My Civil War...

I've never really blogged about Civil War on here. Mostly because I couldn't think of anything to say that hadn't been said already. I thought it was very exciting, had some really interesting moments, and ultimately didn't make a lot of sense.

I mean, there is superhero registration that is but isn't like the mutant registration? Okay. But the difference really never seemed clear to me. I thought the character choices for each side seemed strange and arbitrary, and even in cases like Reed, Tony, Peter and Jen, really really didn't mesh with past history.

Also, the tone was inconsistent. Reed and Tony are portrayed so conscienceless and inhuman for most of the series and then they're the good guys? With the only remotely plausible explanation for their behaviors not even offered in the main series?

Not to mention, while registration could be an interesting debate, I never really understood why the primary groups fighting were, for the most part, groups already connected/affiliated/cooperative with the government. The Avengers, the Four...they are or at least were ALREADY government sanctioned teams. What about the X-Men? Why was a team that's basically a secret, private ARMY only peripherally involved in this debate?

Naturally, as I'm an egotist, this got me thinking about how *I* would write a story like this.

First, I'd define the Superhero Registration Act very differently from the Mutant Registration Act. The forced registration for everyone with powers is well, for one, not terribly viable For another, it's way too obviously skirting really close to a violation of human rights. I can't see any hero embracing something so easily abused like that. Unless they're stupid.

My Superhero Act would be centered specifically around vigilantism and superheroics. If someone wants to be a practicing superhero, they register. If they don't want to, they can't. In practice, it would be something like a grander-scale CPR license.

Basically CPR licenses are necessary because CPR is very easy to screw up. An amateur can cause even worse injury and even kill a person, if they don't know what they're doing. They can, then, be held liable for the consequences.

Considering how much property damage and how much potential for civilian casualties there are when it comes to superhero fights, it seems perfectly reasonable for many people to believe in a similar system.

Of course, there's similar downsides to both ideas. If an untrained person is the only one near a person who needs CPR, well, death is pretty much inevitable if they don't at least try. If an untrained mutant or meta-human is the only one around when someone is attacked by a villain, the same sort of downsides apply.

This allows for a situation in which many young heroes can find themselves in trouble and encourage involvement on the anti-side.

For me, the division between the opposing groups would be much simpler. Most of the Avengers, the Four, and heroes like She-Hulk with ties to the government, the justice system and bureaucracy. They would be pro-registration/licensing.

(Licensing would not just involve information classification, there would be classes, seminars, and tests)

Heroes like Spider-Man and the X-Men would be against. The X-Men have a number of very valid reasons not to trust the government (Sentinels anyone?). Spider-Man is known for his independence.

The majority of heroes will probably initially be in favor of licensing, until the downsides begin to show themselves. It's almost impossible to enforce after all, leading to escalating violence. Some may not like the government having so much influence over meta-humans in general.

Heck, I can't imagine foreign nationals like T'Challa being very happy about the United States exerting so much control/constraints on their heroes. Jurisdiction becomes a problem, space missions get REAL awkward. And the sympathy will start to shift.

A lot of people would find my version more boring, no doubt. It wouldn't escalate to violence so quickly. (The violence in the first few issues would be limited to incidences of licensed and un-licensed heroics). But I think it could be an interesting way to explore more of the way superheroics work in the Marvel Universe..

Oh. And most importantly, Captain America would be largely mixed until near the end of the series. Because, dude, for me at least, when Cap takes a side, it's over. That's the big moment. The climax. Everything after that is denouement and resolution.

The key though is that the audience should never, in my opinion, feel overwhelmingly that one side is "good" and one side is "bad". There isn't supposed to be an ultimately "right" side. That was where Civil War fell flat the most for me. The series seemed written from the beginning like one side was good and the other cartoonishly bad. Then when the bad side is suddenly the right side. Well. It's really bizarre.

Both sides should be sympathetic. We're dealing with HEROES here. Not monsters. Not even random guys. These are people who put their lives on the line every day for ideals and innocent life. Either side should plausibly win. (Though the bad guys can naturally exploit the situation). The ending shouldn't be easy.

I'm excited about Avengers: Initiative and the possibilities that the pro-reg resolution can bring in a storytelling sense. But I still think the whole deal could have been so much better.