New Avengers are very Dark Champions

[Enforcer84]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Depends on how you want to spin it. Putting on a costume and fighting crime is a genre convention that has lasted just under seventy years. That in the real world it would equal vigilantism only means something when you start applying real world standards to a fictional genre.

 

 

 

Te same "challenges" were issued by Moore, Miller and Veitch over twenty years ago, and by Farmer and other science fiction writers twenty years and more before that. Hell, they were present in Wylie's Gladiator in 1930. I don't need a course on deconstruction of the genre, and the genre doesn't need further de-mythification. There comes a point when you have to accept the genre you're working in and just try to tell a good story.

 

When an idea (those who take the law into their own hands are vigilantes by out of genre standards) has been kicking around for seventy years and more, passing it off as something new doesn't really wash.

 

 

His creation murdered a hero, while Tony was attempting to imprison without trial and impress against their will into lifetime indenture men who had repeatedly saved the world. That is villainous, and it's not a hard distinction to make.

I say thee yay!

[psm]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

The same "challenges" were issued by Moore, Miller and Veitch over twenty years ago, and by Farmer and other science fiction writers twenty years and more before that. Hell, they were present in Wylie's Gladiator in 1930. I don't need a course on deconstruction of the genre, and the genre doesn't need further de-mythification. There comes a point when you have to accept the genre you're working in and just try to tell a good story.

 

When an idea (those who take the law into their own hands are vigilantes by out of genre standards) has been kicking around for seventy years and more, passing it off as something new doesn't really wash.

 

Wait, since a particular theme was visited twenty years ago it should never be dealt with again? That's ludicrous. Secondly, who says you have to accept the genre as it is? I feel that's incredibly obtuse. It's been done pretty much in the same style for the past seventies years (as you pointed out) shouldn't it be time for a change? I mean is the whole idea of the masked vigilantism really a key component for the genre? The tv show Heroes (or Savage Dragon) doesn't fall into that trope and it seems to exist quite easily within the superhero genre. I don't believe that questioning the idea of masked vigilantism is de-constructing the genre as much as it's telling it in a new style. I personally applaud Marvel for incorporating new ideas into their story telling. Obviously, you don't.

 

His creation murdered a hero, while Tony was attempting to imprison without trial and impress against their will into lifetime indenture men who had repeatedly saved the world. That is villainous, and it's not a hard distinction to make.

 

Except, Stark wasn't trying to arrest him. He was there to offer amnesty. It was Cap and his crew who decided to attack their fellow friends, federal agents and various heroes who also spent their life saving the world. They were in the wrong. The registration act was a law by time they met. If they didn't believe in the law they could have staged a peaceful resistance or appealed to the american public. They didn't have to resort to violence. Well actually, they kinda did for the purpose of the genre but within the context of the story their actions were as culpable as Stark's were.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Wait' date=' since a particular theme was visited twenty years ago it should never be dealt with again? That's ludicrous.[/quote']

 

And if that were the position I'd stated, I'd be suitably chagrined.

 

And for the record, twenty years ago, forty years ago, and eighty years ago when Wylie first tried to publish Gladiator. All that's old is new again.

 

Secondly, who says you have to accept the genre as it is?

 

No one at all. However, the Superheroes of 616 have been acting under genre rules that said putting on a mask to perform freelance crime fighting was a good idea since the Marvel Universe began. Changing the rules on them now is asinine. If writers want to tell stories in a Universe where the rules are different, that's what the Ultimates line is for.

 

I feel that's incredibly obtuse.

 

Then you could re-read and decide if that's actually what I typed, or if there's another possible interpretation.

 

It's been done pretty much in the same style for the past seventies years (as you pointed out) shouldn't it be time for a change?

 

The genre has changed over the last seventy years, and will continue to do so. Some of those changes, including the current shift in the MU, have been for the worse.

 

I mean is the whole idea of the masked vigilantism really a key component for the genre?

