Alan was never really a huge fan of Killraven. He liked the ten pages Neal Adams drew to kick off the character, and he thought the character had some potential, but that was about it. He is, however, a huge fan of the John Carter books, and he used Killraven as a sort of a chance to do something similar to those books.
I didn't read the series, but the concept seemed uninteresting. I'm apparently in the minority, but I enjoyed Civil War.
The stuff I read about this title was that it was rushed to capitalize on the movie. And I don't think Bendis can write event books (or Moon Knight, but that's another story).
I enjoyed Civil War too, but I felt like the ending was a total cop-out. Not that I wanted Cap to die, the end felt like it was more editorial than Millar. CWII was just a money grab for Cap:CW and to set up some future things. Typical Bendis Marvel event. I'll also agree that the art sure was pretty in both series.
I enjoyed Civil War too, but I felt like the ending was a total cop-out. Not that I wanted Cap to die, the end felt like it was more editorial than Millar. CWII was just a money grab for Cap:CW and to set up some future things. Typical Bendis Marvel event. I'll also agree that the art sure was pretty in both series.
My main problem was how one sided it was. Marvel made this big push that civil war wouldn't be a black & white issue. There wouldn't be a good or bad side. Then they wrote it as a good vs. evil comic. Team Cap the heroes vs. Team Tony the dbags. I'm not getting political here, just stating facts, so bare with me. I never understood how a group of pretty liberal writers couldn't get team Tony right.
If you remove Marvel's stated goals; Civil War was a pretty awesome story with lots of pretty good tie-ins. The art was great and it had some cool ideas. It also brought me back full time into comics.
I enjoyed Civil War too, but I felt like the ending was a total cop-out. Not that I wanted Cap to die, the end felt like it was more editorial than Millar. CWII was just a money grab for Cap:CW and to set up some future things. Typical Bendis Marvel event. I'll also agree that the art sure was pretty in both series.
My main problem was how one sided it was. Marvel made this big push that civil war wouldn't be a black & white issue. There wouldn't be a good or bad side. Then they wrote it as a good vs. evil comic. Team Cap the heroes vs. Team Tony the dbags. I'm not getting political here, just stating facts, so bare with me. I never understood how a group of pretty liberal writers couldn't get team Tony right.
If you remove Marvel's stated goals; Civil War was a pretty awesome story with lots of pretty good tie-ins. The art was great and it had some cool ideas. It also brought me back full time into comics.
I think it was the weaker side written, but I could always see why Stark made his decision. I thought the movie did a better job of presenting Stark's side. I was Team Cap in both, but it was harder for me to agree in the movie's storyline.
I enjoyed Civil War too, but I felt like the ending was a total cop-out. Not that I wanted Cap to die, the end felt like it was more editorial than Millar. CWII was just a money grab for Cap:CW and to set up some future things. Typical Bendis Marvel event. I'll also agree that the art sure was pretty in both series.
My main problem was how one sided it was. Marvel made this big push that civil war wouldn't be a black & white issue. There wouldn't be a good or bad side. Then they wrote it as a good vs. evil comic. Team Cap the heroes vs. Team Tony the dbags. I'm not getting political here, just stating facts, so bare with me. I never understood how a group of pretty liberal writers couldn't get team Tony right.
If you remove Marvel's stated goals; Civil War was a pretty awesome story with lots of pretty good tie-ins. The art was great and it had some cool ideas. It also brought me back full time into comics.
I think it was the weaker side written, but I could always see why Stark made his decision. I thought the movie did a better job of presenting Stark's side. I was Team Cap in both, but it was harder for me to agree in the movie's storyline.
M
The problem is, they had to twist Tony's and Reed's personalities into a 180 of their established behaviour. And really, it runs in the face of the anti-authority tone of Marvel comics, to put any established heroes in the role filled by Henry Peter Gyrich for the previous 29 years.
Now with Civil War II, we've had almost a decade of SHIELD at the forefront of Marvel and superheroes tugging their forelocks to them. And a decade of Iron Man making the wrong choices.
