In Tuesday's post about whether the Marvel braintrust is serious when they tell fans Iron Man's side was right, commenters Earl Allison and Laura both mentioned that Quesada might well be serious because it's meant to be like 24, which teaches us to break the rules to make things right sometimes. I don't watch 24, but I do watch The Shield and enjoy Dirty Harry, so I have to admit that I will root for someone doing bad things for supposedly good reasons. So why can't I (and other fans, though certainly not all) root for Tony Stark?
I think it's because, as was also discussed in the comments to that post, Stark is screwing over characters we like in the interests of the 'betterment of mankind', as he described it in Nova #2. In those other scenarios, be it Jack Bauer shooting someone, Vic Mackey pressing a guy's face on a burning stove, or Harry Callahan ignoring constitutional rights of suspects, the primary thing we know about the person being hurt is that they're a scumbag. We aren't meant to empathize with them, and that we aren't meant to be troubled by the character we root for performing these unpleasant acts (I don't think we're meant to be troubled).
I don't know about you, but I often respect fictional characters that undergo hardship to protect their friends. Even if the character being protected is garbage, I can appreciate that this other character doesn't see them that way, and so they defend them. I've done it on occasion myself, taking the rap for things a friend did, because I didn't think my parents were all that fond of him, and so I figured it'd be easier if I took the heat instead. As swell as it is to have laws to try and maintain order (to the extent the law, and not human restraint, does that), I like the fact that there can be bonds that transcend the law. The seeming lack of those bonds, the sense that no one cared much cared anyone else, so they'd sell each other out at the drop of a hat, was one of the most depressing aspects of reading 1984, for me, personally. It just seems like such an awful way to go through life.
But it's the way Iron Man and his cronies went during Civil War. They'd rolled over for the law, poo-pooed any concerns others had, and threw dissenters that they'd known for years in the clink. Friendship was secondary to obeying the law, there wasn't going to be any looking the other direction for old times' sake. And maybe there shouldn't be. I appreciate that at times, Iron Man tried to talk with Captain America (though luring him into a trap the first time wasn't a good way to start), and that since Cap was resolute, maybe Iron Man felt he was out of options (but shouldn't a futurist, who sat down with his buddies and came up with 100 ideas to improve the world, be able to come up with an alternative to the whole registration thing?). Maybe having all the superhumans trained and under government regulation is for the best. But pushing it through by stepping all over his friends is not going to make Tony Stark a character I want to see experience success. For me at least, it isn't the mark of an admirable character. Of course, Sally Floyd applauded him for the same actions I despise, but I think Ms. Floyd is a twit, so who cares what she applauds? She's no Adorable Baby Panda!
Just for the sake of comparison, let's look at the current storyline in Amazing Spider-Man. Peter is out to get Wilson Fisk because he ordered the hit which has left Aunt May in a coma (again). He's breaking all sorts of laws with his breaking of limbs, webbing of police officers, chucking people out windows. I'm not really eager for Vengeful Spidey stories, but I can understand the character's reasons. A loved one was hurt for no good reason by an evil person, and he's looking to get payback. It's not noble, certainly illegal, but it's done because someone he cared about was hurt, so it's more understandable to me. There's emotion behind it, whereas Tony, Reed, and Hank's actions have seemed coldly logical, an attempt to ignore the human aspect.
Hopefully that made sense. It was just a bunch of stuff I wanted to say. Type. Whatever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
You have made a very valid point. We may root for the anti-hero, because he is breaking rules, but in so doing, he is going after the BAD GUYS!
Tony, Reed and Hank are going after the good guys. Their friends and comrades, who just happen to have a differing opinion about something. Building a gulag and throwing everyone who disagrees with you, into it with out trial or hope for release is just...EVIL!
You make perfect sense.
In some interview somewhere, one-time Marvel writer Frank Tieri defended Tony Stark by saying life isn't black and white and that it's necessary to do terrible things for a greater good.
Not to get all Ayn Rand but I believe that too many compromises for the sake of a self-determined "greater good" can end with the person finding him or herself on the wrong side of the aisle.
The worst thing about Tony these days, aside from the myopia demonstrated in Nova #2, is that he's is willing to break all sorts of laws and civil rights to ensure the success of Registration, but becomes "Mr. Law & Order" whenever a comrade raises a valid legal concern over the Pro-Reg position.
