|
Post by balok on Feb 28, 2007 19:14:13 GMT -5
It is too soon, in my view, to discuss this book even with spoilers. However, I will say that it has confirmed my opinion about the following things: - Tony Stark as a person
- The SHRA and the Initiative as a concept
- The Civil War as a concept
- The Civil War authors' understanding of Captain America
- The new Marvel Universe
In addition to that, another author already did this story back in the middle 80's. Marvel can't even steal plots competently!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Feb 28, 2007 23:09:19 GMT -5
Without giving anything away, the big traitor reveal for me was a complete disappointment and yet another example of misdirection by Marvel.
I also felt Cap's position still was not well defined in this book. Did he surrender because he didn't want to inflict more damage on civilians, or because he felt he had been wrong?
After I read this book I read the new Wizard (186), and they have a section on CW. Item number 2 covers Cap post-CW, and has an interesting quote from Tom Brevoort: " Cap is still fighting the same struggle, he still does not believe in the Registration act , but he's switching his battlefield from the streets to the legal system." This was actually somewhat encouraging to me.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 1, 2007 12:22:00 GMT -5
MILD SPOILER 5 4 3 2 1 In my opinion, the traitor crossed right over the moral gray line and acted evilly. He has been written as an evil man in this series, which is entirely out of character for established history. For what he did, he belongs in prison for the rest of his natural life. The two reporters don't understand their responsibility as reporters includes keeping people honest. They should have broken the story and let the chips fall where they may. All it can do now is fester. They, as well, do not understand that America isn't about myspace, and stupid crap like that. Those are entertainments. America is about freedom. That's what Cap used to understand. If Wizard is right, he still understands it, and he really did stop the fight because of the collateral damage (as opposed to what some other folks here want us to believe, which is that he stopped the fight because he is wrong). It seems clear to me that the Civil War concept was only ever about sales, and it didn't matter to the creative people at Marvel how far out of shape they had to bend characters - including two important ones here - to create this twisted concept. And back in the 80's, when someone did this, at the end of it he was revealed for what he was, and no one liked him - which is as it should be. Because the ends almost never justify the means. THAT story was worth reading. This one was not. Edit: And to paraphrase Tom Hanks - there's no crying in evil!
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 1, 2007 21:05:44 GMT -5
I had to erase an entire post about this book. I can't even discuss it. I am interested to see how it will be reviewed. And that's all I can say at this moment. I want to see other people's reactions.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 1, 2007 21:53:44 GMT -5
In the early days, so much seemed to be going on that ran contrary to established characterization that I was sure a villain's hand would be revealed by the end of it.
And I was right - a villain's hand was revealed. Just not who I suspected.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Mar 2, 2007 2:02:35 GMT -5
Wow.
If I was a bigger Iron Man fan I'd be bloody apoplectic right now. Not that he hasn't already been demonized by CW before this, because he has. But this -- now he's a straight-up murderer, and worse. Hell, this even lays the deaths of 130 U.S. sailors on Tony's head from when Atlantis sank a US nuclear submarine in retaliation for IM's provocation. Every issue, I keep thinking -- it can't possibly get worse. And then it gets worse.
RSC
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 2, 2007 2:19:42 GMT -5
Is it too early to ask just WHAT was the big reveal...? And, in case someone is kind enough to comply, I'll prepare myself to fall into full apopleplectic mode, as there are very few bigger IM fans out there than me...!!!
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 2, 2007 9:54:01 GMT -5
For those who wish to know the story, you can read the summary I wrote for the Wikipedia, here. WARNING: The summary gives pretty much the entire story away. If you plan to purchase the issue, I urge you to do so before you read it.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 2, 2007 14:40:17 GMT -5
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP...!!! And I'm sure at Marvel they think it's a sensational story, one of their crowning achievements...
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 2, 2007 15:20:31 GMT -5
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP...!!! And I'm sure at Marvel they think it's a sensational story, one of their crowning achievements... In my view, it adds Iron Man to the list of characters modern Marvel just doesn't get. So that's basically both of the key players in the Civil War, badly mischaracterized.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 2, 2007 15:59:40 GMT -5
My opinion? Simple.
Frontline '11 is a bad comic. What, shocked? Absolutely bowled over by the fact that Iactually dislike a comic? Frontline #11 is bad, and I'd give it a 5/10 maximum. To deconstruct a little- the OPENING is good. The battle and immediate aftermath make sense, they work.
The problems first rear their ugly heads when we visit Captain America. Jenkins does not get Captain america. He doesn't. He doesn't know what he's about, he doesn't know how he should talk, he doesn't know the first thing about how to write Cap well, and his adoration and love for his own character of Sally Floyd makes this scene even worse. This is basically a scene of "Sally Floyd rocks and Cap is out of touch." If this is Cap then Cap is a loser, because this is a very bad sequence.
The next bit is interrupted by the Sentry. Jenkins, for the love of all that is good, LET. IT. GO. He has name-dropped the Sentry in at least 10 of the 11 issues of Frontline, PLUS spent half of "The Return" on Sentry, PLUS shovelled Sentry into the main part of The Return, adn this is AFTER the issue spent on him in New Avengers. Now Sentry publicly announces his support for registration? Wow, guess he mind wiped the entire crowd who CLEARLY SAW HIM REGISTER, in a BOOK WRITTEN BY JENKINS. Pus, y'know, the countless hundreds who clearly saw him fight in that GIANT BATTLE THAT CONSUMED MANHATTAN THREE DAYS AGO. And apparantly, this is a huge factor because everyone really wants to side with the loony. How exactly they get a 38% increase is unknown since at this point the total number of unregistered foces has to be three D-listers and their dogs, plus the New Avengers.
