She may have died in Ultimate. I don’t follow it. I seem to recall her being alive for a bit in it. She may have died though.
She did die in USM. Carnage killed her rather randomly.
Arac - why do you say that? I thought Civil War showed a lot of insight into fairly complex issues, issues that get precious little discussion in other mainstream mass-media.
I don’t follow Ultimate, either, I just really like Gwen Stacey and get pissed every time she is killed.
I don’t know, I listen primarily to punk, so I may just be used to public political commentaries and statements, as it’s the bread-and-butter of my favourite genre of music. I agree Civil War pointed out and expressed some issues, it just seemed too terribly afraid of losing sales by taking any form of a stand. In CW:F, this makes sense, as it is about two journalists from opposing sides of the issue, theoretically, both of whom end up finding journalistic objectivity in their reporting process. However, in the main magazine, putting Captain America against the act is the only form of a Stand they really take on the issue of whether or not it is moral. Even that is a small stand, since Captain America’s position is based solely on not wanting to hunt down Superheroes, by his claim (which, by the way, he does anyway). I’m not even of the opinion they should have taken a stronger stand against Registration, because that was my opinion, just that they should have had the balls to take some kind of stand. A Political Allegory without a stance is, in my estimation (and this is entirely my opinion, so may be our essential point of contention), just a stolen plotline by writers too lazy to come up with a story they didn’t already see on the evening news.
I haven’t been reading all the mags in the series, just the main two and a few of the side magazines (primarily the X-Mags), so maybe they made big political points elsewhere that I missed. Nicieza tried in Cable and Deadpool, but he also gave the two main characters opposite (and, again, totally nonsensical, in Deadpool’s case) opinions, so he, again, balanced it out. Cable’s opinion, as one not of a madman, one of someone who has seen the future, and one of someone who is being written with their actual character personality largely intact, does have slightly more weight, but the opposition still shows me that Marvel didn’t want anybody getting to take a stand on this.
I disagree, Arac. A political story without the author(s) taking a stance is actually better. To shy away from didacticism and let the reader decide without it being a “Lady and the Tiger” story takes good writing. It is as the real world is, where the answers to issues are much muddy rather than concrete. Of course, this is after never having read Civil War (I’ll wait for the trade paperback), but I know enough about creative writing to talk about it generally.
Huh… Hadn’t the captain already died and come back in the past? I think it’s happened at least once before.
Merl: Listing all the story flaws in Civil War would take too much space. Instead, I’ll post the ones I find most annoying, and direct you to the Comics Book Resources Boards, where I post often, for plenty of more examples:
In terms of story:
-The villain responsible for the Stamford Massacre, Nitro, was seen only in the first issue, and not in any of the later issues, or even mentioned (this is because they handled him in the Wolverine comics.) I understand that the focus of the story was on the heroes and not him, but still, if you don’t know about the tie-in, you have to ask yourself “what happened with the killer?” at the end.
-Everybody acted in the story as if Stamford’s destruction was clearly the New Warriors’ fault. However, as written, the Warriors clearly took down the hidden villains quickly and efficiently; It just happened that one of them was far more powerful than they expected. How is that their fault? That could happen to any hero. Everybody acts as if the disaster happened because they were cocky or were doing it just for the cameras, but that’s not the case. I can see what the writer was shooting for, but if he wanted an incident where heroes could be blamed for great loss of life, he could’ve easily done it better. Example: one of the villains in Stamford, Cobalt Man, used a nuclear-powered armor. If one of the kids had monkeyed around with it, causing the explosion, THEN you could argue it happened due to their being irresposible.
-You say the argument was balanced on both sides: that was not the case. There was hardly any actual discussion of the facts; Millar basically had someone say a few words, then acted as if that was enough to prove his point, then proceeded with the fight scenes. That’s not how you handle a story like this; you need more exposition. The very fact some of the tie-ins (such as the Captain America/Iron Man one) were explicitly written to EXPLAIN the points of the story proves it. Both sides were also shown committing questionable acts (Iron Man mind-controls villains into hunting the heroes, Captain America agrees to get help from The Punisher) but in the last episode, it’s Cap who surrenders and Iron Man who basically gloats that he was right and that his plan will be for the best (that remains to be seen.)
