Is there a Champions version of SHIELD?

[CaptnStrawberry]

Besides, it's a movie inspired by comic-books. You need a measure of suspension of disbelief just to get in the door.

Hey, I'm not knocking the movie, probably my favorite of the Marvel new breed!  I accepted one cloaked helicarrier in Avengers with childlike wonder, but I admit I do have trouble believing that public opinion would stand for that fleet - a very visible sign of Big Brother over Manhattan - even in a fictional universe.  I admit though, that I never wonder where the villains get their toys - that's what villains do!

[CaptnStrawberry]

The feud with Fox is so bad, that Marvel is undermining the FF in their own products, in an effort to hurt Fox's earnings

The FF movies were so bad, I would think no further sabotage would be necessary. 

[Hyper-Man]

I wonder if this is also an indirect reason why we haven't seen an Incredibles 2 from Pixar/Disney?

[Greywind]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3606756/?ref_=nv_sr_4

[pinecone]

I always figured that Incredibles was so close to perfect, that it's hard to get talent, nobody wants to be on the Titannic...so they need an outstanding story...otherwise it is doomed to disappoint, even if it's good on it's own...

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'm pretty sure the Incredibles have had no sequel because they haven't thought of a good story for it yet.  I know they would like to but you can't follow up a movie that good with just any junk.  And Pixar is really picky about its writing.  As Graywind notes, there's been some rumbles of a sequel by the same main writer so maybe some day soon.

 

Honestly, its really hard for me to defend superheroes in stories where the people and government say "hey, maybe these guys should have to follow some rules."  One of the most incredibly blatant examples of this is the X-Men movies where they are complaining about being singled out and persecuted, but the guys working on the law bring up really good points.  And their case is proved absolutely and inconclusively at the end of X-2 where they teleport into the Oval Office, paralyze everyone but the President, blacken the lights, and show up in the darkness to warn the president not to annoy them.  And this is after Nightcrawler almost assassinated the President of the United States.

 

What is the only conceivably rational response to this?  To say "well okay then!" to their demands?  Hell no, its to treat them as a hostile force.

 

In other words, the more closely and "realistically" you look at the comics, the worse and more awful, unpleasant, and morally challenging they get.  And they lose the fun, they lose the wonder, they lose the adventure, and become a grim misery.

[Lord Liaden]

In other words, the more closely and "realistically" you look at the comics, the worse and more awful, unpleasant, and morally challenging they get.  And they lose the fun, they lose the wonder, they lose the adventure, and become a grim misery.

 

You admirably summarized how I felt about the entire Iron Age of comics.

[bubba smith]

AMEN

and now  can we PLEASE get back on topic ?

[drunkonduty]

There's a topic?

[Lord Liaden]

After a hundred posts, thread drift is practically inevitable.

 

Besides, I'm not sure there's anything more to cover on the original topic.

[bigdamnhero]

Honestly, its really hard for me to defend superheroes in stories where the people and government say "hey, maybe these guys should have to follow some rules."

It's a valid point. The problem is that in most comics (in the mainstream DC & Marvel universes at least), the superheroes have more credibility than the government. That was one of my (many) problems with Civil War: any individual superhero has saved the world more times than the entire US government combined, but the writers assumed the public couldn't bring themselves to trust the heroes unless the Feds gave them some sort of seal of approval. That would make sense in our world, but not in the world Marvel has built. (And incidentally that's one thing that might make more sense in the movie version.)

 

In other words, the more closely and "realistically" you look at the comics, the worse and more awful, unpleasant, and morally challenging they get.  And they lose the fun, they lose the wonder, they lose the adventure, and become a grim misery.

Agreed. An awful lot of common comic tropes just flat don't make any kind of sense if you actually look at them closely. It's probably possible to do a realistic look at superheroes that isn't awful, but you'd have to be willing to defy all the existing tropes. What you'd wind up with might be fun, but it wouldn't bear any resemblance to the comics. And ever since Watchmen & Dark Knight, writers have equated "realistic" with "morally questionable," not to mention "over-sexed."

[Christopher R Taylor]

The problem is that in most comics (in the mainstream DC & Marvel universes at least), the superheroes have more credibility than the government.

Maybe.  But whatever their credibility, their abilities are threatening and disturbing.  As the eeevil Senator says in X-Men 1, there's a girl that can walk through walls and mustants that can invade and control your mind.  People find at least some minimal level of gun control reasonable, they submit to licensing for cars.  How is expecting people who can blow you up with their minds be at least at some level licensed?

 

The whole fear of mutants thing in X-Men is ridiculously overplayed (its a civil rights metaphor that's gone on way too long) but there is something to be said for being nervous about some of the powers these people have.  The only reason anyone even remotely tolerates the existence of Superman is is boy scout goodness and constant effort to always do what is right at personal cost.  The latest Superman film wiped its hind end with that entire concept and turned him into a terrifying, marauding alien that murders hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people through his utter disregard for property damage and human life.

