Iron Man as compared to...

[Eclips0]

Actually you were talking about Daredevila nd being rude about it.

My point stands and your going to keep getting the same answer if you keep asking the same question.

[Alan2099]

And I would trade Reed and Hank for Paste Pot Pete and The Spot! See how far this has gone?

... I like Paste Pot Pete and the Spot. :o

[bulbasteve]

Actually you were talking about Daredevila nd being rude about it.

My point stands and your going to keep getting the same answer if you keep asking the same question.

Because he was in that storyarc...as in "crossover". I guess it's easy not to get jokes if you haven't read the books it is based on :p

Your problem seemed to be with posting a "crossover" so I simply posted another very VERY canon example of the same thing, why would that get the same crossover response?

[Eclips0]

Because crossovers between different comic book companies are not always and not often held as cannon.

And the fact remians in many instances the police have worked with Spider-man and allowed him to leave the scene of a crime in order to stop another crime, which would be allowed under the law.

[Will.S]

But again, my point is that he could have achieved that exact same goal while still acting in a legal and ethical manner. People signed on because of fear of a potential war with Atlantis... that same end result could have been achieved by merely telling everyone of the Atlantean sleepers.
Tony couldn't tell any of his colleagues nor SHIELD about what he was doing because it would have put his plan at risk. It's the same reason why he and the Illuminati couldn't tell She-Hulk about shooting him into space and it's the only rational reason I can come up with why he used Green Goblin from a distance.

Again, the issue isn't JUST that Starks plans are unlawful or unethical... it's that at times they're just plain STUPID. I'll say it again... it amazes me that people continue to defend Stark for this. If the pro-Stark crowd are willing to defend even his STUPID plans, I'm almost at the point where I think they'll defend him for just about anything.
I think at this point you'd realize this already but his STUPID plans and unethical ways are what keep him such an viable character in the first place post CW and even in the Illuminati. I can "defend" that aspect of the character because however altruistic his plans may be, the problems come back to hit him hard in a round about way.

You do see the somewhat unending pattern right?
For "Clor" Iron Man gets an ass kicking by Thor. Stark was outclassed but c'mon, he practically asked for it for going there by himself with no back up and goading Thor with his registration spiel.
For exiling Hulk, he along with the rest of the Illuminati who voted get their asses kicked by Hulk personally. We find out that SPIN tech was a dud thanks to Hardball and was supposed to put a stop to Hulk. On top of that apparently he had 2 types of satellites for dealing with him as a last resort, one displacing Manhattan with the Negative Zone and the other containing weird red beam emissions that depowered him.
She-Hulk also finds out about her cousin and kicks his ass (despite the fact that she shouldn't have done that well) before he injects the SPIN tech and leaves her depowered. Was this a f'ed up way of doing things? Absolutely, but he knew that exiling Hulk wasn't going to be alright with Jen so he didn't tell her nor wouldn't she have known until Jen found out herself.
For his whole funneling war funds/inside trading for the Initiative he gets caught by Ben Urich and Sally. It's for a good cause so they leave him alone for it but they find out he had pushed things to an unnatural conclusion himself to get to where he wanted it to go.Because of the whole Atlantean terrorist aspect of the plot to "Sleeper Cell" I found that part of Tony's actions to be at least defensible since he took the initiative to use counter terrorism to prevent an attack. The fact that it was done with lethal force set a new controversial extreme to Tony's methods and Paul should have known that this would be taking Tony very far morally. Tony since gaining the extremis has killed in various situations, in one it was in self defense between him and Mallen and the other was when he momentarily killed Crimson Dynamo before he brought him back. He might have killed off some skrulls as well in the Illuminati #5

Was it necessary to kill the Atlanteans off? Depends on whether or not Tony thought the Atlanteans had too much weaponry to be able to successfully contain. That said, Paul Jenkins's depiction of Tony in Frontline is the one I despise the most out of any writer outside of JMS's CW Tony. The reason being that Paul takes Tony's actions too far and really to the furthest limit within the confines of Civil War because they only serve to further Paul's dumb Frontline plot.