So it's easier to understand how characters could go along with Captain Marvel. And with Tony, he's made so many bad choices in recent years, the reader can, in theory, question his choice again. Or, more likely, breathe a sigh of relief that he's finally not going with the bad option.
And overall, the story ties into the arc with SHIELD where post-Secret Wars a degree of un-supervised corruption has set in with them secretly making a living cosmic cube, re-writing the realities of super-criminals, hijacking an army of LMD bodies of one of the organisation's founders and more.
But what it really wants to do is sell you some Inhuman comics. And if you've got any change left over pick up the new Iron Man comics, Hulk, The Champions, and presumably coming soon, The Defenders, who don't even appear in the story, yet still get a panel in the final to promote their comic!
I enjoyed Civil War too, but I felt like the ending was a total cop-out. Not that I wanted Cap to die, the end felt like it was more editorial than Millar. CWII was just a money grab for Cap:CW and to set up some future things. Typical Bendis Marvel event. I'll also agree that the art sure was pretty in both series.
My main problem was how one sided it was. Marvel made this big push that civil war wouldn't be a black & white issue. There wouldn't be a good or bad side. Then they wrote it as a good vs. evil comic. Team Cap the heroes vs. Team Tony the dbags. I'm not getting political here, just stating facts, so bare with me. I never understood how a group of pretty liberal writers couldn't get team Tony right.
If you remove Marvel's stated goals; Civil War was a pretty awesome story with lots of pretty good tie-ins. The art was great and it had some cool ideas. It also brought me back full time into comics.
I think it was the weaker side written, but I could always see why Stark made his decision. I thought the movie did a better job of presenting Stark's side. I was Team Cap in both, but it was harder for me to agree in the movie's storyline.
M
The problem is, they had to twist Tony's and Reed's personalities into a 180 of their established behaviour. And really, it runs in the face of the anti-authority tone of Marvel comics, to put any established heroes in the role filled by Henry Peter Gyrich for the previous 29 years.
Now with Civil War II, we've had almost a decade of SHIELD at the forefront of Marvel and superheroes tugging their forelocks to them. And a decade of Iron Man making the wrong choices.
So it's easier to understand how characters could go along with Captain Marvel. And with Tony, he's made so many bad choices in recent years, the reader can, in theory, question his choice again. Or, more likely, breathe a sigh of relief that he's finally not going with the bad option.
And overall, the story ties into the arc with SHIELD where post-Secret Wars a degree of un-supervised corruption has set in with them secretly making a living cosmic cube, re-writing the realities of super-criminals, hijacking an army of LMD bodies of one of the organisation's founders and more.
But what it really wants to do is sell you some Inhuman comics. And if you've got any change left over pick up the new Iron Man comics, Hulk, The Champions, and presumably coming soon, The Defenders, who don't even appear in the story, yet still get a panel in the final to promote their comic!
I'm not overly familiar with Stark except for the milestone storylines. I get his thought process for going along with the government; it makes sense. I agree that heroes need proper training & not just "I have powers, I want to help, I've got a suit, let's go!"
I can't say for certain if Stark did a 180, but if I look at the Armor Wars storyline, I could see the foundation for why he choice his side. Plus, per Frontlines, he made a hefty profit off the registration.
I enjoyed Civil War too, but I felt like the ending was a total cop-out. Not that I wanted Cap to die, the end felt like it was more editorial than Millar. CWII was just a money grab for Cap:CW and to set up some future things. Typical Bendis Marvel event. I'll also agree that the art sure was pretty in both series.
My main problem was how one sided it was. Marvel made this big push that civil war wouldn't be a black & white issue. There wouldn't be a good or bad side. Then they wrote it as a good vs. evil comic. Team Cap the heroes vs. Team Tony the dbags. I'm not getting political here, just stating facts, so bare with me. I never understood how a group of pretty liberal writers couldn't get team Tony right.
If you remove Marvel's stated goals; Civil War was a pretty awesome story with lots of pretty good tie-ins. The art was great and it had some cool ideas. It also brought me back full time into comics.
I think it was the weaker side written, but I could always see why Stark made his decision. I thought the movie did a better job of presenting Stark's side. I was Team Cap in both, but it was harder for me to agree in the movie's storyline.
