 |
 |
 |
03-02-2007, 04:47 PM
|
#1 |
|
|
RETURN TO THE CIVIL WAR ROOM: DAY 1
 So this past week we asked you - our readers - if you still had any questions about Civil War, to be answered by the series editor and our Civil War Room co-anchor Tom Brevoort. And oh boy, did you ever… In 24 hours we received several hundred of our questions questions, probably all tolled in the neighborhood of 500. Then we did our best to weed out the redundant and (frankly) unreasonable, and sent them off the Tom. And the responses starting coming back… and coming… coming. So many … and so thoughtful, in fact, we don’t even know how long it’s going to take to publish them all. So we’re going to start to today, continue through the weekend, and how ever many days it takes, that’s how many days it will take. A few notes before we begin. Whether you’re a fan of Civil War or not, and/or loved or hated the ending, Tom Brevoort deserves a standing ‘O’ for even attempting this. So agree or disagree with his responses, but appreciate the Herculean effort it took and the enormous respect for Marvel fans needed to even think about doing this, in less than 48 hours no less. And please be forgiving on the formatting. At 17,000 words and counting, there is bound to be a couple of little blips along the way. That all said, we start with a message from Brevoort, and then we’re on our way… Tom Brevoort: First off, I’d like to thank everybody who participated in making CIVIL WAR a success, fans and retailers alike — even those of you who are dissatisfied with some aspect of the ending. The very fact that we’re still talking about this so extensively more than a week after the book has shipped is a strong indicator of the impact it’s had on our community as a whole. And while it may not always seem like it (we’ll see how the questions go..) your enthusiasm on either side of the argument is appreciated. That said, let’s get to this mountain of questions… LostScribe 02-27-2007 05:24 PM Q: Do we as fans have to worry that instead of just an ending to a story, we are going to just get a... to be continued in every other marvel comic style ending? If so, this makes really not want to buy the next World War Hulk storyline. TB: It all depends on what you mean by “an ending.” Marvel comics are serialized fiction, they almost always have been. So while the threat or the menace of the day may be vanquished, the lives of the characters continue on, with new challenges to be met. And especially when you’re talking about a line-wide crossover like CIVIL WAR, one of the expectations of the readership is that there’s going to be some lasting outgrowth of these events that’ll have an impact on the subsequent stories for some time to come. If you ask me, CIVIL WAR had an ending—you read it in CIVIL WAR #7, like it or not. But the situations set up therein will play out across the line for the next few months or years. The same was true of HOUSE OF M and the same will be true of WORLD WAR HULK. I can remember reading the Wizard article about the summit meeting with all of the Marvel writers getting together to plan Civil War. So my second question is, was Captain America quitting, the ending almost everyone agreed on? If so, what were the general reasons for having Steve Rogers endanger so many lives, just to make the whole thing a waste? TB: Yes, this was the ending that everybody agreed on, although it might have been staged differently if JMS wrote it, or if Loeb wrote it, or whomever. But the principles of what happened in the issue were agreed upon. And I don’t think that this ending makes Cap’s struggle a mistake, simply because he realizes that he was going about things the wrong way. If anything, that shows he’s as human as anybody. His ideals and goals remain the same, but he comes to see the flaws in the methodology he’s using to try to achieve change. YC Comics! 02-27-2007 05:29 PM Q: I enjoyed the series, but I can't say it was perfect. My biggest concern is that this event will be wiped away sooner than later. Even if the story might have had some flaws, I think that the strongest part of this event is that it really causes things to change in the Marvel Universe. So, my question is, what are you going to do to make sure that these changes last, and that good stories are going to be told from these changes? TB: The only real answer I can give you on this is “we’re going to do our best to tell great stories coming out of this.” But using HOUSE OF M as a benchmark, I think we can all agree that the major changes that sprung from that storyline are still in-play in various books across the line now a year–and-a-half after it’s wrapped up, so there’s at least that example to look at in terms of follow-through. Naturally, nobody can guarantee that things won’t change again—nothing remains static in the Marvel Universe for too long. But nobody’s angling to press a big ol’ reset button on this stuff. Irishfan7/12 02-27-2007 05:30 PM Q: I understand for page limits some content was left out of issue 7. Can you shed some light on what was left out and what would you have liked to have been included? TB: There were a couple of elements that had to be pruned away or allocated to other titles as things went on, and we had to make storytelling choices along the way. Some of those have been discussed elsewhere—a scene in which the Sentry would have appeared to confront the Anti-Reg forces and Captain America was to have psychologically dispirited him, rendering him impotent to fight. The return of Mar-Vell was originally going to happen during the battle, his emergence from the Negative Zone and the past taking place as a side-effect of Cloak’s crazy teleport between dimensions. At one point, the X-Men were to have joined in the final battle in Manhattan. There were a number of other things, some of which I’m forgetting right now (but which may turn up later in this thread, depending on the questions that come up), but this is almost always par for the course—in a story of this size, you’re always going to have more ideas than you have room for. ascloseasme 02-27-2007 05:32 PM Q: Is Marvel planning on releasing a comprehensive list/handbook of registered v. unregistered heroes and villains much like the "X-Men: The 198 Files"? TB: Yes, there’s a CIVIL WAR: BATTLE DAMAGE REPORT handbook coming out in a couple of weeks that gives an excellent snapshot EyesBL7 02-27-2007 05:33 PM Q: Why exactly did the Watcher appear? Traditionally he has only shown himself in hours of tremendous galactic peril (i.e. Galactus approaches, Infinity Gauntlet saga). How does what boils down to one country's political strife warrant a Uatu drive-by? TB: The Watcher has shown up for smaller events in the past as well—the (temporary) break-up of the Fantastic Four in FF #188, for one, and the death of a single person in an issue of MARVEL TEAM-UP. So the Watcher clearly chooses what events he wants to observe firsthand, and which events he’ll monitor from afar. And there could be reasons for his appearances during CIVIL WAR that we’re not privy to—SHE-HULK #16 hints at one of these, for instance. Q: If you could change ONE thing about the CW story, what would it be? TB: I might have made the situation with the Thor clone/cyborg a bit more clear from the get-go, if only so we would all have been spared the outcry and fears of rampant cloning in the Marvel Universe mainly from folks who lived through the Spider-Clone saga. Also, we’d have been spared the dopey moniker Clor. To reiterate what I’ve said before elsewhere, the Thor duplicate is a product of both cloning and cybernetic enhancement—the cloning and genetic engineering would give you a being with Thor’s natural strength, but not any of his godly abilities such as flight, command of the elements, etc. To mimic those attributes, technological enhancements were used. Q: Is there anything in the storyline that wasn’t made as apparent as you hoped it would be? TB: See above. Gladiator X 02-27-2007 05:34 PM Q: I am incredibly happy to see the return of Captain Marvel but I was wondering why was his return to the MU so rushed? I'll take what I can get but wouldn't something of that magnitude have been better served by being an event of its own? TB: Maybe, but when we came up with it, we were looking at it as a component of the larger story—as I said earlier, he initially was going to appear during the final battle, but that seemed like it was going to be even more shoe-horned in, given the space limitations we were operating under. In any case, Mar-Vell will be followed up on in the months to come, in a place where he’ll have more of a chance to shine. rdrsfn82 02-27-2007 05:38 PM Q: Was the return of Thor the major plot that was cut when the issue was trimmed from 12 to 7? Also what was the point of bringing Captain Mar-Vell back in this series and then not using him in a major way in the final issue? TB: No, Thor’s return was never a part of CIVIL WAR proper, just the misdirect towards it in the person of the Thor duplicate. However, we’d originally intended to have the new THOR series debuting immediately after CIVIL WAR ended, so there would have been a more natural hand-off from one to the next. However, as we got closer, given the sheer number of projects we had coming directly out of the end of CIVIL WAR, it made more sense for us to push THOR #1 back a little bit, so we could give it the spotlight it deserves. I think I covered the Mar-Vell question already, more or less. MagicGamer 02-27-2007 05:39 PM Q: Why was the return of Doom and Thor's hammer a prologue to Civil War? Were they supposed to be used, but there wasn't enough room/time? Or is there something else? TB: No, the prologue elements were mainly the stuff about the building registration act, and the tension within the group—and also building up the misdirect for Thor’s appearance in issue #3. And if we’d been able to schedule the new THOR book as we’d originally planned, this would all have come together a bit more smoothly, but such is life. Spence1 02-27-2007 05:39 PM Q: Is Triathlon dead? TB: No, you’ll likely see him again in AVENGERS: THE INITIATIVE. Salieri 02-27-2007 05:41 PM Q: My Query is this: during your writing plans a bunch of crazy Ideas must have changed hands over the course of editing. What (and I say this in all seriousness) was the craziest, most unworkable idea a person proposed, that never got published? And, is it safe to name the person who would have been responsible for it? TB: In one discussion, somebody wanted the Sentry to kill the Watcher. But it didn’t really amount to anything—and I don’t think it would serve any purpose to name the writer who pitched the idea. It’s all part of the process, people need to feel free to throw out the crazy ideas so that you can find the genuine nuggets of goodness that are hidden within, that you wouldn’t get if everybody was self-censoring. Master Peace 02-27-2007 05:43 PM Q: How much stuff can Cloak fit in... himself? I mean, theoretically, could he swallow up everyone in the MU? And doesn't he drain the energy of people who go into his "shadow place", so wouldn't all the heroes he constantly teleports around be no condition for an epic battle? Does he have to make sweet love to Dagger in order to charge up his powers? TB: Cloak is really an aperture to the Darkforce Dimension, which is a pretty big place, certainly vast enough to contain a couple dozen fighting super heroes. And with this many characters being teleported at once—and from an anti-matter universe to a positive one to boot—perhaps whatever “hunger” of Cloak’s essence that feeds on those whom he enfolds was distributed amongst all of those included, and so the effect was mitigated somewhat—watered down across so many bodies. As it is, nobody looks especially energetic when they all come tumbling out of Cloak in the skies above Manhattan. Snowspinner 02-27-2007 05:44 PM Q: To what extent do you think that this "big event that changes everything" sort of storytelling can be sustained? Readers know, on some level, that events like this are temporary. In ten years, odds are good that Nick Fury will lead S.H.I.E.L.D. and Spider-Man will have a secret identity again. And last time the industry depended on events like these so heavily the bottom fell out very quickly and devastatingly. What's your sense of how much is too much with these events? TB: First off, I don’t think the bottom fell out of the industry because of big events—there were any number of complex, interlocking problems that caused the bubble to burst in the mid-90s, it wasn’t anywhere near as simple as “there were a lot of big events.” And I think event-based storytelling is fine, so long as the readership as a whole is satisfied with the stories. For all that we constantly hear that readers don’t want more crossovers, they always, always turn out for them, so that either means there’s a disconnect between what they say and what they do, or it means that we’re hearing mostly from a vocal minority when they say they don’t want crossovers, with the larger majority of the audience being interested in them for the most part. And some of it is that, on the most basic, kid-cool level, everybody likes the potential of crossovers, everybody wants to read the big storyline in which all of their favorite characters band together to fight all of their other favorite characters. So that almost childlike hope in the potential for crossovers and events will continue to sustain them for the time being. And when you’re talking about a timeframe of ten years, you’re really speaking of a hardcore audience—traditionally, the average reader of years past read the books for three-to-five years, and then moved on to other things. At the point where you’re worrying that everything is eventually going to go back to the classic status quo eventually, you’ve been in the mix for longer than normal. newfoundma 02-27-2007 05:47 PM Q: First off, what consequences will Reed and Tony face for Goliath's death? TB: I think they’ll both have to deal with a certain amount of guilt. Beyond that, I don’t think there are any legal consequences that will have to be surmounted—Goliath was at that moment a federal fugitive, who was using force to resist arrest by duly-deputized federal officers. There might have been a question of excessive force, and certainly something went wrong with the Thor construct, but I believe that Goliath’s death would be considered something along the lines of involuntary manslaughter or accidental manslaughter, and those involved would have been absolved of any direct wrongdoing. Q: Second, what consequences will foreign leaders Black Panther, Storm, and Namor face for their involvement in a domestic war? How angry are they with Cap for getting them involved and then abandoning the fight? TB: These are all questions for the future, and will be followed up upon in the pages of BLACK PANTHER and FANTASTIC FOUR. But I don’t know that T’Challa would be angry with Cap for following his principles and doing what he thought was right in this situation, regardless of the cost, and more than Cap was upset with T’Challa for not involving himself in their struggle earlier. Q: Third, I loved the ending. The entire saga, I was wondering why Cap's side was being so selfish and causing all this damage because they wanted to not be held accountable for their actions, so I was happy to see Cap realize how ridiculous his stance is. But why didn't Cap consider this before he started a Civil War that resulted in death, destruction, and his arrest? Did Cap really rush into this war without thinking that people would get hurt and the American people would be more afraid of him? TB: Cap’s struggle and the events of the War weren’t a solid-state affair, though—there was an escalation. To some degree, this is like wondering why super heroes aren’t concerned that innocent people might get hurt in any conflict they have fighting the bad guys. Cap’s intention, his stated goal, was to continue doing his job as a defender of the ideals of the nation and a protector of the innocent despite the Registration Act, and to aid others who felt similarly. But as events escalated, and the fight became more and more personal between Cap and Iron Man, their eyes wandered a little bit, and the damage was caused. Also, it’s worth noting that neither party intended to have this final battle take place on the streets of Manhattan, but that’s where events too them. Q: Fourth, why was Cap attacked by S.H.I.E.L.D. agents way back in the first issue? Registration was not law yet, so isn't attacking him for theoretically refusing to support it illegal on S.H.I.E.L.D.'s part? TB: As a S.H.I.E.L.D. operative with “Champion Status”, Cap may have been expected and even required to follow