Marvel Universe >> View Thread

Author
Nitz the Bloody




Just got the latest issue of Wizard, which has a Director's Commentary on Civil War. Millar and McNiven show up to give their commentary on the series post-publication, but unfortunately they don't say much that hasn't been said before on the Internet. Much of the commentary is their defense of the controversial moments in the series, followed by a lot of self-congratulation towards each other and some immature joking about Sue Storm's T&A.

( Of course, this IS Wizard, so they do know their audience. Which is no longer me, since the only part of Wizard that I really cared about-- the TPB reviews-- has been cut out, replaced with a mere laundry list of graphic novel solicitations But that's neither here nor there ).

Anyway some things of note....

-- The scene of all the heroes gathered to discuss the SHRA in the first issue is based on a splash page by John Buscema, circa Yellowjacket and the Wasp's wedding. In that scene, the heroes are casually partying and sipping non-alcoholic punch. In Millar and McNiven's scene, they're arguing about the Act, with some of them uncharacteristically supporting it. Something seems very wrong about how the original shot was used for this.

-- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.

-- Discussion of an email Millar got about how Thor is an Aryan Superman taking down one of the few black heroes in Marvel. Millar defends himself by saying that he just wanted to kill off a giant hero. While I don't think that Millar is a racist, I can't believe that he's surprised that someone would read in those overtones.

-- Comparison of Cap and the Punisher as " the same guy " because they both represent American wars in the 20th century. Seems rather oblivious to the individual personalities of both characters ( that Cap is the MU's paragon of virtue, and Frank is a serial killer who happens to go after people who arguably deserve it ).

-- Close-up on Woody Allen, who makes a cameo amongst the crowds in the final issue.

Anyone else read this? I'm not reccomending it, but it is certainly interesting ( if troubling ).


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
Sandman




> Just got the latest issue of Wizard, which has a Director's Commentary on Civil War. Millar and McNiven show up to give their commentary on the series post-publication, but unfortunately they don't say much that hasn't been said before on the Internet. Much of the commentary is their defense of the controversial moments in the series, followed by a lot of self-congratulation towards each other and some immature joking about Sue Storm's T&A.
>
> ( Of course, this IS Wizard, so they do know their audience. Which is no longer me, since the only part of Wizard that I really cared about-- the TPB reviews-- has been cut out, replaced with a mere laundry list of graphic novel solicitations But that's neither here nor there ).
>
> Anyway some things of note....
>
> -- The scene of all the heroes gathered to discuss the SHRA in the first issue is based on a splash page by John Buscema, circa Yellowjacket and the Wasp's wedding. In that scene, the heroes are casually partying and sipping non-alcoholic punch. In Millar and McNiven's scene, they're arguing about the Act, with some of them uncharacteristically supporting it. Something seems very wrong about how the original shot was used for this.
>
> -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.

Not to mention that Tony was already plowing down super-heroes with an iron fist which is like saying that Cap should have waited for the nazis to strike his personal being before he fought in WW2, then of coarse there's the fact that it was a trap and that the anti-regs were being surround by S.H.I.E.L.D., as well as the fact that Cap understandably believed he would be made to disappear because of Director Hill if he surrendered. He made the right choice to fight against a cure that's worse then the disease while Miller seems to be one of those comic book writers who think they're political experts.
>
> -- Discussion of an email Millar got about how Thor is an Aryan Superman taking down one of the few black heroes in Marvel. Millar defends himself by saying that he just wanted to kill off a giant hero. While I don't think that Millar is a racist, I can't believe that he's surprised that someone would read in those overtones.
>
> -- Comparison of Cap and the Punisher as " the same guy " because they both represent American wars in the 20th century. Seems rather oblivious to the individual personalities of both characters ( that Cap is the MU's paragon of virtue, and Frank is a serial killer who happens to go after people who arguably deserve it ).
>
> -- Close-up on Woody Allen, who makes a cameo amongst the crowds in the final issue.
>
> Anyone else read this? I'm not reccomending it, but it is certainly interesting ( if troubling ).


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP
jay




> -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch (which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.

It should be noted here, though, that Tony was mostly demonized in the Civil War-related crossovers, not in the main book Millar wrote. I started a ruckus here some time ago when I pointed out that Tony's position in the overall story was entirely defensible from the standpoint of realpolitik. Some of his methods, and the astonishing hubris on display (meant to reflect that of the neo-cons in the Bush administration) were the things to which people really objected.


