|
Post by thew40 on Mar 31, 2007 16:57:22 GMT -5
Civil War Review - Part One: Post-War ReportBy thew40 Make no bones about it, “Civil War” is a huge story. A cast of hundreds. Epic battles. Political drama. Troubled romances. Harsh moral decisions. Betrayal. Redemption. Death. Resurrection. Heroes fighting heroes, villains fighting heroes. It’s a story that could only be told in the Marvel Universe – a world where super-heroes are common place. But when mighty super-heroes with amazing powers become commonplace, what happens? When the extraordinary becomes ordinary, how do people begin to respond? When disaster and distrust threaten, what will be the result to those that can be above the law? When politics and heroes collide, who can win the war? There’s a lot to “Civil War,” especially considering the way I read it over the past two days. So, here’s the short summary. A disaster involving young super-heroes – the New Warriors – killed 612 in the peaceful city of Stamford, Connecticut. 60 of these 612 were schoolchildren. This incident caused ripples in the citizens of the US. Reporters and politicians jumped on this. Super-heroes became the enemy to the public. Hence, a new Super-Human Registration Act, which requires super-humans to divulge their powers and secret identities to the US and SHIELD, is put into effect. The SHRA splits the super-hero community in two. One side is spearheaded by Iron Man, who is looking to progress the role of super-heroes in the US. The other side is commanded by Captain America, who believes the SHRA takes away the civil liberties of super-heroes and forces them to comply only to the government, which is susceptible to corruption. The clash between the two forces is the center of the “Civil War.” In the end, Captain America is forced to surrender to SHIELD, his so-called “Secret Avengers” given amnesty. Super-hero teams are then established in all 50 states, with Iron Man now the new Director of SHIELD. Captain America is then killed on his way to face trial. And that’s the gist of it, though there’s a lot – and I mean a lot -– more to “Civil War.” As I came to the end of the “Civil War,” I was surprised by the kind of feeling I got out of it. You see, I read it in what I saw was the chronological order (as you can see at the Avengers Assemble! Forum thread here vplexico.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=civilwar&action=display&thread=1153952008&page=1). There were little flaws here and there, but for the most part, it worked out pretty well. There are also some discrepancies when it comes to the interpretation of certain events, but for the most part, one can gloss over that. I'll be going over this a little more in-depth with Part Three. Back to the point, though, the feeling I got out of “Civil War” this time around (as compared to reading it all over the past year) was not one of war, but one of change. At the end of the day, Joe Quesada can say it was about civil liberties and Mark Millar can say it was about heroes beating up each other – and even though these are both major parts of the story, it’s ultimately not about that. Whether or not the collective writers, artists, and editors knew it, they were really writing about transformation and change within the Marvel Universe. Change is chaotic. It’s destructive. It’s about new versus old. For example, take the core characters of the conflict – Captain America and Iron Man. Captain America is fighting for the preservation of civil liberties and, ultimately, against a law that threatens to change the way that super-heroes do business. On the other hand, Iron Man is fighting (though sometimes dirty) to change super-heroes, to make them safer in terms of training, positioning, and knowledge. Captain America is a product of the Great Depression and World War Two. His power is brawn. But Iron Man? He covers himself in the most advanced technology in the world, a futuristic armor. His power is brains; arguably the power of the 21st century, as wars become more dependant on technology. As an overall whole, that’s what the story is really about. Sure, there are clones and Atlantians and super-heroes fighting, but it’s all really about change. If one were to look at the way super-heroes handle themselves before and after “Civil War,” they’d see some very big differences. Those differences presented by “Civil War” are pretty big. First up, there’s “42,” the prison in the Negative Zone. Originally holding unregistered super-heroes, it now holds super-villains and those that have continued to reject Iron Man’s amnesty (which isn’t a whole lot). Then there’s the 50 State Initiative, a program that puts at least one properly trained super-hero team in each and every state. Let’s put aside the dirty dealing Tony Stark did during “Civil War” and concentrate purely on these changes. Since Stan Lee took charge – and heck, probably even before then – there’s been a feeling that the Marvel Universe should be as a realistic as possible (even though getting radiation won’t give you powers). In the real world, a super-hero would be loved, but trusted only within a certain limit. Heck, you don’t know who is really under that mask. Spider-Man could be Osama Bin-Laden for all we’d known and he’s just saving people to gain our trust before he goes and blows us up. Granted, there’s more trust in the MU, but the fact of the matter is, after all the stuff the people of the MU have been through, how can they trust the super-heroes any more? Stamford was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Marvel Universe has seen a lot of trouble – especially lately. Earth became an alien penal colony, the Defenders tried to take over the world, then Kang tried to take over the world, Genosha gets wiped out, the world capitals blink out of existence, Xorn attacks New York City, the Avengers get blown up, the Fantastic Four take over Latveria temporarily, the Avengers have criminals and unknowns as their new team members, Wolverine threatened the life of the President, there’s a bomb going off in Philadelphia, and suddenly, out of the blue, 98% of all Mutants have lost their powers. Oh, and Nick Fury has gone underground and the Hulk has just rampaged around Las Vegas. And Matt Murdock is Daredevil. Then there’s the fact a group of super-heroes engaged a very powerful super-villain in front of a school as basically a ratings stun, and as a result, 612 people are dead. If all this were happening in the real world, I would have been the first to say that we need to get control of these super-people. Not ban them outright, but control them, yes. And who else to control but one of their own and was also the formerly Secretary of Defense? Mr. Tony Stark himself. Imagine, for a moment, if the “Maximum Security” event had occurred after the 50 State Initiative was in place. 50 plus teams of trained super-heroes would have contained all of those rampaging aliens. It would probably would have taken the heroes half the time to figure what was really going. Or consider the invasion by Kang. Would Washington DC have been destroyed like it was had the nearby state teams had gone up against his ship rather than just a handful of Avengers? How about Onslaught? Xorn? Galactus? When super-heroes team up, the big threats get smaller. Imagine if there was a team in each state, always ready to go. You knew exactly what their powers were, what their training was, and could call them up in an instant and have them join in. Super-villains on the run? Well, there are super-teams all over now. Absorbing Man spotted in North Dakota? Well, there’s a team there to find him. At the end of the day, this was what was “Civil War” brought about. Through the change of the old ways, the deconstruction and rebuilding of super-hero trust, and despite the losses, this was what the war birthed. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 31, 2007 17:43:08 GMT -5
Wow. Very deep stuff there, and it's true: Civil War really is all change. I'm enraptured, the W and eagerly anticipate the next part. One minor nitpick though: 42 does not in fact hold those who have continued to reject Iron Man's amnesty. We know of no super-humans who are imprisoned and have done this but it's been strongly indicated they would be held in the Raft, since the whole point of 42 is that it seperates the most deadly villains from escape. It was used for heroes only during the war.
