|
Post by thew40 on Mar 2, 2007 18:49:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 2, 2007 20:08:14 GMT -5
Many questions answered. Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 4, 2007 17:04:10 GMT -5
One interesting comment, to me, was that Reed and Tony won't face consequences for Goliath's death.
Not legal ones, perhaps, but I wonder what Thor will think when he learns they made what amounts to a flawed copy, and used it to do murder (that they didn't intend murder might be beside the point).
I can tell you that if I was Thor (or someone like him), and such a thing was done I would be inclined to destroy the offenders. At the very least, they would have a job and a half convincing me they deserved to live after such a grievous offense.
However it unfolds, it seems to me that a good story could be told around that little meeting...
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 4, 2007 17:08:27 GMT -5
Not legal ones, perhaps, but I wonder what Thor will think when he learns they made what amounts to a flawed copy, and used it to do murder (that they didn't intend murder might be beside the point). I can tell you that if I was Thor (or someone like him), and such a thing was done I would be inclined to destroy the offenders. At the very least, they would have a job and a half convincing me they deserved to live after such a grievous offense. I'm in agreement with you here. I'm greatly looking forward to see Thor coming back and confronting those responsible for Clor. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 4, 2007 20:35:43 GMT -5
W’s link was to part 1; part 2 and part 3 are also available. Apparently there will be at least one more installment.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Mar 4, 2007 21:37:37 GMT -5
Not legal ones, perhaps, but I wonder what Thor will think when he learns they made what amounts to a flawed copy, and used it to do murder (that they didn't intend murder might be beside the point). I can tell you that if I was Thor (or someone like him), and such a thing was done I would be inclined to destroy the offenders. At the very least, they would have a job and a half convincing me they deserved to live after such a grievous offense. I'm in agreement with you here. I'm greatly looking forward to see Thor coming back and confronting those responsible for Clor. ~W~ I think regardless of what anyone thinks about the ethics of cloning, what Tony and Reed did was at the very least a betrayal. The idea that they actually cloned a dear friend of theirs, someone whom they have known for years and fought beside, who is missing and might be dead, and used him as a weapon, is just inexcusable. I'm sure Thor will deal quite harshly with the folks who have sullied his name..and when he finds out what happened to Bill Foster...well, I wouldn't want to be in Stark or Richard's shoes, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 4, 2007 21:51:22 GMT -5
I'm sure Thor will deal quite harshly with the folks who have sullied his name..and when he finds out what happened to Bill Foster...well, I wouldn't want to be in Stark or Richard's shoes, that's for sure. WORLD WAR THOR!!
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 4, 2007 22:08:16 GMT -5
In Part 2 we learn that Tony is in charge of the secret identities. Given what we learn about the new Tony's ethical makeup in Frontline #11, that ought to frighten people. It won't frighten the heroes, because Sally Floyd and Ben Urich failed in their role as reporters, but it should scare the pants off anyone who did discover it.