S.H.I.E.L.D. policy on this matter. His refusal to do so would potentially constitute a court-martial offense. How this might have played out had Cap simply gone quietly and appealed through the courts is anybody’s guess—we’ve seen similar situations in real life play out both ways over the years, sometimes depending on who is in power and how much authority they’re capable of wielding--but sitting around meekly waiting for somebody else to take action doesn’t really sound like Captain America, does it? Q: Lastly, is Triathlon alright/alive? The last issue of Amazing Spider-Man said he was missing. I think it is lame if he is dead, since he wasn't even in the last issue of Civil War is I recall correctly, and his death would bring absolutely nothing to the story. TB: Triathlon is alive. See above. jaredgood1 02-27-2007 05:51 PM Q: Is S.H.I.E.L.D. still affiliated with the UN? It seems that it's become more synonymous with the US military in recent years (particularly, the president appointing the head, US citizens being required by law to register with a multi-national organization, etc.). TB: S.H.I.E.L.D. is an odd duck, in that it’s an international organization that’s based in the U.S., and whose upper hierarchy is almost totally filled by American citizens. So it tends to function in the same sort of manner that a joint US-UN military task force might—the American President may not have absolute authority over the organization, but he commands enough influence over it that it really makes little difference. In the case of Registration, S.H.I.E.L.D. was called upon as the one organization that would have the resources and manpower to enforce the Registration Act in the States—no different than any other member nation requesting S.H.I.E.L.D. aid in a domestic matter. In our most initial discussions, we considered creating a new agency called HAMMER that would be responsible for enforcing the Registration Act and which would be entirely American, but it simply made things more confusing, and seemed to repeat elements that were already in place with S.H.I.E.L.D.. RobZero 02-27-2007 05:56 PM Q: In an issue of New Avengers, S.H.I.E.L.D. became aware of the House of M incident by using their psi-agents on Spider-Man. Why didn't they just use those resources on anti-reg heroes (either during combat, upon capture or post-reg debrief) to minimize the conflicts and round up the ‘insurgents’? TB: S.H.I.E.L.D.’s resources in this area are limited—they don’t have many active Psi-Ops agents, and their abilities aren’t really useful at any great range. Plus, when you’re dealing with a constituency that includes high-powered psionic elements such as Emma Frost or Professor X, that would king of be like going into a gun fight armed with a .22. Additionally, criminal suspects are still considered innocent until proven guilty. You can’t prosecute somebody for what they might be thinking about doing until they actually do it. It’s also likely that among the equipment and supplies Nick Fury supplied to Cap and his underground were some form of psychic bafflers good enough to shield them from psychic operatives at the Psi-Agent level. Evil Twin 02-27-2007 05:58 PM Q: So, what are the specifics of the SHRA? What organization should it be compared to? TB: The Superhuman Registration Act isn’t an organization, it’s a Federal Law. It requires anybody possessing superhuman abilities to register themselves and those abilities with duly-appointed agents of the government. Additionally, if an individual intends to use those super-normal abilities as an independent peace officer, they must qualify on a training evaluation, be licensed and submit to some level of oversight in terms of their activities. The closest equivalent, although it’s not quite the same thing, is gun legislation. If you want to own a firearm in this country, you need to register that weapon. If you want to use that weapon and carry it, as a private detective or a bodyguard or in any other legal way, you need to be licensed and cleared on a firing range, demonstrating that you have the necessary knowledge, skill and responsibility to use that firearm responsibly. And if you discharge that weapon outside of an authorized firing range, or in the course of one of those jobs, there’s going to be paperwork that needs to be filled out. Is Tony taking a paycut and severing his ties to Stark Industries or is he in a massive conflict of interest? TB: Tony’s definitely taking a paycut to run S.H.I.E.L.D.. He would have had to step down as the operational head of Stark Industries in order to do so as well, though he wouldn’t have to give up his ownership stake in the company. And as long as Stark Industries isn’t benefiting unduly from Tony being head of S.H.I.E.L.D.—they haven’t manufactured weapons in the longest time, for instance—and what technologies they lease or sell to S.H.I.E.L.D. are transacted in an approved and above-board manner, then I don’t know that there’ll be a problem. Of course, there’s plenty of fodder for potential stories in this question as well. Why did Captain America leave his allies hang out to dry? Certainly didn't look like he took care of his troops. Why not get some concessions out of Stark? TB: I don’t believe that Cap left his allies out to dry—he and Tony secured a blanket amnesty for any combatants in the CIVIL WAR who were willing to register once the conflict was over that absolved them of any criminal charges that may have been applied during the war. Some heroes have chosen not to accept this deal, and remain on the run as fugitives, but this cleared the books