Printable View
But the Tony you keep bringing up only acted that way for maybe a year. The character has been around for almost 50. So to say that you're basing Tony Stark as a character off 1 year out of the 50 he's been around is pretty short sighted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
There have been bad stories in other comics that have been retconned. But even in the midst of poor elements those characters retain something of their essence.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen
If Civil War didn't reflect Tony Stark at all it's shamefully bad writing on the character level. You could also argue that given the number of retcons across comic lines, it makes it impossible to pinpoint the definitive "Starkness" of the character.
Huh, now that I think about it, I don't think any of the Avengers in this series actually has a secret identity.
Stark outed himself, Rogers they never really even attempted to hide, Thor is just straight up Thor, and while Bruce Banner tries to hide himself, people know that Bruce Banner is Hulk. Just an interesting aspect going into this...
Yeah I was thinking about this too. It's probably why I think the additions of Hawkeye, Black Widow and the SHIELD crew will be a cool way of reassessing the roles of the main four, while we can still see how far the newer members want to go in terms of having any sort of public identity, as well as how much they may want to take their own leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by TGM
Irish, what everyone is trying to say to you is that you are only considering 3% of the comics Iron Man is in and completely ignoring the other 97%, and stating that 3% is so wholly fact that there could be no other interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
Also that mcdonalds and tony the tiger crack didn't make your point back then because there have been no movies about any of those icons. The icons do work in that people still go to mcdonalds and still buy frosted flakes.
I understand that. My point was: Which 3% are you choosing to be representative of the character? It seems kind of arbitrary, because I could theoretically point to any retconned aspect of any comic and say it "doesn't count."Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirdmango
If you're telling me that everything but Civil War is the true Iron Man, then what does that say about Civil War's writing and Marvel overall, given the importance of that book for an entire year?
This was based off of Sven's statement that iconography drives ticket sales. Taken alone, that's not really accurate. If it were, then Schumacher's Batman and Singer's Superman wouldn't have failed. In fact, no comic with a recognizable logo would fail.Quote:
Also that mcdonalds and tony the tiger crack didn't make your point back then because there have been no movies about any of those icons. The icons do work in that people still go to mcdonalds and still buy frosted flakes.
To put it another way: Just because people can equate "Captain America" with a stars-n-stripes shield and "Tony the Tiger" with Frosted Flakes doesn't mean they'd want to go see a movie about them.
In the last 30 years, Superman, Batman, Spider-man, and the X-Men have all been almost constantly represented at the movies or on television. That is what helps make them top tier franchises, because they've benefitted from multiple generations growing up with them and keeping them relevant outside the comic book store.
Captain America had none of that. No movies, no tv shows, no cartoons, no franchise based toys.
Again I'm not choosing any 3%, I'm choosing 97%. Let me put it another way, if you think of the comic book character Colossus and you say who does he have a romantic relationship with, the majority of the time it's with Kitty Pride a.k.a. Shadowcat. So let's say in the movie he has a relationship with her and we all say we saw it coming because for the majority of the time that was how it was. Suddenly you come in and say no one should have seen it coming because in the very important book Secret Wars he fell in love with the woman Zsaji and thus that's who he should have been in love with. It was a very important year for the entire Marvel Universe and thus no one could see the correlation of him being with Shadowcat, he would have to be with Zsaji.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
I understand that the Iron Man YOU are most familiar with is the one in Civil War possibly because that may have been the main way in which you saw him, but for everyone else this is simply not the case, thus why it does make sense that RDJ took the role for the rest of us and not for you since you're just not that familiar with the character to begin with.
Okay, I'm editing this one because I simply don't think you understand the point that either sven nor I were even trying to tell you. McDonalds and Tony The Tiger are not equal in their intent to the Captain America Shield and thus the argument doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
Right, okay -- my only point here is that there is no 97%. If you can negate part of Starks' character at will, because of retconning, then you can negate any part of it because these characters and their universes get revised so often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirdmango
You argument about the romances is well articulated, but that's not really what I'm arguing. I'm arguing more about the essence of the character, not the external trappings around plot.