In Part 3 he as much as says that it's okay to use the vilest people, like Venom and Green Goblin, in the Thunderbolts because (to quote the First Law of Marketing) perception is reality. If we can sell them as heroes, then what's the problem? I guess my position is they aren't heroes, and if you gold plate a turd, at the end of the day it's still a turd. I very much dislike that attitude in a key Marvel creator. It says that heroism doesn't matter any more.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 4, 2007 22:26:48 GMT -5
Oh and Tom B's ideas about the liability of Reed, Hank and Tony are wholly wrong. If a prosecutor of any stripe got the info we have, it would not be terribly difficult to form a case against them. for one thing, Tony Stark has got anywhere from two to two dozen suits of armor. these suits are tested and powerful, surely impressive enough to turn the tide in any battle and could be programmed specifically to discharge nothing more powerful than non-lethal force. much better solution than a clone (of a living sentient being which is illegal in many states www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/rt-shcl.htm ) now is the prosecutor guaranteed a slam dunk? obviously not. but one could easily make the case that creating clor was a reckless and unecessary act that ended in the harm of dozens and death of Bill Foster especially given there were completely controllable alternatives available.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Mar 4, 2007 23:09:20 GMT -5
As is the case on the CBR board, the list of questions that Mr. Brevoort might have to answer is sanitized by the moderators/administrators. Therefore there is a preponderance of nice, soft-pitch or irrelevant questions that Mr. Brevoort is happy to answer, and few if any question that are tough and might potentially be embarrassing for Mr. Brevoort to answer. For example -- what questions were omitted in order for TWO questions about Triathlon to be included? For examples, read Mr. Brevoort's responses on this thread at CBR: forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=112261Ask Marvel's Tom Brevoort CIVIL WAR Questions Here! Mr. Brevoort's answers to the somewhat tough questions -- about his own conflicting statements for example -- are evasive to say the least. Typically he ignores the question entirely and answers one of the soft-pitch questions, offers a standard platitude, or answers a different question and then pretends he has answered the question asked. Simply reading the last few pages will demonstrate that pattern for you quite well. Note that the almost-tough questions in the wake of Frontline #11 have met with the sound of crickets chirping from Mr. Brevoort. And the antidote to Tom Brevoort's apologia: forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=128851Civil War Complaint Department RSC
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 4, 2007 23:17:12 GMT -5
Oh and Tom B's ideas about the liability of Reed, Hank and Tony are wholly wrong. If a prosecutor of any stripe got the info we have, it would not be terribly difficult to form a case against them. But whether the prosecutor would actually press charges is a political question to which the answer might quite possibly be no.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 5, 2007 0:51:11 GMT -5
Oh and Tom B's ideas about the liability of Reed, Hank and Tony are wholly wrong. If a prosecutor of any stripe got the info we have, it would not be terribly difficult to form a case against them. But whether the prosecutor would actually press charges is a political question to which the answer might quite possibly be no. No doubt. However Tom B's says something along the lines of they wouldn't have to worry about criminal prosecution, which is not true. If someone with a political agenda to grind and a strong backer (say the Hammer family or Marrs twins from Iron Man), were to start an inquiry, they could still make a fuss even against a popular figure or figures.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 5, 2007 8:45:26 GMT -5
Why would he avoid questions?
~W~
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Mar 5, 2007 10:04:58 GMT -5
Why would he avoid questions? ~W~ Because he knows very well that the answers -- if he answered them honestly -- would be embarrassing to Marvel and his own integrity. For example, his oft-mentioned "CW is a balanced story" statement looks ludicrous at best and an outright lie at worst. Other possible questions: Was CW delayed for serious rewrites, and not the art as claimed? Did no one at Marvel consider the possibility that Tony was being demonized? Why was Captain Marvel's return (right or wrong) torpedoed by making it a non-factor in CW? I would suspect that questions like these were conveniently sanitized by the newsarama administrators precisely to avoid putting Mr. Brevoort on the hot seat -- which is where he and the rest of the Marvel brass deserve to be over this. Heck, I can think of any number of questions that Mr. Brevoort will decline to answer or evade. RSC
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 5, 2007 11:44:29 GMT -5
Question, RSC?
If he is so Hellbent on avoiding questions, why even offer to answer them anyway? Why offer the UNPRECEDENTED step of answering literally every single question put to him on CBR (except of couse, one-sided rants and tangents which are little less than attacks. Ringing any bells?) and a LOT more on Newsarama? You act like he was FORCED to, or fans MADE him. Instead, he simply reached out to the fans to answer their concerns, and is immediately flamed for it. Imagine my shock.
Or "truth" at best? He says right there that writers can tell their own stories and some are pro-reg biased while others are anti-reg.
actually, this has been answered numerous times, you just refuse to accept the truth. The answer is NO.
I'd say the answer is they considered the possibility then decided, rather foolishly, that actually presenting his side of the argument and showing him to be right might assauge some fan doubts.