Venom's way of dealing with Carnage is no more sucessful than Spidey's is long term, so I frankly don't see the point. The biggest difference is that Venoms way leads Venom getting hauled hunted down by heroes and authories after the fact. So I don't see the upside there.

Spidey has proven himself VERY sucessful without using lethal force (and statics definately back him up in that regard).
I was actually very curious to see how Luke and Jessica were going to use Spider-Man to take down Carnage during Breakout. They didn't really have anything to contain or defeat him at the time outside of the ability to do some major stalling.

[bulbasteve]

Because crossovers between different comic book companies are not always and not often held as cannon.

And the fact remians in many instances the police have worked with Spider-man and allowed him to leave the scene of a crime in order to stop another crime, which would be allowed under the law.

You are still saying "cannon" and not "canon". But hey I agree that crossovers usually aren't what you fire on the side of a ship :p It is just a very recent example of what has been done for years. (plus it was the creator owned character of the writer of the issue...it's hardly like it was superman as a guest star). I've given two others you know too, I don't know why are you are hunt up on this crossover thing.

Just because they work with him does not make it legal. Seriously, how do you explain Cops CONSTANTLY firing at Spider-Man even when he isn't being framed for any crime? (heck even then it's still just as illegal if he runs away from cops even if he is falsely accused, like in say ASM 133, oop 3 other examples) It is clear by the dialogue of the cops who actually do work with him or let him go (as the Jean DeWolff example I used showed) that what they are doing isn't actually legal.

[mikekerr3]

Tony couldn't tell any of his colleagues nor SHIELD about what he was doing because it would have put his plan at risk. It's the same reason why he and the Illuminati couldn't tell She-Hulk about shooting him into space and it's the only rational reason I can come up with why he used Green Goblin from a distance.


I think at this point you'd realize this already but his STUPID plans and unethical ways are what keep him such an viable character in the first place post CW and even in the Illuminati. I can "defend" that aspect of the character because however altruistic his plans may be, the problems come back to hit him hard in a round about way.

You do see the somewhat unending pattern right?
For "Clor" Iron Man gets an ass kicking by Thor. Stark was outclassed but c'mon, he practically asked for it for going there by himself with no back up and goading Thor with his registration spiel.
For exiling Hulk, he along with the rest of the Illuminati who voted get their asses kicked by Hulk personally. We find out that SPIN tech was a dud thanks to Hardball and was supposed to put a stop to Hulk. On top of that apparently he had 2 types of satellites for dealing with him as a last resort, one displacing Manhattan with the Negative Zone and the other containing weird red beam emissions that depowered him.
She-Hulk also finds out about her cousin and kicks his ass (despite the fact that she shouldn't have done that well) before he injects the SPIN tech and leaves her depowered. Was this a f'ed up way of doing things? Absolutely, but he knew that exiling Hulk wasn't going to be alright with Jen so he didn't tell her nor wouldn't she have known until Jen found out herself.
For his whole funneling war funds/inside trading for the Initiative he gets caught by Ben Urich and Sally. It's for a good cause so they leave him alone for it but they find out he had pushed things to an unnatural conclusion himself to get to where he wanted it to go.Because of the whole Atlantean terrorist aspect of the plot to "Sleeper Cell" I found that part of Tony's actions to be at least defensible since he took the initiative to use counter terrorism to prevent an attack. The fact that it was done with lethal force set a new controversial extreme to Tony's methods and Paul should have known that this would be taking Tony very far morally. Tony since gaining the extremis has killed in various situations, in one it was in self defense between him and Mallen and the other was when he momentarily killed Crimson Dynamo before he brought him back. He might have killed off some skrulls as well in the Illuminati #5

Was it necessary to kill the Atlanteans off? Depends on whether or not Tony thought the Atlanteans had too much weaponry to be able to successfully contain. That said, Paul Jenkins's depiction of Tony in Frontline is the one I despise the most out of any writer outside of JMS's CW Tony. The reason being that Paul takes Tony's actions too far and really to the furthest limit within the confines of Civil War because they only serve to further Paul's dumb Frontline plot.