I hate to commend Brian Bendis, but he got it right in New Avengers when Danny Rand faced down the Iron Avengers armed with nothing else but an attorney and the valid point that "super power" hasn't been legally defined by the government as of yet.
Tony, and Ms. Marvel's, indignation just goes to show how jerky and two-faced those characters have become.
To point out a major difference in the way 24 works and the way The Shield works:
It's true that both of the protagonists (Jack Bauer and Vic Mackey, respectively) are willing and usually do break the rules to do what they percieve as the right thing. The only difference is the fallout we see from these transgressions.
On 24, breaking the rules is the norm. Jack Bauer routinely tortures suspects on the faintest bit of evidence, and he'll openly defy authority at the drop of a hat. Same with Vic. But more often than not, we see Jack's efforts bear positive fruit - the terrorist is stopped, and everyone is praising Jack and apologizing for not having more faith in him, even though he went against orders to get what he wanted. Things will often work out in Jack's favor simply because he's on the side of righteousness - it doesn't matter what rules he's playing by (if any) - Jack will win and everyone will testify to his Amazing Heroism.
Vic Mackey is a different story. Vic's idealogy is essentially the same as Jack's - break the rules to get results. But what we see with Vic is a more or less realistic reaction to these transgressions. Things don't always go smoothly. He steals money from the mob (in part to keep it from funding more illegal activities, but mostly out of greed) and he gets greenlit, an IAD investigation, a dead friend and a ruined relationship with another friend (looking at more recent repercussions). Likewise, even though Vic's methods reap positive results, he is still berated and investigated by people of authority because his METHODS are suspect no matter what the RESULTS are.
With that in mind, I think the Pro-Registration side is more like Jack Bauer than suggested. The characters on the Pro-Reg side - Tony Stark and Reed Richards primarily - are breaking the rules and using absolutely ruthless methods to do the "right" thing, and a good majority of people - both in the Marvel Universe and the Marvel bullpen - are cheering them on for the results despite the methods taken.
And that, quite frankly, is ridiculous - just as it always is when Jack does it.
-M
With that in mind, I think the Pro-Registration side is more like Jack Bauer than suggested. The characters on the Pro-Reg side - Tony Stark and Reed Richards primarily - are breaking the rules and using absolutely ruthless methods to do the "right" thing, and a good majority of people - both in the Marvel Universe and the Marvel bullpen - are cheering them on for the results despite the methods taken.
There was another thing about Civil War that reminded me of 24; control of the fictional universe rules to make sure that proreg (or Jack Bauer) was right. Perhaps the most ludicrous part of this was the declaration that "crime is lower than it has been since the Eisenhower administration." Now, with the sliding timeline, superheros and supervillians have only been around for 13 years in any number. So somehow the Shield capekillers were not only more effective than the entire superhuman community had been against supervillians, they were also somehow solving the petty burglaries and bar fights and other mundane crimes that make up the bulk of crime statistics. And the American public was in no way alarmed by having a partially foreign/UN agency putting armored troopers in every city street, and in fact were delighted to the tune of 90 percent approval.
This made *no* sense whatsoever within the Marvel universe history, or the Marvel universe as "our universe, with superheroes." But it was declared so, to show that the proregs were "right", and that all their actions were justified.
Same thing in the final fight; the antis were mostly low powered heros, and the few high powered people they had were among the most experienced heroes in the MU. The pro side had psychopathic criminals, nearly all the punch-people-through-buildings level people, and the Sentry, a fount of insanely powerful instability. Yet somehow, the antis managed to kill dozens of bystanders. Yet the Mighty Avengers fight with the same careless building-smashing style as ever, and there is nary a mention of casualties. And of course, in the CW fight, they made sure to have Tony all worried about bystanders and Captain America heedless of them until Shown the Light by the Heroes of 9/11 (tm).
BTW, your link to the previous discussion is broken, it's missing the .html at the end.
To me, it all still comes down to the fundamental tenet of the Marvel Universe: At times of great doubt, believe in Spider-Man. Like Superman at DC, Peter is Marvel's moral center, it's guiding light. He's not perfect, mind you, but Marvel has always operated on the premise that the only hero 100% dedicated to pursuing the "right" course is the Friendly Neighbor. Whatever the consequences to himself, he will never betray morality.
