Cap is dead!!!!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

The Human Torch of the 40s is not the same as the Fantastic Four's Human Torch.

 

The android Torch didn't burn people after his revival either. Granted, he doesn't have the same uninterrupted publishing term,but he's also changed over time.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

I'm just waiting for the storyline where Galactus actually eats the Earth. That will be awesome.

 

I believe it's scheduled for the week after the Coyote catches and barbecues the Road Runner.

[TheRavenIs]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

I think that is wasn't comics that outgrew anyone. I think that those in power at Marvel/DC has failed to hold true to the history of the Heroes in each universe.

 

Yes a Hero has to change to have a place in the 'real' world, but as others have said, those Heroes have to remain true to the past of that Hero. Iron Man that I've seen talked about isn't Tony Stark, but a twisted parody of the Tony Stark that the idots in power want him to be.

 

Captain America had changed, he had adapted to the world of the 21st Century, but unCW's Cap wasn't the same character. The editors and writers forgot, no not forgot, ran away from the past of these Heroes. Captain America, or any of the main Heroes that have been shown so out of character is due to the editors hating the Heroic Traditions of the company, heck even the Heroic Traditions of this country.

[Checkmate]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

In his earliest appearances, Batman carried a gun. Later on, he became a campy punster. He then became (or returned to) being more a "creature of the night", but still a team player with the JLA. Now he's much less a team player.

 

The Human Torch had no compunctions about burning enemies alive in the 1940's. He does now.

 

The Golden Age Cap would gun down a Nazi. The Silver Age Cap would not gun down a Commie. The Bronze Age Cap had to gun down an Ultimatum agent, and agonized over it.

 

None of these characters has remained fixed in stone for their publishing history.

Absolutely. Which is exactly what I said. The characters grew and became relevant without changing the foundation of what they were.

[Checkmate]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

The Human Torch of the 40s is not the same as the Fantastic Four's Human Torch.

 

I'm just waiting for the storyline where Galactus actually eats the Earth. That will be awesome.

I'm waiting for the day Aunt May dies and comes back as Summer Solider.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Absolutely. Which is exactly what I said. The characters grew and became relevant without changing the foundation of what they were.

 

Oh? Batman going from using a gun to hating guns isn't a fundamental change? Batman going from Team Player to the least "team player" around isn't fundamental.

 

Why not just say "without changing those aspects I, personally, did not want changed"?

[Checkmate]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Oh? Batman going from using a gun to hating guns isn't a fundamental change? Batman going from Team Player to the least "team player" around isn't fundamental.

 

Why not just say "without changing those aspects I, personally, did not want changed"?

I wasn't even alive when Batman was toting guns, and I've never known Batman to be a team player. It's also not Guns Batman hates it's killing. He has used guns repeatedly even today. Which shows a growth from, pure revenge seeker to the more mature justice seeker, so no I wouldn't call that a fundamental change

[Hermit]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

I think the problem with the supposed 'character growth' in Civil War is that it wasn't. There was no gradual evolution or even a logical reaction to a life altering catalyst. It was sudden out of character behavior.

 

Suddenly:

1) Tony Stark retroactively has been doing such things as collecting Thor's hair in order to clone it? And is now willing to do anything, no matter HOW underhanded, including inciting war with Atlanteans, to achieve his goal. He trusts no one with his master plan, not even some of his best friends.

 

2) Reed Richards is a mad scientist, willing to perform experiments that VonDoom is too honorable to do. Cloning. Setting up a prison in the Negative Zone? All this from some sudden Retcon about an Uncle we never heard before while ignoring Reed's past stance on his science being abused? McDuffie tries to put a good spin on it, and he comes closest... but it is too little too late for Reed.

 

3) Captain America THE Most popular hero in the Marvel Universe, the one who if the choice came between obeying him or obeying a congressman, most army guys would be flipping coins to decide, has the public pull of a leper. He become brutish, uses violence first, and worse, somehow he loses most of his tactics skill. I can understand why he quit in CW #7, but the problem being is, it isn't like the same idea for the same reasons wouldn't occur to him 6 issues before if need be. The Cap who unmasked before Cameras because he thought it was the right thing to do suddenly can't think to get a press conference? He talks like Ultimate Cap more than the 616 guy, and it is all the sudden.

 

4) She-Hulk doesn't read the law well enough to realize it's many loopholes. Oh, and she's the lawyer.

 

 

We can go from there. These aren't examples of Character growth, their out of character hammering of round pegs into square holes to force the characters to fit the storyline

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

If you believe these characters are people who are chiseled in marble and are never to be changed in any way, then I would quit reading comics. Treating the characters like they live in some unapproachable ivory tower will be the death of them in my opinion.

 

When I talk about 'change', I'm not talking about turning Batman into an axe-murderer, or turning Spider-Man into a serial-rapist, I'm talking about giving the characters more emotional depth and adding on to the characters' already established background.

 

All you have to do is look at what Brubaker did with Bucky and you see what I mean. He made Bucky into a more compelling character than any version by any other writer I have read.

 

 

I'm sorry but to me The changes in certain characters such as Tony Stark are equal to making Batman into an Axe murderer. You see depth I see mischaracterization, complex maybe but not remotely the same character. Its not about change but completely scrubbing the established character to turn it in to the writer;s version of what they think it should be. Overnaturalization is already Starting the death of the mainstream comics I believe. Most of these new deeper characterizations seem smaller not larger than life to me. I admit I've never read the Bucky stuff because to me Bucky is dead. Even saw him in the realm of the dead in an old Avengers. I read a few before were really knew he was Bucky I saw it coming and didn't follow up.Maybe if I personally had more hang-ups I'd be able to go with it but some characters I just can't enjoy if They're less together than me. Superman and Cap are certainly like that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

I wasn't even alive when Batman was toting guns' date=' and I've never known Batman to be a team player.[/quote']

 

Yet these are both incarnations of Batman from which the present character has grown. In the early Justice League, he is a team player, and works well with others in his guest star apearances, including many years of the Brave and the Bold and World's Finest Comics. Those stories have, of course, been ret-conned away in favour of your "does not carry a gun" [since the 1940's] "does not play well with others" [since the 1980's] "fights down to earth villains, not space aliens" [since the 1960's ended] Batman. Every issue is someone's first issue, and they will identify with that character, as he exists at that time. That will doubtless include readers who started reading comics in the past six months, most likely pulled in by reading Spidey or the FF, pulled in by movie tie-ins.

 

Some of us remember "High School Peter Parker" [who is appearing, I note, in Marvel Adventures and Ultimate Universe], others "College Student Spidey" or "College Dropout Spidey", "Single Spidey" or "Married Spidey", and someone will have started with "Recently a Widower Spidey". And each will fondly remember his or her favorite incarnation. Changes to that incarnation will be inferior. HOW could John Romita have started drawing a non-nerdy, handsome Peter Parker anyway? That pretty much wrecked the book, right? [Not being a Spidey fan, I don't much care.]

 

Just like taking out the Big Guns and putting three former criminals in with that Golden Age revivification guy, Captain America ruined the Avengers, and adding growth powers destroyed Ant Man.

 

When Hal Jordan was replaced as Green Lantern, many fans were upset. When Hal replaced Kye Rayner, many fans were upset. No dount, many fans wer eupset when this new Green Lantern was Hal Jordan,not Alan Scott. But times change.

 

As for Cap, how did he go from a super soldier in WW II who, presumably:

- would not have hesitated to shoot a Nazi or kill Hitler

- and defintely wouldn't have held back other soldiers from killing the enemy

- viewed the USSR as an aly, led by good ol' Uncle Joe Stalin

 

to, almost immediately, a sixties era superhero who:

- is intransiently, morally opposed to killing

- views "the commies" as the enemy?

 

 

It's also not Guns Batman hates it's killing. He has used guns repeatedly even today. Which shows a growth from' date=' pure revenge seeker to the more mature justice seeker, so no I wouldn't call that a fundamental change[/quote']

 

If he had, in fact grown into these changes, I could buy your logic. He did not. The original Batman owes far more to the Shadow than to the superheroic ideal. He had no compunction against allowing criminals to die, or even against causing their deaths. The current Batman has no background where he carries a gun, or is willing to kill criminals, or allow them to die without making his own best effort to stop them. The charactres evolve with the times.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

To put it in context, I'll confess I haven't even read CW #7, or Cap #25 - I'm over a month behind on comic reading. But, from what I've read to date, Cap's been portrayed fairly consistently in the CW books. He's squarely on the side of freedom and civil liberties. Is he using violence to solve his problems? Well, welcome to the wonderful world of superheroes. There have been a few issues where talk has already failed.

 

What I dislike most about the series has been its one-sided nature. For this type of book to really have worked, there needed to be an ability for the reader to see both sides of the issue, and sympathize with both sides. The "Registration" side has pretty much been prtrayed as fascists throughout, making it hard to feel regret for the two sides reaching a point of open hostilities, and instead simply feeling the writers should not have attempted something so ambitious and instead stuck with "good guys" and "bad guys".

 

The result here hasn't read like two sides with the best of intentions, which robs one side, at least, of any real heroic appearance.

[Hermit]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

To put it in context' date=' I'll confess I haven't even read CW #7, or Cap #25 - I'm over a month behind on comic reading. But, from what I've read to date, Cap's been portrayed fairly consistently in the CW books. [/quote']

 

 

 

Except that the CW potrayal itself is the problem, yes, CW issue #2 Cap is a lot like CW issue #5 Cap.... but CW Cap is vastly and abruptly different to Cap before the Civil War portrayal. Unless, perhaps, if you count Ultimate Cap...who this isn't. There's no Ultimate reboot in operation here, no DC style Crisis to reset characters. And there is certainly no gradual evolution over years of writing to lead him to this. Bam, CW starts, and Steve Rogers is suddenly a thug with much of his character stripped from him for no apparent reason or explaination.

 

What I dislike most about the series has been its one-sided nature. For this type of book to really have worked, there needed to be an ability for the reader to see both sides of the issue, and sympathize with both sides. The "Registration" side has pretty much been prtrayed as fascists throughout, making it hard to feel regret for the two sides reaching a point of open hostilities, and instead simply feeling the writers should not have attempted something so ambitious and instead stuck with "good guys" and "bad guys".

 

The result here hasn't read like two sides with the best of intentions, which robs one side, at least, of any real heroic appearance.

 

That much I agree with you on. Pro REg could easily have logic on its side, but the methods used by thee Pro Reg types is so lacking in human decency as to rob them of any moral authority.

[psm]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

I think the problem with the supposed 'character growth' in Civil War is that it wasn't. There was no gradual evolution or even a logical reaction to a life altering catalyst. It was sudden out of character behavior.

 

Suddenly:

1) Tony Stark retroactively has been doing such things as collecting Thor's hair in order to clone it? And is now willing to do anything, no matter HOW underhanded, including inciting war with Atlanteans, to achieve his goal. He trusts no one with his master plan, not even some of his best friends.

 

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of retcon changes either. I still have a hard time accepting the JLA mindwiping villians. Additionally, I would have preferred if CW moved slower. It was a wam bam story which could have benefited from a slower progression. I still think the same thing about Daredevil's Born Again story line.

 

Anyway, do you consider this retcon to be worse than making Tony Stark an alcoholic. The guy was clean and sober for twenty years and then some writer decides he has a drinking problem. If I remember correctly he almost killed two people while wearing the armor blitzed out of his mind. Or how about his attitude during the Armor Wars. He killed Titanium Man (unintentionally) and caused a prison break. I'm not even going to mention the whole young Stark and evil old Stark during the Avenger's crossing. All I'm saying is that it's not completely unprecedented. He's always been a ends justify the means kind of guy.

 

2) Reed Richards is a mad scientist, willing to perform experiments that VonDoom is too honorable to do. Cloning. Setting up a prison in the Negative Zone? All this from some sudden Retcon about an Uncle we never heard before while ignoring Reed's past stance on his science being abused? McDuffie tries to put a good spin on it, and he comes closest... but it is too little too late for Reed.

 

Loved McDuffie's explanation. I wish they had incorporated that in CW. Still I don't see any of his actions as being completely out of character. Not like they are making him an axe murder. He's always been more driven by his logic than his emotions. Then again his science is never wrong which is why he did what he did. He was right and his actions saved his friends.

 

3) Captain America THE Most popular hero in the Marvel Universe, the one who if the choice came between obeying him or obeying a congressman, most army guys would be flipping coins to decide, has the public pull of a leper. He become brutish, uses violence first, and worse, somehow he loses most of his tactics skill. I can understand why he quit in CW #7, but the problem being is, it isn't like the same idea for the same reasons wouldn't occur to him 6 issues before if need be. The Cap who unmasked before Cameras because he thought it was the right thing to do suddenly can't think to get a press conference? He talks like Ultimate Cap more than the 616 guy, and it is all the sudden.

 

When has any superhero not used violence as their first choice? The whole genre is built on the notion that righteous force will always prevail. Plus he probably just assumed that they would fight, team up and then beat the real villain. It's always worked before.

 

Seriously, the only true liberty I can see taken with Cap is his infallibility (which I'm sure is one point we will disagree on). They made his character make a mistake. Although he was fighting for the right reasons he was going about it the wrong way. He let things get out of hand. I still don't know if thats a mis-characterization or just a different context. When is the last time Cap made a mistake (or any hero)? Doe's him being always right constitute a character trait or is just a different type of writing? Personally, I think its a different style of writing thats becoming more prevalent. We are seeing characters make mistakes which is something I think is new.

 

By the way Hermes great post. You guys on this board are quite insightful and passionate. Love seeing passionate people even the ones I disagree with.

[Hermit]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Okay, first, agreed they needed a better build up, that one I agree with.

 

 

When has any superhero not used violence as their first choice?

 

Quite often. How many times has Spider-Man tried to talk folks down like the Lizard or others? Cap , at least 616 Cap, doesn't have much trouble bringing abuses to the proper authorities or even the public. Press conferences are not new to him. He was the Avengers spokesperson, not just their leader, for a long time.

 

When is the last time Cap made a mistake (or any hero)?

It's happened. Cap's been caught off guard. He's mistaken a skull themed superhero for a foe IIRC, and he beat himself up for every failing he ever had as a team leader those are few, and often in his head. One of my favorite mistakes on his part is when he was feeling sorry for himself at a funeral, and his friend rips him for it. Marvel heroes often make mistakes, but even those mistakes are usually something built into the character, not something newly made up for it.

 

 

 

Love seeing passionate people even the ones I disagree with.