The Iron Man bit is broken. It's not consistent with civil war, it shows the journalists as the worst reporters in the history of comicdom, and it makes Tony Stark look like more of a jerk then ever before. I have exactly two consolations: Firstly there is a 99% chance this will NEVER BE MENTIONED AGAIN, and will be quietly retconned, secondly Tony never outright said he did it. So anyone who wants to maintain a pretence of sanity can just assume he was angry because he hit the gin bottle and din't actually do it. Y'know what, that's more in character than what happened!
Oh and guys, you know what this proves? This: Jenkins does not get Iron Man or Cap. It does not, I am sorry to say, prove ANYTHING about the new marvel universe or these characters as they should be.
Civil War has presented Iron Man as a reasonable, competent man doing the hardest task of his life. Frontline presents him as an idiot. So basically, I'm going to say he didn't do it? Why? Because it's a view it's POSSIBLE to take away from the comic plus it makes actual sense unlike the ridiculous conspiracy theory here. At least Jenkins left us that "out".
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 2, 2007 16:45:48 GMT -5
MILD SPOILERS
5
4
3
2
1
Doc, I'm sorry but it has to be said: you have a penchant for ignoring things that dispute what you want to believe. And this is a glaring example.
Do you think Jenkins wrote this in a vacuum? Do you think this plot didn't go past the other creators and Marvel honchos (such as Joe Q) who sign off on this project?
It's a canon source and you can't ignore it, sorry.
It makes Tony Stark look like a jerk because he's being written that way. Because that's what they had to do to make Civil War and the Registration Act work, and seem reasonable.
Yes, the two reporters were pretty bad at their job. Their responsibility as reporters was to tell the story and let the chips fall where they may.
No, Tony didn't admit he did it. But the sequence at the end, where he collapses emotionally? The reaction of a man who knew he hadn't done this would be to threaten a lawsuit, or fill the air with bluster. Tony's reaction was that of a many who either (1) was terribly afraid that he'd been found out and was about to be exposed, or (2) was terribly upset because Floyd was right, and he knew it, and the little part of him the evil hadn't eaten yet was desperately unhappy about it.
This one ain't goin' away. They made him a villain.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 2, 2007 16:49:58 GMT -5
Balok, I don't need to ignore it because it will be retconned soon. And if Marvel editors were fired every time a bad comic came out, we'd never have any administration last over a single month.
No, I stand by my contention that Tony had had a very stiff drink. That's my third action. But if you press me, I could probably argue a reasonable defence of the "actions" Tony is accused off in Frontline #11.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 2, 2007 17:25:25 GMT -5
Balok, I don't need to ignore it because it will be retconned soon. And if Marvel editors were fired every time a bad comic came out, we'd never have any administration last over a single month. Well, if that happens, then it happens. Most likely if it happens it will be following a changing of the guard that restores real heroism to the characters. I don't see it changing under the current administration. But if it happens, what does that say about the quality of the Civil War creative team, when the climax of a key story - and the entire story itself - is based on a premise that has to be retconned to be palatable? And here's a question: why do you think it should be retconned? Could it be that you think that because the portrayal of Tony is significantly out of character? No, I stand by my contention that Tony had had a very stiff drink. That's my third action. But if you press me, I could probably argue a reasonable defence of the "actions" Tony is accused off in Frontline #11. If Tony had become an alcoholic again, I could almost feel a pinch of sympathy for him. But only a pinch. I'm sure you could conjure a defense of Tony's actions. That's evil's most seductive power: it always sounds so reasonable...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 2, 2007 17:42:39 GMT -5
Well we can disagree, because I think "never ever referenced again" counts as a retcon. It says nothing whatsoever about the Civil War creative team and a great deal about the Civil War: FRONTLINE creative team. Yes, but only in this series and not in 99% of civil war. True. But y'know what else sounds reasonable? Reason. Truth.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 2, 2007 17:53:37 GMT -5
Yeah . . . Iron Man didn't come across very well in this issue. Neither did Cap.
I'm a huge Jenkins fan and have found both "Frontline" and it's predecessor "Generation M" to be both solid books.
But honestly? This issue blew. The whole "traitor" thing was way overly complicated. I didn't like that Iron Man may have ordered people killed (although, as SHIELD Director, he may end up doing so again, since that sorta thing happens when you're a head of a military organization), nor did I like his emotional break-down at the end. Ugh.
And Doc Doom, you're right. Jenkins just can't write Cap. He tries, but he just can't get him to come off right. Sally's whole rant to him was just silly.
There were things I liked about this issue, though, and that's that I liked that Sally and Ben ended up opening their own little news website. Fitting, really.
The whole "Sentry regsiters" thing felt shoehorned in there to match up with "The Return."
