The Big Picture: Going Green: Part I

[maximara]

That was NOT my point. It was not so much killing Hal that was ticking off Hal fans as the whole story we got required the Guardians, Hal, and the entire GL Corp to have IQs below that of a cinderblock and ignoring what little Post-Crisis continuity there was.

Furthermore there was a way to get Kyle without "cutting" Hal--follow Gerard Jones' original plot following it up with Hal starting a new corp with Kyle as its first member.

Never mind Green Lantern HAD ALREADY been cancelled with issue #224 in 1988. If Hal wasn't selling books in 1988 to save Green Lantern why did DC think he was going to sale books in 1990? As Supergirl shows many times it is not the CHARACTER that is boring but the way they are written do why kill them off rather than shove them into comic book limbo until you figure out what to do with them?

The problem with that? those issues were the same old shit that was causing the sales decline. I realize that Green Lantern was on it's third volume, what do you take me for? Kyle wasn't created and then they decided "Oh were not going to go with Gerads idea" they went "Green Lantern is simply not selling, we need to reinvigorate the WHOLE fucking concept." The only problem with Emerald Twilight was it being 3 issues instead of the required 6 for such a big change. What do you expect when 3 issues are written back to back with 3 different artists simply so they can get out on time.

And the thing that kicks you in the nuts further? KYLE RAYNER SOLD. The new concept? sold a fucktonne and no Gerad Jones rehashing the same old shit he'd been doing all volume was not going to change that. Wanna know why sales for Volume 3 failed? because Ron Marz left the book and Judd Winick and ESPECIALLY Ben Raab the fucking hack couldn't fill the boots.

But this point to this being a WRITER problem and not a character problem.

But obviously you're just going to retaliate that I'm missing your point so lets get some things out of the ways, and others when I get to trawl through my stack of GL comics and piece together continuity (RESEARCH!)

Kyles ring wasn't Hal's ring, not really. It was a crushed ring, recreated by Ganthet, still tied to Hal Jordan by being the original owner, but possessing different features. Ganthet didn't instill a weakness or limitations because he wanted his new choice to have the best shot he could.

Regarding that RESEARCH you were talking about here is how Lord Malvolio's ring worked against a YELLOW space station:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/acwglmal18.jpg
Blow up real good didn't it? GL rings are not supposed to do that!

Hal thinks about how he is using Lord Malvolio's ring:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/710/acwglmal35.jpg

Then we find out that it has all been a set up:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/acwlmal36.jpg

So when Hal went crackers he was wearing Lord Malvolio's ring which DID effect yellow and THAT is how you do REAL research.

 

[goliath6711]

In researching about HEAT, I found an actually not bad blog post (words I don't often put together) in regards to the topic.

http://talestomildlyastonish.blogspot.com/2006/01/understanding-fanboys-dont-encourage.html

It even goes further and talks about the consumer's (or more specifically fan's) say in what creators/publishers put out, i.e. not much. Pretty decent read and food for thought.

Thank you so much for posting this link. I just got through reading the entire article and I could not agree with it any more. These two paragraphs should be etched in giant solid gold plaques and hung on the walls of every comic book studio, motion picture studio, video game company, television network, and basically anywhere that a work of fiction is being created.


"But worse than the ridiculous plot is the real message "GL: Rebirth" sent to fandom: Throw a big enough tantrum, and you'll get your way. Screw bargaining, despair, and acceptance; stick with denial and anger for long enough, and be loud enough at it, and your loss will be magically whisked away when someone who sympathizes gets the power to make decisions. That's a really lousy moral, but "Rebirth" is a really lousy comic.

Reality check: The fans are not in control. Or at least, they shouldn't be. Creators are on top of the chain; without their work, the entertainment wouldn't exist in the first place. Publishers are next; without their connections, the entertainment wouldn't be able to reach anyone. The fans are dead last; they are there so the creators have someone to communicate their message to. They are vital in interpreting and approving or rejecting the message, but they should not, they cannot control the message. If they do, the serpent begins to devour its tail, and the twilight is truly upon us."


I want everyone to remember those words the next time they whine about how something that is done to their favorite character/franchise to make them progress to another level that they don't like.

