|
Post by redstatecap on Jun 21, 2007 12:14:55 GMT -5
He´s the antagonist in the sense that the other characters in the book (who are as important to this capless Cap book as him) are hunting him down to stop him. And Brubaker clearly shows that WS is emotional and intelectual unstable, so he´s not trying to justify his actions, like many writers do with anti-heroes like Wolverine. The WS hasn't been "unstable" since Cap used the cube on him. He's an anti-hero. He's not a goody-goody. But he's not unstable. Ed Brubaker doesn't need to justify "Bucky's" actions, since many fans consider his actions justified already with regards to wanting to kill Stark. I know there are are fans out there that disagree (Doom) but you cannot deny that many fans consider Tony Stark, as written in CW, to be a villain and largely responsible for Cap's death. It is quite natural then for the fans to expect the anti-hero Bucky to be out for revenge against Stark, so Ed Brubaker doesn't have to justify anything. He only has to present the potential difference with other cast members who maybe are less anti-heroic and less inclined to want to murder Stark in revenge. I didn't say that Ed Brubaker wanted him to be the next Cap. What I said was that he was going to be the protagonist in the short run -- not Cap in the short run. In the long run I am undecided what I think his plans are, but there cannot be a Captain America title for long with no Captain America in it. Either Steve will be back, or there will have to be a replacement. I for one continue to (mostly) believe that Cap will be back in a couple of years for the reasons I've already mentioned. But if that doesn't happen, one has to look at replacements. Thus far the only "replacement" that Ed Brubaker has laid groundwork for is Bucky. Yes, he's an anti-hero, but that may be by design to make a Captain America more appealing to the audience that buys Punisher, Wolverine, etc. In other words, a business decision. Or it could be that he intends to show Bucky's progress from anti-hero to hero over time for dramatic purposes. You could write a lot of stories showing that process. Regardless, the fact is that Bucky is going to get a ton of panel time in the near future. He's going to be developed. By definition he is the most closely associated character with Cap. He will physically possess the shield. Thus far no one else who could be considered a potential replacement for Cap has received even the slightest bit of story attention from Ed Brubaker. While I don't want to think that Ed Brubaker is going to put Bucky in the suit, over the coming months we're going to have watch the situation and ask: "Is Ed Brubaker developing anyone else that could fill the uniform?" Point is, if Ed Brubaker convinced him to let Bucky return, it's not unreasonable that he could convince him to have Cap married. Cap is a totally different character from Spider-Man anyways, and in Joe Quesada's mind there may be reasons why he doesn't think Spider-Man should be married that don't apply to Cap. Because I always wanted to see a take on the Invaders that would represent the reality of WWII. I personally find it intolerable that writers can say that Cap got through the war by bopping everyone on the chin. War is death and destruction and the Invaders would have been killing machines. Now, I accept Buckys original origin for what it is, and I accept the original Invaders series for what it is. They were products of their times and I still love them for it. But I think that retelling this story in a more realistic fashion is both possible now with enough distance from WWII, and is more respectful to those that fought in WWII. So, hey, I'm for a retcon!!! Everyone take a picture! I can only agree to strongly disagree. IMO it was simply the option that provided the most short-term shock sales -- sales which Ed Brubaker hoped he could maintain to bolster his very average numbers. All depends on how it's handled. Of course you wouldn't want Cap a villain. But for example Cap leading the New Avengers from underground is not problematic in any way. Except now they have to fix the death as well. The problem is compounded. It's like shooting someone in the head to cure a cold. RSC
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Jun 21, 2007 13:14:26 GMT -5
HOLY CRAP!
I can't believe I'm about to write this, but I actually agree with RSC's entire post!
