I was watching thesetwo videos on who you’d support in the upcoming Captain American Civil War, so thought I’d ask 'dopers for their thoughts (if you don’t want to watch them then the short of it is the two opposing sides in the superhero registration act by Congress in the wake of some low level superheroes getting a bunch of school kids killed while trying to stop a villain). Obviously, this is a take off on real life wrt to post 9/11 America, but it’s still an interesting question and I was wondering how it would break down along the 'dopes political divide, or even if it will in fact break down that way. It’s not a debate and it’s not for the elections forum, it’s about the movie (well, projected what MIGHT be in the movie) and the comic books that potentially will inspire the movie.
Oh, there will probably be some spoilers in here at some point, so don’t click on the links if you want to be totally surprised next year when the movie comes out.
We don’t allow people to build nuclear reactors in the basements of their suburban homes…and we shouldn’t allow people with the equivalent power – and the equivalent risk – to go about without any regulation in the heart of our cities.
If we won’t ban private ownership of machine guns, at damn least we should register them. The need for it goes up in proportion to the power. A typical Marvel superhero (or villain) is about as powerful as a 155mm Howitzer…and I do not want my next-door neighbor to have one of those (ammunition store and all) especially if I don’t know which way he’s got it aimed.
We can’t take away superpowers. They’re part of the individual who possesses them. We have to protect the civil rights of those who have them. But some compromise is needed, for civic safety.
What comes with great power and yet no responsibility?
I expect this to go about as well as it did in the books :smack:
I lean hard towards Cap, BUT there does need to be some accountability for the meta-humans.
One thing the Stark side always forgets (or glosses over) is the Pro-Reg side wasn’t simply trying protect the public, they were also trying to conscript soldiers.
Considering every government agency in Marvel-land is riddled with Hydra, AIM, Skrull… (you get the idea) I wouldn’t trust them with my bike lock combination.
I think what makes this discussion so interesting is that, for a change, Marvel went with more a shades of gray scenario instead of the usual black and white. You can look at this from either perspective and see the logic, and in the end both sides have good points as well as bad. In the actual story, in fact, both Stark and Cap, in the end, see the others side and actually agree with some of it, even while they are fighting it out.
Personally, I always identified more with Stark, who I see a lot of myself in (including the asshole aspects as well as the drinking issue) than the stuck up prig who is the Cap (he’s better in the movies IMHO than in print), but I can see both of their sides here, and my own libertarian leanings would put me more on Caps side in this. However, as you say here, there has to be SOME regulation and checks on power…and those checks need to be more than those self imposed by the individual, who can (and sometimes do in the stories) go bad, or simply do bad things for what they think is the greater good. I don’t remember who said it, but I recall someone saying that evil people don’t THINK they are evil…they think they are good, and what they are doing is for the greater good. It’s all a matter of perspective.
Stark never learns. Ultron was his creation, and we know how well that turns out. He is not the world’s parent. He’s a lush with money, technical skill, and piss poor judgment. Fuck him and his army.
As I said, open spoilers in this thread. So, in the movie Ultron wasn’t REALLY his fault, since he was corrupted by the Scarlet Witch to do what he did. In addition there were other factors in why and how Ultron came about. Of course, in the comic book universe Ultron wasn’t his fault at all. He also isn’t trying to be the world’s parent in either case, he merely thinks that there needs to be some sort of government control on superhero powers.
Ironically, during the final fight (IIRC), Cap sees Stark’s point and starts to come around to at least partially believing that there indeed needs to be some sort of control (of course, Stark equally starts to realize Cap’s point too, and perhaps throws the final fight because he’s so uncertain). From memory this all happens with the death of one of the superheroes that makes EVERYONE rethink their position.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out on the big screen…and interesting to see folks discuss this. I think this is one of the discussions that really has some weight behind it wrt the entire story line.
Yeah, it was. Stark was all about trying to bubble wrap the world, and always has been throughout the movies. He’s old-school SHIELD in that he wants to either conscript or eliminate everyone with powers. Ultron was the result of one of his attempts along those lines. Granted, Stark did not anticipate that Ultron would turn out the way he/it did, but Stark intentionally set that ball in motion, and bears ultimate responsibility for the damage it caused.
