steed
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 215
|
Post by steed on Jun 2, 2006 10:15:24 GMT -5
I heard a rumor that Iron Man was going to become a villain at the end of "Civil War." Has anyone else heard anything?
|
|
steed
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 215
|
Post by steed on Jun 2, 2006 13:37:45 GMT -5
This is something a friend of mine sent me that made me think it might be true:
Marvel might be making Iron Man a villain. Has a major hero ever changed and kept his own series?
) Tony Stark is working with SHIELD on the Superhero Registration Act.
) He got Spider-Man on his side, for no other reason than to use him and have a powerful bodyguard who doesn't rely on technology.
) He hired a villain to attack the Senate while they were debating the SRA to push them to come to a decision.
) He has been upgraded to an almost inhuman level and is as much machine inside as outside.
) On Marvel's website, they have an entry for Nitro. It mentions that when Nitro fought Iron Man, Tony discovered a frequency that would cause Nitro to explode, Tony activates that frequency and causes Nitro to continually explode until he is too tired to keep fighting.
) Tony Stark could have used his new powers to ignite Nitro from a distance. He could have even upgraded these villains the same way he upgraded Spider-Man.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jun 2, 2006 18:04:32 GMT -5
) He got Spider-Man on his side, for no other reason than to use him and have a powerful bodyguard who doesn't rely on technology. Idunno—it seems like Stark has been trying to get Spidey to rely on technology.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 3, 2006 6:50:04 GMT -5
Everything is possible I guess, but I don't think Tony made Nitro explode on purpose, killing most New Warriors and a lot of innocents. That would truly be a criminal act.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Jun 3, 2006 11:19:27 GMT -5
This sounds to me more like something that will come to a head during or immediately after CIVIL WAR, and not be the new status quo for the character. Otherwise, it would be as silly as those wrestlers who are "faces" one day (good guys) and "heels" the next, for no apparent reason. Plus, hey, it's Iron Man. I'll go bananas if they mess with ol' Shell head!! But, of course, it wouldn't be the first time he became a villain. THE CROSSING, anyone??
|
|
|
Post by crimsondynamo on Jun 4, 2006 0:23:00 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned Iron Man is evil!
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Jun 5, 2006 20:54:18 GMT -5
AAIIIEEEE!!! How dare you, sir! Ban him! Ban him!!! ... ehhh.... I'm used to it, actually. As Adrian pointed out a while back, I'm maybe the only big Iron Man fan left. I guess you just had to have started reading ol' Shellhead's adventures back in the Mantlo/Michelinie/JR Jr/ Layton era to really get it...
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 6, 2006 6:54:35 GMT -5
I actually liked Iron Man during the beginning of Volume 3, as well as in Avengers and in the LS coming out in that period (like Contest of Champions II, which I've mentioned elsewhere).
The problem is that his latest writers don't seem to like him so much, and especially from the Illuminati onwards he seems to be portrayed like a Machiavellian guy, ready to use anyone for his ends and almost on the line between hero and villain. I'm sure that it will be fixed at some point, I just wonder why...
|
|
steed
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 215
|
Post by steed on Jun 7, 2006 9:10:12 GMT -5
I agree. I loved Iron Man as a kid but today it seems like Marvel has forgotten what makes Tony so appealing is is human side, not his armor.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 7, 2006 11:19:34 GMT -5
They probably think that being a rich businessman he also has to be rather untrustworthy and ready to use people for his own ends. Once again this is not the Tony we've had (and appreciated) in the past, I hope things will change soon.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 18, 2006 20:52:17 GMT -5
Actually something like this would sort of fit in with a theory I have about the Civil War, but I don't want to say more yet, because it's a weak extrapolation from some clues that I may be misinterpreting.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Jun 22, 2006 18:35:19 GMT -5
I suspect we may be thinking something very similar, Balok (hey, love the name and icon).
