Comic Book Resources

Agreed. I felt the same way about the renegade mutants during The 198.

I wish Marvel would be more in synch, because the concept is totally great.

Perhaps Marvel is starting to realize that the whole registration thing makes their heroes look like fascist assholes?

But again, this is one of the guys who helped PLAN the darn thing! Isn't it pretty weird for him to be one of the more egregious ignorers of the concept?

Maybe its ending up being a ball and chain when they are writing stories.

A few thoughts...

(1) If I were Stark/SHIELD, after the mess of Civil War, I would probably focus on taking out individual anti-reg heroes, rather than creating a localized disaster trying to bring in a large group.

(2) Trying to arrest (by force) a group of heroes who just did a very public Good Thing would likely weaken the pro-reg position in the media.

(3) Most of these characters have a history of letting stuff slide. They've all overlooked (at one time or another) the drunk flying around in the weaponized tin can, the sibling evil mutants who decided to become good guys, the serial killers with the skull shirt and pointy hand spikes... and of course, the giant purple guy who eats planets. By their very nature, we're talking about people who have extremely flexible approaches to ethics.

Which, of course, is how they ended up with a registration act in the first place.

They're trying to leave them free so that the Thunderbolts can kill them.

I think it was New Avengers where Bendis, through Iron Man, said basically "I don't care about the registration thing anymore." It gets in the way of his Skrull story (am I the only one who cares about this as much as a sequel to Waterworld). So as Marvel has done since Joe Q and Bendis have taken over, they forget what came before and ignore what gets in the way, no matter what anyone thinks.

it's really quite irritiating.

initially, when the 'registration allows us to tell more interesting stories' hype was bandied about i reacted by thinking 'but won't you only be telling ONE story now? for, like, years...?'

still, that's not the case. it's just a bit of a problem wanting to have the heroes meet when they're on different sides of the reg debate...they need to come up with something better than 'this time we'll let you go...but NEXT time...'

Its become short hand - with amazing speed - for "I am a real hero."

In Incredible Herc, it made sense that that the Widow let Herc go because she realised that she probably couldn't take him down by herself but as New & Mighty Avengers, I really can't understand them letting off the unregistered heroes time & time again

And, as I probably should have stressed, the problem also is that Bendis had Ms. Marvel be all "okay, I'll let you go THIS time, but next time you won't be so lucky" and then the NEXT month, she does the same exact thing!!

The NEXT month by the SAME WRITER!! From a strict "logical writing" standpoint, how does that make any sense?!

The whole Registered vs Un-Registered thing reminds me so much of the Face vs Heel business in pro wrestling:
“I must defeat you! But not until next month’s Pay-Per-View!”

Yeah, great call, Mutt.

But you can DO that without it coming off this cheesy. I mean, using the same gag in back to back months?!

Remember that Mighty Avengers is running way behind New Avengers--so the two times that Carol Danvers lets the New Avengers go were not originally supposed to be back to back. In addition, hasn't it been Carol who has left the New Avenger go both times? Once when she was the only registered super on hand (the New Avengers annual) and once when she lets Luke Cage leave in spite of her teammates' objections (the last issue of New Avengers)?

well it's been Ms. Marvel both times in the books this month....i think it's somewhat in line with the character, she's always been loyal to her friends & even though she's pro-registration i can totally see her still having a hard time arresting her friends.

Remember that Mighty Avengers is running way behind New Avengers–so the two times that Carol Danvers lets the New Avengers go were not originally supposed to be back to back.

It was in New Avengers Annual #2 and New Avengers #38 that Carol let them go, and those books were written to be read back to back.

Did she also do it in Mighty Avengers?

In fact, getting out my copy of New Avengers Annual #2, it's even funnier.

Luke thanks Carol for letting them go, and she has a line, "And tomorrow? How are you going to get by tomorrow?"

Well, apparently the same way as today, Carol!

She's a Skrull.

Because it's poorly written, by a guy who has no feel at all for the characters involved.