 

Nope. But the Marvel Universe has gone through decades of characters who evolved under a set of rules presenting masked crime fighting as widely accepted and laudable. Changing the rules on those characters is possible, but requires a much defter hand than was used here. Again, the Ultiverse was the right way to go for the exploration of these themes; a half-fast Civil War in 616 was not.

 

 

I don't believe that questioning the idea of masked vigilantism is de-constructing the genre as much as it's telling it in a new style.

 

Challenging the underlying assumptions of a genre is deconstructing the genre. Here's a wiki link.

 

I personally applaud Marvel for incorporating new ideas into their story telling. Obviously, you don't.

 

Speaking as a moderator, I'd advise against telling other posters what they do or do not think or mean. It's pointlessly confrontational. And, again, Civil War incorporated no new ideas.

 

within the context of the story their actions were as culpable as Stark's were.

Being able to make the claim "they could have surrendered" doesn't let Tony keep the title of Hero. The heroes were defying an unjust law, in the only way the writers of a crap series would permit. The minions of the government that passed the unjust law were the bad guys.

[psm]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

And if that were the position I'd stated, I'd be suitably chagrined.

 

And for the record, twenty years ago, forty years ago, and eighty years ago when Wylie first tried to publish Gladiator. All that's old is new again.

 

Alright, I agree that wasn't the point you were making. I stand corrected. However, it's still new for the MU which is the point I was trying to make just not very succinctly.

 

 

No one at all. However, the Superheroes of 616 have been acting under genre rules that said putting on a mask to perform freelance crime fighting was a good idea since the Marvel Universe began. Changing the rules on them now is asinine. If writers want to tell stories in a Universe where the rules are different, that's what the Ultimates line is for.

 

The genre has changed over the last seventy years, and will continue to do so. Some of those changes, including the current shift in the MU, have been for the worse.

 

Nope. But the Marvel Universe has gone through decades of characters who evolved under a set of rules presenting masked crime fighting as widely accepted and laudable. Changing the rules on those characters is possible, but requires a much defter hand than was used here. Again, the Ultiverse was the right way to go for the exploration of these themes; a half-fast Civil War in 616 was not.

 

This is really were we don't agree, which boils down to a difference of opinions. We can of course keep going back and forth but it's going to get us nowhere. As stated previously, I like the changes. I think it adds excitement to a genre that has grown a bit stagnant. As you have stated you don't care for the new paradigm shift. And no matter how we try to frame our arguments we will not convince the other side. Nor should we even attempt. If you don't enjoy reading Marvel comics (which is really the most important thing), then nothing I can say or do will change that.

 

Challenging the underlying assumptions of a genre is deconstructing the genre. Here's a wiki link.

 

Yes it would be. However, my bone of contention is that masked vigilantism is not an underlying assumption of the genre. It may be an underlying assumption of both DC and Marvel but I consider that to be a more stylistic interpretation than a necessary element.

 

 

Speaking as a moderator, I'd advise against telling other posters what they do or do not think or mean. It's pointlessly confrontational. And, again, Civil War incorporated no new ideas.

 

The reason I made that point was to demonstrate that our argument was based really on a difference of opinions. Plus, saying that you are not enamored with the changes made at Marvel is not going on much of a limb. Especially considering a paragraph ago, you said it was "asinine" and "the current shift in the MU, have been for the worse". And as I previously stated it's a new idea in the context of the MU.

 

Being able to make the claim "they could have surrendered" doesn't let Tony keep the title of Hero. The heroes were defying an unjust law, in the only way the writers of a crap series would permit. The minions of the government that passed the unjust law were the bad guys.

 

The whole point was that it wasn't the government that passed the law but the american people (80% of the population voted for it). Was it bad characterization to make Cap and the other heroes disobey the law in such a manner? Probably. Bad characterization aside, Tony was following the will of the people. Now, the second question, which is even more pertinent, was it an unjust law? Within the old framework of the MU, yes it was. As you stated it was not only acceptable but encouraged to work outside the law. Within the new context, which we have been arguing about, it is a form a vigilantism and henceforth illegal and immoral.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

The whole point was that it wasn't the government that passed the law but the american people (80% of the population voted for it). Was it bad characterization to make Cap and the other heroes disobey the law in such a manner? Probably. Bad characterization aside, Tony was following the will of the people.