Cap believes in freedom, Stark believes in government control. Cap is right, Stark is wrong. Cap is the babyface, Stark is the heel. If this thing is written/booked properly, it should end with Stark looking at the lights while the ref counts 1-2-3. Having his head shaved would be a bonus.
It’s a complicated issue. First off, there’s a non-trivial chance that some people with superpowers get some ludicrously dangerous abilities. Some superheroes and villains can actually wipe out cities or small nations on accident. I’m less concerned with stopping them from using powers, as I am with making sure we know how to not get blown up. Yeah, we probably need to make sure they’ve got enough discipline to not kill people with an “oopsie”.
And at a minimum - yes, it’s fun in fiction to have lots of independent superpowers. If I had to live in it, though, I don’t actually want random schmoes with the ability to shoot lasers from their fingernails beating up people and enforcing the law. I don’t really care if they wear weird costumes - but they need badges and official oversight.
Yikes, really glad this is a hypothetical question, gonna go ahead and vote for “I am looking forward to the movie”. Been really enjoying the macros that’ve been makingtherounds though.
Yep! (As opposed to the really ham-fisted garbage at the opening of Avengers vs. X-Men, where Captain America demands [!] that the X-Men hand over [!] Hope Summers, and refuses even to talk about it. He just opens fire. Absolutely out of character! Also stupid: the X-Men have the superior genetics lab. The Avengers could simply have stationed themselves nearby as bodyguards.)
It was a fascinating story, because both sides were partly right! And, sure, both sides were partly wrong, which added pathos. It was a story worth thinking about.
I believe any good comics fan should be able to argue either way here. I’ve presented my own pro-Registration argument, but if called upon, I could argue the other way with near-equal facility. (Privacy is a fundamental human right!)
Definitely. I could argue this either way, which is why I wanted to bring it here to see what folks think. I don’t think anyone who is definitely saying one or the other without reservations is thinking it through, because as you say, both are partially right and partially wrong…and THEY BOTH KNOW THAT AS WELL. And some of the heroes are definitely on the fence (Spiderman, for instance goes first one way then another then tries to be in the middle).
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
It’s a complicated issue. First off, there’s a non-trivial chance that some people with superpowers get some ludicrously dangerous abilities. Some superheroes and villains can actually wipe out cities or small nations on accident. I’m less concerned with stopping them from using powers, as I am with making sure we know how to not get blown up. Yeah, we probably need to make sure they’ve got enough discipline to not kill people with an “oopsie”.
And at a minimum - yes, it’s fun in fiction to have lots of independent superpowers. If I had to live in it, though, I don’t actually want random schmoes with the ability to shoot lasers from their fingernails beating up people and enforcing the law. I don’t really care if they wear weird costumes - but they need badges and official oversight.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. And, for some of the superheroes…the ones with over the top unreal powers…it’s pretty much an academic question anyway, since no government will be able to compel them to do anything they don’t really want to do. On the other hand, as some have noted, a lot of the governments in the Marvel comic book universe are corrupt and/or infiltrated with various super-villains or super organizations.
Years ago, like Cap, I took an oath to defend this country, and the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Stark is clearly a domestic enemy of Freedom, and he would unjustly deprive citizens of liberty in the name of “security”. This is the same fallacy that underlies the Patriot Act. You can be free, or you can have the illusion of safety. I choose freedom.
The writers of the comics themselves were all really fans of Cap, and thusly went out of their way to make Tony so stupidly “evil” that they overbalanced what could have been a good argument. A good discussion of the whole bloody thing here. Mightygodking dot com » Post Topic » Civil War, Five Years On
So, in the movie Ultron wasn’t REALLY his fault, since he was corrupted by the Scarlet Witch to do what he did. In addition there were other factors in why and how Ultron came about. Of course, in the comic book universe Ultron wasn’t his fault at all. He also isn’t trying to be the world’s parent in either case, he merely thinks that there needs to be some sort of government control on superhero powers.
