Is the real problem with "Iron Man" the writers? [Archive]

mindcrime

12-16-2007, 04:36 PM

for all the iron man hating, for all the the iron man defending, this is the real problem with tony stark: the writers. i just got through reading the 1st couple issues of the new nova series, and i noticed something. when nova comes back to earth, he has a run in with iron man. tony is very respectful & nice to nova. nova gets ticked at stark, for bringing half of shield to nova's house ( tony didnt know it was nova, at that point), & tony apologizies. he respectfully asks nova if he would register. nova says can i have 24 hrs to think it over? tony says no problem. now tony goes to thor, someone who has been a friend & teammate for years, & demands that thor registers. going as far as threating to take assgard if he has to. W...T...F??? THIS IS THE PROBLEM. i mean, tony & nova have met a couple of times maybe? tony & thor have been friends for a very long time. it just doesnt make sense. it cant be that thor is more powerful & tony was more worried about him, nova is in the same class as thor power wise (or very close to it), & tony was very cool with him. it would make more sense that tony would be more worried about nova, not knowing him as well. so what the hell is up? do these writers even know each other? do they work in the same building? i know im not the only one that see's this. it has gotten so bad, that im sure alot of readers dont know what to think of tony. there are readers who read certain books, who only see tony the tyrant. there are others who read certain books, where tony seems like a guy, who just wants to do the right thing, & is actually nice most of the time. then there are others who read all the books he is in (me), who dont quite know what to think. he changes from title to title. im beginning to wonder if the writers even know what they doing anymore with tony stark. its gotten beyond frustrating, for me anyway. what do you guys think?

Moses

12-16-2007, 04:45 PM

Definitely. I think the problem is that what Marvel have tried to do is make him into a very carefully balanced character, he's loathed by others for his actions but he's doing what he sees is right by his futurist outlook, which requires a lot of subtle skill to keep him from tipping into either camp. But I think a lot of the writers (ESPECIALLY JMS) don't really know how to do this and have just used him as this moustache-twiddling vaudeville bad guy, which kind makes a mockery of everything they've been trying, and are trying still, to do with him. I think the Knauffs have been doing a great job in his own book, I think that Marvel need to start orchestrating how people write him, because he's going to be showing up in everyone's books for a while still so this problem is only going to get worse if it's not addressed.

Iron Man is the most fascinating character in comics right now and could continue to be for a long time to come, but only if Marvel sorts out his appearances.

mindcrime

12-16-2007, 04:55 PM

XPac

12-16-2007, 05:02 PM

Honestly I think JMS is the main artichect of the CW and post CW Tony Stark. It was the Tony Stark that we first saw in Amazing Spiderman that basically laid the blue print for what was to come (though Bendis Illuminat Stark probably deserves equal billing).

As for Tony... I think he we his worst when he's dealing with people he's close to. His most jerkish moments have occured with Peter, Thor, and She-Hulk (who he was banging for a while). Without trying to psycho-analyze the guy too much, he probably went into jerkish SHIELD director mode as a defense mechanism to deal with his own guilt over it.

With Nova, a kid he barely knows who really had nothing to do with anything, there was no emotional investment. No guilt he had to work through.

Fatguy

12-16-2007, 05:08 PM

I pretty much only have very small annoyances with how Marvel is handling Iron Man right now. For the most part, I'm actually really enjoying the direction they've taken him.

Except for JMS Iron Man. Whenever JMS writes Iron Man, it makes me want to find a paper shredder.

mikekerr3

12-16-2007, 05:11 PM

Iron Man is the most fascinating character in comics right now and could continue to be for a long time to come, but only if Marvel sorts out his appearances.

Fascinating like Hannibal Lector maybe. I don't think there is a writer skilled enough to turn him back into a hero again without a retcon or reboot. The character has violated too many of a lot of peoples most deeply held values.

The problem is i don't think Marvel understands how repugnant the character is to many people

mindcrime

12-16-2007, 05:12 PM

XPac

12-16-2007, 05:14 PM

Fascinating like Hannibal Lector maybe. I don't think there is a writer skilled enough to turn him back into a hero again without a retcon or reboot. The character has violated too many of a lot of peoples most deeply held values.

The problem is i don't think Marvel understands how repugnant the character is to many people

Honestly, I'm not sure Marvel minds if he gets a lot of fans heated. It's something they can use.

Since CW, he's had more guest appearances than Spidey and Wolverine combined. I think a lot of writers know Iron Man can get a rise out of readers, and frankly try to milk it.

mikekerr3

12-16-2007, 05:20 PM

Mark_S

12-16-2007, 05:34 PM

[QUOTE=XPac;5992787]Honestly, I'm not sure Marvel minds if he gets a lot of fans heated. It's something they can use.

Since CW, he's had more guest appearances than Spidey and Wolverine combined. I think a lot of writers know Iron Man can get a rise out of readers, and frankly try to milk it.[/QUOTE

I wouldn't be so offended if the editorial staff would stop acting surprised that many consider him a villain. They wrote a character who acts evily and are surprised people consider him a villain?:mad:

That could be a large part of the problem though. They don't think of him that way. No one sets out to write a bad story and some writers will never admit to writing a bad story. You mentioned JMS, I'm sure if you talked to him he could give you hours of reasons why he thinks that Tony is the way he is, justifying and rationalizing every move. The problem is that he can't seem to distill that into a comic book story. And I think some of the writers get down right angry at the fans when they point something out that they think is wrong. Bendis was extremely upset from what I hear about the Hood/Tigra contreversy. In his mind he introduced a great villain, why didn't the people who complained about the fight see that?

But it is not so much the writers, it is the editors job to try to untangle the portrayals and keep track of what Tony is doing to whom. And the editors don't seem to care, though it has been said that they do care.

With cw and the rest of the stories of the past few years there has been very little editing and a lot of ego's on parade, with dashes of political preaching. And I don't see a halt to it any time soon, which means that Tony will still be hated a year from now. Maybe two years from now. Unless Secret Invasion is any good and I doubt that it will be. Marvel has set up SI as a time when the heroes get back together and yet there is no way they can get back together, not after all the hate that cw stirred up. At the very least no anti-sra group would work with Tony period. But the writers don't see the hate, they see a grand tale on the scale of War and Peace and they don't see the problems with the two sides working together so long as there is a big enough villain in the mix. What they see is a lot of fans who's opinions don't really matter as long as the sales are high. They'll push the heroes together and cw will most likely be ignored and the same fans who complain now about Tony will complain about that and marvel won't care.

Or at least if they will care they won't show it. They don't have to really, it is their company and their characters. If they want to shred them they can do that.

Mark_S

DeadXMan

12-16-2007, 06:07 PM

Omega Alpha

12-16-2007, 06:17 PM

His problem is JMS (and Jenkins). And the fact that the people that whine about him being worse than Hitler DON'T READ HIS BOOK or keep complaining it doesn't feel like the "real" one.

XPac

12-16-2007, 06:23 PM

His problem is JMS (and Jenkins). And the fact that the people that whine about him being worse than Hitler DON'T READ HIS BOOK or keep complaining it doesn't feel like the "real" one.

They're all the "real one." Including the Tony in JMS's and Jenkins book.

mindcrime

12-16-2007, 06:28 PM

so Tony pays May's Medical bills for peter and solves the agrarian problem with a little humility thrown in (which is what he needs) and no major bloodshed or property damage

and people is still thinks JMS writes him as a jerk?

Newsflash People Tony Stark has always been a jerk.

Maybe we need an Ironjerkery site.

well gee, jms wrote tony as a total ass in thor #3, & then has spider man web him up, & make tony pretty much helpless, as peter goes into the "my life sucks" speech. im not dissing spidey, but im having problems believing he could just web iron man for a 5 minute speech. he should just done that to the hulk in WWH. he could have totally webed him up, & let the other heroes pound on him for awhile. anyway, jms likes to write tony as a pompus ass, who can only be nice, when he is helpless. he's not written that way in cap, or his own book, or in the aformentioned nova, or in mighty avengers (not that he's really been in it much). he's not even written that way in the illuminati books. so there IS a big differance in the way jms writes him. if people read all the books tony's in, they will see it.

SquidSquod

12-16-2007, 09:11 PM

I don't think it's that frustrating, but somehow and someway Marvel has to realize that there are Alpha (or classically known as Iconic) superheroes and the rest. Iron Man is an Alpha superhero franchise as do Spider-Man, Wolverine & the X-Men, Hulk, Captain America, and Thor. These are the superheroes that have great potential of mass marketability and would do so if they're given chances of great movies and great stories in the comics. These are superheroes who will be compared with its counterpart in the DC Comics in the group of 3 (Supe, Bat, WW), group of 5 (Supe, Bat, WW. GL, Flash), or group of 7.

I'll give you an example of where Marvel has its priorities mixed and now its handling is in disarray: the movie business. Under its short lived Euphoria, Marvel has projected many movies based on lesser known characters. Elektra, anyone? Deathlok. Shang-Chi. Black Widow. Ant Man. Really, who cares about them when you realize that there are Captain America and Thor need to be finished first. Now because of the writer guild strike all these iconic heroes get thrown off out of schedule because Marvel don't have its priorities straight.

Now what do you see in Iron Man? Out of the Alpha Marvel superheroes, I see the anti-Batman in him as they're both resourceful character that use mind over muscle and generous amount of jerkery to reach their goals. Batman is the de-facto #1 hero in the DC lineup, so Marvel needs to do a little more to push its brand of Batman. CW helps towards a mainstream Iron Man, yet some of the unproductive portrayals count toward the backsteps. Again Marvel should've sorted out its priorities by now. Will Marvel wants a weak Iron Man or strong Iron Man to be comparable to Batman? Time will tell.

Arilou

12-17-2007, 05:49 AM

I agree about the main point: Marvel tried to make Tony an ambigious character, only it ended up as "Write him as a good guy in this book and a bad guy in that book" which.... Uh.... Doesen't work very well.

The Knauffs, Gage, Bendis to some extent... These can write Tony very well. Slott has problems with it. Jenkins and JMS are generally pretty bad at it. Millar seems to WANT to write it well, but just can't.

The point is that Tony IS a jerk. He isn't a nice person. He should however, never be impolite. He's a jerk because he's smarter than just about everyone else knows it, and is willing to use it. He certainly isn't *rude* unless he thinks he'll get something from it. (or has something more important to do)

SquidSquod

12-17-2007, 06:22 AM

Arilou

12-17-2007, 07:53 AM

I think there are a few things. For one, the fact that he's "just a normal guy". Admittedly with wads of cash and technology, but he's still *human* in a way Tony isn't. He's also, or at least his superhero persona, self-made, and self-improving.

That, I think,ties into his fundamental optimism: Things can get better. WE can get better. Nature did not give man the ability to fly, or go to the moon. We did. We can change the world, change ourselves, for the better. Tomorrow will be better than today, if we put our minds to it.

SquidSquod

12-17-2007, 08:36 AM

XPac

12-17-2007, 08:41 AM

Tony is a jerk, yes. He can't turn into a nice guy like Steve because that's not him. But he needs to have something to compensate for readers to love him. Well Batman is a jerk too, but what makes him the #1 character of DC? You guys think about it.

Batman is a jerk, but one of the reasons that he doesnt' get the same backlast that Tony does is because he doesn't ethically or morally compromise himself. Similiar to Cap actually, he has an unmoving ethical code and he'll always find a way to get the job done without compromising that. For all Bats smoke and mirrors, he's actually LESS likely to take a life than Superman or Cap. So it's easier to jump on board with his dickery because you know that in the end there are lines he won't cross, so he won't compromise himself.

So despite having a lot of similarities to Tony, he's actually got a lot of Cap elements to counterbalance them and still make him unquestionably a hero in most people's eyes.

But Tony is more of a hardcore realist. If he has to blow people up to achieve his goals, then he'll blow people up. It's something you can understand on some level. But it makes him a lesser hero in the eyes of a lot of people because virtually every other hero can somehow someway manage to achieve their goals without morally compromising themselves in that manner. It's what Batman has that Tony lacks.

XPac

12-17-2007, 08:46 AM

Batman is still a human because he’s still fighting mortal enemies like Joker, the Penguin, Riddler, etc. If it’s not on the JLA, there won’t be that BatGod that people like to talk about. Batman’s villains are mostly local and street level. Iron Man pre-Extremis is about a human in a metallic suit that even then fights global based villains. Escalation is on another level in terms of Iron Man. Iron Man actually built the means to go against superpowered beings and less depended upon current writers deus ex machina plot. When Iron Man goes against Hulk, there’s no doubt that Tony would have broken bones and fatal internal injuries without his suit or when his suit malfunctioned. On the other hand, the same thing could not be said when there is Batman vs Superman (or his villainous equivalent) because Bat can shrug them off under his techno-kevlar suit through writers discretion.

My point is: Iron Man goes a step further on the idea of self-sustaining man. He builds the means to go further than any Marvel heroes and even Batman. Batman appears to end up in a perpetual deadlock in capturing the same crooks he put in Arkham Asylum. Iron Man can actually terminate or make the fight against his traditional villains unequal anymore because they haven’t caught up with the “upgrades”.

Batman's rogues may be street level, but similar to Captain America he'll find himself battling gods and cosmic beings in a heartbeat. Like you said, he's a member of the JLA. So he might be fighting Joker on Monday, but Darkseid on Thursday. Being just a man is certainly a factor in his appeal, not unlike Cap.

You preiously could say that about Tony. But now he's actually a meta human with metahuman powers. Extremis is an interesting addition to Iron Man, but it also took away one of the elements that I though was cool about him. The fact that he moreso than even Batman or Cap, was just a man.

SquidSquod

12-17-2007, 08:56 AM

Batman is a jerk, but one of the reasons that he doesnt' get the same backlast that Tony does is because he doesn't ethically or morally compromise himself. Similiar to Cap actually, he has an unmoving ethical code and he'll always find a way to get the job done without compromising that. For all Bats smoke and mirrors, he's actually LESS likely to take a life than Superman or Cap. So it's easier to jump on board with his dickery because you know that in the end there are lines he won't cross, so he won't compromise himself.

So despite having a lot of similarities to Tony, he's actually got a lot of Cap elements to counterbalance them and still make him unquestionably a hero in most people's eyes.

But Tony is more of a hardcore realist. If he has to blow people up to achieve his goals, then he'll blow people up. It's something you can understand on some level. But it makes him a lesser hero in the eyes of a lot of people because virtually every other hero can somehow someway manage to achieve their goals without morally compromising themselves in that manner. It's what Batman has that Tony lacks.

Now I’m not a DC guy, but there ought to be a reason why Batman has a Batdickery site. True, Iron Man goes further in doing what he thinks not to be done, but he’s not without compassion and restrain as shown in current Captain America and Iron Man comics. Some writers who don’t understand Iron Man and clearly have an unknown vested interest try to make Iron Man without a glimmer of hope. That’s why we have stories about Iron Man blowing up some innocent guys because he like to further his abstract futurist agenda. Whatever the hell that means. He’s a hero for godsake. He’s not made as a Punisher or even a Wolverine. And if I recall correctly, he’s a smart man and he utilizes computer to aid him in future steps. Now, he makes hard choices AND he’s wrong: now that’s just bad writing. Why? Because he lost both counts. Not many heroes makes the hard choices. And the other heroes take the righteous glory? Well that sucks.

Sijo

12-17-2007, 09:13 AM

The problem is in part the writers, yes, but the REAL blame lies on the Editors. It's their job to see that everything meshes together, but even during Civil War itself the interpretation of the events was wildly disparate between several titles. These days there's too much "let's allow the writers to do things their own way" probably because many comics sell on the strength of who is writing them at the time. But writers come and go, yet the effects of what they write remain, so Marvel needs to put its foot down and be more strict if they want their plans for Iron Man to work, especially when the movie comes out.

Personally, I understand Tony's POV, I've always found him fascinating, I agree with the Pro-reg ideals BUT it cannot be denied he has been made to cross lines a real hero would not, and without clear enough justifications. I know they will fix him up eventually -that Extremis stuff *has* to be influencing him to some degree- and I await that moment, but until then I'm not reading his stories.

XPac

12-17-2007, 09:14 AM

Now I’m not a DC guy, but there ought to be a reason why Batman has a Batdickery site. True, Iron Man goes further in doing what he thinks not to be done, but he’s not without compassion and restrain as shown in current Captain America and Iron Man comics. Some writers who don’t understand Iron Man and clearly have an unknown vested interest try to make Iron Man without a glimmer of hope. That’s why we have stories about Iron Man blowing up some innocent guys because he like to further his abstract futurist agenda. Whatever the hell that means. He’s a hero for godsake. He’s not made as a Punisher or even a Wolverine. And if I recall correctly, he’s a smart man and he utilizes computer to aid him in future steps. Now, he makes hard choices AND he’s wrong: now that’s just bad writing. Why? Because he lost both counts. Not many heroes makes the hard choices. And the other heroes take the righteous glory? Well that sucks.

Well, that's the issue that will make or break Stark. If he makes the tough choices that will morally compromise himself he had better at least be right.

In the case of the Hulk, he and the Illuminati acted like unlawful jerks to exile him. But all they ended up doing was making things FAR worse. So they ended up being wrong on all counts.

In the comicbook universe, kharma can come back to haunt you. And I think that's a good thing. If you're going to cross the line even if it's done with good intent, it'll ultimately blow up in your face. That's the kharmic reward for doing it the "right" way.

SquidSquod

12-17-2007, 09:18 AM

Batman's rogues may be street level, but similar to Captain America he'll find himself battling gods and cosmic beings in a heartbeat. Like you said, he's a member of the JLA. So he might be fighting Joker on Monday, but Darkseid on Thursday. Being just a man is certainly a factor in his appeal, not unlike Cap.

You preiously could say that about Tony. But now he's actually a meta human with metahuman powers. Extremis is an interesting addition to Iron Man, but it also took away one of the elements that I though was cool about him. The fact that he moreso than even Batman or Cap, was just a man.

Now, this is where the disconnect comes in Batman comics. Traditionally he fights street level joes but now his batarangs have the power to stop cosmic beings and he has the agility of a space rat. Power upgrades, nope. It's just suspension of disbelief.

Again, Pre-Extremis Iron Man is just a man with a metal suit. With a rocket boot. With a laser. With a magnetic generator. The man actually has and carries means to go against superior opponents. You can't expect to bring just your kevlar mesh to battle against class 80 superbeings and as the modern New Avengers showed Captain America is through & through outclassed by Iron Man because realistically he's not prepped enough. Iron Man is the REAL man following a realistic reaction that you ought to have something before going against something dangerous. You got to be prepped against superpowered adversaries or don't go against them at all because you will be dead for not being prepped. Extremis Iron Man may not be a man anymore, and trust me a lot traditional Iron Man fans detest Extremis - but this allows Iron Man to go against superior adversaries and greater challenges.

SquidSquod

12-17-2007, 09:30 AM

Well, that's the issue that will make or break Stark. If he makes the tough choices that will morally compromise himself he had better at least be right.

In the case of the Hulk, he and the Illuminati acted like unlawful jerks to exile him. But all they ended up doing was making things FAR worse. So they ended up being wrong on all counts.

In the comicbook universe, kharma can come back to haunt you. And I think that's a good thing. If you're going to cross the line even if it's done with good intent, it'll ultimately blow up in your face. That's the kharmic reward for doing it the "right" way.

Well if Marvel Editors are smart in showing that Stark being a man composed with axon made up of Extremis nanotech, he doesn't bring the whole fallacies upon him. Stark and the more calculating Richards think about this, and although some bumps & errors are there, there will be some truths coming out.

Arilou

12-17-2007, 09:42 AM

In the case of the Hulk, he and the Illuminati acted like unlawful jerks to exile him. But all they ended up doing was making things FAR worse. So they ended up being wrong on all counts.

The irony is that had the plan gone off as planned, well, things would have worked out allright.

It was the actions of a third party (the Shadow Priests and the Red King) that made the plan blow up in their faces. (At least as far as the What-If is concerned)

In the comicbook universe, kharma can come back to haunt you. And I think that's a good thing. If you're going to cross the line even if it's done with good intent, it'll ultimately blow up in your face. That's the kharmic reward for doing it the "right" way.

And that makes for boring, predictable stories. Sometimes, you need to let the villains win, at least temporarily, sometimes you need to suspend the Hammer of Moral judgement because otherwise things become too certain, and certainity is boring.

XPac

12-17-2007, 10:08 AM

And that makes for boring, predictable stories. Sometimes, you need to let the villains win, at least temporarily, sometimes you need to suspend the Hammer of Moral judgement because otherwise things become too certain, and certainity is boring.

I don't disagree. Suspecting the hammer of moral judgement for a bit can be an excellent story device. Stark is a fine example.

For all the sins he committed, he essentially won Civil War. But the fact that he initially got away with cloning Thor just makes it that much sweeter when he finally comes face to face with him, and gets his butt handed to him for it. Same thing with Hulk... the fact that he got away with doing that to the Hulk just made Hulk beating him down for it that much more dramatic.

Kharmic justice doesn't have to take the form of instant satisfaction... it can be drawn out for dramatic effect. And in Starks case, while some readers were waiting for that hammer to drop, marvel was able to milk the heat generated from that to tell other stories. Nonetheless, the fact remains that it WILL come back to haunt you sooner or later. That's how it works in the comic book universe and again, I don't think that's a bad thing.

Arilou

12-17-2007, 10:16 AM

Kharmic justice doesn't have to take the form of instant satisfaction... it can be drawn out for dramatic effect.

It doesen't matter whether or not it is drawn out: When it goes from being a sweet surprise (or at least an expected development) to a certainity it loses its luster.

Because after a while you start to wonder why the heck the people in-story doesen't notice.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that it WILL come back to haunt you sooner or later. That's how it works in the comic book universe and again, I don't think that's a bad thing.

I do. Narrative rules are meant to be broken. The other way lies cliché and formula.

XPac

12-17-2007, 10:24 AM

It doesen't matter whether or not it is drawn out: When it goes from being a sweet surprise (or at least an expected development) to a certainity it loses its luster.

Because after a while you start to wonder why the heck the people in-story doesen't notice.

I do. Narrative rules are meant to be broken. The other way lies cliché and formula.

Well, if you're bored with the formula then don't read comics. Because that's what you're going to get.

As far as the conventional badguy/good guy dynamic goes... the villains can't ever REALLY win. If they kill the good guys and destroy mankind, that's pretty much it for the story. You can give them small dashes of victory here or there but ultimately they need to lose.

In regards to Tony... I'm not sure why it would be less boring to let him get away with what he did. They could have had Thor just shrug and ignore the Clor thing... but there's far more drama and story by confronting Stark about it. Same with Hulk. They could have just had Hulk let bygones be bygones with the Illuminati... but there's simply more story in having that come to a head rather than being dropped. Having Stark get away with it and simply move on may be cliche... but I don't agree that somehow makes it more boring. The heart of the drama stems from the conflict over what happened.

Arilou

12-17-2007, 10:48 AM

Well, if you're bored with the formula then don't read comics. Because that's what you're going to get.

Now and then you don't. Which is what I actually like (Watchmen is, of course, the big one)

As far as the conventional badguy/good guy dynamic goes... the villains can't ever REALLY win. If they kill the good guys and destroy mankind, that's pretty much it for the story. You can give them small dashes of victory here or there but ultimately they need to lose.¨

Depends what you mean by "lose" not every villain wants to kill all of mankind/rule the world.

In regards to Tony... I'm not sure why it would be less boring to let him get away with what he did. They could have had Thor just shrug and ignore the Clor thing... but there's far more drama and story by confronting Stark about it.

I don't mind the confrontation per se: I mind how *badly* it was written. In the five minutes it took me to read the story I got a "I could do this better" idea. Everything, characterization, the fighitng, was off in that issue. It was horrible.

It makes Tony come across as stupid, Thor like a douché and JMS as a hack.

The heart of the drama stems from the conflict over what happened.

But in order for that to be genuinly interesting you can't have it be predictable either. The suspense in WWH was to a great degree because we were asking ourselves "Did the Illuminati blow up the planet?" (as it turns out they had nothing to do with that)

XPac

12-17-2007, 10:55 AM

Now and then you don't. Which is what I actually like (Watchmen is, of course, the big one)

¨

Depends what you mean by "lose" not every villain wants to kill all of mankind/rule the world.

I don't mind the confrontation per se: I mind how *badly* it was written. In the five minutes it took me to read the story I got a "I could do this better" idea. Everything, characterization, the fighitng, was off in that issue. It was horrible.

It makes Tony come across as stupid, Thor like a douché and JMS as a hack.

But in order for that to be genuinly interesting you can't have it be predictable either. The suspense in WWH was to a great degree because we were asking ourselves "Did the Illuminati blow up the planet?" (as it turns out they had nothing to do with that)

I'll agree Tony came off stupid. Don't have a problem with Thor though, all things considered.

In regards to WWH... I think most of us knew we couldn't have the Illuminati blow up a world. The LESS cliche approach might have been to have them responsible... but having that much death dumped on heroes really would have been too much.

You can create the illusion that there's suspense and if it's written well enough you might even forget for a time that there's no way they'd have these heroes responsible for the destruction of a world, but in the back of most readers minds most knew that they couldn't do that.

There are limits to what you can do with an in-cannon story. Those limits may make things predictable at times, but they are also practical and necessary.

Exo

12-17-2007, 12:20 PM

Honestly I think JMS is the main artichect of the CW and post CW Tony Stark.

I agree, but it's not the message itself but the way JMS portrays it that's distasteful.

In CW #5 we had Ironman and Spiderman going at it before the capekillers bursted into the room with the result being Spidey fleeing the scene. Here we had a calm, rational, and IMO compassionate Tony objecting to Mariah sending out the Thunderbolts and that he needs but a chance to talk Pete out of defecting.

Enter Amazing Spider-Man #536, where mere moments later we have Spidey crashing down onto the streets with Ironman high on his heels screaming like a looney that Peter betrayed him. This came off the wrong way and it shows throughout JMS's entire take on the character. In a recent interview he points out that [in his opinion] Tony is a villain and thus he'll write him as being simply that. I don't mind Thor stomping Tony, I just don't like how JMS portrays Tony's character.

XPac

12-17-2007, 12:35 PM

I agree, but it's not the message itself but the way JMS portrays it that's distasteful.

In CW #5 we had Ironman and Spiderman going at it before the capekillers bursted into the room with the result being Spidey fleeing the scene. Here we had a calm, rational, and IMO compassionate Tony objecting to Mariah sending out the Thunderbolts and that he needs but a chance to talk Pete out of defecting.

Enter Amazing Spider-Man #536, where mere moments later we have Spidey crashing down onto the streets with Ironman high on his heels screaming like a looney that Peter betrayed him. This came off the wrong way and it shows throughout JMS's entire take on the character. In a recent interview he points out that [in his opinion] Tony is a villain and thus he'll write him as being simply that. I don't mind Thor stomping Tony, I just don't like how JMS portrays Tony's character.

It's certainly true that on many occasions Tony acted a bit less rationally than he should have. Really, that can be said about a lot of people... it's the only way the Civil War story could frankly have occured.

If everyone involved (from Tony to Cap to Hill to the powers that be within the US government) rationally talked things throughs, none of this could have happened. I think people's behavior had to be exaggerated for story effect.

mindcrime

12-17-2007, 12:54 PM

I agree, but it's not the message itself but the way JMS portrays it that's distasteful.

In CW #5 we had Ironman and Spiderman going at it before the capekillers bursted into the room with the result being Spidey fleeing the scene. Here we had a calm, rational, and IMO compassionate Tony objecting to Mariah sending out the Thunderbolts and that he needs but a chance to talk Pete out of defecting.

Enter Amazing Spider-Man #536, where mere moments later we have Spidey crashing down onto the streets with Ironman high on his heels screaming like a looney that Peter betrayed him. This came off the wrong way and it shows throughout JMS's entire take on the character. In a recent interview he points out that [in his opinion] Tony is a villain and thus he'll write him as being simply that. I don't mind Thor stomping Tony, I just don't like how JMS portrays Tony's character.

jms see's tony as a villian? well, now it makes sense. i think maybe joe q should get together with him & let him know that the other writers arent writing him this way. to just let a writer do this, when all the other writers arent, is irresponsable.

Exo

12-17-2007, 12:55 PM

It's certainly true that on many occasions Tony acted a bit less rationally than he should have. Really, that can be said about a lot of people... it's the only way the Civil War story could frankly have occured.

You still have to admit the distinct differences between the writer's interpretations of Tony Stark pre-, during and post-CW.

Yes, Tony has blood on his hands but he's not a government dog (or evil). But from what I've read in AMS, OMD #1 preview (http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/Spider-Man/OMD/OMD_04.html) and Thor #3, he's portrayed as being just that. This is not a coincidence. This is JMS's Tony.

XPac

12-17-2007, 12:58 PM

jms see's tony as a villian? well, now it makes sense. i think maybe joe q should get together with him & let him know that the other writers arent writing him this way. to just let a writer do this, when all the other writers arent, is irresponsable.

I don't think we should take that "villain" line that literally.

In the end, Stark does end up paying for Aunt May's medical expenses, and he does give Thor a free pass. So he's a jerk, but not a villain at least in his books (though one can argue some of his actions in Frontline was deserving of the term).

I think in a lot of cases, Tony's actions were more severe for the heroes he felt stronger emotional bond with. His jerkish behavior was probably him dealing badly with his own guilt, like some kind of defense mechanism. Not trying to excuse it... but in storyterms I can sort of buy it.

Alan2099

12-17-2007, 12:58 PM

Exo

12-17-2007, 01:27 PM

To be honest, I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference here between how how the various writers show him. Sure JMS writes him in a bit more negative light, but he's only appeared in stories under JMS where he would be shown in a negative way anyway.

The fight JMS picked up (http://www.popcultureshock.com/index.php?p=40683&page=5) where Millar left off (http://popcultureshock.com/index.php?p=40644&page=7) clearly shows Stark's personality switch. It's just distasteful writing and bad characterisation by JMS in my opinion.

XPac

12-17-2007, 01:34 PM

The fight JMS picked up (http://www.popcultureshock.com/index.php?p=40683&page=5) where Millar left off (http://popcultureshock.com/index.php?p=40644&page=7) clearly shows Stark's personality switch. It's just distasteful writing and bad characterisation by JMS in my opinion.

That's why it's probably not a good idea to have 2 different writers cutting into each other scene by scene that way, unless they have a REALLY good editor keeping tabs on things. There clearly were differences in the scene.

Basically the writers flipped things. In one version, Peter was the more rationale one while in the other Tony was. Whether one version is more right than the other is a matter of perspective I suppose.

That said, I think the story of Peter and Tony is sort of JMS's story to tell. That was really Millar telling his interpretation of JMS's story that just happened to overlap into Civil War. So I think JMS's version kind of gets dibs.

Exo

12-17-2007, 01:46 PM

That's why it's probably not a good idea to have 2 different writers cutting into each other scene by scene that way, unless they have a REALLY good editor keeping tabs on things. There clearly were differences in the scene.

Yes the editor is more to blame than the writers for this. Yet a lot of writers seem to "get" Tony whereas by now, it should be known to all that JMS writes a poor man's Tony Stark.

XPac

12-17-2007, 01:50 PM

Yes the editor is more to blame than the writers for this. Yet a lot of writers seem to "get" Tony whereas by now, it should be known to all that JMS writes a poor man's Tony Stark.

That's assuming there's a "right" or "wrong" version of Tony Stark to get and not get. Like I said, an arguement can be made that JMS was the architect of the CW Tony Stark and other writers were just buidling on what he created.

When you have a lot of different writings doing the same character, there's going to be differences. That almost can't be helped. As long as it's not too extreme, I think it's passable. JMS's Stark did act like a jerk... but he also agreed to pay for Aunt May's medical bills. That's not too bad.

Shellhead

12-17-2007, 02:11 PM

Of course the problem is the writers. Most fiction is written by a single writer. Even if that writer does a long series with the same setting and/or characters, that writer tends to maintain a certain consistency of characterization and tone.

With comics, we get these characters who are around for decades. Over the course of many years, we inevitably get a variety of writers, and some of them will tend to have an unusual perspective about the characters. And certain lazy writers will deliberately do things very differently, just to get attention. Too many changes by too many writers, and we eventually have characters who lack a coherent personality. Or else the only consistent personality traits tend to be the most superficial and obvious.

CMBMOOL

12-17-2007, 02:17 PM

I don't think we should take that "villain" line that literally.

In the end, Stark does end up paying for Aunt May's medical expenses, and he does give Thor a free pass. So he's a jerk, but not a villain at least in his books (though one can argue some of his actions in Frontline was deserving of the term).

I think in a lot of cases, Tony's actions were more severe for the heroes he felt stronger emotional bond with. His jerkish behavior was probably him dealing badly with his own guilt, like some kind of defense mechanism. Not trying to excuse it... but in storyterms I can sort of buy it.

So TOny's being a jerk is really a mask to hide out his true feelings, makes no sense that Dr. Samson can not figure him out. :(

CMBMOOL

12-17-2007, 02:19 PM

That's assuming there's a "right" or "wrong" version of Tony Stark to get and not get. Like I said, an arguement can be made that JMS was the architect of the CW Tony Stark and other writers were just buidling on what he created.

When you have a lot of different writings doing the same character, there's going to be differences. That almost can't be helped. As long as it's not too extreme, I think it's passable. JMS's Stark did act like a jerk... but he also agreed to pay for Aunt May's medical bills. That's not too bad.

To me I see it as a man who deep down does feel bad for the mess that he help cause and wold like to make amends anyway he can. :(

That's is how I see JMS's Tony Stark in Spider-man.

XPac

12-17-2007, 02:25 PM

So TOny's being a jerk is really a mask to hide out his true feelings, makes no sense that Dr. Samson can not figure him out. :(

Well, it's not JUST a mask... he REALLY is a jerk. But yeah, I do think his guilt over what's gone down has sort of forced him to put up a harsher appearance as sort of a defense mechanism. Course, that's just my psyche 101 rearing it's ugly head... who knows.

Exo

12-17-2007, 02:33 PM

That's assuming there's a "right" or "wrong" version of Tony Stark to get and not get.

I thought you didn't like the characterisation in CW?

Anyway, what I ment by "poor-man's Tony Stark" is that he serves JMS only from a story perspective: the all-recognisable antagonist. He does this easy by say, write Tony as a looney or as a government stooge:

Tony: "You turned on me Peter. Not just me but your own government. There are penalties for that. Now you have to pay them."

or as a government stooge and as bad comedy:

Tony: "My armor's fried, what do I do now?"
Thor: "... Walk."
<background laughter>

It's not the message JMS wants to make but the way he portrays Tony that's a turn off. In Thor #3; Tony needs Thor to sign up. That's fair as it's Tony's job. But don't make Tony act like an *** just to highlight the need for a well placed ****kicking. It's just poor writing.

You want a fair portrayal? Look no further than to the Knaufs or Gage or, heck even Bendis. They seem "get" it and belive me when I say JMS should be the last writer on Iron Man.

Mark_S

12-17-2007, 02:45 PM

XPac

12-17-2007, 02:57 PM

I thought you didn't like the characterisation in CW?

Anyway, what I ment by "poor-man's Tony Stark" is that he serves JMS only from a story perspective: the all-recognisable antagonist. He does this easy by say, write Tony as a looney or as a government stooge:

Tony: "You turned on men Peter. Not just me but your own government. There are penalties for that. Now you have to pay them."

or as a government stooge and as bad comedy:

Tony: "My armor's fried, what do I do now?"
Thor: "... Walk."
<background laughter>

It's not the message JMS wants to make but the way he portrays Tony that's a turn off. In Thor #3; Tony needs Thor to sign up. That's fair as it's Tony's job. But don't make Tony act like an *** just to highlight the need for a well placed ****kicking. It's just poor writing.

You want a fair portrayal? Look no further than to the Knaufs or Gage or, heck even Bendis. They seem "get" it and belive me when I say JMS should be the last writer on Iron Man.

I didn't like Millar's Cap, but his Tony was okay. Again, he did things I don't think he should have... but aside from maybe Clor it was passable. Bad characterization was frankly necessary to get Civil War to happen at all.

And it's expected you'll get a more symathetic potrayal of Tony in Tony's own book. He's the hero there. That said, I don't think JMS s potrayal is that bad. He did act like a jerk, but in the end he gave Thor what he wanted. Same with Peter in regards to helping Aunt May. So like I said, don't think it's really that bad.

I do think the guy IS a jerk. He will say the wrong thing at times. Doesn't make him evil, but I won't say it's bad writing either.

Alan2099

12-17-2007, 02:59 PM

Considering this is a guy that started a fire to lure out heroes, then had his men shoot a few of them, and then said he just wanted to talk, I don't see how what he did with Thor or Spidey is anyway out of character.

Mark_S

12-17-2007, 03:10 PM

And with Thor he only gave him a pass because Thor beat him up. Tony is a bully in that issue, you beat the bully and he runs away saying that your lucky he's not gonna hurt you now, but he will get you someday.

Mark_S

Exo

12-17-2007, 03:14 PM

And it's expected you'll get a more symathetic potrayal of Tony in Tony's own book. He's the hero there. That said, I don't think JMS s potrayal is that bad. He did act like a jerk, but in the end he gave Thor what he wanted. Same with Peter in regards to helping Aunt May. So like I said, don't think it's really that bad.

Of course it all comes down to a matter of opinion: what do you as a reader deem acceptable? But when the man himself believes Tony is a villain and writes him as such accordingly, I find it unacceptable as it opposes the portrayal in the other books. It's the editor's fault for the personality disorder that transpired in CW#5 --> AMS #536, but that doesn't seem to have stopped JMS from walking Tony down a path different to what the other writer's are doing with him today.

Tobias Drake

12-17-2007, 03:17 PM

XPac

12-17-2007, 03:19 PM

Of course it all comes down to a matter of opinion: what do you as a reader deem acceptable? But when the man himself believes Tony is a villain and writes him as such accordingly, I find it unacceptable as it opposes the portrayal in the other books. It's the editor's fault for the personality disorder that transpired in CW#5 --> AMS #536, but that doesn't seem to have stopped JMS from walking Tony down a path different to what the other writer's are doing with him today.

That's the thing... I don't think he wrote him as a villain. An antagonist yes, but not as a villain. Again, despite acting like a jerk to Peter he does help his aunt out. And he does end up giving Thor more leeway than frankly one in his position probably should have. Jerk yes... villain? Not there (though Frontline makes a descent arguement).

XPac

12-17-2007, 03:21 PM

Really, I don't have a problem with JMS's Stark mostly. It's just his Thor appearance that I find issue with; I've heard that Marvel wedged Stark into that and JMS didn't really want to deal with him this early, which would partially explain it if it's true.

Given the story though, it needed to be dealt with. Really, how long would it take for the US government to notice Asgard floating over the state of Oklahoma?

That's the elephant in the room that needed to be addressed, so they could freely move on to other things.

Tobias Drake

12-17-2007, 03:26 PM

Given the story though, it needed to be dealt with. Really, how long would it take for the US government to notice Asgard floating over the state of Oklahoma?

That's the elephant in the room that needed to be addressed, so they could freely move on to other things.

That, I do agree with, though I wish they'd handled it a bit better. I expected a more rational argument from the pro-Reg side; something along the lines of, "If you're going to establish a sovereign nation on American soil exempt from American law, then you'll need to go through more beaurocracy than simply buying a deed. Likewise, if you want to establish Valhalla as a part of America, then you're going to need to abide by the rulings of the American government."

Something more rational than "If you're not with us, then you're against us!" This was definitely the most jackass portrayal of Stark I've seen since Frontline. It can potentially be justified; he initially tried to approach Thor as a friend and ally, and when he was recieved with cold, stony silence, one could argue that he became defensive, which made him fall back on a cold, stony approach of his own.

That it even needs justification, however, speaks volumes about how it was written.

Exo

12-17-2007, 03:36 PM

That's the thing... I don't think he wrote him as a villain. An antagonist yes, but not as a villain.

Well he's not a government stooge either and him meeting up with Thor compared to Nova, as the thread starter mentioned, is also an example where his behaviour differs greatly from one another. It's a matter of opinion. And taste (how I personally want Tony as being written).

But then comes these long and tiresome discussions on this very forum, where someone argues that Tony is a X because in issue Y he acts like a Z. Then someone else mentions event A that transpires in book B that shows Tony being a C and the argument goes back and forth because we can't dismiss either characterisation. It's a flawed argument when it turns out the characterisation is a mixed bag of mysteries.

XPac

12-17-2007, 03:39 PM

That, I do agree with, though I wish they'd handled it a bit better. I expected a more rational argument from the pro-Reg side; something along the lines of, "If you're going to establish a sovereign nation on American soil exempt from American law, then you'll need to go through more beaurocracy than simply buying a deed. Likewise, if you want to establish Valhalla as a part of America, then you're going to need to abide by the rulings of the American government."

Something more rational than "If you're not with us, then you're against us!" This was definitely the most jackass portrayal of Stark I've seen since Frontline. It can potentially be justified; he initially tried to approach Thor as a friend and ally, and when he was recieved with cold, stony silence, one could argue that he became defensive, which made him fall back on a cold, stony approach of his own.

That it even needs justification, however, speaks volumes about how it was written.

Stark could have given a more rationale pitch... but there's no way in hell the book should or would have been resolved by them sitting on a table hammering out some kind of treaty. Frankly that's how Civil War itself should have been handled right at the start of the first issue of the series, but it makes for a bad comic book.

Writers to tend to try to veer things in a direction of a fight. Sometimes those things are a bit too forced. But given what Tony did with Clor, and given that Thor basically dumped Asgard in the middle of the US, justifying a fight here isn't the most unreasable effort I've ever seen.

Mark_S

12-17-2007, 03:41 PM

Well he's not a government stooge either and him meeting up with Thor compared to Nova, as the thread starter mentioned, is also an example where his behaviour differs greatly from one another. It's a matter of opinion. And taste (how I personally want Tony as being written).

But then comes these long and tiresome discussions on this very forum, where someone argues that Tony is a X because in issue Y he acts like a Z. Then someone else mentions event A that transpires in book B that shows Tony being a C and the argument goes back and forth because we can't dismiss either characterisation. It's a flawed argument when it turns out the characterisation is a mixed bag of mysteries.

Or-as this threads title points out-it is the writers fault. If they are too lazy, too rushed or not good enough to read each others work and co-ordinate the character then the character suffers.

Mark_S

XPac

12-17-2007, 03:43 PM

Well he's not a government stooge either and him meeting up with Thor compared to Nova, as the thread starter mentioned, is also an example where his behaviour differs greatly from one another. It's a matter of opinion. And taste (how I personally want Tony as being written).

But then comes these long and tiresome discussions on this very forum, where someone argues that Tony is a X because in issue Y he acts like a Z. Then someone else mentions event A that transpires in book B that shows Tony being a C and the argument goes back and forth because we can't dismiss either characterisation. It's a flawed argument when it turns out the characterisation is a mixed bag of mysteries.

In Nova's case, Tony only gave him 24 hours. In Thors case, after the initial threat he basically gave Thor free reign for himself and his entire country.

So when you look at the big picture and not just his opening monologue to Thor, it balances out. He started off overly harsh, but ended up conceding more than he frankly should have given his postion.

But yeah, it's a matter of opinion. I think he ended up being about as generous with Thor as Thor could hope for.

Tobias Drake

12-17-2007, 03:45 PM

Stark could have given a more rationale pitch... but there's no way in hell the book should or would have been resolved by them sitting on a table hammering out some kind of treaty. Frankly that's how Civil War itself should have been handled right at the start of the first issue of the series, but it makes for a bad comic book.

Writers to tend to try to veer things in a direction of a fight. Sometimes those things are a bit too forced. But given what Tony did with Clor, and given that Thor basically dumped Asgard in the middle of the US, justifying a fight here isn't the most unreasable effort I've ever seen.

True. Thor had every reason to be angry about Clor, and Asgard's appearance was every reason for Stark to be involved. I just wish Stark's case had been presented a bit better before Thor hit him with his "I do not trust you, nor do I have reason to, so Fisk off".

After Clor, there was no question that there would be a fight.

Exo

12-17-2007, 04:11 PM

In Nova's case, Tony only gave him 24 hours. In Thors case, after the initial threat he basically gave Thor free reign for himself and his entire country.

Sorry, but Tony wouldn't threaten Thor (by taking his castle away from him) if someone else other than JMS wrote that encounter. Only when he was beaten within an inch of his life did he propose the alternative to registration.

Alan2099

12-17-2007, 04:18 PM

Sorry, but Tony wouldn't threaten Thor (by taking his castle away from him) if someone else other than JMS wrote that encounter. Only when he was beaten within an inch of his life did he propose the alternative to registration.

And if you'd ask me if Tony Stark would ever lead a governemtn agency against Captain America and nearly beat him to death of his own free will, I would have told you nobody but a cheap hack would ever write something like that. Things change.

XPac

12-17-2007, 04:21 PM

Sorry, but Tony wouldn't threaten Thor (by taking his castle away from him) if someone else other than JMS wrote that encounter. Only when he was beaten within an inch of his life did he propose the alternative to registration.

It's true... the threat was pretty stupid.

But he flat out KO's Clint the first time he see's him. Stark's just not friendly to his friends that return from the dead.

Exo

12-17-2007, 04:22 PM

And if you'd ask me if Tony Stark would ever lead a governemtn agency against Captain America and nearly beat him to death of his own free will, I would have told you nobody but a cheap hack would ever write something like that. Things change.

It's more to the story than what your summery tells us. I'd fill you in on the details, but it'd be late 2005/early 2006 all over again.

XPac

12-17-2007, 04:22 PM

And if you'd ask me if Tony Stark would ever lead a governemtn agency against Captain America and nearly beat him to death of his own free will, I would have told you nobody but a cheap hack would ever write something like that. Things change.

That's true.

Hell, the guy was willing to clone Thor, so threatening him can't be that much of a stretch.

Exo

12-17-2007, 04:24 PM

But he flat out KO's Clint the first time he see's him. Stark's just not friendly to his friends that return from the dead.

And he was neighborly with Nova. Stark may not be friendly with people returning back from the dead but he is when they return from outer-space.

Alan2099

12-17-2007, 04:26 PM

And he was neighborly with Nova. Stark may not be friendly with people returning back from the dead but he is when they return from outer-space.

He didn't really know Nova that well. I'm sure if it had been somebody he knew that was coming back, he would have made sure to shove a rabid badger down their pants and burn down their house. :D

Mark_S

12-17-2007, 04:28 PM

And he was neighborly with Nova. Stark may not be friendly with people returning back from the dead but he is when they return from outer-space.

I guess it all depends on where they travel and if they sent him nice postcards.

Mark_S

XPac

12-17-2007, 04:30 PM

And he was neighborly with Nova. Stark may not be friendly with people returning back from the dead but he is when they return from outer-space.

Different bait for different fish perhaps.

He can potentially sweet talk Nova into joining the Initiative... but he probably knew Thor well enough to know that he didn't have a snowballs chance in doing that, especially now.

Also, as I said in other instances the fact that there's no personal baggage with Nova probably makes it easier for Stark. For people like Peter, Thor, and She-Hulk it was personal... with Nova, he's just another kid.

Exo

12-17-2007, 04:30 PM

He didn't really know Nova that well. I'm sure if it had been somebody he knew that was coming back, he would have made sure to shove a rabid badger down their pants and burn down their house. :D

I'm sure if JMS wrote that story, he'd be all over Nova about registration faster than a speeding bullet... only to get his a** kicked and offer Nova a well earned immunity.

See, for every time you kick Iron Man's *** you get a free pass! :D

mikekerr3

12-17-2007, 04:37 PM

That's the thing... I don't think he wrote him as a villain. An antagonist yes, but not as a villain. Again, despite acting like a jerk to Peter he does help his aunt out. And he does end up giving Thor more leeway than frankly one in his position probably should have. Jerk yes... villain? Not there (though Frontline makes a descent arguement).

I don't think that he had much choice in letting Thor off. He had seriously sullied the honor of a VIKING God. He had created and abomination and passed it off as Thor. In a world of warriors honor is the most important thein someone has, more important that life.

Thor wasn't playing, if Tony had pushed he would have died. It wasn't Tony giving Thor a pass. it was Thor letting Tony survive. Tony has never been at Thor's level and isn't now.

My complaint with the writing of Tony with Thor is the same problem as with his interactions with Dr. Strange. Would Anyone really be so arrogant with someone who could wipe you from existence without raising a sweat. I think Tony's an murderer ad assassin but I don't think he's a fool.

Alan2099

12-17-2007, 04:39 PM

See, for every time you kick Iron Man's *** you get a free pass! :D
And people said there was no way for the anti-side to win. All they had to do was beat Tony Stark. I can see it now.

Tony: Well, that's that. I lost. Law's over guys. Let's all go home.

XPac

12-17-2007, 04:42 PM

And people said there was no way for the anti-side to win. All they had to do was beat Tony Stark. I can see it now.

Tony: Well, that's that. I lost. Law's over guys. Let's all go home.

Cap was well on his way to ripping Stark a new one. Perhaps Cap gave in a bit too soon.

Mark_S

12-17-2007, 04:45 PM

And people said there was no way for the anti-side to win. All they had to do was beat Tony Stark. I can see it now.

Tony: Well, that's that. I lost. Law's over guys. Let's all go home.

That was the basic flaw in cw: the law was going to stand no matter what. So it was only a qestion of what form it would take and how it would end. So marvel really had no choice but to end it with Tony's side willing. It was how they won and why Cap didn't try the court system that was the problem.

As to Tony and Thor, what if Thor took one of Tony's old armor suits, magically brought it to life and then had it kill Hap Hogan or Pepper? What would Tony do then? Would he be inclined to listen to Thor's explanation?

Mark_S

mikekerr3

12-17-2007, 04:57 PM

I'm sure if JMS wrote that story, he'd be all over Nova about registration faster than a speeding bullet... only to get his a** kicked and offer Nova a well earned immunity.

See, for every time you kick Iron Man's *** you get a free pass! :D

Nova was fresh out of a war more deadly than any the earth has seen, months of it. His girlfriend, who treated him with respect, was the most dangerous woman in the galaxy. His restraint and patience would have been lowered by stress. He also would have had little patience for the little family fight Tony was so concerned about.

If threatened seriously by Tony at the power level he was at Tony and shield would be resting peaceably in pieces. Nova was at a power level nearing a herald or more than some. He took out hundreds of Sentries and starships. Not to mention Annililus. A guy in an a fancy metal suit isn't going to leave even much ash.

mindcrime

12-17-2007, 05:00 PM

That was the basic flaw in cw: the law was going to stand no matter what. So it was only a qestion of what form it would take and how it would end. So marvel really had no choice but to end it with Tony's side willing. It was how they won and why Cap didn't try the court system that was the problem.

As to Tony and Thor, what if Thor took one of Tony's old armor suits, magically brought it to life and then had it kill Hap Hogan or Pepper? What would Tony do then? Would he be inclined to listen to Thor's explanation?

Mark_S

you have a good point. i still dont buy that tony would go to war with steve that easy. i think millar & jms are doing a good job of ruining tony stark. but my question is, as i have said time & time again, what about reed & pym? will they EVER get what they deserve from thor? im starting to belive they are going to get a free pass, which is VERY wrong.

mikekerr3

12-17-2007, 05:07 PM

XPac

12-17-2007, 05:07 PM

you have a good point. i still dont buy that tony would go to war with steve that easy. i think millar & jms are doing a good job of ruining tony stark. but my question is, as i have said time & time again, what about reed & pym? will they EVER get what they deserve from thor? im starting to belive they are going to get a free pass, which is VERY wrong.

In regards to Thor, both have been smart enough to avoid the guy so it may not be an issue anytime soon.

I doubt Hank will end up getting a free pass... he's already a miserable pill popping mess of a human being, and I'm sure there's more to come if/when more of his present actions come to light.

Reed I think will get a free pass in all this. He weathered the worst of the storm, and post CW hasn't done a whole lot of deserve much criticism.

mindcrime

12-17-2007, 05:19 PM

In regards to Thor, both have been smart enough to avoid the guy so it may not be an issue anytime soon.

I doubt Hank will end up getting a free pass... he's already a miserable pill popping mess of a human being, and I'm sure there's more to come if/when more of his present actions come to light.

Reed I think will get a free pass in all this. He weathered the worst of the storm, and post CW hasn't done a whole lot of deserve much criticism.

just because reed has been a good little boy since the war ended, doesnt mean he should be excused for his part in clor. he programmed the damn thing! tony provided the hair, everything else was reed & pym. it was because of reed's faulty programming, that led to bill fosters death. im not excusing tony for his part in it, but come on!

XPac

12-17-2007, 05:25 PM

just because reed has been a good little boy since the war ended, doesnt mean he should be excused for his part in clor. he programmed the damn thing! tony provided the hair, everything else was reed & pym. it was because of reed's faulty programming, that led to bill fosters death. im not excusing tony for his part in it, but come on!

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the thing is he's kind of removed from the whole thing now.

Since Millar is writing FF and he's the mastermind behind Clor in the first place, I suppose it's possible it'll come up.

Tobias Drake

12-17-2007, 06:09 PM

It will be wrong if Pym even get a pass for the million of deaths he is responsible for off-world, but he will.

On a related note, who here thinks the uni-bomber's parents should be put to death for raising him? Raise your hands?

Mark_S

12-17-2007, 06:13 PM

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the thing is he's kind of removed from the whole thing now.

Since Millar is writing FF and he's the mastermind behind Clor in the first place, I suppose it's possible it'll come up.

There is a shot of Reed examing the Clor corpse after the attack on the Wakkandan embassy and puzzling over what went wrong. We may find out that while Reed, Tony and Hank came up with the Clor the skrulls or some other agency altered it. In marvel's eyes this will probably mean that they are off the hook completely. Sue's already bought Reed's entire equation line for all of his actions and She-Hulk actually appologized for yelling at him. So Reed is pretty much scott free on everything. I don't like that, but marvel seems to want put everything on Tony.

Mark_S

Tobias Drake

12-17-2007, 06:15 PM

There is a shot of Reed examing the Clor corpse after the attack on the Wakkandan embassy and puzzling over what went wrong. We may find out that while Reed, Tony and Hank came up with the Clor the skrulls or some other agency altered it. In marvel's eyes this will probably mean that they are off the hook completely. Sue's already bought Reed's entire equation line for all of his actions and She-Hulk actually appologized for yelling at him. So Reed is pretty much scott free on everything. I don't like that, but marvel seems to want put everything on Tony.

Mark_S

Is it Marvel or fans putting everything on Tony? Because I've seen anti-Regs blame him for everything up to and including everything done by the Initiative even after he was no longer in control of it, everything done by the Illuminati, everything done by pro-Regs including Thor, etc. etc. It seems when anti-Reg vs. pro-Reg comes up, Tony Stark automatically assumes responsibility for everything bad that every happened in the MU while everyone else is a perfect saint.

mikekerr3

12-17-2007, 06:23 PM

[QUOTE=Tobias Drake;5998393]On a related note, who here thinks the uni-bomber's parents should be put to death for raising him? Raise your hands?[/QUOTE} Ultrom was designed to be a villain It is a killing machine that was built with improper safeguards. If I design a virus to make somebody ill and it kills millions I am responsible.

XPac

12-17-2007, 06:44 PM

Is it Marvel or fans putting everything on Tony? Because I've seen anti-Regs blame him for everything up to and including everything done by the Initiative even after he was no longer in control of it, everything done by the Illuminati, everything done by pro-Regs including Thor, etc. etc. It seems when anti-Reg vs. pro-Reg comes up, Tony Stark automatically assumes responsibility for everything bad that every happened in the MU while everyone else is a perfect saint.

Stark puts himself in the postion where he garners the most responsiblity, power, credit, and blame. It's not fair to put EVERYTHING on Tony... but he certainly gets the lion's share in regards to the pros. No one said being the leader was fun.

In regards to Clor, I don't see any reason why Hank and Reed shouldn't share the blame equally with him. I suppose because Tony was Thor's friend, it's more of a personal betrayal.

Tobias Drake

12-17-2007, 06:48 PM

Stark puts himself in the postion where he garners the most responsiblity, power, credit, and blame. It's not fair to put EVERYTHING on Tony... but he certainly gets the lion's share in regards to the pros. No one said being the leader was fun.

In regards to Clor, I don't see any reason why Hank and Reed shouldn't share the blame equally with him. I suppose because Tony was Thor's friend, it's more of a personal betrayal.

Wasn't Pym Thor's friend too? They're both founding Avengers, are they not?

In any case, I agree. Tony does take on the lion's share, and he does it to himself willingly as well; during World War Hulk, he took on full responsibility for the Hulk's exile in his speech to the people.

XPac

12-17-2007, 06:51 PM

Wasn't Pym Thor's friend too? They're both founding Avengers, are they not?

In any case, I agree. Tony does take on the lion's share, and he does it to himself willingly as well; during World War Hulk, he took on full responsibility for the Hulk's exile in his speech to the people.

To a lesser degree, yes. I think Cap, Tony and Thor had a certain bond seperate from the rest, so his betrayal likely hurt more. That said, if Hank showed up and threatened Thor the way Tony did, he'd get more of the same.

Hank and Reed have thus far avoided Thor, so it hasn't been an issue. If the ever cross paths, it might be (though I doubt it'll come to blows unless Hank and Reed are as unwise in their approach as TOny).

Mark_S

12-17-2007, 07:09 PM

Is it Marvel or fans putting everything on Tony? Because I've seen anti-Regs blame him for everything up to and including everything done by the Initiative even after he was no longer in control of it, everything done by the Illuminati, everything done by pro-Regs including Thor, etc. etc. It seems when anti-Reg vs. pro-Reg comes up, Tony Stark automatically assumes responsibility for everything bad that every happened in the MU while everyone else is a perfect saint.

It's a little bit of both really. Marvel keeps writing a Tony that is easy to hate as in Thor and She-Hulk and they keep writing a Reed that isn't doing as much in any title and they barely show Hank at all. Marvel has decided to put Tony out there as guy number 1, and that still leads me to the conclusion that marvel would prefer Tony being hated by many fans than being ignored by many fans. I don't think they know how to write a Tony that won't be hated. Or maybe one or two of them do but they seem to be the exception.

Mark_S

Alan2099

12-17-2007, 07:20 PM

To a lesser degree, yes. I think Cap, Tony and Thor had a certain bond seperate from the rest, so his betrayal likely hurt more. That said, if Hank showed up and threatened Thor the way Tony did, he'd get more of the same.

Thor and Ironman used to be quite close. They actually told each other their secret identities way before Cap knew either of them.

Tobias Drake

12-17-2007, 07:20 PM

Considering I've only seen Evil Tony in Thor and She-Hulk, it seems more like the writers that want him to be hated are the exception.

XPac

12-17-2007, 07:29 PM

Considering I've only seen Evil Tony in Thor and She-Hulk, it seems more like the writers that want him to be hated are the exception.

With the possible exception of Frontline, you don't see evil Tony anywhere.

You have seen an uglier side of Tony in Amazing Spider-Man, She-Hulk, and New Warriors.

But again, it's not a scenario where there's a right and wrong version. Stark is a guy that will act shady when it's necessary... but that doesn't mean he has to act that way in every single book he's walking around in.

Spidey, She-Hulk, and Thor were cases where he was too close and he handled it badly. Considering all the things Stark has done, I'm frankly amazed people are shocked that he can sometimes act like a major jerk.

Tobias Drake

12-17-2007, 07:38 PM

With the possible exception of Frontline, you don't see evil Tony anywhere.

You have seen an uglier side of Tony in Amazing Spider-Man, She-Hulk, and New Warriors.

But again, it's not a scenario where there's a right and wrong version. Stark is a guy that will act shady when it's necessary... but that doesn't mean he has to act that way in every single book he's walking around in.

Spidey, She-Hulk, and Thor were cases where he was too close and he handled it badly. Considering all the things Stark has done, I'm frankly amazed people are shocked that he can sometimes act like a major jerk.

Unless he really IS funding the New Warriors, I disagree about NW. And in Amazing, he DID funnel the money to get May the best health care she could. It's mostly She-Hulk and Thor, I think, that show an uglier side of him.

XPac

12-17-2007, 07:50 PM

Unless he really IS funding the New Warriors, I disagree about NW. And in Amazing, he DID funnel the money to get May the best health care she could. It's mostly She-Hulk and Thor, I think, that show an uglier side of him.

It's really all a matter of degree I suppose.

Again, with Thor he was a jerk initially... but he ended up being more than fair in the end. Thor basically has a free pass to do what he wants. And he acted the same way with Peter, initially being a jerk but eventually helping the guy out. I think that's JMS's basica formula to balance things out.

Yeah, Stark definately acted like a major jerk in a lot of instances. But put it in perspective... he's a guy that clones his buds, so this shoudln't be uber shocking.

mindcrime

12-17-2007, 07:55 PM

There is a shot of Reed examing the Clor corpse after the attack on the Wakkandan embassy and puzzling over what went wrong. We may find out that while Reed, Tony and Hank came up with the Clor the skrulls or some other agency altered it. In marvel's eyes this will probably mean that they are off the hook completely. Sue's already bought Reed's entire equation line for all of his actions and She-Hulk actually appologized for yelling at him. So Reed is pretty much scott free on everything. I don't like that, but marvel seems to want put everything on Tony.

Mark_S

i think thats whats going to happen. the best way for marvel to take a good part of the blame off them, will be to put a skrull, somewhere in that lab, where they could mess with clor's programming. like ive said before, this will be damage control for marvel. im interested to see how they will try to fix this, & then ill decide how much crap marvel is full of.

mikekerr3

12-17-2007, 07:56 PM

It's really all a matter of degree I suppose.

Again, with Thor he was a jerk initially... but he ended up being more than fair in the end. Thor basically has a free pass to do what he wants.

Like he had another choice, besides being killed. Thats not fairness thats having no choice. Tony normally ignores those who can squash inm like a bug and make exceptions for them.

Mark_S

12-17-2007, 08:03 PM

Considering I've only seen Evil Tony in Thor and She-Hulk, it seems more like the writers that want him to be hated are the exception.

But for many of, especially those on a budget, it is enough. And really especially those of us who were anti-sra and saw Tony as an out control martinet through that series. It is far easier to stain a character than to redeem him and I'm not sure that marvel really thinks that Tony is that bad. Most of the writers seem to be pro-sra so just about anything they have Tony do they have him get away with. Or at least that is how it seems. To the pro-sra side Tony is ok doing what he is doing so long as he cries about it and there is a thread of pragmatism mixed in. If cw and frontline were anything close to being ballanced toward both sides Marvel wouldn't have the amount of Tony hate that they do now. I don't think that the writers realize that. I think that to a man they will swear that cw and frontline were completely ballanced and that the fault lies with the readers. Though how they thought cloning Thor and having Tony build a torture prison for other heroes could be danced away from I have no idea.

Mark_S

mindcrime

12-17-2007, 08:18 PM

But for many of, especially those on a budget, it is enough. And really especially those of us who were anti-sra and saw Tony as an out control martinet through that series. It is far easier to stain a character than to redeem him and I'm not sure that marvel really thinks that Tony is that bad. Most of the writers seem to be pro-sra so just about anything they have Tony do they have him get away with. Or at least that is how it seems. To the pro-sra side Tony is ok doing what he is doing so long as he cries about it and there is a thread of pragmatism mixed in. If cw and frontline were anything close to being ballanced toward both sides Marvel wouldn't have the amount of Tony hate that they do now. I don't think that the writers realize that. I think that to a man they will swear that cw and frontline were completely ballanced and that the fault lies with the readers. Though how they thought cloning Thor and having Tony build a torture prison for other heroes could be danced away from I have no idea.

Mark_S

ive come to the conclusion, that marvel writers really dont care what the fans think. they are going to write a character how they want, & if we dont like it, tough s@#t.

Shellhead

12-17-2007, 08:20 PM

Ultrom was designed to be a villain It is a killing machine that was built with improper safeguards. If I design a virus to make somebody ill and it kills millions I am responsible.

Loki was somewhat responsible for the formation of the Avengers. Does that absolve the God of Mischief for all the evil that he has done?

XPac

12-17-2007, 08:36 PM

Like he had another choice, besides being killed. Thats not fairness thats having no choice. Tony normally ignores those who can squash inm like a bug and make exceptions for them.

Cloning or no cloning, Thor isn't going to kill him. A beat down is one thing, but that would be going too far.

mikekerr3

12-17-2007, 08:40 PM

Loki was somewhat responsible for the formation of the Avengers. Does that absolve the God of Mischief for all the evil that he has done?

No it doesn't.

Pym was directly and solely responsible for the creation of Ultron, No accident it was intentional.

But Ultron was a bad act that resulted in the deaths of millions. You would think that a trial by the peoples he hurt so badly would be appropriate. His invention is a threat to all life. I thought you pro-reg guys were for accountability. Pym makes the NW at Stamford look like savior his motivation was even less worthy than theirs.

And what has Pym done to even begin to balance out the harm he has done? He designed an autonomous weapon for a stunt, that weapons is trying to destroy all life.

Arilou

12-18-2007, 04:07 AM

Just thinking about it, CW wasn't that bad. Frontline was awful (I just ignore frontline personally, just like the nonexistent Highlander sequels), but CW itself was relatively OK. A bit ham-fistedly written, but not awful.

Dagger

12-18-2007, 09:56 AM

Considering I've only seen Evil Tony in Thor and She-Hulk, it seems more like the writers that want him to be hated are the exception.
Well, he was involved in making a clone which happened to kill a comrade, and shot her cousin into space w/o a trial, so I feel him being portrayed a bit uglier in those books is justified. I don't consider him a villain, I just wish they would use them more often in his own book.

Tobias Drake

12-18-2007, 09:59 AM

Well, he was involved in making a clone which happened to kill a comrade, and shot her cousin into space w/o a trial, so I feel him being portrayed a bit uglier in those books is justified. I don't consider him a villain, I just wish they would use them more often in his own book.

And I do get that. But the problem is in the execution. It's one thing to write the book from a character's point of view that sees Tony Stark as having done them wrong. It's another to write the character of Stark himself as a golden Doctor Doom in his mannerisms and speech in those books.

While the perceptions of Stark should be different in the different books, the character himself should act consistently from one book to the next.

XPac

12-18-2007, 10:13 AM

And I do get that. But the problem is in the execution. It's one thing to write the book from a character's point of view that sees Tony Stark as having done them wrong. It's another to write the character of Stark himself as a golden Doctor Doom in his mannerisms and speech in those books.

While the perceptions of Stark should be different in the different books, the character himself should act consistently from one book to the next.

Part of the differences though is that in certain books he's put in situations where conflict with a friend is a bit more unavoidable.

In Spider-Man, She-Hulk, and Thor he ends up in situations where he's fighting other heroes. In Captain America, he's largely just sitting in his offince on the Helicarrier. In Nova, because Stark has no issues with the character whatsoever, there is no need for any conflict at all.

When he's in situations where he has to fight another hero, it comes off uglier. When he's in situations where he's fighting other badguys or just running SHIELD from his office, there's really no need to show an uglier side to the character so they don't. When Tony wasn't fighting Peter in One More Day (written by JMS, the guy that suppossedly doesn't get Tony), he's writing checks to Aunt May. It was only ugly in that one specific situation where it needed to me. Same thing in SHe-Hulk... Stark was reasonably okay until a confrontation with She-Hulk motivated him to get ugly.

Tobias Drake

12-18-2007, 10:15 AM

Part of the differences though is that in certain books he's put in situations where conflict with a friend is a bit more unavoidable.

In Spider-Man, She-Hulk, and Thor he ends up in situations where he's fighting other heroes. In Captain America, he's largely just sitting in his offince on the Helicarrier. In Nova, because Stark has no issues with the character whatsoever, there is no need for any conflict at all.

When he's in situations where he has to fight another hero, it comes off uglier. When he's in situations where he's fighting other badguys or just running SHIELD from his office, there's really no need to show an uglier side to the character so they don't. When Tony wasn't fighting Peter in One More Day (written by JMS, the guy that suppossedly doesn't get Tony), he's writing checks to Aunt May. It was only ugly in that one specific situation where it needed to me. Same thing in SHe-Hulk... Stark was reasonably okay until a confrontation with She-Hulk motivated him to get ugly.

But therein lies the confusion. Tony's confrontation with Peter was downright civil compared to his confrontation with She-Hulk and Thor; on both the latter occasions, they were people that he had wronged. On the former, it was someone that had wronged him, which made him feel personally betrayed. Peter was the knife in Stark's back, while Stark held the knife in Shulkie's and Thor's. So why was Stark so much less of a jerkass towards Peter than Shulkie and Thor?

Alan2099

12-18-2007, 10:16 AM

Stark brought alot of that on himself directly with Peter, taking into account their trip into the negative zone. With Thor he didn't do anything directly to Thor and with She-Hulk it was only her familiy he messed with.

XPac

12-18-2007, 10:23 AM

But therein lies the confusion. Tony's confrontation with Peter was downright civil compared to his confrontation with She-Hulk and Thor; on both the latter occasions, they were people that he had wronged. On the former, it was someone that had wronged him, which made him feel personally betrayed. Peter was the knife in Stark's back, while Stark held the knife in Shulkie's and Thor's. So why was Stark so much less of a jerkass towards Peter than Shulkie and Thor?

Tony was a major Jackass with Peter at times too... it's a matter of degree I suppose. Though I guess a dying aunt can motivate you to go a bit easier on a person.

In the case of Thor, I honestly think Stark was somewhat scared and putting on more of a front. That's left to speculation though... when you're dealing with a dead friend mysteriously returning there could be all sorts of things going on in Tony's mind.

In the case of She-HUlk, it was more staight foreward. He wanted to shut her up as quickly as possible since he was trying to cover up what he did.

Tobias Drake

12-18-2007, 10:26 AM

Tony was a major Jackass with Peter at times too... it's a matter of degree I suppose. Though I guess a dying aunt can motivate you to go a bit easier on a person.

In the case of Thor, I honestly think Stark was somewhat scared and putting on more of a front. That's left to speculation though... when you're dealing with a dead friend mysteriously returning there could be all sorts of things going on in Tony's mind.

In the case of She-HUlk, it was more staight foreward. He wanted to shut her up as quickly as possible since he was trying to cover up what he did.

"Scared" doesn't cover why he brought no backup whatsoever to meet with an Asgardian god. He had to know that it would be possible for things to get out of hand. I can see no justifiable reason for him to have gone alone, unless he WANTED Thor to kick his expletive, which doesn't make any sense.

Alan2099

12-18-2007, 10:29 AM

He went to see Thor alone because the two of them had history together.

