|
Post by Shiryu on Sept 25, 2006 14:37:27 GMT -5
Spider-Man is the most out of character of all (that comment, obviously, refers to more than just this issue). I actually think that, with one major exception, he is behaving fairly in character, clearly having doubts about the whole thing but following it because he believes it's right. The big exception is, of course, the unmasking, which I didn't like at all. However, I haven't read the ASM issues related to it, so I leave the judgment for the future.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 26, 2006 12:54:59 GMT -5
I actually think that, with one major exception, he is behaving fairly in character, clearly having doubts about the whole thing but following it because he believes it's right. The big exception is, of course, the unmasking, which I didn't like at all. However, I haven't read the ASM issues related to it, so I leave the judgment for the future. We must disagree on this point. A central facet of Spider-Man's character throughout his long history has been mistrust of authority, with the exception of a few individuals (Captain Stacey, Captain DeWolff) who earned his trust. Maria Hill hammered the point home by having psychics root through his mind for his secrets when she had him in her power. And he's going to trust these people, or their pet hero Iron Man? It seems very hard for me to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Sept 26, 2006 16:59:32 GMT -5
That's a good point actually, Spidey and autorithies don't have an history of good releationships. I try to find the issue where Peter explains the reasons behind his decision (I think Doom mentioned it somewhere) and then I'll give a more complete comment.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Sept 26, 2006 17:49:45 GMT -5
Yes shiryu, we are aware that the writer of that issue (Ostrazinczki... ) made Peter mouth his reasons for doing this -and, at that, I think it was a very well written and compelling piece-, but the dang thing is, any reasonably good writer can turn around a character 360 degrees and give us, in the spot of the moment, good or fairly good reasons why he/she did this instead of that... My complain (and, I'm assuming, the complains of others as well on this regard) is that, when you look at who Spider-Man is and has been throughout most of his chronicled history, and how he has behaved through the duration of it, his current decisions & behavior stand as very out of character.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 27, 2006 15:44:27 GMT -5
Have to disagree. (What a surprise!)
Certainly Spider-Man of the 60s would not have done this. But the Spider-man of today, with all his character development- I honestly believe he would.
Now I want to ask one question; as a hero, does Spider-Man have a greater responsibility to the people at large or to his family? For a significent portion of his career, he has acted for his family above all, but I think ultimately, if he had to choose between saving 10 innocent kids and saving MJ, á la Spidey movie, he'd go for the kids first. That's the Curse of Spider-Man. And that's why, ultimately, he would register; it's better for everyone.
If Spidey doesn't register, then he fails at both. His family would, at BEST, be taken into 'protective custody' and thus away from him, at worst killed by the Goblin or Venom III. But also, if he goes anti-reg he fails in his obligation to the people at large- he can't protect them anywhere near as effectively if he is underground, fighting heroes.
Spidey picked the hardest road, but he also picked the right road. And with ALL that in there, PLUS MJ and May wanted him to do it AND so did Tony... I think the Spider-Man of today would make that choice, and I think he's the more intelligent for it.
|
|
|
Post by henrypym on Sept 27, 2006 22:54:27 GMT -5
I think Goliath's death is meaningful because I think it will push yellowjacket to Cap's side. I also think that Hank might be the man in the ski mask. If you have read ASM 535 you know where he is leaning now, which comes as no surprise really.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Sept 28, 2006 13:06:45 GMT -5
Just read it. Not too much of a surprise, but something I was looking forward to
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Sept 28, 2006 13:42:22 GMT -5
I liked the way they handled the death from a character view. No one was bawling. There wasn't much screaming. Everyone was just shocked and couldn't believe what had happened. They just tried to pick up the pieces and go home.
That sold it to me as the moment that could change everything in CW.
It was a good read.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Sept 29, 2006 11:11:09 GMT -5
Someone the other day mentioned being tired of the "real war" backup features in FRONTLINE. And thinking about the sorta-pretentiousness of comparing Marvel's "Civil War" story to these great, real conflicts and the effects on the people involved.... it only reinforces what I've been thinking all along:
CIVIL WAR is being packaged, presented, and marketed like a huge, important, critical "event" of vast, lasting importance. From the way the covers look, to the back-cover copy on this most recent issue, to the style carried over onto the corresponding covers of related books ("A Marvel Comics Event").... it all carries just this enormous air of "THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY SERIOUS!!" And then you read the actual story, and...