But that's just the tiniest nitpick in an excellent, well constructed post.
I exalt thee, sir.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 31, 2007 17:52:41 GMT -5
Wow. Very deep stuff there, and it's true: Civil War really is all change. I'm enraptured, the W and eagerly anticipate the next part. One minor nitpick though: 42 does not in fact hold those who have continued to reject Iron Man's amnesty. We know of no super-humans who are imprisoned and have done this but it's been strongly indicated they would be held in the Raft, since the whole point of 42 is that it seperates the most deadly villains from escape. It was used for heroes only during the war. But that's just the tiniest nitpick in an excellent, well constructed post. I exalt thee, sir. I thank you, Doctor Doom! The 42 Nitpick was one I didn't even think of. I would assume that there are one or two straglers that didn't sign on, but I could be wrong. Part Two should be up tomorrow or Monday! ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Mar 31, 2007 18:18:28 GMT -5
Well thought out for me as well.
I really think you capture the timeliness with your brains vs. brawn comparison. It's easy to forget that Tony is really more of a brain than a brawn.
Thank you for taking the time.
and an exalt from me as well. (Doom that's number 4 this week)
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 2, 2007 7:45:17 GMT -5
CIVIL WAR REVIEW – PART TWO-A: Whose Side Are You On?
Even read as a whole with all these tie-ins with all these different characters popping in and out of the spotlight, there are a select few that sit at the very heart of “Civil War.” These characters are the spine of the story. We follow them, even when they step out for a few issues. These are the characters we check up with the most often. The main characters of “Civil War” are Iron Man, Captain America, Spider-Man, Invisible Woman, and Mr. Fantastic. Each character brings something to the story. I’ll be covering how these characters were portrayed and my general feelings of them. Also, I’ll be shining the spotlight on some other characters that have played crucial roles in “Civil War.”
1) Iron Man
If I were hard-pressed, I’d say that the main characters were Iron Man and Captain America. Press me more and I’ll tell you that Iron Man is a slightly bigger character to “Civil War” than Cap. Iron Man is a tough cookie to crack. He wants what is best for super-humans and the general public. He fears a super-hero ban.
Tony Stark is two things throughout the “Civil War.” He’s a hero. A man of the people, a leader of the new super-hero order, a voice of reason to the citizens. But he’s also a villain. He cuts deals with the Kingpin, takes control of the Green Goblin to push the US to the brink of war, and he enlists super-villains to help hunt down those that are breaking the law.
At the heart of the conflict is the conflicted Iron Man. One could see his armor as a metaphor. In his armor, he can do things like hire the Thunderbolts to create a team of super-villains and give them all Nanites to keep them in line. He can hunt down and battle his best friend. He can do what is necessary to bring the unregistered over – by bringing the US and Atlantis to the edge of war.
Necessary evils? Maybe. He’s not doing these things for his own good, but for the greater good. For the good of heroes, for the good of the people. Is it worth it? In the end, we know that Tony’s answer is a tearful “No.”
We see and are told that the guilt of these actions weigh on Tony. In my mind, that alone exemplifies Tony from being a true “villain.” A villain can do these things that Tony does and not feel bad about it. Do I want him to have a good come-uppance in the future? You betcha.
Let me make my own confession now. I never liked Iron Man. To me, he was the lamest of all the heroes. He wore a neat armor? Meh. He posed as his own bodyguard? Dumb. He’s a scientist? So what? Granted, over the years, he grew on me a little, but never achieved the kind of standing that so many other characters in the MU have. “Civil War” changed all that. It proved to me that this man is willing to do whatever he can to make the world safe. Yes, that means crossing a line here and there. Do the ends justify the means? Not always. But Iron Man is looking to try.
My biggest complaint is that Iron Man was not always presented in the best light. Certain writers seemed to write him more villainous than he should have been. Millar was among those that really channeled Iron Man, that really showed him off as the good guy. Others, not so much.
I’ll be covering this later, but “Civil War Frontline” totally dropped the ball when they revealed that Tony had been in control of Osborn and was behind the Atlantian assassinations. While everything else is forgivable, this was a sort of “jump the shark” moment of Tony.
But in light of that, Tony Stark is a hero in the end. He’s running the show; he’s made it is his duty to make sure he sees things through to the end.
Iron Man? Like it or not, he’s the new Captain America.
(awaits a beating)
2) Captain America
Captain America. Steve Rogers.
I can’t help but be a little more critical of the handling of Captain America than I was with Iron Man. It’s not some much on the level that Cap was mishandled or not in character. In fact, I felt as though he was just fine in those terms. Certain points are a bit of a stretch, but one must consider just exactly is happening with Captain America.
His back is against the wall. His best friends are hunting him down and he feels betrayed by his own country. The very flag he wears is being waved against him. So, just about any mischaracterization can be blamed on that.
Except one.
And that one thing is the fundamental flaw of “Civil War.”
What the heck was Cap’s problem?
Was it the Initiative? The forced Registration? 42? Hunting down heroes who refuse? What? I figured it was a bit of all, but . . .
Why, even after busting out of the SHIELD Helicarrier, didn’t Cap go to Tony and say “hey, I think this is wrong.” And why didn’t Tony say “Why’s that, Steve?” “I’m glad you’ve decided to listen to me, Tony! Blah blah blah.” “Oh, I see your point of view, Steve, but I disagree.” “This is a big deal, we should try and work something out.” “You’re right. You know people love you more than they love Iron Man. Why don’t we try and work things out?” And so on and so on and so on.