M
The problem is, they had to twist Tony's and Reed's personalities into a 180 of their established behaviour. And really, it runs in the face of the anti-authority tone of Marvel comics, to put any established heroes in the role filled by Henry Peter Gyrich for the previous 29 years.
Now with Civil War II, we've had almost a decade of SHIELD at the forefront of Marvel and superheroes tugging their forelocks to them. And a decade of Iron Man making the wrong choices.
So it's easier to understand how characters could go along with Captain Marvel. And with Tony, he's made so many bad choices in recent years, the reader can, in theory, question his choice again. Or, more likely, breathe a sigh of relief that he's finally not going with the bad option.
And overall, the story ties into the arc with SHIELD where post-Secret Wars a degree of un-supervised corruption has set in with them secretly making a living cosmic cube, re-writing the realities of super-criminals, hijacking an army of LMD bodies of one of the organisation's founders and more.
But what it really wants to do is sell you some Inhuman comics. And if you've got any change left over pick up the new Iron Man comics, Hulk, The Champions, and presumably coming soon, The Defenders, who don't even appear in the story, yet still get a panel in the final to promote their comic!
I'm not overly familiar with Stark except for the milestone storylines. I get his thought process for going along with the government; it makes sense. I agree that heroes need proper training & not just "I have powers, I want to help, I've got a suit, let's go!"
I can't say for certain if Stark did a 180, but if I look at the Armor Wars storyline, I could see the foundation for why he choice his side. Plus, per Frontlines, he made a hefty profit off the registration.
M
I would say Armor Wars is why he wouldn't choose that side. What with him attacking SHIELD for exploiting his technology (this was a continuation of a 70s plot where he was trying to get rid of SHIELD from inside of his company) and generally being a reckless individualist.
I enjoyed Civil War too, but I felt like the ending was a total cop-out. Not that I wanted Cap to die, the end felt like it was more editorial than Millar. CWII was just a money grab for Cap:CW and to set up some future things. Typical Bendis Marvel event. I'll also agree that the art sure was pretty in both series.
My main problem was how one sided it was. Marvel made this big push that civil war wouldn't be a black & white issue. There wouldn't be a good or bad side. Then they wrote it as a good vs. evil comic. Team Cap the heroes vs. Team Tony the dbags. I'm not getting political here, just stating facts, so bare with me. I never understood how a group of pretty liberal writers couldn't get team Tony right.
If you remove Marvel's stated goals; Civil War was a pretty awesome story with lots of pretty good tie-ins. The art was great and it had some cool ideas. It also brought me back full time into comics.
I think it was the weaker side written, but I could always see why Stark made his decision. I thought the movie did a better job of presenting Stark's side. I was Team Cap in both, but it was harder for me to agree in the movie's storyline.
M
The problem is, they had to twist Tony's and Reed's personalities into a 180 of their established behaviour. And really, it runs in the face of the anti-authority tone of Marvel comics, to put any established heroes in the role filled by Henry Peter Gyrich for the previous 29 years.
Now with Civil War II, we've had almost a decade of SHIELD at the forefront of Marvel and superheroes tugging their forelocks to them. And a decade of Iron Man making the wrong choices.
So it's easier to understand how characters could go along with Captain Marvel. And with Tony, he's made so many bad choices in recent years, the reader can, in theory, question his choice again. Or, more likely, breathe a sigh of relief that he's finally not going with the bad option.
And overall, the story ties into the arc with SHIELD where post-Secret Wars a degree of un-supervised corruption has set in with them secretly making a living cosmic cube, re-writing the realities of super-criminals, hijacking an army of LMD bodies of one of the organisation's founders and more.
But what it really wants to do is sell you some Inhuman comics. And if you've got any change left over pick up the new Iron Man comics, Hulk, The Champions, and presumably coming soon, The Defenders, who don't even appear in the story, yet still get a panel in the final to promote their comic!
I'm not overly familiar with Stark except for the milestone storylines. I get his thought process for going along with the government; it makes sense. I agree that heroes need proper training & not just "I have powers, I want to help, I've got a suit, let's go!"
