New Avengers are very Dark Champions

[bwdemon]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Back to the topic at hand, I don't think I'd put the New Avengers in Dark Champions territory. They aren't exactly street level heroes handling street level issues. They are, however, on the wrong side of the law (for now). That's not necessarily a Dark Champions thing or even a new thing for the most black-and-white of Four-Color comics.

 

The grim and gritty trend has certainly toned down in the 2000s. Comics aren't the guns-and-blades bloodbath that they were at the height of the Iron Age. The problem most people seem to have with the Civil War arc has nothing to do with shades-of-gray story material, but rather a major update in relevance.

 

Any time you update relevance, you're going to upset people who are comfortable with the current degree of relevance in a comic series. Like cyberpunk fans who don't want to give up the future of the 80s, they don't want to see a long-established setting readjust itself to take the modern world, its developments, and its issues into account.

 

The biggest shock here wasn't the subject matter, but the sudden dose of relevance. In some ways, this is good (big sales shock value!) and in other ways, this is bad (updates/changes setting dramatically). People don't like to have their paradigms shifted and tend to lash out against quick shifts.

 

Now, if the Illuminati miniseries had come out when it happened, instead of being a 20 year retcon, with occasional reminders throughout the years that something might come of this, then I think it would've been easier to handle. It also would've made people mad (When will they finally do something with this?!). It would've required the sort of planning that editors aren't typically known for, too.

 

That said, I think the current 616 leadership is looking ahead. They're doing the necessary changes and planning to take the setting to more interesting, accessible, and (by virtue of those) profitable levels. In doing so, they won't be hit as hard by any changes in writing and they have time to alter planned events to prevent continuity catastrophes.

 

All said, I'm pretty excited about it. I'm contemplating buying House of M and Civil War (hopefully as hardcover compilations) and plan to keep abreast of the setting - something I haven't done for over a decade.

[psm]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

If the reader doesn't feel like writing off Supers and the Law as a genre bit' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I don't know if I necessarily agree with those being the only choices. Obviously, the Marvel U is based on our own. To what degree will change depending on the story and creators. Just because something from our reality (like the laws of physics) isn't used or obeyed doesn't mean it doesn't exist in general. It's just doesn't exist for that story and can be applied later. The same would go for the law.

 

But, if I had to choose I would definitely pick the latter. I see it the same as jaywalking, bit torrenting and sodomy laws. Yeah, they exist but they're not strictly enforced because they just don't have the public support.

 

Lastly, those are the three worst examples you could use. The FF and She-Hulk don't have any secret identities and operate in public with what can only be assumed the government's permission. The Avenger (well the previous incarnations) operated under permission of the NSA. I mean that was the whole point to having Henry P. Gyrich as their government liaison and that was back in the 70's.

 

As for character's like Daredevil and Spiderman I would definitely say they were breaking the law. Matt Murdock was arrested and sent to jail because of it.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Just because something from our reality (like the laws of physics) isn't used or obeyed doesn't mean it doesn't exist in general.

 

No, it means that these laws are different in that setting.

 

It's just doesn't exist for that story and can be applied later.

Sure, insofar as it doesn't violate existing continuity. When the laws of physics start being applied in such a way that superpowers never existed, it might make for a good What If or out of continuity series; in continuity, it's a crappy idea, invalidating the earlier story lines by other writers that made us care about these characters in the first place.

 

The MU clearly had a set of laws for dealing with Supers, based on existing continuity. Pretending that those laws did not exist invalidates the stories that have gone before.

But, if I had to choose I would definitely pick the latter. I see it the same as jaywalking, bit torrenting and sodomy laws. Yeah, they exist but they're not strictly enforced because they just don't have the public support.

That's a fair enough call, except that She-Hulk has been dealing with Super Law for years now. So, the laws were in fact different from ours.

 

Lastly, those are the three worst examples you could use.

 

My point was that the MU already had an implied body of law allowing for superheroes, and so I picked public, widely respected heroes with established relationships with law enforcement. The MUs laws are not the same as ours, and never have been.

 

The FF and She-Hulk don't have any secret identities and operate in public with what can only be assumed the government's permission.

 

Yes, exactly so. Also note that She Hulk has helped supers with legal problems, and that they are permitted to testify while masked.

 

The Avenger (well the previous incarnations) operated under permission of the NSA. I mean that was the whole point to having Henry P. Gyrich as their government liaison and that was back in the 70's.