~W~
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 2, 2007 17:55:05 GMT -5
I find it interesting that some think this'll be retconned. Does anyone think this offense is so much worse than the events of CW that it cannot stand? My problem with the issue is the poor writing, otherwise to be honest given what's happened in the last several months, none of this seemed beyond the scope of what the powers that be think these characters are capable of. By this I mean, I think a better writer would have written the sequences better and more in character even if I still didn't agree with any of what was presented. (and I used to think jenkins was capable of much better than this. I also think it was a bit of a response to the identity crisis that added such a dark shade to the JLA. But otherwise after cooling down at how poorly it was written and how it treated Cap (I mean my grandfather doesn't know what youtube or myspace are and he's still more morally qualified to fight the good fight than most) I just said, no worse than anything else I've read in the last eight months...
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 2, 2007 18:05:25 GMT -5
Well we can disagree, because I think "never ever referenced again" counts as a retcon. Sigh. Even if that's what happens, it's not a retcon. You don't like the story so you don't want to believe it. I get that. But all the wishing in the world doesn't change that this is a canon story. It stands unless explicitly contradicted at some future point. It says nothing whatsoever about the Civil War creative team and a great deal about the Civil War: FRONTLINE creative team. What part of "they're the same people" is so hard to understand? This is not a minor detail in the comic. Civil War and all of its books were plotted by the same crowd. Jenkins' contribution was the script. Tony did what he did because that's the way all the Civil War writers, together, wanted it to happen. Your assertion that this book was plotted in a vacuum isn't consistent with the idea of either this project or modern comic book creation generally. You're pretty far out on that limb. Yes, but only in this series and not in 99% of civil war. This series IS Civil War. And the events described here were pivotal to Civil War. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt! True. But y'know what else sounds reasonable? Reason. Truth. Alrighty, go for it. Explain how what Tony did is anything other than evil. This should be good!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 2, 2007 18:10:20 GMT -5
Let's think for a moment, Imperiusrex. Option 1- Recruiting seven villains because you're desperately short on super-humans, making sure they can't go on a rampage and kill people and will go straight back to a high security jail after this conflict. Helping create a cyborg which, despite all your precautions, tragically goes out of control. Building a colossal prison in another dimension to house the worst of the worst villains to prevent them from always escaping as they constantly do. Option 2- Orchestrating a war with a foreign nation and gambling that they won't react too badly so people will join you, manipulating the stock market, setting free a psychopath to murder several people, including badly hurting your friend, imprisoning friends as an example, controlling a villain like a puppet against his will. ...Now hmm, which of those is slightly more extreme? Frontline #11's retcon process is already begun; it doesn't hold up at all. Brevoort must've been sleeping when this one came through- why did Iron Man need the government to pay to build this giant prison when he ALREADY HAD IT BUILT BEFORE THIS STORY STARTED? (Reed had it built in FF: Foes) Nah, this falls apart and it'll be retconned by next year. Now, Balok. My above thing is purely spin to show how Iron Man's Frontline actions are much worse than his normal actions. They undeniably are, but I spun them in the worst possible light to illustrate a point. I'm now going to spin them in the best possible light to answer you Yup. Except it never categorically and beyond doubt states Tony did it, it was only speculation. I hope it will be retconned but for now, I can simply point out that we don't know Tony did it. No, you are claiming that Millar should be blamed for what Jenkins did. Jenkins writes Frontline, Millar does not. In fact, Millar has, as you may know, co-ordinated with no other writers and wrote the entire main mini-series himself at the start. NO other writer can be blamed- Tom Brevoort the EDITOR can be, but if you think the writers are all on one page then it is you who are out on a limb! This series is a civil war companion which spun wildly off in it's own direction many issues ago. Without this book, the war would be no different. Sure thing. Firstly, I'm going to explain how what TONY IS BEING ACCUSED OF is anything other than evil, not what he did. Okay, so he's accused of manipulating the stock market. Well besides the fact that we can all surely agree that is far from evil, it's not like he took these profits for himself. He rerouted them to firefighters, police, registered heroes- people who do good jobs, people who are heroes. I'm not saying what he did was right, just that it's a thousand miles away from evil. The prison argument invalidates itself. Iron Man didn't build that prison, it was already built. And the question of why they never made it for villains is irrelevant because it has been canonically stated that it WAS built for villains and the main crossover, CW itself, always overrides tie-ins on continuity matters like this. So that argument is invalid. Now we get to the meat of things; the Atlantean problem. Again, I'm not saying what he did was right. Just a million miles from "evil." Evil is "Let's kill babies." WHat Iron Man is accused of doing is taking a heinous, horrendous risk. Osborn killed several Atlanteans. There is some small measure of comfort in the fact that he ensured Osborn would NOT kill the ambassador he attacked. Iron Man is accused of taking this colossal risk, a risk of war, which they averted because he had calculated correctly. He thought it was worth ending the civil war in the US, and in this instance he was right. He hoped, he prayed, that there would not be an actual war with Atlantis. He was right. This is the worst thing Stark has done/is accused of doing in the entire war, worst by far. And it's not morally sound at all. But to call it evil is completely RIDICULOUS and takes biased to a whole new level. It's twisted, it's out of character, it's stupid. But it's not evil. And he didn't do it Oh, but just for reference, Cap nearly brought the United States into war with not one, but TWO foreign nations, including pushing the country a DAMNED SIGHT closer to war with Atlantis than Tony did, not to mention Wakanda. But don't worry, since you're anti-reg I'm sure we can just gloss over that
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Mar 2, 2007 18:33:04 GMT -5