It didn't play out in any positive way because he saw once he got there that Thor was upset. Thor's expressions are very easy to read. If he's mad at you, you'll know it.

XPac

12-18-2007, 10:30 AM

"Scared" doesn't cover why he brought no backup whatsoever to meet with an Asgardian god. He had to know that it would be possible for things to get out of hand. I can see no justifiable reason for him to have gone alone, unless he WANTED Thor to kick his expletive, which doesn't make any sense.

Bringing no back up I think is one of those quirks Stark has. He likes to do as much as possible by himself. Also, I imagine he felt this was kind of a personal thing between the two of them. It wasn't the SMART thing to do, I'll agree... it's one of the hang ups about the character which I feel prevents him from being as good a director of SHIELD as a man of his intelligence should be.

Or maybe he did want Thor to kick his @$$ because on some level he felt he deserved it. Maybe it was the equivalent of a free shot.

Animation

12-18-2007, 01:15 PM

I consider Iron Man (along with Reed, Pym, Doctor Strange, and Ms Marvel) to be out and out full on villains at this point, in all their titles. They cant do anything to redeem them not to me, not even mond control or tampering. Its too late.

Lewis

Arilou

12-18-2007, 01:23 PM

Stark was reasonably okay until a confrontation with She-Hulk motivated him to get ugly.

To be honest, Shulkie was the one who was starting the fight in that case.

XPac

12-18-2007, 01:24 PM

To be honest, Shulkie was the one who was starting the fight in that case.

That one is kind of debatable. She was moving towards him and obviously angry, but he shot at her first and technically started the fight.

Tobias Drake

12-18-2007, 01:26 PM

We've been over this a few times. I think what we came to was he threw the first punch and technically did start the fight, but she was calling him out for one.

mikekerr3

12-18-2007, 03:43 PM

"Scared" doesn't cover why he brought no backup whatsoever to meet with an Asgardian god. He had to know that it would be possible for things to get out of hand. I can see no justifiable reason for him to have gone alone, unless he WANTED Thor to kick his expletive, which doesn't make any sense.

What back up besides the sentry could he have brought that would have been anything other than a irritant to Thor. If Thor wasn't going to be "reasonable" any body he brought would have just had their expletives kicked also. Tony has no allies in Thor's Class. The full initiative and the MA would have slowed Thor down very little.

The one man who could have talked to Thor at that point and been given a full hearing was dead. Their is no longer any character that is respected by even a majority of the heros. They are a house divided,

Tobias Drake

12-18-2007, 03:45 PM

mikekerr3

12-18-2007, 04:00 PM

Ares and Sentry. Both are Mighty Avengers. Both are Initiative. ONE of them alone is a match for Thor. Both of them together would be too much.

I don't think that Ares is in Thor's class or even nearly so, otherwise he would have been a serious threat to the Hulk. I also do not think he would have interfered in this fight. After all the primary sin that Thor was beating on Tony for is a Greek word: Hubris. From Ares probable viewpoint Thor would be within his rights.

As to the Sentry, Robert picks his fights as shown in his confrontation with Black Bolt. He would have only interceded to save Tony;s life. The resulting fight would have finished what Katrina started.

XPac

12-18-2007, 04:01 PM

Ares and Sentry. Both are Mighty Avengers. Both are Initiative. ONE of them alone is a match for Thor. Both of them together would be too much.

I'll agree with Sentry, but honestly Ares isn't in Thor's league. He can't fly, isn't as strong (Ares is only class 70 while Thor is straight up class 100), and has none of Thor's magical firepower.

It's fair to argue that Iron Man, Ares and Sentry together would likely be a match for Thor if Thor doesn't go all out, but honestly I don't think Sentry would fight Thor for the same reasons he opted not to fight Black Bolt in Silent War and avoided fighting Hulk until the very end of WWH. Unless Thor does something to really warrent it, Sentry will likely sit it out.

Tobias Drake

12-18-2007, 04:03 PM

I don't think that Ares is in Thor's class or even nearly so, otherwise he would have been a serious threat to the Hulk. I also do not think he would have interfered in this fight. After all the primary sin that Thor was beating on Tony for is a Greek word: Hubris. From Ares probable viewpoint Thor would be within his rights.

As to the Sentry, Robert picks his fights as shown in his confrontation with Black Bolt. He would have only interceded to save Tony;s life. The resulting fight would have finished what Katrina started.

Wasn't Ares introduced as a Thor villain? I recall Thor having to team up with Hercules in order to beat him.

mindcrime

12-18-2007, 04:05 PM

I don't think that Ares is in Thor's class or even nearly so, otherwise he would have been a serious threat to the Hulk. I also do not think he would have interfered in this fight. After all the primary sin that Thor was beating on Tony for is a Greek word: Hubris. From Ares probable viewpoint Thor would be within his rights.

As to the Sentry, Robert picks his fights as shown in his confrontation with Black Bolt. He would have only interceded to save Tony;s life. The resulting fight would have finished what Katrina started.

have too agree with that. thats the last thing the people of new orleans need. could be another reason why tony went alone. say what you want about tony, but he's always been concerned about collateral damage & innocents.

Mark_S

12-18-2007, 04:11 PM

What back up besides the sentry could he have brought that would have been anything other than a irritant to Thor. If Thor wasn't going to be "reasonable" any body he brought would have just had their expletives kicked also. Tony has no allies in Thor's Class. The full initiative and the MA would have slowed Thor down very little.

The one man who could have talked to Thor at that point and been given a full hearing was dead. Their is no longer any character that is respected by even a majority of the heros. They are a house divided,

Also Tony thought he could take Thor. He fired repulsors and said "I'll appologize later." Thinking I guess that he could take Thor down with one shot. Why he thought that when it didn't work on She-Hulk is a puzzle.

But you are right, the only one who could have gotten Thor to talk out the sra was Cap, and Cap is dead. Tony might have had a better reaction if he wasn't so much of a bully. If he had started off with an apology and tried to explain things might have turned out differently. But he went into bully mode and that was that. Part of the problem is that if Tony can't knock out the person who is disagreeing with him he really has no plan B.

Mark_S

Tobias Drake

12-18-2007, 04:13 PM

mikekerr3

12-18-2007, 04:18 PM

Wasn't Ares introduced as a Thor villain? I recall Thor having to team up with Hercules in order to beat him.

That was an Ares before he was rewritten. That Ares was dangerous but would have killed Stark for even trying to force him to join the MA or even register. That Areas would have laughed at Stark getting spanked.

This new style Areas has shown no evidence of power at that level.
Like Strange and other very powerfully characters he seems to have gone down in power. And again why would the Sentry have gotten involved this was a personal thing between two "people". He works for Stark to try to do the right thing. Who's side he should be on in this fight would be open to debate to even less confused people than the Sentry.

I think that Tony did the right thing going in alone, as much as I hate to admit he does anything right. He knew that Thor doesn't murder so it wasn't that radical a risk.

XPac

12-18-2007, 04:21 PM

Also Tony thought he could take Thor. He fired repulsors and said "I'll appologize later." Thinking I guess that he could take Thor down with one shot. Why he thought that when it didn't work on She-Hulk is a puzzle.

But you are right, the only one who could have gotten Thor to talk out the sra was Cap, and Cap is dead. Tony might have had a better reaction if he wasn't so much of a bully. If he had started off with an apology and tried to explain things might have turned out differently. But he went into bully mode and that was that. Part of the problem is that if Tony can't knock out the person who is disagreeing with him he really has no plan B.

Mark_S

Hmmm... I do think because of Tony's upgrades he's shown a bit more arrogance in some fights he really shouldn't. Based on his dialogue, he really did think he could take Thor. Same thing with She-Hulk (though that one at least was a little more understandable).

Though perhaps in part he wanted to pick a fight to see if it was the real Thor. When Hawkeye returned, Tony KOed him and stuck him in a lab for testing. Perhaps that was the plan here.

Either way, it is fair to say that Starks approach was pretty bad. Though realistically, I'm not sure there's any approach that could get what Stark wants. When a friend clones you then sicks that clone on your other friends, there's not a whole lot you can say to make that right.

mikekerr3

12-18-2007, 04:30 PM

He DID try to reach out to him as a friend first. He recieved cold, stoic silence in response.

He had gravely insulted the friend in the near past, Tony had already thrown away any friendship that existed. It was like he spit on his name.

If your friend created a clone (or wears a mask) and kills another friend in your name, now friendly are you going to be. Would you take his hand in friendship? It wouldnt matter to Thor what laws were involved, honor would override any human law.

He cloned Thor, can you think how he could be treated as a friend by Thor, He tried to use Thors image to terrorise Thors friends. Thor has personal honor in the old meaning of the word. Tony had already killed any chance of friendship.

AllisterH

12-18-2007, 04:32 PM

mikekerr3

12-18-2007, 04:42 PM

I always find it interesting that people think Thor would be against the SRA.

His entire REASON for being banished to Midgard was because Odin thought he needed a good dose of humility and that he (Thor) was out of control in Asgard.

Then there's the fact that as his Sovereign, Odin REGULARLY told Thor what to do and NOT do and if Thor knew what was good for him, he obeyed Odin.

Why again would Thor be against the SRA?

I don't think Thor would be necessarily against the SRA for humans. I do think he would violently refuse the idea of being under the control of a the US goverment or sheild.

He fights for people he respects. I don't know of anybody in the initiative who would get that respect. the two people most likely to get respect from Thor would have been Strange and Cap, both were Anti-SHRA. I think he would have sat out the civil war, until Clor that is, if he had been here for it.

And as you brought up ODin, how do you think the All-Father would have responded to Clor? He is not nearly as nice and fluffy as Thor.

Mark_S

12-18-2007, 04:54 PM

He DID try to reach out to him as a friend first. He recieved cold, stoic silence in response.

A freind would have started out with an appology at least. Tony didn't even mention Clor until Thor brought him up and even then there was no appology, but then I doubt Thor would have listened. I ask again, what if Thor magically brought one of Tony's old armor suits to life and sent it into a crowd of supervillains-letting them all think it was Tony-and one of the supervillains got killed? What would Tony's reaction have been?

Thor actually left the Avengers in a rage once when the governmen tried to take over. I forget the issue but some government guy ordered Thor to appologize for breaking a tv camera.

And the sra is about obedience, not humility.

Mark_S

XPac

12-18-2007, 10:49 PM