|
Post by spiderwasp on Feb 28, 2007 23:21:06 GMT -5
Those events you mentioned weren't done out of want for ratings on the part of the super-hero. Those battles and events were performed by villians, with heroes stopping them. The New Warriors messed things up when they took on Nitro. Plus, other than Kang striking at Washington, we haven't seen the kind of causalties before (not counting "Infinity Gauntlet," simply because everyone came back at the end). ~W~ Regardless of numbers of casualties, the MU is a very different world from ours. Ours isn't one that has to be protected from planet eaters, time travelling conquerers, evil gods, or even guys who can turn into sand or throw pumpkin bombs. The MU is that place and has been for such a long time that I find it inconcievable that one event such as Stamford could suddenly change the public's views on the subject of super heroes. I think it is my very suspension of disbelief that has always allowed me to believe in a place where people can run around strange costumes and masks and form teams to save people based purely on the fact that the participants have superhuman powers. It is the SHRA that brings our values to the Marvel Universe. That's not to say that real life comparisons can't be made. Sometimes I think they are quite appropriate, especially when looking at character choices. I just think that if your point is that SHRA could be more easily accepted if we didn't bring real life values into the MU, it falls flat because SHRA is exactly how we, in the real world would probably handle super heroes. Based on the history of the MU, however, I don't think it makes sense. Had this been the reaction in the early days, when Marvels first showed up, I could buy it. I can't buy it so easily after years and years of attacks by Atlantis, Demons taking over New York (Inferno), the red plague or whatever it was called that was unleashed by the Red Skull, or even the Circus of Crime. A world where a single incident could set of a spark or where the people can't see the need for super hero protectors, even without having them registered, is what has been set up for 40 years, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Feb 28, 2007 23:50:40 GMT -5
Those events you mentioned weren't done out of want for ratings on the part of the super-hero. Those battles and events were performed by villians, with heroes stopping them. The New Warriors messed things up when they took on Nitro. Let's compare: Washington DC nuked. Death toll: 5 million give or take. Stamford hit by Nitro. Death toll: 600. Which of these do you believe would provoke the bigger reaction? And furthermore, it's totally unbelievable that the MU citizenry would so soon forget their own saviors. Every living citizen of New York city has had one hero or another save his life at one time or another. A large percentage have probably personally witnessed these heroes battling the villains. Yet now we are supposed to accept that the public is unable to distinguish, in a moral sense, Captain America from Doctor Octopus. It's a complete crock. Totally, completely false. Magneto/Xorneto devastated New York killing millions. A few issues ago in Amazing Spider-Man, Cap and Spider-Man duked it out with the U-foes in the middle of New York City and a couple hundred people died in the process. There are literally too many instances to count where mass casualites happened either explicitly or implicitly. RSC
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 1, 2007 1:01:00 GMT -5
What about when the Leader detonated a gamma device on US soil, killing or mutating basically everybody in certain town...? What about when Ultron killed everybody in Slorenia...? Those events were never undone...
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 1, 2007 1:08:56 GMT -5
Galactus has come to eat the planet a dozen times. eat the planet. like a happy meal. I don't care who you are or what you're doing. to know there's something out there that can just come by one day and eat the planet will blow my mind. there's a villain called the radioactive man. no way i could sleep at night if he was loose. You might as well just call him walking cancer man, as he doesn't even have to touch you, just be in your vicinity. how radioactive is he? two feet or ten blocks? I wouldn't want to know... and yes while the warriors cavalier attitude may have been an issue, why didn't people hold supervillains accountable? Nitro is the one who blew up after all. I'd be just as inclined to say, "hey those villains who can do things like blow up and take out a city block...we should kill them. that would make me feel safer." if we want to go all real world, then if we had a hundred certified terrorists in our jails who've committed a crime of nitro's nature, how many of them would not be facing a death sentence? magneto, red skull, doom, any mass murderer villain of means would be a dead man walking. yet that doesn't even seem a consideration in the MU. that's another reason i feel the story falls flat. how many times have villains killed dozens, hundreds, or more and there aren't uprisings in the MU? yet one major incident with heroes and villains involved and it's utter chaos for the good guys, solely? doesn't feel real to me.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 1, 2007 14:16:32 GMT -5
Those events you mentioned weren't done out of want for ratings on the part of the super-hero. Those battles and events were performed by villians, with heroes stopping them. The New Warriors messed things up when they took on Nitro. If this is true then the correct response is not to give into fear, but to see whether the New Warriors acted irresponsibly, and if they did, to prosecute them (well, him) for it. Technically what happened at Stamford was the act of a villain, whom the New Warriors were in the process of apprehending. It could as easily have been a police officer who recognized Nitro and set that chain of events in motion. Or even a civilian (I'm sure there are a few groupies who keep track of heroes and villains and can recognize them on sight). It was a tragedy, to be sure, but the only reason it justifies restructuring the Marvel Universe is because Marvel wants it to, because when people die books sell. Heck, the only reason Nitro's explosion explicitly killed people is because that's the way the writers wanted it to unfold. Most heroes take precautions to minimize collateral damage - Spider-Man is a particular example of a guy who will save civilians at the risk of letting the villain escape. In other words, heroes acted responsibly before Stamford, and there is little reason to assume they would stop doing so, afterwards. And, if you read Frontline #11, you will see that significant events in the Civil War storyline were the direct result of evil acts committed by someone who should have known better, but because he didn't, belongs in prison. He would go to prison, to, if Marvel handled things properly, instead of abandoning years of characterization for a cheap sales stunt.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 1, 2007 15:02:43 GMT -5