So Peter turning on Tony and joining the antis, no matter what the story might tell us, is--by the definition of Marvel fabric--a judgement against the pros. Even then, because Peter had originally been on the pro side, the pros are little worse than misguided. But the moment Tony Stark is on the side of people who want to arrest Mary Jane and hunt down Peter--not for committing a moral wrong, but because being his normal accidentally-bitten-by-spider self is a felony--is the moment when Tony becomes a villain. They can throw as many justifications for Iron Man out there as one could dream up, but Spider-Man will always be in the right.
Using the 24 analogy: it doesn't matter what Jack does--he could chop off the President's head with a penknife and drink hot apple cider from the skull--and the audience will never doubt that he is following a more morally-pure path than his adversaries. Because in the world of 24, at times of great doubt, believe in Jack Bauer.
I don't know what to make of Marvel's "Iron Man is right!" line. Mostly, I think it's the worst bait-and-switch in the history of the written word. But there are times when I worry that Quesada and friends really believe it. If that panel comes where we are told, once and for all, that Peter Parker has been using his great power irresponsibly for the past 45 years, the Marvel that Stan Lee presented will be dead.
the problem with the pro-reg in my eyes is that they never gave a concrete reason for why they had to do the immoral things they did.
with 24 and the shield we know exactly what will happen if the "heroes" lose, and therefore can make a decision about what is better, and since the makers make sure that the immoral actions of the heroes are less significant then the actions of the antagonists we side with the heroes.
while in civil war all we got were vague threats about how things would be worse if the pro-reg wouldn't win and a case (stamford).
which doesn't show how the pro-reg actions would make things better.
Aha! I think I've just figured it out, due to all of your very cogent comments. No wonder Quesada was enraged when someone innocently used the term 616 Earth. It's NOT taking place on regular Earth, it is some sort of ALTERNATE Earth, where all these gawdawful things are taking place.
Eventually Peter will wake up and see MJ in the shower and realize, that it was all a dream...just a horrible horrible dream.
Then I might actually enjoy Marvel again. But I'm not holding my breath.
sallyp: Yeah, throwing Daredevil/Iron Fist, and Speed/Penance into the Negative Zone did seem just a wee bit over the top.
fortress keeper: It is interesting that Tony's throwing anti-reg folks in jail for breaking the law, but lets Ms. marvel aid Julia Carpenter in taking her daughter from the people who have legal custody (a move I supported, but still illegal). Law is to be obeyed when Tony finds it beneficial I guess.
matt: That's a good point. Admittedly I don't watch 24, so I'm not really up on my Jack bauer history, but you're definitely on the money that Vic's actions do bring the heat down on him, in both his personal and professional lives, while, for example, Reed Richards does all kinds of questionable stuff, and Sue still winds up trying to patch things up with him, which seems like it sends that "he was right all along" message.
laura: Several good points there. What I'd like to see, at the end of this first Mighty Avengers arc, is the team getting chewed out for all their property damage, and reckless disregard for innocent bystanders (I don't recall Carol giving anyone orders to make sure civilians were safely out of the combat zone, just a lot of "Punch the monsters!" And thanks for the heads up on the link.
cove west: I like the "Believe in Spidey" idea. And you're right; at the beginning the pro-reg seemed like the had some good ideas, and were maybe trying to make the best of a bad situation. Then Peter decides he's going to switch sides (he hasn't even done it yet) and Iron Man attacks him and sends super-criminals after him as well? I mean, what the hell?!
anonymous: Excellent point. It's like, yeah Stamford was a tragedy, but haven't the Avengers had similar problems occur when they were govenment sanctioned. Some of their battles with rampaging Hulks spring to mind. How registration was supposed to fix that, they never really expanded on.
sallyp: And that will be the tue answer to "Who Shot Steve Rogers?"
What I'd like to see, at the end of this first Mighty Avengers arc, is the team getting chewed out for all their property damage, and reckless disregard for innocent bystanders.
I wonder though, who exactly can chew out Iron Man? He's the director of SHIELD, after all. He has no superior per se, and while I guess the President can say "Uh, nice going, douchebag," SHIELD isn't technically a US organization (which is something that I think Marvel forgets these days). Although it might make sense if it was Iron Man doing the berating, since he's missing or whatever.
Using the 24 analogy: it doesn't matter what Jack does--he could chop off the President's head with a penknife and drink hot apple cider from the skull--and the audience will never doubt that he is following a more morally-pure path than his adversaries. Because in the world of 24, at times of great doubt, believe in Jack Bauer.
