A Stark Contrast: Fraction talks “Invincible Iron Man”

[schmevil]

Originally Posted by TotalWorldDomination

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]

Originally Posted by TotalWorldDomination

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]

Originally Posted by Dr. Chaos

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]

Originally Posted by TotalWorldDomination

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 ?

[CMBMOOL]

Originally Posted by XPac

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.

[CMBMOOL]

Originally Posted by TotalWorldDomination

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by CMBMOOL

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

Originally Posted by CMBMOOL

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!

Originally Posted by CMBMOOL

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!

[TotalWorldDomination]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Frank

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.