As for political statements, indeed there were many; the parallels to incidents like the Columbine Shooting, Guantanamo, and 911 among others are obvious. Whether this is good or not however is a matter of taste; if you care for that, OK, but I didn’t.
And sorry, but you simply cannot ignore the fact that continuity was not just important but vital to this story. Its very purpose was to change the Status Quo in the official Marvel Universe; otherwise they would’ve made this a WHAT IF? story or an Ultimate Marvel one. And there are SO many errors in this regard! The most glaring one: the assumption that, upon finding themselves in opposing sides of a moral conflict, Cap and Stark would just go to blows instead of trying to talk things out first. In fact, as the CA/IM tie-in proved, this has happened so many times by now, that the two of them had set up special protocols to contact each other in such a case. (I had assumed that the Special had taken place before the big fight in CW #3, but apparently, it doesn’t, which makes no sense.) CW couldn’t even keep up with its own tie-ins, which is were the most glaring errors show up:
-In Wolverine, Nitro is captured and we find out his powers were enhanced by the Damage Control company intentionally so he would provide them with more collateral damage to repair. This is an important revelation, because it means that Stamford would’ve happened ANYWAY, if not there then in another place. Absolutely no mention of this fact is made in the main series.
-In addition to the Cap/Iron Man special, there was also a story where Iron Man tries to talk to Cap, except it turns out to be a trap for him (the very reverse of CW #3) DESPITE their already having concluded they had nothing more to say to each other. Btw, Stark defeats America and his team in this story BUT CHOOSES TO LET THEM GO.
-The worst one: In Spider-Man, Spidey finds out that the superhero prison is permanent, not a temporary solution (that’s why it was located in another dimension- so the heroes’ civil rights could be ignored.) This is what makes Spidey decide to leave Iron Man’s side. Before he can, he is attacked by Stark…
…with the events continued in CW #5, where it’s make to look as if SPIDER-MAN had attacked Iron Man, and it is said that the prison was only a temporary solution. Huh?
Ultimately, Civil War was a mess. It could’ve been an interesting, even great story; it certainly had a premise that had to be adressed sooner or later (the legality of super heroes) but it’s clear that the writer (Millar) just wrote things according to his view of the Marvel Universe and its characters (wth a few changes dictated by the company) then handled the story back without bothering to see how it fitted with the tie-ins (he’s on record as saying he didn’t care about them.)
There is also the matter of typeface being killed in one battle, and then he’s just there, chill and relaxed, ready for the fight, in Civil War 6. I mean, people joke about comic book deaths, but that’s ridiculous.
GAP: Unbiased political staments are the place of journalism, in my opinion. If the political allegory adds virtually nothing to issue, I don’t see why it was created. Of course, this only applies to purely political works; a novel which takes a balanced stance on a political issue but explores the psyche of characters or has some other artistic merit is a different matter. The Civil War is not such a work; the characters and plots are all regimented, bended, strained, and abused to fit into the political idea. He is essnetially just taking a political plot, using it to subvert any existing character personalities until they fit, and leaves out any meaningful stance or commentary either way.
The issues aren’t concrete in teh real world, but in the real world, stances are still taken. To argue one should not take stances in writing, based upon complex issues, as one does in life, doesn’t really make sense to me.
The issue isn’t about Nitro. It’s not even about the New Warriors. It was about people with powers throwing their weight around (as they have in Marvel’s America for decades) with no consequences to themselves and getting innocent people killed. This latest event simply pushed the regular people over the edge.