 

I'm sorry I'm ranting at this point, its just that the concept of superheroes, good, and just plain heroism at all is being demolished.  I play Champions because I love the good guys, I love justice, I love the principle of self sacrifice for others, and the idea that doing right is right to do.  It just hurts me to see what is being done to the concept, and the Civil War storyline is exactly the wrong direction for Marvel to go.  They've been so very closely walking to that line in the movies but scenes keep pulling them back.  How much longer?

[wcw43921]

The problem with "regulating" superpowers like they were guns or vehicles is that superpowers are, for the most part, innate abilities.  Guns and cars can be legally prohibited to those who fail to use them responsibly or deliberately use them to harm others.  But to take away a superhuman's powers would be like taking away someone's ability to read and write, or walk, or see or hear.  It would be like medieval times, when punishments such as blinding or dismemberment were common for such things as petty theft, or one's tongue could be burned or cut out for blasphemy, or tortured to death for being accused of witchcraft.

 

Alternately, it would be like Kurt Vonnegut's story Harrison Bergeron Jr. where everyone with even slightly exceptional ability was brought down to the lowest common denominator through the use of handicaps--or like Babylon 5, where human telepaths who did not join the Psi Corps were subjected to special drugs that not only suppressed their telepathy, but their intellect as well.  That might be okay for the "normals" or the "mundanes"--but if you were one of the "exceptionals?"  Would you be okay with sacrificing your individuality, your strengths, just so everyone else could be comfortable?  Should you be expected to do that?

 

Somehow, I don't think so.

 

Yes, the fear--the concern, if you prefer--is quite understandable.  But I don't believe we need to strip superpowered people of their rights or imprison them without due process to satisfy those concerns, or assuage those fears.  (And we certainly shouldn't do it in real life, either.)

 

Hope that helps.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I don't think there needs to be any tyrannical control or crippling of people, just some restrictions on use and registration of people in a world like that.  Look, if I can punch a hole through a tank, I'm a severe threat to everyone around me if I go on a drunken bender.  Its hardly unreasonable that I be known about by local law enforcement.  If I can walk through walls or even see through them, that's a genuine privacy concern for other people.

[Critias]

I don't think there needs to be any tyrannical control or crippling of people, just some restrictions on use and registration of people in a world like that.  Look, if I can punch a hole through a tank, I'm a severe threat to everyone around me if I go on a drunken bender.  Its hardly unreasonable that I be known about by local law enforcement.  If I can walk through walls or even see through them, that's a genuine privacy concern for other people.

Let's agree that you're a privacy concern for others -- for the sake of conversation -- but how does the government go about regulating/restricting that? 

 

Aren't there already existing laws on the books that cover trespassing, for instance?  If there's already a law that covers the activity, why does the method matter enough that a quirk of someone's birth (being a mutant, let's say), justifies an additional level of regulation?

[Lord Liaden]

Professional fighters like boxers who attack someone who is unarmed are considered using a deadly weapon due to their training, and can be prosecuted for assault-with on that basis. I could see an argument for extrapolating that principle to people with dangerous superhuman powers. The fact that they can't be separated from these abilities makes an argument for some sort of monitoring and restriction system more compelling IMO.

 

While superheroes may have saved the world many times, it's the supervillains that they save the world from, so it's not like supers have earned blanket trust. Particularly in the Marvel Universe, heroes have on a number of occasions crossed over to become actual threats to world security, e.g. Hulk, Prof. X, Sub-Mariner, Phoenix, Vision.

 

I actually like the way the United States in the official Champions Universe handles the whole superhuman registration issue. All criminals who are captured automatically have their identities and powers catalogued for law-enforcement purposes. Laws exist for superhumans to be registered, but law-abiding heroes aren't actively pursued to do so precisely for the reasons raised here -- the government often needs the assistance of independent superheroes, and the public largely supports them. However, any super who wants government help or to work for the government has to register.

[pinecone]

I have always treated them in much the same way. Use of a "super power" is a modification of severity. Many juristictions make the use of a fire arm a more serious crime, I just made the use of "unnatural force" a additional item...

[Christopher R Taylor]

Certainly extraordinary abilities justify at least legally addressing these abilities, if not closer examination.

 

I like the "voluntary registration/mandatory if you break the law" system.  It gives superheroes freedom to act as in the comics while maintaining a reasonable and just response by the governments that have to deal with them.  And certainly if you want a close liaison with law enforcement and government like the Avengers have on and off, you're going to need to give a little, too.

[bigdamnhero]

I don't think there needs to be any tyrannical control or crippling of people, just some restrictions on use and registration of people in a world like that. Look, if I can punch a hole through a tank, I'm a severe threat to everyone around me if I go on a drunken bender.  Its hardly unreasonable that I be known about by local law enforcement.