The thing is, I really, really don't want them to go there. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 26, 2006 18:00:23 GMT -5
I suspect we may be thinking something very similar, Balok It's probably a little too soon to jump to conclusions, and it may be that red herrings are being employed for the purpose of keeping readers guessing. That's why I'm not yet prepared to speculate... (hey, love the name and icon). Thanks! The thing is, I really, really don't want them to go there. *sigh* Neither do I. Sadly, I don't get to make those decisions. So many of these miniseries start out with such promise and then fizzle. I hope this isn't going to be one of them.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Jul 3, 2006 10:47:39 GMT -5
I suspect we may be thinking something very similar, Balok It's probably a little too soon to jump to conclusions, and it may be that red herrings are being employed for the purpose of keeping readers guessing. That's why I'm not yet prepared to speculate... Thanks! The thing is, I really, really don't want them to go there. *sigh* Neither do I. Sadly, I don't get to make those decisions. So many of these miniseries start out with such promise and then fizzle. I hope this isn't going to be one of them. i doubt this is the case. first off, nitro seems fully aware of what he's doing when he blows up in civil war. he doesn't seem to be out of control. also when namorita hits him, it would have been fairly hard to predict that he'd land in a crowd cars and children and cause the required effect (although isn't it funny how fifty thousand other supervillains battles have progressed in MIDTOWN MANHATTAN without major loss of life? sigh I know I'm expecting too much...) second if stark is behind everything, then again it gives the series a "boogeyman" a bad guy behind the curtain, which makes everything the result of one character. and that seems to be totally against the vibe that marvel is trying to get across. for this to have long lasting effect, the two sides need to believe they were right. if one side can say "this was all manipulated" then it loses is impact. third there is a major motion picture being developed for Iron man. it's easy enough to sort of tread the dark side of the character (as being somewhat amoral is what now passes for characterization) but to full out put him on the villain side seems a bit much. oh and count me among those who will forever love the Michelinie/JRJR/Layton stuff. Sunturion, Justin Hammer, Blacklash, Demon in a Bottle... all terrific stuff...
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Jul 3, 2006 13:41:40 GMT -5
Let me clarify: I don't think they're going to turn Iron Man into the evil figure who has been behind the "bad" side of CIVIL WAR from the beginning. I think Tony's sincere and doing what he thinks is right. (Although I heard a nasty rumor at HeroesCon that I don't even much want to repeat, along those very lines. Ugh.) What I do suspect might happen is that they use the events of CIVIL WAR, and its outcome, as a springboard for making him a darker character, at least for a while. As pointed out, he has a movie coming out in less than two years, so he will need to be back to "normal" by that point. Unless, of course, they make the current Iron Man evil and dark, and then do a "Hal Jordan" on him and we get a "Kyle Rayner" Iron Man, just in time for the movie.... (And that, boys and girls, is how we get crazy Internet rumors started!)
|
|
steed
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 215
|
Post by steed on Jul 7, 2006 8:09:07 GMT -5
I don't want to say Tony has become evil but I'm suspicious of him suddenly agreeing to form the New Avengers after eloquently pontificating why he didn't want to reform the Avengers at the end of Avengers Disassemble. I always question why major characters pull "the big 180". Of course, after reading some of this Civil War piffle, I could chalk the whole 180 thing to just poor writing. It's difficult for me to believe people who know Cap would be chasing after him as if he was a villain. And as far as rumors go, I heard that The Hatemonger was behind this.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jul 8, 2006 6:08:25 GMT -5
Not very long ago, the Red Skull tried to destroy America from within, it's not completely impossible that the Hate Monger (or anyone else) wants to do the same, starting from the superheroes. But isn't Iron Man shielded against brain control and things like that ever since Heroes Return ?
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Jul 8, 2006 10:06:38 GMT -5
That would be the ultimate cop-out, wouldn't it? Not that I put it past them.
One interesting thing for me, though-- I recently got into a long, somewhat heated argument with a couple of pros about my belief that the general public would not make such a huge distinction between "mutants" and all the other super-powered beings around-- they'd just hate them all (with a few exceptions, such as Cap). It was explained to me, over and over, just how wrong I was about that.
Now comes CIVIL WAR, and to some degree, I think my position has been vindicated. Thanks to Nitro. Hah. ;D
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jul 8, 2006 16:36:49 GMT -5
I don't believe Iron Man is behind the events of Civil War.
I do believe there are players we have not yet seen. Or that we have seen but whose importance and relevance have not yet been established.