for most of Cap’s footsoldiers at the very least. What other concessions was Cap in a position to secure, and Tony in a position to grant—he doesn’t have unilateral say over Federal Law, after all. rugbyburn 02-27-2007 05:59 PM Q: What will actually define the success of CW for Marvel? Increase in sales of one or more CW spin-off titles? Sales of one-shots? Increase in ad revenue? Subscriptions? How will Marvel judge this to be a success or failure? I think everyone would love to know exactly what the parameters are, so readers can gauge what to do to show Marvel what we want - more events, less events, etc. TB: I think in terms of sales, overall reaction, mainstream press coverage and media interest, CIVIL WAR is already clearly a success, a massive one. It’s the best-selling project anybody’s put out in years and years, and we expect it to continue to sell strongly in collected form, much in the way that HOUSE OFM is one of our strongest-selling titles a year and a half later. So it’s really kind of too late to try to find a way to make CIVIL WAR seem to be a failure—if it’s a failure, then Marvel and every other company would like to have a lot more failures of the same magnitude. Ken B. 02-27-2007 06:00 PM Q: Why was registration switched halfway in the series to be from "Just registration with the possibility to work for S.H.I.E.L.D. for benefits" to "Now you're drafted.”? It seems like it was changed halfway through just to make registration look like a bad idea, which in all fairness it isn't when it stands alone as initially shown in the series. TB: The terms of Registration didn’t change halfway through, or at all. I’ve been working off of the same definition since the beginning. The only thing that may have become clearer over time is the language that’s being used, which became better fine-tuned as we saw the points of confusion that some readers had. Unknown 02-27-2007 06:02 PM Q: What is you favorite thing to come out of Civil War? This could be an event, a character, or a new team. TB: MIGHTY AVENGERS. Goldenboy 02-27-2007 06:05 PM Q: In the wake of Captain America's surrender, there was a general hero amnesty, correct? However, what does this mean for people such as Night Nurse and Jane Foster? Surely couldn't they be charged with "Aiding a Known Fugitive"? TB: I imagine the general amnesty would have included them as well, as well as any other party who shielded an unregistered enemy combatant classified as a super hero during the war. alexeiluthor 02-27-2007 06:05 PM Q: Since Danny-as-DD was involved in the #7 fight, does one of the mentioned pardons extend to Murdock himself? He was, if I get my timeline right, out of country during the war. TB: Presumably. It all depends on whether people believe that Murdock was ever Daredevil, and that he was the Daredevil involved in the war. Over in DAREDEVIL, Matt’s name and reputation have been publicly cleared for the most part, so that takes some of this away. Also, Tony Stark is aware that the Daredevil who was in CIVIL WAR was really Danny Rand—there was a version of the scene in issue #5 where he takes Danny to the Negative Zone prison in an earlier draft that made this clear, but again we needed to compress things for space, and bringing in all of this outside continuity from DAREDEVIL into the main CIVIL WAR book would have been a lot for the more casual reader to choke down when he read it as a collection, so we streamlined the scene. But just for fun, here it is: Page Twenty-One Dave Accampo 02-27-2007 06:06 PM Q: This has been touched on a little by other posters, but I've noticed that the debate between freedom and security has been a hot topic, which I assume is exactly what you expected/wanted to happen. Is there a plan for future Marvel stories to show how this debate continues from within the Marvel Universe even after Civil War? Particularly in relation to the "man on the street"? TB: I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say there’s a plan, but it would be almost impossible for us to be dealing with most of these characters in the situations they find themselves in at the end of CIVIL WAR, in a world where Registration is the law, and not deal with these questions. So yes, you’ll see these issues crop up again and again throughout the line, whether it’s protestors in CAPTAIN AMERICA of both stripes, or people in government in AVENGERS: THE INITIATIVE having different ideas as to how the Registration policy should be enforced. Q: Also, it seems to me that there's a huge difference literally and symbolically when you force registration upon, let's say, a mutant with wings and a guy who has built a suit of armor in order to dispense vigilante justice. Is this something that was discussed in the planning stages? And are there plans to show this gray area...what the SHRA means to people who have powers thrust upon them vs. people who actively seek out ways to become a super-hero? TB: The only real point of discussion was the general consensus that, for the story we were going to be telling, we’d be using the broadest definition of “superhuman abilities” that could be defined—the average person in the Marvel Universe isn’t going to distinguish between a Boomerang or a Rhino. To them, these are both superhuman offenders, despite the fact that one has innate powers and the other uses specialized weapons. So we had everybody operating under the general blanket ideal, “If it looks superhuman, register it. We can sort it all out later.” Which makes sense when you think about it—if there’s an unidentified package in an airport or a train