lb70145

This philosophical issue is a lot bigger and more nuanced than you or me can present. Yeah, people can get lawyers, but public defenders are already overworked and given more cases than they can handle. People are often forced into plea deals against their interest because it is just "easier" than going through a trial. Alphabet agencies do nab up people and stop crimes before they happen all the time. We often don't know about it because it doesn't make the news or they simply don't want us to know. Nothing interesting in reporting people planning to do this horrible thing were prevented from doing so. We don't live in a fascistic regime, but there are communities that do live under more scrutiny than others. But again, we can argue this until we are blue in the face but depending on your point of view our Justice System is either working, not working or working "too well". I am of the opinion that it is working fine, but it definitely has tons of problems that are easily fixable. Hopefully, things like the recent DoJ report on Baltimore and their call to an end of privatized prisons will alleviate a lot of issues people have with our Justice System. In terms of how that can be applied to Ulysses and the Marvel Universe, I mean Marvel can do whatever they want. Still not entirely sure under what jurisdiction Carol/Alpha Flight or SHIELD operate under. Though, I want to say a recent Captain Marvel comic established that she does have jurisdiction over the entirety of the Earth due to being their Earth defense force i.e. Alpha Flight. Being an active participant among intergalactic players is part of how the comparing the Marvel U to our reality is in no way a one to one comparison. So while you may argue a psychic (or whatever Ulysses power is) is not enough for a judge to sign a warrant, in the Marel Universe it might be. Or heck, maybe since they operate as an Earth defense force they answer to higher level powers where judges are irrelevant (which is a scary thought). And to be fair, remember these people are still vigilantes. They have been operating beyond the law anyway, so why bother with legal processes anyway?

I would say the comparison can still be made to LEOs. But probably a more apt comparison would be to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman then.

The funny thing about your Old Man Logan example is that Logan himself initially set out to kill certain people to prevent his reality from happening (which I am sure is why he is on Carol's side). Banner was even on his list, so I am sure Logan is in a way really happy that Clint killed him (saves him some time and effort). Man, now I wish they had Logan do it. At least then it would make sense.

But to your President example, I feel that is where Ulysses' power falls short. So far, the context is often lost on why he sees whatever vision he does. In the Spider-Man tie-in, it could be argued that if Spidey didn't act on his vision in the first place it would not have come true. Or in A-Force, it seems like a team member may be killing someone but it turns out that person they are killing may become a monster. So for your President example, maybe the President is killing an assassin that was sent to kill them but all Ulysses sees is the President killing someone.

And as much I understand what you are trying to argue, again it is something that is part of our world. The US detained hundreds of people at GTMO. Many of which they ended up just letting go without charge. Was it fair to those guys? Probably not. Did it keep us safe? Who knows. But that is the issue that CW II brings up. Is it worth it? Is it right? Should we act on this kind of thing in the name of safety? Does it save lives? At what cost? Is it profiling? Is it fair? What happens if Ulysses/The Government is wrong? All fair questions and with no clear or easy answers. And to a certain degree there is a sliding scale many of us may agree to.

Like when Ulysses saw the Celestials attacking, I don't think there is a single person that thought "Maybe we need to ask the Celestials why they are here" or "Maybe we should just wait and see if they will destroy the planet". The same thing when Thanos came to steal a cosmic cube. Does anyone think that Thanos + Cosmic Cube = Good Things? Probably not. It is when it starts to become more relatable and hits closer to home that will get people to start changing their thoughts. Or when Stark revealed that Ulysses is basically a living probability computer. Tony and Carol represent opposite ends of that ideological spectrum and we as individuals have to weigh out what we value, why, and where we would fall on said spectrum.

If nothing else, I think it is great that this kind of dialogue can happen. It is great because we work through our thoughts and ideas. It challenges us and what/how we think.