I honestly don't blame Mark Millar. He's doing what he can with it. It's just all so horribly "off," somehow. Out of character. Contrived.
I look at the scene in #4, for example, between Cap and Iron Man, and think, "This is so not right. Sure, they've clashed, through the years, but not like this. This is not real, this is not accurate, this is horribly out of character."
(My argument would be that Tony is the most "out of character" of all of them in this storyline-- we get these occasional "here's why he's acting this way" moments, to prop it up, and then it's right back into slapping around Cap and talking down to everyone. Maybe if all you've ever read of Iron Man is in the last ten years or so, and your impressions of him were formed primarily by his charicature in TWISTED TOYFARE THEATER or something, then, yeah. But this is NOT Tony Stark, not the one I know. The thing is, he's fallen so far in the reading public's estimation, that hardly anyone cares how poorly and how out of character he's being portrayed here.)
Overall, I'd say CIVIL WAR is perhaps the most "forced," most utterly *contrived* storyline of this magnitude in Marvel history, and increasingly I find myself looking upon it the way the Watcher seems to: with a sort of removed, detached disgust.
Mark Millar is executing it as well as could be hoped by the powers that be. And certainly there are parts to it that are fun to read. But as an overall story involving these characters?
I don't know what Marvel Earth this is, but it sure ain't 616.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 29, 2006 13:51:48 GMT -5
What worries me is that they are building this up to be an event of enormous importance, yet I fear that there will be no lasting consequences. Based on everything we have seen so far (and not even debating whether everyone is 'in character' or not), at the very least we should have: 1)a Peter Parker who has put all of his friends and family in jeopardy; 2)Stark and Richards most likely hated and feared by a large portion of the hero community; 3) a complete destruction of Cap's and IM's relationship; 4) the possible break up of the F4, and Reed and Sue; 5)a very angry Hulk and Thor at some future point; 6) and just a lot of bad feelings in general between the Pro and Anti groups, no matter who 'wins'.
But I have a nagging fear that somehow, much of this could wind up undone by Marvel, either through magic (erasing PP's identity from everyone's minds), or just poor writing down the road.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Sept 29, 2006 14:31:16 GMT -5
Wow, I hadn't thought much about it, but CW must be bad for the Iron Man fans Tananile, sooner or later it will all be the same again. Let's hope this is handled well
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Sept 29, 2006 15:03:08 GMT -5
"4) the possible break up of the F4, and Reed and Sue"
In all fairness, this happens every other week. Leaving is pretty much Sue's answer to everything.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Sept 29, 2006 16:49:15 GMT -5
"4) the possible break up of the F4, and Reed and Sue"In all fairness, this happens every other week. Leaving is pretty much Sue's answer to everything. Well, I guess you’re out of the running for the Sensitive-Male Award this year, considering Sue’s first extended leave was a result of her first pregnancy. And yes, it’s true she did leave the team and her husband for a while when he turned their son into a vegetable. But she got over it. And another time, she actually had the gall to leave with her husband to concentrate on raising their son (now non-vegetable). I guess she lacks commitment! And then when her husband was generally believed killed by Doctor Doom, her answer was to keep the team together and lead it while searching for said husband. But maybe she really meant to leave…?