~W~
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Jun 21, 2007 13:22:58 GMT -5
The WS hasn't been "unstable" since Cap used the cube on him. He's an anti-hero. He's not a goody-goody. But he's not unstable. WS starts fights in bars, needing Falcon to rescue him so he would not attract unwanted attention. He sees Tony Start on the TV and all of a sudden decides he has to be killed. He doesn´t listen to nobody (Fury, Sam, etc.) and goes on a suicide mission that, as even Sharon and Sam realize, can only get him killed or arrested in the end. And Tony Stark´s death would not change the current situation in the 616 MU for the better, quite the contrary, again even the characters in the book realize that, except WS. That doesn´t sound to me like the actions of a very emotional stable and rational person... Ed Brubaker doesn't need to justify "Bucky's" actions, since many fans consider his actions justified already with regards to wanting to kill Stark. I know there are are fans out there that disagree (Doom) but you cannot deny that many fans consider Tony Stark, as written in CW, to be a villain and largely responsible for Cap's death. Except that in CA book he´s not. We (the readers) know that the Red Skull and Faustus are behind the actual killing, so does Sharon. And the rest of the MU population thinks of Tony Stark as a hero (at least that is what Mark Millar wants us to believe) so that makes WS a paranoid self destructive killing machine. I think we both agree that Brubaker is a good writer, capable of consistent characterization. If he wanted the redership to simpatise with WS he could have easily done that. And he didn´t. I didn't say that Ed Brubaker wanted him to be the next Cap. I misunderstood you then. I thought you were saying Brubaker wanted to crown his run by having his character (WS) become the new Cap, leaving his mark on the title forever. Either Steve will be back, or there will have to be a replacement. I for one continue to (mostly) believe that Cap will be back in a couple of years for the reasons I've already mentioned. Yeah, but I think we will have a time travel Invaders story set in WWII while Cap is thought dead in the present. In this scenario Brubaker would be able to tell cap stories in Cap book without ressurecting the character too early. I don´t think is a coincidence that the 70´s Invaders are getting TPBs right now. While I don't want to think that Ed Brubaker is going to put Bucky in the suit, over the coming months we're going to have watch the situation and ask: "Is Ed Brubaker developing anyone else that could fill the uniform?" Sam? I´m not saying it will happen, but it is possible without forcing the story too much. And Sam is a registered hero, so Tony Stalin would not be against it. Point is, if Ed Brubaker convinced him to let Bucky return, it's not unreasonable that he could convince him to have Cap married. Cap is a totally different character from Spider-Man anyways, and in Joe Quesada's mind there may be reasons why he doesn't think Spider-Man should be married that don't apply to Cap. How do you know it was not Joe Q who convinced Brubaker to bring Bucky back? I´m not saying it was him, but I would not be surprised if it was. Because I always wanted to see a take on the Invaders that would represent the reality of WWII. I personally find it intolerable that writers can say that Cap got through the war by bopping everyone on the chin. War is death and destruction and the Invaders would have been killing machines. Now, I accept Buckys original origin for what it is, and I accept the original Invaders series for what it is. They were products of their times and I still love them for it. But I think that retelling this story in a more realistic fashion is both possible now with enough distance from WWII, and is more respectful to those that fought in WWII. Good points, but the problem with realistic war stories involving superheroes is that do you really want to see Cap cutting throats? Or Bucky raping french (or german) women? Or Namor ripping internal organs from soldiers with his bare hands? Thing like that happened in the 'real' WWII.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 21, 2007 13:38:52 GMT -5
It can be noted that Brubaker's "very average numbers" were a great deal better than they should have been. RSC, you tried once before to show Brubaker's run as much worse than others but on CBR your post was literally ripped apart and completely disproven.
Just pointing it out!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Jun 21, 2007 14:34:02 GMT -5
uhhhh Mutants are still depowered for the most part, Wolverine still has his re-established memories and Ms. Marvel stayed A list in the MU. It also implied Hakweyes subsequent resurection didn't it. And the Scarlet Witch is still in issolation. Magneto got his powers back, Quicksilver sort of got his powers back but differently, these are the only parts of major changes that got dropped as far as I know. Magneto got his powers back...?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 21, 2007 17:09:05 GMT -5
Magneto got his powers back...? Not exactly. To be precise, he, um was possessed by the spirit of all collective mutant energies in the world previously believed to be Sublime, who may or may not have been a chinese mutant named Xorn who believed he was Magneto, looked exactly like Magneto and had the same powers as Magneto, pretending to be... another chinese mutant named Xorn. And then he got his powers back but was blown up and God knows where he is as he hasn't been seen in 12 months with or without powers. ...Now I remember why I left X-books. Maybe he was a Skrull? A Skrull pretending to be The Collective pretending to be Sublime pretending to be Xorn pretending to be Magneto pretending to be Xorn?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Jun 21, 2007 19:19:19 GMT -5
Thank you, Doom...! Okay,yeah, I was still on board with the NA when that happened... in fact, that might well be very last issue I bought... I assumed he was referring to a different, later time, when Magneto reappeared & regained his powers....
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 21, 2007 19:41:42 GMT -5
To be precise, he, um was possessed by the spirit of all collective mutant energies in the world previously believed to be Sublime, who may or may not have been a chinese mutant named Xorn who believed he was Magneto, looked exactly like Magneto and had the same powers as Magneto, pretending to be... another chinese mutant named Xorn. And then he got his powers back but was blown up and God knows where he is as he hasn't been seen in 12 months with or without powers. ...Now I remember why I left X-books. Maybe he was a Skrull? A Skrull pretending to be The Collective pretending to be Sublime pretending to be Xorn pretending to be Magneto pretending to be Xorn? Good Lord! I think I'll stick with quantum mechanics or brain surgery. You know, stuff that's easy to understand.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 22, 2007 0:26:23 GMT -5
What the good Doctor said
and in truth it can't be helped, Magneto jumps accross the spectrum of evil to good, dead to alive, and powered to depowered like nobody's business because as a Super Vilian he get's stretched fairly thin over all the x-books and his occasional Avengers appearances.