Those events you mentioned weren't done out of want for ratings on the part of the super-hero. Those battles and events were performed by villians, with heroes stopping them. The New Warriors messed things up when they took on Nitro. If this is true then the correct response is not to give into fear, but to see whether the New Warriors acted irresponsibly, and if they did, to prosecute them (well, him) for it. Technically what happened at Stamford was the act of a villain, whom the New Warriors were in the process of apprehending. It could as easily have been a police officer who recognized Nitro and set that chain of events in motion. Or even a civilian (I'm sure there are a few groupies who keep track of heroes and villains and can recognize them on sight). It was a tragedy, to be sure, but the only reason it justifies restructuring the Marvel Universe is because Marvel wants it to, because when people die books sell. Heck, the only reason Nitro's explosion explicitly killed people is because that's the way the writers wanted it to unfold. Most heroes take precautions to minimize collateral damage - Spider-Man is a particular example of a guy who will save civilians at the risk of letting the villain escape. In other words, heroes acted responsibly before Stamford, and there is little reason to assume they would stop doing so, afterwards. And, if you read Frontline #11, you will see that significant events in the Civil War storyline were the direct result of evil acts committed by someone who should have known better, but because he didn't, belongs in prison. He would go to prison, to, if Marvel handled things properly, instead of abandoning years of characterization for a cheap sales stunt. Not only that, but if you want to go by past acts, read New Warriors #1 where namorita takes on Terrax solo and explicitly takes great pains to keep him away from civilians even though it leaves her defenseless. For her to have regressed into a media loving play to the camera type was to me, out of the nature she'd shown. yes, people have different sides and they don't always do the right thing, but if you've shown concern enough for human life that you put yours in jeopardy that tends to be a trait of instinct and how you react in situation... employees.csbsju.edu/tcreed/pb/misbehav.htmlpeople in aggressive situations tend to react aggressively and based on learned responses to deal with that situation. fighting a guy who is a walking bomb would be a situation where you first move would be to fall back on training and past experience to tackle the threat and not worry about a camera. again, just me.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on Mar 1, 2007 16:05:36 GMT -5
Unfortuantly, In the Nu Marvel way, anything that happened before the most recent appearance or mini, simple does not matter. So now instead of being young heroes trying imulate the older ones, the New Warriors are glory hounds out for ratings, all thanks to the most recent craptastic mini. You will notice this holds true for many charaters in Nu Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 1, 2007 16:18:50 GMT -5
My suspicion is that the wheels are Marvel either told Joe Q that sales had better go up or he was going out, or, they offered him stock options - a powerful incentive to boost the stock price, because you make the difference between the strike price and the sale price when you exercise.
His response is to stunt sales using every means he can. He'll take his money and run, and at some point in the future the correction will occur and Marvel's stock will sag back to about where it belongs, but Joe will still be rich.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 1, 2007 17:08:13 GMT -5
I've spoken with Quesada for a business magazine I freelanced for and I have to say he is a passionate person. he is an outspoken person and I do think he believes his job is to make money and do good comics -in that order. I think he also has never talked to Denny O'Neil who will forever regret leaving it up to the fans to kill Robin. I'm paraphrasing but essentially said by making the fans the writers in that story he gave up his power as a caretaker of legends. So I think what Quesada does is abdicate that caretaker spot when the fans roar. Put Spider man in more books. Ok. Put Wolverine in more books. Ok. Put Wolverine and Spider man together in more books. Ok. In some ways it's a good idea, but in others it's not. Eventually the fans say kill off some old characters, we want new ones and you do it. But after a while there's only so much havoc you can wreak before anyone can say "is there anything left to blow up?" the Hulk event and then maybe a big killing like a Cap or MJ or Punisher vs the Marvel U. But I think it'll dry up soon enough and event marketing will only sustain so long. Unless i've judged the market wrongly in which case, the fans are going to keep buying this stuff. but I don't think Quesada does what he does, just to do it. I just don't think he has judged the long term consequences and indeed, maybe marvel hasn't made that an issue.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 1, 2007 19:38:59 GMT -5
Looking back at my previous post, I make it sound like I think JQ is only motivated by the financials, and that's unlikely to be true. I agree with you that he has more than one motivation, but I think he places the financial goals at the top, and the other goals, such as good storytelling, are somewhere below.
