|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 4, 2007 17:32:43 GMT -5
Well, this is the companion of the other poll. The other side of the CW coin...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 4, 2007 17:40:18 GMT -5
I know there isn't a hope in Hell of this being anything but ridiculously skewed, but I say yes, I say the comics say yes and I think it's incredibly easy to defend Iron Man's actions for anyone with an open mind.
Pity 50% of anti-reg readers said before issue 1 "I'm on Cap's side" and never gave anything remotely unbioased a chance,, 30% said after early biased tie-ins "I'm on Cap's side" and subsequently never gave tie-ins which were biased a chance and 10% said after looking at the Internet "I'm on Cap's side" and never gave anything which said otherwise a chance.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 4, 2007 18:36:51 GMT -5
I know there isn't a hope in Hell of this being anything but ridiculously skewed, but I say yes, I say the comics say yes and I think it's incredibly easy to defend Iron Man's actions for anyone with an open mind. Pity 50% of anti-reg readers said before issue 1 "I'm on Cap's side" and never gave anything remotely unbioased a chance,, 30% said after early biased tie-ins "I'm on Cap's side" and subsequently never gave tie-ins which were biased a chance and 10% said after looking at the Internet "I'm on Cap's side" and never gave anything which said otherwise a chance. part of the problem with being upset about people who've taken Cap's side is that we've been privy to his thought process as well as Tony Stark's. We've seen that Cap is likely the most moral character in the MU. He tends to make the tough choice, the hard choice and the moral choice, whereas Stark often takes the most expedient route as seen in Avengers where he took Jocasta and Carina hostage. He's pragmatic and ruthless when he needs to be. These may be desirable traits. However if there's an argument, we would tend to take Cap's side as we know his thoughts and his position for decades as the moral center and most valorous character of the Marvel Universe. Given a question of right and wrong, with these fictional characters who would you presume to be right? Honestly Marvel created this perception for years. Readers can hardly be taken to task for buying it... Oh and if the tie-ins were biased isn't that a failing on marvel's part? In fact after reading Tom B's q&a and mark Millar's quotes about how other writers interpreted it, I tend to think a lot of people who found cap to be right were wholly justified given how the project unfolded.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 4, 2007 19:33:27 GMT -5
No. He engineered the Civil War and committed a number of crimes within its context. Even if the SHRA had been the fairest and most justified law in the world - a point on which there isn't agreement - what Tony did to support it marks him a criminal and an immoral man.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 4, 2007 20:51:16 GMT -5
Pity 50% of anti-reg readers said before issue 1 "I'm on Cap's side" and never gave anything remotely unbioased a chance,, 30% said after early biased tie-ins "I'm on Cap's side" and subsequently never gave tie-ins which were biased a chance and 10% said after looking at the Internet "I'm on Cap's side" and never gave anything which said otherwise a chance. When the Civil War publicity first started making the rounds, and it wasn’t clear which characters were on which side or even what the sides were about, I said, “I’m with Spidey.” I figured that, whatever the issues might be, even though things might be shaky for a while, he would make the best moral choice available in the end. (And I feel that my prediction was on the nose.)
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 4, 2007 22:32:22 GMT -5
I really don't think it's so cut and dry. I think that SOME of his actions were morally justified.
Registration? Yes. 50-State Intiative? Yes. Turning 42 from a super-hero prison into a super-villian prison? Yes.
I believe that Tony Stark felt what he was doing in this case was right. I think these were good decisions that were good intentioned and well done, and moral.
Now . . .
Cloning Thor? No, bad idea. Ordering the Atlantians killed? Bad idea.
I'm absolutely against the Atlantian plot point. It just didn't make sense and felt shoe-horned in. It hurts whatever good standing Stark had left. While he may have had some good intentions (making the villians the villians again, I guess), it was just a disaster to Iron Man. I'm hoping Namor finds out and kicks Stark's butt to Wakanda . . . hmmmm . . . I've stumbled onto something. I wonder . . .
Anyways . . .
Thunderbolts? I'm fairly in the gray area. While I can understand the want to use super-villians to track down Cap and co. . . . well, the more I think about it, actually, the more I like the idea.
As I said before, I feel as though the actions of IM in "Civil War" itself were better and he was more in line with his character than he was in "Amazing Spider-Man" and "Frontline."