Exactly. I was going to mention in my previous post, but forgot - in a recent episode, Jack risked an international incident which could have easily become a world war simply to rescue an ex-girlfriend. However, when his plan goes south, it's not portrayed as his fault, it's portrayed as the fault of the government agents who intervened to stop him. And there are maybe two characters who are actually attempting to hold him responsible for what is quite frankly an act of treason.
People SHOULD be reacting to what the leaders of the Pro-Reg side did with shock and moral outrage. But we never got much more than "Gosh, do you really think this is something we should be doing?" Which is met with "It has to be done, it's only temporary, blah blah blah blah blah." That was a big problem with the mini-series - except for Spider-Man, EVERYONE on the Pro-Reg side seems to be okay with Tony and Reed and Hank walking all over ethics and tact, but are okay with it because they're doing it for the right reasons.
...I basically just said the same thing I said before, only differently.
while in civil war all we got were vague threats about how things would be worse if the pro-reg wouldn't win and a case (stamford).
It also doesn't help that the guidelines of the law and the actual consequences are never clearly outlined. I mean, Captain America isn't technically a superhuman, right? To the best of my knowledge, he's simply at the very peak of human endurance and physicality. So why make him register, ESPECIALLY considering that his identity is already public and he's got a past with SHIELD? In that same vein, what about that kid from The Initiative? We're told in #1 that he has no super-soldier serum running through his veins whatsoever, leading us to believe he's just a really good athlete. Why make him register? It's all a big fat mess that could have easily been avoided if a couple of editors had sat down and said, "Okay, this is what the SHRA is and this is what it isn't.
That's what gets me about Marvel right now. They expect us to take stories whose foundations are about as stable as a house of cards seriously, and when we bring up legitimate concerns about these issues we get nothing more than PR nonsense.
-M
I think that the whole "Iron Man is right" makes sense when you take into account the real moral of Civil War:
"There's nothing worse than idealism"
What Quesada thinks a "more realistic MU like in the good ol' days" is, is one where no one gets to be right or wrong, even in what they think, everyone is ambiguous in the way they think and act and...
Oh, just think Image in the 90's
In a universe like that there's place for heroes being fascist for the greater good, villains working for the government and rebels looking for vengeance but not for honest to God good people trying to do the right thing
How can you tell that's the moral of Civil War?
Simple the reason that Cap lost the fight is that he had the ideal that the freedom of one group of people didn't imply that another group of people had to suffer for it, so of course he was wrong, in a universe where everything must be gray (not even levels of gray, just gray) there's no place for someone who is an idealist, unles they're villains and their ideals are obviously wrong
So Cap had to die because ultimately he is a character who is a good person with good intentions, and in the new MU that just doesn't make sense
Cove West: To me, it all still comes down to the fundamental tenet of the Marvel Universe: At times of great doubt, believe in Spider-Man. Like Superman at DC, Peter is Marvel's moral center, it's guiding light. He's not perfect, mind you, but Marvel has always operated on the premise that the only hero 100% dedicated to pursuing the "right" course is the Friendly Neighbor. Whatever the consequences to himself, he will never betray morality.
Captain America traditionally has been much the same way -- if you ended up on the other side from Cap, you had better think real hard about where you were standing. Maybe the other side could have a valid stance too -- I don't think the people siding with killing the Supreme Intelligence were portrayed as wrong -- but if Steve Rogers thought seriously about a ethical dilemma and chose a side, he was never _wrong_.
Of course, I'm kind of expecting Spidey to cut a deal with Stark in _One More Day_; Marvel isn't going want their most valuable property locked up this way for long. Maybe that's what all the Back in Black is about, Spidey decides that gosh, yeah, he's dangerous so Stark was right after all.
Dumma: So Cap had to die because ultimately he is a character who is a good person with good intentions, and in the new MU that just doesn't make sense
I said pretty much the same thing in the first post: maybe Marvel decided that it wasn't realistic for a character to be so morally surefooted and true to his ideals, so he had to die, after being suitably smeared as a failure and a traitor.
Captain America traditionally has been much the same way -- if you ended up on the other side from Cap, you had better think real hard about where you were standing. Maybe the other side could have a valid stance too -- I don't think the people siding with killing the Supreme Intelligence were portrayed as wrong -- but if Steve Rogers thought seriously about a ethical dilemma and chose a side, he was never _wrong_.