I can't say for certain if Stark did a 180, but if I look at the Armor Wars storyline, I could see the foundation for why he choice his side. Plus, per Frontlines, he made a hefty profit off the registration.
M
I would say Armor Wars is why he wouldn't choose that side. What with him attacking SHIELD for exploiting his technology (this was a continuation of a 70s plot where he was trying to get rid of SHIELD from inside of his company) and generally being a reckless individualist.
I actually looked at it as because of what he did in Armor Wars, Stark decided to work within the system this time. Didn't he have to claim Iron Man went rogue in that storyline? He couldn't do that this time with his ID exposed.
It wasn't that good. And yet it was still better than the original Civil War and all previous Bendis events.
The allegory worked better than Civil War's. The people on the opposing sides of the argument made more sense than Civil War's. The use of the series for tie-ins worked better, for example, you wouldn't have got a Ms. Marvel vs. Spider-Man science fair competition story out of the first Civil War.
I didn't read any of the associated miniseries, and only read the tie-ins that were in titles I was already reading, like Avengers and Iron Man.
The Civil War II and tie-in issues are coming onto Marvel Unlimited now. @Brack are there any standout ones you would recommend? Thanks in advance.
I enjoyed Civil War too, but I felt like the ending was a total cop-out. Not that I wanted Cap to die, the end felt like it was more editorial than Millar. CWII was just a money grab for Cap:CW and to set up some future things. Typical Bendis Marvel event. I'll also agree that the art sure was pretty in both series.
My main problem was how one sided it was. Marvel made this big push that civil war wouldn't be a black & white issue. There wouldn't be a good or bad side. Then they wrote it as a good vs. evil comic. Team Cap the heroes vs. Team Tony the dbags. I'm not getting political here, just stating facts, so bare with me. I never understood how a group of pretty liberal writers couldn't get team Tony right.
It's funny, and this could totally be the lens I brought to it at the time (or look at it through now, in hindsight), but while I agree that the argument that the Pro-Reg side made was not very compelling, I actually thought the weakness of it might have come from the fact that Millar was actually politically very far from the point of the Tony side, and struggled to write their argument well.
At the time in '06, it felt to me that what Tony and the Pro-Reg side did during the Civil War was the stuff of the Patriot Act-- a set of emergency powers voted in quickly after a crisis; and extraordinary rendition to an offshore (in this case, extra-dimensional) prison- Prison 42 as a sort of superhero Gitmo. To me, one of the main flaws of the original Civil War (for all the ways it succeeded in being big and cinematic), was that there was no balance between the arguments the two sides were making, as Millar did not succeed in giving a side he disagreed with politically (the Tony side) arguments that had real teeth. So all the messaging about how readers would 'choose a side' rang false.
It wasn't that good. And yet it was still better than the original Civil War and all previous Bendis events.
The allegory worked better than Civil War's. The people on the opposing sides of the argument made more sense than Civil War's. The use of the series for tie-ins worked better, for example, you wouldn't have got a Ms. Marvel vs. Spider-Man science fair competition story out of the first Civil War.
I didn't read any of the associated miniseries, and only read the tie-ins that were in titles I was already reading, like Avengers and Iron Man.
The Civil War II and tie-in issues are coming onto Marvel Unlimited now. @Brack are there any standout ones you would recommend? Thanks in advance.
If you were reading Dan Abnett's Hercules, Civil War II: Gods of War is the conclusion of that more than it is anything to do with Civil War II. So read that if you want to see how that turns out.
Civil War: Kingpin was the other mini that I really liked, though the Spider-Man one had some funny fan service.
Otherwise I generally impressed with how series incorporated the theme of "civil war" into their ongoing plots rather than grind to a halt. Deadpool, New Avengers and Captain America: Sam Wilson spring to mind. Not sure how well they'd work if you weren't already a reader though.
Ultimates is the book I was reading that most specifically fills in details from the central plot. And if you have fond memories of The New Universe you'll probably get a thrill from it on that front too.
It wasn't that good. And yet it was still better than the original Civil War and all previous Bendis events.