Posted with Netscape Navigator 7.2 on Windows 98
Evil G:DR




> Just got the latest issue of Wizard, which has a Director's Commentary on Civil War. Millar and McNiven show up to give their commentary on the series post-publication, but unfortunately they don't say much that hasn't been said before on the Internet.

There've been so many online interviews, there probably isn't much new left to say, true.

> Much of the commentary is their defense of the controversial moments in the series, followed by a lot of self-congratulation towards each other and some immature joking about Sue Storm's T&A.

Not that scene with Johnny carrying her in mid-flight?

> ( Of course, this IS Wizard, so they do know their audience. Which is no longer me, since the only part of Wizard that I really cared about-- the TPB reviews-- has been cut out, replaced with a mere laundry list of graphic novel solicitations But that's neither here nor there ).

I'm surprised you still bother, given that most of the news in it gets reported online weeks earlier.

> Anyway some things of note....
>
> -- The scene of all the heroes gathered to discuss the SHRA in the first issue is based on a splash page by John Buscema, circa Yellowjacket and the Wasp's wedding. In that scene, the heroes are casually partying and sipping non-alcoholic punch. In Millar and McNiven's scene, they're arguing about the Act, with some of them uncharacteristically supporting it. Something seems very wrong about how the original shot was used for this.

Do they identify who the guy in the orange (or was it yellow?) mask who appeared in one panel was? That's still confusing me.

But I'm not sure why the idea of anyone supporting registration is "uncharacteristic". The ones with no secret ID who already work for the government had no real reason to oppose it. Yes, Reed has changed his mind on the subject, but the world is a very different place since last time he had to think on the matter in 1989.

> -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.

Since the event ended, Millar's been pretty consistent in his statements that Tony was right, and that compromise with the government is less-worse than a masked elite standing unaccountable and above the law, and less-worse than a running battle with their own government, less-worse than ignoring the will of the people, less-worse than "we're going to pick and choose which laws we obey".

> -- Discussion of an email Millar got about how Thor is an Aryan Superman taking down one of the few black heroes in Marvel. Millar defends himself by saying that he just wanted to kill off a giant hero. While I don't think that Millar is a racist, I can't believe that he's surprised that someone would read in those overtones.

Well, let's face it, regardless of who or what the method of death is, it's flat-out impossible for a comics writer to kill (or do anything else bad to) any character that isn't a straight white male without getting accused of prejudice or racism by knee-jerk reactionaries.

Millar is known for having a giant-killing fetish, and poor Bill Foster is probably the only giant hero Marvel would let him kill off and have him stay dead (Millar has made the point that he went for killing off minor characters in Civil War so that the deaths would actually stick).

Do they discuss the idea of creating FrankenThor in any more detail? As much as I love the concept, he has so little role after #4, it tends to feel like he only exists for a bait-and-switch shock ending to #3.

> -- Comparison of Cap and the Punisher as " the same guy " because they both represent American wars in the 20th century. Seems rather oblivious to the individual personalities of both characters ( that Cap is the MU's paragon of virtue, and Frank is a serial killer who happens to go after people who arguably deserve it ).

That the Punisher has started going after goofball supervillains who don't really deserve anything approaching a bloody death tends to suggest he's crossed any line of being able to justify his actions.

We've seen Cap/Punisher comparisons before, as the products of America's war's, notably in 'Punisher Kills the Marvel Universe', so it's not like Millar pulled it out of nowhere. And they've managed to work together before, so it's not improbable that Cap would allow him onto the team, and in doing so let in someone who's an even worse killer than any of the criminals that Tony signed up.

And once he realises his mistake, we get the sheer joy of the beatdown.

> -- Close-up on Woody Allen, who makes a cameo amongst the crowds in the final issue.

I can't say I noticed that. I wonder whose side he's on.

> Anyone else read this? I'm not reccomending it, but it is certainly interesting ( if troubling ).

Not worth picking the issue up for, then?


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Omar Karindu





> But I'm not sure why the idea of anyone supporting registration is "uncharacteristic". The ones with no secret ID who already work for the government had no real reason to oppose it. Yes, Reed has changed his mind on the subject, but the world is a very different place since last time he had to think on the matter in 1989.