 

The will of the people has historically supported slavery, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Following the will of the people is also not what earns you the right to call yourself a Hero. "I was just following orders" is not a Hero's answer.

 

Now, the second question, which is even more pertinent, was it an unjust law? Within the old framework of the MU, yes it was. As you stated it was not only acceptable but encouraged to work outside the law.

 

Lifetime indenture based on an accident of birth is unjust under any context whatsoever. The registration act does not say "you must register to fight crime"; that could be justified, and I'd read the story. It says "You must register if you have a genetic trait (an active metagene), at which point you will serve the state for an undefined length of time or face imprisonment or chemical/surgical alteration".

Within the new context, which we have been arguing about,

 

I've been discussing the story, in the context of Marvels established continuity. The context Millar and Quesada are attempting to force onto an established setting is not valid.

 

it is a form a vigilantism and henceforth illegal and immoral.

 

Illegal is not necessarily immoral. German Christians who hid Jews during the Holocaust were breaking the law, but their actions were entirely moral.

[psm]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

The will of the people has historically supported slavery' date=' ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Following the will of the people is also not what earns you the right to call yourself a Hero. "I was just following orders" is not a Hero's answer.[/quote']

 

Yes, but we live in a society that doesn't support those things anymore. I can understand in a historical context. Even in the early years of the genre when the local government was still ruled by the mob bosses I could understand. Not today though. We live in an enlightened society (for the most part). I truly believe that if this country ever supported any law by 90% then it would be just. But as I said early the more important issue is if the law is just. I still believe in the context of the story it is.

 

Lifetime indenture based on an accident of birth is unjust under any context whatsoever. The registration act does not say "you must register to fight crime"; that could be justified, and I'd read the story. It says "You must register if you have a genetic trait (an active metagene), at which point you will serve the state for an undefined length of time or face imprisonment or chemical/surgical alteration".

 

I've read Civil War a few times now and I think you are mistaken on the context of the registration act. It clearly states that if you wish to pursue superhero activities you must register with the government. There is nothing in there dealing with registration based on genetic traits. Nor is there anything in there about how long someone has to serve or being required to serve (unless it was stated in one of the ancillary books). The only thing I personally disagree with is that the heroes aren't able to register with different levels of government based on choice. I could definitely see Spiderman being associated more with the NYPD than with the feds.

 

I've been discussing the story, in the context of Marvels established continuity. The context Millar and Quesada are attempting to force onto an established setting is not valid.

 

Why is it not valid? Just because you don't agree with their choices doesn't mean that it's wrong. I don't know if there can be a right and wrong on this. Just because something has been established doesn't mean it can't be altered, especially within a fictional setting.

 

Illegal is not necessarily immoral. German Christians who hid Jews during the Holocaust were breaking the law, but their actions were entirely moral.

 

True, but I was trying to keep it within the context of our current state. Vigilantism is immoral in today's society.

[Checkmate]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

True' date=' but I was trying to keep it within the context of our current state. Vigilantism is immoral in today's society.[/quote']

Then why are bounty hunters so popular?

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

We live in an enlightened society (for the most part).

 

I expect the Hutus think the same.

 

I truly believe that if this country ever supported any law by 90% then it would be just. But as I said early the more important issue is if the law is just. I still believe in the context of the story it is.

 

1) Marvel America is not the real America, and the assertion that popular=just isn't an assertion I'd accept even here. 2) Standards of Heroism may or may not be culture dependent in the real world; In a fictional universe with objective good and evil, I'd say they are not. 3) Your beliefs are your call.

