Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Starlord]

Saw that on a couple tv spots in the last week or so.

[Ragitsu]

Isn't Black Widow about two levels higher and more diverse in her training/experience than Hawkeye? She would win without much effort.

[Christopher R Taylor]

They were pretty evenly matched in the comics and the Avengers animated series, partly because he was Captain America-trained.  But I don't know how they'd match up in the cinematic universe; she did kick his mind-controlled hind end, but that might not have been him at his best.

[Lord Liaden]

In straight hand-to-hand, I'd still give it to cinematic Black Widow over cinematic Hawkeye, although it would likely be close. She's been through a literal lifetime of training; and both the Age of Ultron film and the Agent Carter TV series illustrated how intensive that training was.

 

I don't know what background cinematic Clint Barton is operating from, though. His demeanor and approach to combat make me think he's a Special Forces veteran. With his ranged fighting skills, and how he uses his environment, I would guess Army Ranger sniper.

[Bazza]

Re civil War: as a citizen I side with Tony, but if i was a superhero I'd likely be siding with Steve. I feel if people are going to make a career/job/living out of it then they should register/be licenced like many other professions. 

 

 

Most superheroes don't derive any profit from their good deeds aside from the satisfaction that they've made the world slightly better. Folks like Luke Cage and Wade Wilson/Deadpool are the exceptions.

 

Also, would you feel the same way as a citizen if it were a close friend or family member that had these superhuman abilities?

 

 

Profit implies that people becoming superheroes are in business. As you note, some like Luke Cage are. Others doesn't necessary have to receive a wage to have a career, as some social media personalities receive corporate sponsorship, freebies etc.

 

As it can understand it may have been ambiguous, what I meant is that for people to take superheroing more seriously (e.g. by creating a public identity) than just a random act of kindness. 

 

To answer your question, yes I would. It still wouldn't stop the stress, and anxiety of knowing that your loved one may get in over their head and not come back. I reckon that spouses of police or fire brigade have the some stress and anxiety. But it is their choice. 

 

 

(Elaborated below, but not directly addressed to you so I posted it separately.) 

[Bazza]

While Steve might believe those things, he would never express them that way. He is not that crass or codescending. He has to much dignity and class to behave that way.

 

Cheers, and no worries. Also glad to hear it.

[Bazza]

Re civil War: as a citizen I side with Tony, but if i was a superhero I'd likely be siding with Steve. I feel if people are going to make a career/job/living out of it then they should register/be licensed like many other professions. 

My 2 cents.

 

To elaborate:

 

An individual can use their superpowers however, and whenever they choose. They have full liberty here. They have every right as private individuals to live a life in pursuant of their choosing. No one is forcing them to be a public figure we call a superhero. As private individuals they can follow the mantra of JFK's: "ask not what your country can do for you, but  what you can do for your country" and seeing a situation, intervene and lend help. This could be a mugging, attempted robbery from an armoured bank truck, carjacking, or helping a little old lady cross the street. A private individual can use, or not use, their superpowers to involve themselves in these situations, as it is their choice. 

 

However, a superhero is mostly a public figure. They become a public figure most of the time by using a costume whose purpose is to create a public identity and engender goodwill from their good deeds. A superhero usually has a public superhero name too--a private individual has no need for this. Thus a person who decides to become a superhero is taking this (performing good deeds) far more seriously and for long term timespan than a private individual. 

 

As mentioned before, by virtue of becoming a superhero they have and develop a public identity and name around that identity. A superhero thus operates within the public sphere, and interacts with the public. From a public perspective they (we) want superheroes we can trust, therefore a measure/standard to separate the genuine heroes from the shonks* who abuse the public trust for their own selfish uses. (*Aussie slang for dishonest person; swindler or con artist) 

 

The question then becomes should superheroes be regulated by society or left unregulated? Or to phrase it differently: should superheroes operate under public guidelines or a framework? This may, or may not require:

- a register of superhero identities and real names, next of kin (in case of emergency). 

- superheroes to obtain a license to practice.

- a measure of competency (to avoid putting  the public in additional danger).

- to take a theoretical test or obtain a tertiary qualification. I envision here that they understand the law, the public's rights, and their legal rights (i.e. citizen's arrest, and many others to numerous to mention here, you get the idea).

- obtain public liability insurance (in part to pay for any liability like property damage, or accidental malpractice resulting from their actions.) 

 

To expand a bit on my theoretical test. In Australia a driver has to initially pass a test to understand the road rules, that is to use a vehicle and to understand the road environment which is a public space. I envision that such a test would be useful as superheroes operate in the public sphere and may not be at all familiar with the legal environment they operate in. Such an understanding of law would help them to know things like when they can detain a suspected criminal, their legal rights and obligations (citizens arrest, necessary force, self defence), the public's rights as well, and what actions they can take to indemnify themselves of legal wrongdoing in case they get sued. 

