|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 11, 2007 4:35:48 GMT -5
Nice try at twisting but nowhere have we heard unregistered heroes called super-villains. In fact there's a specific term for them: Unregistered Combatants. So let's see, combine that clear indicator with the end of Civil War 7 with every writer and editor interview imaginable, with Civil War 6, and it's 100% clear only villains are interred there. You're trying to twist it otherwise so it will be easier for your argument.
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on May 11, 2007 9:31:32 GMT -5
What did I miss? Didn't 42 get knocked out of dimensional whack just before the final civil war battle? All the portals got discombombulated or something. So they fixed them? And Captain Marvel is still the warden? And his whole series is going to be about him running the Negative Zone cooler?
Guard : Captain! There's a prison break in sector 12! Captain Marvel : Let me think.. Guard : But they're freeing other prisoners! CM : Just give me a minute, I'm thinking... Guard : They captured portal 3! The one that goes to the White House! CM : Could you get me some coffee, I have to think a minute...
|
|
|
Post by balok on May 11, 2007 17:16:57 GMT -5
Nice try at twisting but nowhere have we heard unregistered heroes called super-villains. In fact there's a specific term for them: Unregistered Combatants. So let's see, combine that clear indicator with the end of Civil War 7 with every writer and editor interview imaginable, with Civil War 6, and it's 100% clear only villains are interred there. You're trying to twist it otherwise so it will be easier for your argument. Your points are well-taken, except that you missed a key part of my argument. I'm suggesting that this is *exactly* the sort of hair-splitting semantics that will soon enough allow the government to imprison "unregistered combatants" in 42. The parallels to Gitmo are so clear they must be intentional. If Marvel continues the Initiative as they have so far, I'd expect this to happen within the next year, although it won't be publicized. The heroes will be drugged and transported from the Raft, and their lawyers will be kept out of contact. Oh, and Sally Floyd and Ben Urich will somehow discover this and refuse to tell people.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 11, 2007 17:44:31 GMT -5
What did I miss? Didn't 42 get knocked out of dimensional whack just before the final civil war battle? All the portals got discombombulated or something. So they fixed them? And Captain Marvel is still the warden? And his whole series is going to be about him running the Negative Zone cooler? Guard : Captain! There's a prison break in sector 12! Captain Marvel : Let me think.. Guard : But they're freeing other prisoners! CM : Just give me a minute, I'm thinking... Guard : They captured portal 3! The one that goes to the White House! CM : Could you get me some coffee, I have to think a minute... Don't be silly. That's a JENKINS comic. Seriously, has no one but me noticed Jenkins comics are always either retconned or ignored? His Spidey stuff was ignored, his Sentry mini retconned, Frontline 90% ignored and 10% retconned, and Civil War The Return was just ignored. Poor guy. Though he kinda deserves it.
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on May 11, 2007 20:59:26 GMT -5
I have no idea who this "Jenkins" is. I'm not joking either.
|
|
|
Post by balok on May 11, 2007 21:17:47 GMT -5
JenkinsHis chief contribution to "Civil War" was Front Line, which showed that Iron Man did some evil stuff to get the SHRA passed (which is, I suspect, the real reason Doctor Doom doesn't like him).
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 12, 2007 4:52:34 GMT -5
Well I'm afraid you suspect wrong. If we actually went by Jenkins' book, Iron Man did bad things but tha'ts okay because Jenkins specifically tries to say "Ah well, forgive him, he's a real hero it's for the greater good!" I dislike him because: -He created the Sentry, a concept I hate -He wrote "The Return", a poor comic -He's obsessed with the Sentry and crams him into every issue of Frontline and takes up half "The Return" -He wrote a hideous Spider-Man run and firstly ruined the character of the Lizard and secondly wrote an APPALINGLY bad "Disassembled" arc. And you know what all those things have in common? They are, except for one minor Sentry thing, not at all to do with Frontline where he exhibited love for the Mary Sue character of Sally Floyd, wrote Reed, Cap, Tony, Norman Osborn, Speedball, Spidey and Ben Urich out of character, drew lazy and offensive analogies with real wars, took eight issues repeating the same message, did entire rambling stories with no purpose, and blatantly contradicted other books several times. Oh yeah, PLUS it was insanely anti-reg biased. So no, I'd like to think I have a few more reasons than what you say, Balok- I disliked him even before Frontline.