It might have been nice if Marvel had worked out some relatively clear version of what the SHRA was and made sure all th writers got the memo. The "gotta be registered and take basic training" bit is far more defensible than the "backdoor draft/Initiative" angle.

That said, the enforcement of the Act, even as portrayed in the mini itself, is draconian and frankly disgusting. Secret extradimensional prisons and detention without trial for anyone refusing to register? And that's the "good guy" position?

It's especially ludicrous when you reaize that merely being detained and unmasked effectively completes the bulk of the registration process anyway. Once you're in the system, would it matter if you were offering some putative resistance to...being entered into the system?

> > -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.
>
> Since the event ended, Millar's been pretty consistent in his statements that Tony was right, and that compromise with the government is less-worse than a masked elite standing unaccountable and above the law, and less-worse than a running battle with their own government, less-worse than ignoring the will of the people, less-worse than "we're going to pick and choose which laws we obey".

And this is why Mark Millar has become fundamentally inapable of writing Marvel-style superhero fiction that works. He simply misses the underlying premise of the genre: that the heroes are not an "elite" in the first place. Yes, in the "real world" masked vigilantes would be an awful thing, because the real-world sorts of people who engage in systematic and sustained vigilante campaigns tend to be pretty awful people. But that's simply never been true of the vast bulk of Marvel's underdog (and often hangdog) heroes. Does anyone in their right mind really think of Spider-Man as a dangerous elitist?

It's imply not a reading that can be applied successfully to...well, the pre-Civil War Marvel Universe. If any heroes were part of an elite, they were the Avengers. And the Avengers, of course, spent the majority of their history very much tied up with the government.

I might add that using Iron Man and the Illuminati as the lead-up certainly didn't help whatever specious point Millar meant to make. If you're arguing against masked elitism, it's a bit hard not to think that the Illuminati secretly meeting to decide whether the superhuman community -- whom nobody asked them to represent, mind you -- should or shouldn't comply with the law.

There's also the basic problem Millar seems to have utterly, abysmally missed: the SHRA isn't being enforced or run by directly elected officials. It's being administered, per the end of CW #7, by a largely unaccountable international spy agency and supported by two of the most elitist superheroes around (Tony and Millar-Reed, who does not resemble any other Reed).

It's not as if Tony Stark is currently responsible to "the people," now is it? Yet Millar seems to think that a centralized and sinfinitely classifiable administration of superhumans granted official police powers is less elitist than a loose confederation of gifted amateurs so long as Congress passed a law permitting it. For God's sake, he really seems to be arguing that we'd all be better off if, say, the NSA ran the prison system and the police.

Back when Millar was writing The Authority, fans of his run often argued that he was as hard on the team's quasi-fascism as on their largely one-dimensional opponents when someone made the point that the Authority themselves were effectively totalitarian enforces of their own private laws.

It's rather harder to do that after reading Civil War; Millar really seems to like stories about law enforcement by way of black ops and wetwork and the like. There's a certain fetishization of the ubermenschen-as-hard-man in a lot of his work, and I'm becoming quite uncomfortble with him as a writer as a result. The way in which his work presents ideas of democracy and law isn't so much challenging or daring as morally imbecilic, and I'm rapidly tiring of it.

His work genuinely seems incapable of containing or getting over the idea that not every law enacted via a democratic-republican process advances the interests of democracy. And that's a lesson I imagine a seventh-grader in a Histry or Civics class could work out.

Millar's work has crossed the line for me from deeply irritating to ethically indefensible. Luckily for me, it's also becoming increasingly difficult to defend aesthetically, so perhaps I can just be done with his writing for good and all.

- Omar Karindu

"A Renoir. I have three, myself. I had four, but ordered one burned...It displeased me." -- Doctor Doom

"It's not, 'Oh, they killed Sue Dibney and I always loved that character,' it's 'Oh, they broke a story engine that could have told a thousand stories in order to publish a single 'important' one.'" -- John Seavey


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
Omar Karindu




> > -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch (which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.
>
> It should be noted here, though, that Tony was mostly demonized in the Civil War-related crossovers, not in the main book Millar wrote. I started a ruckus here some time ago when I pointed out that Tony's position in the overall story was entirely defensible from the standpoint of realpolitik. Some of his methods, and the astonishing hubris on display (meant to reflect that of the neo-cons in the Bush administration) were the things to which people really objected.