 

[maximara]

In researching about HEAT, I found an actually not bad blog post (words I don't often put together) in regards to the topic.

http://talestomildlyastonish.blogspot.com/2006/01/understanding-fanboys-dont-encourage.html

It even goes further and talks about the consumer's (or more specifically fan's) say in what creators/publishers put out, i.e. not much. Pretty decent read and food for thought.

Thank you so much for posting this link. I just got through reading the entire article and I could not agree with it any more. These two paragraphs should be etched in giant solid gold plaques and hung on the walls of every comic book studio, motion picture studio, video game company, television network, and basically anywhere that a work of fiction is being created.


"But worse than the ridiculous plot is the real message "GL: Rebirth" sent to fandom: Throw a big enough tantrum, and you'll get your way. Screw bargaining, despair, and acceptance; stick with denial and anger for long enough, and be loud enough at it, and your loss will be magically whisked away when someone who sympathizes gets the power to make decisions. That's a really lousy moral, but "Rebirth" is a really lousy comic.

Reality check: The fans are not in control. Or at least, they shouldn't be. Creators are on top of the chain; without their work, the entertainment wouldn't exist in the first place. Publishers are next; without their connections, the entertainment wouldn't be able to reach anyone. The fans are dead last; they are there so the creators have someone to communicate their message to. They are vital in interpreting and approving or rejecting the message, but they should not, they cannot control the message. If they do, the serpent begins to devour its tail, and the twilight is truly upon us."


I want everyone to remember those words the next time they whine about how something that is done to their favorite character/franchise to make them progress to another level that they don't like.

The problem is that by accepting or rejecting a message the fans ARE in control. Creators and publishers are in this to make money and ticking off your fan base with a my way or the highway mentality is NOT the way to do it. It was that mentality in ''Enterprise'' that effectively killed off the Star Trek franchise for so many years and nearly did the same to Spiderman by dragging on the Clone Saga to the point of idiocy.

Furthermore as demonstrated by the fate of Jerry Siegel's "K-metal from Krypton" (1940) and Piers Anthony's "But What of Earth?" (1989) creators aren't that much in the driver seat either. In fact, it can be argued that publishers are not as vital in the internet age as in days gone by given the success of Fogilo's Girl Genius, Smith and May's "Roswell, Texas", and several others.

 

[maximara]

snip.

At the same time, it's easy to complain people are against you if a choice is made you don't like. More often than not our own biases and perceptions cloud things.

Take Civil war. You seem to ascribe that it's an "evil right wing" Iron Man vs a "good left wing" Captian America. Based on the War on Terror, that may be justifiable, but look at it in a different light: Iron Man was for creating a big government program that put restrictions, standards and expectations on heroes while Cap fought for individual freedom for heroes and to not be forced into a controling government. Who's left and right wing now? And the end moral of things was that the big beurcratcy a) didn't work and b) got derailed by someone with an alternative agenda.

Still, I won't argue a lift leaning bent is the nature of the superhero comic. The whole premis is based on the idea of people with great power feeling they should help others with it for no reward, or learing that self serving motives get them nowhere (Spider-Man, Booster Gold). On the other hand, how much of that is due to the silence of the right. I don't mean they haven't complained about balance loud enough. I mean they don't seem to try for their own creative works. If, as they claim, the demand is out there with 50% of the population, they'd be doing a service and proably make a few bucks in the process. The same goes with taking on "liberal Hopllywood". If an overweight pothead from Jersey can become a world fameous director, a few more on the right could give it a try instead of bitching that other people alter their creative visions to appeal to their worldview. There is room for both sides to exist, but someone has to create the other side, and it isn't likely to be someone that doesn't honestly beleive in it.

Well, it's like this.

Originally in The Civil War, they set it up to be a situation where both sides were equally right.