Also asked and an answer given; space constraints.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 5, 2007 15:15:02 GMT -5
RSC . . . leave it to you to make up a conspiracy.
Doctor Doom here has covered the basics.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Mar 5, 2007 22:33:26 GMT -5
Question, RSC?If he is so Hellbent on avoiding questions, why even offer to answer them anyway? Why offer the UNPRECEDENTED step of answering literally every single question put to him on CBR (except of couse, one-sided rants and tangents which are little less than attacks. Ringing any bells?) Totally false, as perusing even a few pages of the thread demonstrates. Mr. Brevoort answered fully those easy questions that were convenient for him to answer. Mr. Brevoort gave evasive answers to -- or outright ignored -- those questions that it was not convenient for him to answer. Furthermore, the board moderator deletes tough questions, as I well know, so Mr. Brevoort much of the time doesn't even see them, and more importantly, most readers don't see them. It's controlling the terms of the debate, plain and simple. On Newsarama Mr. Brevoort answered a list of questions that -- by Newsarama's own admission -- was sanitized to remove questions they deemed "unreasonable." OK -- lets have a look at those deleted questions and see if perhaps there are any more relevant than TWO questions about TRIATHLON.Newsarama is not a "watchdog news organization." Newsarama is ultimately concerned with maintaining a cozy relationship with Marvel and is not going to endanger that by asking Mr. Brevoort tough questions. The "truth" is not what Mr. Brevoort and his apologists define as the truth. You give whatever comes out of his mouth the force of gospel because you like the story and your pride is caught up in being right. Here's where the apologists go wrong. Yes, words came out of Mr. Brevoort's mouth subsequent to being asked a question about Captain Marvel. And as usual, the "answer" was not really an answer, but merely an excuse which suited his and Marvel's needs of the moment -- an excuse which you are only too happy to accept without question. Consider this: Bringing back Captain Marvel (right or wrong) is a big, big deal. No way around that. It deserves (right or wrong) to have a spotlight on it. Civil War is not about Captain Marvel. Even according to Mr. Brevoort's comments, Captain Marvel was to play at best a bit part in the series. This was even before that bit part was cut down to almost nothing. So, as planned before space constraints cut his exposure to nothing, Captain Marvel was resurrected in time to play a bit part in a series that had nothing to do with him, and had him fighting on a particular side with no explained motivation for doing so, and being stuck as warden of Tony's negative zone gulag. This is poor planning and poor writing, and that's what the question was about. Then Mr. Brevoort gives a misleading answer by saying that space constraints cut his role in CW -- which is probably true as far as that goes, but only a self-serving half-truth. It doesn't change the fact that Marvel should not have had Capt. Marvel return in an event where his return by definition couldn't be done justice. They should have known this prior and they did it anyways, most likely to add that little extra sales kick. RSC
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 5, 2007 22:43:31 GMT -5
[sarcasm]
You're right, RSC. Surely Breevort is a lair and his answers are all wrong because of the way they're written. Also, aliens abducted Mark Millar, the men in black work for Joe Quesada, and Bendis is the man behind the curtain.
[/sarcasm]
It's apparent to me that your level of distaste for Marvel at the moment is clouding your better judgement on this matter. If you seemingly hate everything about Marvel and continue to accuse anyone interviewed as a liar, then why are you even bothering with Marvel right now? The thickness of your hate surely outweighs any money you're spending on Marvel books. Why bother, then?
Why not head over to DC? Read some rad "52" and "Justice League of America" or "Justice?" Then, after you accuse all of the creators and editors over there of being liars, you can just move along to Image . . . then Dark Horse . . . and so on and so on until you get to the point of when you're dragging up old IDW and Crossgen interviews and accuse them of lying (psst! They were! You'd be right with them!)
