Doesn't DC have any "Movie" quality heroes than just Batman & Superman? (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Mayer]

I've whined about Civil War elsewhere, but I'll continue

The "political debate" in that merely illustrates how ridiculous comic books are at their core (Marvel is trying to be timely but missing the whole point of their own plot). Listening to Cap talk about his rights and responsibilities (I read New Avengers last night just to see Chaykin draw Cap) is like reading OJs opinion on laws. Cap has all these rights he wants protected, yet he breaks the law (and rights of other citizens) EVERY DAY wearing the mask and doing his job. It's elitist of this portrayal to think he should get special dispensation when his opponents get none. That's not Captain America. But Marvel has him totally wrong because they aren't playing the debate fair. Marvel editors/writers think of the problem as Cap thinks (which I feel is on the opposite side of the political/power spectrum than they think it is) of the problem (because Cap can't be wrong) in the comics, and they are loading the equation to "prove a point".

Cap is above ALL OF THAT. But no, a movie wouldn't do well outside of the States. I don't think it would do well IN THE STATES (regardless of how well crafted or written it was) because of homegrown myopia. But that's a political discussion for another forum

 

[Chris Atkins]

The modern Cap (and by modern I mean from his re-introduction in the 60s to the present) is very anti-establishment. He rarely, if ever, supports the government in anything (especially so after the 'Cap No More' saga in the early 300 issues).

The writers want to hold him to his so-called 'American Ideals", but they forget that a representative government is supposed to represent those ideals. You'd think that, every once in a while, that would actually happen.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I agree with that, and that is sort of my point. Civil War is a flawed premise because it's the same as evaluating the physics of Hulk's powers. It cannot be done and maintain credibility of the established universe. Superheroes are, by definition, people with power and anonymity who are ALLOWED TO BREAK THE LAW because the law believes they are doing it "for the good of everybody". There are NO CHECKS AND BALANCES to their application of force, no due process, nothing. So when a comic story divides the heroes to establish conflict, doing it in this manner (the law and individual rights) to try and "be relevant" completely undermines the suspension of disbelief all mainstream superhero comics need to survive.

Of course Cap has the right to wear his mask and not be forced to reveal his identity (his Civil War opinion). But if that's the case, he cannot speed, he cannot assault another person, he cannot break and enter, he cannot solicit, he cannot impersonate a civil servant, he cannot testify in a court of law, he cannot commit property damage or trespassing, etc, etc, etc, etc. I can go on and on. Civil War has great art, and I love watching Cap kick ass. LOVE IT. But the story makes my skin crawl. Furthermore, the motives of the writers make my skin crawl.

 

[BrettGallman]

Well, I would say that Cap's problem (along with others on the anti-reg side) is being an employee of the government. In Cap's mind, he's probably wondering how long it will take a government leader to use his authority to make superheroes do something for his own agenda. What would heroes do when they don't agree with the cause they're sent to fight?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

What about the populace when they don't agree with the "hero" or "villain" in a fight. It's their car/house/whatever getting destroyed. And that's a semantic argument, Brett. The Civil War Cap wants anonymity because the CWC thinks he knows what is best over the government. So he should judge when to break the law. The government is doing it's job. Controlling those who are allowed to usurp the law under certain conditions. Like sanctioned superheroes.

If the writers of the major storyline had a brain, they'd actually focus on how this would really go down, but they are happy to write off the government and non-powered citizenry as dolts with no opinion but what can fit into one text box in one panel. If something with some imagination was writing, there might be intrigue, counter-proposals, marches for BOTH sides, and a debate between a Senator from NY (with real interest in this) and one from Arkansas (which has no heroes apparently). Something to illuminate the condition of a superhero. What we are getting is infinitely more facile.

The public in a superhero world would have wondered long ago why these people with power are allowed to constantly make life or death decisions with no accountability. So they wouldn't care what Cap feels is appropriate. This is why they shouldn't tangle with real legal issues in comic books. Or REAL physics. Just establish ground rules, and only break them when you are brilliant. None of the CW writers meet that criteria.