Well first of all, everyone in America already agreed that “super villains” weren’t good people and violate the law and should be brought to “justice.” But the actions of the New Warriors showed that it wasn’t just the villains who should be scrutinized. <i>They</i> provoked the fight, the villains were just hanging out in a house. And their reasons for doing it are highly questionable. Ratings for a TV show? What the fuck? Furthermore, even if it wasn’t “their fault” in a sense of moral wrongdoing, it’s still their responsibility for causing the actions. That’s the whole point of the premise, super powered people have acted as if the rules of the world don’t apply to them for decades and it’s caused enormous pain for countless people.
Are you kidding me? The entire first two issues were all about the debate and setting the scene. Of course both sides do questionable acts, it demonstrates how their initial valid arguments are getting warped and twisted due to escalation. This is why Captain America surrenders, his line “we’re just fighting,” is such a realization of what’s happened and is so sad when you read it. As for the need for more talking, I dunno, I thought everyone realized how shitty thought balloons and exposition was a decade ago in terms of telling a plausible story. Besides, “talking” the debate out became moot the moment Commander Hill sicced the soldiers on Cap as soon as he refused to help track down superheroes, so it’s a little late for a tea party at that point.
What is there to talk about? They’re on opposite sides of a polarized issue. If CA says “no hero needs to be registered,” and Stark says “every hero needs to be registered,” then there is nothing to hash out. No sort of compromise makes any kind of reasonable sense. Besides that, I think Iron Man was willing to discuss some of this stuff, but Cap wouldn’t let him. This is because as I earlier mentioned, a tremendous amount of force was brought <i>very quickly</i> against those who opposed the Act. Cap was shot at immediately upon disagreeing. Violence was also used very quickly against anyone the moment they didn’t want to play along with the Act. So it’s little surprised when they first clash (at a location Stark set up as a trap no less) that Cap wouldn’t have a pow-wow. Again, this ties into the theme of escalation inherent in the work.
Whether or not Nitro was rigged to explode doesn’t matter to the main story though. What matters is that people with powers were walking around and had no consequences tied to their actions unless they got beat up by another powered person. Besides, if the Stark camp knew about this they’d probably cover it up, and the Cap side may not have known about this and had no means of sending out press releases anyway.
Ok? This shows that Stark isn’t totally the bad guy here, and that’s important because having Cap be anti-registration puts a major thumb on the scale on his side in terms of who we’re supposed to root for. But again, it’s not really that relevant to the main story. f Stark chose to let them go there, he wasn’t planning to in CW #3. What, did you want an asterisk in CW #3 saying “this was the reverse of IM/CA #345 true believers!”
I don’t think it’s made to look that way at all in CW #5. Spider-Man wants to leave, Stark won’t let him. After Spidey escapes (and after Stark doesn’t want strong force used against him) it’s spun by the people in charge that Spider-Man initiated the problems. I’d have to review CW #5 a little more closely to get the chronology down pat, but I think that’s the explanation for any difference you saw.
I would say it’s the tie-in writers’ responsibility to fit their events with the main book, not the other way around. Also I think what you’re demanding in terms of writing coordination is an insurmountable task, and I don’t think the flaws you suggested are that big a deal anyway.
There were two main books, and even with each other, they were inconsistant.
Also, two villians come to Captain America’s hideout to talk it out, and the Punisher kills them. Captain America gets mad, yeah, but both sides have fanatics. I think Civil War was pretty neutral.
Frontline, on the other hand, had a distinct anti-registration bias.
Does anyone know of a website where they have transcripts(ideally) or summaries of this Civil War series, so I can know what you guys are talking about?
I already said that the story wasn’t about Nitro. But, if you read it from the POV of the average reader, the question of what happened with him has to come up. The book didn’t address it.
It was about people with powers throwing their weight around (as they have in Marvel’s America for decades) with no consequences to themselves and getting innocent people killed. This latest event simply pushed the regular people over the edge.
That’s true only as regards the villains, Merl. Again: on three decades of Marvel comics stories I’ve read, the ocassions where death and unjustified destruction have been caused by heroes have been very rare. And when it has happened, they’ve been caused either by accident, or by characters that are not true heroes at all (or they’ve been mind-controlled.) If you’re speaking from Ultimate Marvel stories, those don’t count here. The fact is, the heroes not only are not guilty of destructive recklessness but have also been stemming the destruction that would’ve happened anyway had they not intervened. This is a central concept of super heroes, Merl- if you suddenly start accepting the fact that heroes are almost as dangerous as villains, you bring down the very fundation of Marvel Comics. Why would anyone care for them then?
