Please note: The creator of this video made a follow-up video (DC’s Civil War: Teams & Sides) in which he ends up changing his mind with regards to my main disagreement with his video, as well as tweaking his ideas in other ways. Apparently, other people in the YouTube comments made similar points to the ones I make here, and he was convinced.
I have nothing against T.M.M., and this article mainly exists because analyzing this video’s idea is an interesting exercise.
The video, How I Would Make DC’s Civil War by T.M.M., presents an idea for a DC equivalent of the Marvel Civil War event. I’m not going to comment on Marvel’s Civil War since I haven’t read it, but I know its premise, and this video applies that premise to the DC universe. The idea is that the government introduces a law (called the Registration Act) that requires all superpowered individuals to register with the government and obey certain rules. The details aren’t really important for the purpose of this article, but ultimately it means the government is trying to exert authority and control over superheroes.
The reason for the Civil War name is that some superheroes support the new law and others opposite it – the pro-registration and anti-registration sides. So naturally, the DC equivalent to this story would feature this too. In the video, T.M.M. says he doesn’t want to discuss in detail who would be on each side in the DC universe, but that he might make a new video to cover that topic specifically (which, as I mentioned above, he did). However, he does touch on it briefly, and in particular talks about one superhero who would be on the pro-registration side: Superman.
The Core Problem: Making It Boring
But what really ruins the video for me is not that Superman is on what is implied to be the “bad” side (since the registration act is enacted by Lex Luthor, who has become President), but the reason why. Instead of Superman simply agreeing with the law (which is farfetched for how I and many fans prefer Superman to be, but could be believable for some versions of him), he’s just being threatened into supporting it. Lex Luthor somehow kidnaps and captures his wife and child and uses this as leverage to make Superman support the Registration Act. He forces Clark to become the Registration Act’s biggest champion simply through this means. (Naturally, T.M.M. explains that where they’re being held is hidden by lead and is accompanied by red sunlight and kryptonite and all that jazz.)
There are multiple questionable things about this, but the biggest problem is that it’s boring. It doesn’t say anything interesting about Superman’s character. In the original Civil War, characters actually took sides based on their own opinions instead of being coerced, so there was an actual conflict between the superheroes. Though of course, that also gives many opportunities for criticism for Civil War, as many have complained over the years about the characterization of heroes within it.
I’m guessing that’s why T.M.M. went with this direction for his idea. He knows full well that people get angry if their favorite characters are characterized in a way that doesn’t match their prior character and/or makes them look bad. This is a good thing to worry about, generally speaking, because consistent characterization and character likability are important.
But personally, as a Superman fan, I don’t really think it’s worth it. T.M.M.’s idea avoids characterizing Superman in an unlikable way, but it makes it so that Superman’s character doesn’t matter. Instead of a potentially interesting story where Superman has to struggle with how to respond to a controversial new law, Superman is coerced into a role he didn’t choose. It feels like Superman’s character is ignored and he’s just reduced to a plot point.
Another Problem: Implausibility
I also feel like this plot point suffers from being hard to believe. While T.M.M. describes his story as taking place in his own version of the DC universe, I feel like it’s safe to assume it must be fairly similar to official portrayals. Therefore, I feel confident that, like other versions of himself, Superman is an immensely powerful superhero who has fought Luthor and other extremely dangerous foes for years and has faced a variety of extreme challenges in doing so. This makes it hard for me to accept that this time, Superman just gives up and accepts Luthor’s terms and does what he wants.
Yes, obviously Superman cares about his child and values their safety immensely. But frankly, that also brings up the question of how Lex would be able to kidnap him to begin with. Not saying it’s completely impossible, but even for President Lex, it should be overwhelmingly difficult. I’m not saying you couldn’t write a good story with this premise, just that it’s another potential contributor to implausibility.
