![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Three things Iron Man
1. 
You can find the whole story behind this panel in She-Hulk #27. I've posted 11 pages at![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
scans_daily.
2. Also check out the new Iron Man Movie tv spot. Ganked from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pandanoai.
3. And finally, a new interview with Matt Fraction on Invincible Iron Man.
NRAMA: Tony has everything...well, 96% of everything anyone could ever want, and can invent that last remaining 4% before most of the world is up for breakfast. Why does he do the Iron Man thing? What itch does putting on the armor scratch for Tony?
MF: He doesn't have everything. He doesn't have immortality, superpowers, or safety. Try as he might, the future remains outside of his grasp and control. The armor is the literal realization of his self-evolution, of the triumph of human will over the human body.
And, let's not lie-- his first addiction was to adrenaline. He's an inventor and a test pilot in his very soul. Putting the armor on allows Tony to-- well, to slip the surly bonds of Earth and touch the face of god.
At, like, Mach 6.
When Fraction is talking about the character I get really excited. He seems to both *get* and love Tony Stark and Iron Man. But some of his plans leave me cold - for one, I'm really not looking forward to Obediah Stane 3.0 (2.0 being Tiberius Stone). I'd like to move away from the Battle of Geniuses! thing, and open the field to a wider range of antagonists.
The post-human collective in Warren's Hypervelocity was a particularly strong new villain for Tony, because it had the same kind of upward-and-onward ethos of technological development as Tony. Only, it was Tony warped - the idea of technological evolution of humanity taken in an entirely different, and freaking scary direction. Instead of enhancing the body, they did away with the body, in favour of pure consciousness, and temporary body-constructs. Great stuff, especially considering Tony's own body issues.
I'm also really enjoying what the Knaufs are doing with Maya Hansen and the Mandarin. They shift the focus to biotechnological evolution, which is outside of Tony's field of expertise (always a good story-telling strategy), with the added flavour of a morally, and viscerally horrifying experimental protocol. I've liked extremis from the start, but am so happy with Mandarin's plan to salt the earth with it, because: a) it's been so nicely set up; b) it's cool and not easily countered; c) it's cool.
Fraction says that Ezekiel Stane, the villain of his first arc, is going to be "younger, faster, and smarter" than Tony, but let's face it - the basis of this character is grudge-villainy. Considering that there are innumerable characters in the MU who've got a reason to be pissed with him, I really don't think Fraction needs to invent a new character, straight out of the gate, just to set Tony up for a "reckoning". I also think that this "reckoning" he's planning, would have a lot more emotional resonance if it involved the friends and allies he's alienated.
Another issue I have with Fraction's approach is his previous characterization of Tony in The Order. As SpySmasher says:
Based on Fraction's take on Stark in the Order, I'm fairly certain that his Iron Man will be:
1) A bigger asshole than ever.
2) Weaker than ever.
3) Stupider than ever.
Basically, I'm predicting Tony is going to get ____ on, month after month, in his own book. I hope I'm wrong.
Me too, dude. Me too. :|
You can find the whole story behind this panel in She-Hulk #27. I've posted 11 pages at
scans_daily.2. Also check out the new Iron Man Movie tv spot. Ganked from
pandanoai. 3. And finally, a new interview with Matt Fraction on Invincible Iron Man.
NRAMA: Tony has everything...well, 96% of everything anyone could ever want, and can invent that last remaining 4% before most of the world is up for breakfast. Why does he do the Iron Man thing? What itch does putting on the armor scratch for Tony?
MF: He doesn't have everything. He doesn't have immortality, superpowers, or safety. Try as he might, the future remains outside of his grasp and control. The armor is the literal realization of his self-evolution, of the triumph of human will over the human body.
And, let's not lie-- his first addiction was to adrenaline. He's an inventor and a test pilot in his very soul. Putting the armor on allows Tony to-- well, to slip the surly bonds of Earth and touch the face of god.
At, like, Mach 6.
When Fraction is talking about the character I get really excited. He seems to both *get* and love Tony Stark and Iron Man. But some of his plans leave me cold - for one, I'm really not looking forward to Obediah Stane 3.0 (2.0 being Tiberius Stone). I'd like to move away from the Battle of Geniuses! thing, and open the field to a wider range of antagonists.
The post-human collective in Warren's Hypervelocity was a particularly strong new villain for Tony, because it had the same kind of upward-and-onward ethos of technological development as Tony. Only, it was Tony warped - the idea of technological evolution of humanity taken in an entirely different, and freaking scary direction. Instead of enhancing the body, they did away with the body, in favour of pure consciousness, and temporary body-constructs. Great stuff, especially considering Tony's own body issues.
I'm also really enjoying what the Knaufs are doing with Maya Hansen and the Mandarin. They shift the focus to biotechnological evolution, which is outside of Tony's field of expertise (always a good story-telling strategy), with the added flavour of a morally, and viscerally horrifying experimental protocol. I've liked extremis from the start, but am so happy with Mandarin's plan to salt the earth with it, because: a) it's been so nicely set up; b) it's cool and not easily countered; c) it's cool.
Fraction says that Ezekiel Stane, the villain of his first arc, is going to be "younger, faster, and smarter" than Tony, but let's face it - the basis of this character is grudge-villainy. Considering that there are innumerable characters in the MU who've got a reason to be pissed with him, I really don't think Fraction needs to invent a new character, straight out of the gate, just to set Tony up for a "reckoning". I also think that this "reckoning" he's planning, would have a lot more emotional resonance if it involved the friends and allies he's alienated.
Another issue I have with Fraction's approach is his previous characterization of Tony in The Order. As SpySmasher says:
Based on Fraction's take on Stark in the Order, I'm fairly certain that his Iron Man will be:
1) A bigger asshole than ever.
2) Weaker than ever.
3) Stupider than ever.
Basically, I'm predicting Tony is going to get ____ on, month after month, in his own book. I hope I'm wrong.
Me too, dude. Me too. :|
no subject
I hear you. Usually I'm good about going along, appreciating my favourite characters and not caring what other people think, but when the bashing gets really intense, it can be hard. I think it's one part over-identification ('not my guy!') and one part discomfort with other fans' over-identification ('it's only a comic book!'). I mean, there are times when the bashing makes me intensely uncomfortable - like I don't want to be around these crazy, crazy people.
With Tony I find it doubly ridiculous, since a lot of the hate is based on fictional politics. Especially when these people don't get as hot over real world political issues.
I want more people to like him, but I don't want his character changed into the type of character that would make more people like him!
I completely agree.
I wonder if Tony will be an antagonist with respect to Steve when Steve comes back? That would hurt. I like them as friends.
I wouldn't mind it in the short term, but if it became the new status quo, I think it would make me very unhappy, very quickly, and not even from a shipping perspective. I don't want Tony to be an out and out bad guy. Being Captain America's antagonist long term would more than likely turn him into Doom-lite, because even if Brubaker was still on CA, and the Knaufs on DoS, the character still exist in other books. I mean, look at what Slott and JMS did to Tony's characterization in Civil War - an astonishing amount of hate comes from stories written by those two.
I am sad that Tony continues to fail to be hot, though. I normally find him very attractive, but in this art he's just normal.
Tragedy! ;)
no subject
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. And my over-identification always makes me feel hypocritical about criticizing other people's over-identification!
With Tony I find it doubly ridiculous, since a lot of the hate is based on fictional politics. Especially when these people don't get as hot over real world political issues.
I think a lot of them equate the fictional politics with real world politics (SHRA = Patriot Act, etc.), which is why they get so hot under the collar about it. And it's safer, socially, to express disapproval for (or through) the fictional politics than the real ones.
I wouldn't mind it in the short term
Yeah, the short term is just angst fodder. Heck, it can even become actively slashy, because if they can reconcile from that, then their bond must be very deep.
but if it became the new status quo, I think it would make me very unhappy, very quickly, and not even from a shipping perspective. I don't want Tony to be an out and out bad guy. Being Captain America's antagonist long term would more than likely turn him into Doom-lite, because even if Brubaker was still on CA, and the Knaufs on DoS, the character still exist in other books. I mean, look at what Slott and JMS did to Tony's characterization in Civil War - an astonishing amount of hate comes from stories written by those two.
Yeah. *sighs* Once upon a time I adored everything JMS did. I still like his TV and his novels and his original comics, but whenever he handles an existing character it goes in directions I'm not happy with.
Anyway, when you've got a character who is so central that he almost has to appear in everyone else's books, it's a no win situation. The title characters of those books have to be the heroes, which means Tony has to be either a bystander, a victim, or an antagonist. And he doesn't work very well in the first two roles. (Well, he works well as a victim, but his current framing doesn't allow for other heroes saving him very often.)
I am sad that Tony continues to fail to be hot, though. I normally find him very attractive, but in this art he's just normal.
Tragedy! ;)
*laughs* Hey, it's a visual medium! I want my eye candy. *g*
no subject
As much as I see that that's where people are coming from, I don't think the Patriot Act is a good parallel for the SHRA. Or at least not in full. From what I've read, Millar was drawing on a number of different historical sources and political issues. Gun control. Internment of Japanese citizens. McCarthyism. The Patriot Act is contemporary, so it gets more attention but I don't think it quite works. It holds up only so far as the American citizens traded civil liberties for a sense of security that never materialized. But there's so much else going on in CW that people are missing because of their rage.
And it's safer, socially, to express disapproval for (or through) the fictional politics than the real ones.
Well sort of. American law enforcement agencies monitor internet chatter for omgsubversive activities. The posts about the erosion of civil liberties and cryptofascists might be flagged all the same. IT COULD BE CODE!
Yeah, the short term is just angst fodder. Heck, it can even become actively slashy, because if they can reconcile from that, then their bond must be very deep.
*happy sigh*
Yeah. *sighs* Once upon a time I adored everything JMS did.
Babylon 5?
Well, he works well as a victim, but his current framing doesn't allow for other heroes saving him very often.
This should be a new miniseries. Iron Man in Distress. With various heroes carrying him out of danger.
no subject
Neither do I, but I've seen a lot of people equate them. Which frustrates me even more, because it renders the entire reaction even more irrational.
It holds up only so far as the American citizens traded civil liberties for a sense of security that never materialized.
And, interestingly, this aspect is the one that people never bring up when they equate the two. They get up in arms over the civil liberties that are now being infringed upon and forget or ignore the fact that the American pubic was willing to make that sacrifice. I think they'd get up in arms even if it had worked. The people who are so angry about the SHRA ignore that, at the time it was voted in, it had overwhelming support from the general public.
But there's so much else going on in CW that people are missing because of their rage.
So true. Sometimes I think people want to be angry and get their hate on.
Well sort of. American law enforcement agencies monitor internet chatter for omgsubversive activities. The posts about the erosion of civil liberties and cryptofascists might be flagged all the same. IT COULD BE CODE!
*g* Actually, I meant "socially" as in, it's less likely to create tension among friends and family.
Babylon 5?
*nods* And Midnight Nation, which is an original graphic novel he did. And I liked the beginning of his run on Amazing Spider-Man, but it went in directions I didn't like after just a few issues.
This should be a new miniseries. Iron Man in Distress. With various heroes carrying him out of danger.
*laugh* That would be so awesome. And there should be an issue with Pepper and/or Happy carrying him out of distress, too. *grins*