 

Well, I definitely think I'm getting to the 'We'll have to agree to disagree' area, because while I can see some of what you, and to some degree Hugh are trying to say, I just dont' agree with 80 % of it. To each their own I guess.

[Checkmate]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Some of us remember "High School Peter Parker" [who is appearing, I note, in Marvel Adventures and Ultimate Universe], others "College Student Spidey" or "College Dropout Spidey", "Single Spidey" or "Married Spidey", and someone will have started with "Recently a Widower Spidey". And each will fondly remember his or her favorite incarnation. Changes to that incarnation will be inferior. HOW could John Romita have started drawing a non-nerdy, handsome Peter Parker anyway? That pretty much wrecked the book, right? [Not being a Spidey fan, I don't much care.]

Do you see the progression here? High School, College, Single, Married. If that's the not definition of growing and changing with the times, then perhaps I'm using the wrong words. And yet at heart Spidey remained the same... again until the current regiem takes over and thows Spider-Man in the Avengers (something he's always been opposed to) and made him Tony Stark's lap dog? Yeah those two have SO much in common.

Just like taking out the Big Guns and putting three former criminals in with that Golden Age revivification guy, Captain America ruined the Avengers, and adding growth powers destroyed Ant Man.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. When Ant-Man got growth powers, did he all of a sudden despise his wife? When Captain America joined the Avengers did the Avengers suddenly become homicidal killers? No. You seem to think I don't like change, hey I'm all for it. Let a super get a new power or the Avengers get a new member, but don't fundamentally alter the way a hero behaves to, as Hermit says, jam them into your story.

When Hal Jordan was replaced as Green Lantern' date=' many fans were upset. When Hal replaced Kye Rayner, many fans were upset. No dount, many fans wer eupset when this new Green Lantern was Hal Jordan,not Alan Scott. But times change.[/quote']

Missing the point again. See above.

As for Cap, how did he go from a super soldier in WW II who, presumably:

- would not have hesitated to shoot a Nazi or kill Hitler

- and defintely wouldn't have held back other soldiers from killing the enemy

- viewed the USSR as an aly, led by good ol' Uncle Joe Stalin

 

to, almost immediately, a sixties era superhero who:

- is intransiently, morally opposed to killing

- views "the commies" as the enemy?

So everyone in Amercia (by everyone I mean the general populace) can go through these exact same changes but Cap can't?

If he had' date=' in fact grown into these changes, I could buy your logic. He did not. The original Batman owes far more to the Shadow than to the superheroic ideal. He had no compunction against allowing criminals to die, or even against causing their deaths. The current Batman has no background where he carries a gun, or is willing to kill criminals, or allow them to die without making his own best effort to stop them. [b']The charactres evolve with the times[/b].

My emphisis, I'm pretty sure I've said that before.

[Balabanto]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

That's not the problem I see.

 

This is. I posted this on the Marvel Boards as soon as I found this out. Now someone who is likely going to die before they fix it is going to go to their grave knowing that their hero who gave them strength in their time of need is gone.

 

Mortimas wrote: I have a terminal illiness I've been fighting for 7 years, and you killed my hero, a symbol that gave me strength through 911, gave me strength through my sickness, a paper hero that was so much to me my whole life.

I am done with you I will never make mine marvel again.

 

This, more than anything else, Joe Quesada, is why.

 

Congratulations, you murdering swine. You just proved that you're no better than the people Cap fights.

 

You can't even respect people who are DYING. That's disgusting and low beyond all rational belief. All it takes is ONE man to suffer like this. Just ONE.

 

Captain America understood that. Because he stands for ALL the people, no matter how small, or crippled, or dying.

 

Heroes inspire. But apparently, Joe, you never had a day of inspiration in your life.

 

If he dies sooner than expected, Mr. Quesada, you're responsible. And I will hold you responsible for the rest of my days.

 

 

There's a lot that can make me ranty.

 

But I am NOW TRULY ANGRY.

[Southern Cross]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Marvel has published murdering villains who have showed more ethical behaviour than Quesada ever has.

I refer to the Peter David version of the Leader,naturally.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Except that the CW potrayal itself is the problem' date=' yes, CW issue #2 Cap is a lot like CW issue #5 Cap.... but CW Cap is vastly and abruptly different to Cap before the Civil War portrayal. Unless, perhaps, if you count Ultimate Cap...who this isn't. There's no Ultimate reboot in operation here, no DC style Crisis to reset characters. And there is certainly no gradual evolution over years of writing to lead him to this. Bam, CW starts, and Steve Rogers is suddenly a thug with much of his character stripped from him for no apparent reason or explaination.[/quote']

 

The same BAM speed change occurs when "Soldier Cap" is rescued from the iceberg, and suddenly becomes "Superheroes Don't Kill" Cap. But we don't complain about that because we didn't previously read the 1940's (and retconned away 1950's) Cap.