 

Yes, since the 1970s there has been a recognized procedure for government clearance and funding of Super Teams in the MU.

 

As for character's like Daredevil and Spiderman I would definitely say they were breaking the law. Matt Murdock was arrested and sent to jail because of it.

Again, yes, that's also part of continuity.

 

Now, as to the Superhuman Registration Act's actual terms:

As depicted in the Civil War crossover and series' date=' the public outcry that follows this event leads the government (with the support of Iron Man and other Illuminati such as Reed Richards) to quickly enact the Superhuman Registration Act (SHRA), 6 U.S.C. S. 558, [b']which required registration of those with naturally-occurring superhuman abilities, super abilties acquired through science or magic (including extraterrestrials and gods), and even non-super powered humans using exotic technology, such as Iron Man[/b]. Enactment of the law on the federal level led to various revisions to state criminal codes (such as Chapter 40, Article 120, Section 120 of the New York Penal Code and Section 245(d) of the California Penal Code) in order to allow state and federal coordination in enforcing the law. [6]

 

Bolding is mine. So, the law requires not registration of those who want to fight crime, but those who have any superhuman abilities at all. And as the Initiative and Civil War books show, registration leaves you open to being drafted for an undefined term of service, and imprisoned or surgically or chemically mutilated to have your abilities removed if you fail in your training or refuse to serve.

 

To support a law calling for a choice between conscription, imprisonment or mutilation based on a genetic trait is not an act of heroism; it's what heroes are meant to be fighting against.

[csyphrett]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

And Tom Brevoort actuallly said they didn't have an act written out for their story. This is a key plot point for changing the setting and they had no idea what it should be.

 

Civil war may have been a try at putting relevance in the MU, but it came across as letting someone use your campaign for a night, and having to erase everything they did and starting over.

 

Civil War didn't make sense at all. And right now I don't see it ever making sense beyond some people saying I liked it because Iron Man was the coolest villain Marvel has used in a while.

CES

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

And Tom Brevoort actuallly said they didn't have an act written out for their story. This is a key plot point for changing the setting and they had no idea what it should be.

 

Civil war may have been a try at putting relevance in the MU, but it came across as letting someone use your campaign for a night, and having to erase everything they did and starting over.

 

Civil War didn't make sense at all. And right now I don't see it ever making sense beyond some people saying I liked it because Iron Man was the coolest villain Marvel has used in a while.

CES

 

Pretty much. It was a beautifully drawn and horribly written mess, and the law they finally decided on was indefensible. The "lesson" that good people sometimes choose the wrong side would be better served by having the act be something other than a totalitarian wet dream.

 

Though, oddly enough, the decline of Marvel America into totalitarianism may be the one piece of Civil War that fits established Marvel continuity; it has been part of the X-books theme since Claremont.

[psm]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

No' date=' it means that these laws are different in that setting.[/quote']

 

No, it means that those laws are different in that story. Might change down the road again.

 

Sure, insofar as it doesn't violate existing continuity. When the laws of physics start being applied in such a way that superpowers never existed, it might make for a good What If or out of continuity series; in continuity, it's a crappy idea, invalidating the earlier story lines by other writers that made us care about these characters in the first place.

 

That's impossible. With characters and situations that have no visible ending you have to change continuity at some point. Do you still want Reed Richards and Ben Grim to have fought in WWII? Do want Tony Stark to go back to being a non alcoholic? There is a constant change. And if wasn't for writers invalidating earlier story lines we would never had "Identity Crisis" or the Alan Moore's "Swamp Thing". Additionally, if we couldn't change continuity we would still be saddled with Ben O'Rielly and the world of Hero Reborn.

 

The MU clearly had a set of laws for dealing with Supers, based on existing continuity. Pretending that those laws did not exist invalidates the stories that have gone before.

 

My point was that the MU already had an implied body of law allowing for superheroes, and so I picked public, widely respected heroes with established relationships with law enforcement. The MUs laws are not the same as ours, and never have been.

 

I understand your point. I don't agree with it. My argument is that they change continually for the purpose of the story. Sometimes they reflect our laws and sometimes they don't. Most often just being ignored because it would impede the writers plot or current storyline. How else would you explain Magneto, Juggernaut and Frank Castle walking around as a free man. Someone decided that it was a good idea to have Magneto run Xavier's school. So they used whatever lawyering they needed to set it up. Need a superhero to testify, make it legal to do so. Need Daredevil to go to jail apply real world laws. It's whatever the story context calls for.