Except that when Millar is running around expressing his bafflement that Tony was considered wrong by many readers, it also suggests that he has no problem with the sort of hubris displayed and methodology employed. And that doesn't really make me sympathetic to any of his points; he seems as if he'd be quite happy with an "any and all measures" approach. And I'd say that history generally doesn't reflect well on that attitude.

- Omar Karindu

"A Renoir. I have three, myself. I had four, but ordered one burned...It displeased me." -- Doctor Doom

"It's not, 'Oh, they killed Sue Dibney and I always loved that character,' it's 'Oh, they broke a story engine that could have told a thousand stories in order to publish a single 'important' one.'" -- John Seavey


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
seeker





>
> -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.
>
I admit Stark is made to look worse in other issues, but Millar did not make Stark look that good in the main series. The Negative Zone prison to hold American citizens, the cloning of Thor, the use of known mass murderers. What of that is meant to look good? I can understand trying to work with the government and compromising with it. Yet, cloning a god to have as your own personal superweapon? Throwing American citizens in prison in another dimension. The ACLU would be throwing a fit. And than the use of known mass murderers? Some like Taskmaster and Deadpool are mercenaries so they usually don't get their jollies by killing and if you tell them theyr pay check relies on not harming civilians or bringing in people alive they would usually abide by it. Others like the Wrecking Crew and the Green Goblin don't care one way or another.

> -- Comparison of Cap and the Punisher as " the same guy " because they both represent American wars in the 20th century. Seems rather oblivious to the individual personalities of both characters ( that Cap is the MU's paragon of virtue, and Frank is a serial killer who happens to go after people who arguably deserve it ).
>
I do agree with you. If Cap and the Punisher both represent American wars than in many ways they represent opposite sides of the same coin or at least ideals. How did he come to this conclusion?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.12 on Windows XP
Jase




> Just got the latest issue of Wizard, which has a Director's Commentary on Civil War. Millar and McNiven show up to give their commentary on the series post-publication, but unfortunately they don't say much that hasn't been said before on the Internet. Much of the commentary is their defense of the controversial moments in the series, followed by a lot of self-congratulation towards each other and some immature joking about Sue Storm's T&A.
>

Hope it wasn't about the brother and sister posing as husband and wife scene in Civil War...

> ( Of course, this IS Wizard, so they do know their audience. Which is no longer me, since the only part of Wizard that I really cared about-- the TPB reviews-- has been cut out, replaced with a mere laundry list of graphic novel solicitations But that's neither here nor there ).
>

Lost interest in that mag myself a LONG time ago...

> Anyway some things of note....
>
> -- The scene of all the heroes gathered to discuss the SHRA in the first issue is based on a splash page by John Buscema, circa Yellowjacket and the Wasp's wedding. In that scene, the heroes are casually partying and sipping non-alcoholic punch. In Millar and McNiven's scene, they're arguing about the Act, with some of them uncharacteristically supporting it. Something seems very wrong about how the original shot was used for this.
>

That's really one of the things that lost me from the get-go - the uncharacteristic support for a bill the Marvel American heroes have had problems with in the past, and little to no explanation as to why the ones who did would start supporting it.

> -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.
>

That in itself speaks more to me about Millar's politics than anything else he may claim to the contrary. And personally, I can't see how someone could NOT perceive Iron Man as the bad guy in Civil War, especially as he was portrayed in the main mini and the tie-ins.

> -- Discussion of an email Millar got about how Thor is an Aryan Superman taking down one of the few black heroes in Marvel. Millar defends himself by saying that he just wanted to kill off a giant hero. While I don't think that Millar is a racist, I can't believe that he's surprised that someone would read in those overtones.
>

I also don't believe he is a racist, or that the usage of an Aryan icon killing a minority hero was the intended interpretation of the scene, but I also agree that it shouldn't come as a surprise when it is interpreted that way considering the players involved. If all he really just wanted was to kill a giant hero, there was always Hank Pym and Atlas available to him, or he could have created one for the purpose of killing...

