Cap is dead!!!!

[casualplayer]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

It would have been rational had it been gradual. For Cap' date=' 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 [b']as published prior to Avengers #4?[/b] 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.

 

Oh, you'll love this then, Hugh. (for March 12, 2007)

 

http://www.shortpacked.com/index.html

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Hugh, Belabranto fundamental rules of Super hero comics seem right to me also. Most likely why I loathe civil War among other reasons I suppose. Marvel I believe purposely is ignoring to try to tell their story in a fresh way and its not working for me because it denies why I read these books in the first place for its larger than life heros.

[Kirby]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

The area we don't agree on is why Cap doesn't kill anymore. See' date=' Cap was brought back in the 60's when comics couldn't be published without the "Comic Code Authority". As long as that stupid seal was on the comic then the character would never be able to kill anyone. Also, I think companies were a bit hesitant to have their characters kill because their audience were young children. Not too many characters end up dead on Saturday morning cartoons either (minus Dragonball Z). So his character adopted the new personality due to outside forces more than any true growth on the character's part.[/quote']This is somewhat of a metareasoning (is that the word?) Everything the characters did was because of the people writing the story. Using that, you can "write off" any argument. However, I'm more talking about the "role playing" of Captain America as opposed to the "GM/player" aspect. As for the CCA, as was pointed out, that was voluntary. As for "stupid seal," that seal also stood for the fact that crime wasn't to be portrayed in a positive way, drugs were not to be seen as a joy, the good guys always won. My, what a terrible, terrible, ideal to put into the head of a 10-year old. Maybe we should show kids video of teenage uncles giving marijuana to a 2 year old and 5 year old to smoke while the mom's in the house? No CCA needed for that.

 

Also, I believe it was Marvel that first decided to stop having their comics pass the CCA standard. (And look at what a wonderful job Marvel's done since then. )

 

You know what amazes me the most though' date=' is how much the 'comic code authority' and the children's audience has affected the superhero genre. Do you realize no other genre has such a stringent "hero's don't kill mentality". Not westerns, sci-fi, fantasy, samurai, cop dramas or action flicks cater so much to that philosophy. Luke Skywalker, Frodo, Robin Hood, and the Lone Ranger can kill multitudes of enemies and still be considered heroes. Hell, Harry Potter has caused more death in four years of school than Captain America has in 40+ years.[/quote']I think you're really stretching on this. Star Wars was PG, not G, Frodo never killed multitudes (many of the "big battles" [such as Helm's Deep] in TLOTR were never described), in fact, I'd be hard-pressed to say he killed (it'd take a lot of rereading). I don't recall Robin Hood killing, so much as robbing from the corrupt rich/sherrif and I don't recall seeing the Lone Ranger kill anyone on tv. As for Harry Potter (something way after CCA), I'd like for you to do an accurate comparisson of body counts; I think you're exaggerating for effect. Please show some proof on these claims.

 

To the core argument of your rant though, what you're mentioning is N-O-T children's television nor children's movies. Porn doesn't subscribe to the CCA, but the target audiences are different. Comic books WERE a children's medium.

[Stone]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

For me, this entire series is so over the top and out of character for multiple heroes its almost laughable. Heroes who have risked their lives so many times it impossible to count have suddenly decided forced servitude is a good idea? Yeah, Stark has been/is an "ends justify the means" type of guy, but this is just stupid. All the heroes he's fought side by side with & that risked their lives to save his, he is now gonna put them in a permament prision unless they fall in line. Reed Richards is the most brillant man on the planet, and yet he can't grasp how this registration violates laws he has fought to protect? Sure he has "done the math", but cold hard numbers should not be blinding him to whats going on. He clones Thor and the clone kills someone, and yet he continues? Please! The Xmen just sit back watch the country fall apart? Granted the resistance folks don't have much of leg to stand on to ask for their help, since I don't recall too many (if any) speaking out against the mutant regristion act.