station, the authorities treat it as a potential explosive and react accordingly, even though it may turn out to be nothing of the sort, because it would be much more dangerous to operate the other way. Greg Basore 02-27-2007 06:07 PM Q: Through out the Civil War Reed Richards reason for siding with the pro-registration crew came down to one main thing, upholding the law. He even said that he didn't it was right for people to choose which laws they would and wouldn't obey. At the same time Reed was involved in cloning Thor and sending people to an indefinite prison term without trial. Last I checked due process was still required for putting people in prison and the US had a ban on cloning. So what's the deal here? How could Reed stand on a position of obeying the law while breaking it himself? TB: As we saw mainly in FANTASTIC FOUR #542, and a little bit in FRONT LINE, Reed’s main reason for supporting the Registration act was that, as far as he could tell from the history-forecasting algorisms he’d devised, doing so was the only way to head off a larger catastrophe that would have claimed or ruined the lives of many, many more people. So, like Tony, Reed knew that he would have to do things which were distasteful along the way, but as he was acting for the greater good, that was the personal sacrifice he was going to have to make in order to secure the future for his family, and especially his children. MrGreenGenes 02-27-2007 06:11 PM Q: How did Ben Grimm know exactly when and where to show up for the final fight in Civil War #7 when he'd been in France for most of the mini? He seemed to show up out of nowhere. TB: The Human Torch left Ben a Fantasticar segment in FF #542 in case he ever wanted to come back, and it’s intimated in that issue that Ben is already considering returning to the States. So he was likely already on our shores by the time the fighting spilled out into the streets of Manhattan. Again, if we had an infinite amount of pages to work with and no time constraints, we might have been able to show this more clearly—but I think it was adequately foreshadowed. Mark Katzoff 02-27-2007 06:13 PM Q: Roughly when in Marvel time did Tony and Reed determine that registration was inevitable? It seems to me that there were opportunities, such as after the last Kang war, to advance the idea that all heroes need to be organized and to impose the registration process at a point where heroes were seen in a better light after saving the world. TB: The movement towards the Registration Act really began at M-Day, in the aftermath of HOUSE OF M. By the time of the Illuminati meeting we saw in the NEW AVENGERS ILLUMINATI Special, it seemed pretty likely that such legislation was only a matter of time. So this would have been well after the end of the Kang Dynasty storyline. Q: Why was there no apparent consideration given to having the heroes themselves act a self-regulatory organization, administering registration with some government oversight and interaction but keeping the data on the heroes out of government hands? TB: Who says there wasn't? Certainly, involving Iron Man, Reed Richards and Hank Pym as top-level advisors and the people at the forefront of the Pro-Registration drive shows willingness and a desire to work hand-in-hand with the super hero community on implementing these procedures. By the same token, you don't leave the fox to guard the henhouse--doing that, taking a laissez faire approach to the superhuman question is partly what led to the Stamford disaster in the first place. mdg1 02-27-2007 06:15 PM Q: 1) Was Mar-vell's return always a part of Civil War? TB: Yes, almost from the start. But as I detailed earlier, we found we weren't going to have space to do him justice in CIVIL WAR #7, the same with the Sentry sequence where Cap shut him down, and one or two other things. It was Steve Wacker during his first week at Marvel who said, "Why don't we just do a Special to cover these elements instead?", which is how he wound up editing THE RETURN, which was approved later that same day--a turn-around time on a project idea that I think astonished him a little bit. 2) Why is the President of the US appointing the head of a UN agency (i.e. S.H.I.E.L.D.)? TB: Covered this earlier, I think. I imagine that the President of the U.S. wields enough influence over the selection process of the S.H.I.E.L.D. Director that he can champion the person he wants, and have a good change of making it happen. Plus, in the case of Tony, it just makes a lot of sense in a superhuman world to have somebody with his skill set and background running that show. Fetsur 02-27-2007 06:22 PM Q: How was it decided which side would win? Do you feel you made the right decision - in a creative sense? In a realistic sense? In a personal political sense? TB: Those broad strokes were laid out during the first editorial retreat in which we came up with the overall ideas for CIVIL WAR. From the start, we knew that the Pro-Registration side would have to come out on top. It's pretty easy to see why, if you think about it: if the Anti-Registration side wins, then everything more or less goes back to business as usual, and that's a pretty lame way to end a major crossover that's supposed to shake status quos up--whereas leaving the Pro-Registration argument dominant creates all sorts of new story avenues going forward that we haven't seen before, both good and bad for various characters. So not only do I think it was the right choice, I really think it was the only reasonable choice. to be continued... |
|
03-02-2007, 06:58 PM
|
#2 |
|
|
waheeeeeeeeey!