> -- Comparison of Cap and the Punisher as " the same guy " because they both represent American wars in the 20th century. Seems rather oblivious to the individual personalities of both characters ( that Cap is the MU's paragon of virtue, and Frank is a serial killer who happens to go after people who arguably deserve it ).
>

The comparison of Cap and the Punisher as "the same guy" doesn't really work for me that way, and never did. Frank Castle's status as Vietnam vet has less to do w/ the character's raison d'etre than the murder of his family. Captain America was born out of WWII in a way that Castle's tenure in 'Nam doesn't compare. Not to mention, as you already point out, the drastically different and conflicting individual personalities of the two...

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

> -- Close-up on Woody Allen, who makes a cameo amongst the crowds in the final issue.
>
> Anyone else read this? I'm not reccomending it, but it is certainly interesting ( if troubling ).

Haven't read it. Don't plan to.





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows XP
jay




>>> -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch (which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.
>>
>> It should be noted here, though, that Tony was mostly demonized in the Civil War-related crossovers, not in the main book Millar wrote. I started a ruckus here some time ago when I pointed out that Tony's position in the overall story was entirely defensible from the standpoint of realpolitik. Some of his methods, and the astonishing hubris on display (meant to reflect that of the neo-cons in the Bush administration) were the things to which people really objected.
>
> Except that when Millar is running around expressing his bafflement that Tony was considered wrong by many readers, it also suggests that he has no problem with the sort of hubris displayed and methodology employed.

But, again, that was mostly written into the storyline by the other writers, not by Millar himself. Read the main CIVIL WAR mini. Tony screws up some things, a lot of them badly, but the extreme elements I was discussing came almost entirely from the other books involved in the storyline. In Millar's original proposal for CIVIL WAR, Tony (and everyone else) had much stronger motivations for what they were doing. The more extreme hubristic element was created as a fall-back position after much of that material was stripped away during the preproduction process. (I liked CIVIL WAR, but I was extremely disappointed at some of the initial ideas that were dropped along the way--they would have made it a lot stronger story).


Posted with Netscape Navigator 7.2 on Windows 98
Capt. Nas-Vell!




> Just got the latest issue of Wizard, which has a Director's Commentary on Civil War. Millar and McNiven show up to give their commentary on the series post-publication, but unfortunately they don't say much that hasn't been said before on the Internet. Much of the commentary is their defense of the controversial moments in the series, followed by a lot of self-congratulation towards each other and some immature joking about Sue Storm's T&A.
>
Oy vey! Modern Marvel in a nutshell. And I gotta be honest, I may not have liked it in its entirety, but Civil War - claiming to be the event it did - should have gotten proper oversized hardcover treatment, complete with commentary, sketches and script page extras. I mean...it only makes sense.

> ( Of course, this IS Wizard, so they do know their audience. Which is no longer me, since the only part of Wizard that I really cared about-- the TPB reviews-- has been cut out, replaced with a mere laundry list of graphic novel solicitations But that's neither here nor there ).
>
Wizard Magazine is barely readable. I tend to flip thru it at work to look at the pictures, but when they do things like have Brian Bendis and Kevin Smith chat to each other about how great they think the other is, I just don't care anymore.

> Anyway some things of note....
>
> -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.
>
Hmm. Steve Rogers opposes a government ruling that vilifies him and his friends, not to mention a bunch of young adults just trying to do the right thing, and encroaches on the civil liberties and rights of (heroic) individuals.
Hmm. Tony Stark enforces a government ruling that vilifies him and his friends, not to mention a bunch of young adults just trying to do the right thing, and encroaches on the civil liberties and rights of (heroic) individuals.
That's without mentioning the facts that Tony Stark locked people up without trial in a prison located outside the United States. Tony only got worse and worse and worse in Civil War - and then he really became an a$$ when, in The Confession, he says he'd take it all back to get Steve back.

> -- Discussion of an email Millar got about how Thor is an Aryan Superman taking down one of the few black heroes in Marvel. Millar defends himself by saying that he just wanted to kill off a giant hero. While I don't think that Millar is a racist, I can't believe that he's surprised that someone would read in those overtones.
>
I doubt Millar intended it to be perceived this way, but I'd really rather he created a new size-changing hero to kill off, instead of killing off someone who was just starting to make a comeback. I mean, let's face it; Atlas could've been killed in Goliath's stead and the fan response would've been about equal, while preserving another non-white comic character for future use.