I once saw a blogger - I can't for the life of me remember who, however - suggest that Cap and Spidey should have been switched in their roles. Spider-Man leads the resistance, and Cap is the one who's unsure of himself and if registration is right. I think that would have gone a long way in lending the Pro-Reg some credibility. As Cove suggested, people will agree with Anti-Reg both on principle and the fact that Spider-Man is leading it, but the fact that Captain America initially sides with Pro-Reg will leave some thinking, "Well, maybe they're right after all, if Steve Freaking Rogers is on their side."
-M
In regards to the SRA, Marvel has admitted (through Brevoort, at least) that there WAS no text to the SRA for writers to refer to. Heaven forbid that there be any consistency.
About Spidey and Cap, someone else said Ben Grimm is the 3rd most moral character in the MU, behind Cap and Spider. When we see Ban risking arrest to visit his Anti-SRA friends (Spidey among them) to mourn Cap, isn't this ANOTHER of those mixed messages? Ben doesn't seem to want to arrest these people -- doesn't that send a message of its own?
I have to wonder does the right hand even KNOW what the left is doing?
It's too bad we are still debating it (no disrespect to anyone here, it's ALL directed at Marvel). I worry that Marvel will take all that and keep patting themselves on the back for their hack job :(
Take it and run.
matt: You're right, there isn't really anybody above Tony Stark (unless he answers to some U.N. Oversight Committee or something?). Maybe Uatu could should up and wag his finger disapprovingly like he did in that Illuminati story where Reed collected the Infinity Gauntlet.
dumma: I think you're on to something there. Though I'd think, just for the sake of diversity, Joe would want to keep a few characters that didn't see it like that.
laura: Man I hope the only deal Peter cuts with Iron Man is Stark agreeing to back off so Peter doesn't make his life hell. I had a hard enough time liking Spidey the last time he went Pro-Reg.
matt: I remember that suggestion about Cap being unsure intially too. It probably would have helped, because I know at the store I buy comics from, nobody I talked to was siding with Stark, precisely because he was against Cap, so how were we supposed to think Tony wasn't wrong? (Even before he drafted Bullseye and Venom into his ranks).
earl allison: The fact they didn't bother to map out what the SRA was all about almost makes me think it wasn't supposed to stick originally, then they changed their minds part way through and said "Let's keep it around."
The thing about Cap is he's the relativist of the MU. He will do what is "best," not necessarily what is "right." As a soldier, he's not above killing as a very last resort. Still, he does have a strong sense of morality, and the MU trusts that he balances pragmatism vs. absolutism and comes to a sound judgement. In this context, Iron Man is the pragmatist of the MU. To him, the absolute "right" and the relative "best" are secondary results of the pragmatic "necessary." He is a lethal-weapons manufacturer, after all; it's not a relativist's first choice and an absolutist wouldn't even go near it, but a pragmatist like Tony says "We need nuclear bombs to protect ourselves. I'll worry about that other stuff when I'm not dead." Look at the end of Galactic Storm: Cap says no, this isn't a line we should be crossing, but IM decides it's a line that needs to be crossed.
CIVIL WAR screws this up by trying to put Tony at BOTH the pragmatic and absolute ends of the spectrum. We are told he is doing what is moral and what is necessary. Yet Steve is occupying an opposing relativistic position to both, which should be impossible: either "best" is "right" and not "necessary", "necessary" and not "right", or both "necessary" and "right"--it can't be "neither." So there are three options: 1) Tony is representing his traditional "necessary" and Steve is representing his traditional "best" from the "right" side; 2) Tony has abandoned "necessary" and is now "right", while Steve is representing his traditional "best" from the "necessary" side; or 3) Tony is all three and Steve is flat-out "wrong." But then Spider-Man, the traditional "right" representative, turns from Tony to Steve. Suddenly, we are faced with two conflicting scenarios: A) the traditional set-up where Peter="right", Steve="best", and Tony="necessary", or B) Tony is the Second Coming, and Peter and Steve are the Anti-Christ. And so naturally, Marvel tries to convice us of B. Throwing Ben Grimm--the representative of uncategorical "you do what you do"--in there against Tony makes it even worse, suggesting that choice of any kind is inherently wrong.