|
|
|
Post by balok on May 12, 2007 16:12:18 GMT -5
I dislike him, as well, although I'm amused that Tony had to become a rat bastard in order to get the SHRA passed. I don't believe good things can come from bad methods, because I think that if one must resort to such methods, one must step back and question whether the goal is really all that good. But I doubt Marvel will ever explore that angle or second guess the mess they've made of their universe.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 12, 2007 19:10:34 GMT -5
I dislike him, as well, although I'm amused that Tony had to become a rat bastard in order to get the SHRA passed. I don't believe good things can come from bad methods, because I think that if one must resort to such methods, one must step back and question whether the goal is really all that good. But I doubt Marvel will ever explore that angle or second guess the mess they've made of their universe. Balok, while I couldn't agree more with your statement, I do think we may see some soul-searching going on, over in The Initiative. It's already apparent that Hank Pym is having a hard time reconciling himself to what he's involved in. Now whether we'll ever see that with Stark is debatable.
|
|
|
Post by balok on May 12, 2007 23:04:38 GMT -5
Balok, while I couldn't agree more with your statement, I do think we may see some soul-searching going on, over in The Initiative. It's already apparent that Hank Pym is having a hard time reconciling himself to what he's involved in. Now whether we'll ever see that with Stark is debatable. Yes, I've noted that, but there have been so far only two issues. You could be right, but I am waiting, at this point, to see how The Initiative develops a little longer. Stark faces real problems if he ever decides he made a mistake. He'll then be faced with the reality that he threw away his standing as a hero for nothing. Even if the story never comes out, he'll know. I think that a character like him, probably written, would develop what amounts to a barrier of cognitive dissonance that would make his reactions unpredictable. If the Initiative sheds heroes as they become convinced it is wrong, will that lead to another Civil War? I wonder if that is what Marvel plans for 2008?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 13, 2007 5:09:16 GMT -5
Stark knows he did bad things, he knows how dark the path he walked on was. The only thing is, he also knows it was worth it, and I think he's right.
So it's not a question of him realising he made a mistake.
It's a question of trying to show that it WAS a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 13, 2007 17:59:06 GMT -5
I'm kinda with you, I could like Jenkins work on CW stuff a lot better if he had kept a certain level of consistency with the rest of the books. I mean its only in CW Frontline that Stark looks to be exceptionally evil. Any other CW story has him walking a fine line more or less.
And if his stuff just keeps getting retconned/ignored, then they should maybe take a look at what they let him produce before they send it to print. That would probably be my main problem with Marvel today actually, Joe Q has too many writters that he gives total free reigns on story/continuity and the world ends up lacking consistency. (The question of how evil Tony Stark really is is a very good one for example, depending on the writer and the book, it varies considerably.)
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 13, 2007 18:02:28 GMT -5
err after Wikipediaing Jenkins, I guess I can forgive his screw ups because he was part of the God of War creative team.
