|
Post by Tana Nile on Oct 2, 2006 18:06:07 GMT -5
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. I think this is an excellent point. On one hand, I have enjoyed this storyline, not in the least due to the obvious parallels with the political situation in our country (U.S.) today. But on the other hand, I have felt that the portrayals of Stark and Richards have been out of character. I can see both of them being Pro-Reg, but not to the extremes we have seen. A prison in the Negative Zone? Life imprisonment? Forced servitude to the government? Clones of their deceased(?) friends? Now Tony may be a man who often takes the expedient route, but this is a bit much even for him. And Reed is the guy who refused to kill Galactus when he had him at his mercy. Most of the reasons given for their behavior boil down to something like this: if we don't get involved and police ourselves, the government will do it for us, and it will be much worse. But realistically, how much worse could it get? The only thing they aren't doing is executing the non-registered violators. I feel conflicted; I like the drama, and the possibility for real, lasting impact on the MU is great. But it almost seems like Marvel is sacrificing the personalities of these two characters to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Oct 2, 2006 18:23:47 GMT -5
Ahhh, okay. That makes more sense.
Well, if you y'all feel that way, it's okay. You obviously have your reasons (which were listed quite nicely) for disliking/liking it. Much better than just "I hate thsi book!" that I see on some boards.
See, I like this board for exactly this reason. For the most part, you guys are actually capable of listing your reasons for diliking something in a real, sensical way.
I disagree, of course. I love 90% of "Civil War."
~W~
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Oct 2, 2006 21:03:40 GMT -5
And that's because he explained it in one sentence way better than I did in three paragraphs! Yet I rest assured that won't prevent you from coming back hard at us again the next time you want more detailed explanations of why we feel the way we do. It's become an AA tradition! We would expect nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Oct 2, 2006 21:07:47 GMT -5
One more thought about CIVIL WAR and the "believability" problems I have with it:
SHIELD is just being ridiculous, or being portrayed ridiculously.
"Cape Killer Units?" Huh?!
Shiny new evil-lookin' black Darth Vader outfits for the troops?!?!
My gosh. They should be wearing bright, friendly outfits--freakin' wrapped in the Stars and Stripes-- so that every time they show up, the public thinks, "Ah, THESE are the good guys and the 'heroes' they're fighting are actually villains."
Who's running their P.R. Dept., anyway?!
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Oct 2, 2006 21:09:01 GMT -5
Tell that to Tom Brevoort and Bendis!! Heh! ;D
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Oct 2, 2006 21:26:35 GMT -5
One more thought about CIVIL WAR and the "believability" problems I have with it: SHIELD is just being ridiculous, or being portrayed ridiculously. "Cape Killer Units?" Huh?! Shiny new evil-lookin' black Darth Vader outfits for the troops?!?! My gosh. They should be wearing bright, friendly outfits--freakin' wrapped in the Stars and Stripes-- so that every time they show up, the public thinks, "Ah, THESE are the good guys and the 'heroes' they're fighting are actually villains." Who's running their P.R. Dept., anyway?! This is actually gets mentioned in the "Civil War Files" one-shot. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 3, 2006 10:19:10 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. It's how it's done in this industry. Editors want something, the writers fulfill that. Yes, but if the editors and writers are any good they take into account what the past has made of the characters. Maybe they don't take every little continuity nit into consideration, but they must consider basic personality. Here, it seems to me that they have put Iron Man on the side of enslaving those individuals who have powers. For that, pure and simple, is what has happened when individuals are forced to work for a particular party on pain of indefinite imprisonment in a hostile dimension. That ideas is antithetical to freedom, and only Cap seems to see it. It strikes me as deeply out of character for both Iron Man and Mr. Fantastic to sign on so willingly. 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 . . . Well, we will have to disagree on this point. I believe they have recast Tony so that he is behaving no differently that, say, Doctor Doom or The Master (anyone remember him?). Guys convinced they have all the answers. What makes him more dangerous is that he has the most dangerous weapon man has yet devised in his arsenal: government. (Government is also the greatest tool of social advancement man has yet devised - but that is another debate.) I cannot escape the feeling deep inside that these are different people who have donned Tony Stark and Reed Richards suits. That, right there, sums it up about as well as I can. But YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 3, 2006 10:23:54 GMT -5