Of the “big changes” wrought by Civil War, the FF’s breakup is one of the most easily reversible. Engage is right that it’s well-worn territory, and the motives are essentially the war itself—so, once that’s over, there may be no reason for the team not to reassemble. Although the hype tends to play up the rifts within the team, actually the breakup isn’t characterized by the difficult interpersonal dynamics that have defined the FF, for better and for worse, over its entire history. Ben has departed because he doesn’t want to participate in the war. Sue loves her husband but has become disenchanted with his actions and her own; she has left to make amends but prays that that the circumstances will be short-lived. Johnny’s reasoning hasn’t yet been spelled out, but I presume it’s a combination of political stance and loyalty to his sister (“tagging along with Sis” as in the origin story!). Oh, when the war ends, there may be a little soul-searching while they come to terms with their different paths; but as things stand now, it’s easy to see the team coming together once again.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Sept 29, 2006 19:01:59 GMT -5
Glad to see you back, Van... I've felt a bit lonely without your frequent presence around, as it often seems to me (a very sad conclusion for me to arrive to, I assure you...) that you & I are the last die-hard Iron Man fans upon the surface of this world... I agree with you when you say that, while the whole CW affair seems forced & "wrong", nothing seems more out of character & counterfeit that Iron Man's conduct & decisions through it... IF there were enough Iron Man fans out somewhere to care, I would say that, indeed, Marvel seems intent on ruining IM's character & reputation as, no matter how they try to sugar-coat these developments, they are not the actions of a true hero with a minimum of respect for his former fellow comrades & their long history together... But as you pointed out, there hardly seems to be any Iron Man fan-base to speak about left to truly care... The only thing I don't understand is how Marvel expects to market & promote its coming movie about a hero with very few supporters left, unless they're counting with the teenagers who would see any action movie you put out there or the audience whose gotten used to watch superhero flicks in general...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Sept 29, 2006 19:37:38 GMT -5
But, in fact, I'm not quite done ranting, haven't gotten everything out of my system yet (and I don't expect to, until many things change at Marvel): when I was a kid, Iron Man became my favorite superhero for 3 reasons: 1) It was HIS intellect that was his true superpower, which allowed him to build & create his suit, bringing out of nothingness (or more precisely, the ethereal realm of his imagination) & into reality the greatest weapon he ever created, much like in greek mythology Athena sprang all grown up & armored from Zeus' head. And while most Marvel superheroes were "created" out of accidental circumstances, it took a concious effort on both Tony's intellect & will power to create IM; in efect, he empowered himself, adapting to it & changing a moment of crisis into a situation to his advantage, as he would do again & again in the future. 2) Without the armor, he was just a normal human being, albeit a genius, who dared to make a place for himself iamong a pantheon composed by gods, superbeings, androids, extraterrestrials & mutants. 3) Although he was a multimillionaire, a class of people who are not usually known for putting the needs of others above their own, he would don his suit of armor whenever anyone needed IM, without regard to their bank accounts or social standing. Today's IM feels like a caricature to me. The IM I used to know had faults, to be sure, perhaps even more than most heroes, but he was nevertheless a true Iron Man in that he had true strenght: strenght of character & strenght of will... He wasn't a jerk, he wasn't a selfish not a very nice person, he wasn't a backstabber & he wouldn't side with the Powers That Be over his comrades-in-arms Avengers... IM, as portrayed by Marvel in these recent years, has been all of this, and I submit that, because of it, he's nowhere nearly the hero he used to be. Okay, NOW I'm done ranting...!!!
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 29, 2006 19:46:39 GMT -5
I was kind of wondering when Iron Van would weigh in on this topic, because I figured if anyone had some feelings about Iron Man's role in Civil War it would be him.
The last issue of Iron Man did sort of set up why Tony believes in registration, but to me not convincingly. What happened to Tony might have convinced him that registration was a good idea (although even that is debateable) but I find it hard to believe he'd throw his weight behind the additional provisions of the Act: the forced employment by SHIELD and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Sept 29, 2006 20:08:43 GMT -5
Well, I guess you’re out of the running for the Sensitive-Male Award this year, considering Sue’s first extended leave was a result of her first pregnancy. And yes, it’s true she did leave the team and her husband for a while when he turned their son into a vegetable. But she got over it. And another time, she actually had the gall to leave with her husband to concentrate on raising their son (now non-vegetable). I guess she lacks commitment! And then when her husband was generally believed killed by Doctor Doom, her answer was to keep the team together and lead it while searching for said husband. But maybe she really meant to leave…? My point was more that between the four of them the team breaking up is a very regular occurrence. How many times have we seen variations of "Four No More!"? And referring to Sue, while she evolved into (for my money) the best rounded female character in the MU, there were a lot of times in earlier decades where she constantly considered leaving. While the reasons were usually good, between raising a family and sorting out her marriage, she certainly doesn't shy away from the option. The same could be said for Ben Grimm. For a family they certainly have to continually learn the "family can help you out of problems" lesson more than most people. That said, her exit in CW #4 was the highpoint of the book. The MU is always at its best when the FF is at its heart. EDIT: I just reread the post I made before this. It really wasn't meant to sound that critical of Sue. It sounded a lot lighter in my head than on the page. Stupid message board jokes...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Sept 29, 2006 21:15:16 GMT -5
I concurr with what you said, Balok; I admit that IM's last issue was well written & made to nicely fit so as to explain why IM would have decided to put himself in the Pro-Registration camp, yet -from my point of view- it does so only by ignoring a lesson within his continuity which IM learned (or rather relearned) quite recently, something Marvel has no problem with more & more in recent times (I mean, ignoring their characters histories): that is, what happened when, due to revelealing (the 1st time) that IM & Tony were one & the same, the government started to take control of his IM technology and, piece by piece, start using it once again as weapons of war... You'd THINK that lesson would have stuck a little longer in his genius-level brain...