 

 

 

I've read Civil War a few times now and I think you are mistaken on the context of the registration act. It clearly states that if you wish to pursue superhero activities you must register with the government. There is nothing in there dealing with registration based on genetic traits. Nor is there anything in there about how long someone has to serve or being required to serve (unless it was stated in one of the ancillary books).

 

Avengers New Initiative makes clear that registration is required if you have powers, that those who register are subject to a draft with no clear term of service, and that those who refuse to serve or fail to pass their training will have their powers removed.

Why is it not valid?

 

Because forty+ years of Marvel continuity make it clear that the world would not have survived without volunteer heroes, that anonymity is needed for many of those heroes to survive, that the government of Marvel America can't be trusted to keep heroes identities secret, and that the man finally put in charge, Tony Stark, has a history of periodically being driven insane and becoming a super criminal himself.

 

Just because something has been established doesn't mean it can't be altered, especially within a fictional setting.

 

And if the alterations had been organic, well thought out and well written in light of existing continuity, I might have enjoyed them.

 

True, but I was trying to keep it within the context of our current state. Vigilantism is immoral in today's society.

 

Marvel America is not today's society, and whether or not vigilantism is immoral here and now I'll leave to the Non Gaming Discussion.

[psm]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Then why are bounty hunters so popular?

 

 

Because they have a cool reality show.

 

Also bounty hunters aren't considered vigilantes.

[Shaft]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

The concept of a Secret Identity and Anonymity is becoming outdated as we live in a society that has more information gathering technology. If SHIELD wanted to find out who SpiderMan is, a satelite over Queens would eventually allow the agency to narrow its search. A telepath mind scanning Hell's Kitchen from the safety of a van could crack Daredevil's ID. The Carnivore system can intercept any email transaction that an underground hero uses or any cell phone conversation. Add super surveillance gadgetry in, and the hero who doesn't have the resources to counter them is out of luck.

 

Ironically enough Registration keeps "Secret IDs" plausible in the sense that the government can arrange for cover identidies, DNPC witness protection, etc... in the same way that undercover agents and spies' IDs are kept classified, when the gov't doesn't leak their IDs for political reasons (but I digress). Perhaps a better updated term is "Classified ID".

 

Besides, secret IDs were increasingly being exposed. Every hero knew every other hero's secret ID, and enough DNPCs, allies in government agencies and uh... villains could have pieced together the network with plain old humint.

 

IMHO, Secret IDs are a romantic idea for a recently past age whose plausibility doesn't hold water any more. I wish it weren't so, but common sense and understanding about the techniques above makes it so. (Again, this is merely my opinion).

 

The downside of Registration is the way it was implemented: the draft fells repressive. I'd prefer it if training were mandatory, then a choice is offered to voluntarily not use those powers or else to use them in federal service.

 

The dilemma that comic publishers face is whether to market to new generations or to existing ones. I'm sure that when Batman went Dark Knight, a lot of "Adam West" style fans were outraged. There is no doubt that when Gwen Stacy died after falling off that bridge, a lot of fans were outraged that comics had gone so bleak. But history now looks favourably on those signifigant changes. Civil War itself will not be remembered for its story, but my belief is that it will be acknowledged as the most significant event for this decade, Marvel comics-wise.

 

And as bad as it was, it reads better than anything with the Beyonder ever did.

[Shaft]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

bounty hunters aren't considered vigilantes.

 

If memory swerves, they have to register, don't they?

 

In the meantime, I must spread rep around before giving it to PSM and Oddhat.

[psm]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

The concept of a Secret Identity and Anonymity is becoming outdated as we live in a society that has more information gathering technology. If SHIELD wanted to find out who SpiderMan is, a satelite over Queens would eventually allow the agency to narrow its search. A telepath mind scanning Hell's Kitchen from the safety of a van could crack Daredevil's ID. The Carnivore system can intercept any email transaction that an underground hero uses or any cell phone conversation. Add super surveillance gadgetry in, and the hero who doesn't have the resources to counter them is out of luck.