 

Competencies can include things like calling the cops, or getting a member of the public to do so, minimising property damage they are responsible for, telling the public to clear out for their own safety, when to call in experts (which could be another superhero or the bomb squad), and not putting the public in more danger. I'm sure the last thing a superhero wants is to be hit with an expensive lawsuit; in a comic it would be funny, in real life, not so much. 

 

(Addendum: a good name for a legal framework regulating superheroes would be "Good Samaritan Act". This would cover individual acts of good Samaritan as private individuals, those with public identities & costumes, or those actively in business and charge for their services. A Good Samaritan Act would in many cases unite existing legislation or amend it around situations with a member of the public acting as a good Samaritan or vigilante, which may or may not involve the use of superpowers.) 

 

Our legal system has already throughout through a lot of these issues with regards to professions like lawyer, doctor, nurse, auditors, builders, psychiatrists, private security,  and private investigators. In some cases these professionals are required to obtaina  licence before they go into practice.  Basically I reckon superheroes should be on included on that list by virtue of them (for the most part) of having a public superhero identity & name and issues related to public trust & safety. That for a lot of them being a superhero as a hobby, i.e. a way to spend their leisure time, doesn't override the issues of public trust, and public safety, nor issues of law (they can be sued or be sued). Yes, Spider-Man (well...Peter Parker) has a legal right to sue The Daily Bugle for libel. 

 

Thus I hope to have shown clearly the difference between a private person and a superhero, and some of the issues relating to registration/licensing of superheroes from a personal perspective as well as a citizen perspective.  

 

Cheers. Again, my 2 cents. ( )

[Starlord]

 

To elaborate:

 

An individual can use their superpowers however, and whenever they choose. They have full liberty here. They have every right as private individuals to live a life in pursuant of their choosing. No one is forcing them to be a public figure we call a superhero. As private individuals they can follow the mantra of JFK's: "ask not what your country can do for you, but  what you can do for your country" and seeing a situation, intervene and lend help. This could be a mugging, attempted robbery from an armoured bank truck, carjacking, or helping a little old lady cross the street. A private individual can use, or not use, their superpowers to involve themselves in these situations, as it is their choice. 

 

However, a superhero is mostly a public figure. They become a public figure most of the time by using a costume whose purpose is to create a public identity and engender goodwill from their good deeds. A superhero usually has a public superhero name too--a private individual has no need for this. Thus a person who decides to become a superhero is taking this (performing good deeds) far more seriously and for long term timespan than a private individual. 

 

As mentioned before, by virtue of becoming a superhero they have and develop a public identity and name around that identity. A superhero thus operates within the public sphere, and interacts with the public. From a public perspective they (we) want superheroes we can trust, therefore a measure/standard to separate the genuine heroes from the shonks* who abuse the public trust for their own selfish uses. (*Aussie slang for dishonest person; swindler or con artist) 

 

The question then becomes should superheroes be regulated by society or left unregulated? Or to phrase it differently: should superheroes operate under public guidelines or a framework? This may, or may not require:

- a register of superhero identities and real names, next of kin (in case of emergency). 

- superheroes to obtain a license to practice.

- a measure of competency (to avoid putting  the public in additional danger).

- to take a theoretical test or obtain a tertiary qualification. I envision here that they understand the law, the public's rights, and their legal rights (i.e. citizen's arrest, and many others to numerous to mention here, you get the idea).

- obtain public liability insurance (in part to pay for any liability like property damage, or accidental malpractice resulting from their actions.) 

 

To expand a bit on my theoretical test. In Australia a driver has to initially pass a test to understand the road rules, that is to use a vehicle and to understand the road environment which is a public space. I envision that such a test would be useful as superheroes operate in the public sphere and may not be at all familiar with the legal environment they operate in. Such an understanding of law would help them to know things like when they can detain a suspected criminal, their legal rights and obligations (citizens arrest, necessary force, self defence), the public's rights as well, and what actions they can take to indemnify themselves of legal wrongdoing in case they get sued. 

 

Competencies can include things like calling the cops, or getting a member of the public to do so, minimising property damage they are responsible for, telling the public to clear out for their own safety, when to call in experts (which could be another superhero or the bomb squad), and not putting the public in more danger. I'm sure the last thing a superhero wants is to be hit with an expensive lawsuit; in a comic it would be funny, in real life, not so much. 

 

(Addendum: a good name for a legal framework regulating superheroes would be "Good Samaritan Act". This would cover individual acts of good Samaritan as private individuals, those with public identities & costumes, or those actively in business and charge for their services. A Good Samaritan Act would in many cases unite existing legislation or amend it around situations with a member of the public acting as a good Samaritan or vigilante, which may or may not involve the use of superpowers.) 