imperiuxrex, you make a good point about the validity of the story when significant events are revealed to have been orchestrated by a secret conductor somewhere. I didn't say I thought this was good storytelling, just that it was a feeling I had. I regard your argument, coupled with what I hope is a desire for good storytelling at Marvel, as the strongest evidence against my fanciful ideas. But I note that it is possible to get everything dirty without getting anything clean.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jul 8, 2006 16:43:47 GMT -5
One interesting thing for me, though-- I recently got into a long, somewhat heated argument with a couple of pros about my belief that the general public would not make such a huge distinction between " mutants" and all the other super-powered beings around-- they'd just hate them all (with a few exceptions, such as Cap). It was explained to me, over and over, just how wrong I was about that. I have long held this view. In games of Champions I have run, those who hate the "powers" do so indiscriminately and usually because, at the core of it, they're afraid. How does one tell the difference between Spider-Man and Cyclops, assuming neither character elects to explain the origin of his powers? And yet Spider-Man (with the exception of Jameson) gets a pass on the mutant hatred that regularly affects Cyclops. It is possible some leeway might be given to characters who functioned as powers due to their own ingenuity, because at the heart of things such individuals would be known to be "normal." Even they would likely be feared and mistrusted by some groups. Hatred is not rational, and to create arbitrary categories and assign externally indistinguishable characters to one category (to be hated) or another (to be loved) does not make much sense to me. Of course, the idea of mutant hatred was created as an analogy back in the day, and I suppose some must feel compelled to defend that analogy even though it contains a flaw of Liberty Bell proportions.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Jul 9, 2006 20:29:50 GMT -5
I don't believe Iron Man is behind the events of Civil War. I do believe there are players we have not yet seen. Or that we have seen but whose importance and relevance have not yet been established. imperiuxrex, you make a good point about the validity of the story when significant events are revealed to have been orchestrated by a secret conductor somewhere. I didn't say I thought this was good storytelling, just that it was a feeling I had. I regard your argument, coupled with what I hope is a desire for good storytelling at Marvel, as the strongest evidence against my fanciful ideas. But I note that it is possible to get everything dirty without getting anything clean. I wish your feelings were right in this case, believe me. However I think Marvel regards this as "adult storytelling." Of course the problem is its devoid of any impact. Why? Because Marvel and DC both know all they have to do is hit the reset button. Killed the wrong characters? Just bring them back in the Ultimate Universe. Or just have a big event where they come back. Part of what made Hank Pym's strking Janet so big was that it was canon; it would forever be part of the Avengers. Nowadays, not even a consideration for the big events. Teen Tony? Doesn't exist. The really Waspy Wasp? Who? Heroes Reborn? Don't even mention it. Even Bendis himself said he expects someone to come around and blow up whatever he's done and start again. So Marvel can have Tony play the heavy for a year, maybe two, but they just hit the reset button when they need him to be a viable hero again. Problem is, if Marvel doesn't take this as anything more than an experiment they can just reboot, why should I take it to heart, either?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jul 21, 2006 5:02:41 GMT -5
.. It's probably worth noting that Heroes Reborn etc were all terrible stories, so Marvel are doing the right thing by ignoring them. I severely doubt that we will ever have people 'not mentioning' the Decimation and the fallout of Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Jul 21, 2006 22:36:42 GMT -5
Hi! I'm new & I'm writing for the first time! For that matter, how many people agree that, for one of the SUPPOSED Big Three, Iron Man is actually the Marvel character who gets no respect (from the writers), even more so, I dare say, than the Vision... I mean, I think pretty much since "The Crossing" (with the shinning exception of Busiek work at both Iron Man's title & The Avengers') Iron Man's ALWAYS getting a raw deal from his & others creative teams... Even in Leafieldworld he was kinda of a jerk...!!! And in the (sob!) true Marvel Universe he's continually taking the WRONG side of every issue & playing the role of the jerk/ traitor/weak ink of the spandex set... That's not the Golden Avenger that I remember...!!! This drives me nuts because I consider myself (along with Van Plexico, of course...! as one of the biggest Iron Man's fans still around! Heck, I go as far as to say that, as much as I like many of their other characters, a Marvel Universe without a HEROIC Tony Stark as Iron Man is not one I care to make mine!!!
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Aug 4, 2006 13:57:26 GMT -5
I'm likely in the minority here, but Iron Man is a character that I don't mind being kind of a jerk. I don't think that the Civil War is sending him down the path of being evil as much as it is showing that Stark doesn't do things halfway.
In a Marvel universe where Reed Richards has reverted to aloofness levels unseen in years, I think that Iron Man has found not a bad place. He's actually different. He's not the great all-around hero. He's not even that nice a guy. But he's really a bad person, he's just a man who will side with public opinion to try and protect them.
We've seen the dark side of Iron Man's side in Civil War. It's clear that they've decided that Iron Man is going to be the villain of the story and as such we've seen the dark side of his views. We've seen the "public reaction score" governing the actions of "capekillers". Yet I think at the core of the idea is still just Iron Man trying to protect people, which is really what the character is all about. You don't have to be a model citizen to be a hero.
He's not classic Iron Man, but he remains an important and interesting character, which I think is about as close as you can hope for this year.
|
|