What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Comicbook/CivilWar

MagBas
topic
12:45:45 PM Apr 25th 2013

Examples Are Not Arguable
GrigorII
12:58:08 PM Apr 25th 2013
In the third case, the only arguable point is which side was "good" and which side "bad", but it is a fact that there were two sides, and that those characters move from one side to the other
ijffdrie
topic
09:06:10 AM Mar 24th 2012
More neutrality needed on this page? I know there is a rather large contingent of fans who actually like this storyline, but every single entry on the page seems to be "Writers are stupid" and "Pro-registration is evil". I'm not exactly fond of the crossover either, but I still feel this page misrepresents the tropes. 90% of the page seems heavily opinionated, and could be moved to YMMV.
TheUG
09:28:00 PM Jul 29th 2012
Personal like/dislike of the storyline is different from facts that can be supported in the story proper. Now, "Writers Are Stupid"...I agree, that is an extreme opinion. However, "Pro-Registration Is Evil" is a fact that can be supported by incidents in the main story, as written by Mark Millar.

gibberingtroper
topic
09:01:45 PM Aug 8th 2011
  • Completely Missing the Point: The New Warriors, and by extension superheroes in general, are blamed for the death and destruction in Stamford and the general chaos that results from super-battles...even though it's Nitro and other villains like him that are the ones who actually start the trouble to begin with.
    • Word of God says that the we should be rooting for the Pro-Reg side...even though they did such things like set up a S.H.I.E.L.D. unit called the "Cape Killers", throw people in the Negative Zone, etc., etc. Interestingly he admits this and doesn't care.
      • Thankfully Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 came along to show where this mentality could've easily gone horribly wrong.
        • And Dark Reign too, with a lot of Call Backs and underlying "I told you so"'s.

Removed because Nitro didn't start the fight. He was hiding out and was hunted down in a suburb by a group of irresponsible young superheroes. He may have been a fugitive but the point (which the above posters are apparently missing) is that Speedball and his crew could have chosen a different battleground to engage the villains on. Its something more experienced competent superheroes do take into consideration and thats why the public thought that maybe, just maybe, these guys ought to be required to train more before operating in the field. You see this type of reaction a lot in real life when someone makes a big public mistake like this that leads to a tragedy.
KingZeal
09:16:55 PM Aug 8th 2011
Yes, because superheroes have never fought in populated areas before. And certainly not the guys who were actually doing the training.

The sad fact of the matter was that Nitro is basically a result of invoking Fridge Logic into superhero stories. The New Warriors started the fight nowhere close to the school and, if I remember correct, Nitro had recently gotten a power upgrade that none of them could have known about. The idea that the New Warriors should be blamed because they attacked a guy who can explode is like arguing that the Hulkbusters are to blame for attacking a guy who—on his worst day—has demonstrated the ability to cause seismic events across continents.
gibberingtroper
10:53:08 PM Aug 8th 2011
Superheroes usually fight in populated areas because they're responding to a crisis. They're reacting and on the defensive.

That was not the case here. These villains were hiding out. If the heroes had left them alone, they would have spent the rest of the morning hiding out.

Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't have tried to find a way to bring these guys to justice and I'm not saying they're entirely accountable for what happened.

But look at the situation. They were filming a reality television show. Like most "reality" shows in real life these days, they were engineering a live event to get ratings. Hence, they hunted down supervillains and attacked them without giving much thought to when and where they would be engaging them. These were villains who's powers lend themselves to collateral damage (at least Nitro's do). Whether they knew about Nitro's new power level or not, they had to know from experience that these kinds of fights result in unintended damage.

They may not have blown up the bus, they may have been unaware of the power upgrade Nitro had gotten, but they started a superpowered fight in a suburb to try to bolster their ratings. They did this for personal gain. And a bunch of innocent children died.

That's why Completely Missing the Point doesn't fit. There is a case to be made for holding Speedball's crew at some fault. People weren't arguing about Nitro's role because that was a given. Condemning supervillainy is obvious and agreed upon. It doesn't need to be debated. But condemning the negligence of irresponsible superheroes is more controversial. That's why it was given all the attention, because that was the part that needed to be debated.

KingZeal
12:52:56 AM Aug 13th 2011
The problem with that entire argument, again, is that superheroes have attacked supervillains in well-populated areas. Hell, the Avengers themselves have tracked down supervillains to the middle of Manhattan and attempted to fight them. They fought Korvac in the middle of a house. Not to mention, they knew where the Masters of Evil were then. When you're dealing with superpowered individuals, how do you know what they're going to do next? If they hadn't tried to fight them in Stamford, what else could have happened between now and the next time the Master of Evil showed up? (Answer: It's later revealed in Wolverine that Nitro was going to blow up a populated area anyway, because Damage Control had paid him to do so.)

