|Iron Man Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Invincible Iron Man (2016-) #594
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 04:02:26 pm EST (Viewed 70 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Invincible Iron Man (2016-) #594
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 03:27:12 pm EST (Viewed 69 times)
Quote:She overthrew a dictatorship. That's quite noble in a comicbook.
Quote:Read Secret War. This exact scenario was addressed in that series and, guess what? The guy who orchestrated the entire thing, Nick Fury, became a war criminal because of it.
Quote:Further, it wasn't a dictatorship. Believe it or not, von Bardas was elected to her position as Prime Minister. So, the story was wrong in that Riri didn't start the first elections in Latveria (do your research, Bendis) and, second, she overthrew a democratically elected ruler of a foreign nation.
In this story it was a dictatorship. That may be a retcon, but if so, well the retcon happened. It's as real now as any other retcon.
Quote:By my book, that's a war crime.
Quote:Heroes should threaten villains when those villains have possibly kidnapped or murdered someone, no matter what the odds are. That's called courage, and courage is not laughable.
Quote:This isn't courage. It's hubris. Not even Tony Stark challenged Doctor Doom without an army behind him. Yet, this little girl with no experience whatsoever think she can?
Captain America threatens Doom. Lot's of characters have threatened Doom. If Stark isn't allowed to threaten Doom, that's a flaw with the book imo. It's part of Stark's historical C-list status that he isn't allowed to rock the boat the way the A-list heroes do. He has to be "realistic", which means he's a jobber even in the way he talks. Screw that. My Stark is the movie one who threatened Loki even when his armor was junk. If comic Stark gets retconned into being that Stark, good. And if Riri gets to be that from day one, good on her as well. Also, such talk is not "hubris" in the context of a comic, it's a combination of courage, righteous fury, and sometimes an attempt to intimidate the villain, and psych oneself up for the coming battle.
Quote:That's one of the problems with this entire storyline. Riri is a Marysue with no sense of modesty. As written, she clearly thinks she's better than everyone else. When she meets Sharon Carter, for example, she insults Carter. Even in this issue, when AI Tony Stark mentions that real Tony Stark may be smarter than she, she gives a disparaging sound.
Comics aren't the land of the modest. Comics are the land of the "I'm the best there is!" and "I'm the strongest there is!" and "I am vengeance, I am the night, I AM BATMAN!" To hell with this suffocating idea that Iron Man, or Iron Heart, should be modest. It's not "hubris" in the context of a comic, it's a combination of courage, righteous fury, and sometimes an attempt to intimidate the villain, and psych oneself up for the coming battle.
Quote:The armor doesn't belong to the company either. It's a privately owned by Stark. Stark powers the company with his lesser patents. They don't own the armor and their claims have no legal basis. Most likely, they are hoping to reverse engineer it before they get called on claiming something that is part of Stark's private estate.
Quote:I will concede this point to a certain extent. While the armor has been the property of SE at certain points (i.e., during the Jim Rhodes period), there have been times when it is not. There is no definitive answer at to the present armor.
Fundamentally, it can't be company property, because then the company could long since have declared that Stark is violating his fiduciary responsibility by not mass producing the armor for sale. The company would win the right to do whatever they wanted with the armor fairly casually. Which would make Stark an idiot for inventing an armor that wasn't fully and permanently under his control and the control of his chosen heir in the event of his death. I do not believe that Stark is an idiot, therefore the armor is his private property.
Quote:However, if the present armor was built on SE property with SE materials using SE equipment, then there is a strong argument that it actually is SE property. As we do not know how the present armor was built, I'll withhold judgment.
Then Stark is an idiot. I do not believe he is an idiot.
Quote:The company is in the wrong for trying to claim Stark's private property. Which is probably why they won't push the assault charges: they can't prosecute her without also testifying that they tried to steal private property.
Quote:What private property? Other than the armor discussed above, everything else is SE property. Irrespective of what the board was doing, she still attacked a person with a guitar. If I were their attorney, I'd recommend pressing charges. You don't have a right to attack someone just because you don't like what they're doing.
Quote:Again, the company does not own the armor. That is Stark's private property.
Quote:Again, there is no evidence one way or another here.
Quote:That being said, where did this armor come from? Who authorized Riri to wear it? Whomever that person is, he/she is assuming massive liability to allow a 15-year old girl to fly around with, as another poster pointed out, a fighter jet.
That would be true in the real world, but the world of comics has made it clear that heroes are best suited to such power, and that non-heroes are evil if they stop them. This is a trope of the genre that can not be defended logically. You just have to swallow this trope whole or stop reading comic books.
Quote:This actually illustrates the larger problem with this comic. There are no explanations or consequences for anything. The reader is just expected to accept what happened.
Quote:Like in Fraction's run, it feels like someone didn't do any research into the character's past and just wrote a story based on the movie.
Fraction's book was nothing like the movie. Fraction's book was essentially an extension of Denny O'Neil's run.
To get back to the subject of humility: if the writer feels the need to write a story about humbling the hero, then the villain plainly needs a more threatening goal. Take "Born Again", for example. Fisk destroys Murdock's life. He destroys his business, his wealth, his reputation. Yet the story isn't about Murdock learning humility. Instead, Murdock, being the hero of the story, is happy that he at least saved the woman he loves. Kingpin, the villain of the story, is the one who is humbled. He's baffled and deeply disturbed that Murdock is completely unphased by losing the things Fisk himself considers absolutely vital.
Fisk's goal was sufficiently threatening that the story didn't have to be about humbling Murdock. Meanwhile so many Stark stories are dreary slogs about him being humbled. I don't want him to be humbled. I want villains to try to humble him, and for them to fail.
Here's one of my favorite Doctor Who scenes. The villains utterly fail to humble him.
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software|