But the actions of the New Warriors showed that it wasn’t just the villains who should be scrutinized. <i>They</i> provoked the fight, the villains were just hanging out in a house. And their reasons for doing it are highly questionable. Ratings for a TV show? What the fuck? Furthermore, even if it wasn’t “their fault” in a sense of moral wrongdoing, it’s still their responsibility for causing the actions.
If you had read the previous New Warriors stories (THERE’S that pesky continuity again!) you would know that the NW lost their funding, and took the TV Show gig to gain money so they could continue acting as a team, not the other way around. Sure, they got a bit too involved into the whole TV publicity thing, but again, they simply weren’t the irresponsible superbeings CW paints them as. There were other characters that could’ve been used better for this purpose (like the utterly mercenary X-Statix- I know, they had already gotten killed before CW, I’m just using an example.) Or maybe the Skrull Kill Krew. I wouldn’t miss those “heroes” either.
Also, you’re assuming that nothing would’ve happened if the NW had left the villains alone. Is that how things usually work? Gee, four known KILLERS including an insane one (Nitro) hiding in a small town without heroes or strong authorities. Yes, I’m sure things would’ve been OK. 
And even in the event that the NW HAD been guilty- how does it follow that ALL heroes need supervision? Doesn’t the Avengers or the Fantastic Four have pretty good records of both action and government cooperation?
Are you kidding me? The entire first two issues were all about the debate and setting the scene.
And did a very poor job of it. How does Millar prove that the public now hates the heroes? By having a bunch of punks kick around the Human Torch? (they must’ve been high on drugs, too, or would you accost a guy you know can incinerate you on the spot?) Not to mention there was a LOT of stuff that should’ve been included but didn’t: Where was the Commission on Super Human Activities on all this? It’s THEIR job to decide if such laws should be passed. And how about the fact that until recently the Secretary of Defense was actually THE RED SKULL in disguise?Or the years of persecution the X-Men have faced? And where were the people who KNOW the heroes are trustworthy and the world owes them their lives several times over? Why didn’t we see politicians defend them, rallies supporting them etc? Balanced coverage? Please.
This is why Captain America surrenders, his line “we’re just fighting,” is such a realization of what’s happened and is so sad when you read it.
Right, because of ALL people, Captain America, the one who kept his cool and always tried to negotiate peace before the fisticuffs started (see the Avengers/X-Men or Avengers /Thunderbolts miniseries for examples) would be the one NOT to realize how pointless fighting was from the start. :no2:
As for the need for more talking, I dunno, I thought everyone realized how shitty thought balloons and exposition was a decade ago in terms of telling a plausible story.
Thought balloons helped understand the characters a LOT. Sure, sometimes it got to ridiculous lengths, but a story like CW in particular needed to let us know how the characters truly felt about the events. I’ll bet fewer people would have considered Stark a villain or Rogers an idiot if they could’ve seen what they were thinking.
Besides, “talking” the debate out became moot the moment Commander Hill sicced the soldiers on Cap as soon as he refused to help track down superheroes, so it’s a little late for a tea party at that point.
Hill indeed was wrong to both try to order Cap around and to try to arrest him, especially for breaking a law that had NOT been passed yet. That only proves, however, that SHIELD was crooked. I expected Cap to check out with other sources to find out if the government was equally corrupted first, and (I insist) to contact Stark and the Pro heroes to find out if they REALLY were going to stand against him. But I guess watching Cap surf on a plane was more important storywise.
Whether or not Nitro was rigged to explode doesn’t matter to the main story though. What matters is that people with powers were walking around and had no consequences tied to their actions unless they got beat up by another powered person. Besides, if the Stark camp knew about this they’d probably cover it up, and the Cap side may not have known about this and had no means of sending out press releases anyway.