 

The whole CW story could definitely have benefitted from better pacing, however. Considerable on-screen discussions and debate prior to the SHIELD demand that Cap help bring in anyone not complying with the Registration Act, then sending in the troops, would have made the whole storyline much less abrubt. However, I can certainly see a man who lived through WW II having a violently opposed reaction to a system under which he is asked to turn in his friends, or even bring them in himself. The fact that people who "are different" - ie are supers - are taken from their homes in the middle of the night under this new legislation adds to the mix. Really, I think the problems are more approrpiately laid at the feet of the storyline putting these elements in place (very readily) than in the reaction Cap has to these elements.

 

Mind you, CW puts Cap in a position he's never been in before - prolonged losing. Some difference in his reactions is a reasonable outcome.

 

That much I agree with you on. Pro REg could easily have logic on its side' date=' but the methods used by thee Pro Reg types is so lacking in human decency as to rob them of any moral authority.[/quote']

 

Again, more and better pacing would have been very beneficial. I think we were easily half way through Civil War when any reasoning behind the pro-reg belief in the importance of this issue ever surfaced. Had this been covered (much) earlier from Iron Man and Reed Richards' perspective, and probably shared with the anti-reg characters, the actions of those believing the alternatives to registration were far worse might have been more understandable. [in the 1960's/1970's, we'd have a cover with IM/Reed saying "We must imprison Captain America - or humanity will be destroyed!"]

 

Anyway' date=' do you consider this retcon to be worse than making Tony Stark an alcoholic. The guy was clean and sober for twenty years and then some writer decides he has a drinking problem. If I remember correctly he almost killed two people while wearing the armor blitzed out of his mind. Or how about his attitude during the Armor Wars. He killed Titanium Man (unintentionally) and caused a prison break. I'm not even going to mention the whole young Stark and evil old Stark during the Avenger's crossing. All I'm saying is that it's not completely unprecedented. He's always been a ends justify the means kind of guy.[/quote']

 

CW also reminded me of the end of Operation Galactic Storm, where Steve and Tony have very opposed beliefs about whether it is acceptable to kill the Kree Supreme Intelligence. Again, Tony believes the end justifies the means and finds a way to rationalize it, while Steve doesn't buy it. [i wonder if Steve Rogers would kill an infant Hitler in his crib...but that's a differen thread.]

 

Loved McDuffie's explanation. I wish they had incorporated that in CW. Still I don't see any of his actions as being completely out of character. Not like they are making him an axe murder. He's always been more driven by his logic than his emotions. Then again his science is never wrong which is why he did what he did. He was right and his actions saved his friends.

 

Again, moving this earlier (especially the Mad Thinker's verification of Reed's math) would have enhanced the overall storyline. Let's also remember Reed also put his son into a coma due to the dangers his mutant powers posed to others. I loved the Tom Lehrer song Reed was singing snatches of in one issue as well.

 

When has any superhero not used violence as their first choice? The whole genre is built on the notion that righteous force will always prevail. Plus he probably just assumed that they would fight' date=' team up and then beat the real villain. It's always worked before.[/quote']

 

Yup. Again, better pacing with Cap,s ultimate decision that this was the only choice left to him coming after attempting other resolutions would have greatly enhanced the storyline. Overall, the premise is not unbelievable, but the execution was, unfortunately, very flawed.

 

Seriously' date=' the only true liberty I can see taken with Cap is his infallibility (which I'm sure is one point we will disagree on). They made his character make a mistake. Although he was fighting for the right reasons he was going about it the wrong way. He let things get out of hand. I still don't know if thats a mis-characterization or just a different context. When is the last time Cap made a mistake (or any hero)? Doe's him being always right constitute a character trait or is just a different type of writing? Personally, I think its a different style of writing thats becoming more prevalent. We are seeing characters make mistakes which is something I think is new.[/quote']

 

It's happened. Cap's been caught off guard. He's mistaken a skull themed superhero for a foe IIRC' date=' and he beat himself up for every failing he ever had as a team leader those are few, and often in his head. One of my favorite mistakes on his part is when he was feeling sorry for himself at a funeral, and his friend rips him for it. Marvel heroes often make mistakes, but even those mistakes are usually something built into the character, not something newly made up for it.[/quote']

 

This is, however, the first time Cap has made a mistake which has had serious consequences. The "mistaken hero for villain" schtick has been around forever, but no one ever gets seriously hurt in those fights. None of the rest of his so-called "mistakes" you cite have caused anyone any real harm, have they?

 

By the way Hermes great post. You guys on this board are quite insightful and passionate. Love seeing passionate people even the ones I disagree with.

 

On this note, I appreciate the fact that the thread's tone has remained civil. I suspect the moderators share that appreciation.

