Iron Man Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
The Mandarin

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,356
In Reply To
IronBrian3

Member Since: Thu Nov 30, 2017
Posts: 6
Subj: Re: Invincible Iron Man (2016-) #594
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 10:47:54 pm EST (Viewed 131 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Invincible Iron Man (2016-) #594
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 09:46:33 pm EST (Viewed 124 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:
      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:
    So, whenever writers and editors make significant mistakes and fail to research their topic, we assume it's a retcon? I call BS on that. It was poor writing and editing. They couldn't be bothered to stay in continuity because they want to make their character look good.

Then Stark is only slightly younger than Stan Lee, and uses transistors in his armor, something that would make him the biggest laughingstock since Don Quixote. Retcons are part of comics.


    Quote:
    Further, her actions were foolish. You don't simply overthrow the leader and hope things work out. This was even addressed in Iron Man #64, in the Stand Off series where Iron Man fights Thor in his Thor Buster suit. The side story is Thor deposed of the leaders of the country in question and it allowed Doctor Doom to take over the country to fill in the vacuum left by Thor's actions.


It depends on the mood of the story. This was a light humor story, not a gritty deconstruction. It uses the tropes of a light story, rather than a grim and gritty story about the futility of direct solutions.


    Quote:
    Either way, the actions should have been seen as foolish (which would have been a more interesting story), but, because we can't allow Riri to fail, everything turns out right because .... reasons.


Again, this was a light humor story. It doesn't use gritty deconstruction tropes for the same reason Star Wars doesn't use the tropes of Sin City. Also, Riri's actions being portrayed as foolish would have been mindnumbingly dull. I'm sick, sick, sick of Iron Man being the villain in his own book, and a new character being the star doesn't change just how bored I am with the idea that the hero isn't actually a hero, but some political dumbass. I don't find that interesting at all. I find that so dull I'm finding it hard to stay awake just talking about. I don't want to read about the hero actually being the real villain of the story. I want to read about a hero. Leave the villainous acts to the villains.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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:
    First, Cap has done it because he has the Avengers to back him up. Second, Cap is a very experienced warrior. Unlike Riri who has no experience.

No, he's threatened Doom when he was all alone. He threatens any villain when he faces them alone. He's allowed to do that, because writers like him and give him the star treatment.


    Quote:
    Also, we aren't talking about being less powerful. We are talking about Doom, likely, the most dangerous human on the planet. Stark has taken him on before, but has never done it lightly, which is the point.

Riri wasn't threatening him lightly, just boldly, because that's what heroes do when they believe villains may have harmed innocents.


    Quote:
    Let me provide you an example in real life. There is a man named Lavar Ball. He is the father of Lonzo Ball, the point guard for the LA Lakers. Lavar Ball is an annoying braggart. He has claimed that he was better than Micheal Jordan in basketball. Clearly, that is a dumb assertion because Micheal Jordan was the best player ever. That's Riri against Doctor Doom.


Lonzo is not a fictional super-hero engineered to fulfill a story role.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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:
    This I found amusing. If that's the case, why is Tony Stark constantly telling us that other people are "smarter than him." I think at one point he said that Pepper Potts was smarter than him.

Because he's a C-lister who doesn't get the treatment the A-listers do.


    Quote:
    We aren't talking about confidence. We are talking about unjustified arrogance. There is no reason to think that Riri is good at anything. Heck, in the ridiculous Secret Empire, we were shown that she's almost unnecessary. AI Tony Stark does all the real work while she just flies around.



    Quote:
    It would have been interesting to see her fail and learn. Like, for example, she failed to help Latveria and has to deal with the consequences of her foolish actions. Instead, we are stuck with the same character that was introduced several month ago when she told an MIT professor that she had learned all she needed there (after six months, mind you). That same unjustified arrogance which is really unappealing in a character.


That would have been a grittier toned story than what Bendis was going for. He seemed to be going for more of a comedy thing.

Given that this is a superhero book, her claim should be taken at face-value. She's just that smart, and no longer had anything to learn from conventional education.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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:
    Um, no. Two reasons why you are incorrect. First, the patents are owned by Tony Stark. If you remember, before he became Secretary of Defense, it was mentioned that, at first, he patented the Iron Man suit inventions through Stark Enterprises, but then started patenting them himself. The armor designs are still his. The armor itself could be owned by the company. If you remember, Iron Man was the corporate mascot of SE at some points.