 

Ironically enough Registration keeps "Secret IDs" plausible in the sense that the government can arrange for cover identidies, DNPC witness protection, etc... in the same way that undercover agents and spies' IDs are kept classified, when the gov't doesn't leak their IDs for political reasons (but I digress). Perhaps a better updated term is "Classified ID".

 

Besides, secret IDs were increasingly being exposed. Every hero knew every other hero's secret ID, and enough DNPCs, allies in government agencies and uh... villains could have pieced together the network with plain old humint.

 

IMHO, Secret IDs are a romantic idea for a recently past age whose plausibility doesn't hold water any more. I wish it weren't so, but common sense and understanding about the techniques above makes it so. (Again, this is merely my opinion).

 

Wow, I never thought of it that way. With technology changing the way it has, does that force the audience to have a greater suspension of belief towards secret identities? Obviously, any writer can write a multitude of reasons for a hero to still retain his secret id. I'm just curious if that forces that style of the genre to be less accepted by the general public.

 

The dilemma that comic publishers face is whether to market to new generations or to existing ones. I'm sure that when Batman went Dark Knight, a lot of "Adam West" style fans were outraged. There is no doubt that when Gwen Stacy died after falling off that bridge, a lot of fans were outraged that comics had gone so bleak. But history now looks favourably on those signifigant changes. Civil War itself will not be remembered for its story, but my belief is that it will be acknowledged as the most significant event for this decade, Marvel comics-wise.

 

Nicely said.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

IMHO, Secret IDs are a romantic idea for a recently past age whose plausibility doesn't hold water any more.

 

Right. Men who can fly, no problem. But a secret ID, obvious nonsense.

 

I'm sure that when Batman went Dark Knight, a lot of "Adam West" style fans were outraged.

 

Myself, I was reading comics when Dark Knight came out, and I expect most people in this thread could say the same. I've got boxes full of good Iron Age titles, and again I expect that's the case with many who disliked civil war.

 

I don't dislike Civil War because of it's "ground breaking new ideas"; I loved those "new" ideas the first time I read them in the 1980s (I was a teen, and thought they were wildly innovative), and when I went back and read them in the science fiction of the 1960s and 70s (see Farmer's Greatheart Silver for a Martial Law level deconstruction of the pulps, or the Complete Farmer for some even darker short stories, or the Calliban/Grandith books). I even found it a pleasant surprise when I sat down and read Gladiator, and saw the "new" ideas of the Iron Age played out in a story written in 1924 and finally published in 1930.

 

What I disliked was that Civil War took what could have been an interesting conflict, and then told the story really, really badly. Poor characterization, poor plotting, poor continuity even within the actual seven issue series itself (see: Clor) let alone when matched against the history of the MU. It had nice art, particularly the Sue/Johny Incest Flight and Action Package Namor, but otherwise it was just plain bad.

[Enforcer84]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

I wish I had an action package.

[Enforcer84]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Oh I fall on the Civil War was dumb side. If you can't tell.

[Shaft]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Right. Men who can fly' date=' no problem. But a secret ID, obvious nonsense. [/quote']

 

In fiction, you can get away with the impossible, but the improbable is harder to sell.

 

I don't dislike Civil War because of it's "ground breaking new ideas"... What I disliked was that Civil War took what could have been an interesting conflict' date=' and then told the story really, really badly. [/quote']

 

I agree with you there. I acknowledge that a lot of damage was done thanks to the poor implementation of this idea, and what could have been an amazing story arc instead is universally despised.

 

But it's done, and no amount of griping is going to change it. Sadly, until Steve Long decides to publish Champions Universe as a comic series (I sense him cringing as the workload required to do this is considered), most of us on the boards are going to find holes in comics that we can toss a cat through. Sadly, there are not that many sources of comics that are so universally recognised.