The problem is, blaming the New Warriors for being "irresponsible" doesn't wash. Remember, Nitro tried to run, and Namorita barely caught up to him and tried to get him to surrender. Unless you had a teleporter on your team, there was no way that battle was going to end well in any sort of populated area, but if they'd waited too long, it would have been to late anyway.
gibberingtroper
10:19:31 PM Jan 15th 2012
How does it not "wash"? They started a fight for the benefit of a TV show. Kids died.

Whether or not you're ultimately right about the facts of the situation, it looks bad to the general public in the Marvel Universe. Its not a case of missing the point. At worst, its a case of not yet having all the facts. Its not missing the point when the public looks at this situation and says "You know what? Heroes should probably be trained and held to some kind of standards if they're going to fight crime."
Warwolf
11:59:23 PM Feb 29th 2012
I think part of the reason it doesn't wash is because far worse has happened in Marvel. Sometimes on cosmic scales, which of course isn't necessarily going to affect a great deal of the American population, but many of which has happened on US soil and on far greater scales. Someone on the page actually brought up Kang's invasion and subsequent slaughter of several thousand people (at least) who populated Washington DC. Now while I personally did not see this storyline, if it did happen, then this leads more credence to teh theory that this issue seemed forced. After all. Kang is far more powerful than Nitro was believed to be at the time. One troper points out, and rightfully so, that Nitro wasn't able to kill Daredevil at ten feet prior to this storyline. And unlike The Thing (whom Nitro had also run into well before Civil War), DD has very little in the way of protection against that kind of power.

So I presume the general thought behind the idea not washing boils down to the question "if Kang invading and slaughtering a good percentage of DC's population didn't cause a registration act, why did Stamford?"

Of course, I may well be wrong in my interpretation of King Zeal's comment. ^^;;
TrevMUN
topic
07:56:52 AM Feb 8th 2011
(Initially posted this in the main Civil War discussion page yesterday. Adding here.)

Removing this edit:

24th Oct '10 4:24:03 PM Warwolf 69.193.17.180
Added line(s) 146 (click to see context) :
**Okay, Sally I agree with and yes, she really was Too Dumb to Live, but how the hell is Miriam an Expy?

There were two better ways you could have handled that, Warwolf:

  1. Removing the pothole to Expy if you object to it.
  2. Challenging the use of "Expy" here in the Discussion page or on the forums.

Introducing a conversational edit just to cast doubt on another troper's potholing of Expy, though? Not cool.
Warwolf
11:50:18 PM Feb 29th 2012
My apologies. At the time I wasn't aware of the discussion page. I was still new to the place, and I wasn't trying to cast doubt on it. I was genuinely curious as to who she was meant to be an expy of. I'm STILL not sure to this day since it was never mentioned.
79.191.51.37
topic
10:21:57 AM Aug 1st 2010
There's a part in the Wall Banger bit: "Miriam Sharpe becomes Director of SHIELD. That's right. A civilian with no combat, leadership, or superhuman experience becomes head of Superhuman national security. Was Tony Stark being stupid on purpose."

It's completely off-base. At no point was Miriam Sharpe involved with SHIELD in any way. It's Stark himself who becomes Director after Civil War, with Maria Hill demoted to his second in command.
ThatKidInTheBasement
11:33:37 PM Aug 7th 2010
edited by ThatKidInTheBasement
Actually, I completely misread it, so yeah remove it. Please.

I wasn't really thinking at the time. See, I knew that Tony was Director of SHIELD, but the writing made it seem like Miriam Sharpe was going to be involved with it, and I didn't think about it at all after that.

Yeah.
GamerFromJump
topic
08:49:42 PM May 22nd 2010
Boy, anyone who gets their characterization of Tony from the Iron Man movies is going to be confused as all hell. "Wait, the guy who keeps telling the feds to kiss off is working for them now?"
90.221.125.63
topic
07:08:00 PM Apr 17th 2010
I don't understand the "Your Mileage May Vary" bit.
GreenGoblinoid
05:25:39 PM Jun 10th 2010
There are some people out there who like Civil War. One of my friends is one of those people.
98.230.38.150
05:07:59 PM Sep 20th 2010
Because, if you follow mostly the main storyline and ignore the Author Tract side issues of other writers who decided to tell before showing, its a logical story. This is basically what would happen if we had superheroes in the real world.

The negative reaction comes from fans who, whether they'll admit it or not, don't want this much realism in their stories (and there's nothing wrong with that, its all taste.)
141.225.194.58
09:26:37 PM Apr 20th 2011
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The main storyline WASN'T logical. Maybe the CONCEPT, when applied to the real world(i.e. superheroes recieving training) would be(and even then, I don't think it would be simple), but the story itself(i.e. the main book by Millar) seem to have a huge Author Tract of its' own...i.e. the government is bad, Anti-Reg is good. Being the cornerstone of the whole crossover, it makes sense that this was the reason why the other writers wrote the Pro-Regs in a negative light.