Regulation of people? No. At least under anything remotely resembling our current legal system, unless someone has done something illegal or otherwise given reason to be concerned, the government has no right to require you to register because of something you might do. I'm a damn good shot, and I have a couple friends that are serious martial artists. Should we be "registered" because we might case damage someday if we get really out of control? I don't see that making sense legally, or morally, and the slippery slope it establishes leads to some REALLY unpleasant places.

 

Now OTOH if you want to use your powers to run around and fight crime? I have no problem with a registration & training requirement for that. Civil War would've made sense (IMO) if they'd just said "OK, we're going to do this Avengers Initiative thingie, and if you want to be a superhero you have to join. If you don't want to join, that's fine...as long as you don't use your powers in public or play vigilante." And of course, if you go the villain route and get caught, hellz yeah we're going to document everything you can do.

 

If I can walk through walls or even see through them, that's a genuine privacy concern for other people.

Perhaps, but it's not like I as your neighbor could do anything about it. So the only possible use of that information would be to prevent you - or anyone else with similar powers - from moving into my neighborhood. Which is just the tip of the iceberg why such things are a Bad Idea.

 

Professional fighters like boxers who attack someone who is unarmed are considered using a deadly weapon due to their training, and can be prosecuted for assault-with on that basis.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's actually an urban myth, at least in most states. But I can totally see it applying to superpowers.

 

While superheroes may have saved the world many times, it's the supervillains that they save the world from

True, tho they also do a lot of disaster response, pulling people out of burning buildings, catching falling airplanes, etc.

 

BTW, that's why the whole "we're going to outlaw superheroes" plot (ala The Incredibles) never really makes sense. It's not like the supervillains are going to suddenly retire just because you outlawed the only people that could stop them...

 

I actually like the way the United States in the official Champions Universe handles the whole superhuman registration issue.

I agree CU's take on it is pretty solid. IIRC, registration is kept in a PRIMUS database (hey look at us, approaching the original topic!) so at least the local cops or your nosy neighbors don't have access to it.

 

Which begs another question: how common is it for PCs to register in your games? Our last straight-up Champions campaign, I had PRIMUS pitch registration to the PCs early on, but was extremely surprised when 3 out of the 4 PCs agreed to register!

[Critias]

Professional fighters like boxers who attack someone who is unarmed are considered using a deadly weapon due to their training, and can be prosecuted for assault-with on that basis. I could see an argument for extrapolating that principle to people with dangerous superhuman powers. The fact that they can't be separated from these abilities makes an argument for some sort of monitoring and restriction system more compelling IMO.

They're sometimes considered to be using a deadly weapon, yes (it can certainly play into the defense, at the very least), but the important distinction being made is that that's what happens if they attack someone.  You aren't forced to register with the government (paying the associated fees, and with the implication of asking for permission, that comes with it!) just to take those boxing or martial arts classes, are you?  You've got to do something wrong, first.  And -- more importantly -- choosing to take martial arts or boxing classes is just that, a choice.  Being born a mutant isn't.  USING your mutant powers is something someone should be responsible for, absolutely, but merely HAVING them?  That leads to unpleasant places.

 

We've already got laws for murder, right?  So why does it matter, prior to the crime, if you're gonna murder someone with slightly-above-human super strength versus being a normal dude with a baseball bat?  Or with a gun, versus laser eyes?  Up until the point a crime is committed, frankly, the quirks of someone's genetics are none of Uncle Sam's business.

 

 

Now OTOH if you want to use your powers to run around and fight crime? I have no problem with a registration & training requirement for that. Civil War would've made sense (IMO) if they'd just said "OK, we're going to do this Avengers Initiative thingie, and if you want to be a superhero you have to join. If you don't want to join, that's fine...as long as you don't use your powers in public or play vigilante."

To me, one of the biggest problems with Civil War -- if not THE biggest problem -- was the inconsistency of it.  In some titles, the situation was exactly what you just described.  Even moreso, you got benefits!  Insurance, training, access to other resources, etc, etc.  So when you were reading from Iron Man's perspective, everything was cool and registration was gonna be awesome and someone just had to be stupid or stubborn to refuse it.  When you were reading from Cap or Luke Cage's perspective, though, they sent cape-killers after you the moment the clock struck midnight and the law went into affect (or even earlier!), just because you hadn't, I dunno, magically pre-registered.

 

So, so, inconsistent.  It was a huge editorial issue, and a major SNAFU, in my opinion.  I read somewhere that editorial didn't even HAVE the superhuman registration act all written up somewhere, for everyone to refer to, which is WHY it was all rainbows and lollipops in some titles, and just a step away from concentration camps (or, uh, an actual Negative Zone concentration camp!) in other monthlies.