As a character he's literally been everything almost to the point of where he lacks any true characterization other than loving mutants.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jun 22, 2007 2:47:23 GMT -5
WS starts fights in bars, needing Falcon to rescue him so he would not attract unwanted attention. How many superheros have started gratuitous fights when the resonable thing would have been to walk away? If this makes them "unstable," there would be darn few superheroes left, if any. Browse a few internet boards and you'll see that there is a broad agreement with the sentiment that Tony Stark needs to die as a result of his portrayal in CW. Of course this isn't the character's fault, since the character doesn't write itself, but the simple fact is that Tony was portrayed as an out-and-out villain largely responsible for Cap's death. Now the character is reaping the consequences. It is (unfortunately) not at all unreasonable that Bucky would want to assassinate him, nor that fans would actually approve of the effort. The characters "realize" this because Ed Brubaker wrote that they "realized" this. On the contrary, in light of Iron Man's confirmed actions during Cival War, to include: -- MURDER--conspiracy to murder US citizens --cloning and weaponizing Thor, who killed Bill Foster --hiring a villain to attack Washington DC to ensure passage of SHRA --permanent imprisonment without trial --torture --empowering supercrimnals to enforce the law -- supercriminals who subsequently violate the law and maim for pleasure --various and sundry other violations of the US constitution It is therefore difficult to argue that America would not be better off without Iron Man. It's unfortunate -- but it's Marvel's choice. As written, Iron Man's acts put Cap in the position to be hit by the Skull. And this doesn't even account for the long, long list of other crimes -- including murder -- that Iron Man has committed with impunity. He didn't because he didn't need to! Iron Man has already been demonized by Civil War to such an extent that Ed Brubaker doesn't need to do a d**n thing to convince readers that assassinating him is a just act. I am the first to say that that is a damned unfortunate set of circumstances -- but it is a set of circumstances of Marvel's making. If Ed Brubaker has any problem, it's portraying Iron Man in a sympathetic enough fashion so that his potential assassination generates at least some conflict! In other words, it's a little like writing Adolph Hitler in the title, and trying to make readers sympathize with Adolph's plight as Bucky's target. Maybe Adolph really was making the hard choices for the good of humanity! Maybe he had a yet-to-be revealed psycho-historian telling him that all Jews needed to die to avert a catastrophic war. Maybe Bucky needs to understand and take all this into account before going off half-cocked. (Note: this is a heavy dose of sarcasm.) Let me clarify. First, I believe that Ed Brubaker does want to leave his mark on every facet of the Cap title, permanently. Some of that is good, and some of that is bad. I am honestly undecided on whether this extrapolates in the long run to Bucky taking over the uniform. I prefer to think that this is not going to be the case, because quite frankly I would lose all respect for Ed Brubaker. That would tell me that he wasn't about Cap, or even stamping his mark on Cap, but about himself, personally -- about benefitting and promoting his creations at any cost. I really prefer to think that is not the case. I tend to believe that Cap is coming back in a couple of years, but I have to admit I could be wrong. If I am wrong, the only option for replacement which I have seen Mr. Brubaker develop thus far is Bucky, and I'm far from the only one. Check around and you'll find a lot of fans who perceive that Bucky is being set up to be the replacement. Only time will tell. I take it you have not read my earlier posts on Alvaro or here on this matter. I have speculated that flashback Invaders stories would be used to fill the interim while Cap was "dead" and his supporting cast worked the problem. Sam is a possibility, but it's also true that Sam has seen very little development from Mr. Brubaker so far. It remains to be seen if that changes. According to published interviews, it was Ed Brubaker who did the convincing. I don't doubt that Joe Quesada would lie to us if it served his purposes, but that is the information so far. I think you are unnecessarily mixing the worst aspects of war with the necessary aspects of war. Cap and the Invaders would have to have killed. And yes, they would have to have killed in unpleasant ways, dispassionately. Cap and the Invader would not have to have raped or tortured for fun -- although that happened on all sides in the war. They would not have to be portrayed as characters like the Punisher or Wolverine, people who take pleasure from inflicting suffering and death. There is a clear difference. RSC
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 22, 2007 8:26:29 GMT -5
Well said. I agree with about everything here, with one exception: I am not sure death is necessary for Tony. He's fallen far and he's a villain now, but I think the right acts of contrition could redeem him. And they could get some fine storytelling out of it if the right creators handled it. But it would take a whole lot of work and a whole lot of time to restore Tony to the hero he once was. And others in the community of powers shouldn't trust him for some time to come - some may never trust him again.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Jun 22, 2007 9:45:41 GMT -5
Bucky is on a journey of redemption.
I don't know if it will end when he gets his chance to kill Tony, but I can almost say for sure that either he chooses not to go through with it on his own, or perhaps it will be Steve's return that stops him and helps him find his his place in the modern world.
I have a funny feeling that it will be Steve, but he won't be ready to return as Cap yet, but he'll recognize that a Captain America is needed, and he passes the shield to Bucky for a while... so that he can earn his redemption.
I would be very happy and satisified with that storyline.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Jun 22, 2007 10:16:43 GMT -5
How many superheros have started gratuitous fights when the resonable thing would have been to walk away? If this makes them "unstable," there would be darn few superheroes left, if any. I would agree with you if WS started a fight against the Red Skull or Batroc, but it was a bar browl. Even WS himself realized Cap would never so something like that... The characters "realize" this because Ed Brubaker wrote that they "realized" this. Sure, but anything a character does is because the writer wanted it. Stark actions were Mark Millars fault, so I don´t see your point. And the characters realizing that Bucky is out of control shows that the writer also thinks the character is out of control. I take it you have not read my earlier posts on Alvaro or here on this matter. I have speculated that flashback Invaders stories would be used to fill the interim while Cap was "dead" and his supporting cast worked the problem. Yes I have, and I´m pretty sure that´s what´s gonna happen. I think you are unnecessarily mixing the worst aspects of war with the necessary aspects of war. Cap and the Invaders would have to have killed. And yes, they would have to have killed in unpleasant ways, dispassionately. Cap and the Invader would not have to have raped or tortured for fun -- although that happened on all sides in the war. They would not have to be portrayed as characters like the Punisher or Wolverine, people who take pleasure from inflicting suffering and death. There is a clear difference. RSC But this is exactly the kind of stories that made characters like Wolverine possible in superheroes comics in the first place...
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jun 22, 2007 13:17:03 GMT -5
I would agree with you if WS started a fight against the Red Skull or Batroc, but it was a bar browl. Even WS himself realized Cap would never so something like that... Come on...it's a bar brawl against goons that were written by Ed Brubaker as provoking the incident and getting exactly what they deserved out of it. If Bucky had beaten up half a dozen women in church because they made a disparaging remark about Cap, then yes, I would say that Bucky was out of control. But he isn't -- he's an anti-hero being portrayed as an anti-hero amongst a cast of heroes. This is merely a result of the fact that these other characters are not anti-heroes and Bucky is. The writing simply reflects this conflict, as it should. Wolverine and the Punisher may be anti-heroes, but they have never been portrayed as war criminals or rapists. The people they kill are portrayed as "having it coming to them," which is why we still sympathize with Wolverine and the Punisher even if that kind of behaviour is unacceptable to society. They also enjoy killing for it's own sake. It's a catharsis for them. It's part of their character to be anger- and vengeance-driven. Captain America, on the other hand, is not anger- or vengeance-driven. Cap is driven by duty. In my view, Cap would also had to have killed a ton of people in the war, but without prejudice or malice. Cap is your grandfather who flew B-17s in the war, did his duty to the best of his ability, killed hundreds (maybe thousands) of people, and went home and raised a family in peace. Except Cap is too duty-bound to ever quit. Yes, Wolverine and Punisher have been highly successful as anti-heroes. However, that doesn't mean that everyone else has to be portrayed as an anti-hero with the same motives and characterization. RSC
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Jun 22, 2007 13:41:39 GMT -5
Wolverine and the Punisher may be anti-heroes, but they have never been portrayed as war criminals or rapists. RSC Ever read Garth Ennis´ war stories with Frank Castle? My point is, if you´re going to write a realistic war comic series, then don´t do it with superheroes in it at all, because: a) they (the superheroes) aren´t realistic (with the many implications of the word), and it is even disrespectful to the real soldiers who fought in the war without superpowers or alien technology or super soldier serum, etc. b) if you show superheroes killing and maiming people (or even torturing and raping - we agreed that this was part of the war too, so a realistic comic book should cover it too) they´re not superheroes anymore, they´re antiheroes - like in your opinion of the current Bucky.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Jun 22, 2007 13:44:18 GMT -5
Bucky is on a journey of redemption. I have a funny feeling that it will be Steve, but he won't be ready to return as Cap yet, but he'll recognize that a Captain America is needed, and he passes the shield to Bucky for a while... so that he can earn his redemption. I would be very happy and satisified with that storyline. Marvel may try that to see if a 'edgier' (and younger) Captain America can be more popular than Steve Rogers...
