching a drunk driver before he crashed a car. At least the Marvel Lady has some understanding of the sort of problems the Avengers try to prevent.

[Kizmet]

Why focus on this example in particular? Because the Negative Zone prison is why Spider-Man changes sides. It's a microcosm of the entire event's problems: it asks us to ignore large swaths of how these characters and this universe functions in order for this particular set of stories to work. That's not a good recipe for character-driven story telling.

Also the Negative Zone prison was a transparent stand-in for the real world situation with prisoners being mistreated in Getmo and the US gov claiming that the rules were different there because it wasn't US soil. It was such an obvious stand-in that readers were likely to react based on what they thought about the real-world situation, not based on previous events in the comics.

[E. Wilson]

Also the Negative Zone prison was a transparent stand-in for the real world situation with prisoners being mistreated in Getmo and the US gov claiming that the rules were different there because it wasn't US soil. It was such an obvious stand-in that readers were likely to react based on what they thought about the real-world situation, not based on previous events in the comics.

An additional complication of the analogy is that unlike real criminals and terrorists, we the readers know when supervillains are guilty of their crimes. We watched it happen. We're generally more aware of it than the law enforcement in the Marvel U is.

[Sighphi]

What really turned Tony to an utter bastard from my point of view was how he had the idea to stage a terroristic attack which he would blame on Atlantis in order to have an excuse to annihilate them. Worse was how the writer (don't know anymore who it was) stated that this was a logical thing.

What?
The Atlantian sleeper cells were being activated by Atlantis themselves. Tony found out and decided to use this to push this SHRA stuff forward so he setup the mission with Wonder Man found their secret base and the attack by the Green Goblin.

That's all that happened.

Also the Negative Zone prison was a transparent stand-in for the real world situation with prisoners being mistreated in Getmo and the US gov claiming that the rules were different there because it wasn't US soil. It was such an obvious stand-in that readers were likely to react based on what they thought about the real-world situation, not based on previous events in the comics.

So it's the readers fault, then.

[jackolover]

Not exactly what I was trying to say.

Super-heroes are not responsible for fixing every ill in the world. Super-heroes have limits and can't save every life. Real-world diseases in particular are things Superheroes tend to be incapable of curing. Superman never claimed that he could stop people from dying, never claimed that he could fix every problem that plagued man-kind.

However super-heroes have taken responsibility for policing people with powers like theirs. When they fail in that endeavor, or when superhero battles result in unintended consequences they have to expect the public to crucify them for that, because as an Avenger Tony put himself in a position where he has promised to protect the public from dangerous meta-humans.

In both cases the person is grief-stricken and blaming someone for events out of their control. But the DC lady is blaming a policeman in Phoenix for not stopping an oil tanker from crashing in the Pacific, the Marvel lady is blaming a policeman for not catching a drunk driver before he crashed a car. At least the Marvel Lady has some understanding of the sort of problems the Avengers try to prevent.

Isn't Superman supposed to be an allegory for God, so the general population of Metropolis thinks he can save them all the time and from anything? I know it sounds cliche' but from what I've seen in TV shows and movies, Superman is looked upon with adoring eyes, and seen by the genpop as this wish full filler. That may be reading too much into spectators reactions, but that's the impression I get. DC comics has a god. I don't think Marvel has the equivalent figure like Uberman.

[jade_nova]

So it's the readers fault, then.

Of course. The readers were told how to react but when they were reading they wanted to make their own judgements instead of going along with the judgements of the writers.

[E. Wilson]

Of course. The readers were told how to react but when they were reading they wanted to make their own judgements instead of going along with the judgements of the writers.

Having to tell the reader how to react is generally another sign that your fictional allegory is failing.

[B. Kuwanger]

Civil War would have been a good story if Marvel continuity wasn't such serious business.

[E. Wilson]

Civil War would have been a good story if Marvel continuity wasn't such serious business.

How's that, now?