A Stark Contrast: Fraction talks “Invincible Iron Man”

[andy khouri]

This May, writer Matt Fraction pits Iron Man against the heir of one of his greatest foes in the opening arc of the new ongoing series, “Invincible Iron Man.” CBR spoke with Fraction about Ezekiel Stane and "The Five Nightmares."

http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=15905

[Magneto Rocks]

Most of it really has me quite hopeful, especially given how on fire Fraction's been with The Order. I'm looking forward to Stane and the developing technology aspect. My only problem remains with every time Fraction talks about redemption. In particular this:

I’m going to grind him down into the dirt and smash him like a car compactor. He’ll be put through a crucible and we’ll see, when you destroy everything he is, when you take everything away, what’s left? Who is the man left standing? Is he somebody with a life worth living? Someone worth admiring? Someone worth reading about?”

Well, I gotta hand it to Fraction, that does sound like a great story. A damn good one any writer would want to tell.

There's just one problem.

I'm reading it right now in "Director of S.H.I.E.L.D."

[CMBMOOL]

Something tells me that there is going to be a Secret Invasion tie-in/ epiolouge towards this title and it shows us the start of Tony Stark's redemption as a hero. :biggrin:

[Monty_Cristo]

sounds good. i have high hopes for Ezekiel Stane. i hope he isn't a flash in the pan.

[TotalWorldDomination]

Is anyone else just getting the title to the article and the body is the Dark Horse preview? Or is it just my computer going insane...

EDIT- Working now. Nevermind.

Most of it really has me quite hopeful, especially given how on fire Fraction's been with The Order. I'm looking forward to Stane and the developing technology aspect. My only problem remains with every time Fraction talks about redemption. In particular this:

Well, I gotta hand it to Fraction, that does sound like a great story. A damn good one any writer would want to tell.

There's just one problem.

I'm reading it right now in "Director of S.H.I.E.L.D."

Agreed. To be frank, I LOATH every time I hear someone use the phrase "redemption" in relation to tony stark. He dosn't need redemption. to imply he needs redemption infers that he was wrong in Civil War. Iron Man: Director of SHIELD is a perfectly good comic that shows that tony was and still is a hero. No great redemptive arc needed. He's doing what he did before- he's saving the world at any cost.

sounds good. i have high hopes for Ezekiel Stane. i hope he isn't a flash in the pan.

Have you been reading the Order? It was revealed that Stane was behind most of the Machinations in that book. He seems pretty good thus far...

[CaptainCanada]

It'll be interesting to see how far Fraction takes this corporate/technology metaphor/allegory, because the entire interview is basically drenched in it, and, properly done, it's a good take on the character (although you sometimes get something like when Grant Morrison put Lex Luthor in charge of an Injustice Gang and vowed to succeed using "innovative" "corporate" tactics, but the result was really just completely ordinary supervillain strategy).

Larocca's (is it two rs or two cs?) art looks great, although I really wish they'd stop putting those same three or four interior pages in every article on this series.

[chastmastr]

I'm on board for this precisely because of Tony's redemption. :smile:

David

[Mark_S]

The fact that Tony will go through some massive pain is enough to make me at least look at the title. Maybe I won't be cheering Stane on at the end of it.

Mark_S

[XPac]

Agreed. To be frank, I LOATH every time I hear someone use the phrase "redemption" in relation to tony stark. He dosn't need redemption. to imply he needs redemption infers that he was wrong in Civil War. Iron Man: Director of SHIELD is a perfectly good comic that shows that tony was and still is a hero. No great redemptive arc needed. He's doing what he did before- he's saving the world at any cost.





Whether or not you or I believe Stark needs redemption almost isn't the point... does Stark believe he needs redemption? He himself has already admitted that he doesn't feel it was worth it.

Feeling that you need redemption doesn't mean he's not a hero, and it doesn't mean he was completely wrong. It just means that he feels bad about at least SOME of the things he's done and some of the people he's hurt in the process.

CW was never a story of one side being completely right or wrong... even Millar said that from day one. Cap, despite still believing the SHRA was wrong, did admit to some mistakes and apologized for them. He was willing to hold himself accountable for them in the end, and that's a part of the reason why Cap is held in the esteem that he is. If writers want to have Tony do that, then I say more power to them.

[Mark_S]

But still there are some characters, She-Hulk and Thor being the best examples, that he can simply never make things up too. Not in any believeable way.

Mark_S

[Monty_Cristo]

Have you been reading the Order? It was revealed that Stane was behind most of the Machinations in that book. He seems pretty good thus far...

i have the issue of the Order where Zeke first appears. he seems competent enough but he hasn't really gone head to head with anyone yet. i want to see what his actual plan to make Tony obsolete is, first.

[chastmastr]

But still there are some characters, She-Hulk and Thor being the best examples, that he can simply never make things up too. Not in any believeable way.


Perhaps he could never make it up to them, but they could still in theory forgive him, and if Marvel is redeeming Tony, then I hope they do.

[TotalWorldDomination]

Whether or not you or I believe Stark needs redemption almost isn't the point... does Stark believe he needs redemption? He himself has already admitted that he doesn't feel it was worth it.

Feeling that you need redemption doesn't mean he's not a hero, and it doesn't mean he was completely wrong. It just means that he feels bad about at least SOME of the things he's done and some of the people he's hurt in the process.

CW was never a story of one side being completely right or wrong... even Millar said that from day one. Cap, despite still believing the SHRA was wrong, did admit to some mistakes and apologized for them. He was willing to hold himself accountable for them in the end, and that's a part of the reason why Cap is held in the esteem that he is. If writers want to have Tony do that, then I say more power to them.

But why make it a big deal? Tony's going through this "crucible" in DoSHIELD, He's even seeing the ghosts of people who's deaths he feels responsible for, interacting with them and working out his issues with them. THAT's how you do personal redemption- you don't make grand statements about it you have a character work through it, but not dile back on anything. To me it seems like Fraction's book is going to be all about trying to change tony back to his older image- playboy billionaire industrialist- rather then keep him at his much more interesting Director of SHIELD persona.

As for the "it wasn't worth it" Iron Man would willingly go back on anything to have his best friend back. On a personal level, cap dying wasn't worth it for him. But I'm sure if stark stepped back from himself he'd be willing to say that it was more then worth it... or at least it may be. If they trash the SHRA and the FSI in Secret Invasion, that's going to be a hard argument to make.

I am however very interested in seeing the Open Souce vs. Corporate tech metaphor play out. That angle seems very interesting to me, enough for me to give the book a shot.

[schmevil]

Well, I gotta hand it to Fraction, that does sound like a great story. A damn good one any writer would want to tell.

There's just one problem.

I'm reading it right now in "Director of S.H.I.E.L.D."

Yeah, that also introduces a problem of co-ordination. He's going to be simultaneously ground down by two different supervillains? I'm interested to see how they pull off divergent character development.

[TotalWorldDomination]

Yeah, that also introduces a problem of co-ordination. He's going to be simultaneously ground down by two different supervillains? I'm interested to see how they pull off divergent character development.

Good point. If Stane dose succeed in totally destroying stark, his position in SHEILD and his company, how will The Knauf's respond? The the Knauf's give a character new flaws or have something go wrong with Extremis, will it be reflected by Fraction?

[schmevil]

To me it seems like Fraction's book is going to be all about trying to change tony back to his older image- playboy billionaire industrialist- rather then keep him at his much more interesting Director of SHIELD persona.
...
I am however very interested in seeing the Open Souce vs. Corporate tech metaphor play out. That angle seems very interesting to me, enough for me to give the book a shot.

I'm getting a combination 60's/70's and Hypervelocity vibe, myself. It's like Fraction wants to root Tony's characterization in those older stories, but drop him into a post-modern SF setting, and see what happens.

[chastmastr]

If they trash the SHRA and the FSI in Secret Invasion

Fingers crossed. Heck, if that happens, that might even be enough for me to buy Secret Invasion, or the TPB...

[Dr. Chaos]

“I’m really looking forward to taking Tony on this redemptive arc, where instead of just buying back good favor he earns it back. He’s got some blood on his hands both literally and figuratively. He’s made a lot of right moves and a lot of wrong moves and he’s got a lot of amends to make. I’m looking forward to Tony, the man, becoming a stand up guy again. I’m going to grind him down into the dirt and smash him like a car compactor. He’ll be put through a crucible and we’ll see, when you destroy everything he is, when you take everything away, what’s left? Who is the man left standing? Is he somebody with a life worth living? Someone worth admiring? Someone worth reading about?”
Out of all the various Iron Man characterizations to come out of Civil War, none of them have really fully addressed the character in a satisfying way to me.

It's when Matt makes statements like this, I know he's on the right track.

[Chachi]

My question is...... Do we really need 2 Iron Man titles?

[Leocomix]

That looks horrible. Taking Stark on a redemptive tour??? WTF!!! Fraction doesn't get the character at all. I hate it when writers bend up to the fans.

[Frank]

Out of all the various Iron Man characterizations to come out of Civil War, none of them have really fully addressed the character in a satisfying way to me.

It's when Matt makes statements like this, I know he's on the right track.

The problem with Fraction's idea is that it's not much different of how he has been portrayed in the other book with the Kraus brothers. It's been a spy-type book where Tony has been put through the ringer. It's been like the old Tony of the past. What I would like to see it's the cocky mad scientist of Civil War who's always one step ahead of everybody. There's a reason why Tony is the best and he's a futurist and we haven't seen it in his own book.

Although the way Tony was written by Fraction in the Order book was close to how he should be done.

[CMBMOOL]

Agreed. To be frank, I LOATH every time I hear someone use the phrase "redemption" in relation to tony stark. He dosn't need redemption. to imply he needs redemption infers that he was wrong in Civil War. Iron Man: Director of SHIELD is a perfectly good comic that shows that tony was and still is a hero. No great redemptive arc needed. He's doing what he did before- he's saving the world at any cost.





Even if the cost were the lives of other heroes and the tranish reputations of former founders of the Avengers ? :mad:

[CMBMOOL]

Whether or not you or I believe Stark needs redemption almost isn't the point... does Stark believe he needs redemption? He himself has already admitted that he doesn't feel it was worth it.

Feeling that you need redemption doesn't mean he's not a hero, and it doesn't mean he was completely wrong. It just means that he feels bad about at least SOME of the things he's done and some of the people he's hurt in the process.

CW was never a story of one side being completely right or wrong... even Millar said that from day one. Cap, despite still believing the SHRA was wrong, did admit to some mistakes and apologized for them. He was willing to hold himself accountable for them in the end, and that's a part of the reason why Cap is held in the esteem that he is. If writers want to have Tony do that, then I say more power to them.

Don't forget about my Favorite event: World War Hulk, because even I still see it as a tie of showing who was right all along. :redface:

[CMBMOOL]

But why make it a big deal? Tony's going through this "crucible" in DoSHIELD, He's even seeing the ghosts of people who's deaths he feels responsible for, interacting with them and working out his issues with them. THAT's how you do personal redemption- you don't make grand statements about it you have a character work through it, but not dile back on anything. To me it seems like Fraction's book is going to be all about trying to change tony back to his older image- playboy billionaire industrialist- rather then keep him at his much more interesting Director of SHIELD persona.