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jun 23, 2007 1:53:52 GMT -5
Ever read Garth Ennis´ war stories with Frank Castle? Admittedly no. Perhaps I should say "the Punisher stories that I have read did not make him out to be a war criminal or rapist." I am highly congnizant of this issue, and as someone who is a WWII history fanatic, I place huge importance on honoring the men that fought and died to save my country and the world. As I see it, treating the issue as if Cap could prance through the war bopping people on the chin while regular GIs had to sully their hands with the dirty work is the height of disrespect. I believe that to write an Invaders series properly and respectfully, one has to keep sight of the fact that the Invaders cannot be depicted as decisive war-winners on their own. In other words, you have to come up with story mechanisms to prevent the Invaders from simply cutting a bloody swath through the German army and winning the war in 1942. You have to come up with mechanisms to show that the Invaders' activities, while compelling, are almost of little consequence against the big picture. You have to devote time to showing the heroism and sacrifice of the average soldier. It seems clear to me that Roy Thomas thought about the same issues and came to similar conclusions, although he was writing an Invaders series with a lighter, Silver-Agey tone. Yes, and no. It is true that comic book heroes like Cap have often been defined as such by their refusal to kill -- which itself is a conceit made possible by writers writing stories that could be resolved without killing. On the other hand, killing itself does not differentiate a hero from an anti-hero. Let's take examples from another entertainment media: John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. Both killed people in their movies, but John Wayne was almost invariably a hero, and Clint Eastwood an anti-hero. What makes the difference? Their characterization and the means by which they accomplish their ends go a long way. Wikipedia defines the anti-hero as one whose acts are heroic, but whose methods, manners, and intentions are not. Being something of a maverick, being motivated by baser instincts like self-gain, anger or revenge, being morally ambivalent, doing things outside the social norms, etc. These things make an anti-hero -- not killing. So John Wayne who (usually) killed to uphold truth, justice, and the American way is a hero, and Clint Eastwood who killed to exact personal revenge or financial gain is an anti-hero. RSC
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 23, 2007 4:10:19 GMT -5
Cough Cough Ultimate Cap Cough Cough
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jun 23, 2007 12:31:27 GMT -5
Cough Cough Ultimate Cap Cough Cough I don't think that a portrayal of Cap which acknowledges some of the same considerations that Millar did with Ultimate Cap has to be considered a derivative of Ultimate Cap. Check out some Golden Age covers -- Cap is literally killing men left and right. Bucky is often carrying a flamethrower and using it to incinerate "Jap-Rat-Bastard" troops. In the original Invaders as well Cap occasionally killed. In the Silver Age Cap on occasion killed Hydra agents by the truckload without compunction or remorse. Really the "Cap doesn't kill, period" thing is a product of Mark Gruenwald. RSC
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jun 23, 2007 12:32:39 GMT -5
Marvel may try that to see if a 'edgier' (and younger) Captain America can be more popular than Steve Rogers... Yes, I mentioned this earlier and I agree it's a possibility. RSC
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Jun 23, 2007 13:32:56 GMT -5
I believe that to write an Invaders series properly and respectfully, one has to keep sight of the fact that the Invaders cannot be depicted as decisive war-winners on their own. In other words, you have to come up with story mechanisms to prevent the Invaders from simply cutting a bloody swath through the German army and winning the war in 1942. I don´t think a dozen heroes (even with superpowers) could have done that. And, in a superheroes comic book universe, I´m sure the Nazis would have their own superheroes too... You have to devote time to showing the heroism and sacrifice of the average soldier. But then why do it an a superhero comic at all? Do it in a war comic, like Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos or the ´50s EC Comics´ war stuff. It seems clear to me that Roy Thomas thought about the same issues and came to similar conclusions, although he was writing an Invaders series with a lighter, Silver-Agey tone. Thomas wrote a Bronze Age comic with WWII as background. His tales were very different from the All Winners Squad from the ´40s, that in its turn had very little in common with the reality of war. It is true that comic book heroes like Cap have often been defined as such by their refusal to kill -- which itself is a conceit made possible by writers writing stories that could be resolved without killing. On the other hand, killing itself does not differentiate a hero from an anti-hero. Let's take examples from another entertainment media: John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. Both killed people in their movies, but John Wayne was almost invariably a hero, and Clint Eastwood an anti-hero. What makes the difference? Their characterization and the means by which they accomplish their ends go a long way. Wikipedia defines the anti-hero as one whose acts are heroic, but whose methods, manners, and intentions are not. Being something of a maverick, being motivated by baser instincts like self-gain, anger or revenge, being morally ambivalent, doing things outside the social norms, etc. These things make an anti-hero -- not killing. So John Wayne who (usually) killed to uphold truth, justice, and the American way is a hero, and Clint Eastwood who killed to exact personal revenge or financial gain is an anti-hero. RSC Good example, but let´s not forget that in those movies you´re referring to, John Wayne was either a Cowboy or Sheriff, and the social rules in the old West were very different than the ones in modern society. To shoot not to be killed in a Far West movie is a thing, to shoot and kill Hydra agents (for example) in midtown 2007 New York city is something completely different. Captain America´s weapon is a shield, a defensive weapon, and the US joined the War after Pearl Harbour, to protect itself. I know sometimes a hero has to kill (to protect himself or others) but there are so many anti heroes in killing sprees in modern comics that I would rather not have the heroes become killers to.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Jun 23, 2007 13:47:42 GMT -5
