By 
Unless Civil War does turn out to have a mind-warping villain behind the whole enchilada (such as Hate-Monger), one thing is for certain: most of the heroes in the Marvel Universe will never be the same. For a lot of them, it means they will no longer be the same set of heroes that grew up in the counter-culture of the 60s and the 70s. Instead, they've joined the Neo-Cons in the Republican Party. Witness Straczynski's recent comments about how he views Reed Richards:
...when asked about Reed Richards' motivation for joining the pro-registration side in Civil War, Straczynski said that in an upcoming issue, he has Peter Parker ask Reed that very question. As Straczynski related, Reed tells Peter about his uncle, who was a writer and creator, and was caught up in a McCarthy-esque witch hunt, and as a result, was jailed and saw his career destroyed. When Peter expresses his feelings of how horrible that must have been for Reed's uncle, Mr. Fantastic says it was, but the law is the law is the law, and his uncle was wrong for not cooperating with the government - a stance by Reed which Peter finds unsettling.
Wow. This ain't the same dude I grew up reading. I remember when Reed Richards stole rocket ships from NASA and helped Bruce Banner evade federal strike teams. A few years ago Richards even defied the US government and S.H.I.E.L.D. by invading Latveria and taking control of the country while Doom was in another dimension (during Mark Waid's run).
Straczynski and the current Marvel Bullpen obviously don't share my history of Tony Stark. Stark became one of the greatest anti-authority figures when he had Stark Industries pull out of weapons manufacturing during the Vietnam War. When he discovered that S.H.I.E.L.D. and other agencies had stolen his Iron Man technology, Stark attacked them mercilessly during the Armor Wars. Suddenly overnight, Stark not only agrees with the government (because they are aligned with his futuristic projections), but he becomes their lapdog to the point where he's hunting down Captain America? I don't grok it unless he's being mind-controlled.
We also see Stark making a deal with Titanium Man in Amazing Spider-Man 531 to manipulate both Congress and Peter Parker. I have some suspicion about Stark confronting Logan in Wolverine #43 during the hunt for Nitro--clearly, he wants Logan to drop out. He almost seems afraid of Logan--the best he is at what he does--finding the villain. Later, after a pretty cool fight (where Logan becomes a skeleton), we see Nitro calling his mysterious benefactor on a cell phone, arranging for transport to another hiding place. I suspect that Stark is the one behind Nitro's school-bus accident and his escape. I hope this is wrong. If it isn't, I'm having a sense of deja-vu over the Avengers Vol. 1 story "The Crossing" where Stark became evil and actually killed a few associates. It took a couple of years for this to get undone during the "Heroes Reborn" event.
No matter what happens, Iron Man is the character that Joe Quesada understands the least. He has a perfect blueprint for Iron Man stories--it can be seen in the work of Micheline/Layton, Busiek/Chen, and even in the recent mini-series by Joe Casey, Iron Man: Inevitable. Warren Ellis' Extremis story pointed the character in a new direction with lots of potential. Why is it all being thrown away? I have to think that Quesada is just baffled by Tony Stark--witness his own attempt at writing Iron Man when he tried a very tired storyline--having Stark's armor develop artificial intelligence and rebelling against his creator. Quesada said the current Iron Man story is the new defining moment for the character, replacing the Micheline/Layton "Demon In A Bottle" arc. I don't think so. It's one thing to take an established character and give them new personal problems, rather them making them commit actions that violate their character. I found this user comment from Stephen, on my Spider-Man No More post very insightful:
I think the test of whether or not a person can write comics well is not what they do if they completely ignore all the traditions of the character and create their own thing, its whether or nor they can still write something interesting that when they adhere to the traditions. Anybody can take a wrecking ball to a popular character (Miller's All Star Batman, Stracynski's Spidey stunt)and call it "creativity." Let's see them try to write within the confines of what's been established like the rest of the writers out there and then see how creative they are.
How true. Alan Moore deconstructred the superhero mythology in Miracleman and Watchmen, two franchises he had direct control over. Yet when it came to writing Superman in "For The Man Who Has Everything" and "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow", Moore adhered to the concept of the character and the rules of his universe. And it didn't seem old fashioned or square, but the coolest thing in the world. Marvel heroes need change, I agree, and it's cool to see them fight each other again--but do they need to violate 40 years of character in order to do that? Nuff said.