The Iron Man bit is broken. It's not consistent with civil war, it shows the journalists as the worst reporters in the history of comicdom, and it makes Tony Stark look like more of a jerk then ever before. I have exactly two consolations: Firstly there is a 99% chance this will NEVER BE MENTIONED AGAIN, and will be quietly retconned, secondly Tony never outright said he did it. So anyone who wants to maintain a pretence of sanity can just assume he was angry because he hit the gin bottle and din't actually do it. Y'know what, that's more in character than what happened! Oh and guys, you know what this proves? This: Jenkins does not get Iron Man or Cap. It does not, I am sorry to say, prove ANYTHING about the new marvel universe or these characters as they should be. Civil War has presented Iron Man as a reasonable, competent man doing the hardest task of his life. Frontline presents him as an idiot. So basically, I'm going to say he didn't do it? Why? Because it's a view it's POSSIBLE to take away from the comic plus it makes actual sense unlike the ridiculous conspiracy theory here. At least Jenkins left us that "out". Wow, I don't even know what to say to that. So, when you feel that a certain character has been written out of character, you just decide those events didn't happen? OK, well, I guess there's really no point discussing these books any more, we're obviously in different realities. Seriously, maybe Stark did not verbally say he did it, but his reactions indicate that he did indeed do all those things. In my view, really, all of his actions in CW are very consistent. Stark has decided he knows what's best for the world, and he's more than willing to impose his view on everyone, ethics be damned. It was not hard for me to believe the events of CWF 11 after all of the reprehensible things he'd already done in CW proper.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 2, 2007 18:58:36 GMT -5
Let's think for a moment, Imperiusrex. Option 1- Recruiting seven villains because you're desperately short on super-humans, making sure they can't go on a rampage and kill people and will go straight back to a high security jail after this conflict. Helping create a cyborg which, despite all your precautions, tragically goes out of control. Building a colossal prison in another dimension to house the worst of the worst villains to prevent them from always escaping as they constantly do. Option 2- Orchestrating a war with a foreign nation and gambling that they won't react too badly so people will join you, manipulating the stock market, setting free a psychopath to murder several people, including badly hurting your friend, imprisoning friends as an example, controlling a villain like a puppet against his will. ...Now hmm, which of those is slightly more extreme? Frontline #11's retcon process is already begun; it doesn't hold up at all. Brevoort must've been sleeping when this one came through- why did Iron Man need the government to pay to build this giant prison when he ALREADY HAD IT BUILT BEFORE THIS STORY STARTED? (Reed had it built in FF: Foes) Nah, this falls apart and it'll be retconned by next year. Now, Balok. My above thing is purely spin to show how Iron Man's Frontline actions are much worse than his normal actions. They undeniably are, but I spun them in the worst possible light to illustrate a point. I'm now going to spin them in the best possible light to answer you Yup. Except it never categorically and beyond doubt states Tony did it, it was only speculation. I hope it will be retconned but for now, I can simply point out that we don't know Tony did it. No, you are claiming that Millar should be blamed for what Jenkins did. Jenkins writes Frontline, Millar does not. In fact, Millar has, as you may know, co-ordinated with no other writers and wrote the entire main mini-series himself at the start. NO other writer can be blamed- Tom Brevoort the EDITOR can be, but if you think the writers are all on one page then it is you who are out on a limb! This series is a civil war companion which spun wildly off in it's own direction many issues ago. Without this book, the war would be no different. Sure thing. Firstly, I'm going to explain how what TONY IS BEING ACCUSED OF is anything other than evil, not what he did. Okay, so he's accused of manipulating the stock market. Well besides the fact that we can all surely agree that is far from evil, it's not like he took these profits for himself. He rerouted them to firefighters, police, registered heroes- people who do good jobs, people who are heroes. I'm not saying what he did was right, just that it's a thousand miles away from evil. The prison argument invalidates itself. Iron Man didn't build that prison, it was already built. And the question of why they never made it for villains is irrelevant because it has been canonically stated that it WAS built for villains and the main crossover, CW itself, always overrides tie-ins on continuity matters like this. So that argument is invalid. Now we get to the meat of things; the Atlantean problem. Again, I'm not saying what he did was right. Just a million miles from "evil." Evil is "Let's kill babies." WHat Iron Man is accused of doing is taking a heinous, horrendous risk. Osborn killed several Atlanteans. There is some small measure of comfort in the fact that he ensured Osborn would NOT kill the ambassador he attacked. Iron Man is accused of taking this colossal risk, a risk of war, which they averted because he had calculated correctly. He thought it was worth ending the civil war in the US, and in this instance he was right. He hoped, he prayed, that there would not be an actual war with Atlantis. He was right. This is the worst thing Stark has done/is accused of doing in the entire war, worst by far. And it's not morally sound at all. But to call it evil is completely RIDICULOUS and takes biased to a whole new level. It's twisted, it's out of character, it's stupid. But it's not evil. And he didn't do it Oh, but just for reference, Cap nearly brought the United States into war with not one, but TWO foreign nations, including pushing the country a DAMNED SIGHT closer to war with Atlantis than Tony did, not to mention Wakanda. But don't worry, since you're anti-reg I'm sure we can just gloss over that I'm not a Civil War scholar and I didn't read eighty tie-in books. However, the Iron Man that was presented to me in the two or three titles I did read, lied, imprisoned superhuman people against their will without due process, illegally wiretapped, and put into effect weapons that caused murder. And he may have had legal power to do so, but that doesn't erase the immoral aspect of it (let's take Clor for example. If I make a weapon that despite my best efforts malfunctions and kills someone when it is not supposed to, don't I bear responsibility for that?). And yes that is somewhat similar to Ultron, except that Ultron was never intended to be a weapon or to be