 

Now, as to the Superhuman Registration Act's actual terms:

 

Bolding is mine. So, the law requires not registration of those who want to fight crime, but those who have any superhuman abilities at all. And as the Initiative and Civil War books show, registration leaves you open to being drafted for an undefined term of service, and imprisoned or surgically or chemically mutilated to have your abilities removed if you fail in your training or refuse to serve.

 

To support a law calling for a choice between conscription, imprisonment or mutilation based on a genetic trait is not an act of heroism; it's what heroes are meant to be fighting against.

 

I agree with you opinion of the act. It's definitely callous and immoral. It certainly goes against the principles of our constitution. However, the act as described during Civil War was no where as insidious. It must be another continuity change. I'm guessing it was changed with the Initiative.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

No' date=' it means that those laws are different in that story. Might change down the road again.[/quote']

 

This is the problem with the soap opera style of story telling. If you're looking at stories and story arcs in isolation, sure, all that matters is that the story makes sense in and of itself. If you consider the entire "run" of the soap opera to be a single extremely long and complicated story, facts established in Chapter 1, Book 1, should never be casually contradicted; at most, it should be found that (Character Name) was wrong when he stated (fact being retconned). It's even more of a problem for comics than for regular soaps, as comic characters tend to have much longer histories, and comic book writers rarely work together under tight supervision in the way that soap writers have to.

That's impossible. With characters and situations that have no visible ending you have to change continuity at some point.

I said existing continuity shouldn't be violated, not that you couldn't have well thought out reboots and retcons. There's a difference between intentionally saying "The Crisis wiped out that event" and just forgetting that Doctor Strange used Chaos Magic in his own book while having him declare that it doesn't exist in another. As to how to retcon or reboot, the Multiverse approach was fine in my opinion. "That was Superman of Earth 2; Superman of Earth 1 never fought in WWII." That's part of why why I initially liked the Ultiverse; characters could be updated and kept young in the Ultiverse and allowed to age and change in 616. Shame it didn't work out that way.

 

Do you still want Reed Richards and Ben Grim to have fought in WWII?

 

Yes, I do. Let 616 Reed and Ben either get old and retire or make them immortals (the Edgar Rice Borroughs option), but leave them their history. It makes for more interesting characters.

 

Do want Tony Stark to go back to being a non alcoholic? There is a constant change.

 

Respect for continuity doesn't mean an end to character development; it's unnecessary for character development to mean anything. Who cares if Tony overcomes his alcoholism in this story arc if the next writer doesn't give a piss about continuity and writes him as a female drunk teenage prostitute? If you want his rise and fall to elicit any interest from the reader, you have to know the character and develop him within the bounds of his own history.

 

And if wasn't for writers invalidating earlier story lines we would never had "Identity Crisis"

 

Good, it was a crap story.

 

or the Alan Moore's "Swamp Thing".

 

That would have been a real loss. On the other hand, Moore was careful to retcon rather than ignore what had gone before, and unlike Millar and co. he had the touch for it.

It's whatever the story context calls for.

On the story level, that's fine. On the setting level, it's sloppy. Readers who care about the setting level will be annoyed.

 

I agree with you opinion of the act. It's definitely callous and immoral. It certainly goes against the principles of our constitution. However, the act as described during Civil War was no where as insidious. It must be another continuity change. I'm guessing it was changed with the Initiative.

 

It's pretty much what I expected from Marvel's current creative team.

[bwdemon]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Bolding is mine. So' date=' the law requires not registration of those who want to fight crime, [u']but those who have any superhuman abilities at all[/u]. And as the Initiative and Civil War books show, registration leaves you open to being drafted for an undefined term of service, and imprisoned or surgically or chemically mutilated to have your abilities removed if you fail in your training or refuse to serve.

 

To support a law calling for a choice between conscription, imprisonment or mutilation based on a genetic trait is not an act of heroism; it's what heroes are meant to be fighting against.

 

The law prevents people from playing with explosives in their backyards, absent meeting very strict requirements. The more powerful those explosives, the more strict the requirements. The government really doesn't want people building nuclear weapons in their backyard.

 

Similarly, think of demolition companies. They have all sorts of hoops to jump through to bring in equipment that can level whole city blocks. They have to act in ways and at times that will minimize the chance of public harm. Even though they're well-trained and assuming they're perfect morally and rationally, we still want those restrictions in place to protect the public.

 

For bank robberies, the number one bit of advice is to give over the money and let them go on their merry way. The police want this, the banks want this, and the government as a whole wants this. Why? Interfering with the robbery inside a bank makes it more likely that Bad Things will happen. It's worth it to give up insured cash rather than deal with Bad Things (bank robbers have one of the highest arrest ratios in spite of this).

 

Superheroes typically go against what is widely considered the public good in all three of the above examples and more. Some sort of government control over their actions would be demanded.

 

That leaves the conscription argument (please leave the politics to NGD). All males aged 18-25 have to register for selective service (a.k.a. conscription) in the US. Why do we do this? On the off chance that it ever becomes politically viable to inflate the armed forces, we'll know where to look for the most viable candidates. If you have superheroes, then they should face the same requirements. One might argue that they have a greater duty, because they are inherently more powerful than normal humans. If the government has trained and registered people who can bounce bullets off their chests and wipe out whole acres of opponents with a single thought, should they really put normal people at risk?

 

The point is that there are two sides to the Civil War registration argument that boil down to personal freedom vs. greater good. The standard balance point is that personal freedoms end where they infringe or endanger other people's personal freedoms. The answer, in the case of the SHRA, is debateable, which is why it quickly brought about a highly polarized conflict despite having good, heroic people on both sides.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

There's a fundamental difference between forcing someone to get a license to fight crime or perform disaster relief and forcing someone to register because they're born with exceptional abilities, and between clearly defined conscription laws that apply equally to all citizens and conscription laws with no fixed limits that apply only to a minority group. Mutilating someone to remove their exceptional abilities because you're afraid of what they might do with them is totalitarian no matter how you spin it.

 

The "Both Sides have Good, Heroic People" argument only worked if the Pro Reg side was given a morally defensible registration act. They weren't. Considering how much of Civil War was a War on Terror analogy, complete with Gitmo and the Patriot Act, that may have been intentional.

 

For that matter, considering the Marvel tradition of Mutants as a minority group, anti-mutant hatred standing in for racism, mutant slave camps and death camps, and the Mutant Registration Act, I'd say that this moves us into territory where all Marvel books are now X-Books.

 

And, of course, they all star Wolverine.

[Checkmate]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

For that matter, considering the Marvel tradition of Mutants as a minority group, anti-mutant hatred standing in for racism, mutant slave camps and death camps, and the Mutant Registration Act, I'd say that this moves us into territory where all Marvel books are now X-Books.

 

And, of course, they all star Wolverine.

Can I get an AMEN?

[bwdemon]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

There's a fundamental difference between forcing someone to get a license to fight crime or perform disaster relief and forcing someone to register because they're born with exceptional abilities

 

Exceptional abilities in reality is a big difference from exceptional abilities in comics. The amount of power and the degree of danger represented by those abilities can be extreme and is in the case of many heroes.

 

and between clearly defined conscription laws that apply equally to all citizens and conscription laws with no fixed limits that apply only to a minority group

 

Males 18-25 isn't exactly equally-applied to all citizens. That's kind of a very small minority, in fact.

 

Mutilating someone to remove their exceptional abilities because you're afraid of what they might do with them is totalitarian no matter how you spin it.

 

Mutilating is a tainted word carrying a lot of its own spin. In most cases, it would be significantly closer to disarming. If the only difference between the former person and the new person is a lack of dangerous superpowers, then they've been disarmed. If they are lobotomized or otherwise actually disfigured, then I'd consider using mutilated to describe the act.

 

On a related note, is it mutilation to remove Dr. Octopus' arms to prevent him from causing damage with them? Assuming he survives the process and is otherwise normal? (as normal as he could be...)

[TheRealVector]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Can't we all just agree that mutant freaks and nutcase vigilantes should all be imprisoned or exterminated?

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Exceptional abilities in reality is a big difference from exceptional abilities in comics. The amount of power and the degree of danger represented by those abilities can be extreme and is in the case of many heroes.

 

Smart criminals can come up with plans that will result in the deaths of dozens or, in at least one case, thousands. We don't give smart criminals lobotomies. We also don't force smart people to choose between government service, prison, or a lobotomy.

 

And while I could see an argument that muties are dangerous winning popular support and leading to legislation, I wouldn't consider those who enforced that legislation heroic.

Males 18-25 isn't exactly equally-applied to all citizens. That's kind of a very small minority, in fact.

Every male who lives long enough goes through a period of being 18-25. There's a difference between "males 18-25" and "Blacks 18-25" or "Jews 18-25", and an even greater difference when it becomes, as in the MU. "Minority Group Members Birth to Death".

 

Mutilating is a tainted word carrying a lot of its own spin. In most cases, it would be significantly closer to disarming.

 

Right, and water-boarding isn't torture.

 

If the only difference between the former person and the new person is a lack of dangerous superpowers, then they've been disarmed. If they are lobotomized or otherwise actually disfigured, then I'd consider using mutilated to describe the act.

 

If a man is born with a level of intelligence society considers to dangerous, and so society cuts bits out of his brain until he's dumb enough to be trusted, that is mutilation. It does not differ from cutting off Warren Worthington's wings, or cutting the tendons of a strong man to stop him from using that strength. That this can be done for no crime other than failing to meet government training standards after your forced conscription makes it icing on the cake.

 

On a related note, is it mutilation to remove Dr. Octopus' arms to prevent him from causing damage with them? Assuming he survives the process and is otherwise normal? (as normal as he could be...)

You'd have to remove the bits of his brain that let him design that technology in the first place to make him "safe", and yes, that would be mutilation.

[psm]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

This is the problem with the soap opera style of story telling. If you're looking at stories and story arcs in isolation' date=' sure, all that matters is that the story makes sense in and of itself. If you consider the entire "run" of the soap opera to be a single extremely long and complicated story, facts established in Chapter 1, Book 1, should never be casually contradicted; at most, it should be found that (Character Name) was wrong when he stated (fact being retconned). It's even more of a problem for comics than for regular soaps, as comic characters tend to have much longer histories, and comic book writers rarely work together under tight supervision in the way that soap writers have to. [/quote']

 

Sorry, I didn't get back to you sooner. I've been busy with family.

 

Anyway, I see where you are coming from and in a perfect world it would make sense. Still, you're asking for the impossible. With constant shift of creators/editors/regime changes something is bound to slip. In addition to that DC/Marvel both take place in a facsimile of our world. Even simple changes in our society will have some bearing on characters who have lived longer than my grandparents.

 

I said existing continuity shouldn't be violated, not that you couldn't have well thought out reboots and retcons. There's a difference between intentionally saying "The Crisis wiped out that event" and just forgetting that Doctor Strange used Chaos Magic in his own book while having him declare that it doesn't exist in another. As to how to retcon or reboot, the Multiverse approach was fine in my opinion. "That was Superman of Earth 2; Superman of Earth 1 never fought in WWII." That's part of why why I initially liked the Ultiverse; characters could be updated and kept young in the Ultiverse and allowed to age and change in 616. Shame it didn't work out that way.

 

See to me it's the same thing. When I see a retcon I know it's there to either correct a mistake, eliminate the previous writer's direction, add new character or story elements or to allow for the writer's interpretation. Most feel very mechanical/artificial, take me out of the story, and almost always emphasizes plot over character. I would almost prefer the writer to just jump in and tell the story. Admittedly, that is just me. From what I can gather in our conversations, you need some form of logic (even bad logic) to justify changes in continuity.

 

Plus, some changes can't be introduced in that matter regardless. Often changes in tone or audience just have to happen. The death of Gwen Stacy is a perfect example.

 

Yes, I do. Let 616 Reed and Ben either get old and retire or make them immortals (the Edgar Rice Borroughs option), but leave them their history. It makes for more interesting characters.

 

Wow, it took us a few pages but we actually agree on something. I've been saying for years that all character and stories need a shelf life. At some point a character or situation will lose it's relevancy. In addition by continuing the constant cycle of old characters you continue the constant cycle of old themes. I think it's one of the reasons that the superhero genre is somewhat stagnated and has kept away the mainstream audience (Direct Market doesn't help either).

 

Respect for continuity doesn't mean an end to character development; it's unnecessary for character development to mean anything. Who cares if Tony overcomes his alcoholism in this story arc if the next writer doesn't give a piss about continuity and writes him as a female drunk teenage prostitute? If you want his rise and fall to elicit any interest from the reader, you have to know the character and develop him within the bounds of his own history.

 

I think you're are missing my point or maybe I just don't understand yours. I was using Tony becoming an alcoholic (or Speedy becoming a heroin addict) as an example of continuity change. We could also use Sue Digbny becoming a rape victim or Pym becoming abusive or Banner having MPD. Although, those character traits weren't there or even remotely exhibited when the character was originally created or used for decades they were applied later for the purpose of the story. Now, when is a change like that considered character development and not mis-characterization or bad continuity? I think quite a bit of it has to do with the eye of the beholder.

 

That would have been a real loss. On the other hand, Moore was careful to retcon rather than ignore what had gone before, and unlike Millar and co. he had the touch for it.

 

Regardless, of the technique it's still overwriting the previous writers work. Changing "Swamp Thing" from a transformed Alec Holland to an earth elemental with his memories is pretty significant. Having it explained away is nice for the reader but from the writer's standpoint his work is now not relevant.

 

And yes it would have been a loss.

 

It's pretty much what I expected from Marvel's current creative team.

 

Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel.

[Shaft]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

I've been saying for years that all character and stories need a shelf life. At some point a character or situation will lose it's relevancy. In addition by continuing the constant cycle of old characters you continue the constant cycle of old themes. I think it's one of the reasons that the superhero genre is somewhat stagnated and has kept away the mainstream audience (Direct Market doesn't help either).

 

I'm not sure genre is stagnating. We're seeeing more superhero movies come out than ever, and mainstream audiences are going to see them. On the other hand, the comics medium has stagnated, and that medium is strongly associated with superheroes.

 

While I'm politely (I hope) disagreeing with you, I'd like to add in that I like the timeless trancendence of superhero characters. These characters have become icons that exist beyond one man's lifespan. They become absorbed into society's collective unconscious. The price for that constant presence is that their core concept has to have numerous details about it in flux ot stay relevant.

 

I think Civil War grated so many people because it went against the grain of that collective unconsciousness about how many of these characters should be portrayed. But I also believe that the collective unconsciousness will steer them back into the "right" portrayal under the new post-Civil War circumstances. Remember, the writers and editors are also part of that collective. And if they don't meet the expectations, the titles will suffer and get cancelled, only to resurface correctly at a later date when the collective is ready to give them another shot.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

From what I can gather in our conversations' date=' you need some form of logic (even bad logic) to justify changes in continuity.[/quote']

I prefer that retcons and character development makes sense in context. If the writer needs to revise the character's history, then I prefer he do so in a way that respects that history. Moore, Busiek and Geoff Johns are usually good at that. Millar is not.

 

As to the "bad logic" comment, as a mod I'm suggesting once more that keeping things polite would be best.

 

 

Plus, some changes can't be introduced in that matter regardless. Often changes in tone or audience just have to happen. The death of Gwen Stacy is a perfect example.

That was a change in tone, not continuity.

 

I think you're are missing my point or maybe I just don't understand yours. I was using Tony becoming an alcoholic (or Speedy becoming a heroin addict) as an example of continuity change.

 

That's character development, good or bad. We're watching Tony decline, or learning that off camera Speedy was going through an addiction.

 

Now, when is a change like that considered character development and not mis-characterization or bad continuity? I think quite a bit of it has to do with the eye of the beholder.

 

So long as it does not contradict facts or events seen by the reader, it's not a violation of continuity.

 

Mis-characterization is similar to poor continuity, but the terms are not interchangeable.

 

In the case of Swamp Thing, the character's viewer-observed past remained intact. The changes to that past were all off screen; continuity was not (grossly) violated.

 

Regardless, of the technique it's still overwriting the previous writers work.

 

I'd say technique counts for a lot. Sloppy writing or editing violates continuity more seriously than a carefully thought out and well written retcon.

[bwdemon]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Smart criminals can come up with plans that will result in the deaths of dozens or' date=' in at least one case, thousands. We don't give smart criminals lobotomies. We also don't force smart people to choose between government service, prison, or a lobotomy.[/quote']

 

I wasn't aware that this occurred in Civil War or was even considered? It sounds more like dragging in a hypothetically possible (not probable) worst-case scenario and applying it to anybody that got an "A" in a physics or chemistry class.

 

You'd have to remove the bits of his brain that let (Dr. Octopus) design that technology in the first place to make him "safe", and yes, that would be mutilation.

 

I'm stopping short of that stage, because I don't have to go there. Take away the arms and the opportunity (not ability) to remake them. That particular threat is then defused.

 

Now let's talk about a "hero" since Dr. Octopus pretty clearly falls on the villain side of things. Would it be wrong to take the guns away from the Punisher, lock him in an asylum, and put him on a steady regimen of antipsychotics?

