What a dumb Marvel event.

Carol Danvers vs Tony Stark should be something brilliant and yet...it wasn't. Carol is depicted as a fascist dictator, with very little to back it up or explain why the other characters are following her. Basically this event felt rushed and shoddy.

However, David Marquez's art is absolutely stunning and Justin Ponsor's colouring is gorgeous. It was certainly beautiful to look at, if infuriating to read. ( )

I only read this because I wanted background on how the current status quo in Jason Aaron’s new Avengers series came to be. I was hesitant to read CWII because so many articles talked about how it vilified Carol Danvers’ character (and I love Captain Marvel!). Sadly, they were correct. In the first Civil War, Tony Stark ended up as the villain, despite the best efforts of the writers to try and make the conflict even-handed. Though both sides had legitimate viewpoints, Tony’s actions are what made him come off so bad. But, it worked because it was believable to see Tony go down that path: the ends justify the means (and he knows best). I feel like the writers here wanted to redeem him somewhat by making him the “good guy” with Carol Danvers being the one to cross the line. It didn’t work for either.

This could have been a solid story if it had had the build-up and investment that the original, far superior event had. Instead, we get an about-face for Danvers who is suddenly willing to ignore people’s constitutional rights in the name of stopping threats before they happen, all while trusting an inhuman she JUST MET. They tried to provide some motivation with her agonizing over the constant threats to the world they contend with, but it felt forced. Tony’s opposing viewpoint was fine, but his actions were unnecessarily reckless right from the get-go. Especially for someone who went through the first Civil War – an event which the heroes expressly refer to here. And there is very little in here to show why the various heroes chose sides. Ms. Marvel worships Carol, but she sides with Tony? There was no foundation for any of the characters decision or actions.

Oh, and lets just throw in some random high-profile character deaths to up the stakes even though we know those characters will come back “somehow.” I’m one of those readers who doesn’t care that comic deaths aren’t permanent. I read comics for escapism and to see good prevail, which doesn’t include killing off characters I care about. For me, the stakes are relationships, civilian casualties, etc. That being said, I do mind deaths thrown in just for shock value. When Goliath is the first hero killed in the original Civil War, it was earth shattering. His death reverberated throughout the rest of the event and it altered the feelings and actions of all the heroes. I barely knew the character and I felt the gravity of his death. Here, it’s like the authors are holding up signs that say “SEE?! MY STORY HAS LIFE AND DEATH CONSEQUENCES.” *sigh*

Overall, I think Marvel put the cart before the horse with this story. This could have been a solid story if it had more meat to it. Instead, it’s completely forgettable, easily skipped and a disservice to two iconic characters. ( )

I'd say I was disappointed, but I didn't really have high hopes going in. This event shoved its way into many of the Marvel graphic novels I've read in the last year or two, and the intrusion was never welcome. I enjoyed big event crossovers when I was younger, but for a long while now they seem like some preschool bully jumping in the sandbox, knocking over sandcastles and breaking the toys everyone is supposed to share. None of them have really been worth the disruption. ( )