A lot of super villains were being taken down in CW. Granted part of it was that Zemo and the Thunderbolts were bolstering their ranks for something (I don't think it was ever actually established), but it didn't take away that villains were being taken off the street in record time and numbers. At least from what I remember from the issues and tie-ins I read, it was definitely noted from the villain side of things that heroes were taking them down a lot because both sides were trying to prove that they were more efficient at the whole superhero thing. And hey, I won't defend the fact that Carol and many others were definitely written a bit OOC. Or that Camp Hammond was being run well or with good intentions. Remember, Skrulls at this point were well into their infiltration. So part of everything being terrible as far as Camp Hammond, the SRA, and the 50 State Initiative go, it was all part of their plan apart from Stark and Richards. Does it excuse all the bad writing? No, but you got to give them points for being clever/cheeky about it. Kind of like Blackest Night giving a DC an in continuity excuse for all the dying and coming back to life.

Also, most (if not all) of the threats being curbed by Ulysses so far have been villains or monsters. As much as I am sure it wouldn't stand in a court of law (though conspiracy to commit *blank* does exist so could get them on that), at the same time, I don't think governments have any problem with locking up Thanos or MODOK or having threats like the Celestials or Giganto stopped before they can destroy the planet/a city. And up until issue 4, that is what it seemed like Ulysses was doing. He was stopping super crime from happening in the first place. The woman issue 4 has centered around is so far the first normal person to be affected by a Ulysses prediction from what I have read. And plenty of heroes have talked about their reservations about acting on these predictions, even heroes on Carol's side. And on the opposite end, there are heroes on Tony's side that feel that Ulysses is saving people and acting on his predictions are the right thing, but how they do so moving forward should be less extreme and that is the reason they side with Tony. Like I said, the nuance is there. The writing is much more in character and overall better than CW.

Spoilers onward, though I am sure the previews and such have shown these.

But didn't we already have the Clone Thor moment? Banner's fate and how Hawkeye was treated was that "turning point" where things got real for those involved in the event. Before it was just taking down monsters and established super criminals, so Banner was the first hero to be seen as a threat and dealt with.

On the more philosophical side of things, I agree that the US Justice system and how we are taught to view it is all about innocence until proven guiltiness. However, in practice that almost never happens. And from how I read this event, it somewhat serves as a reflection of how our society as it stands today. For example, Hawkeye's trial can be easily equated to the many police officers that have been acquitted despite using unnecessary lethal force on an individual that was seen as a "threat" and dealt with accordingly. If Banner had been a black character, while it would have been really hamfisted, it would completely reflect our reality. The terrorist watch list has people, depending on your point of view, unjustly has people "randomly" selected for additional searches or are barred from travel period. And often people on those lists don't even know they are on them. Agencies like the NSA, FBI, and CIA monitor our online lives without our permission in order to "keep us safe". Many police officers assume people have done wrong and act accordingly, look at places like Baltimore or Chicago. It is the reason Sam Wilson is siding with Tony because he only sees Ulysses as a version of super powered profiling. Again, as much as I agree that we should be innocent until proven guilty, we never really lived in a world where that was true.

Honestly, the situations are a bit different. During CW, she was following the law as it was laid out and as former (actually unsure if she was active at the time) military it made sense for her. She thought she was on the right side like I am sure many cops and soldiers do. While I did not like the SRA on paper or in practice, certain characters it just made sense that they followed the SRA. Again, I would have liked a bit more nuance with Pro-Reg heroes and at the very least, SOME regret that they were indefinitely locking up heroes without trial. And on a side note, during the time the SRA was in practice both sides did take down a lot of villains. It just wasn't the focus of most of the stories.