So Civil War will just be forgotten and none of the interesting things about it will be explored at all. How is this different from every other 'event' of the last few years? Given the high sales Marvel gets, I just assumed that's what the majority of readers want these days.

I believe that during the Civil War thing, there was a Ms. Marvel comic where she sort of arrests the crap out of a personal friend, so I think it's a stretch to call this consistency.

My thoughts would be even though he helped create the concept of registration for the MU, it doesn't mean Bendis is in favor of it. In a more realistic world, it's something the government would try to implement. I could see Bendis introducing it as something that obviously would really tear a lot of people apart.

Another way to look at it is: how many cops happily arrest their fellow boys/girls in blue? They tend to protect their own.

While Ms. Marvel may be in favor of the CONCEPT, it's a little harder to put into practice for her and a lot of folks. The "renegade" heroes may be breaking a law, but are they doing any actual harm? It's easy to do something to a stranger or someone you don't like, but how do you arrest a well-intentioned friend or friends that you have a lot of respect for. Especially when they just helped bail you out of a jam and have a long history of heroism?

The answer is quite probably that she IS a skrull.
(I thought I was going to be the one to say it first, but I see "Goinalon" did so just a little while ago.)

It makes COMPLETE sense if SHE is a skrull AND at least ONE of the NEW AVENGERS is ALSO a SKRULL.

She let them go 2 or 3 times already (New Avengers Annual # 2 and Mighty Avengers # 8 are the same story).

That way, she is able to kill 2 birds with one stone:

1) keep a fellow Skrull away from the authorities
2) keep the New Avengers out there to be a disruption to the regular Earth's heroes, thereby allowing the skrulls to maintain their plan unhindered.

I'd bet a lot on it.

~P~
P-TOR

Maybe the point all along was to show what a bad idea it is? And make some sort of political statement about current events and abuse of authority? The guy's in Portland, so that was actually my assumption all along.

And I wouldn't doubt for a second that if the Skrulls DID impersonate some heroes, they may even do so even if they haven't neutralized said hero beforehand.

Especially if said hero is either ubiquitous or it would lend more dissent to a fractious Earth-hero community.

Ms. Marvel is a high-level hero who is kind of everywhere.
I wouldn't doubt that they'd impersonate her so that contradictory info might lend itself to discord.

Wolverine would be another easy guy to duplicate. He's friggin' EVERYWHERE.
There COULD be several of him running around and no one would be the wiser.

As for BIG REVEALS... well... I'd say that Luke Cage would be a likely contender.
He certainly falls under the para-quote of "methinks he doth protest too much".

And Bendis loves him, so if the New Avengers CAGE is a Skrull he could have the REAL Cage bust out of the Skrull prison and help lead the real heroes back to battle.

Either way, I'm enjoying the CONCEPT (even though it's been done before - but never so "BIG").
Whether the execution is any good is yet to be seen.

This is the sort of thing that SHOULD have been done with the DIRE WRAITHS back in the day.
But, they were trying to lay low.
The Skrulls were pushed too far by the ILLUMINATI, and as such, led to this.

I'm aboard for the ride.

~P~
P-TOR

I don't but the whole "but they're her friends!" argument. They were all beating the crap out of each other in Civil War.

Far be it from me to defend Marvel's whole Civil War mess or the 'Skrulliness' of current storylines, but ... the end of the Illuminati storyline and the Spider-Woman/Iron Man issue of Mighty Avengers make it clear that Stark considers the potential Skrull threat to trump all the registration issues. And Carol is supposed to be Ms. Good Soldier, and she on Tony's trusted list. So she's following his lead on how this should be handled. Notice how Ares, Jan and Natasha all seem confused by Carol letting him go, and Natasha (the brains of that crew) starts piecing things together after Luke makes his Skrull comment.

That doesn't mean I really are all that much. But that's how I'm interpreting it, and it makes some internal sense.

oops. "That doesn't mean I really care all that much." is what I meant to say.

