I would say those were already in question, and are just as aggravating as the comic itself.

But this adds to it. I get that you don't want to give away all your plot points, but I don't see any way this doesn't end without spencer having outright lied rather than just dancing around the truth.

I don't really understand what the actual plotline is anymore.

So, according to the story so far, the Nazis originally won WW2 with the help of Steve Rogers, but the Allied Forces got ahold of a Cosmic Cube and re-wrote history so that they won (apparently keeping the whole genocide and nuclear bomb thing though, because that's 'winning' according to Nick Spencer). Then, Red Skull (Or was it Baron Zemo?) uses a sentient Cosmic Cube to put history back to the way it was specifically for Cap, so he's back to being a Nazi goon, and is secretly trying to initiate some kind of... Inhumans Genocide?

But there's also a classic Cap, possibly from the past, wandering around helping people?

I just don't understand. Nick Spencer has been doing the Nazi Cap storyline for over a year now. I get the impression he's making it up as he goes along.

The odds that this ends up exactly like Age of Ultron or House of M where the status quo returns but the Hydra Cap universe remains with its own universe number are like 4-5

Marvel Comics have a plot line? /s

This seems about right. I think the making it up as he goes along part is the most accurate part, esp. since classic Cap seems to be here just because people were getting really mad at Hydra Cap.

That story is exactly one Kari Wuhrer away from being a series of FMV clips from a late '90s Command & Conquer CD-ROM.

having seen "beserker: hell's warrior," I can definitely attest that kari wuhrer is truly the hallmark for an "...and then..." plot

So, just saw a few scans from the Sally Floyd interview with NaziCap.

Hey, if you don't want us to call him a Nazi, don't have him cosplay as DC's Captain Nazi. Seriously, except for the lack of swastikas it was the same outfit.

Strongest agreement. You have the makings of a nice "fan manifesto" (fanifesto?) here.


I would add:
--Only break what you make. If a writer and artist invent a character and want to radically change or do away with her with the editor's blessing, great. If, to make their rep, creators want to retcon Batman as an alien-human-bat hybrid adopted by the Waynes . . . not great.

I understand that "only break what you make" is impracticable. Given the number of books big characters have to carry, large changes are inevitable. However, they should be approached caaaaarefully.

An example of a big arc I rather liked was Knightfall. It pretty much stayed within the Bat-books; Wayne was badly hurt but not dead-and-miraculously-resurrected; it let DC play with the Image-ification of Batman without committing Wayne to that path; and it allowed some nice interaction between the various Bats, Gordon, and Grayson.

--Supporting characters are solid gold -- think three times before killing them off. Ralph Dibny was a little ridiculous. He had a strange heroic name, and was too much like Plas in looks. What set him apart were one of the best marriages in comics and the quirky-detective-team niche Ralph and Sue inhabited. So, of course, we must kill off Sue Dibny to turn the DCU on its ear.

--Simple principle that my parents taught me through Bridge: "A card laid is a card played." Comic-book death should be rare, meaningful for the characters it impacts, and permanent. Bucky and Barry gave their lives for causes they believed in -- let them lie! Jason Todd's death was poorly done, but the quiet, somber image of his uniform in a glass case informed the Bat-books for a generation. Bringing back these characters softens the impact of their deaths, and undoes years of characterization.


At this point, the Big Two need a serious intervention. I get that the endless reboots and crossovers are attempts to make money in a declining industry, but we are far past the point of the cure being worse than the disease.

Edit: To make this post at least slightly relevant to the topic at hand, I will say that I have never liked a single Cosmic Cube plot.

I love Cap at just above street level, seeking to find the best in America and his place in the world. He punches bullies. He stares down people who are more powerful than he is, including those in the US government who want to use Cap as a fig-leaf and figurehead. He is a good teacher and a good learner. Drama comes from Cap's own occasional weariness and disillusionment; his distaste for organizations and heroes that follow an ends-justify-the-means credo; and the fact that old evils always find new faces.

When the writer says this is "Steve Rogers", I can believe him. The question becomes, "Which Steve Rogers?".
I'd say it was the Commie smasher Cap of the 50's. He went by the name "Steve Rogers" in his civilian life as well as being "Captain America".
He was shown to still be alive.
So, it's possible that the original Cap was swapped out with this Cap. It would explain this Cap's attitude.
The 1950's Cap has been the "Grand Director" before. No reason he can't be again.

But the "Commie-Smasher" cap is William Burnside, not Steve Rogers. If that's who Spencer means when he says "this is Steve Rogers," I call bull####.

Yeah, and Commie Smasher Cap was pretty well accounted for in Brubaker's Captain America run. Though, he was being very creepy in trying to take over Steve's life. Still reeks of BS.

It was Reeve Stodgers all along!

*gasp* what if... it's steve the intern!

But it was stated that he had changed his name to "Steve Rogers" before he took up the mantle of Cap in the 50's. Technically & legally, he is "Steve Rogers". Just not the Steve Rogers we all know from WW2.

Well, first off, he was still alive. Secondly, the Cosmic Cube could have done a swap.
If it can de-age a person, surely it can heal a person. At least physically.

Just feels very haphazard. But then this event has bothered me on so many levels.