What makes this even harder to believe is that Luthor didn’t just demand that Superman support the law or not fight against it, but actually champion it and never do anything to indicate anything less than enthusiastic support of it. This is a bit debatable, but I think Superman would struggle to promote something he doesn’t believe in. I do think Superman is a good actor, considering he keeps a secret identity, and in some interpretations, especially pre-Crisis ones, he acts very different in his life as Clark Kent. But other than being cowardly, Superman doesn’t usually have to act in ways that defy his basic principles as Clark. In fact, he usually still acts according to them, fighting for truth and justice in his journalism. For Superman to act for an extended period of time like he believes in something he doesn’t actually believe in seems like something that would be hard for him to do convincingly.
This is exacerbated by the fact that Superman would be under extreme stress due to Luthor keeping his family captive and continuously threatening his life. This would be extremely hard for anyone to cope with, especially someone as caring as Superman. Could Superman successfully keep his composure and act as the right-hand man to his greatest enemy, the one who’s imprisoning his family and ready to kill them at any time? I have serious doubts about that.
Even if you want to dismiss that all by saying Superman would do anything to prevent his family’s death (though none of this would actually rescue them from Luthor’s clutches, but only incentivize him to keep them forever), I still feel like the intricacies of this plot point would be very messy to make plausible. I can’t believe Superman would never be able to communicate to any of his allies what’s going on, especially considering Martian Manhunter’s mind reading powers and Wonder Woman’s lasso of truth. T.M.M. even mentions the fact that Batman is usually able to figure out stuff like this, but he doesn’t actually give an explanation for why he can’t, other than just emphasizing that the world and everyone’s emotions are in a bad state.
What Makes an Idea Good?
The idea of a DC counterpart to Marvel’s Civil War story may sound like a good idea, and I’m sure a good story with this premise could exist. But in T.M.M.’s video, he doesn’t really tell a story. He simply describes some more specific ideas for implementing that basic idea. It’s possible a story could be written that keeps all his ideas and could be good, but I can only judge what I’ve been given. And from what I’ve been given, it’s hard to imagine a great story.
It’s difficult to measure what makes an idea good. Good stories can be made of ideas that sound bad, and vice versa. But T.M.M.’s version of the idea of a DC Civil War (as described in his original video) doesn’t sound good to me, because such a big part of it is Superman getting on board with the Registration Act for an uninteresting and somewhat contrived reason. In order to truly sell me on it in a story, the author would need to do an excellent job implementing it. They’d have to find a way to make it just as interesting as Superman making decisions based on his own beliefs and desires, and they’d have to make every part of it believable, from the initial kidnapping of Superman’s family to Superman never “breaking character” in front of Luthor to none of Superman’s allies figuring out what’s going on. So much effort would be need to be taken to make this premise work that it would just be better to go with a different idea.
Maybe that’s what makes an idea good: how easy it would be to implement well. But I’m not completely sure about that. It might also be the potential of that idea: the total “amount of goodness” that can be gotten from an idea. In truth, both of these contribute to an idea being good, and the best ideas do well in both of these categories. Ultimately, goodness of ideas is subjective, as is the goodness of their implementations, but I feel like I’ve explained why I find this idea unsatisfactory.
Addendum: The Follow-Up Video
I don’t want to go in detail about this video, but thankfully, it does directly address my central concern and make it so Superman is no longer being coerced into being pro-registration. Instead, he supports the act willingly, and alongside this, Luthor is conceptualized as being much less evil than he was in the original video. Unlike in the original video, where it seemed like Lex was just acting as a pure villain and the Registration Act was just part of his evil plan, it now feels like he may be acting at least partially honestly for the good of the country and world, and it’s a more reasonable point of view to be pro-registration.
It’s good to see T.M.M. listened to feedback and changed his idea. If I was to write a story with the same basic premise, I likely would not make Superman join the pro-registration side, but I think making him join either side willingly is far more conducive to good storytelling than having him be forced to do actions he doesn’t want to do. Ultimately, letting Superman actually do what he wants to do feels like valuing him as a character, whereas having him be manipulated basically treats him like a plot point.