The Pro-Registration crowd was pretty much argueing that like it or not super beings are incredibly dangerous, and that it's ridiculous to say that they should not be accountable to anyone except for themselves, and that society should just have to deal with that. Basically the attitude was that all super heroes should operate under similar guidelines to the The Avengers, or The Fantastic Four. Unlike various X-men titles, this was not some kind of cover for a shady genocide plan, nor was it singling out Mutants since pretty much anyone with exceptional powers whether they be based on mutation, scientific alteration, or heck just highly advanced weaponry, would be handled the same way. Someone has a problem with a super hero, they can then find out who it was, and have them served papers much like has happened to both The Fantastic Four and The Avengers at various points.

The Anti-Registration crowd was pretty much making an arguement based not just around individual liberty, but also the basic arguement that if heroes were made accountable for their actions or hunted down actively, it would make dealing with a lot of super villains substantially more difficult. After all your typical hero dons his mask to break the law and probably commits dozens of crimes a night, ranging from breaking and entering, to illegal surveillance, to assault. In a world where villains like Doctor Doom have diplomatic immunity, do you really want heroes to worry about the law? What's more, when it comes to say saving a hundred people, do you want a hero to avoid taking action because his plan might involve say trashing someone's car by using it as a projectile, which could get him taken to court? The basic arguement being that super heroism would become impossible for largely the same reasons you saw at the beginning of the movie "The Incredibles", except unlike that movie you'd probably start seeing cities flattened almost immediatly if the heroes weren't quick and effective in their response.

The original point being that both sides were correct within the context of that world. Of the two sides, part of the point was that the Pro-registration side is arguably more sane, which to begin with was intended as a kind of counter-point to all of the stuf floating around in the X-titles, along with the specific mention that you had all of these super heroes who WERE operating in an accountable fashion without any real problems.

The situation became de-railed and turned into yet another X-men scenario rather than being anything differant, by writers wanting to make it more of a "liberty vs. security" issue and try and make it seem like the paranoid persecution of "maybe" terrorists, and similar things.

The problem was that as anyone who has actually READ "Days of Future Past" (1980) knows the Sentinels did NOT stop at just mutants but went after ANYONE with superpowers. Furthermore Civil War ignored all the times said Sentinels had gone on a property destroying person killing spree through the heart of a population center. WHERE was the outrage over all THOSE deaths and destruction which given the compressed time scale of Marvel must have been occurring every third month?

Besides Captain America had already seen Executive Order 9066 (which included Germans and Italians) quickly turned into a method of discrimination to deprive people of their rights and property. Never mind that as demonstrated by Thunderbolt Ross and Henry Peter Gyrich all you needed was one overzealous GOVERNMENT nutter getting their hands on that data and abusing their power.

This ignoring the fact that at times various villains have either taken control or replaced key government operatives. In fact, thanks to nanites Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker had Henry Peter Gyrich under his control. The head of a CRIMINAL TERRORIST organization bent on world domination could get access to data on EVERY registered hero in America. What a brilliant idea, NOT! If that wasn't bad enough there was a time when the Deltite LMDs of SHIELD went nuts and took over not only SHIELD but HYRDA as well (Nick Fury vs. S.H.I.E.L.D. #1-6 (June-Nov. 1988))


Face it given the history of the Marvel universe there was no way the Pro-Registration side could have looked like anything but a bunch of modern day clueless Joseph McCarthy nutters.

 

[Therumancer]

snip.

At the same time, it's easy to complain people are against you if a choice is made you don't like. More often than not our own biases and perceptions cloud things.

Take Civil war. You seem to ascribe that it's an "evil right wing" Iron Man vs a "good left wing" Captian America. Based on the War on Terror, that may be justifiable, but look at it in a different light: Iron Man was for creating a big government program that put restrictions, standards and expectations on heroes while Cap fought for individual freedom for heroes and to not be forced into a controling government. Who's left and right wing now? And the end moral of things was that the big beurcratcy a) didn't work and b) got derailed by someone with an alternative agenda.

Still, I won't argue a lift leaning bent is the nature of the superhero comic. The whole premis is based on the idea of people with great power feeling they should help others with it for no reward, or learing that self serving motives get them nowhere (Spider-Man, Booster Gold). On the other hand, how much of that is due to the silence of the right. I don't mean they haven't complained about balance loud enough. I mean they don't seem to try for their own creative works. If, as they claim, the demand is out there with 50% of the population, they'd be doing a service and proably make a few bucks in the process. The same goes with taking on "liberal Hopllywood". If an overweight pothead from Jersey can become a world fameous director, a few more on the right could give it a try instead of bitching that other people alter their creative visions to appeal to their worldview. There is room for both sides to exist, but someone has to create the other side, and it isn't likely to be someone that doesn't honestly beleive in it.

