Civil War Inanity
Just a quick thought on the arguments people are having about Marvel's Civil War, in particular about what kicked it off, the supposed "criminal negligence" of the New Warriors. I read the following comment somewhere:
"When you provoke a fight in a populated area that results in collateral damage, yeah, you better answer for your actions."
Why, I wonder, is this person reading superhero comics? The very concept is based around vigilantism, about provoking fights, about destroying property. Grab any given Marvel back issue, be it one written by Stan Lee, Roy Thomas, Gerry Conway, David Michelinie, Roger Stern, John Byrne, Chris Claremont, Fabian Nicieza, Peter David, Brian Michael Bendis or Mark Millar (just trying to cover a whole chunk of history here, there's dozens more, naturally), and you'll see property being destroyed and, yes, civilians endangered.
While it always bugged me that the X-Men were particularly callous when Claremont wrote them, not giving a hand after destroying a town after a vicious fight with the Juggernaut, for instance, there are apparently a great deal of people out there, including Marvel's own writers, who cannot see that violence and destruction is one of the solid tropes of the genre.
By the above logic, every single hero should be incarcerated, even Captain America (an icon) and Thor (a god!). When Spider-Man engaged Doctor Octopus in battle and indirectly caused George Stacy's death by dodging Ock's blows, did that make him criminally negligent?
I understand that the New Warriors were doing their reality show bit, but come on, you've got established villains, you've got seasoned heroes, why can't they do what they've been doing since Acts Of Vengeance and kick some supervillain butt? What's suddenly different, other than the typical Millar plot-hammering?
Nitro is the one who decided to blow up Stamford. He's the actual criminal. Speedball and the others are just superheroes doing what they always do: fight, and fight, and fight (and actually save lives in the process, imagine that).
On a world where Washington DC was obliterated by Kang the Conqueror, not a dream, not a hoax, it was gone, destroyed, all the citizens dead, it seems weak that this Stamford tragedy is the so-called tipping point to suddenly go after all superheroes and hate their guts. You'd think the logical response would be going after the super-powered criminals and then eliminate them, something the heroes have always been loath to do. That is a moral dilemma, because either the heroes stop the government from killing villains left and right but by doing so allow murderers to make more victims, or they help them and become accessories to murder themselves.
Right now we get a meek retread of the selfsame Super Power Registration Act that was doled out back in the late 80s during the very Acts Of Vengeance storyline that originated the New Warriors. If there were any inkling that the creators at Marvel are aware of their own past stories, and would use them as a foundation for the current storyline, that'd be something, at least. But all I'm sensing is a bunch of amateurs trying to be politically relevant, being supported by either a great deal of newbie fanboys who don't know much about Marvel before Quesada came along, or possibly old-timers who have become disdainful of the genre and like seeing it shaken up and tossed about.
I just find it hard to fathom that anyone who's enjoyed Marvel for what it originally stood for, i.e. superhero punching meets high (melo)drama, telling a compelling story in the process that made you care about not just the heroes but the villains as well (even more so, in some ways, because antagonistsdo make a character), would be a fan of the recurring deconstruction of the core elements, trying to apply "real life" to situations that are meant to be fantastic.
And if you think I'm ranting now, while they're just playing around with revealing identities and some same-old persecuting of the good guys (when applying that same "real life", obviously registering is the only decent thing to do though, when you've got the power to blow people to atoms by sneezing, so to speak, so the entire argument is moot anyway), just wait until they start mucking about with Spider-Man's marriage. AGAIN.
Hmm, using a weblog for ranting, I should do it more :p
"When you provoke a fight in a populated area that results in collateral damage, yeah, you better answer for your actions."
Why, I wonder, is this person reading superhero comics? The very concept is based around vigilantism, about provoking fights, about destroying property. Grab any given Marvel back issue, be it one written by Stan Lee, Roy Thomas, Gerry Conway, David Michelinie, Roger Stern, John Byrne, Chris Claremont, Fabian Nicieza, Peter David, Brian Michael Bendis or Mark Millar (just trying to cover a whole chunk of history here, there's dozens more, naturally), and you'll see property being destroyed and, yes, civilians endangered.
While it always bugged me that the X-Men were particularly callous when Claremont wrote them, not giving a hand after destroying a town after a vicious fight with the Juggernaut, for instance, there are apparently a great deal of people out there, including Marvel's own writers, who cannot see that violence and destruction is one of the solid tropes of the genre.
By the above logic, every single hero should be incarcerated, even Captain America (an icon) and Thor (a god!). When Spider-Man engaged Doctor Octopus in battle and indirectly caused George Stacy's death by dodging Ock's blows, did that make him criminally negligent?
I understand that the New Warriors were doing their reality show bit, but come on, you've got established villains, you've got seasoned heroes, why can't they do what they've been doing since Acts Of Vengeance and kick some supervillain butt? What's suddenly different, other than the typical Millar plot-hammering?
Nitro is the one who decided to blow up Stamford. He's the actual criminal. Speedball and the others are just superheroes doing what they always do: fight, and fight, and fight (and actually save lives in the process, imagine that).
On a world where Washington DC was obliterated by Kang the Conqueror, not a dream, not a hoax, it was gone, destroyed, all the citizens dead, it seems weak that this Stamford tragedy is the so-called tipping point to suddenly go after all superheroes and hate their guts. You'd think the logical response would be going after the super-powered criminals and then eliminate them, something the heroes have always been loath to do. That is a moral dilemma, because either the heroes stop the government from killing villains left and right but by doing so allow murderers to make more victims, or they help them and become accessories to murder themselves.
Right now we get a meek retread of the selfsame Super Power Registration Act that was doled out back in the late 80s during the very Acts Of Vengeance storyline that originated the New Warriors. If there were any inkling that the creators at Marvel are aware of their own past stories, and would use them as a foundation for the current storyline, that'd be something, at least. But all I'm sensing is a bunch of amateurs trying to be politically relevant, being supported by either a great deal of newbie fanboys who don't know much about Marvel before Quesada came along, or possibly old-timers who have become disdainful of the genre and like seeing it shaken up and tossed about.
I just find it hard to fathom that anyone who's enjoyed Marvel for what it originally stood for, i.e. superhero punching meets high (melo)drama, telling a compelling story in the process that made you care about not just the heroes but the villains as well (even more so, in some ways, because antagonistsdo make a character), would be a fan of the recurring deconstruction of the core elements, trying to apply "real life" to situations that are meant to be fantastic.
And if you think I'm ranting now, while they're just playing around with revealing identities and some same-old persecuting of the good guys (when applying that same "real life", obviously registering is the only decent thing to do though, when you've got the power to blow people to atoms by sneezing, so to speak, so the entire argument is moot anyway), just wait until they start mucking about with Spider-Man's marriage. AGAIN.
Hmm, using a weblog for ranting, I should do it more :p
posted by Peter at 7:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home