used in combat so Hank Pym could not foresee the damage he would cause. But Tony, a very smart man could imagine what an out of control Thor clone could do. And foreseeable liability is a liability. was he field tested, was he put into combat against god buster armor? I mean unleashing an unstable Thor is putting everyone on God's green Earth at immeasurable risk. And all of cap's faults only come into play due to Iron man's maneuvering (and what I considered to be bad writing that forced a forced conclusion) So let's say you invade my home and I pick up a gun and shoot at you and accidentally hit my child. You put into effect the chain of events that put the gun in my hand. So, no matter what, Stark's manipulation of events caused other events to fall into effect. Again, no one tried to put another plan into effect? The genius that is Tony, Reed and Hank saw this as the only option? This was the only way? I just think that men of logic and sense and humanity could have come up with something better. And being the forethinkers why did they never do something before? Are you seriously going to tell me that Stark a futurist and Richards who cleverly manipulated public opinion with the formation of the FF never thought about "what if things go bad?" and tried to stop it before it ever happened? A few million from Stark when the first heroes appeared back in his gold suit days to train and develop these guys (like Xavier with the X-men) would've gone a long way.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 2, 2007 19:45:12 GMT -5
Option 1- Recruiting seven villains because you're desperately short on super-humans, making sure they can't go on a rampage and kill people and will go straight back to a high security jail after this conflict. Helping create a cyborg which, despite all your precautions, tragically goes out of control. Building a colossal prison in another dimension to house the worst of the worst villains to prevent them from always escaping as they constantly do. Option 2- Orchestrating a war with a foreign nation and gambling that they won't react too badly so people will join you, manipulating the stock market, setting free a psychopath to murder several people, including badly hurting your friend, imprisoning friends as an example, controlling a villain like a puppet against his will. ...Now hmm, which of those is slightly more extreme? They're not mutually exclusive. Tony did all that stuff. Frontline #11's retcon process is already begun; it doesn't hold up at all. Brevoort must've been sleeping when this one came through- why did Iron Man need the government to pay to build this giant prison when he ALREADY HAD IT BUILT BEFORE THIS STORY STARTED? (Reed had it built in FF: Foes) Nah, this falls apart and it'll be retconned by next year. You don't like the story because it exposes the architect of the Civil War as a deeply immoral man, and so you expect it to be retconned. Got it. We'll see if your prediction bears fruit. Now, Balok. My above thing is purely spin to show how Iron Man's Frontline actions are much worse than his normal actions. They undeniably are, but I spun them in the worst possible light to illustrate a point. I'm now going to spin them in the best possible light to answer you They're not "his Frontline actions" and "his Civil War actions." Both books are canon. The actions are not mutually exclusive. He did it all. Yup. Except it never categorically and beyond doubt states Tony did it, it was only speculation. I hope it will be retconned but for now, I can simply point out that we don't know Tony did it. This fragile thread is the only thing on which your entire argument hangs. However, I'd bet most people who read the book would say that Tony's reaction at the end is proof he did what he was accused of doing. In fact, so far you are the only one who really says different. No, you are claiming that Millar should be blamed for what Jenkins did. Jenkins writes Frontline, Millar does not. In fact, Millar has, as you may know, co-ordinated with no other writers and wrote the entire main mini-series himself at the start. NO other writer can be blamed- Tom Brevoort the EDITOR can be, but if you think the writers are all on one page then it is you who are out on a limb! Not quite. I am saying that these decisions get made by the entire creative department and they get run by the editorial department. In short, Jenkins could not have written the book that way without the approval of Marvel. Therefore, it is how they want the story to unfold. This series is a civil war companion which spun wildly off in it's own direction many issues ago. Without this book, the war would be no different. Except that we wouldn't know the secret story behind it. Okay, so he's accused of manipulating the stock market. Well besides the fact that we can all surely agree that is far from evil, it's not like he took these profits for himself. He rerouted them to firefighters, police, registered heroes- people who do good jobs, people who are heroes. I'm not saying what he did was right, just that it's a thousand miles away from evil. Where do you think those millions come from? Thin air? No, the come from other investors who don't have access to the same knowledge Tony has access to, and therefore are at a competitive disadvantage. Tony has stolen from those people, and it doesn't really matter what he did with the money. That's an evil act in my book. It may not be in yours. The prison argument invalidates itself. Iron Man didn't build that prison, it was already built. And the question of why they never made it for villains is irrelevant because it has been canonically stated that it WAS built for villains and the main crossover, CW itself, always overrides tie-ins on continuity matters like this. So that argument is invalid. Yes, it was built for villains, but they sent some heroes there to give it a road test and to make them afraid not to register. The argument is invalid only in your mind. Is the psychological manipulation of others evil? That might depend on the situation, but it is certainly morally dodgy. Now we get to the meat of things; the Atlantean problem. Again, I'm not saying what he did was right. Just a million miles from "evil." Evil is "Let's kill babies." Ah. So in your world, murder is evil only if babies are the victims? That seems to be what you're saying here. WHat Iron Man is accused of doing is taking a heinous, horrendous risk. Osborn killed several Atlanteans. There is some small measure of comfort in the fact that he ensured Osborn would NOT kill the ambassador he attacked. Iron Man is accused of taking this colossal risk, a risk of war, which they averted because he had calculated correctly. He thought it was worth ending the civil war in the US, and in this instance he was right. He hoped, he prayed, that there would not be an actual war with Atlantis. He was right. First of all, why does he get to make that decision for everyone else? Who gave him