 

Well' date=' I definitely think I'm getting to the 'We'll have to agree to disagree' area, because while I can see some of what you, and to some degree Hugh are trying to say, I just dont' agree with 80 % of it. To each their own I guess.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. Note that I'm not saying I liked Civil War - the execution was deeply flawed, and effectively played half the MU heroes as fascists. But I don't see the premise itself as impossible, nor do I have the same level of concern that "established characters" have been violated. I thought the Crossing was a much poorer storyline (not that this is any great praise for CW).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Do you see the progression here? High School' date=' College, Single, Married. If that's the not definition of growing and changing with the times, then perhaps I'm using the wrong words. And yet at heart Spidey remained the same... again until the current regiem takes over and thows Spider-Man in the Avengers (something he's always been opposed to) and made him Tony Stark's lap dog? Yeah those two have SO much in common.[/quote']

 

Spidey was an Avenger in the 1980's and has, I believe, been a reservist ever since. As I recall, his withdrawal from the Avengers was due to the time commitment and his discomfort with their "cosmic" level of activity. The latter isn't the case in the Avengers he joined. As far as the former, making arrangements for his family moves that a long way.

 

As for admiration of Tony Stark, as a(n aspiring) scientist himself, it makes some sense for Peter to have some level of admiration for Tony. Spidey's single greatest defining characteristic has always been responsibility. Would Uncle Ben have been dead if Spidey had been trained as a hero from the outset? [unfair question - there wasn't enough time between the spider bite and the death - but Peter is often unfair in assessing whether he has lived up to his responsibilities.] Once he sees the excesses of the pro-registration side, his reaction - and his feeling he has to do something, as he feels responsible for matters getting to this state - are also consistent with that sense of responsibility.

 

Organic webshooters, on the other hand, I don't buy into.

 

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. When Ant-Man got growth powers' date=' did he all of a sudden despise his wife?[/quote']

 

No, that came later, long after his wife (who wasn't his wife when he got growth powers) tricked him into marrying him when he was suffering from a mental condition. Boy, those '60s and 70's comics really were works of genius, weren't they?

 

When Captain America joined the Avengers did the Avengers suddenly become homicidal killers? No.

 

But suddenly, Cap was a SuperHero, and not a SuperSoldier. How did that happen? It certainly wasn't gradual - his complete unwillingness to kill, and inability to accept use of lethal force by others, sprang up from nowhere.

 

You seem to think I don't like change' date=' hey I'm all for it. Let a super get a new power or the Avengers get a new member, but don't fundamentally alter the way a hero behaves to, as Hermit says, jam them into your story.[/quote']

 

I think you don't like change when you don't like the change. Simple as that.

 

So everyone in Amercia (by everyone I mean the general populace) can go through these exact same changes but Cap can't?

 

Everyone in America changed over the course of 2 decades (more given the way Cap's thawing keeps moving forward, but 2 decades in the context of the original stories' publication). Cap was thawed out and changed immediately.

 

Especially when the country is divided, is it realistic that the Supers are of one common opinion on every issue?

[Kirby]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

As for Cap, how did he go from a super soldier in WW II who, presumably:

- would not have hesitated to shoot a Nazi or kill Hitler

- and defintely wouldn't have held back other soldiers from killing the enemy

- viewed the USSR as an [ally], led by good ol' Uncle Joe Stalin

 

to, almost immediately, a sixties era superhero who:

- is intransiently, morally opposed to killing

- views "the commies" as the enemy?

This is easily explained and doesn't even take fiction to do so.

 

In WWII there was no way DC or Marvel could write stories about heroes who wouldn't kill the enemy. If they did, it would be a smack in the face to all the soldiers fighting in the war. This was a WORLD WAR and in war people die, primarily soldiers. (This is really a no-brainer.) If the comic book characters are heroes, then when they fight Nazis or Japs, they're going to kill them. WWII wasn't about unmasking heroes, robbing banks, etc., it was about the Axis Powers achieving world domination by means of war.

 

The USSR was an ally. How hard is this to comprehend? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Stalin didn't become an ally on Sept 1, 1939. He didn't become and ally on Dec 7, 1941. He became an ally after Hitler invaded. If Stalin is now an ally, then Captain America would consider him an ally. Plain and simple.

 

So far this is a simple understanding of the Captain (and really, any character in the 40's). So now, 20 years later:

 

Captain opposed to killing. And? He's not at war. All heroes were pretty much opposed to killing. Simply because a soldier needs to kill on the battlefield in a WAR, doesn't mean when he comes back home he's ready to kill every bank robber he meets. Soldiers who come back from war (especially in WW2) had had their fill on killing; they didn't need it or want it any more. Just because someone has been To Hell and Back doesn't mean they want to live in hell any more.

 

And as for viewing Commies as the enemy? Why is this difficult to understand? Communism is opposed to Democracy. Stalin was a communist (well, dictator, really). China went from being an ally to being a communist opponent after a government change. Now that Russia didn't need the US/UK help, there was no need for being buddies. Stalin could be Stalin. This isn't Captain America saying "Gosh, Stalin was such a wonderful Boy Scout in the 40's, what's happened to him in the 50's?" This is plain and simple understanding. With Hitler dead (and Japan surrendering) Stalin didn't have an Enemy attacking him, so he could do what he wanted again.