|
|
|
Post by balok on May 13, 2007 18:43:05 GMT -5
Stark knows he did bad things, he knows how dark the path he walked on was. The only thing is, he also knows it was worth it, and I think he's right. So it's not a question of him realising he made a mistake. That's true, now. My comment was speculative, and the implicit axiom was that at some point Marvel decides that the SHRA was a mistake - something I doubt will happen soon, but might someday. At some point following that editorial decision, whoever writes Iron Man will be faced with how to handle Tony's realization. Because it would be terrible storytelling if they didn't address it at all. It's a question of trying to show that it WAS a mistake. There are any number of ways Marvel could show it was a mistake if they decide it was. But for now, it is not a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 13, 2007 23:20:29 GMT -5
Maybe some of you have read the Mark Waid interview over at CBR? If not, here's the link: www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=10535I think Waid would probably fit in well with most of the AA forummers...here's some excerpts, commenting on Civil War: MW: I think they did a better job than we did of making it a new-reader-friendly story. It certainly had its exciting moments. I think the finale showed such a fundamental lack of understanding of who Captain America is that my jaw is still on the floor, but, oh, well. RT: And don't forget about Iron Man! MW: The villains won. Congratulations! Iron Man I don't care about, though. Iron Man I never liked. It's Captain America that kills me. RT: I don't really care about Iron Man either, but now in every book he appears in, whenever he walks in a room you just want to groan. It shouldn't be like that. MW: Basically, what made me itchy about "Civil War" is that - whether intentionally or not - the message seemed to be "give up your civil liberties and stop fighting for the things you believe in and everything will be fine." I get enough of that from the Bush administration. But, man, it sure was a good-lookin' book. Steve McNiven is brilliantly talented.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 14, 2007 11:16:53 GMT -5
I was about to post that. What I love about Mark Waid (one of my favourite writers) is his frank openness. Sure, you can expect most DC writers to pregnant dog about Civil War. And many haters even bash the McNiven art which I find just stupid. But Waid, naa. He admits where Civil War kicked 52's ass- acceissibility- he admits that it had exciting moments, and he outlines what he didn't like. Obviously I disagree with him, even if he did write a brilliant Cap run, but that's fine because he's not just pointlessly whining. Hell, even look at what he says about Iron Man- the interviewer PROVOKES HIM to whine on Iron Man and yet he still doesn't, more or less dismissing Iron Man and not making too much of a judgment call because he's not a fan of the character anyway.
That is why Waid rocks. No pointless whining, no pretending he hated it all, he admits the good points and he outlines in simple terms what he felt were the bad. And he doesn't make too much of a judgement on what he doesn't know- which, with Waid, is very little!
Oh, and he even admits at the end that the real thing he doesn't like isn't the characterization or the writing, it's the message he percieves. With the one exception of Cap in CW7, obviously. Classy.
Just to note, one writer I was REALLY impressed with in those itnerviews was Adam Beechan.
"RT: What did you think about "Civil War?"
AB: I enjoyed it. I thought it was a really interesting take. I like interesting ideas that are followed relatively logically. I thought it was attacked thoughtfully and they answered questions I had as a reader as I went along."
He's DC exclusive but y'know what? So what. He liked the story and he ADMITS IT. That's what a writer should be. I get pissy when Marvel ones snot on about 52 as well, they should be like AB and admit it if they like it or like Waid and specify their problem.
EDIT: Looking through a few old ones and found another example that annoys me. Greg Rucka said the majority of it was FABULOUS and the art was amazing (exact words), but the ending was anticlimatic and therefore he disliked the entire story.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 14, 2007 18:48:14 GMT -5
Waid is definitely honest. Did you see his comments re: Superman/Batman? He only said what I said over and over when reading the later part of Loeb's run ("This makes no d**n sense!"). I'm just surprised he would say so in such a public forum.
|
|
|
Post by balok on May 14, 2007 19:15:42 GMT -5
Oh, and he even admits at the end that the real thing he doesn't like isn't the characterization or the writing, it's the message he percieves. With the one exception of Cap in CW7, obviously. Classy. Waid pretty much said he felt the writers of Civil War don't get Cap, and in fact are so far from getting Cap that "his jaw is on the floor." I'd said that's a fairly damning indictment of the characterization; it could be little else. Most of the people here who "hate on" Civil War have offered reasons. But you happen not to agree with those reasons, so you dismiss their arguments. I know you have done this with me.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 15, 2007 1:31:50 GMT -5
Everyone in Marvel has been written by so many different writers, its hard to say anyone is acting out of character because there have been numerous prescedences set for a lot of the actions portrayed in civil war. Sometimes we don't want to look back at stories we didn't like or agree with, but writers or advocates can go back and site certain portrayals of a character that match with what they are currently doing even if it doesn't match with what every other writer has done with the character.
