*Iron Man, the Godkiller*

**DiceRoll** · 11-14-2012, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by apexspark

You planning a Beta Ray Bill cameo there Gillen?
You think Land will trace an actual horse?

I...don't wanna think too hard about that.

**TonyStark1012** · 11-15-2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Prince Of Orphans

And so the bankability of Iron Man and RDJ means it's justified to compromise the integrity of the story by making him the center of everything? That explanation isn't good enough for me.

And I agree, it is just a picture, but I think it's fairly obvious where Marvel is taking this character. I suppose we should wait until GotG comes out before assuming Iron Man is set to overshadow all of them, even if him just being in the promo already does that.

I don't see were it ruined the story. I really enjoyed the Avengers movie. I'm just telling you why he was the main focus. So I guess we just agree to disagree on this and Tony being a Mary Sue. He is far from the definition of that.

**Phelpzy** · 11-15-2012, 10:24 AM

I liked issue #1, hated Lands art so sick of seeing the same faces in every single book he draws fing tracker, don't care for this armor either but gonna stick it out hopefully it'll go back to black and gold really like ot

**Prince Of Orphans** · 11-15-2012, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by TonyStark1012

I don't see were it ruined the story. I really enjoyed the Avengers movie. I'm just telling you why he was the main focus. So I guess we just agree to disagree on this and Tony being a Mary Sue. He is far from the definition of that.

I don't see where I said it ruined the story. It just compromised what it could be. And I get why he's the main focus, it is Hollywood after all, I just don't agree with the philosophy behind it. Really, I don't blame you for not seeing it that way. If I were big Iron Man fan I wouldn't mind him being the focus either.

**AnotherBrian** · 12-21-2012, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Prince Of Orphans

As far as the movie's concerned, he had the most lines, the best lines, the most screen time, was intellectually superior to Bruce Banner, did more on a destructive level than Thor and Hulk, had a larger leadership presence than Cap, was basically the only one whose character seemed to develop, and then he had the big moment at the end where he saved everyone single handedly. He stole the show in almost every possible way.

I'm just worried that it's leaking into the comics now. Now he's joined the Guardians of the Galaxy, and to top it off, it's his "vacation". I'm worried him joining will undermine them. Now he's "Godkiller", with this ultimate suit of armor. Is that supposed to suggest he's more powerful than guys like Thor now? And what about the GotG? They seem to all be at a lesser level than him now.

I'm not trying to hate on the character, but the same thing happened with Wolverine when the X-Men movies came out. Catch my drift?

First, RDJ (aka Tony Stark/Iron Man) did not get the most screen time in the Avengers. That would be Chris Evans (aka Steve Rogers/Captain America).

Second, RDJ was the big name in the movie. The other actors are B list actors, while RDJ has been an A list actor. So, he would get the most screen time, regardless of what character he played.

Third, contrary to what you have stated, Iron Man has been Marvel's favorite whipping boy for the past three or four years. He was almost considered a villain since Civil War, was blamed for Secret Invasion, and, pretty much non-existent in the main Marvel Universe.

Bear in mind that of all the major characters in the MU, Tony Stark is probably the most versatile. Like the joke in the Avengers, if you took away his suit, which is the most advanced battle suit on Earth, you still have a billionaire, playboy, philanthropist. He funds the Avengers, makes equipment for SHIELD, and provides scientific support for heroes. According to the Universe, he is equal to Reed Richards.

My point is that there is a bunch of valid reasons why Tony Stark would be involved in other comics. Unlike Wolverine, who, if you really think about it, is a very limited character.

**TonyStark1012** · 12-21-2012, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Prince Of Orphans

I don't see where I said it ruined the story. It just compromised what it could be. And I get why he's the main focus, it is Hollywood after all, I just don't agree with the philosophy behind it. Really, I don't blame you for not seeing it that way. If I were big Iron Man fan I wouldn't mind him being the focus either.

I don't see where it compromised it and even if it didn't focus on Tony like it did to a degree. I would have still enjoyed it.

**TonyStark1012** · 12-21-2012, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by AnotherBrian

Third, contrary to what you have stated, Iron Man has been Marvel's favorite whipping boy for the past three or four years. He was almost considered a villain since Civil War, was blamed for Secret Invasion, and, pretty much non-existent in the main Marvel Universe.

Bear in mind that of all the major characters in the MU, Tony Stark is probably the most versatile. Like the joke in the Avengers, if you took away his suit, which is the most advanced battle suit on Earth, you still have a billionaire, playboy, philanthropist. He funds the Avengers, makes equipment for SHIELD, and provides scientific support for heroes. According to the Universe, he is equal to Reed Richards.

My point is that there is a bunch of valid reasons why Tony Stark would be involved in other comics. Unlike Wolverine, who, if you really think about it, is a very limited character.

Totally agree with you here. Hell when Iron Man the movie first came out Tony was the most hated character in all of comics. He's been thru hell since then. That's why I don't get the whole Mary Sue thing. Doesn't make sense at all. Also I agree that Tony is versatile enough to be in alot of comics. Even without the armor. That's one of the many reasons he's my favorite character and like you said with Wolverine it's basically lets put him in it so people will buy it.

**Willow616** · 12-21-2012, 05:06 PM

I'm looking forward to this arc. Tony 'fits' the future of the MU more than anyother for me. Granted his membership into the Guardians 'may' owe something to the movieverse but as they've done a magnificent job so far then I am happy to see this new exploration of the character in the knowledge that it may benefit down the line for Stark and the Avengers as a whole. I don't think he'll be a full time member in the end but I like Marvel using it's characters beyond just New York which is how it had seemed to me.

The Marvel I fell in love with was global and cosmic BUT grounded.

**Free-Man** · 12-21-2012, 05:14 PM

I just assumed Iron Man's inclusion in the Guardians was a sales stunt. The last series got cancelled and was never a huge seller so they decided to cram an A-lister into the roster this time around.

Of course as far as fitting the team goes, there are far worse choices for an A-lister they could've made. It's not as though they suddenly had Spider-Man or Wolverine join the Guardians.