 

Our legal system has already throughout through a lot of these issues with regards to professions like lawyer, doctor, nurse, auditors, builders, psychiatrists, private security,  and private investigators. In some cases these professionals are required to obtaina  licence before they go into practice.  Basically I reckon superheroes should be on included on that list by virtue of them (for the most part) of having a public superhero identity & name and issues related to public trust & safety. That for a lot of them being a superhero as a hobby, i.e. a way to spend their leisure time, doesn't override the issues of public trust, and public safety, nor issues of law (they can be sued or be sued). Yes, Spider-Man (well...Peter Parker) has a legal right to sue The Daily Bugle for libel. 

 

Thus I hope to have shown clearly the difference between a private person and a superhero, and some of the issues relating to registration/licensing of superheroes from a personal perspective as well as a citizen perspective.  

 

Cheers. Again, my 2 cents. ( )

 

 

I don't fully agree, but very well thought out, sir.

[Bazza]

I don't fully agree, but very well thought out, sir.

Cheers and thanks. You know what they say, publish or perish; I'm still waiting for my NGD tenure.

[Vondy]

Isn't Black Widow about two levels higher and more diverse in her training/experience than Hawkeye? She would win without much effort.

 

In straight hand-to-hand, she's got him nailed. Her training is more intensely focused there, and she underwent performance enhancing treatments.

 

However, Hawkeye is tactically adept and does outstrip her at range.

 

Its really a question of: what are the terms and circumstances of the engagement. 

 

If its close quarters and hand to hand, the Widow should take it. If Hawkeye can disengage, use the terrain, and move and shoot?

 

That's a whole different story.

[Christopher R Taylor]

If I lived in Metropolis or NYC and had half my city flattened by super "heroes" I'd probably be all in favor of some sort of government oversight.

[zslane]

What I find to be a drag about the whole premise of Civil War and the argument over governing superheroes is that it renounces the very core of superheroes as wish fulfillment. I don't read superhero comics (or play superhero RPGs) in order to explore the question of "What would be the real-world consequences of superpowered individuals on society?" I do it to vicariously live a life of adventure and vigilantism, where having virtuous intentions gets rewarded with victory. Where I get to watch superpowered individuals and organizations do what ordinary citizens and bureaucracies can not, and triumph over evil in dramatic and epic fashion.

 

That is why the modern obsession with examining issues of collateral damage, government corruption, and the thorny issues of ethics and vigilantism has made the superhero genre a whole lot less fun while it desperately attempts to become "relevent" and "though-provoking." Sure, Marvel made a name for themselves using superhero stories as a way to hold up a mirror on a turbulent society in the 60s and 70s, but the more they drag superheroes down that rabbit hole, the further and further away from they get from delivering that fundamental element of wish fulfillment that I value so highly.

 

I'm looking forward to Thanos coming along and, in effect, slapping everyone upside the head with the sobering realization that there is a lot more to worry about in the MCU than whether or not superheroes should be forced to function like civil servants.

[Ragitsu]

Realism!

[death tribble]

Re Civil War:-

 

In the comics Civil War storyline, Iron Man was wrong and Captain America was right.

Ditto the film.

'Nuff said.

[Grailknight]

I think a great deal of MCU Civil War will hinge on the treatment of Winter Soldier.  Cap is basically saying we can reform this guy and the trailers keep showing him using lethal force against non-villains. The gunshot in Stark's face may be Tony's tipping point and the shot at Rhodey the clincher.

[Christopher R Taylor]

What I find to be a drag about the whole premise of Civil War and the argument over governing superheroes is that it renounces the very core of superheroes as wish fulfillment.

I agree, its a violation of the very core principles of super hero comics, one that demonstrates almost painfully how completely the guys in charge of Marvel right now do not get what they are doing and the legacy they've taken over.

[Bazza]

Good points, hasn't considered that.

[Greywind]

http://recknews.com/2016/03/breaking-updated-7-min-mcu-trailer-shows-full-lead-up-to-civil-war-this-will-blow-you-away/

[Bazza]

Already posted it

 

 

[Ragitsu]

A disheartening number of writers/producers also seem to forget that too much darkness is downright immature.

 

There's a truckload of adult wisdom and life lessons in a random Superman comic (the better ones, anyhow) than any run-of-the-mill grimdark 90s anti-hero series where the protagonists are packing heat and life is cheaper than a candy wrapper.

[Vondy]

I agree, its a violation of the very core principles of super hero comics, one that demonstrates almost painfully how completely the guys in charge of Marvel right now do not get what they are doing and the legacy they've taken over.