Also, Carol hasn't been going after heroes in CWII. In fact, I would argue that Tony is the aggressor (again) in this event. I personally would lay the hero in-fighting at Tony's feet (again). He's already invaded a sovereign city-state, kidnapped and tortured Ulysses, and he's the one that brought together all the heroes on his side for the express purpose of fighting. All of this mind you, without expressing how his actions now go against a lot of his character history. I honestly couldn't help but roll my eyes when he said the Hulk was a hero and wasn't harming anyone when this is the same guy that shot him into freakin' space on the premise that Banner MIGHT hurt people in the future. Or the fact that he supported SRA in order to prevent people from getting hurt. Not to mention, in his Force Works days he himself used a computer/algorithm to predict future crimes and acted upon said predictions. If he at least acknowledged he was wrong about all those things and was acting accordingly, sure I might be more inclined to see Tony's side. So far he hasn't brought up any of these things. It just comes off like it isn't wrong when he does it, but everyone else is a super evil fascist when they do it.

Not saying Carol is free of fault, she is definitely stubborn about her decision and her methods are beginning to become draconian. It doesn't help that so far Ulysses has been 100% right on his predictions (though some reek of self-fulfilling prophesies). However, I feel in the many tie-ins and such they have done a good job showing why she is acting the way she does (unlike in CW where a lot of characters were OOC and it wasn't explained at all). I would say that all her actions are pretty consistent with A) A person with a lot of responsibility in terms of protecting Earth being the head of Alpha Flight and being on the Ultimates, B) Being a determined leader, to the point where she understands that not every order/decision she makes will be a popular one, and C) Carol being grief-stricken by the loss of loved one and the near loss of another due to her decisions.

I am not a fan of hero in-fighting and it is the reason I had been enjoying the event so far because it hasn't been a constant Superhero Slugfest.

I can see that, but at the same time there are many examples of characters having long histories with the characters they gained their mantles from. Sam Wilson and Jane Foster had decades of stories with Cap and Thor. Even Amadeus Cho and X-23 had at least a decade. So while many considered the changes unnecessary or sudden, looking at the character's histories it made sense most of the time. And for characters like Kamala, Miles, and Sam their stories centered a good chunk of time on why being who they were was so important to them and those they honored. If anything, the New 52 proves that when you regress and take away that progress, people will be just as angry if not more. The New 52 got a lot wrong and regressing many of their characters was one of the biggest issues. If they decide to have Sam give back the shield, Jane die, or have the original Wolverine be resurrected, you would be right that these things will be temporary. But the thing is, I don't think it would be the right thing to do. They already built up these new reader communities that have been with these characters for a couple years now, taking away those characters alienates them just as much as it placates those asking for the originals. I think the 2 book model will work (and is incredibly smart), if people want to read a Steve Rogers Cap book they can and if they want Sam Wilson they also can. Same thing with the recently announced Unworthy Thor existing alongside Jane Foster Thor. But like I said before, whether I think it would be the right move to stick to your guns matters little since they as a company will do whatever they choose to do.

I agree that is a major issue. I don't know if you have ever seen the chart where it keeps track of Franklin and Valeria's ages, but the chart is so irritating to look at. Characters should be able to age and grow up, kids and adults alike. But at the same time, that runs the risk of characters aging out and you can only do things to characters to de-age them before it gets tedious. I am familiar with Invincible and that is an aspect of the book I like. I think the thing with leaving the sliding timeline behind for Marvel is that is their thing, they literally came up with it. And as a device for serialized fiction, it is brilliant. But it creates as many problems as it solves. As a person that has tried to make a timeline of the Marvel Universe, making a timeline that is continuous rather than sliding also carries with it many issues. Do you sacrifice the timeliness of the X-Men being around during the Civil Rights Era? Should we get rid of the time Captain America had to fight Snake Reagan? Is Iron Man more impressive for having had his technology since the 60s? You do lose some great things by letting go of the sliding timeline. But at the same time the fact that the Richards Children have barely aged in decades of story is stupid.

OMD/BND is my biggest argument for change and progression, because as far as I am concerned OMD/BND is the most blatant move to keep a character the way many fans knew them. Regression is change, but it is often change in the wrong direction.