To amend my 24 comparison a bit, Spidey is Pres. David Palmer, Cap is Jack Bauer, Iron Man is the CTU Director, and the Thing is a stand-in for the audience. You've got a situation where Palmer and CTU are both against something Jack is doing, creating a "who to root for?" dillemma for the viewers. Then Palmer sides with Jack, yet we are told that CTU is right, and the story specifically makes the audience stand-in irrelevant. So...we are told to abandon our sympathy for our long-time protagonists in favor of a hypothetically philosophical unabsolute question of unanswerable absolutes presented to us by unrelatable totems of universal moral inequivalence. FOR 24 HOURS! "The following takes place between 2:00 PM and the evil human representation of the non-existent passage of time though indefinable space in an unnaturally-ordered alpha-numeric notation referred to as 3:00 PM." I guess proving once and for all that torture works.
If Marvel actually thinks that Spidey, Cap, and Thing are wrong, then they seriously misunderstand the Marvel Universe and heroism in general. If Tony is right, that what is necessary takes precedence over what is right, and that necessity is absolute, then doesn't that mean that villainy is morally equivalent to heroism? That as long as his needs of survival aren't met, it is morally required of Mephisto to steal a baby's soul? That so long as life poses a threat to Thanos's existence, he is justified in killing everyone but himself? That in order to protect his and MJ's well-being, Peter is obligated to kill everyone who is pro-reg? At its logical conclusion, doesn't this mean that the ultimate threat to the greater good is the greater good itself? That the only way to protect life is to destroy all life? That WATCHMEN is the heroic ideal?
I like your math better than Reed Richards, cove.
And yes, Marvel is essentially saying that Magneto was right. Way back when when he showed up and said "obey."
I really liked this month's New Avengers because it seemed to signal a tiny crack in the dogma of "this is the way Marvel absolutely should be". Tony Stark actually comes off as apologetic, if a little confused as to why his friends are still fighting him, which prompts this whole discussion between the team (mostly between Peter Parker and Luke Cage) about their long term strategy. Cage basically says the world has turned upside down, and specifically ties House of M, Secret Wars, and the Civil War together in a big "wtf?" That really seems to signal some big overarching connection between all three. Perhaps even a real Bad Guy behind it all!
Now granted, this may not mean anything in the long run. I know the Hulk thing will probably suck out a lot of oxygen, so who knows if they'll follow this thread up. But it's heartening.
Again, I still don't buy that Marvel really, really thinks the pro-reg side is right on this, despite what Quesada and the rest say. Just look at the new Thunderbolts, which is basically the Sinister Six with a SHIELD blessing. I just can't believe that Marvel intends to keep Bullseye a hero and Spider-Man a villain indefinitely.
Again, I still don't buy that Marvel really, really thinks the pro-reg side is right on this, despite what Quesada and the rest say. Just look at the new Thunderbolts, which is basically the Sinister Six with a SHIELD blessing. I just can't believe that Marvel intends to keep Bullseye a hero and Spider-Man a villain indefinitely.
Oh, I think that that will shift, but (if editorial isn't lying, and they've been consistent in saying this) it'll just be fixes around the edges, not any overturning of the central theme (the SHRA is good, Iron Man was right, the antireggers were wrong.)
There will just be a storyline that leads Spiderman to come back to Tony's side, and another opposing the Thunderbolts in some degree; they seem to be trying to set it up as "well, proreg did crappy stuff, but the CSA is the real bad guy". Or "Hank Pym may have done bad stuff, but he's not quite as bad as the actual Nazi in the Initiative."
I suppose the theory is that those who still dislike Stark/Reed/Pym/proreg will be lured back to their side by seeing them oppose the Real Bad Guys. I'm not really sure how this will work, because the CSA is merely following the proreg lead and using the tools that the proregs gave them on the Thunderbolts, and Pym may flinch at withholding a body from grieving parents, but he doesn't flinch at withholding the truth about how they got him killed. So I think it's likely my attitude is still going to be "kill them all, let god sort them out."
But I'm not really a typical comic book reader.
I dunno, the awesome and frustrating thing about superhero comics is that they all come back to status quo eventually. And status quo at Marvel always puts Captain America on the right side of any political issue.
The thing is -- if Marvel was really trying to make the SRA look good, they could do it really easily. Registration would be the easier story to sell. Just have a superhero battle where someone dies, then have Spidey go off and do his mopey post-Kraven thing. But all of the cold calculation they're showing Stark doing; the murder of Captain America; turning the Thunderbolts into a celebrity team; the Mighty Avengers pulling new functions of the law out of their asses; drafting every registered hero into the Initiative? All of the "good" actions have been anti-reg and all of the "bad" (or at least complicated) actions have been pro-reg so far. That makes me think Marvel is really promoting the anti-reg line, regardless of what the official company line is.
Post a Comment