Thoughts on Civil War II

Thoughts on Civil War II

This is just a continuation of the previous article, It is is not a review. These are just thoughts on the concept and themes of the Marvel Comic's event.

Editorial Opinion
By Utopian8418 - Jun 25, 2016 10:06 PM EST
Filed Under: Marvel Comics
I am usually against the popular opinion and love most of Marvel's events, but there are just too many things that don't make sense to me about this one. 
 
The first Civil War featured Steve Rogers and Tony Stark, the 2 most iconic Avengers, leading opposing superhero teams. Maybe for the first time in history, there was no clear bad guy, and the battle was about a thin moral line about how best to protect the world. While Steve fought for the freedom of superhumans to be independent, Tony fought for the legal registration of superhumans under the government. Some people say that Steve represented the political Right, and Tony represented the Left. Steve only sees the good in men, and believes that with absolute freedom, individuals will make the world a better place. But Tony believes that the government has to make the world a better place, it has to control everyone. Cap is the strongest man there is, but for the Ironman, man is not enough. The point I am trying to make is that the roles of Steve and Tony fit the characters perfectly.

 
I like the idea of a sequel that carries over the theme of a thin moral line, the idea that good might be relative (one could argue that we already had the real 'Civil War II' with the separation of the X-Men in 'Schism', and  'Civil War III' with 'Avengers vs X-Men' but this is not the case).In Civil War II, the theme seems to be determinism vs free will. But the  2 protagonists are Carol Danvers and again Tony Stark, and It feels like they were chosen ridiculously randomly. These are not the 2 biggest Marvel leaders/icons. I feel like they should either have Tony vs Steve again, or have 2 different characters (maybe Captain Marvel vs Spiderman would have been better?).

 
Tony Stark's motivations are completly wrong. The story starts when the Inhumans find a new Inhuman, Ulysses, who can see the future. They use one of his visions to save the world from a huge Celestial-thing with the Avenger's aid and everybody is happy. The heroes throw a party, and the Inhumans tell the rest of the heros how they knew about the threat, revealing Ulysses. The strange thing is that the ONLY hero to react critically is Tony Stark. With people like Steve Rogers and Peter Parker standing in the room, I would expect some more people to at least find the subject controversial. Tony Stark is no symbol of abstract moral values (I actually feel like Tony should be more in favour of determinism, but whatever).
Later, James Rhodes gets killed in a fight with Thanos as a result of one of Ulysse's visions, and again Tony reacts totally out of character, blaming Carol Danvers for the accident and going as far as risking war with the Inhumans. Rhodey died fighting to stop a bad guy, like the Avengers do every day, they risk their lives to save the world. His death was not a direct consequence of the act of predicting the future (predicting it actually saved lives). Tony is smarter than this, this is just lazy writing.

 
 It would be a real motivation if Ulysses could only predict conditionals. Something like 'IF Rhodey doesn't permanently go to jail, he will one day kill somebody'. Then I could buy that some heroes would want to put him in jail for the rest of his life (provided they first showed one of Ulysse's visions coming true). This could create really interesting questions about free will.
You may argue that last issue's vision of a rampaging Hulk is like my example, but the difference is that it was a literal vision. We know that the visions can be prevented, so the question becomes 'what do they have to do to stop it?' instead of 'are there constants in a human's behaviour?'. Its not about free will/human nature anymore.

 
Anyway, I just wish that this doesn't get out of control and the heroes don't make permanent damage to eachother. It took years for the heroes to reconcile after the first Civil War and some of them have forgiven Tony Stark 1 time, but a second time is always much more difficult. However, since this is happening and damage is going to be done, they should go big. Have the X-men vs the Inhumans, Atlantis vs Wakanda, Olympus vs Asgard or Alpha Flight vs Guardians of the Galaxy, this is a sequel after all.
 
What are your thoughts on Civil War II? Sound off below!

 

Ultimate Luke Cage Debuts, Wolverine's Mission Continues, And More In February's ULTIMATE Marvel Comics
Related:

Ultimate Luke Cage Debuts, Wolverine's Mission Continues, And More In February's ULTIMATE Marvel Comics

Marvel Comics Reveals The Impact ONE WORLD UNDER DOOM Will Have On The FANTASTIC FOUR In New Tie-In Issues
Recommended For You:

Marvel Comics Reveals The Impact ONE WORLD UNDER DOOM Will Have On The FANTASTIC FOUR In New Tie-In Issues

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Utopian8418
Utopian8418 - 6/26/2016, 10:42 AM
@Mickeus @ThtOneGuyUknow thanks guys!
FishyZombie
FishyZombie - 6/26/2016, 11:45 AM
Leaked ending to CW:2
View Recorder