 

This "change" in Captain America would be a rational growth. The changes Marvel has done recently to their characters has not been rational.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

This is easily explained and doesn't even take fiction to do so.

 

From an editorial perspective, yes. From a story perspective, this instantaneous change is a lot harder to swallow. The Red Menace book, where the American hero in the '50s still feels a friendship with the USSR hero he fought beside in the war, seems a lot more "realistic".

 

In WWII there was no way DC or Marvel could write stories about heroes who wouldn't kill the enemy. If they did, it would be a smack in the face to all the soldiers fighting in the war. This was a WORLD WAR and in war people die, primarily soldiers. (This is really a no-brainer.) If the comic book characters are heroes, then when they fight Nazis or Japs, they're going to kill them. WWII wasn't about unmasking heroes, robbing banks, etc., it was about the Axis Powers achieving world domination by means of war.

 

The USSR was an ally. How hard is this to comprehend? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Stalin didn't become an ally on Sept 1, 1939. He didn't become and ally on Dec 7, 1941. He became an ally after Hitler invaded. If Stalin is now an ally, then Captain America would consider him an ally. Plain and simple.

 

So far this is a simple understanding of the Captain (and really, any character in the 40's). So now, 20 years later:

 

But it's not 20 years later for Cap - he's been in suspended animation since 1944. It's the next day to him. So, without that 20 years of gradual change, suddenly:

 

Captain opposed to killing. And? He's not at war. All heroes were pretty much opposed to killing.

 

But yesterday, to him, heroes did kill. How did he make the transition so easily?

 

And as for viewing Commies as the enemy? Why is this difficult to understand? Communism is opposed to Democracy. Stalin was a communist (well' date=' dictator, really).[/quote']

 

But they weren't yesterday. They were staunch allies in the battle against Fascism. Fascism, not communism, was opposed to democracy in 1944. How did Cap move from 1944 sensibilities to 1964 sensibilities overnight? He didn't live through the intervening 20 years.

 

China went from being an ally to being a communist opponent after a government change. Now that Russia didn't need the US/UK help' date=' there was no need for being buddies. Stalin could be Stalin. This isn't Captain America saying "Gosh, Stalin was such a wonderful Boy Scout in the 40's, what's happened to him in the 50's?" This is plain and simple understanding. With Hitler dead (and Japan surrendering) Stalin didn't have an Enemy attacking him, so he could do what he wanted again.[/quote']

 

And Cap intuitively understood - both intellectually and emotionally - the 20 years of history which he had missed as soon as he was thawed out?

 

This "change" in Captain America would be a rational growth.

 

It would have been rational had it been gradual. For Cap, it was not gradual - it was instant. He constantly noted his lack of comfort with changes in things like fashion, music and technology, but changes in attitude and world politics, he somehow immediately grasped and accepted intuitively. How is that true to the character of Captain America as published prior to Avengers #4? Simpluy put, it isn't. The change was made, arbitrarily, to move Cap out of the '40s and into the '60s.

 

I'm not saying that change was "wrong" or that any changes wrought by CW are "right". I am saying that abrubt changes to previously established characters are hardly unprecedented.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Okay when he climbs out of the water and makes everyone forget he was there' date=' maybe it wasn't Central Park, I haven't even seen my comic collection in years, so I may be a little fuzzy on the EXACT location. And maybe it was the second appearance. Regardless of when and where, he made a bunch of people in a large area lose all memory of his presense there, pretty high order of telepathy there, and yet still needed a gun, AND was able to one punch Shatterstar, you know the guy that can stick a sword with two blades through his side, pull it out and keep on fighting...but still needed a gun [/quote']

 

Actually, to correct myself, Cable's first appearance was NM 87 ... his second, NM88, which I also own. Still no Central Park, still no water. You're referring to a significantly later appearance (it's also entirely possible that the character was actually Stryfe acting as Cable, as Stryfe is Cable's clone). Shatterstar's faux-seppuku is based on an intense knowledge of the locations of his internal organs ... he inserts the swords only where he knows he has no vital organs, and thus doesn't inflict huge injuries on himself.

[Kirby]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

But it's not 20 years later for Cap - he's been in suspended animation since 1944. It's the next day to him.

Hmm, Captain America in the 1940's is Marvel's icon for America's ideals. Captain America 20 years later is Marvel's icon for America's ideals. Wow, what a horrible change.

 

But yesterday' date=' to him, heroes did kill. How did he make the transition so easily?[/quote']What concept are you having difficulty understanding? Soldiers in war kill. No war, no killing. There's a real life relation to this: WW2 soldiers didn't come home and start killing people. There was more than one Amish person who volunteered for WW2.