> -- Comparison of Cap and the Punisher as " the same guy " because they both represent American wars in the 20th century. Seems rather oblivious to the individual personalities of both characters ( that Cap is the MU's paragon of virtue, and Frank is a serial killer who happens to go after people who arguably deserve it ).
>
Cap and Frank are not the same guy. The Punisher of the main Marvel Universe is less a product of his war than Cap is of his, and Cap's mentality (if you take it as paralleling Castle's psychosis) spawns from his own personal beliefs even before he became Captain America, whereas Castle's stems from the death of his family.

> -- Close-up on Woody Allen, who makes a cameo amongst the crowds in the final issue.
>
And, just like every other character Millar and McNiven tossed into every scene possible, he went unnamed. \:\-D

> Anyone else read this? I'm not reccomending it, but it is certainly interesting ( if troubling ).
I may check it out at work tomorrow, but I doubt I'd buy Wizard unless they gave me something free that was worth owning with my copy.

Captain Nas-Vell!


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP
Evil G:DR




>
> > But I'm not sure why the idea of anyone supporting registration is "uncharacteristic". The ones with no secret ID who already work for the government had no real reason to oppose it. Yes, Reed has changed his mind on the subject, but the world is a very different place since last time he had to think on the matter in 1989.
>
> It might have been nice if Marvel had worked out some relatively clear version of what the SHRA was and made sure all th writers got the memo. The "gotta be registered and take basic training" bit is far more defensible than the "backdoor draft/Initiative" angle.

This is what comes of letting the tie-in writers "write the stories they wanted to tell", rather than getting them to obey the core book, enabling JMS and Jenkins in particular to utterly villify Team Tony.

> That said, the enforcement of the Act, even as portrayed in the mini itself, is draconian and frankly disgusting. Secret extradimensional prisons and detention without trial for anyone refusing to register? And that's the "good guy" position?

It's that harsh to serve as an effective deterrent. If they obey the law, it won't happen to them.

> It's especially ludicrous when you reaize that merely being detained and unmasked effectively completes the bulk of the registration process anyway. Once you're in the system, would it matter if you were offering some putative resistance to...being entered into the system?

It serves as a way of keeping superhumans who refuse to comply with the law detained until they actually agree to cease illegal vigilantism, as well as being a facility to incarcerate the most dangerous superhuman criminals.

> > > -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ).

I did forget to add here, SHIELD were the ones who took down Cloak and Asgardian/Wiccan. Cap did start the superhero-on-superhero violence.

> > > He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.
> >
> > Since the event ended, Millar's been pretty consistent in his statements that Tony was right, and that compromise with the government is less-worse than a masked elite standing unaccountable and above the law, and less-worse than a running battle with their own government, less-worse than ignoring the will of the people, less-worse than "we're going to pick and choose which laws we obey".
>
> And this is why Mark Millar has become fundamentally inapable of writing Marvel-style superhero fiction that works. He simply misses the underlying premise of the genre: that the heroes are not an "elite" in the first place. Yes, in the "real world" masked vigilantes would be an awful thing, because the real-world sorts of people who engage in systematic and sustained vigilante campaigns tend to be pretty awful people. But that's simply never been true of the vast bulk of Marvel's underdog (and often hangdog) heroes. Does anyone in their right mind really think of Spider-Man as a dangerous elitist?

No, the likes of Spider-Man and Daredevil are simply, any way you look at it, illegal vigilantes. Your "masked elite" are the organised, 'official' superheroes, who close ranks and protect each other from any kind of accountability with a frightening frequency.

> It's imply not a reading that can be applied successfully to...well, the pre-Civil War Marvel Universe. If any heroes were part of an elite, they were the Avengers. And the Avengers, of course, spent the majority of their history very much tied up with the government.

Which, outside of that one time Gyrich cut down their roster, the government never had any control over their lineup, and have ever used the line "once an Avenger, always an Avenger" to allow anyone back onto the team, regardless of their past misdeeds.

> I might add that using Iron Man and the Illuminati as the lead-up certainly didn't help whatever specious point Millar meant to make. If you're arguing against masked elitism, it's a bit hard not to think that the Illuminati secretly meeting to decide whether the superhuman community -- whom nobody asked them to represent, mind you -- should or shouldn't comply with the law.

....the law is the law. If one chooses not to comply with the law, that's what prison is for. Whatever the Illuminati decided is irrelevant to the fact that each and every person, superhuman or not, has a duty to obey the law.