Check out some Golden Age covers -- Cap is literally killing men left and right. Bucky is often carrying a flamethrower and using it to incinerate "Jap-Rat-Bastard" troops. Yeah, the same "Japs" being portraited as quasi monsters with fangs and claws, almost non human. Not to mention the black zombies in africa. I guess you don´t want that in a realistic war comic... In the Silver Age Cap on occasion killed Hydra agents by the truckload without compunction or remorse. I didn´t read all Cap SA stories, but in the ones I´e read when the villain dies it was either an accident or the bad guy was shooted by some evil commie who was behind it all and didn´t want him to reveal some secret plan. Really the "Cap doesn't kill, period" thing is a product of Mark Gruenwald. RSC I don´t know if Jack Kirby´s Cap ever killed people, but Steve Englehart´s, Roger Stern´s and J. M. DeMatteis´ certainly didn´t.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 23, 2007 16:32:23 GMT -5
Cap strictly as a superhero not killing is fine with me. His weapon is a shield and he's supposed to stand for justice and heroism itself.
Cap as a part of the military not killing is a little different. WW2 for example. It is historic fact that people killed each other in WW2, and to write Cap as sparing everyone comes off as highly fictional. (At the time writing a hyper-realistic story just wasn't possible the way it is today so I understand why things happened the way they did.).
Cap as a member of the Military in the present is also a little odd when/if he completely refrains from killing. Certainly in a completely fictional sense, since he battles made up terrorists, not killing seems far more reasonable. But for these terrorist acts and missions to hold serious ties to real life Cap wouldn't nescisarily have to kill a whole warehouse full of terrorists, but in his fight he would have to 'shoot to kill' when it comes down to national security.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 23, 2007 17:30:23 GMT -5
I don't want Cap running around snapping necks or anything but for myself, if he's gotta kill to get the job done and people saved, then he should and shouldn't have to apologize on national tv afterwards
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jun 24, 2007 0:56:25 GMT -5
I don´t think a dozen heroes (even with superpowers) could have done that. If Cap and the Invaders were depicted by a writer as using the full extent of their powers, they could break an army division with ease. Nothing could stop Namor -- he would kill everyone in his path. Nothing could stop the Torch from just flying down a line of German foxholes or bunkers and incinerating everyone. Nothing could stop Spifire from, say, delivering a satchel charge to the divisional headquarters and blowing up the division commander and his staff, thus decapitating the division. Nothing could stop Cap, Bucky, and UJ in a conventional infantry assault. Used as the spearpoint of a conventional offensive, the Invaders would guarantee victory. Right -- which is one of the mechanisms you would have to employ to assure that the Invaders couldn't just go hog-wild. And I don't mean an axis-vs.-allies superhero fight in every issue -- I mean the threat of an axis superhero strike elsewhere would mean that the Invaders couldn't just operate in the field knocking German soldiers' heads off as they please. Because, properly and skillfully done, it could work. It would be tough, which is why it would take the right person with a firm grasp of history. Like me, for example. The wrong writer -- a writer who simply approached the book like any other standard superhero title, only set in WWII, would make an absolute mess of it. It wasn't a straight-up war comic, but it's obvious to me that he did think about how he had to handle WWII. His level of research says that it wasn't just a backdrop, as do his repeated assertions that the Invaders were not winning the war, the common soldiers were. The distinction between hero and anti-hero lies in the manners and motives, not in the setting. John Wayne, portrayed as he was always portrayed, would be a hero in 1885 Texas or in 2007 New York. Clint Eastwood, portrayed as he was always portrayed, would be an anti-hero in 1885 Texas or in 2007 New York. Each of them did enough films set in different eras that this is demonstrably the case. If a character displays selflessness, honor, and virtue, he's a hero. If he displays self-interest, greed, or moral turpitude, he's an anti-hero. It's that simple. The U.S. entered the war to grind Japan into powder at any cost. Any cost.Don't read too much into his weapon being a shield, because in plenty of those Golden-Age covers he's weilding a submachine gun, a bomb, a flame-thrower, or whatever. Simon and Kirby were well aware that we were in it up to our necks, and it was about killing and destruction. I certainly understand your position. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I have no problem with advocating for the death of villains. As I see it comics have too long promoted the idea that any problem can be solved without killing. Within the comics, mass-murdering super-criminals go free time and time again because the comic industry does not want to part with their successful properties. They want these villainous characters to invoke fear and disgust in the reader, but there is never any real consequence for their actions. And that honestly disgusts me. If comic writers want to show death and destruction -- show the consequences of that death and destruction. Either that, or don't write the supervillain as a mass-murderer that deserves to die for his acts. RSC