Please . . . continue your silly accusations, your thin arguements, your stupid theories. You entertain me so.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 5, 2007 22:48:48 GMT -5
Oh and Tom B's ideas about the liability of Reed, Hank and Tony are wholly wrong. If a prosecutor of any stripe got the info we have, it would not be terribly difficult to form a case against them. But whether the prosecutor would actually press charges is a political question to which the answer might quite possibly be no. No doubt. However Tom B's says something along the lines of they wouldn't have to worry about criminal prosecution, which is not true. If someone with a political agenda to grind and a strong backer (say the Hammer family or Marrs twins from Iron Man), were to start an inquiry, they could still make a fuss even against a popular figure or figures. That’s what nanites are for.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 5, 2007 23:11:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 5, 2007 23:13:33 GMT -5
Bendis IS the man behind the curtain...
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 5, 2007 23:17:25 GMT -5
Bendis IS the man behind the curtain... Look there's Toto barking at him! "Oy! Pay no attention to man behind the curtain! What curtain? This curtain! Oy!" ~W~
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 5, 2007 23:19:26 GMT -5
That’s what nanites are for. Oh, no, Tony would NEVER do anything like that! After all, it's not like he made insider trades, nearly started a war, engineered several murders, and alienated many old friends and comrades because he was sure he was right. He'd NEVER use nanites on anyone except villains. Brevoort alludes to the fact that younger readers sided with Tony and the pro-reg forces. I wonder if Civil War was the result of a focus group that asked the question, "How do we attract younger readers?" It certainly seems to be pitched at that crowd. Frankly, that answer kind of depresses me, because while I can understand wanting to capture younger readers, I wish they didn't want to do it so badly that they didn't care about alienating older readers. Which is what they have done. It depresses me because I don't see changes in Marvel's future. Ah, well, I suspected that the day would come when I would no longer be interested in comics. I could have wished for it to come about another way, though.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Mar 5, 2007 23:59:39 GMT -5
That’s what nanites are for. Oh, no, Tony would NEVER do anything like that! After all, it's not like he made insider trades, nearly started a war, engineered several murders, and alienated many old friends and comrades because he was sure he was right. He'd NEVER use nanites on anyone except villains. Brevoort alludes to the fact that younger readers sided with Tony and the pro-reg forces. I wonder if Civil War was the result of a focus group that asked the question, "How do we attract younger readers?" It certainly seems to be pitched at that crowd. Frankly, that answer kind of depresses me, because while I can understand wanting to capture younger readers, I wish they didn't want to do it so badly that they didn't care about alienating older readers. Which is what they have done. It depresses me because I don't see changes in Marvel's future. Ah, well, I suspected that the day would come when I would no longer be interested in comics. I could have wished for it to come about another way, though. There has been some talk that the battle lines, readership-wise, have been drawn along generational paths. It seems to me, from what I have heard, that a lot of older readers have come down anti-reg and younger readers pro-reg. This got me to thinking, maybe this all has to do with how we view our governments or authority in general. As someone who was a little kid during the Vietnam War and Watergate, and a teenager during Iran-Contra, among other events, I have never trusted my government. I know most of my friends feel the same way. We are always listening to what our leaders say and then trying to interpret it, based on the pretense that there must be something, no matter how insignificant, that we are not being told or that we are hearing flat-out lies. This is probably not the healthiest mind-set, but especially nowadays, with the so-called Patriot Act, consideration of torture, and locking people up without any legal rights or representation, it's not without merit. On the other hand, I know a lot of younger folk who tell me without a hint of sarcasm that the government is doing all these things to protect us. I don't know if it is optimism or naivete, but they truly seem to believe this. It's hard for me personally to reconcile the feelings I have for the ideals of America, as represented by our Constitution, with the actions of our government. I love my country, but it's hard sometimes, when I feel we are becoming the thing we once despised. I believe at least in my case, and maybe for some of you as well, my real-world feelings have bled over into Civil War. I want the Marvel Universe, my heroes, to be heroes. I hate seeing Iron Man depicted as another politician who believes the ends justify the means. I guess I am old school, but heroes should be better than that. If this is the direction things are going, than I can't see continuing to read this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Mar 6, 2007 1:28:21 GMT -5
I don't think the real explanation is quite so complicated. My observations of this board and others, as well as my own memories of youth, show me that the younger crowd at any given time is far more likely to be almost slavishly pro-Marvel. That is, whatever their favorite Marvel writer writes is the unvarnished truth and is to be defended against the "haters." I long ago gave up trying to count the number of times I've seen younger fans twist themselves into semantic pretzels trying to justify bad writing and bad decisions. (The CBR forums are particularly bad in this respect -- bordering on the idiotic.) They simply haven't matured enough yet to temper enthusiasm with a critical eye for quality, and I believe that Marvel understands this at some level. Why not appeal to the fans who are less demanding of quality when quality seems in short supply? After all, a 15-year-old kid's money is just as good to Marvel as a 35-year-old man's money. Therefore wrt to the pro/anti arguments, this crowd is willing to accept Marvel's facile explanations as to why Tony and his crew are not acting evilly and out of character in spite of 40 years of evidence to the contrary.