Heck, even if it devolved into the splitting of the heroes, a scene like that should have been in there. Sure, they met up later and tried to talk it all out, but it came too late. Heck, Bendis likes floating heads. Why not have him write it up?
Whatever the case may be, the development of Cap is a little forced in the end, but when he does give up, it’s nicely done. I like to think that even though Iron Man was technically the “winner,” it was Cap who knew when to stop and realize that he was wrong. Iron Man may have won the day, but Cap was the true victor.
“Sore loser” my eye.
3) Spider-Man
Oh, poor poor Peter Parker. What did you do?
As a whole, Spider-Man is one of our two avatars in the series. We follow his mindset as it swings from one moral end to the other. Peter is the strongest character in all of “Civil War.” He’s the character that – through him – we see not only into the eyes of Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, but also the non-powered in the form of his wife and aunt.
People hate Spider-Man, now more than ever, although I have to wonder why. Granted criminals hate him, but the guy had the gull to take off his mark and reveal himself to the rest of the world. You’d think there would probably be at least an equal amount of people happy for him and supporting him.
His coming out felt a little forced, to be honest. I can understand why, I suppose, from a story standpoint, and I can see ways of Marvel weaseling out of it. But apart from some introspection and some over-the-top “I love you” advice from MJ and May, there’s very little push for it. Tony didn’t have a gun to Peter’s head nor did he really demand that he do it much. But what’s done is done. It’s a bit of a stretch for “Civil War,” though not a terrible one.
Spider-Man’s role in “Civil War” is a great one. Sitting him in the middle of this crisis was a smart move. He’s had his loyalties to the Avengers and the Fantastic Four over the years, but save for his recent tenure in the Avengers, Spidey’s pretty much been on his own. By forcing him to make decisions as to which other heroes he is to follow, it puts a nice emotional strain on him. And an angsty Spidey is a good Spidey.
4) Invisible Woman and Mr. Fantastic
The first couple of the Marvel Universe didn’t fare too well. Their story was actually among the best in the “Civil War.” After sitting on the sidelines for about halfway through “Civil War,” Invisible Woman takes her place in the conflict . . . by siding with Tony Stark, effectively throwing a bomb at her marriage.
Sue was the second avatar of the crisis, in addition to Spider-Man. But while Spidey’s POV was more of a “which big super-hero do I follow,” Sue’s stance is more in the lines of “a lot of what is happening is wrong and I’ve got to make a stand for it because it’s really messing up my life.” Just as personal as Peter’s, but less destruction and more active. In some ways, she takes the place of Spider-Man, as our favorite webslinger takes a bit of a step back as soon as he switches sides. Which is fine, because Susan Richards is a great character.
As for Reed, well, I have to say I’m a little at odds with the handling of his character. He’s written sympathetic enough, despite creating a super-human prison and cloning freaking Thor. But what I disagree with the most about Reed’s handling are his reasons why he chose Pro-Reg.
He did social calculations. He created a science that shows trends and social flashpoints. Okay. It’s a little silly, but if I’m supposed to take the Negative Zone seriously, then I can handle this. What I don’t like about that, though, is that this seems to be his only reason for being on Tony’s side.
Why not make it about his kids? Reed’s a family man. He has a son and a daughter, both of whom have been in terrible danger before. And here is a guy who witnessed an entire elementary school get blown up. Surely, he would empathize with the parents who lost their children, and as a father, would feel that the right decision is to go Pro-Reg. Therefore, justifying any less-than-savory actions. That’s more believable than him writing on a room and realizing that the crap was about to hit the fan.
That’s my problem with Reed. Right there. While it is logical that he went Pro-Reg, he reasoning for it lacks both believability and I just can’t relate to it.
Expect the second half of the second part up later today or tomorrow.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 2, 2007 9:47:39 GMT -5
First, consider yourself exalted for taking the time and effort to put this together. Second, here are a few comments (including some points on which we disagree): It’s about new versus old. This is the fundamental truth of it. I feel that Marvel wrote this story to reinvigorate their characters for a new generation, and it is clear to me that what the new generation wants from a comic book is not what my generation wants. That saddens me, but deep inside I knew that day was coming sooner or later. Knowing something is coming and actually being prepared for it are two different things. However, the stinging has died down and I am now okay with my divorce from Marvel. May you find all that you want from their stories. And, perhaps years from now, they will change it again. Perhaps then you'll remember us old-timers and understand us a little better. Captain America is a product of the Great Depression and World War Two. His power is brawn. But Iron Man? He covers himself in the most advanced technology in the world, a futuristic armor. His power is brains; arguably the power of the 21st century, as wars become more dependant on technology. I must disagree. Captain America's power is freedom. It's what drives him. The super-soldier serum gives him the power to hold his own, but the drive comes from inside him. Without his deep respect for freedom, he is no more than any of the jumped-up wrestlers that the Power Broker created back in the day. I think reducing him to brawn tarnishes his memory. Let’s put aside the dirty dealing Tony Stark did during “Civil War” and concentrate purely on these changes. I cannot do this. The means Tony used to accomplish his ends are always a part of him, and contribute to his character. Did you know that when Mussolini took over Italy in the 1930s everything he did was legal? Sometimes the worst, vilest despots start out as well-meaning men who falter. They may, in the end, do good - but one cannot call them heroes. At best, one can call them the lesser of two evils, and Tony may well be that. He can never again be a hero, though, not in the truest sense of the word. And even he knows it - it's why he collapsed at the end of Frontline #11. He believes he's doing the best for the world but he gave up his essential heroism to do it, and that upset him. It's good that it upset him, because it means he realizes that what he did was wrong - the important first step towards redemption. Time will tell whether, in the future, he takes more steps away from heroism, or whether his plans work, and he redeems himself. Stamford was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. Perhaps, but it was only this because the writers wanted it to be. Do we really believe that all the times the Avengers fought Ultron, or Kang, or the Masters of Evil, that no innocent people died? Did the Hulk's rampages spare everyone in their path? Do