example
IM joing the reg side for example. He's divulged his identity before, AND he's gone governemnt before (With the intent of fixing things from the inside, similar to current motivations). He has also fought his friends in a very stuborn and self righteous manner before (Armour Wars). Stark has also walked the fine moral line times before, becoming a fugitive and suggesting to kill Molecule man(That was Tony if I rememeber correct, if not my mistake)
But he also has been established as a genius at thinking outside the box and solving problems in an everyone wins sort of way.
So as a writter what do you take and what do you leave.
The point is mischaracterization is at least somewhat subjective, and I think this is the main point that the civil war arguments stem from, mischaracterization.
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on May 15, 2007 7:16:39 GMT -5
That's my biggest problem with the Civil War. Overall not a bad story but Cap was written way too singleminded. He had two chances to sit down with Tony and talk things out and he passed on both. In fact, the one time he used it as a ruse to slap a device on Tony to shut down his armor. It's not like Steve to do a sneak attack that low. By the time they met to talk things over at the ruins of Avengers Mansion, things had gone too far to stop. I just don't see Cap not taking time to find out why Tony was so adamant for Registration. And like this Waid guy said, the bad guys won... yay...
Other than that, like I said before, the writers have done their job to get people so riled up about the story. Conflict causes interest as we can see by the Civil War sales. Marvel's job now is to keep everyone buying while they delve into the ramifications of the War.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 15, 2007 10:24:54 GMT -5
Waid pretty much said he felt the writers of Civil War don't get Cap, and in fact are so far from getting Cap that "his jaw is on the floor." I'd said that's a fairly damning indictment of the characterization; it could be little else. Except of course, that he SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS the end. He could easily say "THe whole thing mishandled Cap..." or "The story demonstrated such a lack..." But he DOESN'T. So he's clearly singling out the ending. Firstly this indicates he didn't have a major problem with Cap for the rest of the war and secondly it also reflects only on his view of Millar, not "The WriterS". I know iut's your natural instinct to twist this so it agrees with you the most but please. Except of course, I clearly stated I was speaking specifically of DC creators.
|
|
|
Post by fyrehand on Sept 13, 2007 13:40:57 GMT -5
ok maybe i misunderstand what the shra is all about. Correct me if i am wrong
1. If you have a superhuman power of ablitity you must register with the gov.
2. there is no age restriction on said registration
3. By registration you can be tapped at anytime by said gov. for training and possible deployment with the armed forces. and because you registered you cannot choose not to
4. Since a child (under 18) cannot sign a legal document but your parents can, your parents even if pacifists cannot choose to sign you up for the registration and not the armed services
5. IF you choose not to sign and break the law you can be imprisoned for an indefinite period of time, possibly beyond the borders of the the U.S., with or without due process.
6. if you register and choose not to cooperate with the gov. you can without due process be stripped of you ablities that you were either born with or give thur lucky accident, at the whim of the field officer in charge of your case.