There have been Batman stories, for instance, that don't play well (in my mind Knightfall and Year 2), but even in bad comics Batman retains his core "Batmanness."
What you guys are telling me is that that is not at all true of Civil War, and there's little to nothing of Stark in it.
Fair point, except I said at the beginning (and still think) that anyone believing RDJ is a perfect fit for Stark is operating with 20/20 hindsight.Quote:
I understand that the Iron Man YOU are most familiar with is the one in Civil War possibly because that may have been the main way in which you saw him, but for everyone else this is simply not the case, thus why it does make sense that RDJ took the role for the rest of us and not for you since you're just not that familiar with the character to begin with.
Here's a small example. Below is a link to an old comics2film.com forum. These are comic book fans talking to other comic book fans about casting Iron Man. They also mention what other fans are talking about on other comic book boards. The thread starts in 2003 and ends in 2006:
http://www.mania.com/forums/archive/...hp/t-7894.html
This discussion runs for three years and RDJ's name doesn't show up until August, 2006, around the time his casting was announced.
Granted, this is a small sample size and all, even though comics2film was a fairly popular site back in the day. If RDJ was such an obvious choice for Iron Man, I'd think these guys, if anybody, would have been throwing his name around quite a bit.
Then you have Favreau mentioning in several interviews that originally they were going to cast a unknown in this part. Again, if RDJ is the choice that immediately leaps to mind when someone says "Iron Man," then why didn't anybody say so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
You also have like 10 people saying they remembered it. You're right I can provide internet articles about it from 8 years ago. I want you to provide internet articles from 8 years ago that proves you love your parents. If you don't I won't believe you. But seriously, you just dismiss everyone's memory because you don't have the memory. Are we all lying to you just to beat you in an argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by number8
Let me try and say this more eloquently. It's not really your original points I'm arguing, it's your argument which I'm arguing. To say that Tony The Tiger does not draw movies is a fair statement. But it's not a valid argument to compare that to Cap's shield not drawing movies because Tony is not an intended icon for media (Comics, Television, Movies, Video Games, etc...) He is an icon for breakfast cereal. Likewise The Shield of Captain America would not simply sell breakfast cereals because that icon is not intended to be such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirdmango
That's the nature of 20/20 hindsight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirdmango
There's ten (?) people saying they think RDJ is a perfect fit now. That is, frankly, pretty easy to say given the massive success of the franchise. He knocked the performance out of the park and I'd agree that he is a major reason these movies have been successful as they have.
Given the arc of this guy's career, his personal problems, what people were saying back then (including fans, the director, the producers, and the studio), it's not so obvious that he'd be good in this role, or that fans and the general public would accept him as they have.
My original point (and EWs, iirc) was that this casting was a risky proposition and a bit of a stunt, a bit antithetical given the actor's profile and the nature of this character.
I haven't seen any counterargument to that, outside of "No, Irish, you're wrong." and variations of "I called it all along."
So we're all liars because we can't go back and find things we said on forums which no longer exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
Uh, no. But I think the collective memory on this, again the 20/20 hindsight, is awfully convenient around this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirdmango
But thanks for twisting my words to Qrazy-like levels of ridiculousness.
You are correct in that the hindsight bias is incredibly convenient. But you also have to admit that proving that any of us don't have it is likewise impossible without some leeway. You're telling us that the only way you won't believe we all don't have the hindsight bias is to provide evidence from pre 2002. I was on the internet at that time but every forum I was on no longer exists, every email I had no longer exists. Everything I said on the internet pre 2002 no longer exists. I threw away everything I wrote in high school. There is no way I would be able to provide evidence of it existing besides simply stating that I had thought it and that the hindsight bias does not happen. You can choose to accept or reject my feelings on the matter or you can continue to just state that because everything from that time period no longer exists I am using the hindsight bias. Which is why in this instance a simple "You are wrong" or "I knew it all along" is the only thing someone can say in this juncture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
(Also I should state that I did not call that RDJ would be Iron Man, I didn't even know who he was pre-Iron Man, but I've been hit with the Hindsight argument before when I knew I wasn't dealing in hindsight but there's no argument against it.)
anyways, basically now I just want to argue your methods of argument instead of the actual points. :)
I'm going to go back to points and one thing I did think of in terms of the Iron Man personality. In regards to Civil War, the essence of Spider-Man is protecting his family at any cost and in doing so one of the biggest creeds of his character was to never reveal his identity. Civil War did away with that. In Civil War I think they were trying to find ways in which to do opposite things of each character. Captain America was also a different character to his true nature. In that book they wanted to rip away the true nature of the character and switch it to the other. Which is why Iron Man I think is shown as a more conservative person, much different then his true nature. But under such extreme circumstances the writers wanted to see each of these characters waiver on their true nature.