All the Illuminati meeting did was have Tony and Reed, two of the leaders of the superhuman community, stand up and suggest that they all support the Act because it was going to happen.

> There's also the basic problem Millar seems to have utterly, abysmally missed: the SHRA isn't being enforced or run by directly elected officials. It's being administered, per the end of CW #7, by a largely unaccountable international spy agency and supported by two of the most elitist superheroes around (Tony and Millar-Reed, who does not resemble any other Reed).
>
> It's not as if Tony Stark is currently responsible to "the people," now is it? Yet Millar seems to think that a centralized and sinfinitely classifiable administration of superhumans granted official police powers is less elitist than a loose confederation of gifted amateurs so long as Congress passed a law permitting it. For God's sake, he really seems to be arguing that we'd all be better off if, say, the NSA ran the prison system and the police.

That kind of misses the point of "who else actually has the ability to enforce this law?" The regular cops can't deal with superhumans.

> Back when Millar was writing The Authority, fans of his run often argued that he was as hard on the team's quasi-fascism as on their largely one-dimensional opponents when someone made the point that the Authority themselves were effectively totalitarian enforces of their own private laws.
>
> It's rather harder to do that after reading Civil War; Millar really seems to like stories about law enforcement by way of black ops and wetwork and the like. There's a certain fetishization of the ubermenschen-as-hard-man in a lot of his work, and I'm becoming quite uncomfortble with him as a writer as a result. The way in which his work presents ideas of democracy and law isn't so much challenging or daring as morally imbecilic, and I'm rapidly tiring of it.
>
> His work genuinely seems incapable of containing or getting over the idea that not every law enacted via a democratic-republican process advances the interests of democracy. And that's a lesson I imagine a seventh-grader in a Histry or Civics class could work out.
>
> Millar's work has crossed the line for me from deeply irritating to ethically indefensible. Luckily for me, it's also becoming increasingly difficult to defend aesthetically, so perhaps I can just be done with his writing for good and all.

I'm probably the absolutely last person to debate this with, being someone so filled with loathing for humanity that he Just Doesn't Care about criminals being denied their rights, or 'abuses of democracy' in the name of The Greater Good. I'd happily lock every man, woman and child on Earth away in the Negative Zone in the interests of my own safety, so I have no issues with The Tony locking criminals away there for my entertainment.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Omar Karindu




I've got some material I wouldn't mind getting your feedback on, especially based on a recent post of yours over at the AMB. Any way I can get an e-mail address or a website by which to send the stuff to you?

- Omar Karindu

"A Renoir. I have three, myself. I had four, but ordered one burned...It displeased me." -- Doctor Doom

"It's not, 'Oh, they killed Sue Dibney and I always loved that character,' it's 'Oh, they broke a story engine that could have told a thousand stories in order to publish a single 'important' one.'" -- John Seavey


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
Nitz the Bloody





> It should be noted here, though, that Tony was mostly demonized in the Civil War-related crossovers, not in the main book Millar wrote. I started a ruckus here some time ago when I pointed out that Tony's position in the overall story was entirely defensible from the standpoint of realpolitik. Some of his methods, and the astonishing hubris on display (meant to reflect that of the neo-cons in the Bush administration) were the things to which people really objected.

For one thing, Millar's Tony still had an active hand in the creation of the big three travesties of the pro-reg side-- Clor, the N-Zone prison, and the Thunderbolts. Millar didn't have to write Tony as a saint, but he shouldn't have written him as a dictator, either.

For another, the moment you add realpolitik to the superhero genre is the moment the genre comes crashing down like a Jenga tower. It's acceptable you're doing an explicit deconstruction of the concept, but realpolitik by definition removes all the noble ideology from a decision, and lapses into " ends justify the means " territory. Which is completely and utterly contrary to what superheroes do-- it's why superheroes don't kill, don't inflict any more pain than absolutely necessary, and don't force themselves into the political process. They just fight the supernatural forces that normal people can't, and if you analyze it too carefully, it stops being workable long-term. ( And Marvel Universe comics are supposed to go on forever, so Millar has delivered to us a massive problem.. )


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
Evil G:DR




> I've got some material I wouldn't mind getting your feedback on, especially based on a recent post of yours over at the AMB. Any way I can get an e-mail address or a website by which to send the stuff to you?