As far as changes to origins go, sometimes it can work and sometimes not. Usually I agree that trying to touch the origin of a character is unnecessary. But there are instances where changes to the origin can be cool or add layers to a character. Take Superman's origin. It was super simple, planet is about to blow up and parents send their only son away to save him. But when you add to the fact that perhaps this entity known as Braniac may have contributed to the planet's destruction, it makes the conflict between Superman and Braniac more interesting. Mind you I have no idea what the actual continuity of Braniac and Supes is now, but I found that when it first happened to be really interesting layer added to the origin. But don't get me wrong, things like Wonder Woman having a twin brother or not being made of clay is incredibly stupid, unnecessary, and takes away cool aspects of the original origin.

I have always felt the "running out of ideas" argument to be a bit misleading and cherry picks stories that are repeated and ignores the new and original stories that are also done and done with more frequency.

I don't know if I would make that comparison with the Frankencastle, Curse of the Mutants, and the Marvel Zombies though. Marvel Zombies came out a few years before the first two and essentially a combination of a community inside joke (Marvel Zombies being the term for hardcore Marvel fans), Robert Kirkman writing (self-explanatory), and a continuation of a Ultimate FF storyline. I can't really comment on why Frankencastle is a thing, but hey if Frank was an Angel he can be an undead monster patchwork man too. Curse of the Mutants, same deal. As far as I am concerned, it brought Dracula back with an interesting design (though it annoys me that the Montesi Formula saga was basically made null).

I will also say as far as I am concerned with all the Marvel mantle passing that is going on, they are addressing a problem many comics fans had been expressing for years. Unlike Marvel, there were several instances of mantle passing in DC that had been done well (Wally West as the Flash) or at the very least characters were allowed to grow and evolve over time (Robin to Nightwing to Batman). Granted a lot of that has been undone thanks to the New 52, but back then a lot of people acknowledged that DC was actually letting their characters grow a bit more than Marvel did. Especially when things like One More Day/Brand New Day happened to regress characters. It seems that the community is experiencing a "be careful what you wished for" kind of scenario. I think it is just kind of incendiary for people to say "pandering" considering that Marvel is still a business. Isn't part of being a business trying to garner new consumer bases and listening to what they want in order to gain said consumers? If so, when they follow through with those wants/needs should it really be criticized? Aren't they kind of doing their job in order to be more successful?

At the same time you don't have to do one or the other. You can have mantle passing and characters that are created new. Not to mention, sometimes with a mantle passing you can have some really smart evolutions/twists to a character. Take Ghost Rider for example, the original Ghost Rider was Carter Slade who resembled a traditional western/cowboy/gunslinger. People forget that the flaming skull and chains Ghost Riders on motorcycles as we know them now, was a evolution on that original concept. I feel a lot of people discount a lot of the NuHumans and characters that are in supporting roles or part of teams like Yost's New Warriors despite the fact that many of those characters are new and are diverse. Continuing with New Warriors as an example, it created new characters like Water Snake and Haechi and utilized established but not expanded heroes like Sun Girl and Hummingbird. It was well written as most of Yost's stuff is, it had a diverse cast, it utilized old guard characters like Justice, Speedball, and Silhouette, it had everything going for it. However, no one bought the book. It happens all the time, new characters are made and sometimes they don't stick. The advantage with mantle passing over new characters is that there is not as much leg work to be done. And unfortunately businesses, much like humans in general, crave efficiency. So if making a new character can be done in two ways, but one way means less marketing needs to be done to generate buzz due to name recognition, the business/creatives are more likely to choose the way that doesn't mean having to start from scratch. And to be fair, a lot of great characters have been the result of this mindset e.g. Flash, Green Lantern, Ghost Rider, etc.

But that's the thing with Jay and Alan, they were no longer THE Flash and Green Lantern. They were now alternate versions, no longer primary, an other. I would be curious to know if there were people that dropped DC because of that decision or felt it betrayed the original characters as people claim about the alternates/changes now.