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Sept 29, 2006 21:56:57 GMT -5
And referring to Sue, while she evolved into (for my money) the best rounded female character in the MU, there were a lot of times in earlier decades where she constantly considered leaving. While the reasons were usually good, between raising a family and sorting out her marriage, she certainly doesn't shy away from the option. The same could be said for Ben Grimm. For a family they certainly have to continually learn the "family can help you out of problems" lesson more than most people. Hmm…on the other hand, I’ve heard that a dysfunctional family doesn’t let you leave. That said, I was recently thinking about the possibility of FF roster changes that would keep the team “in the family”. The fact is…it doesn’t seem to be all that big a family! Franklin and Valeria are a bit young to join…Nathaniel Richards is more foil than friend…Reed’s alleged half-sister Huntara is underdeveloped and mostly forgotten…the possibility that Kristoff might be Reed’s half-brother is even less developed and remembered…and Ben and the Storms don’t seem to have any cousins…so, the family team is quite closed. Too bad. Of course, now that three slots are open, maybe Reed could recruit three members of some other family! I suppose Crystal/Pietro/Wanda would not be available…Bruce/Jen/John is probably out at the moment…well, he may find somebody. Or maybe (gasp)…Nathaniel/Tara/Kristoff after all! I can’t argue against that!
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Sept 30, 2006 12:12:11 GMT -5
What's the number of the last Iron Man issue ? I'll see if I can find it somewhere. And has anyone read the last ASM issue ? IM behaves quite coldly in there, during the tour in the Negative Zone.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Sept 30, 2006 12:46:27 GMT -5
First, let me say that I agree 100% with everything ua2 said in his last two posts about Tony Stark/Iron Man. Very well put.
Next, to reply to Tananile:
The irony here, T, is that this is precisely what I'm hoping for! Ha!
It reminds me in many ways of "The Crossing," where, once again, Iron Man was warped badly out of character (and ultimately killed!), only to be brought back again, more true-to-form (thanks to Kurt B.), with everything that had happened pretty much erased and ignored by later writers.
Of course, CIVIL WAR is far too "big" for that to happen this time. Clearly it has been intended to shake up the very core of the MU, and that's what it's doing. The problem, from my perspective, is that it is doing it in such an artificial, forced, contrived way. SO it's not necessarily the results that I dislike (other than the ruining of Tony), it's the way they're getting there that I object to.
And I think that all of those changes are things that could have potential for much fun and excitement in good stories down the line. I don't object on principle to any of that-- not even to a rift between Steve and Tony. There's a history to that, and their recent (Bendis-driven) buddy-buddy-ness, prior to CW, struck me as more false than seeing them actually bickering a lot.
Again, the problem is that they're forcing events now into a shape to produce situations they want to exist later.
We really want a round peg. So we're gonna take this square peg and FORCE it through this round hole and see what we get.
And what we get is painful!
Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Sept 30, 2006 12:50:17 GMT -5
No kidding-- go and read Sergio Arragones's spoof of the Marvel Universe from about ten years ago, I think it was. Every other scene is someone from the FF threatening to quit, and another member stopping them. It went like this:
"You can't quit the Fantastic Four."
"Why not?"
"Because I'M QUITTING the FANTASTIC FOUR!!"
Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Sept 30, 2006 17:06:23 GMT -5
shiryu, IM's most recent issue is #12; on it's cover you can see IM confronting a somewhat modified version of his Hulkbuster armor.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Sept 30, 2006 17:16:18 GMT -5
shiryu, IM's most recent issue is #12; on it's cover you can see IM confronting a somewhat modified version of his Hulkbuster armor. Great, thanks Wow, I hadn't realised IM had stepped into volume 4 (or is it even 5 ?)
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Sept 30, 2006 18:47:49 GMT -5
At this point, shiryu, who the -not Don- heck knows (if you would pardon my terrible pun)...? I would like to direct your attention to a new thread I'm about to begin in the General Board, titled "Issue Numbering... Does It Matter...?". The reason I'm directing your particular attention to it, shiryu, is because your previous query about IM volumes inspired it...