The version of the company for which that might be true is long since defunct. He is currently the majority shareholder of a company several iterations removed from the company which he pretended to be the mascot of.


    Quote:
    Second, we aren't talking about his armor. We're talking about her armor. Presumably, it was designed in a major manufacturing facility and not in her garage. Such facilities are limited to SE and....where else? And, again, if that armor was built in SE property, using SE materials, with SE equipment, there is a very strong argument that it is SE property.


I'll have to reread the early issues to be certain, but I thought she did indeed build it in her garage.


    Quote:
    As I said, I am willing to let this point go until we gain further information.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      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:
    No, I don't have to accept it when the story doesn't make sense. Your response is, essentially, I have to accept poor writing because ... reasons.

Because it is the fundamental premise on which comics have been based since at least Spider-Man. If you can't suspend disbelief about it, then you can't suspend disbelief about comicbooks.


    Quote:
    Further, this was the entire point of Civil War, which Tony won. The idea that you can't have inexperienced fools flying around trying to do "good."

And then the entire followup presented the result as a horrible dystopia that was only ended when Rogers got the President to abolish the SHRA. The whole premise of the Civil War and its aftermath was that evil had won.

Now I, as then, have always considered the premise of Civil War and its aftermath to be absurd. Superheroes are people who have volunteered for a role in society that combines policemen and soldiers. Policemen and soldiers should be held accountable to democratic institutions. To do otherwise is to allow the kind of insanity one sees in the Philipines, where Duterte has allowed vigilantes to run amok.

In a realistic deconstruction, as in the real world, vigilantes are the villains. But Civil War and its aftermath wasn't a realistic deconstruction, it just pretended to be to set up the idea that regulating vigilantes was evil dictatorship and allowing vigilantes to run amok was the noble choice of free men. In other words, it was to reinforce the classic status quo while screwing over characters the writers never liked to begin with, like Stark. I saw all of that coming, so Civil War was torture to me even in its advertising stage.

TLDR version: Stark was proven utterly wrong by the aftermath of Civil War, and him being proven wrong in humiliating fashion was always the point of the story.




    Quote:
    I know they're writing Riri such that everything she does comes out right, but that was never the Marvel way before because it leads to poor writing and disinterested fans.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Fraction's book was nothing like the movie. Fraction's book was essentially an extension of Denny O'Neil's run.



    Quote:
    You missed my point. The basis for these writers' stories is what they learned in the Iron Man movies. It's pretty clear that they never bothered to research the character or look into his past. They just went with what the movie told them, some of which does not correspond to the comics.



    Quote:
    For example, Riri claimed that the Silver Centurion armor was originally designed for Jim Rhodes. Really? When was that ever established? I read the Stane series several times and no where do they ever say that the Silver Centurion Armor was designed for Jim Rhodes. Except in the movie, the "silver armor" became Jim Rhodes armor in Iron Man 2. So, there you go.


That's nitpicky stuff. If you're going to be angry at that, you should be angry that Stark isn't over 80 years old and using transistors.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        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.



    Quote:
    Again, you misinterpret my point. I'm not talking about "humbling" a person. My point is that you never see Riri ever learn from anyone. She's arrogant to a fault. She back talks people who have years of experience that she could actually learn from. But, instead, she's written like she doesn't need to learn anything from anyone because everything she does works out.



    Quote:
    She's essentially a Mary Sue: Everyone loves her, she rarely (if ever) fails, she's always right, and everything she does works out. This is the reason I don't like Batman. Not that everyone loves him, but everything he does works. Every time.



    Quote:
    This is poor writing and a poor character.


I think her stories could use some genuinely threatening villains with goals that are truly heartwrenching. But I don't think Riri needs to be a screw-up for that to happen. Doctor Who routinely manages to tell stories about an incredibly brilliant protagonist who is pretty much always right, yet there is still drama because those villains constantly threaten his loved ones, not only with death but with fates worse than death.






Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software