Another thing, I never argued sales would sky rocket or that these changes will last. I never will because again, it is the nature of comics to change. Anything that exists now, whether it is character development, power sets, plot lines, etc. can be dropped or forgetten in an instant. But again, some of the coolest things in comics have been a result of this mindset. Also what you state about critics is a recurring double edged sword when it comes to any kind of serialized media. What should companies focus on? Quality? Critical Reception? Fan Reception? Profitability? There is no real right answer (well actually the real right answer is something that can encompass all those in a positive way, but that is essentially like finding an invisible unicorn). If Marvel values how a book is being critically received over how many people actually buy a book, well I can respect that.

My first reaction when reading your scenario with the 13 year old reader is that no one would actually do that (though I understand it does happen). It is highly unlikely that parents would seek out a comic shop to do that. And even if they did, if they didn't ask for help or if the comic shop employee didn't engage them in anyway to get insight into why they were getting said comic, I would say that is terrible shop. Maybe I just have really good experiences from any of the times I have gone to a local shop, but I have always been engaged and asked if they could find something or help me in some way if I was new. I would bet in that scenario it is more likely that parents would go somewhere like a Barnes and Noble and pick up whatever Iron Man graphic novel is in the recommended section. But even if parents did that, you really think the kid who gets a 616 Iron Man book is going to be any less confused or angered by how different Tony is in the comic than in the movies? What if the parents got him an Inverted Iron Man book? What if it was in the middle of a run like Fraction's? Granted I understand that seeing a black girl as Iron Man would be jarring for a new comic/MCU fan, but would it really be any better if they got Extremis or Iron Man in space? As a person that constantly has to explain to parents and comics newcomers how different the movies/TV is from the comics, I know this strained conversation all too well.

Yet again, I never said anyone is invalidated in their opinion or how they feel. You are making arguments to things I never make claims to. I agree with some of these critics especially those that feel killing Rhodes was cheap death and definitely feels like trading one PoC for another. I even disagree that diversity is not truly represented in Marvel considering there is still a lacking in creators of color and female creators in the Marvel ranks. I think Marvel neglects many great LGBT heroes and the ones they do spotlight focus on storylines that have been done to death (coming out stories are often the focus for LGBT heroes and I feel we can get past that and see LGBT heroes dealing with other issues). But I digress. There are also PoC that believe that this move is fine and are excited for the book, are those peoples' opinions invalid? Do we only listen to negative opinions and discount the positive ones?

As much I see the sentiment of "whelp there goes Marvel for me" remember we also witness somewhat of the Yelp Effect/Reverse Yelp Effect online. People who feel the need to speak up and/or feel an extreme stance are more likely to post/tweet/comment on stuff like this. But I truly feel a silent majority out there that is perfectly content with whatever books they get. I talk to the people at my comic shop a lot and for the most part people are fine with what Marvel is doing. Granted that is a small sample size but I again address whether we should weigh positive and negative opinions equally or negative opinions more or positive opinions more. Or perhaps none of it matters as long as they make the amount of money they are comfortable with. Even then, it is not up to us to make them run their business better (which again they dominate the industry so its not like they need the help anyway).

Also, if you think that there wasn't negative backlash to Ms. Marvel or Nova then you may not have been as in touch with online communities because I definitely saw just as much if not more hate for those characters as with Jane, Amadeus, or Sam. There is a reason some Rider fans still call Sam NiNo.

Thanks for the civil discussion.