Ultron's foreign victims have no mourners? Any of those events could have caused similar changes, but they didn't. I think - and fear - that Marvel has sensed something about society: we are willing to trade our freedoms for the illusion of security. We know this because people did not rise up and demand the repeal of the Patriot Act. Marvel is trying to model society to improve sales. I don't really like living in a society disdainful of the hard won civil rights codified in the Constitution. I read comics for escapism. I won't pay to read about the same unpleasant state of affairs. Or consider the invasion by Kang. Would Washington DC have been destroyed like it was had the nearby state teams had gone up against his ship rather than just a handful of Avengers? How about Onslaught? Xorn? Galactus? When super-heroes team up, the big threats get smaller. Imagine if there was a team in each state, always ready to go. You knew exactly what their powers were, what their training was, and could call them up in an instant and have them join in. Super-villains on the run? Well, there are super-teams all over now. Absorbing Man spotted in North Dakota? Well, there’s a team there to find him. At the end of the day, this was what was “Civil War” brought about. Through the change of the old ways, the deconstruction and rebuilding of super-hero trust, and despite the losses, this was what the war birthed. Perhaps. But I think you'll have to agree that stories where the heroes win with little difficulty are not engaging. So Marvel will be forced to either come up with even badder bad guys, or it will be forced to create deus ex machina reasons why the FSI cannot respond to this or that threat, or something else. If it doesn't, writers will find crafting exciting stories difficult to impossible, they'll fail more often, sales will suffer, and in a year or five Marvel will be changing things again.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 2, 2007 10:01:44 GMT -5
I missed one: The other side is commanded by Captain America, who believes the SHRA takes away the civil liberties of super-heroes and forces them to comply only to the government, which is susceptible to corruption. Not merely susceptible to corruption, but riddled with it. The Marvel Universe government is modeled on our own, and every day brings new stories of the corruption and venality of public officials.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 2, 2007 10:34:32 GMT -5
She did! I don't recall that! ...Little error, maybe? Anyway, my view on your view... I think you nailed down a lot of the Iron Man stuff, though you neglected to mention a few things. (IRon Man wasn't willing to let Kingpin free and in the end CAP was the one who cut a deal with him). Since you're not pro-reg yourself though, a laudable effort to see both sides, and very insightful. Your analysis of the FF was also correct, but- and I may be wrong- I seem to recall his kids were brought into the equation somewhat (Heh, pun.) Or at least heavily implied- that he wanted THEIR world to be safe etc. This may well just be me. Agree with you on Spidey. The only thing I really disagree on is Cap. I actually intend, one of these days, to put up a full thing discussing my view of Cap. I think we see three Caps in Civil War; the one at the start, angry from Stamford, the embittered uncaring ruthless leader from Civil War 4-6, and the broken man at the very end. Not poor writing, but rather development. I think CW is very much "The Fall and Rise of Captain America" or vica versa- his rise in prominence in the super hero community once more corresponds with him sinking to lower depths than he has ever gone, and his sudden stunning realisation at the end leads to his removal from the community. But that's for another post. Very well done and another well-deserved exalt!
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 2, 2007 13:48:48 GMT -5
She did! I don't recall that! ...Little error, maybe? Whoops! By siding with Cap. I'll change that shortly. I really don't remember saying that, but I could be wrong. If that was the case and I'm err, then it needed to be a bigger selling point. Well, I disagree with you here, as to me, Cap proved was the bigger man and stood down. But to each their own, my friend. I must disagree. Captain America's power is freedom. It's what drives him. The super-soldier serum gives him the power to hold his own, but the drive comes from inside him. Without his deep respect for freedom, he is no more than any of the jumped-up wrestlers that the Power Broker created back in the day. I think reducing him to brawn tarnishes his memory. It was a power comparison, as opposed to a character comparison. Cap's super-power is what was given to him by the Super-Soldier Serum. Iron Man's power is technology. Brawns and brains. Other than that, I agree with you. Freedom drives Cap. The reason I was seperating Tony's actions from the results was just to isolate the FSI and 42. I covered Tony's actions in the portion about his character. Events compound events. And the fact that the New Warriors ambushed the villains in the pursuit of ratings was a big part of it. I'm not saying that this kind of event couldn't have spawned off from anything earlier, but we're living in a post-9/11 era of paranoia. Or consider the invasion by Kang. Would Washington DC have been destroyed like it was had the nearby state teams had gone up against his ship rather than just a handful of Avengers? How about Onslaught? Xorn? Galactus? When super-heroes team up, the big threats get smaller. Imagine if there was a team in each state, always ready to go. You knew exactly what their powers were, what their training was, and could call them up in an instant and have them join in. Super-villains on the run? Well, there are super-teams all over now. Absorbing Man spotted in North Dakota? Well, there’s a team there to find him. At the end of the day, this was what was “Civil War” brought about. Through the change of the old ways, the deconstruction and rebuilding of super-hero trust, and despite the losses, this was what the war birthed. Perhaps. But I think you'll have to agree that stories where the heroes win with little difficulty are not engaging. So Marvel will be forced to either come up with even badder bad guys, or it will be forced to create deus ex machina reasons why the FSI cannot respond to this or that threat, or something else. If it doesn't, writers will find crafting exciting stories difficult to impossible, they'll fail more often, sales will suffer, and in a year or five Marvel will be changing things again.[/quote] I think it's too early to see the full potential of the Intiative realized. In a few years, we'll see. But I'm sure we're garunteed super-hero action. That's what these comics are about. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 2, 2007 16:33:00 GMT -5
Oh I'm not disputing he did the RIGHT THING by stepping down. it's just his reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 2, 2007 18:59:33 GMT -5
Iron Man is the new Cap? I don't think he would be caught dead at a NASCAR event. He is not qualified. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 2, 2007 19:49:23 GMT -5
