|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 10, 2007 22:35:51 GMT -5
Spoiler alert ----- for AMS 544 & She-Hulk 21
Wow! In the same week, Tony Stark and Reed Richards both did what, in my opinion, was the right thing.
In ASM 544, Stark acted like his usual pompous, self-righteous self during his battle with Peter, but in the end, he let Peter leave without further resistence and then sent Jarvis with the money to do what was right for May.
Meanwhile, over in She-Hulk 21, Instead of backing up Stark's plan to permanently cause Jen to not be able to become She-Hulk, Reed seized the opportunity to undo the damage and helped restore her to the way she should be.
At this rate, Stark could actually end up apologizing to Thor or Bush could conceed that Gore really won the election. Oops, I'm mixing up my fantasy worlds again.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Sept 10, 2007 22:48:32 GMT -5
Is it the road to redemption for Tony Stark? Or him getting his dues?
He had his butt kicked by both Hulk and Spider-Man, both of whom he basically screwed over. Maybe Thor this week. Where's Namor and the Altantian army to make him pay for what he did to the sleep cell?
~W~
|
|
shag
Force Works-er
The Irredeemable Shag!
Posts: 15
|
Post by shag on Sept 10, 2007 23:36:27 GMT -5
Another possibility (cynical though it is) is that Marvel has come out and said that Tony Stark will not be revealed to be a Skrull. Therefore the writers are now trying to humanize Tony more than they have in the past year.
Just a possibility... cynical and jaded, but still a possibility.
Shag
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 12, 2007 11:13:26 GMT -5
It's not infrequent. In Civil War we had a roughly 60-40 ratio of people portraying them as bad. SINCE Civil War it's more like 80-20 of people portraying them as good.
For every 5 or 6 times they're portrayed brilliantly... we get a She-Hulk 18 or a Thor 3.
But IMO they never *stopped* doing the right thing, so...
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Sept 12, 2007 19:30:44 GMT -5
In Civil War we had a roughly 60-40 ratio of people portraying them as bad. SINCE Civil War it's more like 80-20 of people portraying them as good. For every 5 or 6 times they're portrayed brilliantly... we get a She-Hulk 18 or a Thor 3. Those examples would be Stark portrayals, right? So, even if we accept your mysterious statistics, maybe post- Civil War it’s more like 100–0 for Richards and 60–40 for Stark.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Sept 12, 2007 19:33:46 GMT -5
What a stark picture you paint, o Phantom...!!!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 15, 2007 11:37:05 GMT -5
Perhaps it's because they've heard enough fans talk about Iron Man in particular as a villain now and they're trying to raise him out of that ethical hole they had him digging.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 15, 2007 15:37:21 GMT -5
In Civil War we had a roughly 60-40 ratio of people portraying them as bad. SINCE Civil War it's more like 80-20 of people portraying them as good. For every 5 or 6 times they're portrayed brilliantly... we get a She-Hulk 18 or a Thor 3. Those examples would be Stark portrayals, right? So, even if we accept your mysterious statistics, maybe post- Civil War it’s more like 100–0 for Richards and 60–40 for Stark. Nope, Greg Pak's writing Richards as a moron. But it's at LEAST 70-30 for Stark alone.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Sept 15, 2007 16:41:07 GMT -5
since we're all just generating numbers here,... the fans are 95-5 in favor of me winning the lottery and 100-0 in favor of my wife turning out to be a disguised super-model
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 15, 2007 19:20:39 GMT -5
since we're all just generating numbers here,... the fans are 95-5 in favor of me winning the lottery and 100-0 in favor of my wife turning out to be a disguised super-model Oh come now, Nutcase. You're just making those numbers up. They aren't at all like the well-researched, clearly impartial and scientifically sound statistics people have been posting on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Sept 15, 2007 20:50:39 GMT -5
dangit SW,.. don't be blowing my cover
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 16, 2007 4:56:54 GMT -5
Hey hey, no need for the snark. It was a rough figure. But if you really want statistical proof....
Ratio of Iron Man:
"Good" appearances since Civil War ended:
The Order #1 The Order #2 Captain America #26 Captain America #27 Captain America #28 Captain America #29 Iron Man #15 Iron Man #16 Iron Man #17 Iron Man #18 Iron Man #19 Iron Man #20 Iron Man #21 New Avengers #30 World War Hulk #1 World War Hulk: X-Men #1 Mighty Avengers #1 Amazing Spider-Man #544 Nova #2 Nova #3
"Bad" appearances since Civil War:
She-Hulk #18 New Avengers #28 New Avengers #29 Thor #3 Avengers: The Initiative #4
...Seems to me like a ratio of 20:5 which is something like 4:1, which in turn is... 80:20.
*Blinks*
Okay, I swear to God I did not know it would exactly work out like that. Not that I'm complaining.
Note: I am in no way claiming this is some sort of indisputable, scientific fact but I'm not sure anyone could seriouslyt claim he's had remotely the number of negative appearances since Civil War as he has had positive.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 16, 2007 7:27:45 GMT -5
Perhaps it's because they've heard enough fans talk about Iron Man in particular as a villain now and they're trying to raise him out of that ethical hole they had him digging. Not just fans. I read a quote from Mark Waid stating that "the villains won."
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 16, 2007 11:41:31 GMT -5
Perhaps it's because they've heard enough fans talk about Iron Man in particular as a villain now and they're trying to raise him out of that ethical hole they had him digging. Not just fans. I read a quote from Mark Waid stating that "the villains won." I also recall Waid making some very negative comments about CW, particularly the way Cap was handled. I wonder what Alex Ross thinks? Actually, I'm surprised I haven't read any interviews with him regarding CW. He's generally so negative about anything that changes the status quo from around 1975 or so!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 16, 2007 12:37:22 GMT -5
I also recall Waid making some very negative comments about CW, particularly the way Cap was handled. Then you're incorrect. The only comments Waid has made about Civil War (and I follow him as one of my favourite writers) are that Marvel did a great job making it easy for new readers to get into, that he felt the villains won (He made that comment as a joke in the place I read it though, so that can be taken with a grain of salt), and that he absolutely hated the way Cap was handled at the very end. This certainly does not translate to "Mark Waid hated Civil War!" or anything like that. If he had problems with how Cap was handled throughout, he would have said so, instead he simply had a problem with the end. But Waid's now in talks with Marvel and doing other things for them, so I doubt he despises CW as much as some would doubtless like to portray.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 16, 2007 13:42:55 GMT -5
...that he felt the villains won (He made that comment as a joke in the place I read it though, so that can be taken with a grain of salt)... You display a lot of confirmation bias.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 16, 2007 14:18:35 GMT -5
...that he felt the villains won (He made that comment as a joke in the place I read it though, so that can be taken with a grain of salt)... You display a lot of confirmation bias. Well, he made it as an offhand comment, then laughed, and other people laughed, so I think saying it's NOT a joke is the confirmation bias here.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 16, 2007 23:09:03 GMT -5
I also recall Waid making some very negative comments about CW, particularly the way Cap was handled. Then you're incorrect. The only comments Waid has made about Civil War (and I follow him as one of my favourite writers) are that Marvel did a great job making it easy for new readers to get into, that he felt the villains won (He made that comment as a joke in the place I read it though, so that can be taken with a grain of salt), and that he absolutely hated the way Cap was handled at the very end. This certainly does not translate to "Mark Waid hated Civil War!" or anything like that. If he had problems with how Cap was handled throughout, he would have said so, instead he simply had a problem with the end. But Waid's now in talks with Marvel and doing other things for them, so I doubt he despises CW as much as some would doubtless like to portray. O-kay...I've sat here completely baffled for a minute or so. I said Waid made negative comments about CW, particularly the handling of Cap. You say that he made negative comments (although you felt some were jokes) and that Waid hated the way Cap was handled at the end. And somehow that translates into me being "incorrect"? I understand you have this obsession with defending Marvel and/or Tony Stark, but has it really gotten to the point where you will essentially repeat what someone says and then say they are incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 17, 2007 10:36:34 GMT -5
Let's break it down, Tana. You said he made some very negative comments about Civil War. He did not, unless you count "The bad guys won"- which was definitely, in the context I read it, a joke, but it's quite possible he belives it. So no, Mark Waid did not make negative comments about Civil War, even complimenting it actually. And you implied he hated how Cap was handled throughout, I merely corrected you to point out it was only how he was handled at the very end. So we did disagree, I was merely correcting you.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 17, 2007 14:31:13 GMT -5
But Waid's now in talks with Marvel and doing other things for them, so I doubt he despises CW as much as some would doubtless like to portray. I don´t like Mark Waid as a writer (with a few exceptions) and think he may be a bit of a pr*ck (threatening to break peoples noses on message boards - not even John Byrne sunk to that level) but he liking/disliking CW has nothing to do with doing work for Marvel. After all he is a professional and would work where he gets work to do. What has that to do with his personal opinion on CW?
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 17, 2007 21:48:48 GMT -5
Let's break it down, Tana. You said he made some very negative comments about Civil War. He did not, unless you count "The bad guys won"- which was definitely, in the context I read it, a joke, but it's quite possible he belives it. So no, Mark Waid did not make negative comments about Civil War, even complimenting it actually. And you implied he hated how Cap was handled throughout, I merely corrected you to point out it was only how he was handled at the very end. So we did disagree, I was merely correcting you. And as most of us here know, you really really enjoy correcting people. However, this is the excerpt from the Waid interview I read (on CBR back in May): RT: I always ask DC exclusive creators what they thought of "Civil War" and Marvel exclusive creators what they thought of "52." So, how'd you like "Civil War"? MW: I think they did a better job than we did of making it a new-reader-friendly story. It certainly had its exciting moments. I think the finale showed such a fundamental lack of understanding of who Captain America is that my jaw is still on the floor, but, oh, well. RT: And don't forget about Iron Man! MW: The villains won. Congratulations! Iron Man I don't care about, though. Iron Man I never liked. It's Captain America that kills me. RT: I don't really care about Iron Man either, but now in every book he appears in, whenever he walks in a room you just want to groan. It shouldn't be like that. MW: Basically, what made me itchy about "Civil War" is that - whether intentionally or not - the message seemed to be "give up your civil liberties and stop fighting for the things you believe in and everything will be fine." I get enough of that from the Bush administration. But, man, it sure was a good-lookin' book. Steve McNiven is brilliantly talented. I would say these qualify as negative statements. Really, it's absurd that I feel the need to actually "prove" that the innocuous statement I made is factual. That wasn't even what I was focused on - I was more interested in hearing if anyone had heard Alex Ross' opinion on Civil War. But here I am again, playing this stupid game. I guess I have a low tolerance for people either putting words into my mouth, or attempting to twist something harmless into a point of argument. Whatever. I'm done with this particular subject.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 17, 2007 22:15:42 GMT -5
Sorry Doomsie, but the proof is in the pudding. I'm sure the evidence won't sway your conviction that you are right but there are statements like "They did a better job than we did of making it a new-reader-friendly story," "What made me itchy about Civil War is that..." or "But, man, it sure was good-lookin' book" (Which in case you don't get it is the kind of statement one might make regarding the brilliant mind of, say, Jessica Simpson - "Well, she's pretty.) Perhaps you thought the reference to the Bush administration was a compliment. I don't think so. At any rate, maybe you saw a different interview than Tana and that could explain your different viewpoint but the evidence she presented certainly seems to wrap things up. However... (This is when I eagerly await your effort to convince us all that "They did a better job than us of making it a new reader-friendly book" actually means that we did a great job but they still edged us by just a fraction of a hair or that for whatever reason, this interview didn't really count.)
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Sept 17, 2007 23:05:58 GMT -5
Let's break it down, Tana. Yes, let’s. I read a quote from Mark Waid stating that "the villains won." I also recall Waid making some very negative comments about CW, particularly the way Cap was handled. Then you're incorrect. The only comments Waid has made about Civil War (and I follow him as one of my favourite writers) are that Marvel did a great job making it easy for new readers to get into, that he felt the villains won (He made that comment as a joke in the place I read it though, so that can be taken with a grain of salt), and that he absolutely hated the way Cap was handled at the very end. This certainly does not translate to "Mark Waid hated Civil War!" or anything like that. No one claimed he said he hated it. This is called a straw-man argument. If he had problems with how Cap was handled throughout, he would have said so, instead he simply had a problem with the end. And you implied he hated how Cap was handled throughout, I merely corrected you to point out it was only how he was handled at the very end. No, she didn’t. The only person who has been using the word throughout is you. This is called a (drum roll, please) straw-man argument.
I wonder what Alex Ross thinks? Actually, I'm surprised I haven't read any interviews with him regarding CW. He's generally so negative about anything that changes the status quo from around 1975 or so! Perhaps Avengers/Invaders will be the forum for his opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 18, 2007 10:39:18 GMT -5
Firstly- thank you, tana, for posting that, it clears things up considerably. Now it's worth noting that I apologize for my presumption involving his regarding the activities of Tony Stark as villainous- yes, that is clear in what you posted, I had read it elsewhere in a recent convention report in which he joked about it, so I was unclear if it was serious. That said... Sorry Doomsie, but the proof is in the pudding. I'm sure the evidence won't sway your conviction that you are right but there are statements like "They did a better job than we did of making it a new-reader-friendly story," Pray tell, friend spiderwasp... why is that compliment suddenly a bad thing? Umm... perhaps you're under a misapprehension here. He was establishing that *CIVIL WAR* did a better job than *52* of being a new reader friendly book. That's a compliment to civil war. I don't see how you can say otherwise. Nevertheless, I still feel what tana said unfairly painted Civil War in a negative light. Tana noted that he said negative things about it, which is accurate, and that Waid disliked how Cap was handled (Which I'll get to in a moment). BUT what I feel tana unfairly declined to mention was that he also complimented the book, noting it's exciting moments, fantastic art, and the new reader friendliness. You can say that the bad outweighed the good and that's fine, but you can't just ignore the good completely. Nor did I say anyone had made such a comment, I was giving an example. So either you misread my post... or you are the one using said argument. Er.... what? Tana said... My counter argument, as you so kindly quoted, was: ...So, why exactly is my argument spontaneously invalid? How is that in any way a straw man argument when it's using almost identical language? The IMPLICATION was there that tana meant throughout civil war, if I misread that then I apologize, nevertheless it definitely seems there. Just as if I say I hate a comic, one presumes it's not that I only hated the last two pages. Sept 16, 2007, 4:41pm, Tana Nile wrote: I wonder what Alex Ross thinks? Actually, I'm surprised I haven't read any interviews with him regarding CW. He's generally so negative about anything that changes the status quo from around 1975 or so! Perhaps Avengers/Invaders will be the forum for his opinions.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 18, 2007 15:40:16 GMT -5
Pray tell, friend spiderwasp... why is that compliment suddenly a bad thing? Sorry, that actually was a matter of my misreading that particular statement. In my mind, I processed that what he was saying was indeed from the perspetive of Marvel, rather than DC. Oops. The overall jist of the interview still seemed negative to me and all that Tana had really said in the first place was that he had made negative comments. Whether you or I think the interview was overwhelmingly positive or negative is irrelevant. He made both positive and negative comments but he did make negative ones.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Sept 18, 2007 18:28:02 GMT -5
I also recall Waid making some very negative comments about CW, particularly the way Cap was handled. Then you're incorrect. The only comments Waid has made about Civil War (and I follow him as one of my favourite writers) are that Marvel did a great job making it easy for new readers to get into, that he felt the villains won (He made that comment as a joke in the place I read it though, so that can be taken with a grain of salt), and that he absolutely hated the way Cap was handled at the very end. This certainly does not translate to "Mark Waid hated Civil War!" or anything like that. Nor did I say anyone had made such a comment, I was giving an example. So either you misread my post... or you are the one using said argument. An example. Hm. An example of what? If an example of Tana’s alleged incorrectness, then it’s still a straw-man argument.
...So, why exactly is my argument spontaneously invalid? One might guess its spontaneity, in lieu of deliberation, is key. Not identical enough. The implication is in your imagination. But since you feel that way, how about this. Every time you decry some work, we are to interpret your claim as meaning there is no exception whatsoever throughout the entirety of the work in question. For example, if you claim that JMS has mischaracterized Tony Stark in this comic or that, your claim will be found to be “inaccurate” if there is any correct characterization within the work—for instance, if it turns out JMS characterizes Tony Stark as having a wealthy background or being personally acquainted with Janet Van Dyne. Of course, under this plan, you can pre-empt claims of inaccuracy simply by giving a full and complete catalog of the counterevidence at the time of your original claim—you know, for fairness’ sake. Or, if you don’t care for that plan, you and the rest of us can rely on normal interpretations.
Sept 16, 2007, 4:41pm, Tana Nile wrote: I wonder what Alex Ross thinks? Actually, I'm surprised I haven't read any interviews with him regarding CW. He's generally so negative about anything that changes the status quo from around 1975 or so! Perhaps Avengers/Invaders will be the forum for his opinions. I don’t know what your point in posting this is, but it gives the false impression that Tana wrote the last sentence; it’s actually mine (minus some italicization).
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 19, 2007 9:36:25 GMT -5
I wonder what Alex Ross thinks? Actually, I'm surprised I haven't read any interviews with him regarding CW. He's generally so negative about anything that changes the status quo from around 1975 or so! Perhaps Avengers/Invaders will be the forum for his opinions. That might be. There is a brief interview with Ross in this month's Comics Buyer's Guide where he discusses the three projects he has coming out, including Avengers/Invaders. It sounds like the project had already been conceived before Cap was killed, but was put together after his death. So they will be showing the repercussions of his absence and pseudo-return in that book. However, in the interview Ross says nothing about his opinion on Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 19, 2007 12:21:29 GMT -5
An example. Hm. An example of what? If an example of Tana’s alleged incorrectness, then it’s still a straw-man argument. It was NOT a straw man argument. I was indicating that it could not be used to say Mark Waid hated Civil War. No one had said that, nor am I claming they had, I was cutting off someone POTENTIALLY saying that. There's really no more to it than that. Of course you yourself know this to be ridiculous and not my claim at all. If I say "I disliked this issue", it does not automatically mean I hated every page of it, that's true. However, nor does it mean I loved every single page of it except two. Mark Waid's comments would indicate he had no problem with Cap's characterization except at one point, ergo saying he disliked Cap's characterization overall, which I maintain to be the implication tana made, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is still incorrect. Trying to twist my words so that I claimed it had to be so extreme is- -wait for it- a Straw-Man argument
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 19, 2007 13:00:46 GMT -5
It was NOT a straw man argument. I was indicating that it could not be used to say Mark Waid hated Civil War. No one had said that, nor am I claming they had, I was cutting off someone POTENTIALLY saying that. There's really no more to it than that. Lol C´mon Doom, you can´t be serious. So your whole debate with Tana and NP was just you trying to prevent anyone from saying Mark Waid didn´t like CW (what, at least partially, is what he said in the interview)? So now you start arguing before someone says something because potentially he/she may disagree with you? That´s really funny.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 19, 2007 14:34:13 GMT -5
So now you start arguing before someone says something because potentially he/she may disagree with you? That´s really funny. No, it's spin. And it's kinda sad, really.
|
|