Well, it's like this.

Originally in The Civil War, they set it up to be a situation where both sides were equally right.

The Pro-Registration crowd was pretty much argueing that like it or not super beings are incredibly dangerous, and that it's ridiculous to say that they should not be accountable to anyone except for themselves, and that society should just have to deal with that. Basically the attitude was that all super heroes should operate under similar guidelines to the The Avengers, or The Fantastic Four. Unlike various X-men titles, this was not some kind of cover for a shady genocide plan, nor was it singling out Mutants since pretty much anyone with exceptional powers whether they be based on mutation, scientific alteration, or heck just highly advanced weaponry, would be handled the same way. Someone has a problem with a super hero, they can then find out who it was, and have them served papers much like has happened to both The Fantastic Four and The Avengers at various points.

The Anti-Registration crowd was pretty much making an arguement based not just around individual liberty, but also the basic arguement that if heroes were made accountable for their actions or hunted down actively, it would make dealing with a lot of super villains substantially more difficult. After all your typical hero dons his mask to break the law and probably commits dozens of crimes a night, ranging from breaking and entering, to illegal surveillance, to assault. In a world where villains like Doctor Doom have diplomatic immunity, do you really want heroes to worry about the law? What's more, when it comes to say saving a hundred people, do you want a hero to avoid taking action because his plan might involve say trashing someone's car by using it as a projectile, which could get him taken to court? The basic arguement being that super heroism would become impossible for largely the same reasons you saw at the beginning of the movie "The Incredibles", except unlike that movie you'd probably start seeing cities flattened almost immediatly if the heroes weren't quick and effective in their response.

The original point being that both sides were correct within the context of that world. Of the two sides, part of the point was that the Pro-registration side is arguably more sane, which to begin with was intended as a kind of counter-point to all of the stuf floating around in the X-titles, along with the specific mention that you had all of these super heroes who WERE operating in an accountable fashion without any real problems.

The situation became de-railed and turned into yet another X-men scenario rather than being anything differant, by writers wanting to make it more of a "liberty vs. security" issue and try and make it seem like the paranoid persecution of "maybe" terrorists, and similar things.

The problem was that as anyone who has actually READ "Days of Future Past" (1980) knows the Sentinels did NOT stop at just mutants but went after ANYONE with superpowers. Furthermore Civil War ignored all the times said Sentinels had gone on a property destroying person killing spree through the heart of a population center. WHERE was the outrage over all THOSE deaths and destruction which given the compressed time scale of Marvel must have been occurring every third month?

Besides Captain America had already seen Executive Order 9066 (which included Germans and Italians) quickly turned into a method of discrimination to deprive people of their rights and property. Never mind that as demonstrated by Thunderbolt Ross and Henry Peter Gyrich all you needed was one overzealous GOVERNMENT nutter getting their hands on that data and abusing their power.

This ignoring the fact that at times various villains have either taken control or replaced key government operatives. In fact, thanks to nanites Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker had Henry Peter Gyrich under his control. The head of a CRIMINAL TERRORIST organization bent on world domination could get access to data on EVERY registered hero in America. What a brilliant idea, NOT! If that wasn't bad enough there was a time when the Deltite LMDs of SHIELD went nuts and took over not only SHIELD but HYRDA as well (Nick Fury vs. S.H.I.E.L.D. #1-6 (June-Nov. 1988))


Face it given the history of the Marvel universe there was no way the Pro-Registration side could have looked like anything but a bunch of modern day clueless Joseph McCarthy nutters.

Well, see one part of the entire equasion is that due to your personal political leanings you think that McCarthy and Executive Order 9066 were entirely bad things, both of which can be massive debates in their own right.

The issue in Marvel is one where the arguement was being made against the accountability of super humans to anyone except for other super humans. Basically saying that "the law applies to everyone, except for these guys that have powers". You invent a new blaster weapon that makes you above the ordinary person, congrats you can now break the law with imputiny!