And again, logical? When friends who have served in wars with each other suddenly start fighting at the drop of a hat(Cap and Ironman)? When the Pro-Reg seem to escalate the battle with the Anti-Regs unnecessarily(building clones, building prisons, setting traps) as opposed to simply showing the benefits of registration(after all, the Anti-Regs weren't threats to public safety)? And lets' not even go there with how stupid the whole plot's beginning was...a SUPERVILLIAN blows up a school, and yet SUPERHEROES are the only ones to blame?
gibberingtroper
02:24:37 PM Jul 7th 2011
This wasn't the drop of a hat. This had been building for years. The Muggles were always uncomfortable with superheroes, especially mutants.

The humans living in this universe don't really know who the good and bad guys are as a general population. Some of them have encountered some of the good guys and bad guys themselves but apart from that they have to rely on the press (and as we've seen from Spiderman, the press doesn't always correctly label the good guys and bad guys either.)

To add to the confusion, there are plenty of times heroes have gone rogue or villains reformed, sometimes its doppelgangers, robots, possessions, but most of the American public in the Marvel Universe would tell you at the end of the day that they don't know how much of that is true and how much isn't. They just know that there are a lot of people running around unidentified with powers getting in fights taking things, causing damage, or at best making morally questionable calls. There are a few they feel pretty confident in like the Fantastic Four and usually the Avengers but thats a small group out of the thousands of people running around with powers.

And the two aformentioned groups ARE already public. FF's identities are public knowledge and the Avengers had, until shortly before this event, been registered with the UN. So why shouldn't they all right? That's how the public would feel.

Tony saw that there were already rumblings in the works about a superhuman registration act. He believed that if he didn't take the lead as a connected man in both the political and superhero communities, that something worse would have come down the pipe. He was trying to do damage control.

What didn't make sense was Captain America's reaction. He went rogue immediately. What was Tony supposed to do?
universalguardian
04:15:51 PM Jul 18th 2011
It was not "building for years, etc." All the things you've posted so far are things mentioned in interviews of the creators, or from various reviewers of the crossover. The reason why the things you've posted doesn't work is that...well, the Marvel Universe is a fictional universe that has existed for nearly fifty to sixty years now. The trait of the public being uncomfortable with superhumans is a well-known staple of the Marvel Comics, but is has never been to the level you're implying at all.

Humans in the MU seem to have a basic working knowledge of the good and bad guys...thus, the Fantastic Four and the Avengers are universally adored, and even Spiderman is respected do a degree. If anything, confusion(for the reader) arises from how can a human tell the difference between a mutant and a superhuman...why treat Mister Fantastic with respect while hating Cyclops, simply because of the circumstances of his birth?

CIVIL WAR failed because of continuity and the lack of logic.

Continuity in the sense that(1). Masked superhumans battling supervillains has always been the case, from the 1960s origins of the universe(and even before then, in the Timely/Atlas eras) to now; (2). There have been various Superhuman/Mutant Registration Acts over the years, one even shot down by Reed Richards, with good reasons. Just take a look at Wikipedia for examples. (3). Nitro's murderous explosion is minor in comparison to the hundreds of supervillain attacks that had claimed lives before then, from Kang's attack on Washington, D.C., Magneto's attack on NY in Planet X...thousands more.

So why now? Why should both readers in the real world and fictional humans in the MU suddenly worry about superhumans being unmasked, trained for the government, held accountable, etc.? Mark Millar's story doesn't even try to convince the reader on the sudden necessity of government regulation of superhumans...and to be honest, he couldn't anyway. The traditions and tropes of superhero fiction are too set in stone. The police and government entities are often seen as cumbersome and weak, thus an outside force has to exist to battle the superhuman threat.

And logic and CIVIL WAR? Man. Besides the obvious of NITRO, a superVILLIAN, causing the horror but being ignored, ruining the concept before it is even out of the gate, we have Ironman simply focusing on capturing Cap and crew, who aren't even THREATS to the populace. And my goodness, let's not even get on the pointless use of clones, interdimensional jails, and "Cape Killers" to capture non-threats.

Please don't argue about Tony doing "damage-control". A badly-written story is a badly written story, and it is pointless to argue about illogical characterization.
gibberingtroper
09:27:51 PM Aug 8th 2011
edited by gibberingtroper
I was going to respond to your points point by point because some of them are worth responding to but when you say "don't talk to me about 'damage control.' A bad story is a bad story." I see that there's really no point in discussing this with you.
back to Comicbook/CivilWar

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy