Scan barcode
havesomeshawarma's review against another edition
5.0
Everybody except Steve and Miles are giant idiots, but I love them and the art was gorgeous and now I understand what's been going on for the last five years.
sapphicsolace's review against another edition
2.0
Before I get into this review, I'm going to bring up the Trolly Problem. I am sure a lot of you have heard of the Trolly Problem, either in a high school or university philosophy class or The Good Place. If you haven't, here's what this (ridiculous in my opinion) thought experiment is.
You're standing by railway tracks. You see a trolly/tram is coming and it's going to hit and kill five people because the breaks are broken. You are standing by a lever that will make the tram turn and kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever?
Why am I bringing up the Trolly Problem? Well, that's what Civil War II felt like. It brought in moral complexities with just as much moral contrivance, and really its own version of the thought experiment.
Before I go in deep with this review, I actually want to compare it to Civil War and how these two arcs are different.
Civil War at least made sense
You know what I like about Civil War? Both sides had areas to them that made sense that you could side with Steve or Tony but still see merit in where they were coming from. I was Team Cap but honestly? Tony had points about training. The problem at hand for me was absolute government control and I felt a pay roll would make superheroes no different from cops. Then there was also the issue of secret identities. I can understand why civilians would want to know who was protecting them but that also puts the families of the heroes at risk.
Civil War didn't try to bring moral complexities into it, and both sides kind of had things you agreed and disagreed with. It was balanced. Where does Civil War II go wrong?
This is chaos and not the good kind
At the very basic surface level, I agree with Carol. If we're assuming Ulysses' visions do 100% show the future, it's not right to knowingly let people die. I also didn't agree with Tony when he outright blamed Carol for Rhodey's death or Jen's coma that came as a result of her trying to change the future. This goes back to the Trolly Problem; it's a situation where you either allow death to happen or risk death of people who might've not died otherwise.
This creates a lot of issues. Initially... Carol's intentions were good. She went to Thanos with Absolute Certainty he was going to go after the cosmic cube or whatever he was going after. Then the other instances which I'll get to soon have their own issues. But since we are on Carol, let's talk about her and Tony in this run.
What is this character assassination
I have a lot of questions, mostly why did Tony kidnap Ulysses? That put nothing but a bad taste in my mouth. Referring back to Civil War, neither Tony nor Cap did anything so outrageously horrendous that you were forced on one side, even temporarily. Again, Civil War worked because it allowed space for how you may feel about certain things. When Civil War II isn't relying on characterisation, it relies on where you might fall in the Trolly Problem thought experiment.
People actually use this mess of an arc to "prove" Carol's actually a "villain" when really, this is a dose of bad characterisation that Tony was put through too. Neither of them come out looking good after any of this.
We're gonna accidentally put in deeper philosophical questions but not really deal with them
I don't know if the things I'm going to point out were at all intentional. They probably weren't but they were included anyway. The only thing that was put in for certain was if it was okay to incarcerate a felon over only thinking about doing a crime. That's it.
Rhodey's death is a weird one to me. It was so clearly added to contribute to the conflict. Really, what were the chances of him being the one to die? What were the chances of any of those who went dying? I get why he was chosen to cause the conflict but I still hate it.
What does any of what I said have to do with philosophy? Simple: military deaths in unjust wars. Rhodey volunteered himself to go. How is his death any different from people who die in unjust war? Do I think this was the writer's intent? Absolutely not. I do however think it does create a layer of moral complexity.
Now onto are much more blatant example: Bruce's death. Needless to say, his death brings in the complexities of assisted suicide. This obviously gets messy and included in the conflict of 'well Clint wouldn't have shot him if he wasn't going to Hulk out, which wouldn't have happened if we'd never come'. Again, this gets into the messy grey area but since there was an entire trial around it, it brought in philosophy around assisted suicide. with what we know of Bruce as a character...it's dark. This only goes darker when the publics hatred of Bruce and Hulk come to fruition. It's kind of overlooked how the public loves Clint solely for killing Bruce, only made more apparent in The Fallen.
Lastly, the vision where Miles is shown killing Cap. I really don't think it was an accident the Afro-Latino character was profiled in a crime he didn't commit, I really don't. I want to believe the writers are at least that self aware. But it's difficult to think they are. Because, yes, profiling is mentioned, but not as in detail as it could be, or who would be most affected by this new method of catching the bad guys. I do kind of feel any chance of talking about this though was thrown out the window when a white woman with what looks like a good job was included. It was turned into how Carol was now going to go after anybody, not only because they have not shown signs of even potentially committing the crime, but because they haven't.
Could this shit show have been avoided?
I really do not get why they just didn't test Ulysses powers and find out how accurate his visions are are. I personally think more objective decisions could've been made knowing that. Tony didn't want to alter history at all, sure but he also seemed concerned with the likelihood of them becoming true. Carol wanted to prevent bad futures altogether. I don't think there could've been a completely civil agreement or anything but all of this could've been avoided.
In conclusion, this arc doesn't exist to me. The only good thing that came out of it was the Fallen one shot but that's my Bruce stan bias speaking.
If you made it this far, don't waste your time on this, read a synopsis on the basic events and just skim when other character's runs intersect with this.
You're standing by railway tracks. You see a trolly/tram is coming and it's going to hit and kill five people because the breaks are broken. You are standing by a lever that will make the tram turn and kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever?
Why am I bringing up the Trolly Problem? Well, that's what Civil War II felt like. It brought in moral complexities with just as much moral contrivance, and really its own version of the thought experiment.
Before I go in deep with this review, I actually want to compare it to Civil War and how these two arcs are different.
Civil War at least made sense
You know what I like about Civil War? Both sides had areas to them that made sense that you could side with Steve or Tony but still see merit in where they were coming from. I was Team Cap but honestly? Tony had points about training. The problem at hand for me was absolute government control and I felt a pay roll would make superheroes no different from cops. Then there was also the issue of secret identities. I can understand why civilians would want to know who was protecting them but that also puts the families of the heroes at risk.
Civil War didn't try to bring moral complexities into it, and both sides kind of had things you agreed and disagreed with. It was balanced. Where does Civil War II go wrong?
This is chaos and not the good kind
At the very basic surface level, I agree with Carol. If we're assuming Ulysses' visions do 100% show the future, it's not right to knowingly let people die. I also didn't agree with Tony when he outright blamed Carol for Rhodey's death or Jen's coma that came as a result of her trying to change the future. This goes back to the Trolly Problem; it's a situation where you either allow death to happen or risk death of people who might've not died otherwise.
This creates a lot of issues. Initially... Carol's intentions were good. She went to Thanos with Absolute Certainty he was going to go after the cosmic cube or whatever he was going after. Then the other instances which I'll get to soon have their own issues. But since we are on Carol, let's talk about her and Tony in this run.
What is this character assassination
I have a lot of questions, mostly why did Tony kidnap Ulysses? That put nothing but a bad taste in my mouth. Referring back to Civil War, neither Tony nor Cap did anything so outrageously horrendous that you were forced on one side, even temporarily. Again, Civil War worked because it allowed space for how you may feel about certain things. When Civil War II isn't relying on characterisation, it relies on where you might fall in the Trolly Problem thought experiment.
People actually use this mess of an arc to "prove" Carol's actually a "villain" when really, this is a dose of bad characterisation that Tony was put through too. Neither of them come out looking good after any of this.
We're gonna accidentally put in deeper philosophical questions but not really deal with them
I don't know if the things I'm going to point out were at all intentional. They probably weren't but they were included anyway. The only thing that was put in for certain was if it was okay to incarcerate a felon over only thinking about doing a crime. That's it.
Rhodey's death is a weird one to me. It was so clearly added to contribute to the conflict. Really, what were the chances of him being the one to die? What were the chances of any of those who went dying? I get why he was chosen to cause the conflict but I still hate it.
What does any of what I said have to do with philosophy? Simple: military deaths in unjust wars. Rhodey volunteered himself to go. How is his death any different from people who die in unjust war? Do I think this was the writer's intent? Absolutely not. I do however think it does create a layer of moral complexity.
Now onto are much more blatant example: Bruce's death. Needless to say, his death brings in the complexities of assisted suicide. This obviously gets messy and included in the conflict of 'well Clint wouldn't have shot him if he wasn't going to Hulk out, which wouldn't have happened if we'd never come'. Again, this gets into the messy grey area but since there was an entire trial around it, it brought in philosophy around assisted suicide. with what we know of Bruce as a character...it's dark. This only goes darker when the publics hatred of Bruce and Hulk come to fruition. It's kind of overlooked how the public loves Clint solely for killing Bruce, only made more apparent in The Fallen.
Lastly, the vision where Miles is shown killing Cap. I really don't think it was an accident the Afro-Latino character was profiled in a crime he didn't commit, I really don't. I want to believe the writers are at least that self aware. But it's difficult to think they are. Because, yes, profiling is mentioned, but not as in detail as it could be, or who would be most affected by this new method of catching the bad guys. I do kind of feel any chance of talking about this though was thrown out the window when a white woman with what looks like a good job was included. It was turned into how Carol was now going to go after anybody, not only because they have not shown signs of even potentially committing the crime, but because they haven't.
Could this shit show have been avoided?
I really do not get why they just didn't test Ulysses powers and find out how accurate his visions are are. I personally think more objective decisions could've been made knowing that. Tony didn't want to alter history at all, sure but he also seemed concerned with the likelihood of them becoming true. Carol wanted to prevent bad futures altogether. I don't think there could've been a completely civil agreement or anything but all of this could've been avoided.
In conclusion, this arc doesn't exist to me. The only good thing that came out of it was the Fallen one shot but that's my Bruce stan bias speaking.
If you made it this far, don't waste your time on this, read a synopsis on the basic events and just skim when other character's runs intersect with this.
tmaluck's review against another edition
2.0
I was in board with most of the book until around the penultimate issue where
I don't see why Tony and Carol don't arrive at a midway point to all this Minority Report business and just have a SHIELD agent or full-time Avenger on hand to witness a situation and have backup ready just in case a prophecy comes true. Have Strange encase someone in a bubble for 30 seconds if they look like they'll actually commit a crime, then talk them out of it. No superhero Gitmo required!