that authority? The answer is: no one. He's not an elected or appointed official at the time he does this. He has committed treason here. Second, the fact that the outcome unfolded as he predicted doesn't negate the terrible, terrible consequences had it unfolded another way. Millions dead in Atlantean attacks, a far, far worse tragedy than the few hundred who lost their lives at Stamford. Third, say I brainwash you to kill several people, but order you to spare one of them? How would I be less evil for doing that than had I ordered you to kill them all? So we have insider trading, mass murder, treason, reckless endangerment on a scale of millions, violation of Norman Osborne's civil rights, psychological manipulation. If this had happened with any other character in any other context, even you would say that character is a villain. But because it's Tony Stark and Civil War, which you seem sworn to defend to a point past the ridiculous, he gets a pass. He doesn't get a pass from me. Until your hoped for retcon occurs, he is a criminal and an evil man. And he should not have been written that way. It's an insult to his legacy as a hero. I find it bitterly ironic that the same issue that explains why Captain America surrendered and somewhat restores his characterization [1], entirely destroys decades to characterization of Tony Stark as a good man. Oh, but just for reference, Cap nearly brought the United States into war with not one, but TWO foreign nations, including pushing the country a DAMNED SIGHT closer to war with Atlantis than Tony did, not to mention Wakanda. But don't worry, since you're anti-reg I'm sure we can just gloss over that I honestly don't remember either of these events. In what books did they occur? [1] By demonstrating that Sally doesn't understand what America is at all, despite her claims. She must have skipped out on all her civics classes.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 3, 2007 6:38:41 GMT -5
HOWEVER i was replying to Imperiusrex and contrasting his actions in civil war to his alleged actions in frontline. Well firstly, it in no way makes Tony the architect of the war, and secondly I don't like this story because it portrays both major marvel characters deeply out of character and so I expect it to be retconned. No, he is ACCUSED of his Frontline actions. It's very easy to distinguish between them; one batch are competent, sane and indeed logical, the other are ridiculous and wildly out of character. Firstly, it's not the only thing on which my argument hangs. Secondly, so what? You're saying if the majority of people say it, it MUST be right? Well then I guess Civil War is phenomenal, since like it or not the colossal overwhelmign majority of the comic-reading public seem to think so. This is the Hater gift of turning a writer and an editor into "All of Marvel." Secret story which would not have existed if this book did not exist, therefore eliminating our need to know it. "Stolen" is a bit extreme but I can see why you're saying that. Still, BOTH your claims are ridiculous. So tell me; you think a man who robs a bank to feed his starving, near-dead family is JUST AS BAD as a man who robs a bank to help him afford that new luxury penthouse suite? There's a VERY clear distinction in terms of what they do with it, and if you label "stealing" as evil then my god you use that word too lightly. There are very few people who I'd ever label as evil, and thieves are certainyl not among their number. "Psychological manipulation of others"? Frontline gives one reason for the Neg Zone Prison. Other books give other, contradicting ones. So let me guess, you get to pick which one is canon, because it best agrees with your point of view. Of course. Not what I'm saying and it doesn't seem to be. But I don't think murdering someone is always evil, no. Horribly, heinous and ghastly yes, but I use the word "evil" non-too-lightly. Well then so has Cap. Actually, it does. You see, we can take those lives into consideration, but you're acting as though whether his gamble pays off or not, he MUST be blamed for all those lives being lost. Even though they weren't lost at all. Cap took two bigger gambles. More like "I strike a bargain with you (Because that's what he did) to go after these people. Once you kill some against my will, I ensure you won't kill the next target." Not saying it's good, but far from what you said and a long way from evil. Actually no, we have: Insider trading, striking an illegal bargain with a murderer and reckless endangerment. Criminal acts, a MILLION miles from evil. If we include treason, then Cap is guilty of High Treason. If you honestly think that this does either, you are deluded, my friend, and I suggest you re-read civil war #7 without those rose-tinted glasses, or else read some captain america comics. Black Panther 24-25 and Civil War #6-#7. Cap requested that: -The King of Atlantis bring his personal guard out to aid an illegal resistance movement and brutally attack government agents enforcing the law, in a battle on the streets of Manhattan. If you don't think THIS brings Atlantis and the USA closer to war than a criminal shooting the ambassador, you really need that head examined. -The King of Wakanda and his Queen assist him, first by providing him the asisstance he needs in breaking into a US Government Prison, then by personally battling alongside his illegal resistance on the streets of Manhattan agaisnt legal government enforcers. BOTH of these are treason AND reckless endangerment on a scale twice the size of Tony's, including as they do not only Atlantis but also the technologically advanced Wakanda which has already won wars with the United States. Add to that the fact that Cap was in full knowledge Wakanda and Atlantis had been working together, plus that the Black Panther had been in recent talks with the Inhumans, another foreign race ALREADY at war with the USA, and even Latveria, a known enemy of the united states, and Cap was basically saying that the chance of overthrowing a law was worth an ENORMOUS alliance of super-powers declaring war on the United States.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 3, 2007 13:40:59 GMT -5
Well, the story was part of the overall CW story, which means it had to be approved by Joe Q, which is at the very least the head of Marvel and its branding and the way it is presented to the public, so it is really not too great a leap to assert that the product doesn't exist in a vacuum, is it? At least several people had to say "this story works as part of the whole" including the man who runs Marvel. So maybe not every colorist and letterer approved it, but certainly much of the Civil War braintrust did.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 3, 2007 15:38:57 GMT -5
You say Cap was guilty of treason for taking arms against what he, in good concience, considered an unjust law, Doom... Just wondering: do you consider the American Revolutionary War treason too...?