It was a power comparison, as opposed to a character comparison. Cap's super-power is what was given to him by the Super-Soldier Serum. Iron Man's power is technology. Brawns and brains. Okay, but I still believe that leaving out the force behind Cap's perseverance diminishes the character significantly. It's like saying Batman is Batman because he wears a miniature hardware store around his waist. At least, to me. The reason I was seperating Tony's actions from the results was just to isolate the FSI and 42. I covered Tony's actions in the portion about his character. Okay. I'm going to read that, probably tomorrow. I debated this with Doc elsewhere, so I'm not going to rehash it here beyond presenting my belief that I don't think it's possible to get good results from bad means. In comics it might work because the writers have great control - but if Marvel seeks realism, it should recognize the people who set their feet onto the road of expediency over morals, as Tony has done, rarely ever return to the road of morals. Expediency is like (to use a Star Wars analogy) the Dark Side. It's quicker and therefore more seductive. But it leaves you rotten inside. And the fact that the New Warriors ambushed the villains in the pursuit of ratings was a big part of it. I'm not saying that this kind of event couldn't have spawned off from anything earlier, but we're living in a post-9/11 era of paranoia. That's a valid point, and I'm not arguing that the New Warriors shouldn't be liable for their reckless behavior (although their show was not new, and someone with more experience - like Cap or Tony - could have reined them in before Stamford). I'm arguing that the SHRA essentially extrapolates one reckless act into an opinion that no superhero is trustworthy, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. I suppose that is how people react, post 9/11, but it's disheartening. I think it's too early to see the full potential of the Intiative realized. In a few years, we'll see. But I'm sure we're garunteed super-hero action. That's what these comics are about. I hope you're right. And I trust you'll keep us informed.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 2, 2007 22:09:37 GMT -5
It was a power comparison, as opposed to a character comparison. Cap's super-power is what was given to him by the Super-Soldier Serum. Iron Man's power is technology. Brawns and brains. Okay, but I still believe that leaving out the force behind Cap's perseverance diminishes the character significantly. It's like saying Batman is Batman because he wears a miniature hardware store around his waist. At least, to me. I was kinda going for a "their powers as a metaphor"-type deal. To extend your line of thinking, it would be comparing Batman's smartness to Superman's alien powers. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 2, 2007 22:58:31 GMT -5
CIVIL WAR REVIEW – PART TWO-B: Whose Side Are You On?
Other major characters in “Civil War” are plenty. While the five above are really at the heart of the story, it seems that all but a handful of characters are at least somewhat involved with “Civil War.” These characters play less significant roles in “Civil War” than the big five, but their roles in the story are fairly big anyway. With some of these characters, I’ll be covering them more in-depth in the reviews of the individual series.
1) Sally Floyd and Ben Urich
When “Frontline” first started up, I really liked both characters. Urich I had known from “Daredevil” and Sally I had enjoyed during “Generation M.” When these characters first showed up and saw them start to work together, it was kinda nice. Two characters who had some sort of relationship with various heroes now in the middle of this war, capturing both sides equally.
But somewhere around the time that Sally botched her Captain America interview and Urich started to think there was a conspiracy, the ball was dropped and the characters began a descend into illogic. I’ll be covering this more in my review of “Frontline,” but let me say this:
When you do an interview. A particularly big interview, especially, YOU DON’T YELL AT THE PERSON YOU’RE INTERVIEWING. Now, I was part of my school newspaper in high school. I Majored in Journalism for three semesters in college. I don’t have a ton of training, but even I know that you don’t screw up your interview with the key person in a massive super-hero war by lecturing them.
And let me get something straight, okay? In Sally’s little world, not knowing what MySpace is or who won NASCAR or American Idol makes one not in touch with America? Heck, I don’t know jack crap about NASCAR and I don’t watch American Idol. Does that mean I’m not in touch with America? If she was going to yell at Cap (which she shouldn’t have), why not force him to answer the hard questions. Like, if he was so willing to stand up for Anti-Reg, why doesn’t he do this for all of his political beliefs? For example, if Cap is Pro-Life, then why not have him come out and say so, then declare war on abortion clinics? That would have gotten it more to the point and made Sally come off as, well, less stupid. Cap’s alleged neutrality (and, arguably, ignorance) of hot topic is a far better argument for him being out of touch with America than him simply not watching Fox or going on-line much.
Urich, I guess, I can understand his reasons a little more. He has a history of withholding articles for a greater sake – such as he did with Daredevil. I can handle that. But Sally was portrayed as someone who loves to spit in the face of bigger than life phonies . . . yet the biggest story of her career and she decides not to run it. It’s a shame, because after “Generation M,” I was really liking Sally.
2) Yellowjacket, Baron Zemo, Sentry, Ms. Marvel, Bishop, and Wonder Man
The Pro-Reg forces at the finest. Each one has their own reasons for being there and while some are better than others, each character is really in the heart of it.
I like the current move to turn Hank Pym around. To me, Hank will always be defined by the time he abused Jan. But honestly, seeing this character move beyond that (although keeping it part of him) is a pleasure. Hank isn’t so much goose-stepping to Tony’s orders as he is using “Civil War” to his advantage. Helping to create new heroes and helping to create 42 are both sure signs of redemption on Hank’s part. Even his angst over the death of Bill Foster is well handled. In “Civil War,” Hank Pym is one of the better-handled characters.
I don’t know a whole about Baron Zemo, so I’ll just go from what I understand. Zemo comes off as pretty interesting. I liked the way that the idea of the Thunderbolts was changed in “Civil War,” but still maintained its core concept – a team of villains as good guys. Having a bad guy turned good guy in the form of Zemo was a good choice there. He’s an interesting character, bringing some nice energy to the Cap versus Iron Man dynamic.
I’ve been on the fence about the Sentry since he first returned in the pages of “New Avengers.” His original miniseries was rather spellbinding, with its moody art and somewhat tragic feel. But since he returned the MU proper, he handling has been rather “meh.” It’s like everyone just kinda forgets he’s there (which is ironic). But nonetheless, I enjoyed his role in “Civil War.” He wasn’t overplayed, which was good. He followed orders because he’s fairly directionless, but struggles with just what side to take. I liked it. Not over the top, just nice and simple.