As for the "it wasn't worth it" Iron Man would willingly go back on anything to have his best friend back. On a personal level, cap dying wasn't worth it for him. But I'm sure if stark stepped back from himself he'd be willing to say that it was more then worth it... or at least it may be. If they trash the SHRA and the FSI in Secret Invasion, that's going to be a hard argument to make.



And with that I'll be happy to see Iron Man having a total mental breakdown and for him to public admit that none of his actions were worth the destruction that the Hulk caused in World War Hulk and the Skrulls caused in current Secret Invasion mini. :redface:

[Expletive Deleted]

I love the idea of an open source supervillain.

Fraction's comments regarding that particular point seemed a little jumbled (Linux is an alternative to Windows, not an alternative to the desktop - the idea was there, it just wasn't clear). Still, fantastic high concept.

[TotalWorldDomination]

Even if the cost were the lives of other heroes and the tranish reputations of former founders of the Avengers ?

It did tarnish Caps reputation in my mind, thank you for worrying about it! :wink: And lets face it, according to Reed's projections Civil War will have saved MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of lives in the future.

Don't forget about my Favorite event: World War Hulk, because even I still see it as a tie of showing who was right all along.

You bring up an interesting point. Tony did his whole "I'm sorry" speech in WWH, and it was very well done at that. Tony did admit his mistakes, like cap did and he has suffered for him. Enough is enough. Let the man just be a hero!

And with that I'll be happy to see Iron Man having a total mental breakdown and for him to public admit that none of his actions were worth the destruction that the Hulk caused in World War Hulk and the Skrulls caused in current Secret Invasion mini.

In retrospect, they should have used teleportation rather then a ship to take Hulk to his peaceful planet. That mistake Stark will readily admit to. The Skrull thing... well, I'm pretty sure the skrulls would have invaded REGARDLESS of what the Illuminati did. After all, they were shown planning invasions in lots of other books before Bendis wrote his retcon. Not exactly a mistake on Tony's part.

However I would like to see stark apologize for not simply tranquilizing everyone on the Anti-Reg side when they showed up at the giffen-myer plant (I think that's what it was called) in Civil War. Had he arrested them all and talked to them AFTER they were safely imprisoned, we'd be in much better shape. After all Cap and Black Goliath would still be alive! :biggrin:

[TotalWorldDomination]

I love the idea of an open source supervillain.

Fraction's comments regarding that particular point seemed a little jumbled (Linux is an alternative to Windows, not an alternative to the desktop - the idea was there, it just wasn't clear). Still, fantastic high concept.

Agreed. It's the one concept that really has me interested in the series. That and I loved the Order and am hoping that we'll see them survive in some form in this book.

[chastmastr]

Oh Lord here we go again. I stand by what I've said here and elsewhere, and I really don't want to go into it all over again -- this seems to come up on every Iron Man thread. I find it really, really disturbing the way some people defend Tony's actions in Civil War and elsewhere, especially when they say it's because it means worse things won't happen. Does this mean they think that betraying people and violating civil rights would be justified in real life for some claimed "greater good"? If so, then some of our views of basic real-world right and wrong, rather than just what comics we like, are at odds, and with this impasse I don't honestly see much point in arguing any further. I believe that however good the end is, some means toward that end are never, ever justifiable, even if it means saving millions or billions of lives. I think some of Tony's actions (and Reed's, and others) in the last few years of the Marvel Universe have been in that category.

(The torturers in the Spanish Inquisition claimed that their ultimate goal was saving people's souls for all eternity (without getting into Albigensianism and all that here, it was ostensibly their claimed purpose) -- and I argue, not merely that they were wrong in their thinking, but even granting -- for the sake of argument -- genuinely saintly intentions, it was still horribly wrong because The Ends Never Justify The Means, then and now, in the religious or political arena, in real life and in fiction, futurism or no futurism, sci-fi trappings or otherwise.)

"The greater good" is an idol to which far too much can be, and has been, sacrificed in the real world as well as the comics, in my deeply considered belief. And I have nothing more to add to that, other than to restate how glad I am that Marvel is having Tony face his actions and repent at least some of the bad ones. It means I can finally buy an Iron Man book other than just the Marvel Adventures version (which is, by the way, quite good).

David

[TotalWorldDomination]

Oh Lord here we go again. I stand by what I've said here and elsewhere, and I really don't want to go into it all over again -- this seems to come up on every Iron Man thread. I find it really, really disturbing the way some people defend Tony's actions in Civil War and elsewhere, especially when they say it's because it means worse things won't happen. Does this mean they think that betraying people and violating civil rights would be justified in real life for some claimed "greater good"? If so, then some of our views of basic real-world right and wrong, rather than just what comics we like, are at odds, and with this impasse I don't honestly see much point in arguing any further. I believe that however good the end is, some means toward that end are never, ever justifiable, even if it means saving millions or billions of lives. I think some of Tony's actions (and Reed's, and others) in the last few years of the Marvel Universe have been in that category.

(The torturers in the Spanish Inquisition claimed that their ultimate goal was saving people's souls for all eternity (without getting into Albigensianism and all that here, it was ostensibly their claimed purpose) -- and I argue, not merely that they were wrong in their thinking, but even granting -- for the sake of argument -- genuinely saintly intentions, it was still horribly wrong because The Ends Never Justify The Means, then and now, in the religious or political arena, in real life and in fiction, futurism or no futurism, sci-fi trappings or otherwise.)

"The greater good" is an idol to which far too much can be, and has been, sacrificed in the real world as well as the comics, in my deeply considered belief. And I have nothing more to add to that, other than to restate how glad I am that Marvel is having Tony face his actions and repent at least some of the bad ones. It means I can finally buy an Iron Man book other than just the Marvel Adventures version (which is, by the way, quite good).

David

I find it very sad that you can't enjoy a character that you disagree with. So what if he never "repents"? I love thunderbolts and don't miss an issue. Do I think that Norman Osborn is a paragon of virtue? Even beyond that, I think every character in New avengers is dead wrong about registration and the sides they chose during the civil war. Do I not buy those books because I believe they were deeply selfish and short-sighted? Not at all. I very much enjoy New Avengers. Why do you refuse to buy Iron Man books? Is it because you are waiting until he admits that YOU were right?

[mikekerr3]

The problem with Fraction's idea is that it's not much different of how he has been portrayed in the other book with the Kraus brothers. It's been a spy-type book where Tony has been put through the ringer. It's been like the old Tony of the past. What I would like to see it's the cocky mad scientist of Civil War who's always one step ahead of everybody. There's a reason why Tony is the best and he's a futurist and we haven't seen it in his own book.

Although the way Tony was written by Fraction in the Order book was close to how he should be done.

Futurist are almost always wrong in real life. A futurist is someone who make educated guesses not a precog or a special kind genius. Cocky mad scientist is the description of a villian not a hero. You may think he is the best but the Tony thats been around for 40 years was good and marvel threw away quite a few of thier fans by turning him into a criminal SOB maybe they want some of them back.

[Mr. Earl Brooks]

It did tarnish Caps reputation in my mind, thank you for worrying about it! :wink:

Maria Hill assaulted Cap before the Registration Act was even passed after Cap comes to her to talk about the Super Hero communities feelings about the situation. What did Cap do wrong? Defend himself?

And lets face it, according to Reed's projections Civil War will have saved MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of lives in the future.

You don't think maybe he was a little biased? Billions of lives? Really?

[Mark_S]

I think the main difference in this book is the public approach being taken. The Knauf's declared loudly that they were pro sra and pro Tony from the begining. Once they said that the people who hated Tony were simply not going to pick up the book reguardless of how or what they wrote. If a hero repents in a vast empty space, if he deals with his guilt and no one sees it what is the point? To those who were right with Tony all the way during cw he didn't need to say he was sorry, to those who hated him the Knauf's said he was right all they way. The Knauf's basicaly said to the anti-sra fans and the Tony hate crowd "Stay away". And then they brought in old villains like Mandarin, sort of the same thing that Bendis did with MA when he brought back Ultron. It was short hand for 'Hey look, supervillains, the characters are back to behing heros again, forget about that cw stuff, they really are nice!"
Fraction is saying that he's got a new type of villain and that he wants to see Tony do some re-connecting. Now the Iron Man fans who'd buy Iron Man already will buy the book, but the ones who haven't bought Iron Man (and I have to confess I didn't even buy the Order because I figured it was another Tony Storm Trooper Squad, may have been wrong there) might be intrigued. And the fact that Tony will go through massive amounts of pain may be enough to get them to buy it. It's why I bought Thor after all.

All the good writing in the world won't do any good if you can't get the fan to look at the book, and after cw and wwh to a lot of fans an Iron Man title was a supervillain title. Not all of them of course, and I'm sure it sold well, but as the negatives piled up in She-Hulk, Thor and WWH I think marvel might be afraid of negative results sooner or later. You simply can't have a popular character be the focus of so much hate over so many months without it starting to have some effect.
The problem now will most likely be the one that is typical of marvel these days: no title to title co-ordination. I'd be surprised if the Knauf's have ever talked to Fraction or vise versa and I'd be truly amazed if JQ was going to have the titles sync up with each other.

Mark_S

[CMBMOOL]

You bring up an interesting point. Tony did his whole "I'm sorry" speech in WWH, and it was very well done at that. Tony did admit his mistakes, like cap did and he has suffered for him. Enough is enough. Let the man just be a hero!



I see Tony's "I'm sorry speech in World War Hulk, as a PR recovery moment. :evilangry:

To me that is a man just trying to save face, even if it is actually his fault.

Did he show any feelings for Bruce's delima when the Hulk tells his story about his life on Sakaar ?

Did Tony show any feelings for Bruce Banner when he was captured at the end of World War Hulk ?

Did Tony at least admit that sending in the Sentry may have been a major mistake, because he nearly killed them all, if it wasn't for the Hulk talking him down. :evilangry:

What do you say to that ?

[TotalWorldDomination]

Maria Hill assaulted Cap before the Registration Act was even passed after Cap comes to her to talk about the Super Hero communities feelings about the situation. What did Cap do wrong? Defend himself?

I'd prefer him to have kept a level head, but I can't blame him for hating maria hill (then again, I don't realy blame hill either. She was trying to head off the rebellion before it started). Cap's smarter then they played him in CW. he should have told everyone to retire till he could get it sorted out in the courts. and if the courts and the people rejected it he should have either kept fighting as a citizen or acepted the call of democracy. Or run for public office. Either one is better then taking up arms against ones goverment.

You don't think maybe he was a little biased? Billions of lives? Really?

Actually, since reed had opposed acts of this nature before, you have to give him real credit for his support of this one as the only way to stave off disaster. Since he was an opponent of all forms of registration, his voice among the Pro-Registration forces gains extra weight.

