The spider is always on the hunt.
No matter how many reboots, new origins, reinterpretations or suit redesigns. In the end, he will always be SUPERMAN
Credit for avatar goes to zclark
Hmm, interesting. Thanks.
Fair point there. If they wanted to make regulations for superheroes or superpowers that didn't trample all over civil, constitutional, and human rights and prompted reasonable discourse between both proponents and opponents, they would. Alas, conflict sells.
The spider is always on the hunt.
I think Marvel can use these ideas to make interesting and plausible conflicts. But it seems Marvel likes to dramatize things a bit too much at times. Civil War being a good example, or any excessive mutant extermination. Of course that might just be a personal preference
What gets me is that, wasn't Kamala all about superheroes being responsible when she started the Champions?
It seems the Kamran is described as an Inhuman, and if the rumors are true Ms. Marvel is Inhuman and a group called N.I.C.E. will be going after Inhumans. As for Lockjaw well yes I am aware of this as Ben Grimm has also been a pal to Lockjaw, Inhumans have played a role in the characters meeting them.
Setting aside whether the inhuman thing was forced on Wilson or not, it’s pretty clear CWII and the M-Pox saga rather wrecked any chance of there being much interaction between Kamala and the Inhumans
Huh? CWII has nothing to do with it, it was Kamala's relationship with Carol that became strained there. And IVX didn't destroy Kamala's relationship with the Inhumans, she's actually teamed up with Inferno since then (in the Marvel Rising comics, which were set in 616 and not the namesake cartoon's continuity). The Royals just went off world, which is why she hasn't interacted with them since IVX.
Appreciation Thread Indexes
Marvel | Spider-Man | X-Men | NEW!! DC Comics | Batman | Superman | Wonder Woman
Particularly considering her gripe with the Avengers was that they didn't seem to care all that much anymore about the civilians caught in the wake of their battles (with each other or with the actual bad guys). However, if you go by Champions #5 that concluded the initial Outlawed arc/saga, the inciting incident was a deliberate setup by Roxxon, staging an attack with a dragon under its control to kill two birds with one stone --- take out a teenage activist speaking against its practices and discredit, then outlaw the Champions. Kind of like Civil War if the Damage Control CEO had been thinking longer-term as opposed to just short-term profiteering off superpowered conflicts by dosing supervillains with MGH (Mutant Growth Hormone) to augment their powers and destructive capability, which led directly to the Stamford Incident.
The spider is always on the hunt.
Was that consistent with how Avengers have been portrayed before, or was that made up for the conflict? Either way, her being against oversight later on seems like an odd transition
I feel they throw in villains like Roxxon to make the conflict less the fault of the heroes themselves.
I can see her being wary of forced oversight, but at the same time, I feel like Marvel exaggerates the "pro-accountability" sides in these conflicts to make the other side look heroic. I'm not usually a fan of "both sideism" at all, but I also don't get Marvel's whole "accountability = evil" thing they always do