Ms. Marvel is also nicely developed character here. She goes through the ringer a bit as she tries to take down the former Spider-Woman, Arcane. Carol is a decent balance of military, super-hero, and conflicted woman. She really brings a good story to the table.
Wonder Man was a good choice to use as a public face for registration. I question just why SHIELD felt it was necessary for him to do recon of the Atlantian sleep cell as it always seemed to me that Simon was anything but subtle. But beyond that, he plays a nice role in “Civil War,” though I’d like to see the why’s and how’s as to which side ended up picking.
Outside of Storm (and to a lesser extent, Wolverine), Bishop was the only current member of the X-Men to take a stand. I liked that. Bishop has all the reasons to want to be a part of this. Growing up in (basically) a version of the “Days of Future Part,” Bishop knows that being a revolutionary isn’t the only way to change things. He’s looking to make sure that his future doesn’t come to pass by joining up with the force that could make it. And it’s good to see a second-tier X-Man take a stronger role in the MU. I’d like to see more of Bishop making a splash in the non X-World.
3) Luke Cage, Falcon, Hercules, Punisher, Cable, Daredevil/Iron Fist and Cloak and Dagger
The “Secret Avengers.” Man, I love that name. I’d rather have “New Avengers” be renamed “Secret Avengers.” Anyways, this is Captain America fighting force in the battle for freedom. A nice blend of characters with an equal balance of raw power and fighting skill. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a lack of reasoning here as compared to those members of the Pro-Reg forces.
Falcon seems to only be on this side because Cap is. Doesn’t mean he’s less of a character, but he’s only really there out of loyalty. Same with Hercules. Really, what does Hercules care about Registration? That being said, both characters are brilliantly portrayed. In fact, not being a Hercules fan for a number of years, “Civil War” made the character into a more than just a Thor look-a-like.
Luke Cage is there because he has no place else to go. He wants to prove himself, so he stays. It’s stubborn and it’s frustrating to watch, but Luke is a fine character. Again, much like Hercules, “Civil War” just made me like this character more than I ever did before.
Cable’s reasons for being in the “Secret Avengers” are nicely defined. Cable is a bit aloof to the group, being the leader of his own country. His concerns that the Initiative will soon someday become world-wide and eventually cause a massive super-war doesn’t quite jive with what Mr. Fantastic was calculating, but I’d trust Cable’s predictions more than Reed’s. I didn’t care for the battle in the Oval Office, though. Yeesh.
I don’t know much about Cloak and Dagger, but these b-characters make for nice additions to the cast. While Cable, Falcon, Luke, and Herc have all been around a lot lately, it’s nice to have Cloak and Dagger play a more vital role in the MU.
The whole Daredevil/Iron Fist subplot is only there if you squint and it’s barely even worth pointing out. But it’s nice to have that little scene in “Choosing Sides” and seeing Iron Fist (as DD) hang around the big guns.
Then there’s the Punisher, who has re-entered the Marvel Universe proper (if one ignores that stint written by Ennis where Wolverine, Hulk, Daredevil, and Spider-Man guest-star and act like idiots). I love the whole soldier/captain respect Castle has for Cap. Even though his role is fairly brief and with much protest, the idea that Cap is willing to use Punisher makes for an interesting parallel to Tony’s use of the Thunderbolts. The fact that Cap punched (and/or beat he crap outta) Punisher makes Cap just a little better than Tony in that regard (although Tony did end up sending most of the “new” Thunderbolt villains into 42 at the end).
4) Namor
For the first time since I’ve been reading Marvel comics, Namor the Sub-Mariner is portrayed as an actual character rather than “I’m grumpy at the surface world . . . except whoever I’m allied with today.” Offensive and arrogant with Tony; embracing and friendly with T’Challa and Storm; honorable with Wolverine; taunting with Susan; and respectful to Winter Soldier and the memories of the Invaders. It’s a well rounded Namor, written quite excellently by Brubaker, Hudlin, Guggenheim, Millar, and Bendis.
His role in “Civil War” is executed very nicely. Sleeper Cells, preparing for war. Looking to bring in Nitro for killing Namorita. Creating an alliance with Black Panther. Even his offensive at sending the Hulk away is well captured. This is the Sub-Mariner with the power of Atlantis at the ready, the dangerous yet human (so to speak) Namor. A little unpredictable, but honorable nonetheless.
5) Storm and Black Panther
The new Marvel power couple.
I have to say that I have been – and still am – skeptical of the marriage between these two. While I liked the idea of them having a relationship based the story Priest did (back around issue 26ish), I thought Storm jumping into marriage with T’Challa was a little premature for my tastes. Hudlin still seems to have trouble channeling Storm. Sometimes, he really nails it, sometimes he’s way off. Recently, he’s been more on base than not, which is good.
Their role in “Civil War” is a bit of rough one. I’ll be covering some of my problems with the actual handling of their book in the third part of this review. In the meantime, I like that Black Panther and Storm – after a wild ride with their wedding, Iron Man, and the President – chose the side of Cap. It fit their characters to pick that side. Storm’s fighting with Clor was quite awesome, while Black Panther steeling himself (literally) against Iron Man is pretty cool too.
6) Wolverine
Wolverine was probably the biggest surprise out of all “Civil War.” He was brought into the Avengers to do “the dirty work.” They never really got around to him doing that . . . until now. Having Wolverine be the one to take down Nitro was a great move.
This is Wolverine at his finest. Honorable, destructive, a little angsty, rebellious, and using his head. Pitting him against Nitro, then Namor Atlantians, then Damage Control, SHIELD, Sentry, and finally, Blade, Wolverine got his licks. And by showing some behind the scenes stuff about his healing factor, I think we understood more about Logan here than a years worth of “Wolverine Origin.”
7) Thing and Human Torch
You really can’t help but feel sorry for these guys. Johnny gets his head bashed in, beaten up, and ends up in a coma. Ben leaves for France. These two – the other half of the Fantastic Four – are forced to watch as their family gets torn apart. There’s not much to say other than that I liked where they went with it.