 

But they weren't yesterday. They were staunch allies in the battle against Fascism. Fascism' date=' not communism, was opposed to democracy in 1944. How did Cap move from 1944 sensibilities to 1964 sensibilities overnight? He didn't live through the intervening 20 years.[/quote']Really? Methinks you aren't too familiar with the more detailed issues in the war. Communism was opposed to Democracy prior to WW2, during WW2, and after WW2. Only, during WW2 Stalin realized he needed help (as in the US/UK distracting German troops) for Russia to survive. And the phrase "staunch ally" would not apply to Russia, at all. Are you aware that every vehicle the US sent to the Russia Stalin had the "made in America" removed? Are you aware that Stalin killed more than Hitler did? This wasn't a "staunch ally" as much as an ally of necessity. The ONLY reason Russia was an ally was because Germany invaded. Had they not, Russia would have still been supplying Germany with much needed resources, as they had been doing in a prompt manner up to the day Hitler had Germany invade. No, Russia was never a staunch ally. This is one reason why Patton wanted to invade Russia right after the Germans were beaten: he KNEW Russia was going to be our next enemy and that Russia wasn't going to have any "kindness" for the US or UK after WW2 (ever hear of East Germany?).

 

As for Cap, do you have the issues from when he was dethawed? Are you 100% positive Cap never received a debriefing? Also, is there an issue where he went to the bathroom? Not everything needs to be deatiled in a comic; some are understood.

 

I'm not saying that change was "wrong" or that any changes wrought by CW are "right". I am saying that abrubt changes to previously established characters are hardly unprecedented.

Twenty years is hardly abrupt. However, there's a greater rationale for the 1940's & 60's Cap than there is for the current Cap.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Hmm' date=' Captain America in the 1940's is Marvel's icon for America's ideals. Captain America 20 years later is Marvel's icon for America's ideals. Wow, what a horrible change. [/quote']

 

It's not the theme that changed. It's the fact that those ideals evolved, and Cap had no time to evolve along with them.

 

Really? Methinks you aren't too familiar with the more detailed issues in the war. Communism was opposed to Democracy prior to WW2' date=' during WW2, and after WW2. Only, during WW2 Stalin realized he needed help (as in the US/UK distracting German troops) for Russia to survive. And the phrase "staunch ally" would not apply to Russia, at all. Are you aware that every vehicle the US sent to the Russia Stalin had the "made in America" removed? Are you aware that Stalin killed more than Hitler did? This wasn't a "staunch ally" as much as an ally of necessity. The ONLY reason Russia was an ally was because Germany invaded. Had they not, Russia would have still been supplying Germany with much needed resources, as they had been doing in a prompt manner up to the day Hitler had Germany invade. No, Russia was never a staunch ally. This is one reason why Patton wanted to invade Russia right after the Germans were beaten: he KNEW Russia was going to be our next enemy and that Russia wasn't going to have any "kindness" for the US or UK after WW2 (ever hear of East Germany?).[/quote']

 

This information was not the information released to the American public. The US propaganda machine (yes, the US also used propaganda in wartime) built Stalin into kindly Uncle Joe, the kind of guy you'd be happy to see your sister date. That's the backdrop Cap would have been coming from.

 

As for Cap' date=' do you have the issues from when he was dethawed? Are you 100% positive Cap never received a debriefing? Also, is there an issue where he went to the bathroom? Not everything needs to be deatiled in a comic; some are understood.[/quote']

 

Yes, actually. Cap was separated from the other Avengers shortly after the submarine in which he was de-thawed was docked. The Avengers were then turned to stone by an ally of the Sub-Mariner, and he had to get them changed back alone. Exhibiting super-heroic ideals all the way, despite still being in WW II mentally.

 

The theory that he was brought up to speed doesn't explain how he would emotionally buy in to some adjustments (Cops no longer beat confessions out of criminals?) but not others (fashion, technology, music).

 

Twenty years is hardly abrupt. However' date=' there's a greater rationale for the 1940's & 60's Cap than there is for the current Cap. [/quote']

 

Cap didn't live through 20 years. He lived through a few hours. That is abrupt.

[Balabanto]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Be that as it may, the problem is that the Pro-Reg side relies on marketing research to make it's point.

 

And quite frankly, having seen the results of marketing research, you guys should all be concerned.

 

Marketing Research is exactly that. People base entire strategies of economics on it.

 

So when Tony Stark and Reed Richards say "According to these equations, blah blah blah blah blah..."

 

I don't believe this nonsense for a minute.

 

Marketing Research doesn't work. And I can prove it. Macy's seems to think it works.

 

According to them, Macy's is better off with every associate dressed in black.

 

However, all the associates hate it.

 

And the customers hate it too. In New York, that strategy might hold water, but people walk into our store and tell us that it looks like a mortuary.

 

So did the marketing research work?

 

The problem is that instead of making Tony and Reed actual geniuses, they made them corporate stooges that feel powerless and need to feel like geniuses while simultaneously enacting policies that benefit them and screw over the lower downs.

 

But this isn't what Reed and Tony are supposed to be like. They're supposed to be HEROES too.

 

And they didn't act heroically at all.