I think the main difference in this book is the public approach being taken. The Knauf's declared loudly that they were pro sra and pro Tony from the begining. Once they said that the people who hated Tony were simply not going to pick up the book reguardless of how or what they wrote. If a hero repents in a vast empty space, if he deals with his guilt and no one sees it what is the point? To those who were right with Tony all the way during cw he didn't need to say he was sorry, to those who hated him the Knauf's said he was right all they way. The Knauf's basicaly said to the anti-sra fans and the Tony hate crowd "Stay away". And then they brought in old villains like Mandarin, sort of the same thing that Bendis did with MA when he brought back Ultron. It was short hand for 'Hey look, supervillains, the characters are back to behing heros again, forget about that cw stuff, they really are nice!"
Fraction is saying that he's got a new type of villain and that he wants to see Tony do some re-connecting. Now the Iron Man fans who'd buy Iron Man already will buy the book, but the ones who haven't bought Iron Man (and I have to confess I didn't even buy the Order because I figured it was another Tony Storm Trooper Squad, may have been wrong there) might be intrigued. And the fact that Tony will go through massive amounts of pain may be enough to get them to buy it. It's why I bought Thor after all.

All the good writing in the world won't do any good if you can't get the fan to look at the book, and after cw and wwh to a lot of fans an Iron Man title was a supervillain title. Not all of them of course, and I'm sure it sold well, but as the negatives piled up in She-Hulk, Thor and WWH I think marvel might be afraid of negative results sooner or later. You simply can't have a popular character be the focus of so much hate over so many months without it starting to have some effect.
The problem now will most likely be the one that is typical of marvel these days: no title to title co-ordination. I'd be surprised if the Knauf's have ever talked to Fraction or vise versa and I'd be truly amazed if JQ was going to have the titles sync up with each other.

Mark_S

I can see your point, but his Anti-Reg sympathies are the reason I'm going to read the book in the shop before I buy it. If he just kept his yap shut about redemption I'd happily trot off to grab it and tell everyone I know to grab it too. as it is I'm very wary.

On a more on-topic note, I agree on the syncing with the Knauf's book. I don't see why they just don't do a bi-monthly in the style of ASM rather then two books.

I see Tony's "I'm sorry speech in World War Hulk, as a PR recovery moment. :evilangry:

To me that is a man just trying to save face, even if it is actually his fault.

Did he show any feelings for Bruce's delima when the Hulk tells his story about his life on Sakaar ?

Did Tony show any feelings for Bruce Banner when he was captured at the end of World War Hulk ?

Did Tony at least admit that sending in the Sentry may have been a major mistake, because he nearly killed them all, if it wasn't for the Hulk talking him down. :evilangry:

What do you say to that ?

1) I think Pak very clearly said this was tony bearing his soul to the world. And if it was a pure PR move he wouldn't have point-blank said it was his fault.

2) It's hard to have sympathy for someone who's destroying your home. It's like asking most americans "Well did you read about the terrible lives those 9/11 hijackers had?" and then being shocked when they're not sympathetic. Or a serial killer blaming his childhood for why he kidnaps 8 year old boys and removes there internal organs.

3) Tony, Reed, Dr. Strange, the whole lot of them (and the goverment) all agreed there was less of a change of Bob killing everyone then there was of Hulk killing everyone. Even as it was Hulk's Gamma powered footsteps almost cracked the planet wide open. And in the end the plan worked, even if sentry didn't strike the final blow.

4) that is what I say to that.

[CMBMOOL]

1) I think Pak very clearly said this was tony bearing his soul to the world. And if it was a pure PR move he wouldn't have point-blank said it was his fault.

2) It's hard to have sympathy for someone who's destroying your home. It's like asking most americans "Well did you read about the terrible lives those 9/11 hijackers had?" and then being shocked when they're not sympathetic. Or a serial killer blaming his childhood for why he kidnaps 8 year old boys and removes there internal organs.

3) Tony, Reed, Dr. Strange, the whole lot of them (and the goverment) all agreed there was less of a change of Bob killing everyone then there was of Hulk killing everyone. Even as it was Hulk's Gamma powered footsteps almost cracked the planet wide open. And in the end the plan worked, even if sentry didn't strike the final blow.

4) that is what I say to that.



Oka,y Let me see in the first issue Tony went into his "I'm sorry" speech, he also mentions that because his friend "Bruce Banner" would have wanted it this way, that he try to blow up the Hulk without knowing if Banner and the Hulk were in agreement or the Hulk's entire story of Sakaar.

Now this was after his suppose Nano tech trick that failed, because it was stolen, but still the Iron Man DOS tie-in explained where he was when the Hulk told his story, so he doesn't truly understand what the Hulk has been through since his exile.

Also about the Sentry battle, the Sentry and the Hulk were destorying what was left of Manhattan, with the Sentry in a Blood-lust moment and was trying to kill the Hulk with little remorse. :frown:

This was after the Hulk SPARED, and I mean SPARE, their lives for them to live with the guilt.


To me, the Hulk ended up the better man, because he was willing to let himself be defeated in the end rather than let another world be broken because of him. :tongue:

And besides, what could have happen if the Sentry wasn't talked down ? :frown:

[SquidSquod]

I think "Order" it's gonna bite the younger Stane at the end. He can be smarter, younger, more forward thinking and more agreeable than Stark but organisation will be his downfall.

[TotalWorldDomination]

Okay Let me see in the first issue Tony went into his "I'm sorry" speech, he also mentions that because his friend "Bruce Banner" would have wanted it this way, that he try to blow up the Hulk without knowing if Banner and the Hulk were in agreement or the Hulk's entire story of Sakaar.

And yet, Banner and Hulk were eventually shown that his whole logic for destroying the city and the earth heroes was false and that hulk did the wrong thing (he fought himself to try and give them the time to use the Stark-tech satilite weapon on him). In the end, even Hulk is given over to Tony's way of thinking! :biggrin:

Now this was after his suppose Nano tech trick that failed, because it was stolen, but still the Iron Man DOS tie-in explained where he was when the Hulk told his story, so he doesn't truly understand what the Hulk has been through since his exile.

Hulk comes back rants, says he's going to distroy new york and then kill Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic and Dr. Strange. He then holds up one of the most powerful heroes in the MU's broken body. If I were iron man feeling sympathy for Hulk would be the LAST thing on my mind.

Also about the Sentry battle, the Sentry and the Hulk were destorying what was left of Manhattan, with the Sentry in a Blood-lust moment and was trying to kill the Hulk with little remorse.

To be fair, Hulk was going after him too. And I wouldn't call that bloodlust, sentry says it feels good to finaly let go, because the hulk can actually take his hits. I don't recall him ever saying "I wanna see you bleed" or "I wanna hear you scream" Oh wait... hulk did that! :wink:

This was after the Hulk SPARED, and I mean SPARE, their lives for them to live with the guilt.

And yet, since we know Miek was there and would have done the exact same objection he did later, Hulk would have lost control again (and probably with more speed since he didn't even have to pass through Banner to become Hulk again) and destroyed the world. His sparing them without the Sentry Entry (ooo... rhyming things...) would have led to the exact same end, only this time he might have succeeded in destroying the world.

To me, the Hulk ended up the better man, because he was willing to let himself be defeated in the end rather than let another world be broken because of him.

If tony thought that him being beaten in ANYTHING would benefit the world, I'd wager he'd do it. It was another point Pak made in the Newsarama interviews about WWH- Tony is the frontline against Hulk. He can't stand to see others suffer because of what he has done or will do. So he trys to get out there and take him down first, and if he's the first causality so be it.

And besides, what could have happen if the Sentry wasn't talked down ? :frown:

What could have happened if the hulk didn't stop pounding the earth? these men are the nukes of the marvel universe. You don't use them lightly.

[TotalWorldDomination]

I think "Order" it's gonna bite the younger Stane at the end. He can be smarter, younger, more forward thinking and more agreeable than Stark but organisation will be his downfall.

I can see that. Tony's got a knack for planning and is connected to every beuocracy in the world. Stane may be quicker and younger, but at this point tony IS the Marvel Universe. hard to fight that.

[Mr. Earl Brooks]

I'd prefer him to have kept a level head, but I can't blame him for hating maria hill (then again, I don't realy blame hill either.

Level head? What? Get shot by a bunch of sheild agents because he doesn't want to be a cape killer? The put a gun to his head and said "Hunt your friends like they're murderers and theives or we throw you in the Negative Zone."

That's not a decision at all.

Cap came to Hill to talk to her about which Super Heroes would resist and which wouldn't. While Cap certainly didn't like the SHRA he wasn't planning on actively resisting and fighting his government. He expresses slight reservations and he is attacked. From that point on he knows who the good guys and the bad guys are.

She was trying to head off the rebellion before it started). Cap's smarter then they played him in CW. he should have told everyone to retire till he could get it sorted out in the courts.

Retire? While the government is sanctioning cloned murderers? While Luke Cage was arrested for sitting just existing? Most heroes were born with these abilities (mutants). Others by accident or experimentation. Very very few chose the abilities that they have, and the government wants to make them criminals for something that is beyond their control? There wasn't time for bureaocrats and politicians.

and if the courts and the people rejected it he should have either kept fighting as a citizen or acepted the call of democracy. Or run for public office. Either one is better then taking up arms against ones goverment.

As Luke Cage said, "Slavery was legal." The majority of people aren't always right, and super heroes in the Marvel U shouldn't be expected to abandon their convictions because of an irrational fear of people who are trying to do some good in their world.

[TotalWorldDomination]

Level head? What? Get shot by a bunch of sheild agents because he doesn't want to be a cape killer? The put a gun to his head and said "Hunt your friends like they're murderers and theives or we throw you in the Negative Zone."

That's not a decision at all.

Cap came to Hill to talk to her about which Super Heroes would resist and which wouldn't. While Cap certainly didn't like the SHRA he wasn't planning on actively resisting and fighting his government. He expresses slight reservations and he is attacked. From that point on he knows who the good guys and the bad guys are.

No, my level head comment would have referred to him not going Right to tony to talk about it rather then starting to build a rebellion. And for a while he dose start to view tony, reed and hank as the bad-guys. but in the end even he realized they were just trying to protect people.


Retire? While the government is sanctioning cloned murderers? While Luke Cage was arrested for sitting just existing? Most heroes were born with these abilities (mutants). Others by accident or experimentation. Very very few chose the abilities that they have, and the government wants to make them criminals for something that is beyond their control? There wasn't time for bureaocrats and politicians.

actually there was oodles of time for that. Everyone who was captured after the initial grab was captured attempting superheroics (the young avengers, daredevil). Fury made them fake ID's, they could have gone underground and stayed underground for the duration.

Had Cap gone right from Hill's madness to a press conference and told everyone what happened. He's defacto registered through his military service- he can take it to court and fight it there. if that fails he can run for public office on an anti-registration platform. It's his duty as a good American to do so, as a matter of fact. and if the voters reject him he can keep trying.