"And, as I probably should have stressed, the problem also is that Bendis had Ms. Marvel be all “okay, I’ll let you go THIS time, but next time you won’t be so lucky” and then the NEXT month, she does the same exact thing!!

The NEXT month by the SAME WRITER!! From a strict “logical writing” standpoint, how does that make any sense?!"

It doesn't. The flaw is in your assuming superhero registration was ever approached from a logical writing standpoint. It wasn't. It was approached from a "we need a McGuffin for this year's big crossover" standpoint. No one at Marvel, as far as I can tell, ever cared about the logistical ramifications of superhero registration as a long-term status quo; they just needed something they could hang the standard "the Marvel Universe will never be the same" hype around. Now that the event is done, all registration means is that some heroes have registration cards and some don't. And so, when you have non-registered heroes and registered heroes interacting, you get endings that allow them both to go their separate ways without actually addressing any of the points brought up by Civil War, because nobody cares about doing that now. (Incidentally, it's a lot like the scenes abck in the Punisher's heyday, where Punisher would guest star in some other hero's book, and the hero would let Punisher get away at the end, in spite of having spent the whole story up to that point how he's a dangerous, unstable murderer who's just as bad as the crooks he kills).

I predict that the Skrulls' infiltration plan, and the execution of whatever comes out of the aftermath, will make just as little sense.

hi, Guys !!

I agree with you, you can only make that kind of situation happen once in a long, long while.

But, the matter isn't simply that the Avengers series lost a little of their edge, lately.
I mean, each issue, I feel more & more the "Lobdell Syndrome" by wich you have issues full of nothing between 2 crossovers or event series.

I really wonder if Secret Invasion won't be the top of the mountain for Bendis, he'd have told the story he wanted to tell since day 1 & built for this since the 1rst issue.

Hey, now that I wonder it's like having Iron Man getting his ass handled to him month in & month out.

Actually, I don't have a problem with them letting these guys go now; I had a problem with them trying to arrest them in the first place. Tony Stark was probably spending a million dollars an hour during 'Civil War' trying to track down Captain America and force him to register...and why? Because he was worried that Cap might someday pull another Stanford? It's Captain freaking America. If he can't save someone, they've already been dead for six years.

Any cop will tell you that with limited resources and manpower, you pick your shots. Some things you turn a blind eye to completely, because while they might be illegal, they're not harming anyone. Some guys you let off with a warning, because it's not worth arresting them when they'll get the point after just a warning. And some people, yes, you drop the hammer on.

'Civil War' should never have happened, because Tony should have said at the time, "Eh. I'll worry about Cap later. For now, let's get the volunteers on-board, get them arresting super-villains, go after the obvious loose cannons like the Punisher, and demonstrate how well the system works instead of turning this into a giant dick-measuring competition."

But that wouldn't have sold comics.

Could this be the way Marvel's going to let the whole registration thing go by the wayside -- not with a bang, but with a whimper? I can imagine some government guy going out and saying "we managed to get a lot of the heroes to go along with registering, but they're just not willing to also enforce the measure. Considering the powers of those who are refusing to register, we need not just the assent of a large majority of the heroes, but their active support -- and they won't make that commitment" and letting the whole thing go by the wayside.

In that light, Ms. Marvel could be at the forefront -- she'll stop baddies and make life difficult for non-registered heroes, but she won't actively enforce the registration laws against heroes who otherwise aren't doing anything wrong.

It could almost end up a parallel to the illegal alien situation, where the fundamental fact that they're here ILLEGALLY is overlooked until they break other, more significant laws.

J.

I think Iron Man and the others saw registration as more of a PR move than anything else. As long someone makes a big show of capturing unregistered heroes from time to time, that will convince the public that there is accountability. Like when a public official makes a big deal about cracking down on corruption, what he really means is "a couple of high profile busts, then business as usual."

It's been kind of the most frustrating thing in the Avenger books recently which I enjoy for the most part. I mean the circumstances make sense but the fact they've been happening close together is a bit much not to mention the fact Carol is always the one responsible (though she doesn't seem to be gung ho about arresting everyone as Iron Man or Black Widow).