See, the issue is one where we have heroes who are quite blunt in saying that the law doesn't apply to them, and are willing to mete out what they consider to be Justice. Property destruction, tresspass, illegal surveillance, all of these things are routine behaviors for costumed adventurers and vigilantes. While arguements can be made that it's nessicary (as I pointed out with guys like Doctor Doom), from a legal perspective it's no differant than saying say all blonde haired and blue eyed people don't have to follow the rules of society but everyone else does.

In pretty much every case you've given your looking at situations where the problem wasn't the policy, but an X-factor (so to speak) that caused things to go wrong. Such as the whole assumption that any AI is by it's very nature going to go berserk and turn on humanity. Things could just as easily go in an Asimov direction with robots being people's friends and protectors, it's just that this doesn't make for as good of a storyline on a large scale (it only works when it's a singular robot usually). Incidently there are also numberous cases in marvel of Technology being used successfully, I don't believe AIs figured into this (except through nanites in the video game version) and remember this was being spearheaded by both Tony Stark AND Reed Richards.

I mean I get it, your someone who would be supporting the other side, and that's the entire point of "Civil War", both sides were right, and cases could be made for either. They wound up de-railing things far more in your direction though for the purpose of making a political statement about then-current politics. Part of the entire point was that we didn't have closet racists like Gyric running the show, we had a lot of public heroes pretty much saying "okay, this needs to be done".

 

[goliath6711]

In researching about HEAT, I found an actually not bad blog post (words I don't often put together) in regards to the topic.

http://talestomildlyastonish.blogspot.com/2006/01/understanding-fanboys-dont-encourage.html

It even goes further and talks about the consumer's (or more specifically fan's) say in what creators/publishers put out, i.e. not much. Pretty decent read and food for thought.

Thank you so much for posting this link. I just got through reading the entire article and I could not agree with it any more. These two paragraphs should be etched in giant solid gold plaques and hung on the walls of every comic book studio, motion picture studio, video game company, television network, and basically anywhere that a work of fiction is being created.


"But worse than the ridiculous plot is the real message "GL: Rebirth" sent to fandom: Throw a big enough tantrum, and you'll get your way. Screw bargaining, despair, and acceptance; stick with denial and anger for long enough, and be loud enough at it, and your loss will be magically whisked away when someone who sympathizes gets the power to make decisions. That's a really lousy moral, but "Rebirth" is a really lousy comic.

Reality check: The fans are not in control. Or at least, they shouldn't be. Creators are on top of the chain; without their work, the entertainment wouldn't exist in the first place. Publishers are next; without their connections, the entertainment wouldn't be able to reach anyone. The fans are dead last; they are there so the creators have someone to communicate their message to. They are vital in interpreting and approving or rejecting the message, but they should not, they cannot control the message. If they do, the serpent begins to devour its tail, and the twilight is truly upon us."


I want everyone to remember those words the next time they whine about how something that is done to their favorite character/franchise to make them progress to another level that they don't like.

The problem is that by accepting or rejecting a message the fans ARE in control. Creators and publishers are in this to make money and ticking off your fan base with a my way or the highway mentality is NOT the way to do it. It was that mentality in ''Enterprise'' that effectively killed off the Star Trek franchise for so many years and nearly did the same to Spiderman by dragging on the Clone Saga to the point of idiocy.

Furthermore as demonstrated by the fate of Jerry Siegel's "K-metal from Krypton" (1940) and Piers Anthony's "But What of Earth?" (1989) creators aren't that much in the driver seat either. In fact, it can be argued that publishers are not as vital in the internet age as in days gone by given the success of Fogilo's Girl Genius, Smith and May's "Roswell, Texas", and several others.

I can only comment on Star Trek since I haven't read anything else on that list.

So you're saying that from the end of "Enterprise" (2005) to the movie "Star Trek" (2009), the franchise went from completely dead and buried to resurrected in just four years? It took ten years the first time from "The Original Series" (1969) to "The Motion Picture" (1979). And you do realize that they revitalized the franchise with a movie that negates everything that happened in every previous Star Trek movie and television series EXCEPT "Enterprise." A movie that, while is one of my absoulte favorites, is pretty much despised by hardcore Trek fans for that reason.