 

Hey here's an idea, Why didn't Reed and Tony present their findings and make it voluntary? How many young heroes, broke heroes, hero heroes migt have joined up. Nah, lets just force everyone. One big hole in Stark's & Richards plan (besides Prym)...what about the rest of the world? Sure you have the heroes in America goose stepping, but the rest of the world is unchanged. What about heroes who just leave (like the Thing...before he came back)?

 

The series can be summed up in a few phrases; bad idea, bad story, poorly planned, poorly executed

[assault]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Frodo never killed multitudes (many of the "big battles" [such as Helm's Deep] in TLOTR were never described)' date=' in fact, I'd be hard-pressed to say he killed (it'd take a lot of rereading). [/quote']

 

You might be right about Frodo. I would check the Moria sequence for that, although I think he got taken out very early.

 

On the other hand, Sam certainly did kill in Moria. Merry was involved in the destruction of the Witch-King, and Pippin killed a troll. More importantly, they all fought in the scouring of the Shire.

 

Helm's Deep was described at considerable length, mainly in terms of Gimli and Legolas engaging in a competition about how many enemies they could kill!

[Kirby]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

The series can be summed up in a few phrases; bad idea' date=' bad story, poorly planned, poorly executed[/quote']That's true.

 

When I was in the Army, one of our (many) sayings was called "the six P's" which stands for: Proper planning prevents piss-poor performance. Seems to me Marvel didn't do any of this. And this is from someone who hasn't read Marvel in probably a decade or so!

[Balabanto]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

The truly interesting thing is that they called it Civil War.

 

And now no one can be civil about it. At all.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Re: Frodo (enclosed in spoiler tags for prevention of derails)

 

The unmaking of the ring could be construed as an act of mass destruction. Jillions of orcs died at the fall of the Black Gate. There are only two problems with this. Orcs have no onus attached to their deaths within LotR; they are irretrievably fallen and incapable of grace, instead filled with unending malice for all other living things, and second, Gollum was the one who actually destroyed it. So no, Frodo did not kill anyone, and in fact actively opposed killing anyone, even in the battle of the Shire.

 

Re: Captain America's transformation from killer to non-killer:

This is an unfair premise. The changes we are talking about are perceived changes in how the creators make the characters act. There is no real Tony Stark or Reed Richards by which we can judge the passage of time or the mutability of character. Twenty years passed between presentations of Captain America. Twenty real years wherein the character languished pretty much unused and largely ignored. Bringing the character back in any shape or form has no bearing on why fans might feel upset. He was a character from Timely Comics, forgotten by the general public. Who cares what the character did 20 years ago?

 

Now, people were reading the Fantastic Four and Iron Man just before CW started. Their characters altered overnight, rather obviously for the express purpose of supporting a gimmicky storyline. For people who don't particularly care for the storyline, they have every right to be upset, and should voice their disapproval with their buying dollar. They have every right to be vocal, in the hopes that their favorite characters will be treated in a manner they would like to spend their entertainment money on.

Please note that this is not confined to CW. It happens all the time in both DC and Marvel (Max Lord, for example).

 

Such changes rightfully feel artificial and contrived, weakening the suspension of disbelief that allows the reader to enjoy the characters. If Reed Richards can turn around his entire character for the sake of one storyline, who is Reed Richards?

 

He's whoever writes him, of course. Millar has again and again shown himself to have unlikable points of view and storytelling conventions (so far as this board is concerned). People look at Reed in Civil War and can only see the hand of Millar.

 

To sum up (too late), the changes in character that people are complaining about are not gradual evolutions of the characters in response to changing social values; they are short-sighted, gimmick-driven straw-men and authorial-voices created to sell comics. If they work in the long run, then I would not hesitate to agree that the changes reflect society. But my strong suspicion is that this will all be forgotten in five years.