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jun 24, 2007 1:13:27 GMT -5
Yeah, the same "Japs" being portraited as quasi monsters with fangs and claws, almost non human. Not to mention the black zombies in africa. I guess you don´t want that in a realistic war comic... What isn't realistic about racist portrayals of the enemy? The US had a racist view of the "little yellow monkeys," and for that matter the Japs had a racist view of the US. It was fact, regardless of whether it offends your sensibilites 60 years later. On several occasions Cap wiped out a good number of people -- blowing up an occupied Hydra base, for example. Stern's run only lasted 9 issues, and Stern's Cap killed Baron Blood. Yes, he was an undead monster, but Cap did kill him permanently. Dematteis and Englehart didn't have Cap kill anyone that I recall, but neither did they make a production out of a no-kill stance. Gruenwald on the other hand did have him kill once, but on that and many other occasions made a production out of a no-kill policy. RSC
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Jun 25, 2007 9:25:47 GMT -5
It wasn't a straight-up war comic, but it's obvious to me that he did think about how he had to handle WWII. His level of research says that it wasn't just a backdrop, as do his repeated assertions that the Invaders were not winning the war, the common soldiers were. Thomas was a child of the 40´s, so he probably knew people who fought in the war and wanted to honor them. It´s interesting how, in spite from being younger than Kirby or Lee, Thomas seemed to have more in common with their generation than with guys like Englehart or Adams, who were more or less his age. The distinction between hero and anti-hero lies in the manners and motives, not in the setting. John Wayne, portrayed as he was always portrayed, would be a hero in 1885 Texas or in 2007 New York. Clint Eastwood, portrayed as he was always portrayed, would be an anti-hero in 1885 Texas or in 2007 New York. Each of them did enough films set in different eras that this is demonstrably the case. If a character displays selflessness, honor, and virtue, he's a hero. If he displays self-interest, greed, or moral turpitude, he's an anti-hero. It's that simple. The definition of anti hero maybe remains the same, but the setting is not unimportant, quite the contrary. John Wayne killed many indians in his movies. Today that would make him an anti hero, or even villain. It´s not simple. Another example: Many german citizens thought there was an evil jewish conspiracy to take over the world. So killing jews was actually a way to save the world. Today those people are seen as monsters, but had Nazi German won the war they would be heroes. Again not simple at all. The U.S. entered the war to grind Japan into powder at any cost. Any cost.There´s a theory that says the US were looking for a motive to enter the war, and some even say Pearl Harbour was orchestrated by the US navy itself to present that motive. But that´s a whole other story for another forum. As I see it comics have too long promoted the idea that any problem can be solved without killing. Within the comics, mass-murdering super-criminals go free time and time again because the comic industry does not want to part with their successful properties. They want these villainous characters to invoke fear and disgust in the reader, but there is never any real consequence for their actions. And that honestly disgusts me. If comic writers want to show death and destruction -- show the consequences of that death and destruction. Either that, or don't write the supervillain as a mass-murderer that deserves to die for his acts. RSC I see where you comming from, but there are books (and characters) like the Punisher and Wolverine (and the many rip offs of those characters) who do exactly that, kill the villains because for the title characters (and it´s implied that for the readers too) the villain deserved it. On another thread you said you hated Wolverine. But is he not the kind of character that you´re advocating for? This is not a criticism, I´m really curious.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Jun 25, 2007 9:47:27 GMT -5
What isn't realistic about racist portrayals of the enemy? The US had a racist view of the "little yellow monkeys," and for that matter the Japs had a racist view of the US. It was fact, regardless of whether it offends your sensibilites 60 years later. You totally missed my point. I can look at those GA comics today and see why those stories were made and why the "Japs" looked like disformed monsters. What I´m saying, and it has nothing to do with my sensibilities, is that in a realistic war comic that would be produced today that portrayal would be laughgable, I can´t imagine a modern reader believing japanese have fangs or claws. Stern's run only lasted 9 issues, and Stern's Cap killed Baron Blood. Yes, he was an undead monster, but Cap did kill him permanently. Dematteis and Englehart didn't have Cap kill anyone that I recall, but neither did they make a production out of a no-kill stance. Gruenwald on the other hand did have him kill once, but on that and many other occasions made a production out of a no-kill policy. RSC C´mon man, Baron Blood doesn´t really count, for the reason you yourself listed. It would be like saying every time the Avengers destroyed Ultron that made them killers... And I think Baron Blood is back, so... As for Gruenwalds Cap I haven´t read many of those stories, so I cannot comment much, but a character can have a non-kill policy and find himself in a situation where he has to kill. But we have seen that story many times in comics, so if the writer doesn´t have a new take on the subject I would rather have heroes not being killers, or the writer going to write the Punisher.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Jul 13, 2007 20:52:08 GMT -5
past the debate I want to ask a question. It's been three issues and does anybody else notice that even though there has been some action there has been almost no advance in the actual story?