 

My thinking is that now that the smoke has settled, I'm prepared to see why they rushed Civil War through. I also recognise that this rewards lazy writing with my continued business, but I don't really consider myself that emotionally invested in these characters. As I said in earlier posts, they are sources of ideas for my GMing, and it's a common GM skill to pull good ideas out of other people's bad ones- in fact I can't think how many story lines I've run which were "corrected" storylines with the stupidity filtered out..

 

If I were more attached to the characters, I acknowledge that I'd be in the outraged camp, but I stopped acknowledging having absolute metrics to get attached to for characters that regularly get written by different writers so often. In the same way that writers pick and choose what to emphasize about the characters they like (or dislike), I too feel that as a reader I can accept or not accept any given idea even as I am reading it. Ultimately, all the writers for these characters with 40-60 years of publication history who were created by writers who are no longer with us are effectively writing fanfic. Some of that fanfic is acknowledged, and others are not. Stuff gets retconned as it becomes irrelevant, even by the official sources. Good and Bad ideas that they write will inevitably get changed by another writer in the future. Even life and death are arbitrary. With a structure this transient, all you can do is appreciate the immediacy of the moment of any given story.

 

I remember disliking the idea of SpiderMan not using webshooters before the first movie came out. But when I saw it, I liked it- it worked in the context of the movie. Now movie SpiderMan is not the same as 616 Spidey or Ultimate Spidey, but I consider that SpiderMan to be equally valid. I prefer the XMen movie lineup which has different founding members than the one in 616 (and is closer to Ultimates continuity). I may be one of the few people who actually prefer Ultimates continuity in general, since I feel the essence of the characters is better preserved with better storylines (IHMO) that have filtered the baggeage of decades of ununified plotlines, so maybe that also helps contribute to my tolerance for the Civil War- I just see it as another strand in the tangled mess. I consider Ultimates continuity to be more valid becasue it's a nice cleaned up version of the 616 universe, and it seems that Civil War won't be needed, since SHIELD does a great job cracking everyone's ID by the methods I listed in my previous post.

 

Of course, the zombies continuity is probably the best one these days. Or the one that causes the least debate. No Regiostration Act is needed in that.

[Checkmate]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Also bounty hunters aren't considered vigilantes.

Neither were costumed crimefighters that didn't kill in the Marvel U.

[Checkmate]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

The concept of a Secret Identity and Anonymity is becoming outdated as we live in a society that has more information gathering technology. If SHIELD wanted to find out who SpiderMan is' date=' a satelite over Queens would eventually allow the agency to narrow its search. A telepath mind scanning Hell's Kitchen from the safety of a van could crack Daredevil's ID. The Carnivore system can intercept any email transaction that an underground hero uses or any cell phone conversation. Add super surveillance gadgetry in, and the hero who doesn't have the resources to counter them is out of luck.[/quote']

The exact same was true 20, 40, even 60 years ago. Who here actually believed Robin's domino mask actually would hide his identity, or a pair of glasses could mask Superman from one of the "Best Investigative Journalists On the Planet"? I don't think the Secret ID is less plausable today than it was 60 years ago, regardless of how far technology has come.

 

As far as the whole Burt Ward/Dark Knight thing: You may be right, it may be a case of me just not wanting to accept the changes, but I don't think it is. I was around in the Silver Age, I accepted Bronze, even tolerated Iron, but I'm drawing the line at Rust.

[csyphrett]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Two points which are maybe minor for this discussion.

 

SHIELD (as well as Iron Man) already knew most of the secret identities for heroes working in the states so it was kind of laughable that they needed to register anyone. On that basis alone, Civil War failed whatever it was trying to say about government sponsorship/drafting.

 

Dr. Strange was already in one ground level team and it failed after a year. Maybe Bendis's name will keep this one afloat but he has already made statements that imply he doesn't know anything about Dr. Strange's power levels, the same as the Scarlet Witch.