Michael is absolutely right: a while ago I was wondering what kind of Cosmic Reset Button someone would have to push to rehabilitate the Scarlet Witch, and a commenter corrected my fundamental mistake, saying "don't you get it? They were using Wanda AS the Cosmic Reset Button...they aren't interested in what happens after they pushed her, that wasn't the point."

I think this person was onto something.

None of these things are set-ups for payoffs. That's just your old comic-fan brain talking, looking to see a bigger pattern that isn't there. This isn't a multi-year line-wide crossover that'll one day all dovetail perfectly and resolve inconsistencies. Civil War is over, House Of M is over, that New Avengers story about Sauron and SHIELD is over, The Other is over. None of these things will play out anymore than they already have. We're the only ones who care about their larger implications.

And Ultimate Conspiracy will go the way of Ultimate Hulk/Wolverine.

Okay, that's just my opinion.

And, as I probably should have stressed, the problem also is that Bendis had Ms. Marvel be all “okay, I’ll let you go THIS time, but next time you won’t be so lucky” and then the NEXT month, she does the same exact thing!!

The NEXT month by the SAME WRITER!! From a strict “logical writing” standpoint, how does that make any sense?!

Is there anyone POed at this who wasn't POed at Frank Miller's run on Daredevil? How does your outrage over a female superhero demonstrating the flaw of a discretionary hypocrisy compare to your outrage over, say, a male superhero sabotaging his girlfriend's career to coerce her into marrying him or beating on a guy he owed $10 to? What am I missing?

But, so let's not go too far out of our way to create fannish explanations, is what I'm saying. Marvel's not exactly asking for No-Prizes, here. And if they're satisfied with things not making all that much sense, who are we to force sense on them?

Seriously, don't you guys remember that outcry of "I can't believe Carol would be such a bitch as to take down her superpowered friend with the mutant baby who just saved her life?" Or whatever it was. Anyway, if that sort of thing can be so casually reversed by "Tony said she could lay off arresting people now", then that's a plain-and-simple heel turn: in the absence of an on-panel explanation for the different behaviour, Carol becomes a thug.

Or: a Skrull, of course. And I really hope P-Tor's explanation is on-target, but I've got this nagging Scarlet Witch feeling that Secret Invasion will conclude with "So we still don't know for sure who's been a Skrull for the last decade or so, Hawkeye?" "And we never will, Spider-Woman...but look out! Now there's a Zombie behind you!"

You know, not that I'm feeling bitter, or anything.

one question, when do we get a full blown war crimes trial, and some super-powered executions?

Is there anyone POed at this who wasn’t POed at Frank Miller’s run on Daredevil? How does your outrage over a female superhero demonstrating the flaw of a discretionary hypocrisy compare to your outrage over, say, a male superhero sabotaging his girlfriend’s career to coerce her into marrying him or beating on a guy he owed $10 to? What am I missing?

Such a juicy set-up, and I couldn't bring myself to respond with any number of bon mots.

Suffice to say, I don't get your point in the least bit, but I certainly hope it is not something along the lines of "Writer A did that? Well, Writer B did something similar 28 years ago, so THERR!," as that really doesn't hold much weight.

Seems the entire idea that Marvel had with Civil War is slipping down the drain.

No more registration problems. No more Spider-Man unmasked problems.

In the first issue of civil war the heroes went from standing next to each other affably to staring each other down all pissed-off with no story impetus. Apparently the opposite is now happening. That poor storytelling helped me decide civil war & the avengers weren't worth my three bucks. I haven't heard anything since that would make me change my mind.

Any cop will tell you that with limited resources and manpower, you pick your shots.

Since when does S.H.I.E.L.D. have limited resources and manpower?

Since when does S.H.I.E.L.D. have limited resources and manpower?