Spoiler
Tony attacks in a massive suit of armor, apparently to the death, over Miles's innocence. There's nothing going on at that specific point in the story to suggest that he needed to do that instead of just reiterating his previous arguments.I don't see why Tony and Carol don't arrive at a midway point to all this Minority Report business and just have a SHIELD agent or full-time Avenger on hand to witness a situation and have backup ready just in case a prophecy comes true. Have Strange encase someone in a bubble for 30 seconds if they look like they'll actually commit a crime, then talk them out of it. No superhero Gitmo required!
filipmagnus's review against another edition
3.0
Civil War II, the event no one needed, save for those who wanted to see Carol Danvers's evil fascist twin!
If you look up "mindless hero vs hero with fantastic art," you'll see this here cover to Civil War 2. Any serious diatribe, commentary, analysis on this book would probably force a blood clot to form inside your brain and kill you.
Full review not incoming.
If you look up "mindless hero vs hero with fantastic art," you'll see this here cover to Civil War 2. Any serious diatribe, commentary, analysis on this book would probably force a blood clot to form inside your brain and kill you.
Full review not incoming.
jmanchester0's review against another edition
3.0
Good grief this jumps all over the place in time. On one page someone doesn‰ЫЄt have their powers. On the next they‰ЫЄve had them for a while. On one page someone . Then a few pages later, they‰ЫЄre
They threw Civil War II #0 and Civil War II FCBD in here without giving any sense of timeline. Just kinda sloppy.
But it‰ЫЄs a good story - and an interesting idea. Plus, BMB wrote it, so you know it‰ЫЄs going to be somewhat good.
Though I don‰ЫЄt know if I liked the side Captain Marvel came down on. Captain Marvel Vol 2: Civil War II has better background - and it made me feel better about Carol‰ЫЄs options. I wonder what Kelly Sue DeConnick thinks of the direction of this character?
Spoiler
diesSpoiler
not dead, yet.They threw Civil War II #0 and Civil War II FCBD in here without giving any sense of timeline. Just kinda sloppy.
But it‰ЫЄs a good story - and an interesting idea. Plus, BMB wrote it, so you know it‰ЫЄs going to be somewhat good.
Though I don‰ЫЄt know if I liked the side Captain Marvel came down on. Captain Marvel Vol 2: Civil War II has better background - and it made me feel better about Carol‰ЫЄs options. I wonder what Kelly Sue DeConnick thinks of the direction of this character?
katgriff's review against another edition
2.0
I don't want to invest the amount of energy that writing the ranty review this deserves. Plus, plenty of people have been doing that since these issues were dropping. Though, I think one of the things I hate most about this is the absolutely gorgeous art wasted on a terrible story. This book is definitely as pretty as it is annoying.
I didn't hate the Ms. Marvel Civil War volume, which is what inspired me to pick this up, but that volume was way better than anything from the actual line. While I mostly hate read this, it may lead me to reading some stuff I hadn't considering picking up, like Miles Morales Spider-Man & She-Hulk.
One common criticism of Civil War II was the character assassination of Carl Danvers, so this is where I admit that other than her brief appearances in Ms Marvel, I haven't read much Captain Marvel, which I also plan to change soon.
Also, Marvel, maybe stop killing black characters to make white characters have feelings. You know, just a thought. Rhodey did not deserve this shit.
I didn't hate the Ms. Marvel Civil War volume, which is what inspired me to pick this up, but that volume was way better than anything from the actual line. While I mostly hate read this, it may lead me to reading some stuff I hadn't considering picking up, like Miles Morales Spider-Man & She-Hulk.
One common criticism of Civil War II was the character assassination of Carl Danvers, so this is where I admit that other than her brief appearances in Ms Marvel, I haven't read much Captain Marvel, which I also plan to change soon.
Also, Marvel, maybe stop killing black characters to make white characters have feelings. You know, just a thought. Rhodey did not deserve this shit.
becks_books's review against another edition
2.0
This was just ok. I guess it's an interesting concept but a lot of this seemed unrealistic, which is saying a lot with it being a super hero comic. The conflicts just seemed like they didn't need to happen and also it went from superheroes beating eachother to death with no regard for collateral damage to "oh it's all over everyone can relax now" in the space of a few pages. I don't really understand some of the visions either. The use of visions of the future was done really well in the vision comics- the visions indirectly cause the event that they're trying to stop, but in these comics Ulysses will just get a really random vision of one superhero killing another one and you never get a sense of what events would actually lead up to that. On the plus side- the art is gorgeous. So there's that.
primo_s_s's review against another edition
2.0
"From the creative team that brought you House of M and Siege comes a blistering first chapter in Marvel’s new explosive event." well, if only it was anywhere near HoM in terms of quality... Sure, the art is pretty, but other than that... Meh, not only did it dragged on too long (both in-universe and the actual publishing dates), it wasn't that good, the characters felt off and the dialogues were stilted, overall, not really a great read.
hannahvanamber's review against another edition
4.0
Surprisingly good crossover event with a thought provoking dilemma. I didn’t know which side to root for for most of the book.