 

[Andy Sheets]

What?! Have you forgotten RAZORBACK~?! Tsk!

 

[BrettGallman]

I see your point, Chuck. Speaking purely within the confines of the fictional story itself, I think the problem is that part of the registration act makes sense, but other parts don't. For example, the accountibility factor: I don't see how any one (on either side) could be against this part. However, the revelation of identities and working for the government (and their purposes and ends) is something I can understand some heroes having a problem with. Like you said, though, in the real world, this would more than likely be parts of an eventual compromise.

I understand what you're saying now about how Cap looks a bit hypocritical, as he is concerned about his rights, yet not the rights of others. I hadn't really thought of it that way. Maybe you're right, though. These kinds of things have been happening for years in comics, but no one stopped to think of it until now. I mean, the Kree-Skrull War, Onslaught, all that, etc. surely would have resulted in casualties, but no one thought of it until now. So yeah, they're kind of inserting semi-logical reactions to things NOW, when similar said things have been happening for years. Interesting. At least that's what I think you're trying to say.

You're slowly bringing me over to your side of things, Chuck.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I don't want their to be a "my side" It's territory better left untouched by comic books There can't be intellectual consistency. I agree that ignoring registration and focusing on the forcing of them as government agents would make more "sense". But they are trying to make a "point" about current events with a framework wholly unsuited to the subtleties of the discussion

Superhero comic books are fascist. We have power. We have no accountability except our own morals. Trust us. Just the people to preach about personal liberties

So we've ironed out some nuances and improved the storyline in 5 minutes.

Why didn't they? Great art, though

 

[Chris Atkins]

I'll assume that you're leaving the covers out of that analysis.

 

[BrettGallman]

Yeah, I really like McNiven's pencils on it. I prefer a more "realistic" style as opposed to the more anime/cartoony looking stuff (except Joe Madureira).

And I'd say that in this argument, it's okay that there's just your side (so far...someone else might be able to come up with something) because I really had a hard time coming up with anything to refute the inconsistancy of the whole thing. The analogy of physics was a good one...it made a lot of sense. Sometimes it just seems like writers write things for the sake of writing them, when the same kind of thing could have happened earlier in continuity. For example, it took a school getting blown up to cause outrage? What about when the whole island of Genosha was taken out? Oh that's right, they're mutants. They don't count.

 

[TheLongshot]

Well, they did, sort of. The comic "Damage Control" was about those who clean up after the messes superheroes make.

Jason

 

[Greg_S_H]

Reading the latest Frontline, I think Jenkins's position is clear, but it's fairly balanced.

 

[BrettGallman]

Funny that you mention them. They're coming back this year in Wolverine I think. I hadn't thought about them. But still, people should have been pissed about innocent people dying BEFORE Civil War, as the Stamford incident isn't the first of its type.

 

[Matt-Brooks]

I think everyone has forgoten about the "other" Captain America movie so it should be safe.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/

I saw it on video when it first came out. It's really bad. The problem I see with cap is that he doesn't have a good villian to go against. Red Skull is more like a bond villian or lex luthor and look how that turned out!

 

[BrettGallman]

I haven't forgotten about that one. I actually liked it as a kid. I'm sure time and growing up would not be kind to it now though.

And Red Skull is a pretty cool villain. Other than that, there's Baron Zemo.

 

[Matt-Brooks]

http://www.dragonhero.com/graphics/m...baron-zemo.jpg

I think he might look a little silly on-screen with a costume like that. If they make Red Skull a worthy opponent then it will work... I'd like to see a WW2 Captain America movie, fighting nazi's. Kinda like Indy did.

 

[Jose Martinez]

ummm, isn't this thread about DC superheroes making the move to the big screen?

 

[Greg_S_H]

You're probably right. There's a comics thread in After Hours that would probably better suit the current discussion.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

This looks relevant for the subject of this thread:

SciFi Wirehttp://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=57530

 

[JonZ]

Isnt Preacher being developed by HBO as a series?