 

Punisher not being the model hero and certainly not super, let's take someone like Spider-Man instead. Assuming he has caused damage before and escalated some situations that led to greater damage and harm to the populace (a pretty safe assumption), what would be the proper solution? He refuses to go along peacefully to register or face charges and he is both willing and capable to fight any attempts to make him register or face charges. You manage (somehow) to capture him. What do you do?

 

You could put him in some form of super-powered prison for the duration of his sentence, hopefully working toward reformation, but what if he refuses? He's going to have the same abilities and he won't work for you. You let him out and wait until he puts people and property at risk again? If you have the means to remove the power that causes the problems (e.g. specifically-tailored antivenin), why not do so? You "disarm" him, he can go about his life normally, and all's well.

 

Now, let's take it another step up. Spider-Man received his powers by accident - he wasn't born with them. What about a mutant? Replicate Forge's neutralizer? One zap and you're normal - no more powers. No surgery required, no drug regimen, and no mess. One day you're a potentially-dangerous mutant and the next you're normal.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

I wasn't aware that this occurred in Civil War or was even considered? It sounds more like dragging in a hypothetically possible (not probable) worst-case scenario and applying it to anybody that got an "A" in a physics or chemistry class.

 

Making the exceptional "normal" to keep the normal safe is old school sci fi. If you find it an ethically tenable position, why stop with people in spandex?

 

Users of Super Technology are included in the registration act, including both people who just find it (which is silly) and people who design it. The only way to remove the "powers" of a Doctor Doom, Wizard, Doc Ock, or even Doctor Strange is to cut out bits of their brain until they're no longer threats. Even more so with Professor X and other Psis.

I'm stopping short of that stage, because I don't have to go there.

 

If you're arguing that power removal is justifiable to nullify threats to public safety, that's where you end up. Doc Ocks "power" is his brain. The arms are just replaceable tools. If we want to start cutting people up to make society safe, the brains of gadgeteers are on the menu.

 

As the act also permits the removal of powers even if no crime has been committed other than refusal to serve or failure to successfully complete training, the choice of a cyborg criminal as an example is dancing around the issue (as to Frank Castle; please ). Picture a super gadgeteer who has committed no crime, has no desire to put on tights and defend or conquer the world, and refuses to enter government service. Under the act it's legal to imprison him for life or lobotomize him, on the chance that he might one day commit a crime. This is not an approach I can see that many accepting as morally sound.

 

Now, let's take it another step up. Spider-Man received his powers by accident - he wasn't born with them. What about a mutant? Replicate Forge's neutralizer? One zap and you're normal - no more powers. No surgery required, no drug regimen, and no mess. One day you're a potentially-dangerous mutant and the next you're normal.

 

One little cut into the base of a strong man's neck and he can never use his strength to threaten anyone again. One little cut into a genius' brain and he can never use his mind to threaten anyone again. It's not the mess that makes that approach immoral. And, again, the act calls for this to be done before any actual crime (beyond refusal or failure to serve) has been committed.

 

It's easy to make the argument that society has a right to protect itself from dangerous criminals. Any non psychotic will nod seriously. In this case, the crimes in question include refusal to serve or, as with the girl in the Initiative, agreement to serve but failure to pass successfully through training. The moral questions are not particularly difficult or deep.

 

As I said up thread, Civil War is the re-using (among other things) the X-Books' Anti-Mutant Hatred Theme, Registration Act, Mutants in the service of the Government turning on their fellows, etc. It's the same old storyline, with the same "deep" moral questions and racism analogy, but with the word "mutant" crossed out and the word "super" scribbled in.

[bwdemon]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

The only way to remove the "powers" of a Doctor Doom' date=' Wizard, Doc Ock, or even Doctor Strange is to cut out bits of their brain until they're no longer threats. Even more so with Professor X and other Psis.[/quote']

 

Neutralizer for mutants. If you can't concoct something similar for non-mutants who refuse to abide by the law, then you have incarceration as an option until such time as the violator changes his or her mind or the technology exists to remove the powers. Technological violators have their technologies removed and are incarcerated. After release, you monitor their use of technology to prevent subsequent abuses.

 

If you're arguing that power removal is justifiable to nullify threats to public safety, that's where you end up. Doc Ocks "power" is his brain. The arms are just replaceable tools. If we want to start cutting people up to make society safe, the brains of gadgeteers are on the menu.