8) Speedball
Jenkins handled his character well, if you ask me. Not wanting redemption, not wanting to be a political refuge. It’s stubborn and quite tragic. His ultimate was a little over the top for me, but I liked where his character went.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 4, 2007 17:23:18 GMT -5
Another well done analysis. I feel that Speedball probably represents the most realistic character change in the whole event, and Jenkins wrote him well. He's a certifiable fruit loop now, but that might just be what happens to someone in his situation.
I especially liked your analysis of Ben and Sally.
The Thing and the Human Torch's behavior highlighted how much the FF depend on Reed's leadership, and how that group falters when Reed falters. He's so much smarter than them that they have deferred their thinking to him.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 5, 2007 4:18:19 GMT -5
Another excellent review chunk, the w. Though personally my respect for Ben Urich lessened greatly after CW6, which reduced journalism to "Fox News Style" bellowing of unrelasted questions and then taking surprise from the intervieweee as "Everything I said was right!" Ben had the chance for a fantastic story and then instead ignored it to write his own vendetta.
Well to be fair, the Thunderbolts didn't kill ANYONE under Tony's control... technically except Typeface but that wasn't murder as it was during a battle. Punisher killed 2 people to get to Cap- and I don't see how Cap couldn't know that, and then another 2 before Cap turned on him. Iron Man always planned to send the Thunderbolts back to 42, Cap never had a plan for the Punisher. Iron Man controlled the Thunderbolts to ensure they didn't kill, Cap turned the Punisher loose. That's why I think Tony is better than Cap in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 5, 2007 17:56:06 GMT -5
Well to be fair, the Thunderbolts didn't kill ANYONE under Tony's control... technically except Typeface but that wasn't murder as it was during a battle. Dead is dead. Whether it was a battle or not is sort of beside the point. There is a way you could - sort of - justify Typeface's death, but I'll let you figure it out... Meanwhile, the T-bolts cripple their opponents to amuse themselves, and destroy people's property (Radioactive Man exploding cars) to make their enemies look bad. And their leader is a certifiable fruit loop. Punisher killed 2 people to get to Cap- and I don't see how Cap couldn't know that, Wrong. He killed two villains who clearly planned to murder Spider-Man. And please, explain how Cap knew that, when he didn't even know the Punisher was around at that point? and then another 2 before Cap turned on him. Now, these two you CAN lay at Cap's feet, because Cap knew what the Punisher was and agreed to work with him, anyway. An example of poor Cap characterization. Iron Man controlled the Thunderbolts to ensure they didn't kill, Um, you misspelled "did" in that sentence. Or don't Atlanteans count?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 5, 2007 18:01:41 GMT -5
Dead is dead. Whether it was a battle or not is sort of beside the point. There is a way you could - sort of - justify Typeface's death, but I'll let you figure it out... Actually, I don't feel I need to. Your point is pretty ridiculous- you're saying there's no difference between gunning someone down when they're stching out their hand and using force too brutally in a pitched metahuman battle? Notice how all this happened AFTER they were taken from Stark's control? Hmm, maybe he';s not so bad after all. Er... no. He didn't. The issue made it obvious they WEREN'T going to kill him, and weren't ALLOWED to, and Punisher had fifty ways to take them down without murder- that's what it was. Cold murder. So you don't think Cap bothered to ask "What happened to the people chasing him?" to Punisher? And you don't think Punisher would have told him straight out? No, it's an example of development but I'm glad you agree we can lay them at Cap's feet. And they are of course, nowhere NEAR so bad as the death of Goliath because... what? They're villains? Two lives are two lives. Um, you misspelled "did" in that sentence. Or don't Atlanteans count? We have zero way of knowing if Osborn was supposed to kill them. My guess is no, given that he was specifically modified to neusre he wouldn't do it again.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 5, 2007 18:40:26 GMT -5
Actually, I don't feel I need to. Your point is pretty ridiculous- you're saying there's no difference between gunning someone down when they're stching out their hand and using force too brutally in a pitched metahuman battle? That's the way: they responded with force appropriate to the situation. Of course, when cops make this claim there are usually IAD officers who at least attempt to verify that they're right. Presumably there will eventually be some such thing in the Initiative, although we have not seen it yet. Er... no. He didn't. The issue made it obvious they WEREN'T going to kill him, and weren't ALLOWED to, and Punisher had fifty ways to take them down without murder- that's what it was. Cold murder. I recall dialog where they said they were going to kill him and return with the body, but I could be misremembering, and I don't feel like digging the issue out to double check. So you don't think Cap bothered to ask "What happened to the people chasing him?" to Punisher? And you don't think Punisher would have told him straight out? That's a valid point. Since Spidey had been worked over, Cap should have assumed someone had chased him down, and could have assumed that Castle would have dealt with them in the same way I wish he'd deal with the chief villian of Marvel these days, Tony Stark! So you're right: Cap should have at least asked. And shouldn't have worked with Punisher anyway (as I said) - that he did is poor Cap characterization. No, it's an example of development but I'm glad you agree we can lay them at Cap's feet. And they are of course, nowhere NEAR so bad as the death of Goliath because... what? They're villains? Two lives are two lives. Not all change is "development." Some of it is bungling. In fact, you are literally the only person I've encountered (here and elsewhere) who believes that Tony and Cap were handled with respect for their established characterization. Make of that what you will. We have zero way of knowing if Osborn was supposed to kill them. My guess is no, given that he was specifically modified to neusre he wouldn't do it again. Osborne either killed them because he was supposed to, killed them because Tony's alterations to the nanobot code permitted it, or killed them because the nanobots never worked right in the first place. Had Norm been in prison where he belonged, they would not have died, but instead Tony had to try to start a war.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 6, 2007 4:02:58 GMT -5
I recall dialog where they said they were going to kill him and return with the body, but I could be misremembering, and I don't feel like digging the issue out to double check. Nope, I did dig out thie issue and what happens is this: (In not exact words) Jack O'Lantern- "C'mon, lets have a little fun with him!" SHIELD agent- "You lay a finger on him and you get 4000 volts, creep. You really think we're going to let you guys out unchecked?" Jester- "...Spoilsports." They then stop. The fact that they said "spoilsports" also supports this. [quote[That's a valid point. Since Spidey had been worked over, Cap should have assumed someone had chased him down,[/quote] More than that- Castle actually SAYS this was done by Tony Stark's people and tells Cap that he's hiring killers and thieves. We're agreed here at least, except on the "chief marvel" thing. Cap himself was chief villain prior to his surrender, which is very sad and the true irony of civil war. Well let's agree to disagree here, I think this is a "Desperate times..." situation for a Cap who has clearly developed since pre-CW anyway. Ahem. I think the W does, in the main book at least. and many folk over on CBR. And pretty much 90% of the people at Millarworld Here at AA is the only place I personally have really encountered people who loathe CW with such venemous hatred. This is development, I think it's clear it's development and I think Cap's character obviously develops during civil war from the Cap of CW1, to the hardass zealot of civil war 4-5, to the final stunned Cap at the end of CW7. Osborne either killed them because he was supposed to, killed them because Tony's alterations to the nanobot code permitted it, or killed them because the nanobots never worked right in the first place. Had Norm been in prison where he belonged, they would not have died, but instead Tony had to try to start a war. Actually no, Tony expressly wanted NOT to start a war. We can agree it was immoral, of course, though no moreso than Cap's little "Hey Namor, c'mon in!" in CW7, as we've debated before.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 6, 2007 13:45:11 GMT -5
Doom: I'm willing to bet that If someone could ACTUALLY control you & took over your actions, you'd find it a h--l of a lot more immoral than a person calling over his friends for help against a government he believes it's trampling its citizens freedoms... and INDEED, any genius ala Stark or any government which would do so, WOULD be taking away you liberty by doing so....