And here's where my karma takes another hit.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 5, 2007 0:01:16 GMT -5
And here's where my karma takes another hit. ~W~ Lord, boy, you are paranoid. Here, have an exalt for insurance!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 5, 2007 0:06:37 GMT -5
But see, my intension by presenting this poll wasn't to revive the fires of "I'm for Cap" or "I'm for Shellhead"; we've had that discussion for a while and, at this point, we're unlikely to change anybody's mind here... Instead, I wanted to see if I was correct by thinking that, perhaps, our definitions of what a hero is & what a hero does are divided by the much vaunted generation gap... I also expect to see there are more supporters of IM on this site than at 1st would meet the eye... at any rate, that our perceptions, as a whole, are not as cut & dry as Doctor Doom or thew40 would think...
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Mar 5, 2007 0:40:19 GMT -5
Immoral Evil Criminal Fascist All of these apply to Tony as depicted in CW. He is essentially destroyed as a character. Forty years of history down the drain. What a shame that such people are running Marvel now.
RSC
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 5, 2007 0:45:47 GMT -5
I really don't think it's so cut and dry. I think that SOME of his actions were morally justified. Registration? Yes. 50-State Intiative? Yes. Turning 42 from a super-hero prison into a super-villian prison? Yes. I believe that Tony Stark felt what he was doing in this case was right. I think these were good decisions that were good intentioned and well done, and moral. Now . . . Cloning Thor? No, bad idea. Ordering the Atlantians killed? Bad idea. I'm absolutely against the Atlantian plot point. It just didn't make sense and felt shoe-horned in. It hurts whatever good standing Stark had left. While he may have had some good intentions (making the villians the villians again, I guess), it was just a disaster to Iron Man. I'm hoping Namor finds out and kicks Stark's butt to Wakanda . . . hmmmm . . . I've stumbled onto something. I wonder . . . Anyways . . . Thunderbolts? I'm fairly in the gray area. While I can understand the want to use super-villians to track down Cap and co. . . . well, the more I think about it, actually, the more I like the idea. As I said before, I feel as though the actions of IM in "Civil War" itself were better and he was more in line with his character than he was in "Amazing Spider-Man" and "Frontline." And here's where my karma takes another hit. ~W~ I've posed this question before and will do so again to lead to this next point. Don't you think that that's marvel's fault that the character's motivation seems so different from one title to the next? And if so, can fans be blamed for having wildly different interpretations of the actions, if marvel wasn't consistent? And that's why we're getting such opposite viewpoints on Tony's acts?
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 5, 2007 8:44:07 GMT -5
Don't you think that that's marvel's fault that the character's motivation seems so different from one title to the next? Yes and no. Each writer was charged with a certain take on the registration and Civil War. For some, like JMS and Jenkins, they went to the extreme, making out Tony to be much more sinister than he actually is. Others, like David Hine, Palmotti (sp), and Nicieza did a better job. I think it's important to point out that not a lot of these writers have experience with Captain America nor Iron Man. I believe I've heard it said that these characters were written more in tune with their Ultimate counter-parts. That may be because besides a stint in "Wolverine," I don't believe that Millar has really written the 616 Iron Man and Captain America. So I tend to think that's what we end up with - a weird blend of the Ultimate and 616 versions. Again, yes and no. I think there's a line of thought that Tony Stark has become a villian. I strongly disagree. If you look at only "Civil War," he comes off as much more decent. He offers amnesty to the heroes, he tried to talk to both Cap and Spider-Man. He tried to make the world a better place for super-heroes, honestly. Unfortunately, poor characterizations in Spider-Man and Frontline hurt him from going out of this scott-free. Esspecially Frontline. However, there has been (what I would gently like to call) an overreaction from the fans. Do I think Stark did some bad things during the war? Yes. But did he do some good during it too? Yes. Does the good outweigh the bad? Maaaaybe. I do 100% think that Tony Stark believes he's doing the right thing. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 5, 2007 11:40:39 GMT -5
Debatable, but accepted.
No way, no how, absolkutely not, even half the folk who are anti-reg would disagree with that, if not more.
Do we count Abraham Lincoln as a criminal for breaking laws to win the civil war? If so, then count Iron Man in.
Facism- "A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
So tell me, who is the dictaitor? Is it Maria Hill who has been superceded on numerous occassions or Iron Man who has been superceded on numerous occasions? When exactly did they regiment ALL industry and commerce, or indeed any of either? They certainly have not emphasized aggresive nationalism OR racism. They also don't surpress legitimate criticism. So here's what we're left with:
A governmental system forcibly surpressing opposition.Except hang on, even that's not accurate so let's amend it.