CES

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

The exact same was true 20' date=' 40, even 60 years ago. Who here actually believed Robin's domino mask actually would hide his identity, or a pair of glasses could mask Superman from one of the "Best Investigative Journalists On the Planet"? I don't think the Secret ID is less plausable today than it was 60 years ago, regardless of how far technology has come.[/quote']

 

Yup. The Secret ID has always been and remains vaguely plausible when dealing with the general public (when a flying man in a circus costume passes by, you don't associate him with a guy in a suit and glasses you pass on the street a week later), and largely implausible when dealing with close friends and serious investigators, at least for heroes who make regular public appearances or work with the authorities. (Note however that real world criminals sometimes manage to maintain effective secret identities for a lifetime, so long as they are cautious; if Zodiac could pull it off, so could Peter Parker, at least until the writer got a bug in his bonnet and stacked the deck against him). It's a genre thing, so we ignore it, in the same way we ignore comic book "science", or the fact that Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger characters have iron bones and insane luck.

 

And yes, we can drop it, but there's no point in acting like the revelation that some comic book secret identities are generally unrealistic is a shocker; most readers knew that when they were ten, and didn't care.

 

As far as the whole Burt Ward/Dark Knight thing: You may be right, it may be a case of me just not wanting to accept the changes, but I don't think it is. I was around in the Silver Age, I accepted Bronze, even tolerated Iron, but I'm drawing the line at Rust.

 

Pretty much. "Go to bed, old man, this is the future" doesn't convince me.

[psm]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Neither were costumed crimefighters that didn't kill in the Marvel U.

 

Killing isn't what dictates if someone is a vigilante or not. Any act of violence to mete out justice (or more specifically that person's version of justice) can be considered vigilantism if done outside the constraints of the law. Superheroes have always been vigilantes. Although, I have always enjoyed the no harm, no foul mentality in comics.

 

Naturally, the idea isn't questioned often because it would ruin too many stories. It's the same thing or worse for many stories in the action genre too. Did Mel Gibson ever once try arrest anyone in any of the Lethal Weapons? Then you have most Steven Segal movies where he is beating the living tar out of people usually with no regard for the law (or Geneva Convention ). Hell, most action movies go even farther in that they don't even question the idea of killing much less vigilantism.

 

Hey, sometimes it's enjoyable to watch a good guy beat the crap out of a bad guy without worrying about all the grey moral ambiguity.

[psm]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

As far as the whole Burt Ward/Dark Knight thing: You may be right, it may be a case of me just not wanting to accept the changes, but I don't think it is. I was around in the Silver Age, I accepted Bronze, even tolerated Iron, but I'm drawing the line at Rust.

 

You were around in the Silver Age? Okay, you have a few years on me. One thing you said struck me as unusual though. You are depicting the current comics as the Rust age, the next step after Iron. To me they actually feel like a return the Bronze age in a lot of ways. I don't see them being as grim and gritty as what went on in the 90's. Different interpretations I guess.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

If the reader doesn't feel like writing off Supers and the Law as a genre bit, then I'd suggest that the laws in the Marvel Universe were never the same as the laws in the real world in the first place. Either Superheroes were allowed for under the law as it existed in the setting, or the Avengers, Fantastic Four, She Hulk, etc. were sitting there in public for decades in gross violation of the law and nobody noticed.

[Savinien]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

pwned

[Checkmate]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

You were around in the Silver Age? Okay' date=' you have a few years on me. [/quote']

A collection of Silver Age comics is what got me started collecting. When I wanted more I wanted to continue where I left off so I collected more Silver Age.

One thing you said struck me as unusual though. You are depicting the current comics as the Rust age, the next step after Iron. To me they actually feel like a return the Bronze age in a lot of ways. I don't see them being as grim and gritty as what went on in the 90's. Different interpretations I guess.

Really?? We're sitting here in the Dark Champions forums discussion how the new AVENGERS are like a Dark Champions team, and you don't see the current trend as grim and gritty? I remember when I was GM'ing in the 90's to make sure I didn't get a bunch of Wolverines I would say "I want a team like the Avengers" since they were so "four-color". Say that now and you're saying you do want a bunch of Wolverine types.