I was actually very curious to see how Luke and Jessica were going to use Spider-Man to take down Carnage during Breakout. They didn't really have anything to contain or defeat him at the time outside of the ability to do some major stalling.

I really hate to say this but this is well reasoned and prety logical.

NW7 is pushing tony even farther acroos the line. Even Registered heroes are dropping "godwins". The Young guardians idea seems to been intended to bring the Hitler Youth to mind and if you didn't get the hint they dropped the "brown shirt line. Does Tony have any idea how bad this looks?

[XPac]

Tony couldn't tell any of his colleagues nor SHIELD about what he was doing because it would have put his plan at risk. It's the same reason why he and the Illuminati couldn't tell She-Hulk about shooting him into space and it's the only rational reason I can come up with why he used Green Goblin from a distance.


I think at this point you'd realize this already but his STUPID plans and unethical ways are what keep him such an viable character in the first place post CW and even in the Illuminati. I can "defend" that aspect of the character because however altruistic his plans may be, the problems come back to hit him hard in a round about way.

You do see the somewhat unending pattern right?
For "Clor" Iron Man gets an ass kicking by Thor. Stark was outclassed but c'mon, he practically asked for it for going there by himself with no back up and goading Thor with his registration spiel.
For exiling Hulk, he along with the rest of the Illuminati who voted get their asses kicked by Hulk personally. We find out that SPIN tech was a dud thanks to Hardball and was supposed to put a stop to Hulk. On top of that apparently he had 2 types of satellites for dealing with him as a last resort, one displacing Manhattan with the Negative Zone and the other containing weird red beam emissions that depowered him.
She-Hulk also finds out about her cousin and kicks his ass (despite the fact that she shouldn't have done that well) before he injects the SPIN tech and leaves her depowered. Was this a f'ed up way of doing things? Absolutely, but he knew that exiling Hulk wasn't going to be alright with Jen so he didn't tell her nor wouldn't she have known until Jen found out herself.
For his whole funneling war funds/inside trading for the Initiative he gets caught by Ben Urich and Sally. It's for a good cause so they leave him alone for it but they find out he had pushed things to an unnatural conclusion himself to get to where he wanted it to go.Because of the whole Atlantean terrorist aspect of the plot to "Sleeper Cell" I found that part of Tony's actions to be at least defensible since he took the initiative to use counter terrorism to prevent an attack. The fact that it was done with lethal force set a new controversial extreme to Tony's methods and Paul should have known that this would be taking Tony very far morally. Tony since gaining the extremis has killed in various situations, in one it was in self defense between him and Mallen and the other was when he momentarily killed Crimson Dynamo before he brought him back. He might have killed off some skrulls as well in the Illuminati #5

Was it necessary to kill the Atlanteans off? Depends on whether or not Tony thought the Atlanteans had too much weaponry to be able to successfully contain. That said, Paul Jenkins's depiction of Tony in Frontline is the one I despise the most out of any writer outside of JMS's CW Tony. The reason being that Paul takes Tony's actions too far and really to the furthest limit within the confines of Civil War because they only serve to further Paul's dumb Frontline plot.


I was actually very curious to see how Luke and Jessica were going to use Spider-Man to take down Carnage during Breakout. They didn't really have anything to contain or defeat him at the time outside of the ability to do some major stalling.

Again, I don't see why Stark simply telling SHIELD and the other heroes shouldn't have been THE plan. The mere fact that sleepers are out there will achieve his goal of generating fear in the public. A nice high profile hero bust will have the added bonus of making them look good in the process.

In regards to Tony's stupid and unlawful acts making him a more viable character... I completely agree. I've gone on record many times stating Stark is more interesting now than he was pre-CW. And I've even defended writers like JMS and Dan Slott for their more villainous potrayals of Stark.

Being critical of the characters moral and ethical decisions is not the same thing as weighing his overall entertainment value. I can say his actions are wrong while still being entertained by them. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say the worse thing they can do for Stark right now is to "redeem" him. He's a more viable character when he's acting morally and ethically wrong.

