The Big Picture: Going Green: Part I

maximara

New member
Jul 13, 2008
237
0
0
Therumancer said:
maximara said:
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.


Therumancer said:
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

New member
Jul 13, 2008
237
0
0
goliath6711 said:
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 Trek:phase 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

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
maximara said:
[
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

New member
Jul 13, 2008
237
0
0
Therumancer said:
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

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
maximara said:
Therumancer said:
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

New member
Jul 13, 2008
237
0
0
Therumancer said:
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

New member
Nov 28, 2009
1,621
0
0
messy said:
Gindil said:
messy said:
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.

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. :)
 

Demonjazz

Sexually identifies as Tiefling
Sep 13, 2008
10,026
0
0
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.