 

Remove the tools (arms) and the opportunity to do harm (incarceration). No lobotomy required. They'd go to antipsychotics well before they'd start poking holes in gray matter, regardless.

 

Who does the act seek to control? Those persons with naturally-occurring powers, those who acquired powers, and those who are using exotic technology to approximate powers. You need more than the mere ability to create exotic technologies, you have to use the technologies. In fact, it seems like the creators have a significant loophole.

 

It's easy to make the argument that society has a right to protect itself from dangerous criminals. Any non psychotic will nod seriously. In this case, the crimes in question include refusal to serve or, as with the girl in the Initiative, agreement to serve but failure to pass successfully through training. The moral questions are not particularly difficult or deep.

 

As I said up thread, Civil War is the re-using (among other things) the X-Books' Anti-Mutant Hatred Theme, Registration Act, Mutants in the service of the Government turning on their fellows, etc. It's the same old storyline, with the same "deep" moral questions and racism analogy, but with the word "mutant" crossed out and the word "super" scribbled in.

 

And it's still a very viable topic, apparently. Whether the arguments are the same as they were waybackinnaday or not, they're still interesting and relevant in today's world. Plenty of topics remain viable centuries after they were first brought up and many people will argue that there are no new stories. I don't see an issue, so long as I'm entertained or, at the very least, provoked to thought.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Neutralizer for mutants. If you can't concoct something similar for non-mutants who refuse to abide by the law' date=' then you have incarceration as an option until such time as the violator changes his or her mind or the technology exists to remove the powers. Technological violators have their technologies removed and are incarcerated. After release, you monitor their use of technology to prevent subsequent abuses.[/quote']

 

Which still avoids the fact that those having their powers removed will in many or most cases not have committed any actual crimes, other than refusal or failure to serve.

 

The argument that something is more moral accomplished with comic book science than with more familiar science holds no water at all.

 

Who does the act seek to control? Those persons with naturally-occurring powers, those who acquired powers, and those who are using exotic technology to approximate powers. You need more than the mere ability to create exotic technologies, you have to use the technologies. In fact, it seems like the creators have a significant loophole.

There's no "only if you use it" clause. If you have superpowers, including super brains, you're in government service, in jail, or nullified.

 

And it's still a very viable topic, apparently.

 

It was tedious and sophomoric moralizing twenty years ago, and remains so today.

 

I don't see an issue, so long as I'm entertained or, at the very least, provoked to thought.

What entertains you is your concern.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

I'm not sure genre is stagnating. We're seeeing more superhero movies come out than ever, and mainstream audiences are going to see them. On the other hand, the comics medium has stagnated, and that medium is strongly associated with superheroes.

 

.

 

I agree if anything is stagnating its the actual books in their stubborn refusal to realize that people want superHEROES and for example, the movies who get that do wondrously while the comics themselves wallow in rusty iron. Civil War is just another extension of this just like Identity Crisis before it. A story told at a total expense of established characters that are their bread and butter.

[JmOz]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

It's funny, I read ID Crisis, and I felt that it was in someways a return to a more heroic standard, kind of a this is the end of an era type of thing with Infinitate crisis and 52 being a start to a more clasic story...

[csyphrett]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

It's funny' date=' I read ID Crisis, and I felt that it was in someways a return to a more heroic standard, kind of a this is the end of an era type of thing with Infinitate crisis and 52 being a start to a more clasic story...[/quote']

 

The heroes brainwashed a friend because they were afraid of what he might say. That's not really heroic in my opinion.

 

I used to like DC but it kills me they nuke city after city for plot defined reasons that require you to think there would be no relief effort, or any help at all to those civilians.

 

It kills the suspension of belief.

CES

[Korvar]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Actually, ID crisis seemed to be acknowledging the shift to the Dark Side, and beginning the move from out of it... The heroes brainwashed a friend - in the past - and were now realising how bad an idea it was. It ends on an optimistic note (unless you think Ralph is just nuts).

 

I dunno. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It was, however, not very good.

[JmOz]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Actually, ID crisis seemed to be acknowledging the shift to the Dark Side, and beginning the move from out of it... The heroes brainwashed a friend - in the past - and were now realising how bad an idea it was. It ends on an optimistic note (unless you think Ralph is just nuts).

 

I dunno. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It was, however, not very good.

 

Articulated better than I did, my thanks