And in case you're wondering, I was a fan of "Enterprise" and watched every episode from the first to the last.

 

[maximara]

Well, see one part of the entire equasion is that due to your personal political leanings you think that McCarthy and Executive Order 9066 were entirely bad things, both of which can be massive debates in their own right.

The issue in Marvel is one where the arguement was being made against the accountability of super humans to anyone except for other super humans. Basically saying that "the law applies to everyone, except for these guys that have powers". You invent a new blaster weapon that makes you above the ordinary person, congrats you can now break the law with imputiny!

You totally missed the point. Executive Order 9066 originally applied EQUALLY to Germans, Italians, and Japanese but when it came time to actually enforce it only Japanese (ie non Europeans) were effected. Joseph McCarthy was a fear monger pure and simple and the hysteria he created resulted in the DEATHS of two minor spies.

See, the issue is one where we have heroes who are quite blunt in saying that the law doesn't apply to them, and are willing to mete out what they consider to be Justice. Property destruction, tresspass, illegal surveillance, all of these things are routine behaviors for costumed adventurers and vigilantes. While arguements can be made that it's nessicary (as I pointed out with guys like Doctor Doom), from a legal perspective it's no differant than saying say all blonde haired and blue eyed people don't have to follow the rules of society but everyone else does.

In pretty much every case you've given your looking at situations where the problem wasn't the policy, but an X-factor (so to speak) that caused things to go wrong. Such as the whole assumption that any AI is by it's very nature going to go berserk and turn on humanity. Things could just as easily go in an Asimov direction with robots being people's friends and protectors, it's just that this doesn't make for as good of a storyline on a large scale (it only works when it's a singular robot usually). Incidently there are also numberous cases in marvel of Technology being used successfully, I don't believe AIs figured into this (except through nanites in the video game version) and remember this was being spearheaded by both Tony Stark AND Reed Richards.

Tony Stark and Reed Richards have in the past have been shown to be... well idiots. Stark's armor war and Reed's believing a supposed diary (faked by Doom) two of many cases in point. The point was not that an AI was involved but that they were aware of compromises to security that the average person was not privy to and they STILL thought it was a good idea. Property destruction, trespass, and illegal surveillance are also done by the US GOVERNMENT of the Marvel universe (again I refer to the Sentinel program) and yet no similar outcries were raised.

"Operation: Zero Tolerance" is a prime example of the illogic in Civil War--people were turned into Bio-Sentinals AGAINST THEIR WILL and yet the public of the Marvel US seemed to have gone 'Uh who cares?" In anything even remotely like the REAL world there would have been an outcry that would have made Watergate look like a minor tiff. Again based on the HISTORY OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE the Pro-resitration side Civil War was stupid. I would like to remind that part of the reason HAMMER was created was due to Secret Invasion which was a security fiasco that made the whole AI takes over SHIELD and HYRDA look like a cake walk.

 

[maximara]

o you're saying that from the end of "Enterprise" (2005) to the movie "Star Trek" (2009), the franchise went from completely dead and buried to resurrected in just four years? It took ten years the first time from "The Original Series" (1969) to "The Motion Picture" (1979). And you do realize that they revitalized the franchise with a movie that negates everything that happened in every previous Star Trek movie and television series EXCEPT "Enterprise." A movie that, while is one of my absoulte favorites, is pretty much despised by hardcore Trek fans for that reason.

And in case you're wondering, I was a fan of "Enterprise" and watched every episode from the first to the last.

The problem with that comparison is that Star Trek ran in syndication from 1969 to 1973 when the ANIMATED revival hit TV so it was NOT ten years but at most FOUR for the classic show. Star Trekhase II had been planned to be the flagship of the Paramount Television Service in 1978 but changes in plans resulted in Star Trek: the Motion(less) Picture

Furthermore "Enterprise" curb stomped so much of what little continuity Star Trek had that it was not funny. And the plan to salvage the show in its 4th season was to revive a plot right out of Galactica 1980 (Alien Space Nazis...AGAIN). As for "Star Trek" (2009) negating everything the interviews indicate that the movie actually takes place in parallel universe (ala "Mirror, Mirror" or "Parallels") despite the time travel involved. So the main timeline is still there dysfunctional mess it is.