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Oct 1, 2006 11:57:17 GMT -5
Someone the other day mentioned being tired of the "real war" backup features in FRONTLINE. And thinking about the sorta- pretentiousness of comparing Marvel's "Civil War" story to these great, real conflicts and the effects on the people involved. I agree with you here. I don't like this feature either. I think it's really, really tacky, forced, and just a little arrogant. I disagree, but I don't really feel like getting into a debate about my opinion of Tony Stark vs. your opinion of Tony Stark. I think that the up-coming issues of "Iron Man" that tie-in with "Civil War" will reveal more about why Tony is acting the way he is. I'm curious about just how Tony will look when all is said and done. I'm very much looking forward to sitting down, reading this entire saga in one sitting. It may just reveal more insight that way. Also, did you read the "Civil War Files" one-shot? It's got some interesting stuff in there, as it is all from IM's POV. Gotta disagree. For me, it's the first Marvel story that really makes me think. When characters show up, I'm not just thinking "hey! it's suchandsuch", I'm thinking "hey! it's suchandsuch! I wonder how they'll feel about the Registration Act?" I like that this crossover is grounded in more real life scenarios, a nice break from the "cosmic" or "armageddon is coming"-type threat that has been the norm for the past decade-ish. But to each their own and all that. I posted this interview at the beginning of the thread, but I'd like to point you in its direction again. It may bring a little more insight as to what the boys at Marvel thinking in terms of this story and where it is at this moment: www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/CivilWar/WarRoom/04/CWroom04.htmlIs there anything you like about "Civil War?" I don't mean that in a negative way, I'm just curious. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Oct 1, 2006 17:56:32 GMT -5
Well, as you quoted me saying, there are lots of nice, fun, entertaining little individual moments, sure. If this were an "Ultimates" universe story, or a big "What If?" story, or whatever else, I'd have absolutely no problems with it at all.
The problem I have with it, is that in my opinion the writers and editors had a certain set of things they wanted to have happen (the MU heroes split into two mutually hostile camps, with Cap leading one and Tony leading the other, etc) and a certain pre-ordained outcome they wanted to reach (which we have yet to see), and they then sort of forced the events and motivations and behaviors of the characters to fit these preconceived notions.
Stories that evolve organically according to the natural behavior of established characters work much better than stories that have their outcomes pre-planned and then force the characters to behave in such a way as to get to that point.
And for me, this is the latter, and it's just not ringing true.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Oct 1, 2006 22:31:49 GMT -5
The problem I have with it, is that in my opinion the writers and editors had a certain set of things they wanted to have happen (the MU heroes split into two mutually hostile camps, with Cap leading one and Tony leading the other, etc) and a certain pre-ordained outcome they wanted to reach (which we have yet to see), and they then sort of forced the events and motivations and behaviors of the characters to fit these preconceived notions. Um, I always figured that what writers and editors do. They what certain things to happen and have a certain ending they want to have happen. It's how it's done in this industry. Editors want something, the writers fulfill that. That's not to say that there isn't interaction or idea tossing in there, but that's the basics. The 90s X-Men books were filled with that, where Bob Harass and Mark Powers would want something done, and would do Scott Lobdell, Joe Kelley, and Steve Seagle would do it. Some times this was a good thing, sometimes bad. But that's basically what we're seeing here. As far as fleshing things out organically, what do you mean by that? Maybe I'm kinda misreading you. Do you mean story elements that's brought up early on and remains a subplot until it kind 'splodes? I did want to address Tony Stark a bit here. I have to admit that I don't have quite the experience reading him as you do. But I believe his behavior does fall within the parameters of his characterization. I mean, we're talking about a guy who was getting blamed by the mother of a child who was killed by a superhero accident. In some ways, he's sacrifacing his friendships to see to that an accident like that never happens again. What I believe (and this is just my opinion, obviously, and like I said, I don't have a ton of Iron Man experience), is that the ideals, beliefs, and core characterization of Tony Stark is indeed shining through. Maybe he's not acting exactly how one would expect, but his ideals and actions are certainly how I envisioned him to be. I believe that Tony really believes what he's doing is the right thing. I also believe that not every writer is giving him justice. A few of them are writing him very cold and almost too extreme. Others are allowing us some insight into why's he has chosen this side of the issue. Do the good Stark issues balance out the bad Stark issues? Time will tell . . . ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 1, 2006 23:55:56 GMT -5
