*SPOILERS* Rumor about the Civil War movie.

[ishikabe]

At least when the general public gets sicks of superheroes, we can keep our hobby still.

[PhantomStranger]

Yeah but at least with the New Warriors ( even if it was widly out of character) you could say the heroes had a high degree of culpability and didnt do a good job because they wanted ratings. Some nutjob deciding to go kaboom in a crowded area is hardly the heroes fault at all.

The only ones with culpability for Stanford are the writers who deliberately OOCed and jobbed the Warriors to have a scapegoat to kick off the CW.

[Punisher007]

MOS's battle of metropolis is a major plot point for B v S. For something like Civil War you need to show the true damage these superhero and villain fights have. My biggest issue with marvel movies so far is no one gets hurt. Even the dog was saved in AOU. Frankly the distrust in super heroes should have been sowed in AOU with Stark creating Ultron but everyone was all happy at the end. So something big has to happen in CW like the Battle of Metropolis

spoilers:

I really didn't like that Thor saved the people in that car. The trailers played up Cap trying, and failing, to keep it from falling, and then in the actual film they had Thor conveniently show up just in time. Can we not even let ONE car with like 2/3 people in it not be saved, seriously? Given the situation, it would have been highly appropriate.

end of spoilers

[Kyolux]

If the rumor ends up being true, I think it's going to make Cap's side a bit less interesting, if he's out there defending something he caused, instead of being out there defending others privacy/etc.

[jphamlore]

In the comics it was a rogue executive of Damage Control who was responsible for the Stamford Incident, so the pro-registration side was simply in the wrong.

[Huntsman Spider]

In the comics it was a rogue executive of Damage Control who was responsible for the Stamford Incident, so the pro-registration side was simply in the wrong.

Except that only got revealed in Wolverine's tie-in arc to Civil War and the main story just kept it "bunch of idiot teenagers with superpowers try to fight bad guys for ratings, get in over their heads, and cause the destruction of an entire neighborhood full of innocent people, which causes the public and the government to turn against superheroes wholesale and drives the superheroes to fight each other over differing ideas for resolving the problem 'caused' by the idiot teenagers' actions."

[Punisher007]

I'm also trying to figure out how the side that argues "there should be some way to keep track of/hold accountable a bunch of people with powers/tech/abilities that could kill scores of people in seconds should they screw up/go out of control. Oh and some training, that'd be nice to," is "simply wrong." Sounds like common sense actually, you don't have some fundamental right to privacy if you put on a costume and turn vigilante, you just don't.

And quite frankly, the track record of Marvel heroes in the "going crazy, evil, screwing up royally" department is significantly less than stellar.

[MichaelC]

I'm also trying to figure out how the side that argues "there should be some way to keep track of/hold accountable a bunch of people with powers/tech/abilities that could kill scores of people in seconds should they screw up/go out of control. Oh and some training, that'd be nice to," is "simply wrong." Sounds like common sense actually, you don't have some fundamental right to privacy if you put on a costume and turn vigilante, you just don't.

And quite frankly, the track record of Marvel heroes in the "going crazy, evil, screwing up royally" department is significantly less than stellar.

You can't. So you do what the comic did: have the Pro-Regulation side rape kittens so the fundamental common sense rightness of their core idea is moot.

[dragonmp93]

You can't. So you do what the comic did: have the Pro-Regulation side rape kittens so the fundamental common sense rightness of their core idea is moot.

Well, besides that every Sentinel builder and/or owner uses that very same logic to justify the Sentinels' existence...............................

Except that only got revealed in Wolverine's tie-in arc to Civil War and the main story just kept it "bunch of idiot teenagers with superpowers try to fight bad guys for ratings, get in over their heads, and cause the destruction of an entire neighborhood full of innocent people, which causes the public and the government to turn against superheroes wholesale and drives the superheroes to fight each other over differing ideas for resolving the problem 'caused' by the idiot teenagers' actions."

Tie-ins are canon too, you know.

I'm also trying to figure out how the side that argues "there should be some way to keep track of/hold accountable a bunch of people with powers/tech/abilities that could kill scores of people in seconds should they screw up/go out of control. Oh and some training, that'd be nice to," is "simply wrong." Sounds like common sense actually, you don't have some fundamental right to privacy if you put on a costume and turn vigilante, you just don't.

And quite frankly, the track record of Marvel heroes in the "going crazy, evil, screwing up royally" department is significantly less than stellar.

Well, the government wanted to reduce New York to nuclear dust in the first Avenger movie; and in the comics, they put Maria Hill in charge of SHIELD, kept building Sentinels, they have a shoot-on-sigh and to-the-jail (if the mutant is harmless) policies towards the mutants; so yeah, given them their own army of super-powered people to these people is such good idea.