As Luke Cage said, "Slavery was legal." The majority of people aren't always right, and super heroes in the Marvel U shouldn't be expected to abandon their convictions because of an irrational fear of people who are trying to do some good in their world.

2 points here that refute the "Slavery is Legal" argument-

1) slavery was an institution, not a new law passed. it was a stain on this country from before it's founding, it's the American version of original sin. it has taken generations to get over it, if we are indeed fully over it.

2) Slavery was ended by... oh my... ELECTING an abolitionist! Shock of all shocks, the democratic process righted that wrong! Sure, the MINORITY of Americans who were pro-slavery tried to succeed from the union because they were upset with the legitimate election of an abolitionist, but that's when we went to war. When a small group decided that the people were wrong and they were just going to keep doing what they were doing, and what they had always done, because THAT was what was morally right, and that was what worked, we went to war. The confederates were not interested in some new law that limited there freedom to own slaves. They were not about to let themselves be drafted into some higher federal system that would strip them of there rights!

See how I turned that around? Now the Anti-Registration side are the Confederates! How dose it feel to be on the other end of that? stinks, don't it :wink:

[Note: I know the reasons for succession were much more complex the the election of an abolitionist. the central problem between federalist and anti-federalism was a strong undertone, but I think I managed to work that in too]

[schmevil]

And the fact that Tony will go through massive amounts of pain may be enough to get them to buy it. It's why I bought Thor after all.

I personally have no interest in reading a book that's all about punishing the main character. I mean, it's Iron Man, of course there's going to be angst, dead girlfriends, morally questionable applications of technology and massive self-doubt - that's what a lot of his stories are about. But I'm not going to read months of punishment to get to Fraction's promised redemptive moment. I'm also doubting the wisdom of his great big redemptive moment being spurred by a conflict with a new villain who has no connection to the actions from which Tony is supposed to be redeemed.

The problem now will most likely be the one that is typical of marvel these days: no title to title co-ordination. I'd be surprised if the Knauf's have ever talked to Fraction or vise versa and I'd be truly amazed if JQ was going to have the titles sync up with each other.

This is my fear as well. None of the interviews hint that they'll be coordinating their efforts.

[mikekerr3]

It did tarnish Caps reputation in my mind, thank you for worrying about it! :wink: And lets face it, according to Reed's projections Civil War will have saved MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of lives in the future.

Like I'd trust the guy who did such a sloppy kon on CLOR. He relized that Tony's method were bad quite early, Ask She-hulk or Peter Parker



You bring up an interesting point. Tony did his whole "I'm sorry" speech in WWH, and it was very well done at that. Tony did admit his mistakes, like cap did and he has suffered for him. Enough is enough. Let the man just be a hero!

Hard to do when his methods make him a villian. And he accepts some one he has seen commit a mass murderas a deputy. His deputies actions actually started the Actions part of the CW. He must accept that those are moral and legal actions that alone puts he far away from being a hero.



However I would like to see stark apologize for not simply tranquilizing everyone on the Anti-Reg side when they showed up at the giffen-myer plant (I think that's what it was called) in Civil War. Had he arrested them all and talked to them AFTER they were safely imprisoned, we'd be in much better shape. After all Cap and Black Goliath would still be alive! :biggrin:

Cap would still have been killed by a Shield Agent while under Shied's protection. From what we have seen in the actual books it miust be agaist policy for a super-hero to stand trail without getting shot with Shield as security. They have a 100% failure rate. and the rest of the hero's would be in THe Stark/Richards/SKrull gulag.

[mikekerr3]

2 points here that refute the "Slavery is Legal" argument-



2) Slavery was ended by... oh my... ELECTING an abolitionist! Shock of all shocks, the democratic process righted that wrong! Sure, the MINORITY of Americans who were pro-slavery tried to succeed from the union because they were upset with the legitimate election of an abolitionist, but that's when we went to war. When a small group decided that the people were wrong and they were just going to keep doing what they were doing, and what they had always done, because THAT was what was morally right, and that was what worked, we went to war. The confederates were not interested in some new law that limited there freedom to own slaves. They were not about to let themselves be drafted into some higher federal system that would strip them of there rights!

See how I turned that around? Now the Anti-Registration side are the Confederates! How dose it feel to be on the other end of that? stinks, don't it :wink:

Your's is a very strange reading of history:confused:

Secession came before Lincoln was sworn in, no new laws had been passed for years. The last actions of the Congress and the Supreme Court reguarding Slavery were both pro-slavery.

The Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave act. Slavery ended after so much blood was spilled that some rivers had literally run red. The emancipation Proclamation came in the middle of the War and Slavery was not completely abolished until after Lincolns death.

Slavery was doomed the minute Sumpter was fired upon.

Try reading Catton or Foote or even a High School text.

[/QUOTE]

[chastmastr]

I find it very sad that you can't enjoy a character that you disagree with.

Okay.

So what if he never "repents"? I love thunderbolts and don't miss an issue. Do I think that Norman Osborn is a paragon of virtue?

I've gotten some back issues of the original Thunderbolts and what interests me most about that series is precisely the idea of redemption of at least some of the previously villainous characters. And of course not only redemptive stories but tragedies can be great reading. But an ongoing, never-ending saga whose main character (who is supposed to be heroic) does horrible things, but is neither redeemed nor has some kind of final tragic ending -- why should I want to read that?

Even beyond that, I think every character in New avengers is dead wrong about registration and the sides they chose during the civil war. Do I not buy those books because I believe they were deeply selfish and short-sighted? Not at all. I very much enjoy New Avengers.

You're free to. I don't read it, myself.

Why do you refuse to buy Iron Man books?

I don't; I've been happily enjoying Fred Van Lente's version of him in Marvel Adventures, for example, and I am very gladly going to be buying the Fraction book. I've even gone and snapped up Kurt Busiek's run. I have no interest in the Knauf book because of what they've said in interviews, and yes, absolutely, their position about not only Tony's side in Civil War -- which is not the big issue for me -- but about what he did in Civil War -- is at issue, for reasons I've mentioned above. If they're going to write him as being a great good guy for having the "guts" to do things I find deeply wrong and immoral, things which have creepy real-world parallels to boot (which disturb me far more than any comic book), why in heavens' name would I want to read that? :confused:

Is it because you are waiting until he admits that YOU were right?

One could equally apply this to the people who are dubious about the new book because it's portraying Tony as feeling a need to repent of something, though this doesn't invalidate it in itself. But really this ("until he admits that YOU were right") is a bit of a red herring, as if I have some sort of weird personal grudge against a fictional character... :confused:

I'm not at all happy with how Reed was portrayed in Civil War either -- but in Reed's case they haven't been keeping it going the way they have with Tony. In an ideal world, for me, absolutely, Reed would say, "Susan, Ben, everyone, I was a real asshat for 42 and Clor and the secrets and lies, and I'm most dreadfully sorry and I promise to never do it again,"* but I don't expect that -- but neither is he the head of SHIELD with constant reminders in books across the Marvel Universe of what he did and continues to do. So Reed's hideously-out-of-character writing (not just in the main series; I love JMS, but the whole "Peter, my uncle was wrong to fight McCarthy" scene was almost as disturbing as 42 and Clor) can be brushed under the rug and forgotten like a bad dream. (Still no interest in buying Millar's FF run, mind you. We'll see who takes over FF after that. I mainly follow writers rather than characters anyway...)

Hey, I don't think that some scenes in, say, the 1980s Mephisto vs X-Factor make character sense, or moral sense (if I recall correctly, Jean sells her soul to him temporarily, I think) either -- but they haven't been mentioned ever since, either, so however wrong or badly conceived, they can be completely ignored. Tony's stuff isn't in that situation. If it were -- if Tony had acted like (in my view) an immoral fool in, let's say, Secret Wars IV, or something, come back to Earth, had a few "but can we ever really trust Tony again?" moments with the Avengers, and then had it all roundly ignored from that point forward**, okay, no problem -- it was a writing glitch, I can deal with it and move on. But this issue is still going on, and on, and on (kind of like this post :redface: ), so having it be addressed works for me.

David
* Okay, he probably wouldn't sound like Jarvis apologizing for baking a cake using a mix rather than from scratch, but you see my point
** kind of like the Crossing, but without Teen Tony

[Rock It Raccoon]

hmm. i realize this thread's all about speculation and all, but i'd rather we judge the product and not the way tony stark's been treated in recent comics. i'm just sayin. i got from the interview that this is probably the perfect forum at marvel for a little of fraction's casanova-style craziness. also, i'll be jonesin for some more of the order come issue #10, so the ezekiel stane aspect works for me too.

im psyched is what i'm saying. and im too sleepy to get fired up about a fictional character's moral imperative.

[Rock It Raccoon]

hmm. i realize this thread's all about speculation and all, but i'd rather we judge the product and not the way tony stark's been treated in recent comics. i'm just sayin. i got from the interview that this is probably the perfect forum at marvel for a little of fraction's casanova-style craziness. also, i'll be jonesin for some more of the order come issue #10, so the ezekiel stane aspect works for me too.

im psyched is what i'm saying. and im too sleepy to get fired up about a fictional character's moral imperative.

[SquidSquod]

Casanova Stark has its place before, but I think nowadays people don't think highly of promiscuity.

Tony Stark is best when he's an inventor & problem solver, not somekind of male Paris Hilton.

[Teh m0nk3y]

I´m a fan of Fraction, but his interviews have left me mostly cold.
My problem is his proclamation of Stark´s Redemption arc.
As it has been mentioned already, the Knauf´s have Stark being tormented by his choices while at the same time trying to prevent the Mandarin from unleashing a WMD.

[mikekerr3]

I can see that. Tony's got a knack for planning and is connected to every beuocracy in the world. Stane may be quicker and younger, but at this point tony IS the Marvel Universe. hard to fight that.

No wonder the MU seems to be giving off such a reak of corruption lately. The MU is a criminal with no morals. :eek: Glad I don't believe that everyone in the MU is a corrupt and malignant as Stark. There are still a few hero's left among it characters.

[Mark_S]

I´m a fan of Fraction, but his interviews have left me mostly cold.
My problem is his proclamation of Stark´s Redemption arc.
As it has been mentioned already, the Knauf´s have Stark being tormented by his choices while at the same time trying to prevent the Mandarin from unleashing a WMD.

Which as I said is part of the problem marvel now has. Those who are pro-Tony will not buy a book that paints him in a bad light, those who are anti-Tony will not buy a book that paints him in a good light. In writing Tony as they did Marvel created the premier devisive character in comics today. Now they are stuck with that.

Mark_S

[XPac]

But why make it a big deal? Tony's going through this "crucible" in DoSHIELD, He's even seeing the ghosts of people who's deaths he feels responsible for, interacting with them and working out his issues with them. THAT's how you do personal redemption- you don't make grand statements about it you have a character work through it, but not dile back on anything. To me it seems like Fraction's book is going to be all about trying to change tony back to his older image- playboy billionaire industrialist- rather then keep him at his much more interesting Director of SHIELD persona.

As for the "it wasn't worth it" Iron Man would willingly go back on anything to have his best friend back. On a personal level, cap dying wasn't worth it for him. But I'm sure if stark stepped back from himself he'd be willing to say that it was more then worth it... or at least it may be. If they trash the SHRA and the FSI in Secret Invasion, that's going to be a hard argument to make.

I am however very interested in seeing the Open Souce vs. Corporate tech metaphor play out. That angle seems very interesting to me, enough for me to give the book a shot.

I think the fact that he's seeing ghosts at all is a pretty strong statement of how much his own actions have tortured him. Again, whether you or I feel he needs to be redeemed is besides the point... the question is what Stark needs to do in order for him to accept the things that he's done. Many others clearly look down on him for what he's done ... but the bigger issue is that he clearly is looking down upon himself. Again, if you're seeing ghosts then you're clearly NOT okay with what you'd done.

Maybe the ghosts are something else entirely, I don't know... but we've seen him crying over his actions enough to know that he's clearly not okay with a lot of the things he's done. We don't exactly know how Stark will get his redemption... so we'll have to wait and see.

As far as making Stark a playboy industrialist again... that likely has more to do with the movie thing than anything else. Which Stark ends up being the better selling more interesting one remains to be seen.

[TotalWorldDomination]

I think the fact that he's seeing ghosts at all is a pretty strong statement of how much his own actions have tortured him. Again, whether you or I feel he needs to be redeemed is besides the point... the question is what Stark needs to do in order for him to accept the things that he's done. Many others clearly look down on him for what he's done ... but the bigger issue is that he clearly is looking down upon himself. Again, if you're seeing ghosts then you're clearly NOT okay with what you'd done.

Maybe the ghosts are something else entirely, I don't know... but we've seen him crying over his actions enough to know that he's clearly not okay with a lot of the things he's done. We don't exactly know how Stark will get his redemption... so we'll have to wait and see.

As far as making Stark a playboy industrialist again... that likely has more to do with the movie thing than anything else. Which Stark ends up being the better selling more interesting one remains to be seen.

I see your argument. I just think that hammering redemption over our heads seems like a nasty way of punishing people on his side during the CW. The Kanufs have delt with "redemption" as an abstract theme for quite some time- I think he's redeemed. But because the book is unapologetic for him as a character and doesn't admit he's wrong, we have people who don't think that's redemption.

As for the Playboy thing- was back in black very good for spider-man? I mean it was driven by a movie (Spider-Man 3) like this change is driven by a movie, except with spider man it was a costume. With tony it's personality traits.

[chastmastr]

In writing Tony as they did Marvel created the premier devisive character in comics today. Now they are stuck with that.


Which arguably makes Civil War's "What Side Are You On?" a rather poor idea in the long run. Making half the readers loathe a given character is not exactly great marketing. (I hold no illusions: I am sure that while Matt Fraction and I may agree that Tony needs redemption, Marvel's decision to set him up on the book this way is likely driven by the fact that there's this big movie coming out really soon, and they want as many butts in theatre seats as possible, so they're trying to backpedal and please everybody as fast as they can.)

There was a letter column back in the 1970s I ran across a while back in which a reader asked why we didn't see more of various characters' religious, political etc. beliefs, and the editor replied that Marvel wanted everyone to be able to sympathize and identify with their characters. I think this was largely a policy which continued till around 2003, 2004 -- though we did gradually start to see more with the religious beliefs of various "ethnic" characters. But we never had a Marvel Universe which encouraged readers to take sides against each other until now, and I really don't like that approach. (Again, I think things in real life are divisive enough, with a level of genuine anger and hatred between people on different "sides" right now, that adding to that fire, no matter how many comics it sells, is just not the right thing to do.)

Marvel Comics managed to tell great stories and avoid being overly simplistic for decades without pitting its fans against each other. I hope we'll return to that somehow.

David

[Magneto Rocks]

Which arguably makes Civil War's "What Side Are You On?" a rather poor idea in the long run. Making half the readers loathe a given character is not exactly great marketing.

Then do you care to explain why "Iron Man: Director of S.H.I.E.L.D." has sold better than Iron Man ever did pre-CW? If anything, it seems most of the characters who hated him due to CW weren't buying it anyway, and Marvel just got all the people who came to like him more during CW but weren't buying the book before (Like myself).


Marvel Comics managed to tell great stories and avoid being overly simplistic for decades without pitting its fans against each other. I hope we'll return to that somehow.

Controversy leads to discussion. Discussion acts as promotion. Promotion leads to increased sales. No reason for them to stop.

[spidarwin]

2) Did I oversimplify? heck yes. But lets point out that in my metaphor, Captain America, if he was a confederate, would have started rebelling before Dred scott was ever argued. He didn't even give democracy a chance.

...

I didn't want to debate the Civil War either- You opened the topic. I'd heard "Slavery was legal" so many times on these boards that I had to throw in a good solid response (and I'll admit my grammar was crappy, I had a few to drink beforehand). I just think if we are going to start comparing the SHRA to slavery we should explore the other metaphorical options first. :wink:

QFT.

I'm anti-SHRA. Largely because, in a world which allows some form of
costumed vigilantism to exist, it doesn't make much sense. I'm not here to
participate in a debate over the SHRA - it's done and over with. If someone
wants to write a great story about how some anti-SHRA characters work
to overturn the law, that'd be fabulous. Until then, we're all stuck with
what we've got.

I'm writing basically to point out that TWD is right about how the burden
the SHRA places on costumed vigilantes has been portrayed on the boards.
This isn't slavery. There aren't any revealed Nazi-style death camps.

***

And the actions of Commander Maria Hill toward "convincing" Captain America
to defect actually put her on the Skrull list - NOBODY would reasonably
expect him to agree or submit under the terms she presented him, in the
manner in which she did it. Maybe at her desk, in her office (no, not
ON the desk :P)

[XPac]

I see your argument. I just think that hammering redemption over our heads seems like a nasty way of punishing people on his side during the CW. The Kanufs have delt with "redemption" as an abstract theme for quite some time- I think he's redeemed. But because the book is unapologetic for him as a character and doesn't admit he's wrong, we have people who don't think that's redemption.

As for the Playboy thing- was back in black very good for spider-man? I mean it was driven by a movie (Spider-Man 3) like this change is driven by a movie, except with spider man it was a costume. With tony it's personality traits.

The people who sided with Tony during CW were the people that won CW... so I'm not sure marvel feels to sorry for them if they bothering showing that Tony feels he needs to be redeemed for at least some of the things he's done.

I think many readers (and writers for that matter) do feel the character needs some redemption, and I personally see why. As I've argued before, I think Stark is a more interesting character when he's acting like a complete jerk... but I can certainly see why many feel that potraying him in a more positive light will have it's advantages. And that's really what redemption is all about.

In regards to potraying a more positive Tony... honestly I think the only reason Iron Man is getting a second book is because they want a Tony that's more movie like. As long as they're not cancelling the other book, I don't see any harm done. They're not taking anything away so much as adding more. If the book sucks then it sucks... we'll have to wait and see.

[TotalWorldDomination]

QFT.

I'm anti-SHRA. Largely because, in a world which allows some form of
costumed vigilantism to exist, it doesn't make much sense. I'm not here to
participate in a debate over the SHRA - it's done and over with. If someone
wants to write a great story about how some anti-SHRA characters work
to overturn the law, that'd be fabulous. Until then, we're all stuck with
what we've got.

I'm writing basically to point out that TWD is right about how the burden
the SHRA places on costumed vigilantes has been portrayed on the boards.
This isn't slavery. There aren't any revealed Nazi-style death camps.

***

And the actions of Commander Maria Hill toward "convincing" Captain America
to defect actually put her on the Skrull list - NOBODY would reasonably
expect him to agree or submit under the terms she presented him, in the
manner in which she did it. Maybe at her desk, in her office (no, not
ON the desk :P)

I agree with you on Cap. He clearly wasn't given a good option by Hill in that scene. The only justification you can think of is that Hill was trying to tranq him before he went underground, assuming she could predict his actions. Still, I don't see why cap didn't go public or at least talk to tony beforehand.

And thanks for not thinking that the SHRA is Slavery or Nazis. Gosh that's a weird thing to thank someone for...

[Magneto Rocks]

I agree with you on Cap. He clearly wasn't given a good option by Hill in that scene. The only justification you can think of is that Hill was trying to tranq him before he went underground, assuming she could predict his actions. Still, I don't see why cap didn't go public or at least talk to tony beforehand.

And thanks for not thinking that the SHRA is Slavery or Nazis. Gosh that's a weird thing to thank someone for...

After we've done this for a while, we start to be very thankful for small miracles.

[Mark_S]

Then do you care to explain why "Iron Man: Director of S.H.I.E.L.D." has sold better than Iron Man ever did pre-CW? If anything, it seems most of the characters who hated him due to CW weren't buying it anyway, and Marvel just got all the people who came to like him more during CW but weren't buying the book before (Like myself).



Controversy leads to discussion. Discussion acts as promotion. Promotion leads to increased sales. No reason for them to stop.

You may have answered your question. But are you sure of the sales for DOS? To tell the truth it puzzles me that after everything Tony did everyone on the pro-sra side will give him a pass no matter what. I can sort of see people who hate him buying the title (I don't, can't afford it) just to have something to argue about, and maybe there is some quality to the Knauf's writing that can make even a character as hated as Tony is appealing, but I can't see Tony being a liked or respected character given the way he was written in cw. Because it really hasn't stopped in some titles, not if you read She-Hulk or the MA or the NA. Tony is still jerk number one, the man who will toss you into hell if you get in his way or don't do things his way.

But I think there is a reason marvel wants to stop all of it, or at least tone it down somehow, and it has been noted on this and pretty much every other thread where Tony is mentioned that I've seen in the past few months: Everyone is getting tired of these arguements. On both sides, but neither side will admit the other side might be right. But marvel wrote the character of Tony and the cw storyline so badly, so inconsistently and with no real thought of how to end it that the arguments will never end because there is enough evidence for both sides to feel justified. So there is no give from either side.
That is what I meant by Tony being the ultimate devisive character. I don't know if Marvel planned it that way but that is the result. All anyone has to do to start an argument on any comic related message board is to mention Tony's name. I'm sure marvel is surprised at how long that the anger has continued, but I hope they don't think it was due to a great bit of writing with an intersting concept. It is due in my opinion to an interesting concept and very bad writing that presented a flawed view of that concept.

Mark_S

[Magneto Rocks]

You may have answered your question. But are you sure of the sales for DOS? To tell the truth it puzzles me that after everything Tony did everyone on the pro-sra side will give him a pass no matter what.

Oh I don't- I'm with TWD, he should be locked up. And why? For letting the anti-reggers violate the law wheneverr they damn well please- he's gotten far too lenient. For now, he's the only one that can do the job, but once that's no longer the case, he deserves a nice comfortable jail cell for a while while he reconsiders just letting selective people ignore the law of the land.

I can sort of see people who hate him buying the title (I don't, can't afford it) just to have something to argue about, and maybe there is some quality to the Knauf's writing that can make even a character as hated as Tony is appealing, but I can't see Tony being a liked or respected character given the way he was written in cw. Because it really hasn't stopped in some titles, not if you read She-Hulk or the MA or the NA. Tony is still jerk number one, the man who will toss you into hell if you get in his way or don't do things his way.

Again, you wildly exageratte the "hatred" for Tony. I mean, it was there once, but these days? Naaa. There are only a few who really seem to hate him, and very few of them are passionate about it these days. He's barely in NA, he constantly saves the day and is treated fine in MA, and Jen just practically forgave him in She-Hulk. In fact, out of every single book on the market, there are NONE featuring Tony as a regular character while portraying him negatively. And we have Mighty portraying him positively, we HAD the Order doing it (Now we'll have Invincible), we have his own title, we have his recent appearance in She-Hulk, hell even his appearances in Hulk and Captain America, all adding to his "good" credentials these days.

[TotalWorldDomination]

Oh I don't- I'm with TWD, he should be locked up. And why? For letting the anti-reggers violate the law wheneverr they damn well please- he's gotten far too lenient. For now, he's the only one that can do the job, but once that's no longer the case, he deserves a nice comfortable jail cell for a while while he reconsiders just letting selective people ignore the law of the land.

I don't know about jail... but an indictment and trial to make an example of him? yeah. And a large fine. And of course Banning Stark Industries from doing work with the goverment again, thus crippling his company. But wait! there is still time for him to fix his mistakes! If he can get the NA's to sign the act, it'll make his "leniency" look like brilliant maneuvering. If not... well, he's going to need a legal defense fund.

Note that this doesn't mean I don't like the character. Tony's a stand-up guy and a true hero. He's just too lenient.

If only we could create a Pro-Registration clone of steve rodgers... THAT's a leader of SHIELD I can get behind!

[Magneto Rocks]

Oh no, I think jail is fine. Minimum security, and a few months, I'd say, but nevertheless, there he goes.

But as you say, we're forgiving people. I'm willing to forgive and forget if he comes back to his senses and makes the NA sign-AFTER putting them on trial for endangering the public, destroying public property, breaking and entering, breaking out prisoners.... Oh, and of course, manslaughter due to their phenomenal tactics taking the 42 battle to Manhattan. (Though in that case, I would of course exempt Wolverine, Echo, Hawkeye and Doc Strange.) They think that's unfair? Tough on them, should have taken the amnesty when it was on the table, the government can't just go forgiving everyone's crimes when they've already had EVERY chance to atone.

Then Luke Cage can go on a big redemption arc and talk to the families of the people who were vereaved by things like the fight at 42/New York and the Yancy Street Prison attack, piecing together the relationship with his wife which he blew apart and conceding that maybe deciding everyone who disagrees with you MUST be a shapeshifting alien isn't the best policy in life.

If only we could create a Pro-Registration clone of steve rodgers... THAT's a leader of SHIELD I can get behind!

Damn right! Hell, I'd take a post-trial Cap. After all, it would be difficult for ANYONE to argue the NA were in the right if we still had Cap there on trial pointing out "Uh, hey guys, I DID ask you all to STOP the little destructive rampage we went on, so stop claiming you're doing your little thing in MY memory."

[Teh m0nk3y]

Oh no, I think jail is fine. Minimum security, and a few months, I'd say, but nevertheless, there he goes.

But as you say, we're forgiving people. I'm willing to forgive and forget if he comes back to his senses and makes the NA sign-AFTER putting them on trial for endangering the public, destroying public property, breaking and entering, breaking out prisoners.... Oh, and of course, manslaughter due to their phenomenal tactics taking the 42 battle to Manhattan. (Though in that case, I would of course exempt Wolverine, Echo, Hawkeye and Doc Strange.) They think that's unfair? Tough on them, should have taken the amnesty when it was on the table, the government can't just go forgiving everyone's crimes when they've already had EVERY chance to atone.

Then Luke Cage can go on a big redemption arc and talk to the families of the people who were vereaved by things like the fight at 42/New York and the Yancy Street Prison attack, piecing together the relationship with his wife which he blew apart and conceding that maybe deciding everyone who disagrees with you MUST be a shapeshifting alien isn't the best policy in life.



Damn right! Hell, I'd take a post-trial Cap. After all, it would be difficult for ANYONE to argue the NA were in the right if we still had Cap there on trial pointing out "Uh, hey guys, I DID ask you all to STOP the little destructive rampage we went on, so stop claiming you're doing your little thing in MY memory."

I find myself agreeing with the above statements.

[gorthon616]

Again, you wildly exaggerate the "hatred" for Tony. I mean, it was there once, but these days? Naaa. There are only a few who really seem to hate him, and very few of them are passionate about it these days. He's barely in NA, he constantly saves the day and is treated fine in MA, and Jen just practically forgave him in She-Hulk. In fact, out of every single book on the market, there are NONE featuring Tony as a regular character while portraying him negatively. And we have Mighty portraying him positively, we HAD the Order doing it (Now we'll have Invincible), we have his own title, we have his recent appearance in She-Hulk, hell even his appearances in Hulk and Captain America, all adding to his "good" credentials these days.

I wouldn't say there is a "hatred" for Tony, but there is nonetheless a sense that he needs to bow down and beg in the minds of people who don't like him in any case. 'Cause at the end of the day, that's what those readers want. They are "right". Objectively, unquestionably, with no possibility of fault or error. At least, with most character its a disagreement people can live with. For example, I disagree a lot with Luke Cage, but at the end of the day I respect him enough to live with it. But with Tony, they won't really accept anything less than a total collapse from him... which is strange (or maybe not) considering what the story was (supposedly) supposed to be.

But in any case generically "good" characterizations won't help him, because it'll feel like a cover-up/gloss-over. And heroic portrays will always fall short because in the back of their mind there is always that reservation.

Really the two Iron Man books are here because of the fact that despite what everyone says, Tony the Villain is BORING. In practice, if not also in fact. Why? Because the issues that his character addresses are not relevant, important, and complex? No. The character touches on all of those issues. But the fact is, no one is biting.

Say what you want about how "great" the character is now or how he's more "interesting" than he's been in years, but most people (referring to most Anti-SHRA readers) don't see him that way. Tony is wrong; they are right. Tony is the goat; Steve is the pony. Sure there is "complexity" to why Tony is seen as wrong (to varying degrees), but people don't really look at that complexity. In fact, that's part of the allure to Tony. He's the easy foil, "well before I was unsure about how I felt on the issue... but now that I see Tony, I know that I am unquestionably right!" He's Magneto in reverse, not just in theme but in reaction and personal importance. Magneto is the villain... that's given a touch of sympathy. That's what people like about him. He makes the black and white into gray. Tony is the hero... given that touch of "evil" (for lack of better term). But rather than making things gray, he turns the gray into black and white.

Were there serious socio-economic concerns in Pre-Nazi Germany? Sure. Is there always a sense of "but is it the right thing to go into war?" whenever we send our boys into battle? Of course. Now let me ask you this, when we talk of WWII and Nazis, are those complex issues? Do we typically treat them as such, or is it we're the good guys and they're the bad guys? Why do you think it's so common that arguments always devolve into a game of "who's the Nazi?" Because people, when faced with complexity, invariably tend towards a bedrock of certainty (in a variety of forms for a variety of reasons) rather than diving into it. Nazi = Evil is pretty much a universally adopted principle (excluding Nazis), so that's why everything gets compared to them.

Tony has basically devolved into that game of "who's the Nazi" in many readers minds. And when was the last time a Nazi villain was interesting? Even the Red Skull isn't playing heavy on the Nazi stuff and is playing more straight anti-American. And some people aren't buying into Director of SHIELD not-a-Nazi Stark, so they're going to try out the same thing with Invincible not-a-Nazi Stark.

My main issue is that I like Director Stark, and if this thing ends up more popular, they'll likely scrap that book and keep this one.

[Mark_S]

Oh no, I think jail is fine. Minimum security, and a few months, I'd say, but nevertheless, there he goes.

But as you say, we're forgiving people. I'm willing to forgive and forget if he comes back to his senses and makes the NA sign-AFTER putting them on trial for endangering the public, destroying public property, breaking and entering, breaking out prisoners.... Oh, and of course, manslaughter due to their phenomenal tactics taking the 42 battle to Manhattan. (Though in that case, I would of course exempt Wolverine, Echo, Hawkeye and Doc Strange.) They think that's unfair? Tough on them, should have taken the amnesty when it was on the table, the government can't just go forgiving everyone's crimes when they've already had EVERY chance to atone.

Then Luke Cage can go on a big redemption arc and talk to the families of the people who were vereaved by things like the fight at 42/New York and the Yancy Street Prison attack, piecing together the relationship with his wife which he blew apart and conceding that maybe deciding everyone who disagrees with you MUST be a shapeshifting alien isn't the best policy in life.



Damn right! Hell, I'd take a post-trial Cap. After all, it would be difficult for ANYONE to argue the NA were in the right if we still had Cap there on trial pointing out "Uh, hey guys, I DID ask you all to STOP the little destructive rampage we went on, so stop claiming you're doing your little thing in MY memory."

Do you want this done before or after the NA risk their lives to help stop the skrull invasion? Or do you think that Tony (currently in a coma) can do this on his own?

Mark_S

[Mark_S]

Again, you wildly exageratte the "hatred" for Tony. I mean, it was there once, but these days? Naaa. There are only a few who really seem to hate him, and very few of them are passionate about it these days. He's barely in NA, he constantly saves the day and is treated fine in MA, and Jen just practically forgave him in She-Hulk. In fact, out of every single book on the market, there are NONE featuring Tony as a regular character while portraying him negatively. And we have Mighty portraying him positively, we HAD the Order doing it (Now we'll have Invincible), we have his own title, we have his recent appearance in She-Hulk, hell even his appearances in Hulk and Captain America, all adding to his "good" credentials these days.

Yes but you love Tony, so any appearence he makes that is not directly negative you will take in a positive light. He handed She-Hulk a note, casually, almost an afterthought after he made a big pr splash by saving a guy. She hasn't forgiven him, and if you think she should maybe you should talk it over with your girlfriends and see if any of them would forgive him for what he did to her.

Mark_S

[Magneto Rocks]

Do you want this done before or after the NA risk their lives to help stop the skrull invasion? Or do you think that Tony (currently in a coma) can do this on his own?

Mark_S

Ideally? I would in fact want them to simply TAKE the amnesty when it was offered them so they could be roughly fifty times MORE effective at taking down the Skrull invasion than they can possibly be at present. But I'm generous, I'd offer them yet ANOTHER amnesty in exchange for fighting the Skrull invasion, then yes, I'd throw their asses into jail when they refuse it because doing a few good deeds does not justify breaking any law you want just cos you feel like it.

Yes but you love Tony, so any appearence he makes that is not directly negative you will take in a positive light. He handed She-Hulk a note, casually, almost an afterthought after he made a big pr splash by saving a guy.