The allegory worked better than Civil War's. The people on the opposing sides of the argument made more sense than Civil War's. The use of the series for tie-ins worked better, for example, you wouldn't have got a Ms. Marvel vs. Spider-Man science fair competition story out of the first Civil War.
I didn't read any of the associated miniseries, and only read the tie-ins that were in titles I was already reading, like Avengers and Iron Man.
The Civil War II and tie-in issues are coming onto Marvel Unlimited now. @Brack are there any standout ones you would recommend? Thanks in advance.
If you were reading Dan Abnett's Hercules, Civil War II: Gods of War is the conclusion of that more than it is anything to do with Civil War II. So read that if you want to see how that turns out.
Civil War: Kingpin was the other mini that I really liked, though the Spider-Man one had some funny fan service.
Otherwise I generally impressed with how series incorporated the theme of "civil war" into their ongoing plots rather than grind to a halt. Deadpool, New Avengers and Captain America: Sam Wilson spring to mind. Not sure how well they'd work if you weren't already a reader though.
Ultimates is the book I was reading that most specifically fills in details from the central plot. And if you have fond memories of The New Universe you'll probably get a thrill from it on that front too.
I somehow managed to hang on and make it to the end of this crossover. I agree, it was too long with WAY too many tie-ins that didn't mean much to the main story. Thumbs down to Marvel for this one. I did enjoy the art within the main story issues.
Comments
The story was pretty forgettable.
The stuff I read about this title was that it was rushed to capitalize on the movie. And I don't think Bendis can write event books (or Moon Knight, but that's another story).
M
I'm not getting political here, just stating facts, so bare with me. I never understood how a group of pretty liberal writers couldn't get team Tony right.
If you remove Marvel's stated goals; Civil War was a pretty awesome story with lots of pretty good tie-ins. The art was great and it had some cool ideas. It also brought me back full time into comics.
M
Now with Civil War II, we've had almost a decade of SHIELD at the forefront of Marvel and superheroes tugging their forelocks to them. And a decade of Iron Man making the wrong choices.
So it's easier to understand how characters could go along with Captain Marvel. And with Tony, he's made so many bad choices in recent years, the reader can, in theory, question his choice again. Or, more likely, breathe a sigh of relief that he's finally not going with the bad option.
And overall, the story ties into the arc with SHIELD where post-Secret Wars a degree of un-supervised corruption has set in with them secretly making a living cosmic cube, re-writing the realities of super-criminals, hijacking an army of LMD bodies of one of the organisation's founders and more.
But what it really wants to do is sell you some Inhuman comics. And if you've got any change left over pick up the new Iron Man comics, Hulk, The Champions, and presumably coming soon, The Defenders, who don't even appear in the story, yet still get a panel in the final to promote their comic!
I can't say for certain if Stark did a 180, but if I look at the Armor Wars storyline, I could see the foundation for why he choice his side. Plus, per Frontlines, he made a hefty profit off the registration.
M
M
The Civil War II and tie-in issues are coming onto Marvel Unlimited now. @Brack are there any standout ones you would recommend? Thanks in advance.
At the time in '06, it felt to me that what Tony and the Pro-Reg side did during the Civil War was the stuff of the Patriot Act-- a set of emergency powers voted in quickly after a crisis; and extraordinary rendition to an offshore (in this case, extra-dimensional) prison- Prison 42 as a sort of superhero Gitmo. To me, one of the main flaws of the original Civil War (for all the ways it succeeded in being big and cinematic), was that there was no balance between the arguments the two sides were making, as Millar did not succeed in giving a side he disagreed with politically (the Tony side) arguments that had real teeth. So all the messaging about how readers would 'choose a side' rang false.
Civil War: Kingpin was the other mini that I really liked, though the Spider-Man one had some funny fan service.
Otherwise I generally impressed with how series incorporated the theme of "civil war" into their ongoing plots rather than grind to a halt. Deadpool, New Avengers and Captain America: Sam Wilson spring to mind. Not sure how well they'd work if you weren't already a reader though.
Ultimates is the book I was reading that most specifically fills in details from the central plot. And if you have fond memories of The New Universe you'll probably get a thrill from it on that front too.