"A governmental system forcibly surpressing domestic illegal armed resistances who retaliate in kind and could be considered terrorists."
Is that the definition of Facism? Because if so, then Iron Man is DEFINITELY it.
"Facism" is just used to apply to people we don't like these days. To call Iron Man one is ridiculous and an insult to the people who actually died under facist regimes.
Paranoid, Dlw? He expressed a dissenting opinion vocally and one week later his karma is (Before your exalt) a THIRD of what it was before. I call that "paranoia" well justified.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Mar 5, 2007 13:42:15 GMT -5
I'm still boggled at how people can't see the SHRA as immoral, if not downright unconstitutional. Perhaps if there were extigent circumstances that called for some temproary suspension of personal rights, but the SHRA is a permanent (or intnended to be) law.
How do you impose a set of laws specifically on one sector of the populace, and force them to choose between not using their natural abilities at all or only at the whim of the government? How do you not call that immoral or unjust?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 5, 2007 14:25:27 GMT -5
Paranoid, Dlw? He expressed a dissenting opinion vocally and one week later his karma is (Before your exalt) a THIRD of what it was before. I call that "paranoia" well justified. My apologies, Doom. I wasn't aware our pal W had sunk so low. To be honest, after all of the hubub last week, I thought we'd gotten the smiting out of our collective system and had learned how to play nicely together. I guess I was wrong...
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 5, 2007 15:17:54 GMT -5
Paranoid, Dlw? He expressed a dissenting opinion vocally and one week later his karma is (Before your exalt) a THIRD of what it was before. I call that "paranoia" well justified. My apologies, Doom. I wasn't aware our pal W had sunk so low. To be honest, after all of the hubub last week, I thought we'd gotten the smiting out of our collective system and had learned how to play nicely together. I guess I was wrong... Oh yes. I went for being an 11-12 last week to going down to 3. Thanks to you, I'm swinging up. But rest assured, I'll be back down again soon. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 5, 2007 15:23:10 GMT -5
I truly don't want to make you feel like you're being personally attacked because of your opinions, Doom, but I must say sometimes (to me) it appears that you're a master of mental flip-flopping... 1rst, as one of your main lines of argument to counter Balok you say Cap could be considered a terrorist for going violently against the government & the SHRA, yet now you see nothing wrong if IM, in his zeal to do the right thing, broke some laws as well... Do you ackowledge this as wanting to have your cake & eat it, too...? You compare IM to Abraham Lincoln... Well, you never answered the question I posed to you over at the "Frontline" #11 thread: since Cap & his allies were wrong by oposing what they judged to be an oppressing government & an unjust law, would you say the American Revolutionary War was treason too...?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 5, 2007 15:24:24 GMT -5
My apologies, Doom. I wasn't aware our pal W had sunk so low. To be honest, after all of the hubub last week, I thought we'd gotten the smiting out of our collective system and had learned how to play nicely together. I guess I was wrong... Oh yes. I went for being an 11-12 last week to going down to 3. Thanks to you, I'm swinging up. But rest assured, I'll be back down again soon. ~W~ You keep fighting on!! If the smiters had any guts, they'd PM you and tell you why they keep cutting you down.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 5, 2007 15:25:25 GMT -5
I know Doom has strong opinions about Britain -- this ought to be interesting...