 

Keith "Only to be replaced by something even more horrible" Curtis

[Mister E]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Hmmm it seems that Stephen Colbert has been bequeathed [in a letter allegedly written by Joe Quesada] a replica of Captain America's shield and the legacy it entails. I mention this because when I saw the show' date=' I was wondering to myself what the folks on the HERO boards would think about this?[/quote']

 

Hopefully he'll use it to fend off any bears that happen upon him; i.e. giant maurauding godless killing machines.

 

What do I think? 1... it's not Quesada's to give away. 2... I wish I'd seen the show, and think Stephen Colbert (in his way) has done much to champion the true American Spirit; and is an asset to this country. ... and 3... this is really just more Marvel media face-time.

 

Joe's statement to the world is colored by the abuse and misuse of Marvels finest superheroes: icons of virtue that were sacrificed for quick market gains.

[input.jack]

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"?

 

Batman used a gun for TWO ISSUES, when Bob Kane was still trying to figure out what to do with the character and breaking new ground IN 1938!!

 

Leave out the gun, already. Its been over half a century since he used it; that ship has sailed!

[Balabanto]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

I'd like to point out that Batman HAS used a gun a couple of times since then, but the opponents were either A) Nonliving (The Mad Monk is a Vampire, he lacks the requisite survival failure) or To disarm someone from a stupidly great distance. The purpose of the action was NOT just to save the innocent life and take the target out without killing them, but also to intimidate, embarrass, and terrify Slade Wilson, whose words "No one can make that shot" actually made it worth it.

 

I thought the second one was a fantastic homage to Doc Savage, who could easily be the greatest marksman in the world but does not use a gun at all because it dulls the wits and slows the mind.

 

So be careful. Not everything in comics is absolutes. Most things though, can be clearly defined in terms of good and evil.

[Pariah]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

But my strong suspicion is that this will all be forgotten in five years.

 

We can only hope. But I fear your "Only to be replaced by something even more horrible" might be prophetic....

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Most likely why I loathe civil War among other reasons I suppose. Marvel I believe purposely is ignoring to try to tell their story in a fresh way and its not working for me because it denies why I read these books in the first place for its larger than life heros.

 

This, I think, is the crux of the problem with Civil War. Marvel has decided to depart from the normal conventions of the superhero comic. Numerous other books have done so, with varying degrees of success or failure, but they have done so either outside the Big Two, or outside the mainstream Marvel or DC universe.

 

For years, comic readers complained that there was no more innovation in comics. This charge was levied mostly at Marvel, who had built their success by building more "real world" heroes with "real world" problems in the 1960's and had since fallen into formula.

 

When you make a radical change, it's certain there will be those who don't like it. While I consider the storyline plausible, with some explanation as to the actions of the players, I'm not thrilled with the story in particular or the long-term ramifications in general. But simply saying "you've changed thing; I don't like it" doesn't make it wrong.

 

Ultimately, the answer for anyone who doesn't like what Marvel is doing is "don't buy it". If the books don't sell, Marvel will look for something new. If they do sell, then perhaps the claims that the medium has moved on from what we old guard may have desired are correct.

 

Most music recorded today isn't to my liking either, but it seems to sell. A lot of today's "fashion" makes me shudder. But people wear it, and it sells, so I'm clealy not the majority. Why should anyone expect comics to be different?

 

This is somewhat of a metareasoning (is that the word?) Everything the characters did was because of the people writing the story. Using that' date=' you can "write off" any argument. However, I'm more talking about the "role playing" of Captain America as opposed to the "GM/player" aspect.[/quote']

 

OK, I have no idea why this impacts anything. The "reason" Reed and Tony took the actions they did is because the writers wanted them to. The "reason" Cap moved from 1940's sensibilities to 1960's sensibilities was because the writers wanted him to. Both appear as sudden shifts which may not be justified. In Civil War, some attempt (whether one buys into it or not) was made to explain their views. It was, in my opinion, too little, too late. The Pro-Reg side was already too clearly depicted as fascists to save the storyline. Had the storyline been better paced, and made more of an effort to portray the Pro Reg as understandable, even sympathetic, from the outset, the storyline would have been vastly improved. In Cap/Avengers, no explanation was ever ofered. But fans accepted these things more readily in the 1960's than the rigorous continuity cops do now.