Many of the characters did the things they did because the authors wanted to produce a shock factor. Spiderman revealing his identity, no one saw that coming, because he would never do it. Cap turning against the avengers, no one saw that coming cause he would never do that. Likewise no one saw Tony advocating this with such stern strength because he would never do that. This is why people dislike The Civil War comics, because they truly do gut the core of these characters.
No, I'm not saying the bias exists solely because you can't prove otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirdmango
I laid out multiple examples to try and show the nature of the bias. I also tried to counter 8's claim, in some small way, about people "fan casting" RDJ.
Simply saying I'm wrong, or that I'm wrong because your memory differs from mine, isn't particularly useful in terms of debate.
Good points on Civil War, though.
You're quite right on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
gg
I think Irish is very right in the sense that any character has many, many iterations.
This is something I frequently find frustrating when discussing anything with comic book fans - they will only ever accept the interpretation that, to them, is "the definitive version" of the character or universe or story or whatever.
For example, there are people I have read and heard bashing the DC Animated films because many of the more recent ones (for example "Under the Red Hood" or "Crisis on Two Earths") do not have Kevin Conroy as Batman or Mark Hamill as The Joker. They cannot accept other interpretations of the character.
Heck, I have a friend who cannot enjoy anything about the Nolan Batman films, not because he doesn't like his Batman universe or the stories or anything, but because, to him, Michael Keaton is and always will be Batman.
So when it comes to Tony Stark, it is very true that, while "Civil War" was not exactly indicative of a "definitive" Stark/Iron Man...well...what is?
I do think that the wise-ass, arrogant, womanizing asshole Tony Stark is closer to what the character is kind of "defined" as being in a very rough way, but that in no way means that THAT IS IRON MAN AND NOTHING ELSE CAN BE ACCEPTED AS A TRUE INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARACTER.
I think Robert Downey Jr. pitch-perfect casting in this version of the Iron Man character and mythos, as it very much capitalizes on the aforementioned aspects of the character, rather than him being a self-serious Republican.
But I also thought Tom Cruise was a good casting choice for Stark back when he was all over it, and his Stark would have been completely different, and since Cruise wouldn't be as convincing portraying those very RDJ characteristics of the character, it surely would have been a different film altogether.
Wish I could rep you twice for that post, megladon. Great points.
Thirdmango: Likewise :)
Thanks!
I just think it's important to remember that comics are unlike almost any other storytelling medium, because there is so much content by so, so many different writers and artists, that one can never really say "well, (insert character here) is THIS way, and THIS is what's right."
You could say "well, Batman would never do this" but then find that, oh, hey, back in the '80s he did that all the time. Or "Spider-Man would never say something like that" but lo and behold, he did.
Every character has gone through so much change physically, mentally and emotionally over the many years they've been around that there really isn't one solid interpretation.
I find this one of the coolest aspects of comics, actually. I can read and appreciate so many different versions of characters and worlds I love. And I'm also constantly finding that I love characters I never thought I would have. 5 years ago I would have said I found Captain America a little silly, but then I read Brubaker's run, which pushed me to seek out more Cap stuff, and now he's one of my favorites.
Similarly I never had much interest in the X-Men comics because I found them very soap opera-y (which they are, but in the '90s when I got really into comics, it was terrible) then I read the Grant Morrison/Frank Quitely run, and the Joss Whedon/Dan Cassaday run, and realized, hey, there's some AWESOME X-Men stuff out there.
I can't imagine anything sadder then having Michael Keaton be "your" Batman.
Val Kilmer or George Clooney?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen