Hero vs Hero And Why I Don't Write Em

With both Superman v Batman and Civil War coming out the same year, 2016, there seems to be a common theme relating to them. Heroes vs Heroes. I remember when I first heard about the news of a MCU movie adapted from Civil War I was like"Why make an adaptation out of a crappy comic arc?" Especially when you look at the fact that it hardly got a proper build up. Look at Age of Ultron, the heroes parted on good terms. Now Tony and Steve are at eachothers throats?

Then you have Batman V Superman. I give props in that they managed to give a bit of a reason for Batman to fight Superman but lets be honest. I don't think it wouldn't have hurt if Batman just talked it out with Superman. Especially the moment he noticed that Superman was all the more willing to turn himself in for his actions in Man of Steel.

Same thing with Cap and Iron Man. They've known eachother to where they could have talked it out. But thats the logical approach. Another problem with Civil War is how hypocritical it all is. Tony wants to bring Bucky to justice yet they let Wanda go with a slap on the wrist in Age of Ultron. Double Standard much guys?

What I also don't like is how gimmicky the hero vs hero concept has been. And the cause of the conflict happens in the most unoriginal manner possible. Two heroes or a group of heroes fight due to a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding?! Now the first Avengers movie I didn't mind much cause at least it was implied Loki was manipulating things behind the scenes. Yet they still continue to fight eachother in Ultron then in Civil War. Its to the point that I question if The Avengers can go one movie without fighting eachother? Next thing I'll know is they'll fight eachother in Infinity War till Thanos show up.

And we will probably get the same situation when an actual Justice League movie comes. Which is a shame as I was kinda hoping that if DC really wanted to separate themselves from Marvel then the first act is to NOT have Superman and Batman fight. Have them meet, talk it out, then work together to fight a common enemy.

Another thing I don't like about heroes vs heroes is how stupid it makes both sides look. Avengers vs X-Men. That is all.

I think the best methods in hero vs hero are usually when a villain has been manipulating the whole thing.

For instance in Justice League Unlimited we had the Cadmus Arc. It had heroes vs heroes but in the end it was Lex, and Brainiac who was manipulating the events. And what helped a bit was that there was alot of build up that led to the Cadmus arc. And in the end the heroes admit their mistakes then matured because of it. Cause the heroes learned from their mistakes Marvel!

Then in another Justice League Unlimited episode it had superheroines fighting eachother but one half of the superheroines were mind controlled at the time.

It was....glamorous.! And once again the villain was behind it.

I'd hardly,if ever, do a hero vs hero situation and usually when I do it usually is in a friendly competition scenario. Not fight over something stupid. Even in my Buffy series when Buffy and Angel first met the meeting was cautious at best but the two of them had enough maturity to understand that they're facing a bigger threat. Buffy might not completely trust Angel but the more allies against The Master the better.

And in Into The Darkness. Violet, at the time, wasn't a big fan of vigilante heroes but was all the more willing to work with one when handling a common threat. To the point where they even become friends.

Violet: "And that is all me and Obsidian are"

Nancy: "Whatever you say Vi"

Violet: "I'm involved with Chun, you know this"

But yeah thats my stake on the concept. To those who like it power to ya but just be aware that if one must do it, be creative about it.