A lot of modern business leaders don't remember the fundamental rule: if you make a good product people will buy it. So they go for form over function, glitter over substance, and stunts over solid effort. And Civil War, in my view, is the result of that mentality.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 1, 2007 20:09:44 GMT -5
As they always say in sports when a fan-favorite player is traded or chooses to leave in free agency -- it's a business. I think that definitely applies. Again, like athletes, I think creators "play hard" (or at least they think they do), but in the end they have to do what's best for the balance sheet.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 2, 2007 15:50:54 GMT -5
After a brief few days- just 1 or 2 mind, I'm back. I'm glad I was able to make it such a very short break, but really it was easy. I was thinking; I love this community, I want to stay here, I love debating comics things IN comics, but I hate having to constantly defend the story or the writers or whatever. The solution, in the end, was simple. I hope to redouble my presence on AA for the immediate future. I mean it, I want to become more active on every individual forums- post up my thoughts, my reviews on any issues I'm reading. And then I intend to defend my view to the death, but if the thread isn't about it I'll go there once and once only. So for example Balok, I would be willing to debate ad infinitum who is right in Civil War. But if another forummer comes in and posts "Civil War #7 is a HORRIBLE issue and here's why", I will calmly reply to that person, deconstruct and argue with each of their points, and then that will be the end of it. I'll reply once and once alone to a pointless insult or criticism post, and then I'll get back to what I WANT to be discussing, the COMICS. To spell it out, I'm going to try and double my presence here discussing comics, and halve it "defending" Marvel. Becasue after some thought I don't believe I NEED to defend Marvel, I believe every time Marvel publish a book I like, the qualities of that book defend itself. I know no-one really cares, but I'm just informing you what I'll be doing from now on- and don't expect a reply if you reply to my reply to your criticism (Lotta replies!) One other thing, I'll take you up on your offer Dlw66. I will now venture in every so often to the classic forum and put up my brutally honest thoughts about the classics. I'll go through them with my opinion... then I'll go through them with the ey many of you turn to modern comics and see if I can't deconstruct some legacy and show you that plot convenience and exposition are not inventions of the "New Marvel"... starting, I think, with the Kree/Skrull War. Yes, I have a LOT to say on that So that's the State of the Doom and while I sound overly pompus and self important, I wouldn't be Doom if I didn't!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 2, 2007 19:17:31 GMT -5
Kudos to you for taking the high road, Doom. Glad you decided to stay!
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 3, 2007 10:03:33 GMT -5
But in the Marvel Universe, letting people like the Avengers, the FF, Spider-Man, the Defenders, Daredevil, Doctor Strange, the X-Men, etc. serve the public on their own terms has generally worked out well—so, the comparison and contrast makes the Act all the less compelling in view of the Marvel Universe’s history. Until Stamford. Others have responded with points I would have made—and then some—and so I won’t duplicate their work here. Instead, I’ll engage in another piece of duplication. Read my old comment below with the idea that “characters” and “characterization” apply not just to specific persons like Iron Man but also society in general (I don’t think that was my intent at the time, but it fits): I'm not one for shoot-them-up pointless violent stories and I'm certainly enjoying this story. I'm liking it because it's a smart comic. It actually has thought behind it and makes me think. I’ve been thinking about this comment of W’s. I’ve been skeptical of and disappointed by Civil War, and maybe W’s offered the key. Maybe the story is a smart, well-plotted one…but not necessarily for these characters. I find the premises of a superpower-registration act and a superhero civil war interesting, but I don’t care for a lot of the characterizations, simply because they don’t gel with my understanding of the characters’ portrayals over the decades. Maybe Civil War is an Ultimate Universe story (I think one of you may have suggested this elsewhere) or an ad hoc universe story that’s simply been miscast. If nothing else, perhaps I’ll convince you that over the months my characterization has been fairly consistent! ;D
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 3, 2007 10:24:47 GMT -5
One other thing, I'll take you up on your offer Dlw66. I will now venture in every so often to the classic forum and put up my brutally honest thoughts about the classics. I'll go through them with my opinion... then I'll go through them with the ey many of you turn to modern comics and see if I can't deconstruct some legacy and show you that plot convenience and exposition are not inventions of the "New Marvel"... starting, I think, with the Kree/Skrull War. Yes, I have a LOT to say on that I hope you do come over there -- as a true Avengers fan, there's no reason you should feel like you can't. Before we begin, however, take a few minutes to browse through the Through Your Eyes ( vplexico.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1172782763) thread so you'll know my (and others') mindset on "the classics". If you think I'll defend them to the nth degree, you'll go away unhappy. However, if you think I'll tell you why, as an era or as individual story arcs, I liked them, or how I view them through a 10-year old's eyes, then we will have a wonderful conversation!
|
|