Well, in terms of literary history, the knight errant evolved into the cowboy who evolved into the hardboiled detective who evolved into the superhero. Each evolution has mirrored cultural, technological, and economic shifts in our culture. We have, since superheroes emerged, undergone a series of such shifts. We don't live in the 20th century anymore. And, artistically, mainstream acceptance generally marks the end rather than the beginning of an artistic form's golden era. Are we sure the superhero isn't already being replaced by something else? They'll always have a place, but the people who don't get superheroes may not be entirely at fault. The private superhero who wasn't a shill for the powers that be and fought for justice rather than order and the status quo may well be the 20th century's hero. We are, increasingly, fascistic sheep. It may be he's replaced by soldiers in jack boots. All hail our government ubermentschen!

[Christopher R Taylor]

If superheroes are being replaced, its probably by zombie fighters, as pathetic as that may be.

[Vondy]

If superheroes are being replaced, its probably by zombie fighters, as pathetic as that may be.

That, in of itself, is worthy of analysis. What does that shift say about our view of our world? Though, I would argue The Dark Knight has been replaced by Zero Dark Thirty and Jack Bauer.

[Old Man]

 It may be he's replaced by soldiers in jack boots. All hail our government ubermentschen!

 

This is not as farfetched as it may seem at first glance.  I'm all for supporting troops in whatever godforsaken enterprise that elected chickenhawks send them on, but some of the media treatment goes much too far.

[Vondy]

 

This is not as farfetched as it may seem at first glance.  I'm all for supporting troops in whatever godforsaken enterprise that elected chickenhawks send them on, but some of the media treatment goes much too far.

 

 

I'm using hyperbole to make a serious point.

 

Raymond Chandler: “As to the emotional basis of the hard-boiled story... obviously it does not believe that murder will out and justice will be done — unless some very determined individual makes it his business to see that justice is done. These stories were about the men who made that happen.”

 

The focus in on private and individual and justice. Not on public and institution and order. It was assumed, if the powers that be had their way, no justice would come to the common man. The hard-boiled hero was not cop, soldier, g-man, member of the elks, or lover of PTA women. 

 

He was a disruptor who did right despite - and in spite of - those in authority with official power. He represented purity in the face of institutional corruption and an oppression under color of law. He did not enforce bankrupt rules. He went out and fought for principles and righteousness.

 

He was a modern day Jeremiah the Prophet. Jeremiah was God's prophet. He stood up for truth, and justice, and righteousness. He went against the corrupt system and called out the leaders. What happened? They tried to kill him, imprison him, and discredit him.  He kept going - infused with courage and compassion for the people and a dogged desire to see justice win out. 

 

That is the emotional basis that drives the superhero, but our culture has changed. Today, we are regulation loving sheep who fetishize government, order, the status quo, institutions, and rules. We obediently accept censorship, thought police, intellectual boshevism, zero tolerance policies, TSA gropings, and pervasive invasive government surveillance.

 

Extreme rendition? Water boarding? Extra-judicial killings? The loss of freedom? Insofar as its the other guy. Insofar as we are safe. Insofar as the government does for us instead of our doing for our neighbors and ourselves. When I said Zero Dark Thirty and Jack Bauer were now our national anthem and our national hero, I meant it.

 

And, it shows in our comic book derived media, too. Who will protect us from the heroes? Well, the government of course. They'll make sure all is well. Those superheroes have to be registered and regulated! After all, they wear masks, just like criminals! The constant zombie-horde of cop shows and espionage thrillers and special forces movies have increasingly become bald-faced propaganda for statist power.

 

Put your faith in the system, the institutions, and the powers that be. Don't question the rules. Don't question the outcomes, or the means to the outcomes, or the corruption and injustice inherent in our society. Don't rock the boat. And, especially, don't trust the goodness of the individual that marks the hallmark of the knight errant, the cowboy, the hard-boiled detective, and the superhero.

 

Superheroes are disruptors, superheroes threaten to unmask the status quo, and superheroes are therefore dangerous. Tony Stark in Civil War represents the antithesis of the hard-boiled detective and his pajama wearing son. Captain America is Chandler's bygone hero tilting at windmills in a world that would rather he stand down. Cap is The Last of the Mohicans. Which, as a term, is probably violating someone's speech-code and zero tolerance policy.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that the superhero hasn't realized society is looking the other way while the government unmasks him and puts him in a cell, to protect itself in the name of the people. That his mask was originally a totem intended to strike fear into evil-doers and to protect not himself, but his loved ones, from reprisals is lost on the sheeple who more deep down inside agree with Tony Stark. That the authors don't understand the emotional basis of the superhero is just a sign that the cultural rendition order has already been given.

 

Rant Off!