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Mar 3, 2007 17:29:15 GMT -5
I must say I have enjoyed reading this thread immensly. For months now, a number of us have been saying that Ironman was wrong and that there was much evidence that he was being turned into a villain. We were firmly on Cap's side and stood behind what he and his followers represented. Then out comes Civil War #7 and Cap surrenders. Certain people quickly hailed it as one of the best comics they'd ever read. Why? Because it seemed to back up what they had been saying all along and suddenly, although I certainly went to bat on this issue, Cap himself seemed to be admitting they were right. Now, a couple of weeks later, a new book comes out that not only clears up that debate (Cap wasn't admitting he was wrong all along, just that the ends don't always justify the means) but gives plenty of evidence that those of us arguing on the other side were right all along. Ironman really has been acting immorally. Amazingly, this is proclaimed by those same people as an absolutely horrible book. They even go so far as to try to pretend it never even happened or doesn't really count because it was written by a different team. Sorry guys, but the things revealed in this issue are only shocking because they were actually said. I will agree that it wasn't great writing and that the two reporters proved to be incompetent as reporters, but the revelations pretty much backed up what many people have been saying all along. The shoe is on the other foot now.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 3, 2007 21:59:13 GMT -5
Well firstly, it in no way makes Tony the architect of the war, and secondly I don't like this story because it portrays both major marvel characters deeply out of character and so I expect it to be retconned. That's what lies at the root of this: you don't like the story because it portrays Tony Stark as acting out of character. But you don't accept that for most of us, all of Civil War portrayed Tony Stark as operating out of character. Reed Richards, too. And that's why we regard it as a bad story. No, he is ACCUSED of his Frontline actions. It's very easy to distinguish between them; one batch are competent, sane and indeed logical, the other are ridiculous and wildly out of character. Well, you can choose to believe that because Tony didn't come out and admit he did those things, that he didn't. That's not what the book suggests in those final few pages, but I can't make you believe anything. Indeed, you have demonstrated a remarkable gift for selecting only those aspects of the story that make your case, and arguing that those with which you disagree either are being retconned, or will be retconned. Firstly, it's not the only thing on which my argument hangs. Secondly, so what? You're saying if the majority of people say it, it MUST be right? Not at all. I'm saying that because so many people read it that way, it's PROBABLY right. In fact, Sally Floyd demonstrated the flaw of modern thinking as expressed in Civil War. It's subtle, but it's there: she claimed America was MySpace, and NASCAR races and YouTube and things like that, and that because Captain American did not understand them, he did not understand America. She is an allegory for a lot of Americans who no longer remember what the Constitution means, or that it guards their freedoms - but only if they are willing to understand what it means, and defend it. Instead, give them bread and circuses, and they're happy. Cap defended the Constitution, and Tony attacked it. This is the Hater gift of turning a writer and an editor into "All of Marvel." Hater n. - A person who refuses to cheer the Civil War as the most wonderful thing to happen to Marvel, ever. Not at all. Read Tom Brevoort's interview, where he explains that the concepts of Civil War were a joint effort. Individual writers put their own spin on things, but the ideas were developed by the entire creative team. Including this one. It's not Jenkins operating in a vacuum, no matter how much you'd like it to be. You're actually arguing my point: that these characters had to be bent practically into pretzels for this story to work. For them, and Tony in particular, to behave in a villainous fashion, insults their long history as heroes. So tell me; you think a man who robs a bank to feed his starving, near-dead family is JUST AS BAD as a man who robs a bank to help him afford that new luxury penthouse suite? Do you know who controls most of the wealth in the stock market? It's people with less than $10,000 invested - little guy investors. Those are the people Tony robbed to pay for his grandiose gesture. That makes him a thief. There's a big difference between stealing to feed a starving family and stealing to endow your pet project, the Initiative. The right way to do this was to submit the budget request to Congress and ask America, through it's elected representatives, if it wanted to pay for this. Yes, I do think thieves are one variety of evil man. There are very few people who I'd ever label as evil, and thieves are certainyl not among their number. In that case, perhaps you'll PM me your address, and when I rob you, I won't be doing a wrong thing! I could use the money! Actually, I submit that if it had been anyone but the hero of the pro-reg forces doing this, you WOULD regard it as evil. "Psychological manipulation of others"? Frontline gives one reason for the Neg Zone Prison. Other books give other, contradicting ones. So let me guess, you get to pick which one is canon, because it best agrees with your point of view. Of course. No. All the reasons given are canon. It was created for villains, and it was also used to intimidate heroes and manipulate them into registering. That's not evil, exactly, but it sure isn't good, either. Yes, I do have high standards to which I hold heroes. The really interesting thing about