 

 

 

Which begs another question: how common is it for PCs to register in your games? Our last straight-up Champions campaign, I had PRIMUS pitch registration to the PCs early on, but was extremely surprised when 3 out of the 4 PCs agreed to register!

(I have no idea if that tag worked, we'll find out in a second, I guess)

ETA: (yay, it worked!)

 

In my current game, we're all playing mutants, and my character, Triumph, is a VERY serious mutant rights advocate (and the organizer/leader of the small superteam).  He's got a strict "no registration" thing going, and has, pre-game, dedicated quite a bit of his considerable financial resources towards doing stuff like smuggling mutants out of America and into non-extradition countries (he's got small Bases, each with a few DNPCs, scattered all over the world, to go along with some Contacts and both a positive and negative reputation, depending on your point of view). 

 

I can't imagine Triumph ever registering, in part because giving up his secret identity will cause some issues with major canon NPCs, and a whole bunch of dominos might go falling down, but mostly because he firmly believes no one should be on a government weapon of mass destruction list just for hitting puberty.  He's pretty hardcore about mutant rights, and it's fitting in well with what the GM has going so far (our first few stories were all about the government working on an anti-mutant weapon that depowered about 2/3 of targets, and killed the last 1/3, setting the tone for appropriate paranoia). 

 

No way I'm getting on a list until I know THAT project's off the table, y'know?

[Echo3Niner]

I think the last dozen or so posts, makes a great argument for why the "Civil War" storyline can be so compelling.  Just mentioning it here, started a huge wash of back and forth, and kinda makes the point itself.

 

Now, that's not to say that Marvel did a great job on it in their comics, or that they will in the movie(s)/various TV series for that matter; but, I think the conflict of the storyline is excellent and these posts make that point (at least to me).

 

As with almost anything, "it's all in the execution"...  So far, given the excellent execution of the MCU, I have to bet Kevin Feige will do a good job with it.

[Christopher R Taylor]

There's a difference between a good storyline and one that works well in a comic book setting.  Just because something is a good story or compelling doesn't make it something that is appropriate or welcome in every genre or setting or with every character.  Pulp Fiction was an entertaining movie, but that doesn't mean I want to see Bert and Ernie play it out.

[bigdamnhero]

...the important distinction being made is that that's what happens if they attack someone.  You aren't forced to register with the government (paying the associated fees, and with the implication of asking for permission, that comes with it!) just to take those boxing or martial arts classes, are you?

Exactly.

 

To me, one of the biggest problems with Civil War -- if not THE biggest problem -- was the inconsistency of it.

Agreed. Plus, it's something that might've made sense in the first few years after superheroes appeared. But after 15 years of Spidey pulling people out of burning buildings and the FF saving Manhattan every other Thursday?

 

No way I'm getting on a list until I know THAT project's off the table, y'know?

That points back to my previous point: given the public's lack of trust in government in our world, magnified in the comics by the countless times they've been revealed to be infiltrated by HYDRA, the Skrulls, or whoever it is this week, would the public really be that enthusiastic to have the government regulating superheroes? Even setting aside the "the gov't is secretly controlled by ____" scenarios, the US government in Marvel isn't exactly a shining example of competence, even compared to our world. Now if Tony Stark & Reed Richards said they were going to start a registration program, with the assistance of the government, I can see the public buying it. But as something run by Washington? I think people would be real skeptical.

 

I think the last dozen or so posts, makes a great argument for why the "Civil War" storyline can be so compelling.

...

As with almost anything, "it's all in the execution"...  So far, given the excellent execution of the MCU, I have to bet Kevin Feige will do a good job with it.

Your words to Kevin & Joss' ears, m'friend! I agree the ideas behind Civil War could've made an interesting story, and could make an interesting movie in theory. My biggest concerns are:

1) Marvel still doesn't quite seem to get just how awful the source material was, which doesn't bode well;

2) The way they've portrayed Stark in the MCU, having him suddenly become the champion for government control would be wildly out-of-character;

3) The whole concept is built for the purpose of forcing good guys to fight other good guys, instead of villains. Yes, I know that's been a common trope since the Golden Age, but it's supposed to be the prelude not the main event; and

4) It makes me fear the MCU is edging further towards the Morally Ambiguous Zone that DC seems to be embracing. I want my heroes to actually be heroic thankuverramuch.

 

(And speaking of DC: so now the Wonder Woman movie is going to be set in the 1920s? WTF)

[bigdamnhero]

Pulp Fiction was an entertaining movie, but that doesn't mean I want to see Bert and Ernie play it out.

Actually...that would be kinda awesome! Someone should totally make that a thing.

[drunkonduty]

What was that Family Guy cutaway: Homicide, Life on Sesame Street?

All of 30 secs long but bloody funny.