Particularly because, in the first instance, the New Avengers had just finished a brutal battle and were surrounded by a whole pile of SHIELD agents plus the Mighty Avengers (or was it just Carol and a whole pile of SHIELD agents? Someone help me out there - either way, it was not a matter of limited manpower that led to the Avengers getting free).

And in the second instance, it was Luke Cage alone surrounded by the Mighty Avengers.

Alan Coil's comment above leads to an interesting question about Civil War in general. One has to wonder how just many of the writers at Marvel were actually in favor of the Civil War and the Initiative concept. As various people in this thread have noted, Bendis seems to ignore the registration if the plot calls for it. Over in Amazing Spider-Man, the magical retcon has basically reset Peter's involvement, and the X-Books largely ignore it (other than a few minor references).

All of which brings me to another point. I find it very interesting that Mark Millar wrote Civil War and presumably came up with the main concepts, conflicts, and ramifications. And yet until this month, he has not had to work in the post-Civil War Universe. Now, I have not read FF 554, but I am curious, did he reference the Initiative or Civil War in it? On the surface, it seems to me that Millar was the chief architect of the Civil War, but has not had to actually deal with the ramifications of it. Now it is up to the other writers to sort it out and we are seeing across the board the inconsistencies in their respective interpretations and, possibly or potentially, their frustrations at the restrictions of Marvel's new status quo.

Edit - The second sentence above should read ...just how many of the writers at Marvel...

Sorry for the typo - it's the end of a very long day.

D.W. -- I believe Millar and Hitch mostly referenced Back To The Future III and some popular fashion magazines.

Emoticon!

Thanks plok!

It will be interesting to see in future issues whether or not he addresses the FF's role in the Civil War or whether he moves on to other plots and story arcs.

I can understand why Ms. Marvel decided to let them go. One thing I can't figure out (and it's been a while since the whole civil war now) is why the new avengers are refusing to register?

Doesn't seem like it made a whole lot of difference to anyone who did. Or would they now need some sort of amnesty to register?

Is there anyone POed at this who wasn’t POed at Frank Miller’s run on Daredevil? How does your outrage over a female superhero demonstrating the flaw of a discretionary hypocrisy compare to your outrage over, say, a male superhero sabotaging his girlfriend’s career to coerce her into marrying him or beating on a guy he owed $10 to? What am I missing?

Such a juicy set-up, and I couldn’t bring myself to respond with any number of bon mots.

Disagreements aren't settled by the need of one person to insult the other, except in a pack-mentality.

Suffice to say, I don’t get your point in the least bit, but I certainly hope it is not something along the lines of “Writer A did that? Well, Writer B did something similar 28 years ago, so THERR!,” as that really doesn’t hold much weight.

No, Writer B did something more severe in the extreme 24 years ago, and you can settle this either by agreeing with my plain observation and being consistent with your criticism, or explaining how my observation is wrong. You get my point plenty, and by the standards of debate as its known in western civilization, my point holds plenty of weight until you invalidate it.

It's funny how the hypocrisy of a fictional character is severe enough to hold against the writer, but your hypocrisy doesn't count as hypocrisy at all based on your arbitrary denial.

"Michael is absolutely right"

Everyone should write this down and look at it once a day.

I don't think that it's being ignored. I think that it's allowing writers such as Bendis demonstrate that the issue ISN'T as black-and-white as Iron Hitler and his Superhero Reich believe it to be. Thus you get Ms. Marvel, someone who's already trying hard to fulfill her leadership role, realize that maybe the greater good is more important than jailing her friends.

And that might be a plot point building underneath things, where the folks letting the "underground" heroes get off could see consequences in the future.

Or else they're all Skrulls.

This is good writing. The hypocrisy is Ms. Marvel's, not Bendis's. See, Ms. Marvel isn't really a very good leader because she's too much of a softie. Look at the latest scene where she lets Cage go. The people around her are trying to get her to arrest him, she's making silly excuses for him. This fits in with her character as we saw it all the way back in Alias, when she'd do favors for Jessica Jones she really shouldn't have, just because she wanted to help out. She's not a government drone, and the only reason she's so tied to SHIELD is because of the deal she made with Tony Stark. She doesn't want to arrest her friends, so she's pretending to be tough while making every effort to ignore them.