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Mar 5, 2007 22:02:31 GMT -5
Unfortunately, poor characterizations in Spider-Man and Frontline hurt him from going out of this scott-free. Esspecially Frontline. However, there has been (what I would gently like to call) an overreaction from the fans. Do I think Stark did some bad things during the war? Yes. But did he do some good during it too? Yes. Does the good outweigh the bad? Maaaaybe. I do 100% think that Tony Stark believes he's doing the right thing. ~W~ Sorry, I don't think it works to say "I like the interpretations in CW but not the ones in other books so the ones CW count more." It all happened. It was handled by different writers, yes, and there was inconsistency but you can't just pick and choose what counts. As far as whether or not Tony Stark believes he's doing the right thing, I think you are 100% right. He does believe that everything he's done was completely justified. Then again, so did Hitler. Does that mean he wasn't a villain either? Only in the Marvel Universe has it ever been common for evil people to believe they are evil (The Masters of Evil, The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants). in reality, people who do terrible things usually think everyone else is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 5, 2007 22:47:48 GMT -5
Unfortunately, poor characterizations in Spider-Man and Frontline hurt him from going out of this scott-free. Esspecially Frontline. However, there has been (what I would gently like to call) an overreaction from the fans. Do I think Stark did some bad things during the war? Yes. But did he do some good during it too? Yes. Does the good outweigh the bad? Maaaaybe. I do 100% think that Tony Stark believes he's doing the right thing. ~W~ Sorry, I don't think it works to say "I like the interpretations in CW but not the ones in other books so the ones CW count more." It all happened. It was handled by different writers, yes, and there was inconsistency but you can't just pick and choose what counts. As far as whether or not Tony Stark believes he's doing the right thing, I think you are 100% right. He does believe that everything he's done was completely justified. Then again, so did Hitler. Does that mean he wasn't a villain either? Only in the Marvel Universe has it ever been common for evil people to believe they are evil (The Masters of Evil, The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants). in reality, people who do terrible things usually think everyone else is wrong. When the last of the "Civil War" tie-ins come out, I will be sitting down and reading the entire crossover as a whole. When that time comes, I'll do a massive review. Until that time, what I've posted are my feelings on what we've seen of "Civil War" thus far. So . . . And Hitler comparisons? Really? Come on, buddy, you can do better than that! ~W~
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 5, 2007 23:05:14 GMT -5
And Hitler comparisons? Really? Come on, buddy, you can do better than that! Yes, by all means…let’s never attempt to draw lessons from Hitler’s example. Let’s forget all about it. I certainly think Hitler is on-topic for Avengers discussions: he’s been a major foe of Avengers Captain America, the Sub-Mariner, and the Human Torch; and he’s been a major influence on Avengers villains such as Baron Heinrich Zemo and the Red Skull.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 5, 2007 23:16:38 GMT -5
And he is/was, after a fashion, the Hate Monger, no...?
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 5, 2007 23:19:58 GMT -5
And Hitler comparisons? Really? Come on, buddy, you can do better than that! Yes, by all means…let’s never attempt to draw lessons from Hitler’s example. Let’s forget all about it. I certainly think Hitler is on-topic for Avengers discussions: he’s been a major foe of Avengers Captain America, the Sub-Mariner, and the Human Torch; and he’s been a major influence on Avengers villains such as Baron Heinrich Zemo and the Red Skull. Ah! An excellent point! I concede then to your wisdom, Night Phantom. However, I believe an rule of the Internet (giggle) is that if there are comparisons to Hitler, then that means the discussion has lost it's way. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 5, 2007 23:41:13 GMT -5
And he is/was, after a fashion, the Hate Monger, no...? Yes. That was part of what I was thinking when I mentioned the Red Skull (their Super-Villain Team-Up stint), though of course their relationship goes back much further. Otherwise, so far as I know, the Hate-Monger identity has little to do with the Avengers—well, it was used in a confrontation with the core Fantastic Four, most of whom later became Avengers, but that might be about it.
I concede then to your wisdom, Night Phantom. Then you yourself are wise. This sounds like a misreading of Godwin’s Law. I think that refuting someone’s argument thus would be an act of guilt by association (i.e., associating the present argument or arguer with flawed arguments or unsuccessful arguers that also make mention of Hitler).