Now that has me interested. While I don't want to give it out here where anyone can get it, I believe my e-mail address is up on the Appendix site, on the profiles I wrote a few years back. I'm going to be away for most of the week, but if it's not there, I'll find some other way to get it to you around Saturday.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
EcMan





> ( Of course, this IS Wizard, so they do know their audience. Which is no longer me, since the only part of Wizard that I really cared about-- the TPB reviews-- has been cut out, replaced with a mere laundry list of graphic novel solicitations But that's neither here nor there ).

I agree, when Wizard removed the grades, the TPB section became completely useless and really shows the lack of spine at Wizard to do anything that might offend a creator or someone at DC or Marvel.

Now on to the Civil War article stuff.

1) You really get the sense that neither Millar nor McNiven know much of anything about Marvel history over the past 20-30 years. Millar freely admits it by saying he is unfamiliar with Marvel after Stan Lee stopped writing. McNiven doesn't know who the "pumpkin-headed" guy is. I've never read Spider-man, but even I knew who Jack O'Lantern was. It's less egregious for the artist not to know characters or their backgrounds, but the writer??? And then he is give the keys to the whole universe?!?!?!?!

2) Millar states that he specifically didn't talk to other writers (only senior writers and editors) and left it to Tom B to figure out minutiae like who was on what side?!?!?!?! Perhaps part of the reason for Iron Man's different portrayal in tie-ins is due to the writer of the main series being unavailable to other writers? I don't know how unusual or not that is for these big events, but it doesn't sound like having the main writer unavailable to tie-in writers is a good way to promote continuity.

3) Overall, it just reenforced my general view of CW. Millar had some big, cool ideas or "moments" (hero vs. hero, Spidey unmasked, Punisher kills Super-villains, etc.) but without the characterization or the underlying understanding of character motivations to tie them together, it couldn't work well. The devil really is in the details.

Hopefully this isn't too much of a rant.

-EcMan


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
MysteryMan




>
> >
> > -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.
> >
> I admit Stark is made to look worse in other issues, but Millar did not make Stark look that good in the main series. The Negative Zone prison to hold American citizens, the cloning of Thor, the use of known mass murderers. What of that is meant to look good? I can understand trying to work with the government and compromising with it. Yet, cloning a god to have as your own personal superweapon? Throwing American citizens in prison in another dimension. The ACLU would be throwing a fit. And than the use of known mass murderers? Some like Taskmaster and Deadpool are mercenaries so they usually don't get their jollies by killing and if you tell them theyr pay check relies on not harming civilians or bringing in people alive they would usually abide by it. Others like the Wrecking Crew and the Green Goblin don't care one way or another.

While questionable...where would you hold enemy soldiers in a war?
It was clearly stated N-Zone was just a temporary placement for anti-reggers...it's permanent use was supposed to be for villians of such power and evil they were a threat to the world every moment they were on it.

Cloning of Thor...I think was a tactic to try and sway the anti-reggers to quit...but yes it was quitye questionable.

Cap has his mass murderes too...that was the problem both sides went TOO far in recruiting.

While is think it quite risky to "chip-up" some villians for combat duty...it's something thats part of our American history that no one has had a problem with before...join the military forces and have your prison stay end while you serve your country.

> > -- Comparison of Cap and the Punisher as " the same guy " because they both represent American wars in the 20th century. Seems rather oblivious to the individual personalities of both characters ( that Cap is the MU's paragon of virtue, and Frank is a serial killer who happens to go after people who arguably deserve it ).
> >
> I do agree with you. If Cap and the Punisher both represent American wars than in many ways they represent opposite sides of the same coin or at least ideals. How did he come to this conclusion?


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Tiger Shark




The different types of men and women who wrote Marvel comics in the 60s, 70s, and 80s are not the same caliber of self-congratulatory, aggressive, pushy, potty-joke-telling, willfully crass, unimaginative men and women who largely write for Marvel now.

Just as the men and women who made films like 'King Kong,' 'All Quiet On The Western Front,' 'Citizen Kane,' 'All About Eve,' 'Shane,' and 'Red River' are not the same class of men who green-light and produce 'Big Momma's House,' the awful 'Wicker Man' remake, and hundreds of other worse-than-straight-to-DVD projects coming out of Hollywood.

I'm over-generalizing for the sake of argument, but I'm sure you get my drift.




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software