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:01 PM
|
#3 |
|
|
My fave joke through all this has been "I guess that A on his head does stand for France.
 Sorry, Marvel fans...52 has been smacking down the Civil War story-wise the entire time, except for Spidey revealing his secret ID. That part was great. Last edited by NapoleonSolo : 03-02-2007 at 07:08 PM. |
|
03-02-2007, 07:06 PM
|
#4 |
|
|
Wow, lot of stuff covered there. Thanks for taking the time Tom.
The Stark/Danny Rand script was a pretty nice read. As bad as The Return was it kind of makes more sense to introduce Mar-Vell in that way than for him to literally appear out of thin air whenever everyone got teleported by Cloak. |
|
03-02-2007, 07:08 PM
|
#5 |
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but what we've seen of the SHRA and been teased of The Initiative certainly doesn't look like gun registration. At the least it looks like an organized, part-time militia.
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:11 PM
|
#6 | |
|
|
Quote:
I guess he's stuck here. If he says "No", then he admits that it was a really sad ploy to boost Civil War's already good numbers. If he says "Yes", which he did, then he shows how poorly this plan was executed which is almost single handedly his fault as the guy who oversaw this project. I think the greatest insult to Captain Marvel, a character i always dug, is that his return was handled not only so poorly, but no one even bats and eyelash when they see him come back. Seriously, will this even be addressed in the 616? |
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:11 PM
|
#7 |
|
|
TB: The only real answer I can give you on this is “we’re going to do our best to tell great stories coming out of this.” But using HOUSE OF M as a benchmark, I think we can all agree that the major changes that sprung from that storyline are still in-play in various books across the line now a year–and-a-half after it’s wrapped up, so there’s at least that example to look at in terms of follow-through. Naturally, nobody can guarantee that things won’t change again—nothing remains static in the Marvel Universe for too long. But nobody’s angling to press a big ol’ reset button on this stuff.
Actually I don't think we can agree on this. The House of M seemed only to exsist to launch the Wolverine: Origins book. Otherwise it has already become a footnote in continuity. The X titles have moved on and there seems to be little to know lasting effect on the Marvel U (again Wolverine being the notable exception). This is a big worry of mine as well, these events seem to be less about story and more about launching a TON of new #1 books. Look at all the titles coming out of Civil War. My wallet can only take so much |
|
03-02-2007, 07:12 PM
|
#8 |
|
|
Big respect for TB for taking the time to do this. I don't agree with all the answers but that's not the point. Wonder if I'll get my question answered/
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:14 PM
|
#9 |
|
|
Props to Breevort, for doing this at all.
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:17 PM
|
#10 |
|
|
Missing information...
In Tom Brevoort's answer to Alexeiluthor's question about Daredevil/Rand/Murdock, he states that the identity of the DD fighting in Civil War is known by Iron Man, as found out in a scene that was left out due to "time and page restraints." These "time and page restraints" seem to be more common than not (i.e. the Thing comming back, Captain Marvel's return, and the Sentry, the most powerful character in the MU, completely missing in #7). These restraints also seem to be making what could be a very strong and interesting story just an ok one. I was taught that if you are going to do something, do it the best you can. So my question is, how are we the readers, the ones putting dollars in YOUR pockets, supposed to know/find this missing information, aside from reading it here online. It should be part of the story.