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 6, 2007 12:57:28 GMT -5
I think it's important to point out that not a lot of these writers have experience with Captain America nor Iron Man. I believe I've heard it said that these characters were written more in tune with their Ultimate counter-parts. That may be because besides a stint in "Wolverine," I don't believe that Millar has really written the 616 Iron Man and Captain America. So I tend to think that's what we end up with - a weird blend of the Ultimate and 616 versions. This may be exactly the problem. However, if I want to call it bad writing because the writer didn't know the subject, I think that's a fair criticism. If I wrote a book about Medieval European Art (a subject about which I know nearly nothing), scholars of that period would justly call my efforts bad, in various ways. And one key way I think Civil War was bad was that the authors had to twist these characters - Cap and Iron Man both - so far out of true in order to tell the tale. Unfortunately, poor characterizations in Spider-Man and Frontline hurt him from going out of this scott-free. Esspecially Frontline. I'll tell you the same thing I told Doctor Doom: it all happened. The big points in each of these books were worked out collaboratively. It wasn't just Jenkins that wrote Iron Man as a criminal, it was the entire team. Do I think Stark did some bad things during the war? Yes. But did he do some good during it too? Yes. Does the good outweigh the bad? Maaaaybe. The key problem I see in this is, and this may not happen in the Marvel world, but it *always* happens in the real world: once people think crime is okay, they tend to commit more of it. Tony got away with insider trading, which is theft, and various crimes related to attempted murder. If someone put his back up against a wall, and he was being written realistically, he'd do those things again, far more readily. First because he got away with them once (and therefore tends to assume he'll get away with it again), and second because despite those things, it all worked out the way he wanted it to, meaning that he has now learned that evil is acceptable on the way to good. In my view heroes don't behave that way. You might be right that Tony isn't a villain, in the traditional sense, but he is no longer a hero, either. He is a vigilante in the truest sense of the world. And if people knew what Floyd and Urich should have told them, they'd have a lot less use for him. In fact, he'd be booted off the helicarrier so fast he wouldn't have time to grab a chute, for political reasons alone.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 6, 2007 14:34:51 GMT -5
Mental flip flopping? Oh no, my views rarely change. However, if you mean I have the ability to masterfully change my argument at every new drop of evidence, I concede the point But no ua2, I have too much respect for you to believe you'd ever personally attack me. Cap could be considered a terrorist, though to my credit I have never outright labelled him as such. Iron Man on the other hand, does not fit that role nearly so easily even with his actions. This argument is brought up again and again, but it doesn't hold water. As Dlw66 says, I have (rightly so) very strong opinions on Britain but this is the reality. Scenario 1 is a complex one about a colony wishing to rule itself and establish it's own government, in so doing battling the forces of a foreign land claiming the colony as it's own, and their democratic attempts denied. Scenario 2 is a guy trying to overthrow a single, solitary law while claiming everybody should still obey all the other laws, with the option of a democratic path certainly open to them, and they do not even try it. Now maybe if Cap believed the US government was repressive and should be thrown off, and (to blatantly steal q uote from CBR) heroes should have their own land and declare it the nation of Capveria, then we'd be in a whole different situation more analogous to yours. Tell me, can murderers and zealots claim "Well, this country was founded on breaking the law!" and does that excuse their actions? I honestly don't know how you know that but I've never exactly been secretive, and I restrained myself as much as possible
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 6, 2007 16:48:21 GMT -5
But see, Doom, Cap is not a murderer or a zealot... If Maria Hill wouldn't have ordered his arrest on the Hellicarrier for refusing to lead the task force which would round up heroes opposed to the SHRA BEFORE it went legally into effect, well, perhaps then Cap would have felt like that "democratic path" you mention was actually open for him & other heroes.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 6, 2007 17:06:58 GMT -5
Maria Hill was wrong, no question about it. But even then, ignoring that Cap could easily have had himself broadcast live at a single word to a reporter, he was offered chances- for example, in CW3, time and time again, even to just TALK about it, to jsut LISTEN to what Tony had to say- and he rejected them every time.
On the other hand, as a soldier, Cap should know the necessity of disobeying an order from a superior officer. Even on the helicarrier, he could have allowed himself to be arrested and worked from there.
People keep saying "Tony should have TOLD HIM he was going to guard their secret IDs!" Well maybe he could have if Cap hadn't disabled him and SMASHED HIM IN THE FACE when Tony tried.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 6, 2007 17:57:49 GMT -5
On the other hand, as a soldier, Cap should know the necessity of disobeying an order from a superior officer. Even on the helicarrier, he could have allowed himself to be arrested and worked from there. Her arrest order, at that time, was illegal. Remember that the Act was not yet law. People keep saying "Tony should have TOLD HIM he was going to guard their secret IDs!" Well maybe he could have if Cap hadn't disabled him and SMASHED HIM IN THE FACE when Tony tried. You're assuming two things, here: (1) that people would trust Tony, the number of whom doubtless dropped precipitously as the war ground on, and (2) that even if people DID trust Tony, they trusted that he COULD protect their secrets. Remember that these secrets are what stand between these people and villains murdering their families. That's not information I'd want to trust to *anyone*. There are any number of villains who could rather easily get that information, and not all of them wear costumes. Some wear three piece suits and get called "The Honorable..." on the way to their Rayburn Building offices...
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Mar 7, 2007 6:26:55 GMT -5
The more I read this, the more it sounds like a debate on whether the end justify the means. Depending on the answer to this question, we decide if Tony actions were right or not.
|
|