Was Civil War 2 a necessary event?

Honestly, the first thing that came to my mind when I heard Civil War 2:

[video=youtube;EOKhaew8ZWc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOKhaew8ZWc[/video]

Never read it. Just caught the previews and read the posts here. But yeah, I'm feeling CWII was close to something like this.

[QUOTE=Mr_E_88;4979049]I highly disagree. The first Civil War gave a reason why they were fighting, with Cap and his team fighting for their right to keep their identity secret in order to protect the ones they love. It's a story about fighting for your right and freedom of choice. And every character acted the way they should, Stark was arrogant and fought for the law regardless if the law was right or wrong, Steve was fighting for what he believes in.[/QUOTE]
If everyone was acting in-character Ragnarok would not exist and Bill Foster would still be alive.

This was the first event I can recall where tie-in books openly made fun of how pointless it was. The Scarlet Witch tie-in issue was just 20 pages of her talking about how stupid this event sounded and refusing to get involved in it.

It was definitely one of the lower points of the movie-synergy era.

I think the better question would be "When was the last event comic that had a point?"

[QUOTE=gurkle;4979335]This was the first event I can recall where tie-in books openly made fun of how pointless it was. The Scarlet Witch tie-in issue was just 20 pages of her talking about how stupid this event sounded and refusing to get involved in it.

It was definitely one of the lower points of the movie-synergy era.[/QUOTE]
And pretty much every tie-in aside from Carol's ended up being about how Carol's side was in the wrong. Even the original Civil War wasn't that unanimously on the anti-reg side even if more writers were anti-reg.

[QUOTE=Frontier;4979346]And pretty much every tie-in aside from Carol's ended up being about how Carol's side was in the wrong. Even the original Civil War wasn't that unanimously on the anti-reg side even if more writers were anti-reg.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, agreed.

Which frankly, is odd as Carol was in the right. If they have someone who can predict the future, then they should use them. Bendis tried to frame it as racial profiling, but 1) That doesn't work as you can only profile an ethnic group and 2) he also wrote it as the only possible response to the guy's visions was immediate punching.

[QUOTE=The Cool Thatguy;4979376]Yeah, agreed.

Which frankly, is odd as Carol was in the right. If they have someone who can predict the future, then they should use them. Bendis tried to frame it as racial profiling, but 1) That doesn't work as you can only profile an ethnic group and 2) he also wrote it as the only possible response to the guy's visions was immediate punching.[/QUOTE]
I mean, on-paper there shouldn't have been a problem but this was the event that turned Carol into Carol "you're under arrest" Danvers and she was busting people left and right for stuff they hadn't done yet.

And the whole Banner death thing was handled so, so badly.

The character who supports "Minority Report" style tactics always comes off as a fascist. It doesn't matter if they are or not, it's just built into the DNA of this kind of story.

It's the same thing in the original Civil War. Theoretically both sides had equally good arguments. In practice the pro-reg side came off as fascist, not because they were wrong but because this kind of story is just tilted against the character who wants to force people to register with the government.

The movie sort of avoided this, but only by watering down what the heroes were being asked to agree to.

It is my honest and true belief that the second Civil War was an interesting affair until actual fighting was mandated to happen, at which point Brian Michael Bendis' plotting difficulties began to shine through.

[QUOTE=gurkle;4979393]The character who supports "Minority Report" style tactics always comes off as a fascist. It doesn't matter if they are or not, it's just built into the DNA of this kind of story.

It's the same thing in the original Civil War. Theoretically both sides had equally good arguments. In practice the pro-reg side came off as fascist, not because they were wrong but because this kind of story is just tilted against the character who wants to force people to register with the government.

The movie sort of avoided this, but only by watering down what the heroes were being asked to agree to.[/QUOTE]

As the audience of the fictional material who are intimately familiar with the characters (as well as being only truly concerned with the characters) and are assured in the general safety of their continued existences, we are inherently conditioned to oppose stances like Pro-Registration or Pro-Ulysses as we know what the real current threats are and where the lines are drawn. Despite the fact that in the Marvel Universe, where threats and cataclysms come rapidly and from random sources, ideas like these pro-security measures could easily be viewed as the more prudent methods of preventing incidents, and would gain strong support in our world if we found ourselves in similar predicaments.

[QUOTE=gurkle;4979393]The movie sort of avoided this, but only by watering down what the heroes were being asked to agree to.[/QUOTE]
And the main conflict wasn't even about the Accords, it was about Bucky.
[QUOTE=Snoop Dogg;4979397]It is my honest and true belief that the second Civil War was an interesting affair until actual fighting was mandated to happen, at which point Brian Michael Bendis' plotting difficulties began to shine through.[/QUOTE]
Was that before or after he had Hawkeye shoot a powerless scientist in the eye?

It is my honest and true belief that the Banner/Barton collusion and the machinations of Hydra Supreme should have been the true focus of the story's last act and not inelegant fight scenes. I would put forth that witnessing Stark standing alongside the alternative Rogers to face Danvers as their allies gathered was the last exciting sequence in the piece, immediately prior to the beginning of the aformentioned inelegant fighting.

[QUOTE=gurkle;4979393]The character who supports "Minority Report" style tactics always comes off as a fascist. It doesn't matter if they are or not, it's just built into the DNA of this kind of story.[/QUOTE]

I think the problem with most 'Minority Report' stories is that they act as if there can be only one solution to the would be crime. I mean, the guy who gets arrested in the Tom Cruise movie at the beginning? Murder isn't the only charge possible when you come at someone with a knife, and fail to kill them.

[QUOTE=Frontier;4979424]And the main conflict wasn't even about the Accords, it was about Bucky. [/QUOTE]

Minor disagreement. It was about the Accords, that interfered with Cap's ability to help Bucky

I think the problem with Civil War II, beyond everything else mentioned here in this thread, was starting by killing Rhodey/War Machine just to provide an excuse for Tony/Iron Man (Rhodey's best friend) and Carol/Captain Marvel (who was dating Rhodey at the time) to turn on each other.

[QUOTE=Noodle;4979344]I think the better question would be "When was the last event comic that had a point?"[/QUOTE]

Secret Wars?