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:18 PM
|
#11 | |
|
|
Quote:
i think he had to. Storytelling has gotten so shoddy in comics lately, reading these kind of columns is almost like required reading to even understand what you just read. I mean, is there anyone out there who still isn't scratching their head on the return of Captain Marvel? So TB is telling me that they planned this massive crossover event involving politics, sheild, and registration, and somehow Captain Marvel's return was worked into that? Seeing as they just did Annihilation, couldn't they have tied his return to that cosmic, space bound series, rather than Civil War? Wouldn't that have made sense? |
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:21 PM
|
#12 |
|
|
In Fronline #11 it said there were 6 hero deaths I wonder who they were?
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:21 PM
|
#13 | |
|
|
Quote:
|
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:22 PM
|
#14 |
|
|
TB: Yes, this was the ending that everybody agreed on, although it might have been staged differently if JMS wrote it, or if Loeb wrote it, or whomever. But the principles of what happened in the issue were agreed upon. And I don’t think that this ending makes Cap’s struggle a mistake, simply because he realizes that he was going about things the wrong way. If anything, that shows he’s as human as anybody. His ideals and goals remain the same, but he comes to see the flaws in the methodology he’s using to try to achieve change.
Ok that answer was well put and really helped to sooth some of the frustration i had after looking at what Cap did. Its WAY better then going around saing "CAP WAS WRONG" as some one else did before. if what they are planning for Captain America is a new way of going at this problem then i'm all for it and can't wait to read how this may happend. But if they planed on just going "..and captain america realizes he is wrong and quits For not reason" than pist i would be. solid. |
|
03-02-2007, 07:23 PM
|
#15 | |
|
|
Quote:
|
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:26 PM
|
#16 |
|
|
What's weird to me
Is that the hero's ARE vigilantes from the get go. Iron Man especially (attacking Government compounds during the Armor Wars etc), but suddenly they obey THIS particular law.
They rarely obey any law! And he's wrong, if you own a gun you don't have to register it. At least in a good many states. The point being is that superheros always seem to help out on the fly. If a bad guy was running amok in Downtown manhattan and someone with superpowers was nearby he'd help out, because only a super powered guy could! It's the same as a citizen arrest, or a citizen stopping a robber. You don't have to register in order to help out your fellow man. I'm just curious what they'll do what that |
|
03-02-2007, 07:26 PM
|
#17 | |
|
|
Quote:
yes, but it still doesn't make sense now. Tying him into Civil War is just dumb. He has nothing to do with the story, or registration. Bringing a dead hero back after decades into the middle of a hero skirmish that has to do with personal ideologies: dumb. Bringing him back in a series about universal threats containing the greatest interstellar heroes and villains: common sense |
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:27 PM
|
#18 |
|
|
Thanks for answering mine and everybody elses questions Tom!
Hopefully I won't have to wait too long to see more of Mar-Vell and how he's dealing with his "return" to the MU. |
|
03-02-2007, 07:28 PM
|
#19 |
|
|
*Starts slow clap*
Seriously, thanks for taking the time to answer so many questions. |
|
03-02-2007, 07:28 PM
|
#20 | |
|
|
Quote:
|
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:31 PM
|
#21 | |
|
|
Quote:
X-Factor and New Excalibur were also launched from House of M. Son of M and subsequently Silent Ware have dealt with Quicksilver's actions (which are also covered in X-Factor) Mike Carey's X-Men annual just dealt the diminished mutant population. The mutant population storyline has been popping up in New X-Men all the time. CW: X-Men actually dealt with the 198 mutants sequestered to the mansion. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn - these books do acknowledge and work in the new status quo, but they also don't harp on it page after page. |
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:32 PM
|
#22 |
|
|
It may have helped if that definition of the SHRA was mentioned more clearly from the get go. As it stands, it's looking like the writers weren't clear or others were embellishing what it meant to get their way, based on comments made in Frontline and ASM.
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:32 PM
|
#23 | |
|
|
Quote:
|
|
|
03-02-2007, 07:32 PM
|
#24 |
|
|
I think Marvel really should have included (and spotlighted more) Reed's true reason(s) for being Pro-Registration. His behaviour really threw me until a friend told me to read that FF issue (542), then it made sense and I stopped thinking Reed had become an A-Hole and/or Skrull.
 If you haven't read it, I recommend, just for that explanation alone. |
|
03-02-2007, 07:36 PM
|
#25 |
|
|
i like where Tom says "the fact that people are still talking about Civil War a week later shows it's impact"
"Impact" like a smoldering crater. |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 PM.