Why would Stark cover up something that would help to reduce the amount of post-Stamford angst? Is he working for the public’s good or for his own Agenda? And the truth about Nitro has to be out, Wolverine killed their leader and then told Miriam Sharpe (a US senator) about it. Unless she decided to keep it quiet, making her a true villain. And with all the street-level and spy heroes in Marvel, not to mention reporters like Ben Urich, evidence had to be found out to prove it. But that’s what Marvel characters would have NORMALLY done, of course.
. f Stark chose to let them go there, he wasn’t planning to in CW #3. What, did you want an asterisk in CW #3 saying “this was the reverse of IM/CA #345 true believers!”
More like having the CA/IM events take place in the main series and a better reason for the hero fight to be provided.
I don’t think it’s made to look that way at all in CW #5. Spider-Man wants to leave, Stark won’t let him.
And why not? Spider-Man didn’t say he wanted to join the Antis, he said he was quitting, wich, if I read the whole SHRA right, was his RIGHT.
I’d have to review CW #5 a little more closely to get the chronology down pat, but I think that’s the explanation for any difference you saw.
And how do you explain the difference in statements over the purpose of the “42” prison, both MADE by Iron Man, in those issues?
I would say it’s the tie-in writers’ responsibility to fit their events with the main book, not the other way around. Also I think what you’re demanding in terms of writing coordination is an insurmountable task, and I don’t think the flaws you suggested are that big a deal anyway.
I respect your opinion but don’t share it. And btw, I’ve seen far more complicated crossovers handled with better coordination in the past (Infinity Crisis comes to mind, much as I hated it.)
Gaah, I didn’t intend to carryover the CBR debates here. Those are long and tiring. I hope we don’t go at it much longer, Merl.
And now for a post aimed at OTHER posters in this thread!:biggrin:
Curtis: Check out Wikipedia.com for several excellent summaries of CW and its crossovers, plus links to websites that cover them more deeply.
Arac: Typeface died in Frontline #10, part of which takes place during Civil War #7, not 6.
Ren: See my link in my post above to find out about Cap’s other “deaths”.
984: Uncle Ben turned up alive recently. It was actually his counterpart from an alternate Earth. I dunno what happened to him, but I’ll bet they killed him off again.
Rigmarole: I’ve read personally about 5 of the storylines mentioned in the article. Keep in mind not all of them were “real” deaths, however.
Alright, so why is the current death getting so much more attention than the previous one? Or is it just because of the polictical scenario and how the comcis relate to it?
An Uncle Ben from an alternate, nonmajor continuity does not count, and you know it.
Was Uncle Ben named after the rice brand btw? I was thinking about it while cooking.
Ren: That’s what I believe. Cap’s latest death would probably not have gotten such press if we weren’t in times where the values of America are getting tested so much.
984: Yeah, that was what I thougth, too, so I paid the new “Uncle Ben” no attention, convinced he would go away at the end of the story. Except I checked Wikipedia, and it seems he’s still hanging around the main Marvel Universe (and even killed the Spider-Man of his home reality when he came to pick him up!) Let’s see if they use him again or if he goes to the same Story Limbo that Gwen Stacy’s children with Norman Osborn went to.
Rigmarole: I suppose it’s possible, but I doubt it. We’ll have to ask Stan Lee.
Oh, well, good, so at least it can keep which characters are dead straight. Now if only it could keep straight which characters are which.
Who wants to bet that they get someone to take over his role, then bring him back and we have a battle of the Americas? Maybe one of them becomes "Colonel’ America, and thus it brings our universe closer together to the zombie one.
Just so long as we do not have to go through the reign of the Captain Americas. Like they did with superman
anyway, I won’t respond to your comments in-depth Wilfredo, since I bet both of us don’t want to be in a long drawn-out quote-fest, but I guess you’re more of a “traditional” comic book fan than I am, so we’re probably going to enjoy different things out of our books. And that’s cool.