It is innovative. The way I see it, these character changes, whether organic or drastic, push Marvel to the forefront and gain attention, open up the possibility to reach out to a new or extended audience, therefore potentially increasing comics readership overall. Will they lose readers because of the move? Of course, innovation can't always be perfect and not every innovation will retain the already existing consumers. Don't equate innovation as automatically successful and/or good innovation. I had a Wii, but with the introduction of the Wii U I didn't feel the need to get that system since I didn't like the changes made to it. Does that make the Wii U not innovative? No, it just means I didn't like the particular innovations they implemented. Those that are jumping ship due to this Iron Man news or previous news related to Cap, Hulk, Wolverine, etc. are in the same situation. They don't like the innovation that is being implemented, but that is completely fine. Again I don't see Marvel in any financial danger especially considering the creative juggernaut that backs them, and because of that they are able to take these kinds of risks and not worry about any fallout. I would rather support Marvel in their strives forward than stagnation or worse, regression.

Let us frame the situation like this. Do you think Jay Garrick or Alan Scott fans were okay with their childhood heroes being replaced by Barry Allen or Hal Jordan respectively for basically no reason? Those guys were replaced and in the case of Scott to Jordan his powers were only aesthetically the same. How about Jaime Reyes or Michael Holt? How about people who bought the Avengers for Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Ant-Man and Wasp only for them to all be replaced by Cap, Quick Silver, Scarlet Witch, and Hawkeye? Or similarly the original X-Men for Havok, Polaris, Jean, Iceman, and Angel were replaced by Wolverine, Sunfire, Banshee, Thunderbird, Storm, Colossus, and Nightcrawler (the latter four being introduced in that comic for the first time). I can go on and on with these kind of examples. However you could also say the same thing about something like making Hal Jordan a murdering psychopath or revealing that Peter Parker has been a clone the entire time... or something... ughhh Clone Saga makes me so tired.

All these moves were considered just as drastic and inorganic, were they wrong to make those moves?

To quote myself, "I am not asking you to not be angry or to not roll your eyes something like this happens. I am not saying that Marvel is the best comic company out there because of moves like this. I just want to challenge the notion that in the 60+ years Marvel has been doing its thing, that things didn't change or that Cap/Thor/Iron Man have always been important to the degree they are now. Who and what is the big thing in comics always come in waves. I don't buy into the fact that any one creator or character will always be on top (well maybe except for Supes, Bats, and Spidey). Once one wave hits, another is already building and it will always be different."

I do mainly buy Marvel, but there are a lot of books I don't buy/read for this or that reason. I don't have to buy books I am not interested in or do not like. If there was a book I was curious about but not enough to buy, I use my local library or my Marvel Unlimited subscription to check it out. I understand if people are buying a book, something happens they don't like, and then they feel like they wasted their money.

I can't stop people from being mad when decisions like this get made. I even admit when I was younger, I felt and reacted the same way when characters I liked were killed off, forgotten, or changed. But I found that being angry and continually being angry does nothing. Marvel is not going to reverse the decision based on how the internet reacts, they never have. The run is probably already all written out and approved and just needs to be drawn. So what is the point of being angry? If the sales for this book tank, Marvel may reverse it but that is still going to take time. Vote with your dollar as many say. Yelling as you don't give them money is the same as just not giving money, so all you are doing is wasting your energy.

I am glad that Marvel is the kind of company that doesn't rest on their laurels because they are on top. Marvel overwhelmingly dominates the comic industry. But rather than the "if ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, they opt to innovate and constantly push the envelope. Are all those ventures successful? No, but that shouldn't deter them from trying and it doesn't. The fact that they were willing to give books like King's Vision or the new Mosaic book a shot is great. The fact they were willing to change who holds the mantle to their biggest heroes is also great. If Marvel starts to tank from moves like this (and so far they haven't), then they may need to change strategy. If they have been successful so far, why stop?

Edit: In addition, why should my buying practices be questioned? I like what I like and I have full right to buy or like what I want as much as anyone to not buy or be mad at a book. If I choose to buy every Marvel book that is put out (and I don't), that would be my prerogative. And people being mad at me for supporting a book they don't like is not going to all of a sudden make me not buy the book.

If that's the case, I don't think you will be too happy with it. The book is decent and I like the roster, but they have not really hit those particular issues that well.

They did that already.