this debate is that Tony has done many of the same things Marvel villains do. Not what I'm saying and it doesn't seem to be. But I don't think murdering someone is always evil, no. Horribly, heinous and ghastly yes, but I use the word "evil" non-too-lightly. Well, then, you and I disagree. Murder is wrong and it is evil. The only situation in which I see myself taking someone else's life is if he is actively trying to do that to me, and I must defend myself in that fashion. This is not what happened here. Actually, it does. You see, we can take those lives into consideration, but you're acting as though whether his gamble pays off or not, he MUST be blamed for all those lives being lost. Even though they weren't lost at all. Cap took two bigger gambles. Not what I said at all. I said that Tony endangered those people with his reckless gambit, without so much as asking their permission. Evil? Perhaps not. Depraved indifference? Absolutely. Insider trading, striking an illegal bargain with a murderer and reckless endangerment. Criminal acts, a MILLION miles from evil. With the nanites in his blood, Osborn had no choice but to do what Tony wanted. Essentially, he was the arms and legs and Tony was the brain. That makes Tony guilty of his crimes. No bargain, pure and simple murder. You may believe this constellation of bad behavior is not evil. I can see why you'd believe that, because those acts are what drove registration, and if you admitted they were evil, you'd have to admit maybe registration was the construction of an evil mind. And you seem unable to do that. If we include treason, then Cap is guilty of High Treason. Rubbish. For the reasons, see below. If you honestly think that this does either, you are deluded, my friend, and I suggest you re-read civil war #7 without those rose-tinted glasses, or else read some captain america comics. The book does not entirely redeem Captain America, but at least it tells us that he was fighting for the right thing, and that he did not surrender because he felt his position was morally wrong, as you earlier contended. That repairs his character a little bit. In fact, were both men acting in character, it would never have reached this stage because Tony would not have supported registration or committed crimes to achieve that goal. Black Panther 24-25 and Civil War #6-#7. Cap requested that: -The King of Atlantis bring his personal guard out to aid an illegal resistance movement and brutally attack government agents enforcing the law, in a battle on the streets of Manhattan. If you don't think THIS brings Atlantis and the USA closer to war than a criminal shooting the ambassador, you really need that head examined. -The King of Wakanda and his Queen assist him, first by providing him the asisstance he needs in breaking into a US Government Prison, then by personally battling alongside his illegal resistance on the streets of Manhattan agaisnt legal government enforcers. Utter, absolute, crap. There's no kinder way to put it. See, in the case of Osborn's attack, the victims did not participate willingly. Whereas in these case, Cap asked for help - and the participants could have turned him down. In fact, if they agreed that Tony was right, they would have turned him down. Cap is guilty of opposing a bad law the wrong way. That's not treason. What happened in Manhattan is reckless endangerment, properly apportioned among all participants - but since many, many superhero conflicts have occurred prior to this, it's only really reckless endangerment because the writers wanted it to be. Real law enforcement personnel, in fact, are trained not to endanger bystanders. Had the pro-reg forces been operating to that standard, they should be held to a higher level of accountability. But I'll concede that both sides are equally accountable. The cracks in your arguments widen with each post. Quit while you're behind!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Mar 4, 2007 13:01:46 GMT -5
Great post Balok.
I don't think any of us are happy with Stark's actions as revealed in Frontline 11, but to me, they were entirely consistent with all of his previous actions in CW. And that's the whole problem. Tony may have always been arrogant, but he used to have a sense of morality. Same goes for Reed. But CW portrayed them as willing to do anything in order to get what they wanted. This goes against 40 years of stories in which these men behaved as heroes. Cap didn't fare much better. Honestly, what really disturbs me is that apparently no one at Marvel could see this.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 4, 2007 16:48:07 GMT -5
I don't think any of us are happy with Stark's actions as revealed in Frontline 11, but to me, they were entirely consistent with all of his previous actions in CW. And that's the whole problem. Tony may have always been arrogant, but he used to have a sense of morality. Same goes for Reed. But CW portrayed them as willing to do anything in order to get what they wanted. This goes against 40 years of stories in which these men behaved as heroes. Cap didn't fare much better. Honestly, what really disturbs me is that apparently no one at Marvel could see this. Succinct and exactly the point I have clumsily tried to make. Civil War depended on these characters acting against their established nature. And that's bad writing in my view.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 4, 2007 17:11:00 GMT -5
Are the standards for Good & Evil, Moral & Immoral, Superheroic & Merely Superhuman changing, evolving (or devolving, depending from which point of view...), not only among readers but among the people who write & control the MU (and other comic universes)...? Is this, perhaps, the one true "line on the sand" which creates the differences here between the generations, between current satisfaction & dissatisfaction as far as how Marvel is handling things...?
|
|