Umm... he handed her it casually rather than make a big show of it, and it was very clearly a show from Peter David to explain why she's working with him in Hulk- IE: Has forgiven him. And really, it's not just me. Please, show me exactly how one can possibly spin his appearances in Cap, where he works his hardest to weed out corruption and help honour Steve's memory. Or Mighty, where he single-handedly beats the Venom Virus and ties with Doctor Freakin' Doom in a fight. Or The Order, where he's helping to save the day. Or, really, in ANY title published in, say, the last two months.

She hasn't forgiven him, and if you think she should maybe you should talk it over with your girlfriends and see if any of them would forgive him for what he did to her.

For the record, I've had girlfriends who would PAY ME to send some of their relatives into space. :D

[dagonbeer]

He handed She-Hulk a note, casually, almost an afterthought after he made a big pr splash by saving a guy. She hasn't forgiven him, and if you think she should maybe you should talk it over with your girlfriends and see if any of them would forgive him for what he did to her.


That's some mighty reality warping powers you have there.

[mikekerr3]

1) I double Majored in Political Science with a concentration in American goverment and History with a specialty in American political history. The first DVD I ever owned was Ken Burns' the civil war, and on my 16th birthday I received a copy of "The Civil War: A Narrative" (along with Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but that's not what we are discussing here, and before you ask it did take me 3 years to finish both because I was 16 and had other things to do). Hell I've got a copy of Battle Cry of Freedom by McPherson on my desk at home. Don't tell me what I know and what I don't know.

2) Did I oversimplify? heck yes. But lets point out that in my metaphor, Captain America, if he was a confederate, would have started rebelling before Dred scott was ever argued. He didn't even give democracy a chance.

3) And your argument that Lincoln's election had nothing to do with the succession of the "Original Seven" is totally disengenious. Are you realy going to go out on a limb and say that if Bell or Douglas had been elected that those states were going to leave the union? The O-7 may have succeeded before he was sworn in but they did so AFTER he was elected.

4) And if you want to talk about blood, in the Marvel U, the first battles ALSO came before the law was passed. Sure, we didn't have a bleeding Kansas and the underground railroad was more of nick fury's mini-rebellion, but I'm sure Zeb Vance felt he had been personally attacked in a way not dissimilar to Captain America. Heck, Cap had at least a decent reason to not trust SHIELD, The goverment of south carolina engaged in pure rejection of national democracy. The North didn't instigate that war, the south did by there rejection of the will of the people and there clear actions against the federal goverment. Sounds like a pretty good analogy, on a basic level, to me.



Crime = All Time Low. During the Civil War you had a SHIELD unit on every corner. The Anti-Registration heroes had NO compelling reason to put on the tights since the people were already better protected then when they were in there glory-days.



Yes, he actually is. That's how it works. You don't get to start throwing moltav cocktails because something happened that you didn't like. You don't get to ignore the goverment because you felt one of there edicts was wrong. if you felt it was wrong, you peacefully protest, and work IN THE SYSTEM to fix it. This nation is not taken over with Jeffersonian ideas of a rebellion every 20 years. Hamilton and Adams won. Deal with it.



All laws that WHEN they were passed a majority of people on a national level thought they were disgraceful. I'm making the argument that things are never settled with armed rebellion, they are settled with ballots. Even MLK knew that one.



THAT WASN'T THE POINT!

The War STARTED when a group of people, who didn't like how goverment was going, decided they were going to break away. That the Federal system couldn't hold them any longer and they succeeded. They wanted to hold to there traditions and there freedoms. Makes them interesting "bad guys" but it dosn't change the fact that they rebelled against the Union! I'm not comparing Registration to slavery (that's your job) I'm comparing the anti-registration movement to the confederacy (in order to bother you, if nothing else).




That's the same argument made about Hitler- he never breached 40% in a parliamentary election. And yet he won the chancellorship and let his poor blind nation right into WWII. If Cap ran for president and won... lets say in a 3 way race, without wining a majority of the popular vote, would he lack a mandate? I doubt he'd see it that way. He'd govern just like Bush did after 2000. He won, and he has a moral imperative to change things, despite not wining the popular vote.

The point was DEMOCRACY declared an ABOLITIONIST the president and 7 states, without even waiting for him to be sworn in, left the union. They so feared the possibility of change that they decided to rebel. And yes, there were many other roadstops along the path to civil war. If you want we can go over to the community forum and argue about them for days on end (while we're there I'd love a "How would the supreme court vote on registration" topic). I simplified my argument same way you did. "Slavery was legal" "Ignoring the will of democracy started the real civil war"





I'll agree that economic fears drove a great many southerners to support the cause, and that the federalist argument was probably hit upon to justify said positioning, but none the less we are still left with people so afraid of a major change in lifestyle that they took up arms against there country because they decided it "Just wasn't right" the armies of the confederacy were not fighting with there heads, those boys were all heart. They loved there way of life and the Union was going to drastically change it. I'd say that same logic applied to many on the Anti-Reg side.



I'll agree that america has supported many things that are stupid, illogical, and make farces of our great national culture. You'd have to be in a coma not to see that.

However, my arugment is that the bloodiest war in american history was waged because some people decided that rebellion was a good anwser to the goverment doing something they didn't like. They weren't going to Invade the US after they succeeded. They were going to go about there business in there own states. the Union happened to take that action as rebellion. and they were right too.

I didn't want to debate the Civil War either- You opened the topic. I'd heard "Slavery was legal" so many times on these boards that I had to throw in a good solid response (and I'll admit my grammar was crappy, I had a few to drink beforehand). I just think if we are going to start comparing the SHRA to slavery we should explore the other metaphorical options first. :wink:

I smple question? f slavery wasn't legal where in the hell did Dred Scot come from, and the fugitive slave act.

The primary difference between the two civil warrs was that one was a fight to about (partially) restoring freedom for people, the second was a fight to punish people for having powers, If it had been super-hero registration their would have been some justification but it was based on something out of peoples control.

And Plessy vs Fergesson was the Norm even before the court ruled. It was not unpopular. It was considered common sense. Brown vs the Board of education was much more controversial nation wide.

Peole in some states, Ohhio for One " lynched US marshalls in the 1850's and I am proud of them for that. The best simile to Cap would not have been the conferacy but to Nat Turner, Fredrick Douglas, Or Harriet Tubman all were criminals in the name of justice.

[Mark_S]

For the record, I've had girlfriends who would PAY ME to send some of their relatives into space. :D

I'm sure. But I was talking about sleeping with her while lying to her and then depowering her when she confronted him and dumping her peniless in a torn uniform in New Jersey as bait for Cho.

Mark_S

[Mark_S]

That's some mighty reality warping powers you have there.

How so? Tony says "Here kid, have an autograph." And hands her the note. I know it was Peter David's way of trying to show a way that they could start to reconcile and there for explain why another writer has them working together. At least one marvel writer is trying to co-ordinate. But the girlfriends I've talked to have completely rejected any chance that she'd really forgive him. Work with him maybe, but not forgive him.

Mark_S

[Magneto Rocks]

I'm sure. But I was talking about sleeping with her while lying to her and then depowering her when she confronted him and dumping her peniless in a torn uniform in New Jersey as bait for Cho.

Mark_S

Well, let's put things in perspective:

If I were to sleep with her while lying to her, then she attempted to kill me so I stopped her in her tracks/depowered her, then instead of arresting her as I had every right to do,I left her by a roadside for her safety and mine to cool off knowing she could make it back to civilization with no harm done... then I think she might forgive me given time.

Well, no, probably not, but that's just cos I've dated some VERY vengeful girls. :tongue:

[Monty_Cristo]

I smple question? f slavery wasn't legal where in the hell did Dred Scot come from.

skrull ............................

[XPac]

Well, let's put things in perspective:

If I were to sleep with her while lying to her, then she attempted to kill me so I stopped her in her tracks/depowered her, then instead of arresting her as I had every right to do,I left her by a roadside for her safety and mine to cool off knowing she could make it back to civilization with no harm done... then I think she might forgive me given time.

Well, no, probably not, but that's just cos I've dated some VERY vengeful girls. :tongue:

Does anyone (including Tony) actually believe that Jen would have killed him? If we were to ask Dan Slott on any of these boards, does anyone think he would agree with your assessment there? Hell, if you want to be technial about it Tony attacked her first.

But I doubt Jen would have minded being arrested... I think she would have been happy taking this to court.

[Monty_Cristo]

Does anyone (including Tony) actually believe that Jen would have killed him? If we were to ask Dan Slott on any of these boards, does anyone think he would agree with your assessment there? Hell, if you want to be technial about it Tony attacked her first.

But I doubt Jen would have minded being arrested... I think she would have been happy taking this to court.

she killed the Vision.

[XPac]

This is my take, as well. Fraction's endless braying about how he's going to 'redeem' Tony in his book and 'finally make him a hero again' are particularly grating given that Brubaker and the Knaufs have already accomplished this in Cap and IM:DoS. Please get a new 'hook' for your superfluous IM movie cash-in book, Matt. My only hope is that his shenanigans are confined to his title and don't damage the Knaufs' superb IM book in any way.

Have Brubaker and Knaufs accomplished Tony's redemption? Honestly, it sounds like the people who are arguing this are largely the people that didn't believe he needed redemption in the first place.

Even taking into account what's happening in Cap and Iron Man, do people get the sense that other heroes have made peace with what Tony has done? Have readers who initially believed Stark needed redemption in large part now believe that he doesn't? And most importantly, does it seem like Stark has come to piece with what he's done?

Again, maybe it's just me but I'd largely argue no on most if not all of those fronts. If they really want Stark to move past some of his more questionable actions in CW, I think they're going to have to try a bit harder.

[Mr. Earl Brooks]

Crime = All Time Low. During the Civil War you had a SHIELD unit on every corner. The Anti-Registration heroes had NO compelling reason to put on the tights since the people were already better protected then when they were in there glory-days.

So you think that they were just prancing around New York in tights and people came after them? Or would you say that something was going down and did what they felt they ought to do?

Yes, he actually is. That's how it works. You don't get to start throwing moltav cocktails because something happened that you didn't like. You don't get to ignore the goverment because you felt one of there edicts was wrong. if you felt it was wrong, you peacefully protest, and work IN THE SYSTEM to fix it. This nation is not taken over with Jeffersonian ideas of a rebellion every 20 years. Hamilton and Adams won. Deal with it.

This is a completely different situation. "Peaceful Protest" wasn't an option for Cap. He got shot at for not agreeing to hunt down heroes as if they're rabid dogs while he was having a discussion with his superior. His friends were imprisoned in another dimension and others were going to be locked up for simply being who they were.

Peter Parker can't give back his powers. Kurt Wagner can't un-be a mutant. People were made criminals simply for who they are, many for who the way they were born. In very few cases, a vast minority indeed, was the status of Super-Human something that was volunteered for.

All laws that WHEN they were passed a majority of people on a national level thought they were disgraceful. I'm making the argument that things are never settled with armed rebellion, they are settled with ballots. Even MLK knew that one.