One more thought about CIVIL WAR and the "believability" problems I have with it: SHIELD is just being ridiculous, or being portrayed ridiculously. "Cape Killer Units?" Huh?! Shiny new evil-lookin' black Darth Vader outfits for the troops?!?! My gosh. They should be wearing bright, friendly outfits--freakin' wrapped in the Stars and Stripes-- so that every time they show up, the public thinks, "Ah, THESE are the good guys and the 'heroes' they're fighting are actually villains." Who's running their P.R. Dept., anyway?! I can't remember: are they *publically* referred to as Cape Killer Units or is that simply internal SHIELD gloss? It does seem that any graduate of "PR 101" would know not to use the term "Killer" in the name of something he wanted the public behind. Even if you're pretty sure greater than 90% of the public supports your view, the use of that term to describe soldiers intended for use against people permits your opponents to cast them as death squads with little effort. And I doubt 90% of the public supports registration. There will always be some civil libertarians in any crowd. As for the shape of the suits? Well, form tends to follow function, but a paint job wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm not sure I'd wrap them in the flag, exactly, because that would prompt cries of "nationalism" and "jingoism" from certain quarters. But I might paint them in colors to suggest the country, like white, red, blue and black.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Oct 4, 2006 0:41:31 GMT -5
anybody else tired of this book? I reread it the other day at the comic shop and was just bored to tears. Not that it isn't a big event book, but for all the sturm und drang, it's fairly predictable. To me, anyway. cap and the secret avengers who are on the run, and outgunned, might as well just be called the "underdogs." It doesn't feel like a battle of equals and it doesn't feel like a philosophical battle of idealogies, because the gov't. allied forces seemingly have unlimited resources (they can create their own Thor-nuff said) which essentially turns them into the bad guy. So despite what marvel says, they're never operating at a deficit, so if you're waffling, your natural inclination will be to root for the underdog. were there more of an equality and more a conflict of true beliefs, this plot might work, but we know in our hearts that if the gov't backed off registration, Iron Man and Reed Richards wouldn't support it any longer. It's not their true conviction. take the mutant registration a few years back. whether you liked the story or not, marvel did plant the seeds for years. mutant expansion and fear of Magneto was a long running thread. marvel beat it into the ground, but at least it didn't come together in less than a year and flashpoint. and marvel can try to create the illuminati and have several years of backstory, but it's a cheat. stan lee, roy thomas and others were planting mutant distrust back in early issues of X-Men and Avengers. and killing Goliath and the new warriors and various other third and fourth stringers along with several hundred kids, well, do you care? I mean it's a lot of big death, but nobody really stand out, do they? Bantam was killed or whatever, and who could possibly care? I'm of the school that "realistic storytelling" often dilutes the impact of big moments. these deaths are kind of treated as casualties of war, but, I dunno good comics really have always made me feel for each death and given them weight. In short, it's just boring me. I can't even argue against the series any more. Nothing about it has compelled me to care either way.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 5, 2006 20:22:10 GMT -5
Ahhh, okay. That makes more sense. Well, if you y'all feel that way, it's okay. You obviously have your reasons (which were listed quite nicely) for disliking/liking it. Much better than just "I hate thsi book!" that I see on some boards. See, I like this board for exactly this reason. For the most part, you guys are actually capable of listing your reasons for diliking something in a real, sensical way. I’m not sure if my last post in this thread clarified things for W, or if it was Tana’s follow-up to that post that did the trick, but either way I’m gratified that I could help. anybody else tired of this book? When the first issue was solicited, I had my friendly neighborhood comics shop place Civil War on my pull list. I had doubts about the series, but I rationalized that I would most likely end up picking it up to see what the hubbub was about. But I’ve grown increasingly disappointed. When I learned that delays to the core limited series (#4–up) would cause delays to the major ongoing series Amazing Spider-Man and Fantastic Four, I was quite irritated. I did buy #4 because I already had it on order. But I have canceled the remainder of my Civil War subscription through the shop, out of disappointment with the writing, protest of the poor scheduling, and realization that I can probably glean any important developments from the other tie-ins I’m reading—or else from the Internet. (So, as further installments arrive, please keep chatting away!)
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 6, 2006 7:35:50 GMT -5
Similar to Infinite Crisis, lots of build-up/hype, but little meat in the finished product.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 6, 2006 14:19:31 GMT -5
I just received the following in an e-mail from the guy who runs a local comics shop. He sends out an e-mail each week to tip us off as to what books he'll have in stock next week. He goes by the handle "monkeyboy". He started off this week's mail with a humorous diatribe not unlike what has at times been posted here. He says:
So, by now, anyone who is interested in Civil War has more than likely read issue #4. Am I the only one who thinks bringing Thor back as a clone is pretty lame and dumb? Thor is supposed to be a god. Why does his hair even contain strands of DNA? The whole story implies that Thor isn't of a godly nature, but more of a mutant. Thor has his powers physically, not metaphysically. Which is against the whole idea that he is a god. And since Reed Richards can clone Thor, why did he just make one of him? Why not clone him dozens of times to insure that the government wins? And in a similar vein, if Richard's saved Thor's hair, then one can only assume he must've saved some other genetic material from other heroes and villains. So why stop at Thor? Break out the DNA sampler set and clone folks like Namor, Blastaar, Annihilus, and the Behemoth. (Or was it Titano? I dunno.)
And then, Sue leaves because she doesn't like what Reed is doing. Well... why did you leave your kids behind? You think he's on the road to ruin so you're bailin' out and leavin' your kids to fend for themselves? What sense is there in that? Real loving parent, that one.
And that chick - Mrs. Sharpe - what the hell? She rails against heroes when her son dies, but has the nerve to show up at Goliath's funeral and basically say, "It's okay to kill more people as long as they're other heroes." To which she hands Tony Stark an action figure of Iron Man, because it was her son's favorite. Why would anyone want to empathize with such an unlikeable character / plot device?
And that last page was such a cop out. I'm surprised it took them this long to throw some villains into the mix. So what, Marvel doesn't have enough heroes in the U.S.A. to help bring Cap's rebels in? Of course they do! But what fun would it be if it was ONLY heroes pounding the crap out of each other? Oh, and why haven't a busload of villains taken advantage of this shake up in the heroes community and pulled off some really big crimes? Hey, check it out, we have control of Rhode Island. Whatcha gonna do about that?
Oh guys, stop fighting! You're making the Watcher cry!
Yeah, whatever. A month late and for what? For lame plots and characterization. Quite disappointing Millar. And all the editors should have their jobs reevaluated. I haven't been this let down by any book in awhile. Great job folks. Personally, I figure this series can only get better. Probably not though.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Oct 6, 2006 16:56:23 GMT -5
I agree with almost everything here--especially the parts about cloning Thor (stupid stupid stupid for all the reasons mentioned by DL's comic store friend) AND all the parts about Tony Stark and others acting completely out of character. This is not the Ultimates, so why the identity confusion?
Now for what you all haven't mentioned:
I am so tired of these dreary, humorless, standing in the rain stories. I have had enough of them. Where is the hope in anything Marvel puts out these days? It's as if Morrissey is writing every comic on the market. FLIP THE FRIKKIN RECORD.
When every story is so dark, and dreary, and monotone, who really gives a crap if Goliath is killed? They all should commit suicide!! Everything is so hopeless and ugly, why bother?
Look the whole concept of this Civil War could have been pulled off with a little finesse. All these characters like Tony S and Captain America, who fought side by side for years, saving each others' hides, and they are all suddenly hunting each other down with the emotional involvement of a wet rag? Uh uh.
And look Sue Richards, stop being such a drama queen. You storm out every other issue. The name "Storm" is already taken, Beeyatch!
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 6, 2006 19:54:09 GMT -5
And look Sue Richards, stop being such a drama queen. You storm out every other issue. The name "Storm" is already taken, Beeyatch! Yes…Sue’s had that name since FF #1.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Oct 6, 2006 21:34:31 GMT -5
I am so tired of these dreary, humorless, standing in the rain stories. I have had enough of them. Where is the hope in anything Marvel puts out these days? It's as if Morrissey is writing every comic on the market. FLIP THE FRIKKIN RECORD. heh, reminds me of the south park episode where they went goth. all the marvel heroes are going to be sitting around dressed in black saying life is worthless. oh wait...