I'm fine with writers making him a deuche bag... but that doesn't mean I believe the actions of the character are right. That's arguing apples and oranges.

[Mark_S]

I'm fine with writers making him a deuche bag... but that doesn't mean I believe the actions of the character are right. That's arguing apples and oranges.

I just wish that they had thought out the storyline better. Cw was so far across the map and the points they were trying to make were so random, at one point heavy, another point barely existant... I got the impression that not only was this thought up in a weekend it was thought up and plotted in a weekend of drinking and that the darker parts were written while the writers still had hangovers. At the very least it would have been nice if the writers had talked to each other more than once.

I think for many fans Tony is interesting now, for some he is interesting and not liked and for others he might be interesting, but they can't get beyond the anger they feel toward his actions. I count myself in this last category. In a few years I might start picking this stuff up at the comic shows as I shift through the 50 cent boxes, but right now I just can't bring myself to spend 2.99 on something that'll just make me mad.

And on a final point what happens in the future when the big bad Tony stops selling. It will take a Hal Jordon level piece of writing to change the character and no one at Marvel (in my opinion) has the kind of talent and patience required to do that right now. They may not have permanently damaged him, but what happens when the ones who are enjoying him now get tired of the semi-bad Tony and leave the title, sales drop and marvel decides to turn him back to being good, but the ones who remember his actions in cw aren't interested in a character they hate. With cw marvel put Tony on a one way street. If being bad is the only interesting way they have to write him what happenes when being bad becomes boring?

Mark_S

[XPac]

I just wish that they had thought out the storyline better. Cw was so far across the map and the points they were trying to make were so random, at one point heavy, another point barely existant... I got the impression that not only was this thought up in a weekend it was thought up and plotted in a weekend of drinking and that the darker parts were written while the writers still had hangovers. At the very least it would have been nice if the writers had talked to each other more than once.

I think for many fans Tony is interesting now, for some he is interesting and not liked and for others he might be interesting, but they can't get beyond the anger they feel toward his actions. I count myself in this last category. In a few years I might start picking this stuff up at the comic shows as I shift through the 50 cent boxes, but right now I just can't bring myself to spend 2.99 on something that'll just make me mad.

Mark_S

To use a wrestling analogy, I see Tony like Ric Flair. People will either pay to see him, or pay to see him beat up. As long as they feel strong emotions for the character, be it positive or negative, he can be used.

[Mark_S]

To use a wrestling analogy, I see Tony like Ric Flair. People will either pay to see him, or pay to see him beat up. As long as they feel strong emotions for the character, be it positive or negative, he can be used.

That is true to a point. I bought Thor to see him at least maimed, and was dissapointed when it didn't happen. But that was only one issue. Now I skim through them on the wrack and if Tony is in an issue and not being beat up I'll skip it. Even if he is in it and being beaten up it has to be a really bad beating to make me buy it.

Mark_S

[mikekerr3]

That is true to a point. I bought Thor to see him at least maimed, and was dissapointed when it didn't happen. But that was only one issue. Now I skim through them on the wrack and if Tony is in an issue and not being beat up I'll skip it. Even if he is in it and being beaten up it has to be a really bad beating to make me buy it.

Mark_S

Exactly how I felt, Though now I only look a marvel after I've looked at everything else in the LCS. My only marvel pull is Spidergirl.

[Eclips0]

To use a wrestling analogy, I see Tony like Ric Flair. People will either pay to see him, or pay to see him beat up. As long as they feel strong emotions for the character, be it positive or negative, he can be used.

Exactly. I like him as a villain now, and if they redeem him i would like him as a Hero again.

[mattbib]

Knock it off. Stop repeating yourselves as you're all bordering on spamming at this point. Also stop saying things have been "solved" when all you've done is posted an opinion on something.

[Eclips0]

I said it has been addressed. I've given my end of it, if they don't like it there is not much more I can do.

On a side note, can we use animated avatars as well? I wasn;t sure on that.

[Will.S]

NW7 is pushing tony even farther acroos the line. Even Registered heroes are dropping "godwins". The Young guardians idea seems to been intended to bring the Hitler Youth to mind and if you didn't get the hint they dropped the "brown shirt line. Does Tony have any idea how bad this looks?
Yeah I don't know where they're going with that.

I'm fine with writers making him a deuche bag... but that doesn't mean I believe the actions of the character are right. That's arguing apples and oranges.
And really nobody is saying you have to because he screws himself over anyway. I just think that none of his actions are malevolent in nature despite how wrong he may be on certain things and some writers will push it way too far like Jenkins did.

[SquidSquod]

Being critical of the characters moral and ethical decisions is not the same thing as weighing his overall entertainment value. I can say his actions are wrong while still being entertained by them. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say the worse thing they can do for Stark right now is to "redeem" him. He's a more viable character when he's acting morally and ethically wrong.


What's wrong here is having this zero sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum) game where Iron Man becomes basically an evil comparison to the shiney glitter of unflawed heroes. Are you entertained because a character becomes a joke compared to the rest? Iron Man is a flawed hero, he's not just a flawed guy. And correct me if I'm wrong, Marvel Studios (a different entity to Marvel comics) is creating a heroic movie on him and if that movie sells, people are starting to look about this character in the comics medium and what if they find out that the comics version of this character is not the same as what's portrayed in the movie? IIRC, the best character over in DC Comics is Batman. Marvel's analog is not Spider-Man, Wolverine or Captain America. It's Iron Man because he's an ordinary man who forces himself to become a superhero because he has the brain and the will to do so.

So there are many reasons why Iron Man shouldn't be kept in the muck. You might not wanna see him getting out of the sad state, but for all Marvel's purposes to expand its lineups other than Spider-Man and X-Men/Wolverine it needs to bring Iron Man to a more polished form.

[Eclips0]

Iron Man is not a flawed hero, he is a villain. Even a flawed hero would nto cross the lines he has.

[XPac]

What's wrong here is having this zero sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum) game where Iron Man becomes basically an evil comparison to the shiney glitter of unflawed heroes. Are you entertained because a character becomes a joke compared to the rest? Iron Man is a flawed hero, he's not just a flawed guy. And correct me if I'm wrong, Marvel Studios (a different entity to Marvel comics) is creating a heroic movie on him and if that movie sells, people are starting to look about this character in the comics medium and what if they find out that the comics version of this character is not the same as what's portrayed in the movie? IIRC, the best character over in DC Comics is Batman. Marvel's analog is not Spider-Man, Wolverine or Captain America. It's Iron Man because he's an ordinary man who forces himself to become a superhero because he has the brain and the will to do so.

So there are many reasons why Iron Man shouldn't be kept in the muck. You might not wanna see him getting out of the sad state, but for all Marvel's purposes to expand its lineups other than Spider-Man and X-Men/Wolverine it needs to bring Iron Man to a more polished form.

I'd have to say the closest analogue to Batman right now is Black Panther (Stark is a superhuman now afterall). But that's besides the point.

I do think his jerkish ways do seperate him from the rest... I don't think that makes him a joke. I think that makes him stand out more. Stark does take a hit in regards to how people perceive him morally and ethically... but I also think people are more interested in him now, so it pays off.

[Will.S]

And correct me if I'm wrong, Marvel Studios (a different entity to Marvel comics) is creating a heroic movie on him and if that movie sells, people are starting to look about this character in the comics medium and what if they find out that the comics version of this character is not the same as what's portrayed in the movie?
I was taken back by this week's Iron Man presence alone. He's got TWO Wizard covers (One Secret Invasion related, the other Iron Man movie related) and appears in his own book, Captain America, New Warriors, Avengers: The Initiative, Captain Marvel, and Giant Sized Avengers. That's insane!

IIRC, the best character over in DC Comics is Batman. Marvel's analog is not Spider-Man, Wolverine or Captain America. It's Iron Man because he's an ordinary man who forces himself to become a superhero because he has the brain and the will to do so.It's kind of interesting that you say that with both movies in competition this summer. The "ordinary man" aspect though is somewhat lessened thanks to Extremis but just a bit because just like Spider-Man with organic webbing, he doesn't just stop being smart because his powers are now built in since he still creates his suits and creates new tech every day.

Extremis just helps him manage everything better and enhanced his armor interface.

[Eclips0]

I was taken back by this week's Iron Man presence alone. He's got TWO Wizard covers (One Secret Invasion related, the other Iron Man movie related) and appears in his own book, Captain America, New Warriors, Avengers: The Initiative, Captain Marvel, and Giant Sized Avengers. That's insane!

Yeah they think if they ram enough of him down our throats we will accept him more. Kind of desperate if you ask me.

[SquidSquod]

I'd have to say the closest analogue to Batman right now is Black Panther (Stark is a superhuman now afterall). But that's besides the point.

I do think his jerkish ways do seperate him from the rest... I don't think that makes him a joke. I think that makes him stand out more. Stark does take a hit in regards to how people perceive him morally and ethically... but I also think people are more interested in him now, so it pays off.

Black Panther is not yet Batman in an overall, marketability sense. Although he relies on stealth and wears black costume, BP is not a) iconic b) a playboy c) an industrialist . But the biggest detriment of BP is not comparable to Batman is that he's not iconic enough.

He's a jerk but it doesn't mean that he's a character without a redeeming qualities. A character without redeeming qualities cannot have a good solo comics written about him. Or if he has a solo comics, the sales are getting hit severely. Isn't this what happens with Iron Man comics currently - lagging sales, people are only interested on him getting sacked? People thought him of nothing but a jerk that has no redeeming qualities so there is no need to read his solo comics? At the end of the days, it's all about sales. The character can be interesting in any sense, but he has to be interesting enough to sell the solo comics because the solo comics are really the barometer if the character sells.

[Harlock]

I just have a quick question for people that still consider Ironman a heroic character, well, maybe not a quick question.

What is your opinion of Magneto, Dr. Doom, and Punisher, both individually and as compared to Ironman?

I think Dr. Doom would love to instate an SHRA in Latveria because then he could simply eliminate any potential threat to his power. I don't quite see Stark doing that.

[Eclips0]

I see Stark doing lots of things Doom would, why not this?

[Harlock]

I see Stark doing lots of things Doom would, why not this?

Um, because I literally don't see him doing it currently.

[Eclips0]

Give him time.

[SquidSquod]

I was taken back by this week's Iron Man presence alone. He's got TWO Wizard covers (One Secret Invasion related, the other Iron Man movie related) and appears in his own book, Captain America, New Warriors, Avengers: The Initiative, Captain Marvel, and Giant Sized Avengers. That's insane!


But his solo comics don't sell. Marvel are shoving Iron Man in our throats but they forget to give something that make readers interested in Iron Man the (solo) hero, not just Iron Man the background character.



It's kind of interesting that you say that with both movies in competition this summer. The "ordinary man" aspect though is somewhat lessened thanks to Extremis but just a bit because just like Spider-Man with organic webbing, he doesn't just stop being smart because his powers are now built in since he still creates his suits and creates new tech every day.


Movie Iron Man is still man in a suit.

[Harlock]

Give him time.

He's had time, if he wanted to. Doom would do it right away.

[Eclips0]

He's had time, if he wanted to. Doom would do it right away.

Tony's new at this villain thing, it's taking him time to learn the ropes.

[XPac]

Black Panther is not yet Batman in an overall, marketability sense. Although he relies on stealth and wears black costume, BP is not a) iconic b) a playboy c) an industrialist . But the biggest detriment of BP is not comparable to Batman is that he's not iconic enough.

He's a jerk but it doesn't mean that he's a character without a redeeming qualities. A character without redeeming qualities cannot have a good solo comics written about him. Or if he has a solo comics, the sales are getting hit severely. Isn't this what happens with Iron Man comics currently - lagging sales, people are only interested on him getting sacked? People thought him of nothing but a jerk that has no redeeming qualities so there is no need to read his solo comics? At the end of the days, it's all about sales. The character can be interesting in any sense, but he has to be interesting enough to sell the solo comics because the solo comics are really the barometer if the character sells.

As far as popularity goes... I agree with you. Really, the only marvel characters that are as iconic as Batman are probably Spider-Man and Hulk. But I do think under Priest BP became a very strong Batman analogu in terms of how he operates and thinks. And there's the issue of him being just a man, and relying on his brains and resources.

And I do agree, Iron Man does have some redeem qualities. Hell, I'd argue Doom and Magneto have redeeming qualities too... any good character, be it a hero or villain, should have that level of depth. It's that combination that often makes them interesting. I think giving Stark a jerkish side actually made that interest stronger. But I suppose history itself will have to be the judge of whether or not Stark was done any favors in Civil War. He seems to have been given a nice boost in expsosure to me.

[Harlock]

Tony's new at this villain thing, it's taking him time to learn the ropes.

Oh, I see. You want him to be viewed as a villain and so jumping to conclusions. Gotcha. I'm used to folks on message boards making asinine assumptions without proof to back them up. Carry on!

[Eclips0]

You will get yourself reported with comments like that.

And no it's not that I want him to be a villain the writers made that choice for us.

[Harlock]

You will get yourself reported with comments like that.

And no it's not that I want him to be a villain the writers made that choice for us.

I am shaking in my shoes. Well, no, I am actually barefoot at the time. That was just some sarcasm. I just call them as I see them. Interestingly enough, I still see Iron Man as being heroic. Sure, he is being used as a thinly-veiled, allegorical, political statement regarding the current regime, but he is still coming off as a hero in my eyes. See, writers can only write, not make choices for us. I am a big boy now, I am allowed to choose for myself despite whatever shoehorn a writer may be using to make some trite political statement.

[Will.S]

But his solo comics don't sell. Marvel are shoving Iron Man in our throats but they forget to give something that make readers interested in Iron Man the (solo) hero, not just Iron Man the background character.
It is weird that his solo book isn't selling as much as Thor and Captain America, but I think the quality of his solo book is still very high.

Despite the number of titles he appears in I also like most (not all) of his guest appearances when they're done well which in a way almost invalidates the solo title. Ed, Brian Reed, and Bendis in particular write him GREAT with Dan Slott sort of middling here and there but mostly good.

Movie Iron Man is still man in a suit.
Yes he is and it's going to be awesome.

[Eclips0]

I am shaking in my shoes. Well, no, I am actually barefoot at the time. That was just some sarcasm. I just call them as I see them. Interestingly enough, I still see Iron Man as being heroic. Sure, he is being used as a thinly-veiled, allegorical, political statement regarding the current regime, but he is still coming off as a hero in my eyes. See, writers can only write, not make choices for us. I am a big boy now, I am allowed to choose for myself despite whatever shoehorn a writer may be using to make some trite political statement.

Well don't see a hero as being someone willing to commit the crimes he has and cross the lines he has.

[Jake V]

Well don't see a hero as being someone willing to commit the crimes he has and cross the lines he has.

At what point did your moral barometer become the one everyone else had to adhere to?

[Harlock]

Well don't see a hero as being someone willing to commit the crimes he has and cross the lines he has.

Then we'll agree to disagree. Sometimes generals have to make hard choices. Sometimes being the captain means you have to send men into situations where you know they will not all come back. Sometimes a grunt has to aim his weapon and fire it with the intent to do lethal harm.

One man's war crimes is another man's salvation. Tony is fighting a war. He's made some hard decisions and had to cross certain lines because of that. Saying that in time he'll begin using the SHRA to simply eliminate personal threats to his power in a lethal manner as a Dr. Doom would is just too far a stretch for me to believe. Sorry.

[Eclips0]

Then we'll agree to disagree. Sometimes generals have to make hard choices. Sometimes being the captain means you have to send men into situations where you know they will not all come back. Sometimes a grunt has to aim his weapon and fire it with the intent to do lethal harm.

One man's war crimes is another man's salvation. Tony is fighting a war. He's made some hard decisions and had to cross certain lines because of that. Saying that in time he'll begin using the SHRA to simply eliminate personal threats to his power in a lethal manner as a Dr. Doom would is just too far a stretch for me to believe. Sorry.