Of course, these are simply just opinions & we all know what it is said about them... Mine is that Tony, even if he were in fact Pro Registration, would NOT hunt down Cap for the government, just like Cap didn't hunt IM down to the bitter-end consequences when he went "rogue" against the US government during the "Armor Wars" affair... Whas Cap hurt after Tony took him out at the Vault...? You betcha...!!! Did it take a while for them to mend their friendship...? No doubt...!!! But Cap, knowing that Tony & IM were one & the same, didn't go on relentlessly after him to make sure he paid for what he had done... he didn't BETRAY Tony to SHIELD, because that's the real name for it when you're willing to reveal to the government the true ID'S of those who have been your comrades for years... No, Cap strongly disapproved of Tony's actions, but he ultimately left it to IM's concience to find an answer. So it is my contention that, even though I aknowledge Cap & Tony are very different individuals in many ways, in spite of them both being superheroes & longtime Avengers, they still share certain ideals & ethical parameters. You see, and here again, this is just my opinion... but I'm trying to arrive to what I call the psychological truth of those characters, based on what we've learned about them through the years, based on what my gut instinct tells me lies at the core of these characters, these heroes... And I tell myself: "ua2, if YOU had superpowers & lived in a world of superheroes, but even more importantly, if you had the kind of courage and (in some areas, at least) selflessness that would take to be an Avenger... would you dismiss all those years of shared comraderie, of blood, sweat, tears (& occasionaly also laughter) towards the ideal of a better world, all those unique, shared bonds & experiences, Earth (and universe)-shattering events when they quite often only survived by the skin of their teeth & only had each others to have their backs & trust..? ". And, every time, I come to the same answer, which in my book is "No". There's such a thing as the 'Sprit du Corps", a real & interesting effect where, policemen, soldiers, firemen & other groups who closely bond & have a very strong group identity would close ranks & protect their own, even, sometimes, when they do wrong... Now, I despise this type of conduct in real life (that is, when they try to cover up misbehavior), but I believe that in the MU there would be something akin to this among superheroes... I think that if Cap would have sided with the Powers That Be & would have started hunting down IM & other characters he had been associated for many years, everybody would be crying foul & dennouncing it as a gross mischaracterization... Well, my opinion is that, even though I aknowledge, as I said earlier, that they are very different characters, I think Cap & Shellhead share the deep sense & pride of what it means to be an Avenger... In fact, the only note on which I strongly disagreed in the otherwise -for me- extremely strong writing of Busiek's stint, was early on, during the Morgan La Fey's storyarch, when IM was very plainly shown to NOT possess one of the strongest senses, among them, of being an Avenger... I disagree with this notion very strongly... I believe he would be up there on that department, behind Cap, Clint and the Vision but probably above all the rest. All this to say, as my conclusion, that the only way Avengers would fight each other to the last consequences -as opposed to a skirmish, as Marvel keeps telling us it is the case here- would be under one of these 3 circumstances: 1) If some of them would have become evidently & positively evil. 2) If some of them would be under a type of mind control impossible to shatter. or: 3) If the survival of the world (or the universe, or the multiverse...) were at stake. Now, CW involves none of the above. And therefore my corollary is... that I don't buy it! And I mean this both figuratively & literally... I'm putting my money where my mouth is... and I'm not buying CW or any of the related titles... I stopped with CW #3 and although it's tearing apart my inner completist, I'll stick to my guns... It will be especially difficult for me when it comes to IM, as I have every IM issue that was published in the last 15 years... but as of #13 of whatever Vol. he's now on, I will not, for it will start to be more directly related to CW. By far, I find the worst 2 recent IM characterizations to be "The Crossing" & CW & related titles... Amazing Spider-Man I found the worst to my taste... I was originally inclined to say that "The Crossing" was the worst & CW only the 2nd worst, but now I'm thinking of reversing my veredict, as "The Crossing", as terrible as it was, didn't have any real long lasting repercusions & ended up being yet another case of mind control... CW, on the other hand, marvel assures us, won't be that same kind of scenario
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 2, 2006 17:27:58 GMT -5
Um, I always figured that what writers and editors do. They what certain things to happen and have a certain ending they want to have happen. Sometimes they write plot-driven stories, which are what you are describing, and sometimes they write character-driven stories. If you’ve ever heard a writer say that he was going to have a character do one thing, then say that the character “took over” with the result that the story went another way, then you’ve had a glimpse of the mechanism behind character-driven writing. Plot-driven stories are not intrinsically inferior, and “plot-driven” and “character-driven” are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But for a lot of us who have followed decades’ worth of stories of some of the Civil War characters, this story frequently seems plot-driven to the extreme of making the characters’ personalities nigh-unrecognizable.
|
|