 

As for the CCA' date=' as was pointed out, that was voluntary.[/quote']

 

It was theoretically voluntary. Practically, if the publishers wanted to survive, they had little choice but to adopt it. Going to work is voluntary, but if I want to pay the mortgage and keep food on the table, as welll as enjoy little luxuries like internet access, comic books and RPG products, I don't have a lot of choices.

 

As for "stupid seal' date='" that seal also stood for the fact that crime wasn't to be portrayed in a positive way, drugs were not to be seen as a joy, the good guys always won. My, what a terrible, terrible, ideal to put into the head of a 10-year old. [/quote']

 

Are comics only for kids? That's the real issue of the comics code. Even at the time, movies had a rating system. Books covered different topics in different fashions. Some were for kids, some were not. Cartoons and comics both suffered from the perception that they were aimed primarily, if not exclusively, at children. The Comics Code accepted that and self-regulated so the publishers could survive. Those publishers who did not accept the Code perished. Certainly, it was an overreaction on the part of the public, and likely the Code creators, to the issues raised.

 

Come to think of it, this ties in to the plausibility of the CW storyline itself. "Mandatory registration for all Supers" is a similar overreaction to the Stamford incident. Similarly, the Mutant Registration Act an overreaction to the presence of mutants, the Patriot Act is arguably an overreaction to 9/11 and the intenment of Japanese Americans was an overreaction to Pearl Harbour. The primary difference between the CW overreaction and previous comic book overreactions is that, this time, not all Supers were on the "right side" of opposing it.

 

Also' date=' I believe it was Marvel that first decided to stop having their comics pass the CCA standard. (And look at what a wonderful job Marvel's done since then. )[/quote']

 

So you're saying Marvel started declining around Spider-Man 96-98, correct? That's when the CCA rejected Stan Lee's storyline which saw Harry Osborne hooked on heroin. The storyline was written at the request of US government officials, to portray the dangers of drug use, and Stan Lee decided that the CCA's rules were an overreaction, and that he would publish the stories without the seal. That was in 1971. I suspect most posters - whether pro or anti CW - would not agree that any decline they perceive started that early.

 

Mind you, once they decided to make NEW heroes with the names of CLASSIC heroes, instead of bringing back the classics, the whole industry tanked anyway, right? What were they thinking in the '50s and '60's?

 

For more on the CCA, Wiki is here.

 

I think you're really stretching on this. Star Wars was PG' date=' not G[/quote']

 

Given the level of violence in most comics, would they rate a "G" rating? I'm amazed how many TV shows from the '70s now need a "Viewer Discretion" warning for their level of violence - and I definitely remember watching Battlestar Galactica at or about age 10 with no one squawking about the violence. Mind you, I also used to watch the "uncensored" Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck cartoons which are now deemed too much for young minds. I guess that's why I grew up to read comics, play RPG's and work as a professional instead of taking some more acceptable life pattern.

 

To the core argument of your rant though' date=' what you're mentioning is N-O-T children's television nor children's movies. Porn doesn't subscribe to the CCA, but the target audiences are different. Comic books WERE a children's medium.[/quote']

 

So are fairy tales, aren't they? Even in the sanitized versions, there's some pretty wicked stuff going on in there. The Witch gets shoved into an oven, the Woodsman hacks the head off the Big Bad Wolf, the Seven Dwarves force the Witch off a cliff.

 

For me' date=' this entire series is so over the top and out of character for multiple heroes its almost laughable.[/quote']

 

Regardless of the "out of character" issue, I agree the series goes too far over the top.