 

[Therumancer]

[
Tony Stark and Reed Richards have in the past have been shown to be... well idiots. Stark's armor war and Reed's believing a supposed diary (faked by Doom) two of many cases in point. The point was not that an AI was involved but that they were aware of compromises to security that the average person was not privy to and they STILL thought it was a good idea. Property destruction, trespass, and illegal surveillance are also done by the US GOVERNMENT of the Marvel universe (again I refer to the Sentinel program) and yet no similar outcries were raised.

"Operation: Zero Tolerance" is a prime example of the illogic in Civil War--people were turned into Bio-Sentinals AGAINST THEIR WILL and yet the public of the Marvel US seemed to have gone 'Uh who cares?" In anything even remotely like the REAL world there would have been an outcry that would have made Watergate look like a minor tiff. Again based on the HISTORY OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE the Pro-resitration side Civil War was stupid. I would like to remind that part of the reason HAMMER was created was due to Secret Invasion which was a security fiasco that made the whole AI takes over SHIELD and HYRDA look like a cake walk.

Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, and that includes long running characters like Reed and Tony, who are still right 99% of the time, and are pretty trustworthy overall.

The point your missing, is that even if there have been failed attempts to regular super beings, which have ended badly, it still doesn't change the fact that what we're dealing with is a situation where you have guys who are pretty much deciding that because they have super abillities of one sort or another, the laws should not have to apply to them, and that issue is at the heart of "The Civil War", and why it divided The Marvel Universe before it got turned into an analogy for real world politics. If your just going to let a group of people ignore all the rules, why bother to have those rules in the first place?

The basic issue of "The Civil War" had as much, or more, to do with secret identities than it did with super abillities. It wasn't limited to only those who had genetic mutations or inherant powers, but also those who used technology, or were even just the result of intense special training. The idea wasn't so much "we need to register all the mutants so we can know how to deal with them and be safe" as much as it is a matter of "if your going to do this, fine, but take off the mask and be accountable for it". There are a lot of good reasons why accountability is not an entirely good thing, and I use "Doctor Doom" as the poster child for why.

 

[maximara]

The point your missing, is that even if there have been failed attempts to regular super beings, which have ended badly, it still doesn't change the fact that what we're dealing with is a situation where you have guys who are pretty much deciding that because they have super abillities of one sort or another, the laws should not have to apply to them, and that issue is at the heart of "The Civil War", and why it divided The Marvel Universe before it got turned into an analogy for real world politics. If your just going to let a group of people ignore all the rules, why bother to have those rules in the first place?

You are still missing the key point that a story must make sense in the CONTEXT OF THE UNIVERSE IT OCCURS in. DC with it many reboots can kind of get away with issues like this but Marvel cannot. Just as Emerald Twilight made no sense in the larger context of GL history the Pro registration stance in Civil War made no sense in the larger context of the Marvel universe.

Unlike Marvel DC realized that in a world with actual superheroes there would have been laws on the books for a LONG time to deal with them. In fact, Flash #135 even pointed to an AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION in the DCU to protect superhero secret ids which based on the number given (12th) would put it being passed during George Washington's administration. The idea that no such laws already existed in the Marvel Universe was what made Civil War stupid.

 

[Therumancer]

The point your missing, is that even if there have been failed attempts to regular super beings, which have ended badly, it still doesn't change the fact that what we're dealing with is a situation where you have guys who are pretty much deciding that because they have super abillities of one sort or another, the laws should not have to apply to them, and that issue is at the heart of "The Civil War", and why it divided The Marvel Universe before it got turned into an analogy for real world politics. If your just going to let a group of people ignore all the rules, why bother to have those rules in the first place?

You are still missing the key point that a story must make sense in the CONTEXT OF THE UNIVERSE IT OCCURS in. DC with it many reboots can kind of get away with issues like this but Marvel cannot. Just as Emerald Twilight made no sense in the larger context of GL history the Pro registration stance in Civil War made no sense in the larger context of the Marvel universe.