If memory serves, Jim Crow was present in nearly every corner in America until the early to mid twentieth century.

THAT WASN'T THE POINT!

The War STARTED when a group of people, who didn't like how goverment was going, decided they were going to break away. That the Federal system couldn't hold them any longer and they succeeded. They wanted to hold to there traditions and there freedoms. Makes them interesting "bad guys" but it dosn't change the fact that they rebelled against the Union! I'm not comparing Registration to slavery (that's your job) I'm comparing the anti-registration movement to the confederacy (in order to bother you, if nothing else).

For the record, I didn't mean to say that the SHRA=Slavery. I meant only to say that a governmental policy and law does not entail justice or righteousness.

[Monty_Cristo]

If he thinks Stark is honorable, he must not have read She-hulk, Hulk, ASM or Frontline.:biggrin: :biggrin:

i read all 3. do you consider She-Hulk, Spider-man, and Sally Floyd to be "honorable" individuals?

[Mr. Earl Brooks]

she killed the Vision.

After he kamikazed the Avengers mansion and had ultron babies and... oh yeah, was already dead.

[brundlefly]

How is it that gulag-builder Reed Richards gets a pass for Civil War/SHRA/shooting the Hulk into space, but Tony needs to keep "redeeming himself" over and over? :rolleyes:


If he thinks Stark is honorable, he must not have read She-hulk, Hulk, ASM or Frontline.

I couldn't care less about the liberties guys like JMS or Jenkins took in making Stark look the Snidley Whiplash "bad guy" just because they didn't understand that the SHRA conflict was about two opposing viewpoints, not "good vs evil." Stark shouldn't have to keep paying for their writing gaffes in his own book. We've already seen him own up to his mistakes and take his beating from Hulk in WWH. Get over it and quit scapegoating the guy for a crossover event from 2006.

[Magneto Rocks]

Does anyone (including Tony) actually believe that Jen would have killed him? If we were to ask Dan Slott on any of these boards, does anyone think he would agree with your assessment there? Hell, if you want to be technial about it Tony attacked her first.

But I doubt Jen would have minded being arrested... I think she would have been happy taking this to court.

Not saying she COULD have, all I'm saying is that if, to extend the metaphor, my girlfriend came roaring at me, incredibly pissed off and waving her fists in the air, then evasive action would probably come to my mind and that's if my girlfriend WASN'T, y'know, giant, green and gamma-radiated.

[Mark_S]

Not saying she COULD have, all I'm saying is that if, to extend the metaphor, my girlfriend came roaring at me, incredibly pissed off and waving her fists in the air, then evasive action would probably come to my mind and that's if my girlfriend WASN'T, y'know, giant, green and gamma-radiated.

So your reaction would have been to knock her out and chain her up and that would have been better? Also I know we've talked about this before, but Jen was merely striding angrilly toward Tony, not attacking him. She didn't even get close before he blasted her.

Mark_S

[Magneto Rocks]

Okay again, when the giant green woman with a history of going crazy and blowing things up is running towards you screeching insults, it is not the general human practice to say "Hey, Jen, how are ya?" I don't exactly think she was going to throw her arms around him in a hug.

So your reaction would have been to knock her out and chain her up and that would have been better?

I think ending the confrontation as quickly as possible and leaving her to cool down is a pretty valid option, yes, which is essentially what he did.

[Mark_S]

How is it that gulag-builder Reed Richards gets a pass for Civil War/SHRA/shooting the Hulk into space, but Tony needs to keep "redeeming himself" over and over? :rolleyes:



I couldn't care less about the liberties guys like JMS or Jenkins took in making Stark look the Snidley Whiplash "bad guy" just because they didn't understand that the SHRA conflict was about two opposing viewpoints, not "good vs evil." Stark shouldn't have to keep paying for their writing gaffes in his own book. We've already seen him own up to his mistakes and take his beating in WWH. Get over it and quit scapegoating the guy for a crossover event from 2006.

Well then you'll have to take that up with Marvel. If it is bad editing you are talking about. If each writer was indeed writing separate universes then you would be right. But the marvel universe is one place, things that you do in one title should-if they are large enough in scope-affect the rest of the universe. If marvel has abandoned this they should let us know ahead of time. If not then the characters are going to pay for ill thought out writing and bad editing. That is just the way it is for some of us. A minority perhaps, but some of us.

Mark_S

[Mark_S]

Okay again, when the giant green woman with a history of going crazy and blowing things up is running towards you screeching insults, it is not the general human practice to say "Hey, Jen, how are ya?" I don't exactly think she was going to throw her arms around him in a hug.



I think ending the confrontation as quickly as possible and leaving her to cool down is a pretty valid option, yes, which is essentially what he did.

I repeat, she was striding toward him angrilly fist clenched. Is Tony allowed to blast anyone he even thinks is going to attack him?

Mark_S

[XPac]

Not saying she COULD have, all I'm saying is that if, to extend the metaphor, my girlfriend came roaring at me, incredibly pissed off and waving her fists in the air, then evasive action would probably come to my mind and that's if my girlfriend WASN'T, y'know, giant, green and gamma-radiated.

And I think most people probably would be less critical of Tony had he taken evasive action (he can fly... Jen at best can just jump really high). But instead he chose to attack her first (and based on his dialogue, I suspect it was in part to silence her).

[schmevil]

If he thinks Stark is honorable, he must not have read She-hulk, Hulk, ASM or Frontline.:biggrin: :biggrin:

Tony's actions in the CW tie-ins were quite often wildly out of character. The She-Hulk incident was a particularly baaaad decision on the part of editorial. Nothing is ever going to erase the creepy sexual overtones of that story. Usually I'm against retconing, but I think She-Hulk and Iron Man would both be better off now, if Slott had done a subtler, more measured story. Take away the sex and the spintech, and the creep-factor goes down by about a hundred.

And now PAD is stuck finding a way to get Jen to a place where she can work with Tony again, because Loeb is using her in Hulk. Ridiculous.

This is part of why I have a problem with Fraction's redemption plan - the people Tony actually wronged don't seem to figure in it. No matter how much Tony suffers, it will mean nothing to Jen. Whatever PAD does in She-Hulk will be way more important in redeeming the character, than Fraction's planned slugfest with baby Stane. That's also why Captain America works - Tony's working with Steve's loved ones, trying to take out the people responsible for his death. It's direct and emotionally meaningful.

[XPac]

she killed the Vision.

Vision was actually still alive when she ripped him in half?

If he can survive what already happened to him, I'm not sure what Jen did made that much of a difference one way or the other.

[Magneto Rocks]

I repeat, she was striding toward him angrilly fist clenched. Is Tony allowed to blast anyone he even thinks is going to attack him?

Mark_S

You act like it was a hunch. I repeat- GIANT GAMMA IRRADIATED woman who has a LONG, DETAILED history of outrageous violence and going on mindless rampages, striding towards him looking like she wants to pound his face in. I don't think trying to stop her first was a disproportionate response.

[Alan2099]

Okay again, when the giant green woman with a history of going crazy and blowing things up is running towards you screeching insults, it is not the general human practice to say "Hey, Jen, how are ya?" I don't exactly think she was going to throw her arms around him in a hug.
In this case "you" having a history of substance abuse and a history of being mind controlled ever few weeks and have just instigated a plan to hunt down Captain America and locking anyone that disagrees with him in a hellish alternate dimension after recently undergoing a procedure that re-wrote your biological body, then can you really blame her for not being nice to the guy?

[Monty_Cristo]

Vision was actually still alive when she ripped him in half?



yes. she admitted that she had killed him to the young avengers version.

[HepOne]

CIVIL WAR HAPPENED OVER A YEAR AGO! How long will we have to wait before we can discuss an Iron Man issue without this bad writing being dragged up again? There will NEVER be an Iron Man comic written for people who hate the character, dont expect to be swayed by Fraction's work. The best thing for everyone is to not read any more Iron Man comics- its simple.

[Mark_S]

CIVIL WAR HAPPENED OVER A YEAR AGO! How long will we have to wait before we can discuss an Iron Man issue without this bad writing being dragged up again? There will NEVER be an Iron Man comic written for people who hate the character, dont expect to be swayed by Fraction's work. The best thing for everyone is to not read any more Iron Man comics- its simple.

It happened a year ago yes. But we will most likely be arguing about it until the end of JQ's term as EIC, because most likely only a new editor is ever going to do anything about it. JQ is as far as I know quite happy with the way things have turned out. CW got him on television. CW was the event that defined Tony Stark in the JQ era-and many other characters as well. It is marvel's version of Hal Jordon becoming Paralax. It is there, a constant with any fan who once cared about the character before or cares about him now. Marvel wrote the story to be devisive and they suceeded. The only way to read an Iron Man thread without hearing about the cw stuff is to create a new thread, label it "Tony Lovers Only" and ask people who don't like who Tony is to stay away.

Mark_S

[mikekerr3]

i read all 3. do you consider She-Hulk, Spider-man, and Sally Floyd to be "honorable" individuals?

Sally Floyd is a mis-use of air, The other two yes, at least until ASM 545 for Spidey.

[Monty_Cristo]

Sally Floyd is a mis-use of air, The other two yes, at least until ASM 545 for Spidey.

She-Hulk's one of the dirtiest superhero lawyers around. you should really read some of Slott's series, especially any story arc involving J Jonah Jameson. she lies quite casually. plus, you do realize that she completely onboard for the registration movement (high five-in Doc Samson, sleeping w/ Stark, and everything)? she only turned on Tony because of the Hulk stuff. that makes her a double hypocrite.

[mikekerr3]

CIVIL WAR HAPPENED OVER A YEAR AGO! How long will we have to wait before we can discuss an Iron Man issue without this bad writing being dragged up again? There will NEVER be an Iron Man comic written for people who hate the character, dont expect to be swayed by Fraction's work. The best thing for everyone is to not read any more Iron Man comics- its simple.

Two or three weeks ago in Marvel time,


I want to read stories about an Heroic Irom Man not Iron Thug, Fractions book looks to be it.

Didn't hate the character until they turned him into an authoritarian thug, who breaks the law with the intent of hurting people he has fought beside for years. collected him, followed him through his ups and downs.

He is still hunting peole for the simple crime of how they were born. or something they can't control. If he was enforcing a Super-Hero registration act I might have some sympathy but he is not. He Is enforcing the "Jim Crow" Super-human registration act. That makes him the bad guy.

Even in his own book he works with someone he knows is a mass-murderer

[mikekerr3]

She-Hulk's one of the dirtiest superhero lawyers around. you should really read some of Slott's series, especially any story arc involving J Jonah Jameson. she lies quite casually. plus, you do realize that she completely onboard for the registration movement (high five-in Doc Samson, sleeping w/ Stark, and everything)? she only turned on Tony because of the Hulk stuff. that makes her a double hypocrite.

She a lawyer. For her Sleeping with Stark was Stupid, for him a Crime.

[Monty_Cristo]

Two or three weeks ago in Marvel time,


I want to read stories about an Heroic Irom Man not Ir