RSC
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 6, 2007 2:46:42 GMT -5
I don't think the real explanation is quite so complicated. My observations of this board and others, as well as my own memories of youth, show me that the younger crowd at any given time is far more likely to be almost slavishly pro-Marvel. That is, whatever their favorite Marvel writer writes is the unvarnished truth and is to be defended against the "haters." I long ago gave up trying to count the number of times I've seen younger fans twist themselves into semantic pretzels trying to justify bad writing and bad decisions. (The CBR forums are particularly bad in this respect -- bordering on the idiotic.) They simply haven't matured enough yet to temper enthusiasm with a critical eye for quality, and I believe that Marvel understands this at some level. Why not appeal to the fans who are less demanding of quality when quality seems in short supply? After all, a 15-year-old kid's money is just as good to Marvel as a 35-year-old man's money. Therefore wrt to the pro/anti arguments, this crowd is willing to accept Marvel's facile explanations as to why Tony and his crew are not acting evilly and out of character in spite of 40 years of evidence to the contrary. RSC Dude, I'm sorry I like comics that you don't. Deal with it. It's not bad writing. Good and bad are critical and subjective. Does it progress from A to B to C? Are we talking Civil War as a whole or just the Millar series? The fact that you insinuate that younger readers have inexperience with quality and "slavish" attitude towards Marvel is insulting. I've been reading Marvel comics for 15 years. I've read A LOT of comics and not just Marvel. I am critical and I am careful as to where I spend my money. And hey, I like "Civil War." But I guess that makes me a dummy in your eyes. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 6, 2007 4:39:28 GMT -5
Bendis IS the man behind the curtain... Look there's Toto barking at him! "Oy! Pay no attention to man behind the curtain! What curtain? This curtain! Oy!" ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 6, 2007 4:39:58 GMT -5
The Wizard of Oy...?
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 6, 2007 9:27:52 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me to see a house (of M?) fall on the Scarlet Witch. Ah, I can sense this joke might be going too far . . . ~W~
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 6, 2007 9:49:36 GMT -5
It's not bad writing. Good and bad are critical and subjective. Does it progress from A to B to C? Are we talking Civil War as a whole or just the Millar series? I don't think it's bad writing because I disagree with how the plot progressed. I think it's bad writing because it ignores the heroic legacy of these characters - the basic fact that, as depicted previously, they simply wouldn't act this way. That, I think, IS something that a younger reader won't understand, simply because he wasn't around and reading back then. The fact that you insinuate that younger readers have inexperience with quality and "slavish" attitude towards Marvel is insulting. At the risk of sounding patronizing - I can tell you that my own perceptions and tastes have become more refined as I have aged. It is an inevitable thing, a consequence of the weight of experience. You might be an exception, but generally younger people have less experience and are less discerning - I see it all the time.
|
|