A hero doesn't cross those lines or commit those crimes, even if it means losing.

[Harlock]

A hero doesn't cross those lines or commit those crimes, even if it means losing.

I suppose a Golden Age DC hero would not. What has always made Marvel much more interesting to me is that it has seemed to recognize form the beginning that giving "heroes" a human element makes them infinitely more appealing. Iron Man, to me, is way better now involved neck deep in political and social intrigue than he was when he was battling losers like the Termite.

Also, a hero can be many things to many people. If you happen to like fantasy, check out The Black Company series of novels by Glen Cook. Great fantasy about a group of mercenaries who are the "heroes" of the story. One reviewer described it as "Vietnam on peyote". Fascinating stuff that really helps illuminate the point I am trying to make. Even heroes have to cross lines if you want a certain level of verisimilitude. How they deal with that afterward determines what kind of hero they are.

As an example from comic books, Peter Parker's selfish mistake or if you will, crossing of the line, ended up setting up his entire premise of power/responsibility. One can be a hero and still make mistakes before and after and maybe even during the heroics. Maybe an ex-con saves a family from a burning house. Maybe someone robbing a house smells gas and gets the family out of the house.

It's really hard to live in a black and white world and for my money any character is more interesting when faced with reality rather than having a hero that just always and forever does the right thing no matter what and at whatever personal cost. Even the ancient Greek playwrights realized this, so why not modern comic writers or their fans?

[Eclips0]

Because if they act like the villains then there is nothing left to distiguish them from the villains

As Captain Marvel said in JLU:

Captain Marvel: I believe in fair play. I believe in taking people at their word and giving them the benefit of the doubt. Back home, I've come up against my share of pretty nasty bad guys, but I never had to act the way they did to win a fight. I always found another way. I guess I'm saying I like being a hero. A symbol. And that's why...I'm quitting the Justice League. You don't act like heroes anymore

[worstblogever]

I suppose a Golden Age DC hero would not. What has always made Marvel much more interesting to me is that it has seemed to recognize form the beginning that giving "heroes" a human element makes them infinitely more appealing. Iron Man, to me, is way better now involved neck deep in political and social intrigue than he was when he was battling losers like the Termite.

Also, a hero can be many things to many people. If you happen to like fantasy, check out The Black Company series of novels by Glen Cook. Great fantasy about a group of mercenaries who are the "heroes" of the story. One reviewer described it as "Vietnam on peyote". Fascinating stuff that really helps illuminate the point I am trying to make. Even heroes have to cross lines if you want a certain level of verisimilitude. How they deal with that afterward determines what kind of hero they are.

As an example from comic books, Peter Parker's selfish mistake or if you will, crossing of the line, ended up setting up his entire premise of power/responsibility. One can be a hero and still make mistakes before and after and maybe even during the heroics. Maybe an ex-con saves a family from a burning house. Maybe someone robbing a house smells gas and gets the family out of the house.

It's really hard to live in a black and white world and for my money any character is more interesting when faced with reality rather than having a hero that just always and forever does the right thing no matter what and at whatever personal cost. Even the ancient Greek playwrights realized this, so why not modern comic writers or their fans?

I'm going to say... I think the point about Golden Age heroes is accurate. In most real world situations, they wouldn't succeed in todays comic book world due to a strict moral code.

It's like... think about the 1990s big "anti-hero" phase in comics. Well, I think in the past 10 or 15 years, people have even blurred the line about the difference between where a hero stops, and an anti-hero begins. And when the anti-hero stops, and a villain begins. What makes Wolverine a hero and not an anti-hero? Or Deadpool? Or any character? You can classify a lot of them, but by Golden Age standards of morality, most of Marvel is populated with Anti-heroes. What makes Tony Stark a hero, anti-hero, or villain in someone's eyes? Or Magneto? Or the Punisher? Defining a moral code comes down to a person's personal tastes.

We all have our own perceptions of where the shades of grey are. Nobody in this debate is going to be truly right, or wrong. It's a matter of personal tastes.

Peace.

[mattbib]

The end.
.....