Unlike Marvel DC realized that in a world with actual superheroes there would have been laws on the books for a LONG time to deal with them. In fact, Flash #135 even pointed to an AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION in the DCU to protect superhero secret ids which based on the number given (12th) would put it being passed during George Washington's administration. The idea that no such laws already existed in the Marvel Universe was what made Civil War stupid.

Well, in the end we're going to have to agree to disagree. Personally I find the idea of a constitutional amendment passed by George Washington to be pushing it. In the context of Marvel I get the impression that the basic premise is that the issue has been getting bigger and bigger, and the idea was that the 20 ton elephant in the room just couldn't be ignored anymore, a point made by a certain incident involving "The New Warriors" which was a bit clumsily done, but that was still the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.


In the end we seem to both agree the event was crap, but for differant reasons, and we're getting far afield of the original point and discussions. Irregardless of what the issue was supposed to be about when it was originally conceived and being built up, that wasn't what they wound up running with. It's sort of like how the derailed the entire "V For Vendetta" movie into a criticism of then-current politics, and in the course missed the entire point that the story was supposed to be making.

 

[maximara]

In the end we seem to both agree the event was crap, but for differant reasons, and we're getting far afield of the original point and discussions. Irregardless of what the issue was supposed to be about when it was originally conceived and being built up, that wasn't what they wound up running with. It's sort of like how the derailed the entire "V For Vendetta" movie into a criticism of then-current politics, and in the course missed the entire point that the story was supposed to be making.

Much the same thing happened to Emerald Twilight. Gerard Jones' version and what the readers got were totally different animals. What *really* ticked off fans is the Gerard Jones' version of Green Lantern #48 and #49 had being promoted as late as Nov 1993 in Comics Scoreboard:

GREEN LANTERN #48
by G. Jones, Cobbs, & Tanghal
"Superman and the Justice League gather by Green Lantern's side as Hal confronts the horror of the destruction of Coast City. Meanwhile on Oa, the Guardians of the Universe find themselves fighting a lethal battle against...the Guardians of the Universe!?"
Cover by Kevin Maguire & Romeo Tanghal. (PREVIEWS Vol. III #8 (Aug 1993))

GREEN LANTERN #49
by G. Jones, Haynes, & Tanghal
"Green Lantern is caught up in a battle raging between two equally powerful groups of the Guardians of the Universe. Hal's side loses, and the winners' first act is to take away the power rings' 24-hour time limit, and their yellow impurity. Their second act is to appoint a new leader of the Green Lantern Corps --- Sinestro!. This issue leads directly into the landmark Green Lantern #50, a major turning point for the series."
Cover by Kevin Maguire (PREVIEWS Vol. III #9 (Sep 1993))


Tell me, is THAT what we got? NO! And people wonder why Hal fans came unglued. Right up to the last minute DC was promising THIS story and then at the last possible minute changed things to where Hal become a total homicidal nutcase.

 

[Gindil]

A personal highlight is when he punches Batman in the face.

...

...

Bwuh? How the hell could he get close enough?

And regarding the Part 2... I feel like I was robbed of a good episode for a continuation joke...

DAMN YOU MOVIEBOB!!!

Well if I say it, it'll ruin part II so I'll put it in spoilers and keep in vague.

Spoiler

As you might be able to guess there is some serious retconning where they make Hal Jordon no longer evil. Basically he's all good again and the JLA all forgive him. Apart from Batman who feels he most atone for his crimes, he throws a Bat grapple around him and starts lecturing Jordon on being evil and Jordon evaporates the grapple and turns round and punches him. It be fair you can sort of see how Geoff Johns is a quite a big green lanter fan. Because I still think Batman could've/should've blocked it.

But seriously... Batman. If anything he should have gotten a lot more than that.

Yes, I waited on the spoiler. But thanks for the info.

 

[Balkan]

Haha kinda like Mass effect 3

 

[Demonjazz]

I wonder what the hell people were thinking when they choose his weakness as yellow. It's not even the opposite of green that would be red.