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jul 14, 2007 0:21:43 GMT -5
Thomas was a child of the 40´s, so he probably knew people who fought in the war and wanted to honor them. It´s interesting how, in spite from being younger than Kirby or Lee, Thomas seemed to have more in common with their generation than with guys like Englehart or Adams, who were more or less his age. It could also be political. Both Englehart and Kirby were acknowledged left-wingers. Thomas I don't know about. There are some political issues here. The American left would likely see John Wayne as an anti-hero, and the American right would still see him as a hero. On the other hand I don't think anyone in the US, right or left, seriously argues that the Germans were morally justifiable in WWII. I still honestly think if you polled people about Wayne and Eastwood, a very strong majority would uphold the hero/antihero comparison, regardless of political orientation. The US was certainly looking for a motive to join the war against Hitler. In fact the US fought an undeclared naval war in the Atlantic for almost a year before Pearl. On the other hand, while the US expected that Japan would force war sometime, somewhere, it's simply false to say that the US orchestrated Pearl Harbor. Anyone that says so is either ignorant of the facts or a liar. I see where you comming from, but there are books (and characters) like the Punisher and Wolverine (and the many rip offs of those characters) who do exactly that, kill the villains because for the title characters (and it´s implied that for the readers too) the villain deserved it. On another thread you said you hated Wolverine. But is he not the kind of character that you´re advocating for? This is not a criticism, I´m really curious. To be precise, I hate Wolverine for more reasons besides "he kills people." I hate him primarily because he's vastly overexposed, overrated, and uninteresting. And on the killing point, I don't like Wolverine because, ultimately, he kills because he enjoys killing. Dispensing justice is often incidental to characters like Wolverine and the Punisher. Killing itself is a catharsis for them and they would probably rather kill than anything else. On the other hand, I would have no problem with Captain America killing in a war situation, because there is no argument that Captain America is about justice, not killing. Cap should be capable of killing when the situation demands it, but he would do so ultimately in pursuit of a goal besides the killing itself. He certainly wouldn't enjoy it. You totally missed my point. I can look at those GA comics today and see why those stories were made and why the "Japs" looked like disformed monsters. What I´m saying, and it has nothing to do with my sensibilities, is that in a realistic war comic that would be produced today that portrayal would be laughgable, I can´t imagine a modern reader believing japanese have fangs or claws. Yes, it's true that the demonic portrayals of the enemy common and accepted then would be scorned by many today. However, realism in terms of death and destruction was a separate issue then, and is now. The Golden Age comics could just as easily have had non-demonic portrayals of the Germans and Japs, but still shown Cap mowing them down. It was war. War is about death and destruction, whether you draw the Japs with fangs or not. C´mon man, Baron Blood doesn´t really count, for the reason you yourself listed. It would be like saying every time the Avengers destroyed Ultron that made them killers... And I think Baron Blood is back, so... As for Gruenwalds Cap I haven´t read many of those stories, so I cannot comment much, but a character can have a non-kill policy and find himself in a situation where he has to kill. But we have seen that story many times in comics, so if the writer doesn´t have a new take on the subject I would rather have heroes not being killers, or the writer going to write the Punisher. You and I don't think Baron Boold should count, but Marvel doesn't agree. Roger Stern has Cap agonizing in the moment of decision, which to me is ludicrous. Given Baron Blood's history, I think Cap would have been as close as he could possibly be to eager for the chance to destroy the Baron. I can see a writer with a no-kill policy writing a story that forces the character to kill, to explore the dramatic consequences. On the other hand, Mark Gruenwald went well overboard when he did so. In Cap #321 (IIRC) Cap has to kill. Cap is disguised as a terrorist and doesn't have the use of his shield as a terrorist begins mowing down hostages. Cap's only option is to use the submachinegun that is part of his disguise. He kills the terrorist who has at that point killed several hostages. If that was the end of it, fine. However, Mark Gruenwald has Cap snivel endlessly about how terrible it was to have to kill someone that was in the process of cold-bloodedly murdering hostages. When the rescued hostages are being loaded onto buses at the end of the issue, Cap insists on loading the body of the terrorist he shot onto the bus -- over the strenuous objection of a former hostage. Cap says "I have to avenge him (the terrorist who just murdered several hostages) and my honor!" Total bulls***. RSC
|
|