It’s funny how the hypocrisy of a fictional character is severe enough to hold against the writer, but your hypocrisy doesn’t count as hypocrisy at all based on your arbitrary denial.

No, what's funny is how way-too-seriously you're taking this discussion.

Then again, I have a tendency to find comedy in tragedy.

"“Michael is absolutely right”

Everyone should write this down and look at it once a day. "

And then shake their head sadly.

I don’t [buy] the whole “but they’re her friends!” argument. They were all beating the crap out of each other in Civil War.
--Apodaca

Is there anyone POed at this who wasn’t POed at Frank Miller’s run on Daredevil? How does your outrage over a female superhero demonstrating the flaw of a discretionary hypocrisy compare to your outrage over, say, a male superhero sabotaging his girlfriend’s career to coerce her into marrying him or beating on a guy he owed $10 to? What am I missing?
--Mike

Suffice to say, I don’t get your point in the least bit, but I certainly hope it is not something along the lines of “Writer A did that? Well, Writer B did something similar 28 years ago, so THERR!,” as that really doesn’t hold much weight.
--Brian

No, Writer B did something more severe in the extreme 24 years ago, and you can settle this either by agreeing with my plain observation and being consistent with your criticism, or explaining how my observation is wrong. You get my point plenty, and by the standards of debate as its known in western civilization, my point holds plenty of weight until you invalidate it.

It’s funny how the hypocrisy of a fictional character is severe enough to hold against the writer, but your hypocrisy doesn’t count as hypocrisy at all based on your arbitrary denial.
--Mike

No, what’s funny is how way-too-seriously you’re taking this discussion.

Then again, I have a tendency to find comedy in tragedy.
--Apodaca

If the person asking for an account of real-life hypocrisy is taking it too seriously -- what does that make the people (you) asking for an account of the hypocrisy of fictional characters?

It makes us people who criticize the writing in superhero comics, as opposed to someone who gets into fights with people about their criticism of superhero comics.

Do you see yet?

I was really hoping it wasn't "Writer A did that? Well, Writer B did something similar (or, if you prefer, something worse) 28 years ago, so THERE!"

Oh well.

Que sera, sera!

I don’t [buy] the whole “but they’re her friends!” argument. They were all beating the crap out of each other in Civil War.
–Apodaca

No, what’s funny is how way-too-seriously you’re taking this discussion.

Then again, I have a tendency to find comedy in tragedy.
–Apodaca

If the person asking for an account of real-life hypocrisy is taking it too seriously — what does that make the people (you) asking for an account of the hypocrisy of fictional characters?
--Mike

It makes us people who criticize the writing in superhero comics, as opposed to someone who gets into fights with people about their criticism of superhero comics.

Do you see yet?
–Apodaca

Thank you for not denying I'm addressing a hypocrisy. It's a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I say.

As such, the question doesn't seem to be whether I see, but whether you do.

No, Writer B did something more severe in the extreme 24 years ago, and you can settle this either by agreeing with my plain observation and being consistent with your criticism, or explaining how my observation is wrong. You get my point plenty, and by the standards of debate as its known in western civilization, my point holds plenty of weight until you invalidate it.

It’s funny how the hypocrisy of a fictional character is severe enough to hold against the writer, but your hypocrisy doesn’t count as hypocrisy at all based on your arbitrary denial.
--Mike

I was really hoping it wasn’t “Writer A did that? Well, Writer B did something similar (or, if you prefer, something worse) 28 years ago, so THERE!”

Oh well.

Que sera, sera!
--Brian

By the standards of debate as it's known to western civilization, your need to invalidate my observation ("I was really hoping it wasn't...") isn't evidence my simple observation of events as they're archived in this thread is invalid. As with Apodaca, it's a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I say.