 

Heroes who have risked their lives so many times it impossible to count have suddenly decided forced servitude is a good idea?

 

"Forced servitude"? The theory started as a requirement you register your superpowers, and either use them in government regulated service or stop fighting crime as a vigilante. If I and a few neighbours decide we'll go hunting for criminals in our neighbourhood, packing tasers and night sticks (let's not even consider firearms), do you think that would be acceptable? Would wearing colourful spandex and adopting code names make it more acceptable? Police officers are licensed and regulated.

 

The storyline presumes a push by the American public to similarly license and regulate superheroes. This is probably realistic, but that particular "unrealism" has been an underlying ground rule of superhero comics for ever, so the storyline is clearly breaking those unwritten rules. Even so, weren't a lot of the respected Super teams sanctioned by government already? The Avengers were subject to government scrutiny, and I believe the FF as well.

 

After a number of high-speed chases, the police here were put under closer scrutiny regarding such chases. Use of tasers by the police is regulated. In a "real world with super powers", which Marvel seems to be edging towards, do you really think these powers would not be monitored, and their use regulated?

 

Yeah' date=' Stark has been/is an "ends justify the means" type of guy, but this is just stupid. All the heroes he's fought side by side with & that risked their lives to save his, he is now gonna put them in a permament prision unless they fall in line.[/quote']

 

Isn't that what we do with superheroes who turn supervillain?

 

Reed Richards is the most brillant man on the planet' date=' and yet he can't grasp how this registration violates laws he has fought to protect?[/quote']

 

The registration act IS law. And since when is the guy whose powers arise from an incident when he illegally stole and flew a space mission primarily motivated by laws anyway?

 

Sure he has "done the math"' date=' but cold hard numbers should not be blinding him to whats going on. He clones Thor and the clone kills someone, and yet he continues?[/quote']

 

The Thor clone still bugs me. But his actions, primarily in FF, make it pretty clear he's not comfortable with what's going on. At the same time, his "cold, hard numbers" don't provide him with any perceived alternative.

 

Please! The Xmen just sit back watch the country fall apart? Granted the resistance folks don't have much of leg to stand on to ask for their help' date=' since I don't recall too many (if any) speaking out against the mutant regristion act[/quote']

 

The X-Men are in their own politically sensitive position. Much of the CW problem is that Marvel's thrust at greater realism forces heroes into positions where there's no real "heroic" option. Again, I would agree this violates core precepts of classic superhero comics.

 

Hey here's an idea' date=' Why didn't Reed and Tony present their findings and make it voluntary? How many young heroes, broke heroes, hero heroes migt have joined up. Nah, lets just force everyone.[/quote']

 

Because 100% participation is, apparently, the requirement for this to work. The initial plan seemed to be "you join up or you don't use your powers - you don't get to work as untrained, unmonitored, unlicensed, unregistered vigilantes any more".

 

One big hole in Stark's & Richards plan (besides Prym)...what about the rest of the world? Sure you have the heroes in America goose stepping' date=' but the rest of the world is unchanged. What about heroes who just leave (like the Thing...before he came back)?[/quote']

 

The back story indicates that many other countries were working on similar legislation, but that the US was closest to its implementation, even before the Stamford incident.

 

The series can be summed up in a few phrases; bad idea' date=' bad story, poorly planned, poorly executed[/quote']

 

I agree with the last two. I'm torn on the second. As to the first, I don't think the precept was wholly unreasonable. Whether shifting the MU away from "classic superhero" more towards "ordinary people with powers" is a good idea, time and sales will tell. The classic Stan Lee heroes in the 1960's were a shift away from the Pure as the Driven Snow supers published by others (mainly DC) at that time towards supers who had real life flaws, foibles and problems, so an early step in this direction. That worked out pretty well - if it didn't, no one would care about those characters today.

 

Re: Captain America's transformation from killer to non-killer:

 

This is an unfair premise. The changes we are talking about are perceived changes in how the creators make the characters act. There is no real Tony Stark or Reed Richards by which we can judge the passage of time or the mutability of character. Twenty years passed between presentations of Captain America. Twenty real years wherein the character languished pretty much unused and largely ignored. Bringing the character back in any shape or form has no bearing on why fans might feel upset. He was a character from Timely Comics, forgotten by the general public. Who cares what the character did 20 years ago?

 

Actually, he was also published in the mid-'50s, albeit briefly, and fans noticed the fact that Cap had been published long past the "frozen in a block of ice in 1944" story posed by Stan. The question was asked often enough that Cap's book eventually ran an arc explaining the 1950's Cap, and What If ran a storyline explaining how Cap appeared after 1944 which was adopted as Marvel Mainstream.

 

Now' date=' people were reading the Fantastic Four and Iron Man just before CW started. Their characters altered overnight, rather obviously for the express purpose of supporting a gimmicky storyline. [b']For people who don't particularly care for the storyline, they have every right to be upset, and should voice their disapproval with their buying dollar.[/b]They have every right to be vocal, in the hopes that their favorite characters will be treated in a manner they would like to spend their entertainment money on.

 

 

Emphasis mine. That's certainly true. And anyone who wholeheartedly supports Marvel's new direction (I don't count myself in that group - any takers?) has similar rights. Ultimately, sales will determine whether this is the "new world order", or is swept under the rug. Don't like it? Don't buy it!

 

But I note the protesters in this thread lay claim to a detailed knowledge of the storyline, which I presume means they have read it. I'm guessing they didn't steal the books (that would be decidedly unheroic ), so Marvel got some of their dollars. How many stopped buying before CW 7?

 

Please note that this is not confined to CW. It happens all the time in both DC and Marvel.

 

A key point - changes such as this have happened before, and will happen again. They sell books!

 

He's whoever writes him' date=' of course. Millar has again and again shown himself to have unlikable points of view and storytelling conventions (so far as this board is concerned). People look at Reed in Civil War and can only see the hand of Millar.[/quote']

 

This is a solid point. Many of the Pro Reg characters' reasons and explanations are not presented in CW, but in those characters' regular books. To some extent, this is because CW only has so many pages. But to some extent, it can also be viewed as the regular writers trying to find a context for the CW actions they didn't write.

 

To sum up (too late), the changes in character that people are complaining about are not gradual evolutions of the characters in response to changing social values; they are short-sighted, gimmick-driven straw-men and authorial-voices created to sell comics. If they work in the long run, then I would not hesitate to agree that the changes reflect society. But my strong suspicion is that this will all be forgotten in five years.

 

Keith "Only to be replaced by something even more horrible" Curtis

 

Sales will drive the decision. However, the vehement protestors of CW seem to forget sales have ALWAYS driven the decision (your tagline hits it right on the head above, though). The CCA was driven by the fact that sales would otherwise go down to the point the industry would die.

 

For a great example of this, I once read that the 1960's editor of the Superman line had two years of books on his office walls, sales figures attached. A spike in sales meant we would see a similar cover and story in about two years. He figured the lifespan of a comics reader was about 2 years, so it would look new and attract buyers like the last cover of that nature did.

 

Today's readers aren't as influenced by the cover, so we have to do something else. The "mega-event" where "everything changes after this issue!" is the new attractor. The problem is that, to get those sales again, everything has to change again, which makes most of these changes pretty transient.

 

At least it takes five years now!

[Zane_Marlowe]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

There's already been some discussion about the CW's construal of political liberties on the related thread in the NGD discussion. I'd recommend CW comments that get somewhat involved would benefit from being discussed more there than in this thread on Cap.

 

My central contribution to that thread was just that the CW writers mistook the constitutional limits on conscriptive service by gathering that under the heading of legal limits on the use of powers. The latter is much easier to accomplish in law than the former.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

There's already been some discussion about the CW's construal of political liberties on the related thread in the NGD discussion. I'd recommend CW comments that get somewhat involved would benefit from being discussed more there than in this thread on Cap.

 

My central contribution to that thread was just that the CW writers mistook the constitutional limits on conscriptive service by gathering that under the heading of legal limits on the use of powers. The latter is much easier to accomplish in law than the former.

 

In the context of the CW story, I think it's fair to accept that the Superhero Dispute Resolution Process is much faster than the Judicial Dispute Resolution Process and, as such, the challenges to the legality and/or constitutionality of the Registration Act have not reached the courts (and probably will not be decided by the superior courts for many years).

[Zane_Marlowe]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Granted, but my point was that you can arrest me for doing something improperly (using powers) or for failing to register as a member of a certain kind of class quite easily in our legal framework, you can't arrest me for failing to become a law-enforcement officer without some SERIOUS rewriting of existing law. I'm arguing that the latter wouldn't have passed congress since the former answered the social crisis of Stamford. Thing recognized this and moved to France (of all places) in what I took to be the most brilliant piece of writing in the whole dungheap.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Hugh, it seems we're pretty much in agreement.

(I was ignoring 50's Cap as a publishing blip.)

 

Although I haven't bought any comics in the last 8 months, I have kept up through discussions boards, reviews and published excerpts. I'm just in a situation where finances and geographic isolation have enforced a cold-turkey cessation.

 

Keith "I miss them less than I thought I would" Curtis

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

To disarm someone from a stupidly great distance. The purpose of the action was NOT just to save the innocent life and take the target out without killing them' date=' but also to intimidate, embarrass, and terrify Slade Wilson, whose words "No one can make that shot" actually made it worth it.[/quote']

 

There was also the whole "the only way to save the innocent is to kill the shooter" and Slade trying to makes bats go against his psych lims. Them Batman embarasses Slade. That was classic Batman - put into a situations that there only seems one way out of, and going somewhere different.

[input.jack]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

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".

 

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:

 

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

 

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.

 

Ill try to explain (although its already been explained).

 

"Yesterday", soldiers killed in the course of the war. Captain America was a soldier, first and foremost. But that doesnt mean he had to like it. A great many soldiers return from war with a hard conviction never to take another life.

 

"Today", the war is long over, and Cap never wants to have to snuff out another human life again. I see absolutely no conflict in characterization here.

 

As far as his attitude toward the Russians, Cap stands for freedom and liberty, for truth, and for justice, right? There is none of that in Stalin's Russia. This "Red Book" you refer to sounds like an ill-thought-out characterization, to me.

 

I would have a much easier time believing that Cap, like General George Patton, was willing to work with the Russians during the war because he was ordered to.

 

But he never liked or trusted their government. (individual Russians, sure. But not their government).

 

The United States and the Soviet Union operated together during the war, but for a great many soldiers, we were NOT "friends" in any sense of the word. Patton himself tried hard to convince the politicians back home to give him the green light to head straight for Moscow once Berlin had fallen. (And it might not have been a bad idea if he had, in some ways). So, for Cap to dislike and distrust the Communist Soviets is, in my eyes, in no way out of character. A great many people felt -exactly- that way.

[input.jack]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

I'd like to point out that Batman HAS used a gun a couple of times since then, but the opponents were either A) Nonliving (The Mad Monk is a Vampire, he lacks the requisite survival failure) or To disarm someone from a stupidly great distance. The purpose of the action was NOT just to save the innocent life and take the target out without killing them, but also to intimidate, embarrass, and terrify Slade Wilson, whose words "No one can make that shot" actually made it worth it.

 

I thought the second one was a fantastic homage to Doc Savage, who could easily be the greatest marksman in the world but does not use a gun at all because it dulls the wits and slows the mind.

 

So be careful. Not everything in comics is absolutes. Most things though, can be clearly defined in terms of good and evil.

 

Indeed! (And Repped)

[Balabanto]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

The other thing about Captain America is that before he was Steve Rogers, buttkicker of evil, he was Steve Rogers, frail starving artist.

 

He was trained to be a symbol for troops everywhere and to fight for everything that he loved. That doesn't mean he enjoyed killing people.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Ill try to explain (although its already been explained).

 

"Yesterday", soldiers killed in the course of the war. Captain America was a soldier, first and foremost. But that doesnt mean he had to like it. A great many soldiers return from war with a hard conviction never to take another life.

 

"Today", the war is long over, and Cap never wants to have to snuff out another human life again. I see absolutely no conflict in characterization here.

 

As far as his attitude toward the Russians, Cap stands for freedom and liberty, for truth, and for justice, right? There is none of that in Stalin's Russia. This "Red Book" you refer to sounds like an ill-thought-out characterization, to me.

 

I would have a much easier time believing that Cap, like General George Patton, was willing to work with the Russians during the war because he was ordered to.

 

But he never liked or trusted their government. (individual Russians, sure. But not their government).

 

The United States and the Soviet Union operated together during the war, but for a great many soldiers, we were NOT "friends" in any sense of the word. Patton himself tried hard to convince the politicians back home to give him the green light to head straight for Moscow once Berlin had fallen. (And it might not have been a bad idea if he had, in some ways). So, for Cap to dislike and distrust the Communist Soviets is, in my eyes, in no way out of character. A great many people felt -exactly- that way.

 

By the same logic that these might be reasonable characterizations of Cap, the Pro Reg fascism (no more democracy - you[ll register and do as you're told, or be hauled away in the night), combined with demands Cap hunt down his friends (ie become one of the fascists), with a plan by old allies SHIELD to take him out because they suspected he wouldn't go along with this might very well lead Cap to see matters in a new light.

 

One not wholly unreasonable response is for him to view the United States Government (not the United States as a whole, not the principals of America, but the government which has evidenced its willingness to trample civil liberties in exchange for a sense of security from metahumans) as being a fascist body, and to go underground, to form a movement dedicated to resisting the De-Americanizing of America in the same fashion the French resistance resisted the Nazi-fication of their own nation.

 

Cap has never ben about "America - right or wrong". He has been about the ideals on which America was based. I seem to recall an old Cap story where he states quite clearly that he didn't go to war because Hitler's fascism couldn't happen here, but because it very well could. What would Cap NOT sacrifice to protect the true spirit of America from its enemies, whether without or within? Note that, even at the darkest hour, Cap was not able to stomach the Punisher's cavalier approach to human life - his principals were still there. But so was his love for the ideals of America, and his drive to do whatever it would take to defend those ideals.

 

I suspect, when I do get around to reading CW 7 and Cap 25, it's America that has let Cap down by failing to remain true to its own ideals.

[psm]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

The other thing about Captain America is that before he was Steve Rogers, buttkicker of evil, he was Steve Rogers, frail starving artist.

 

He was trained to be a symbol for troops everywhere and to fight for everything that he loved. That doesn't mean he enjoyed killing people.

 

Actually, that's a recon. Steve Rogers was never originally a starving artist. He wasn't anything before Cap except frail. It wasn't important to the story. I believe the artist part was added in the 70's.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Actually' date=' that's a recon. Steve Rogers was never originally a starving artist. He wasn't anything before Cap except frail. It wasn't important to the story. I believe the artist part was added in the 70's.[/quote']

 

Well, he was already patriotic - he held the values of Captain America. He wanted to do anything he could to help in the war effort, however small.

 

In fairness, a lot of golden age characters didn't have much in the way of a pre-origin backstory. They might have held a job if it was important to their origin story (eg. Alan Scott was an engineer so he'd be aboard a train - then he's a different kind of engineer, ultimately ending up in radio broadcasting).

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Scans here. Not the issue in its entirety.