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 6, 2006 23:16:30 GMT -5
I liked this issue a lot. I actually like the direction Civil War is taking. The MU needed to be shaken after the last big shake up was a disaster (IMO) - namely dissassmbled and New Avengers. I do get a little confused by continuity however. Already in FF, the Thing pulled out and announced he was leaving the country. I guess that happened after this issue since he was still around, so why was it told before the departure of Sue and Johnny? The simple reason is that "Civil War" was delayed, but because that particular issue of FF did not spoil the events of "Civil War" # 4, it was released before hand. But yes, it does take place after "Civil War" # 4. For more info on continunity, check on the "Civil War Read Order" thread: vplexico.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=civilwar&action=display&thread=1153952008&page=1~W~ By the looks of the latest issue of FF, I was right the first time. I don't think it has anything to do with delayed issues, the continuity is just plain screwed up. In Civil War, the Thing is still there when Sue and Johnny leave, and looking out the window. He's also at the fight that kills Goliath which directly leads to Sue's leaving. Meanwhile in FF, he leaves first, and tells Reed right after Sue storms out. Oh, wait a minute, back in Civil War, she had a quiet dinner and a night of lovemaking before quietly slipping out with a note. Have the writers of these two books even talked?
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 7, 2006 6:09:34 GMT -5
By the looks of the latest issue of FF, I was right the first time. I don't think it has anything to do with delayed issues, the continuity is just plain screwed up. In Civil War, the Thing is still there when Sue and Johnny leave, and looking out the window. He's also at the fight that kills Goliath which directly leads to Sue's leaving. Meanwhile in FF, he leaves first, and tells Reed right after Sue storms out. Oh, wait a minute, back in Civil War, she had a quiet dinner and a night of lovemaking before quietly slipping out with a note. Have the writers of these two books even talked? I’ve already suggested alternate timelines…
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 9, 2006 20:14:31 GMT -5
But on the other hand, I have felt that the portrayals of Stark and Richards have been out of character. I can see both of them being Pro-Reg, but not to the extremes we have seen. A prison in the Negative Zone? Life imprisonment? Forced servitude to the government? Clones of their deceased(?) friends? Now Tony may be a man who often takes the expedient route, but this is a bit much even for him. And Reed is the guy who refused to kill Galactus when he had him at his mercy. Most of the reasons given for their behavior boil down to something like this: if we don't get involved and police ourselves, the government will do it for us, and it will be much worse. But realistically, how much worse could it get? The only thing they aren't doing is executing the non-registered violators. Maybe they’re backing registration in order to discredit it?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 10, 2006 10:39:08 GMT -5
Naa, it gels when you think about it, though far from perfectly.
It's extremely clear (and always has been to me at least) that the battle on Yancy Street is after the battle in Civil War #4. So the order is:
-Battle in CW4 -Battle of Yancy Street -Sue argues with Reed (FF540) -Thing tells Reed he's going to leave -Sue leaves with Johnny, as The Thing looks on.
Though the whole 'last perfect' day thing... I dunno, she comes back after their argument for a day or so, THEN goes on? Not perfect, but hardly worht demonising marvel over, this sort of thing happens all the time and is much better than many of the continuity transgressions- such as Busiek nuking Washington with nobody noticing. His fault? Nope. Just as we can't blame Millar for this, or even JMS really.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 10, 2006 19:55:40 GMT -5
I suspect it's a matter of the writers being given as much as editorial feels they need to know, and no more than that. The scenes of Goliath's death didn't really match, but that could be artistic interpretation.
Ben could have hung around until he got his travel papers in order. Registration means less to him than it does to most because his identity is already publically known, so the reason he wishes to leave the country is to avoid being enslaved by SHIELD. At least so far, the government is not actively trying to keep powers without criminal records from leaving the country. Probably the only reason it's going after those with criminal records who attempt to flee (see Heroes for Hire #1) is to prevent the world from saying "Thanks for sending your supertrash over here. We'll have to return the favor sometime."