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 6, 2007 15:50:05 GMT -5
Doom: I'm willing to bet that If someone could ACTUALLY control you & took over your actions, you'd find it a h--l of a lot more immoral than a person calling over his friends for help against a government he believes it's trampling its citizens freedoms... and INDEED, any genius ala Stark or any government which would do so, WOULD be taking away you liberty by doing so.... With the exception of Osborn (which wasn't sanctioned - Tony did that on his own), no one else was/is being controled. Everyone else is basically being restrained by the nanites. It's the super-villian equivilant of a ankle bracelet thingy. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 6, 2007 15:59:06 GMT -5
thew40: even if nobody actually uses them to order the villians around, it is still a VERY different thing than wearing ankle bracelets...
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 6, 2007 18:12:40 GMT -5
With the exception of Osborn (which wasn't sanctioned - Tony did that on his own), no one else was/is being controled. Everyone else is basically being restrained by the nanites. It's the super-villian equivilant of a ankle bracelet thingy. Not quite. Far as we know, you can't shock, injure, or kill people under house arrest with those ankle gizmos. They're just locators. With all these villains on the loose, what happens when someone discovers technology to remove or reprogram the nanites - and posts it on the Internet? Military secrets are among the most fleeting of all...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 6, 2007 18:15:37 GMT -5
Well Balok that's a fine logic, isn't it? Do you even realise some of the stuff you're saying.
"Well I'm sure they could hack into these complex security systems so why bother! Tossing them in jail was MUCH better!"
I'd say it's pretty much undeniable there's TEN TIMES the chance of keeping them controlled as Thunderbolts than tossing them back in RYkers for the 75th time and being stunned when they broke out AGAIN.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Apr 6, 2007 18:16:24 GMT -5
With the exception of Osborn (which wasn't sanctioned - Tony did that on his own), no one else was/is being controled. Everyone else is basically being restrained by the nanites. It's the super-villian equivilant of a ankle bracelet thingy. Not quite. Far as we know, you can't shock, injure, or kill people under house arrest with those ankle gizmos. They're just locators. With all these villains on the loose, what happens when someone discovers technology to remove or reprogram the nanites - and posts it on the Internet? Military secrets are among the most fleeting of all... Ladies and gentlemen . . . the sequel to "Armor Wars," NANITE WARS! ;D ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 6, 2007 19:43:22 GMT -5
Doom: I'm willing to bet that If someone could ACTUALLY control you & took over your actions, "BAH, Doom cannot be controlled by such puny technology!" did I sound like him? ;D
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 6, 2007 19:59:57 GMT -5
Well Balok that's a fine logic, isn't it? Do you even realise some of the stuff you're saying. Dangerously close to an ad hominem there, Doom... "Well I'm sure they could hack into these complex security systems so why bother! Tossing them in jail was MUCH better!" I'd say it's pretty much undeniable there's TEN TIMES the chance of keeping them controlled as Thunderbolts than tossing them back in RYkers for the 75th time and being stunned when they broke out AGAIN. But... don't they have your favority villain destination, 42, to keep them from escaping that easily? Sure, they could break out, and that happens when the plot requires it. But if someone posts the secret to the nanites for the world to see (and do you believe the Thinker, for example, couldn't unravel anything Iron Man could devise? I assure you, The Thinker is the smarter of that pair), NOW the villains are already out of prison, because... and try to stay with me, here... the authorities let them out! When some villain, for sheer spite, cracks the nanite programming and the villains all "escape", what trust with the public have in the government then? In fact, such an event would make a fascinating elseworlds type story, as Reed's prediction of the future brings about the future. The last panel would be Reed, one of the few survivors, weeping as he realized what he'd done to the world...
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 6, 2007 20:08:30 GMT -5
But... don't they have your favority villain destination, 42, to keep them from escaping that easily? . If you're reading Black Panther, Ithink they're about to have some problems with the whole 42 thing.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 7, 2007 4:53:08 GMT -5
Can't have it both ways, Balok. The Thunderbolts and 42 are both Initative concepts, and you've protested about both. So saying "ah but 42 takes care of that!" is just empoty when you don't think there should be a 42 either! I personally think a great Elseworlds story would be one where Cap wins and the entire Earth is destroyed and the last page is Cap looking around at the broken wasteland and sinking to his knees beside the body of Tony, but that's just me;) Plus you're forgetting Reed is involved. Match Reed up with anyone except the illustrious Regent of Latveria and he's going to be smarter, normally by a rather substantial amount.
|
|