now if that is correct ( and as near as i can tell from reading CW and Post CW stuff i believe it is) How can it be constitutional
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 13, 2007 16:23:52 GMT -5
You have a few things wrong in there, yup. 3. By registration you can be tapped at anytime by said gov. for training and possible deployment with the armed forces. and because you registered you cannot choose not to No, not true. There is registration and then there is licensing.A registered super human has signed up with the government that they have a power. They cannot be drafted etc, but may continue a normal life- if they use their power in times of emergency, that's fine but they should not use it regularly. A licensed hero is fully trained and licensed by the government and accountable to them. They may act as heroes, using their powers openly, etc. They also have the option of joining the Initiative program, which is not cumpulsory. In times of extreme duress or dire need, they *may* be drafted, but it's not into the armed forces and I'd guess excellent reason must be provided. Incorrect, they are *totally* different, see above. No, the Negative Zone Prison was used very briefly for the latter part of the Civil War but is now only used for super villains. If you choose not to sign up, you will be arrested and placed in a super prison like The Raft here on Earth. You will subsequently get a trial and due process. There is no indefinite period of time. Absolutely not. In fact, She-Hulk just won a court case proving all people have a right to their powers and thus cannot be stripped of them by the Initiative. The stuff is not correct, and it is very much constitutional.
|
|
|
Post by fyrehand on Sept 13, 2007 16:36:26 GMT -5
well where i get kinda confused is with clould nine all she wants to do is fly and yet she has been thrown into a warzone with a laser rifle. So if my power was super brains they going to dumb me down so i cant use it in my private life.
ok since i am a newb and cant use the quote feature to save my arse
in response to your point on my #1 all those with powers must be trained that is the heart of the shra so just incase you need to use your power you know how. so would that not involve the boot campesque envirment from the ini comics or is there another less military style program
and as for she hulk can she now sue stark for that violation of her (not quite rape but at the same time worse)
|
|
|
Post by fyrehand on Sept 13, 2007 16:38:22 GMT -5
for the record my power is fat immobile object not hyper intelligence
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 14, 2007 10:47:43 GMT -5
well where i get kinda confused is with clould nine all she wants to do is fly and yet she has been thrown into a warzone with a laser rifle. So if my power was super brains they going to dumb me down so i cant use it in my private life. Cloud 9 wants to fly actively, not just whenever she absolutely has to. This means she has to be licensed and trained, which means the Initiative boot camp. Which DOES suck at the moment, but it';s been indicated that both Reed and Tony want to improve it after they've cleaned up SHIELD and other such things. Not ALL those with powers must be trained- all those who plan to actively use them much be. Which does indeed mean Camp Hammond. I wouldn't say it's as bad as rape but yes, she is suing him for that right now in fact.
|
|
|
Post by fyrehand on Sept 14, 2007 11:49:17 GMT -5
so again the hyper intelligence question comes up. how do they deal with that with out violating rights again.
How does wanting to fly mean active supeheroing .
so me wanting to use say the power of illusion casting for a better tv experience would mean i would need to be trained becuase i want to use it all the time. so i would need the (as you put it not ideal but only thing going currently) boot camp at hammond.
this seems allittle heavy handed to me.
but before you think i am just blindly arguing here. if they are going to got for realism is comics then the whole legal ramifications of this law will be challenaged and the supreme court will strike down various parts of it to make it truly constitutional.
some one you has the power to fly and wants to cannot be forced to boot camp because they just happen to be able to on there own.
But to be a "superhero" you must yield to the law and be trained or prove you are trained and just get a brush up course on civic and leagal rights might work.
but the idea that i can change my hair color at will and am planning on it alot means boot camp is a little to much
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 22, 2007 18:35:47 GMT -5
If the only way a superhuman is permitted to use their powers is after graduating from Camp Hammond, doesn't that imply they're all being trained to fight? What if their powers are not offensive, or they do not wish such training? Has the government created alternatives for such characters? What happens if an Amish individual develops powers? Do they get the special exemptions for religious reasons commonly afforded the Amish, so that they can use their powers without learning to fight (which they generally won't do)?
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Sept 23, 2007 9:45:46 GMT -5
Would that not make the greatest comic ever?! Jebadiah - Amish Super Hero.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Sept 30, 2007 22:02:45 GMT -5
Would that not make the greatest comic ever?! Jebadiah - Amish Super Hero. One of the titular superheroes of Freshmen is an Amish (called, quasi-punnily, Quaker).
|
|