The last perfect day vs. what happened in CW #4, though, was a pretty bad disconnect. The ironic thing is that both stories were well told and likely approaches. The problem is that they weren't the same approach and offhand I see no way to reconcile them so they both could have happened.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 10, 2006 21:16:23 GMT -5
At least so far, the government is not actively trying to keep powers without criminal records from leaving the country. Probably the only reason it's going after those with criminal records who attempt to flee (see Heroes for Hire #1) is to prevent the world from saying "Thanks for sending your supertrash over here. We'll have to return the favor sometime." Well…also, the supertrash could return of its own volition, and the US government may wish to prevent that. I assume you’re referring to the “last perfect day” (or evening) in CW #4 vs. the showdown in FF #540. You might have seen my attempt at reconciling those issues (following Thew40’s lead). Marvel should have been straightforward enough not to force us into such contortions…
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 12, 2006 9:14:00 GMT -5
I get weekly e-mails from X-World, an Internet-based comics retailer. They have a guy who writes reviews of books as they become available. Thought I'd pass on yesterday's review of the latest Civil War: Frontline mag --
Civil War Front Line #7 (Of 11), $2.99, 32 Pages Written by Paul Jenkins, Art by Ramon Bachs, Steve Lieber, and Jorge Lucas. Front Line has been a decent series so far - unfortunately it suffers more from its connection to Civil War than it enhances the event mini, as it is supposed to. It seems like the more important stories are being hashed out in this book, but because these same stories are almost deemed irrelevant by the proper Civil War series, it kills any punch they might have. It is painful to see how poorly managed this event has been, and the utter greatness of Annihilation when stacked against it only makes things worse. With Civil War and Annihilation, you see a perfect example of the debate that was so often dismissed as publisher favoritism. On the one had, you have an overhyped, overblown, contrived story that ignores every potentially powerful plot point, one which sacrifices logical and interesting character development in favor of cheap, contrived sensationalism. On the other hand, you have an interesting story with a well-paced build, interesting character driven stories that build towards an exciting and ultimately logical explosion of excitement which is helped by an appropriate level of marketing. We didn't need an Infinite Crisis vs. Civil War/House of M to prove it - Marvel took the debate from our hands and proved which was better all on their own.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 12, 2006 10:46:41 GMT -5
I get weekly e-mails from X-World, an Internet-based comics retailer. They have a guy who writes reviews of books as they become available. Thought I'd pass on yesterday's review of the latest Civil War: Frontline mag -- Civil War Front Line #7 (Of 11), $2.99, 32 Pages Written by Paul Jenkins, Art by Ramon Bachs, Steve Lieber, and Jorge Lucas. Front Line has been a decent series so far - unfortunately it suffers more from its connection to Civil War than it enhances the event mini, as it is supposed to. It seems like the more important stories are being hashed out in this book, but because these same stories are almost deemed irrelevant by the proper Civil War series, it kills any punch they might have. It is painful to see how poorly managed this event has been, and the utter greatness of Annihilation when stacked against it only makes things worse. With Civil War and Annihilation, you see a perfect example of the debate that was so often dismissed as publisher favoritism. On the one had, you have an overhyped, overblown, contrived story that ignores every potentially powerful plot point, one which sacrifices logical and interesting character development in favor of cheap, contrived sensationalism. On the other hand, you have an interesting story with a well-paced build, interesting character driven stories that build towards an exciting and ultimately logical explosion of excitement which is helped by an appropriate level of marketing. We didn't need an Infinite Crisis vs. Civil War/House of M to prove it - Marvel took the debate from our hands and proved which was better all on their own. I thought I'd counter that by posting IGN's reviews of CW4, proving that people can really strongly disagree over such basic things as quality Civil war #4 "Divisive. Shocking. Unbelievable. Frustrating. Absolutely, unequivocally… perfect. Those were some of the thoughts I had when I was reading the latest issue of this modern masterpiece. Serving as Mark Millar and Steve McNiven's metaphor for the state of the world around us, Civil War #4 is not just a comic book event. It is a beautifully constructed commentary. I realize that might seem drastically overstated, but it's not. Much like the superlative Pride of Baghdad from last week, Civil War operates on a number of levels. What you get from this series is completely up to you. On the surface, it is a superhero catastrophe. Captain America is completely outnumbered and overwhelmed, yet he continues to fight those who would suppress his rights. Iron Man believes he is making the country a safer, more secure place. He is willing to go to incredible, previously unthinkable, lengths to achieve this dream. Both sides recruit like-minded individuals to attempt to secure their ideals. Unlike Pride however, Civil War does not settle for a direct comparison with Iraq. It borrows pieces from a variety of political issues - the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, fanaticism and fascism, human rights, and more. Layered on top of these powerful subjects is the dramatic and spectacular nature of the Marvel Universe. The characters are not puppets to the plot; they act as they always would have. While some of their actions seem to defy the moral boundaries we believe they have, further analysis suggests everything is within the limits of human nature. Tony Stark and Reed Richards straddle a line almost villainous to some, but it is their dream for a better world that moves them into that grey area. Both characters, as a scientist and businessman, have always had the aptitude for becoming obsessed with the end result. No person in either profession would succeed without the capacities Reed and Tony demonstrate here. One of the greatest joys this series brings is how it really makes one think about both sides. It is easy to sympathize with the underdogs like Captain America. It is far more fascinating to understand heroes like Tony and Reed. These reviews are supposed to be brief, but I wanted to make sure I got the point across - Civil War is more than your average comic book event. It's so far beyond most attempts at superhero storytelling that it's not fair to compare them. It pushes our perceptions of our heroes by placing them in a situation that applies perfectly to our world. We shake our heads in disbelief at actions, but only because we've seen the same things happen on the front page of our newspapers. When I first read the fourth issue of this story, I couldn't write the review. I tried to think how to approach critiquing the motivations of the characters, but I could not. It is far too easy to conjure subjective viewpoints questioning what is right and wrong. That is the beauty of this series. It makes you think about issues that are far bigger than anything most comics even dream of discussing. While Marvel sometimes resorts to undeserving hype, it has been incredibly humble when discussing this series. If Civil War maintains this level of quality, it will be one of the Watchmen of this era of comics." So, let's not act (not saying anyone HERE does this) as though every single reviewer says CW sucks. MANY reviewers are huge fans, IGN being probably the most positive and aintitcool (which I have always despised) being the most negative.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 12, 2006 12:16:17 GMT -5
"The characters are not puppets to the plot; they act as they always would have. While some of their actions seem to defy the moral boundaries we believe they have, further analysis suggests everything is within the limits of human nature."
I would dispute the first part of this quote, but not the second. I wonder if this guy has a true handle on "always would have". Most of those who seem to like the present MU are too young to have appreciated the classic MU, hence a very skewed point of reference...
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 12, 2006 17:42:22 GMT -5
I agree with you, dlw66. The characters are very much contorted to fit the plot requirments. Based on reading some of the prisoner/guard experiments conducted on otherwise normal people, I believe that the things these people are doing are well within what people might do if driven by desperation. And there is a phenomenon called "Confirmation Bias." It states that once we make a decision we contort our perceptions so that they support it, rather than continuing to reason. So once Tony decides to support Registration, or Cap decides to oppose it, they are unlikely to change their view. Instead they will change their interpretation of events and their own responses to support their decision.
Here's the problem: these guys are supposed to be heroes because they rise *above* the worst facets of human nature. And yet, too many on the registration side are behaving unethically and unheroically.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 12, 2006 17:55:53 GMT -5
Most of those who seem to like the present MU are too young to have appreciated the classic MU, hence a very skewed point of reference... Let’s not paint with too broad a brush when discussing age. I wasn’t even born until the 1970s, but I think I have a solid (though not totally comprehensive) appreciation of the 1960s Marvel Universe—maybe not quite like that of people who were reading those stories at the time they were first being published, but I don’t think my appreciation of it should be dismissed because of my age. Now, if we want to discuss appreciation vis-à-vis experience—which younger people capable of writing intelligible reviews might tend to lack but don’t necessarily lack—then I think that would be appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 12, 2006 19:08:23 GMT -5
Yes, Balok, I share your perception of what heroes should be; before departing for the Trial of the Gods Thor, in "Earth's Mightiest Heroes", cautioned Iron Man about letting the Avengers be mired by the petty concerns of politicians & the government bureaucrats... Sadly, years later Shellhead didn't heed his words, or at least he didn't in the Bendiverse... so called because, in it, reality is bended!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 12, 2006 20:31:31 GMT -5
Point taken, Phantom. I suppose for the newbies, though, it requires a bit more effort to be informed of the rich history that was the Silver and Bronze Ages.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 13, 2006 8:53:13 GMT -5
I don't even think we have to go that back. A few days ago I read for the first time Iron Man v3 #1 and that really doesn't look, think and act like the Tony Stark we've seen in CW .
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 13, 2006 9:16:02 GMT -5
Discuss this perspective:
I would prefer to read Marvels, generally speaking, from pre-1986. I would prefer to read DC's, generally speaking, from post-1986 (after Dark Knight and Crisis). Of course there are "exceptional exceptions" to those statements, but again -- in general.
|
|