Which one do you prefer? As a character, a concept, etc.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Which one do you prefer? As a character, a concept, etc.
Which one do you prefer? As a character, a concept, etc.
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
I like a handful of Batman comics. I don't like any Iron Man comics. So I prefer Batman.
Tony’s more interesting. It’s not always “muh parents”
Batman
Gee this is a hard one.
Well, not really, Batman duh.
I've grown to like Stark a lot better. He'll at least kill his villains.
>(says something in Bathomosexual, many such cases)
Seems I touched a nerve lol
Why don't you touch some twat, Batchode
Iron Man has a more interesting gimmick as someone who’d typically be a villain but desperately tried to be a hero because of kindness shown to him. But it doesn’t come naturally to him, so he screws up a bunch.
I'm an old skool IRON MAN gay since before the MCU. Things normie gays don't know or don't really get about IRON MAN:
'Muh dead parents' isn't a constant thing he whines over.
>parents killed in car crash due to mechanical design flaw
>he redesigns so it will never happen to anyone else
Stark isn't just the playboy gay persona.
>he quickly masters every sporting and academic pursuit in his youth and becomes bored by them
>later becomes a mature and responsible businessman running a cutting edge tech company for the betterment of mankind
>Stark isn't just his 'Clark Kent' fake persona, it's his real life, and legit half of the character in the comics
>he's a 'self-made' man in every meaning of the term
Stark is effectively MacGyver (before MacGyver existed) both inside and outside of his armour:
>this is apparent right from the start where he repurposes components and improvises gadgets and entirely new technology on the fly
>you can give anyone else the suit and they're NOT IRON MAN because they lack this ability
>he can beat people in more powerful suits for the same reason
No matter how many times he gets knocked down, he comes back more powerful
>he's the INVINCIBLE IRON MAN after all
>applies to his personal life, business, and superheroics, (overcomes alcoholism, rebuilds company after losing it, gets his arse kicked but comes back with new and improved armour)
He doesn't give a frick and doesn't take any shit
>In the office or on the battlefield
>He will frick you up, (like punch through your hood and rip the engine out of your car just to make sure he has your attention)
https://peerlesspower.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-new-iron-man.html
He's not just a Marvel Batman copy. He was conceived in response, but he always was much more than Batman ever was, and was right from the start.
By contrast Batman is some whiny emo homosexual in tights who punches clowns and has somehow supposedly prepared for every eventuality even though that's unlikely and stupid.
Say, I remember someone suggested that Iron Man comica should basically make him like James Bond of sorts. What's your take on it?
Also Iron Chud used to beat on Commies, he was based
Wow that's crazy. After reading all that, I still like Batman better.
Stop making iron man sound based
you're making batman look pathetic
Well I do have to admit to some personal bias. I get the Batman character, but I've never really liked him much. The movies versions of him I like even less.
He's kinda cool in some of the comics and cartoons, but they do kind of artificially prop him up in a 'Hawkeye' kind of way. Like why do we need this Arrow-Guy again? Oh because his wife said he was the heart-and-soul of the Avengers, right? ...kay.
Batman they've done a pretty decent job of justifying him with this kinda shit:
Should have seen what a pathetic joke he was in the old Superfriends days. If it wasn't for Aquaman all those jokes would have been about him.
Iron Man got arguably a better arc and he's more dynamic as a character, and when he's written well he comes off as a genuinely intelligent person (in early Iron Man stories, his suit was programmed using transistors... before transistors were invented in reality!) but he's never had a magnum opus the way Batman got with The Killing Joke or The Dark Knight Returns.
Demon in a Bottle
Extremis
The MCU
moron.
Proving that anon right. Those don't measure up.
(in early Iron Man stories, his suit was programmed using transistors... before transistors were invented in reality!)
lol not even close on one, and pretty wrong on the other.
1. You may want to consult Wikipedia on the history of transistors and then the first IRON MAN comic, (Tales of Suspense #39 in 1963).
2. Transistors were pretty hot shit in that era, (like these days adding 'quantum' to everything), with increasingly small transistor radios being a big thing, and so were associated with miniaturisation, since previously bulky power-consuming vacuum tubes were used for the same job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_radio
3. Due most likely to a simplified normie misunderstanding of transistors and/or some intentional creative licence, the fact that transistors were used for amplification of signals and were increasingly small, led to Stark's technology being based on Stark's new uber-transistors that would 'amplify' power even more. So he could 'amplify' a tiny magnet and rip a steel vault door clean off it's hinges from across the room.
4. Later he improvises 'reverse magnetism' on-the-fly combining one of his transistors and a magnet by basically reversing the polarity and using it to disarm his enemies. This later became the basis of his repulsors.
This, and I would hasten to add 'The Armour Wars'. Not to mention all the team up events he's been involved with to varying degrees.
Both are extremely different characters with different appeals, however if we are going to compare anything it would be execution
In this case Batman is just way better, say whatever you want but DC wanted a The Shadow-like vigilante with fun gadgets and they delivered. Tony Stark COULD be fantastic however he simply ins't, he should be impossibly charismatic but he ins't, he should have a great vision but he don't, he should make a difference for better or worse but he didn't
If you want a Tony Stork done right just play New Vegas, Mr House is everything Marvel wanted Tony to be.
They both have similarly great potential. However, Bruce has had far better writers and has been treated with far more respect by DC than Tony has been by marvel, so, Bruce.
I think most people would be surprised to find that a lot of the shit that worked so well for Stark in the MCU movies is ripped directly from the pages of the comics, and a lot the stuff that doesn't so much isn't.
I was dreading the first film before it came out thinking they'd frick it up, but it was a pretty decent update and condensation of the material, much better than expected. Even a lot of little Easter Eggs in there for the real comicgays that are otherwise unobtrusive. But so many cool little moments that you recognise in all the films, even if repurposed.
Still, there was a lot of cool shit left out, and a pity they couldn't find somewhere to put it.
Like Stane's strategic chess master intellect and proper suicide once cornered. You see a chessboard on his table, and there's the deleted scene where he tries to take Tony with him when he dies, but that's pretty weak. The whole thing with his father and him being the way he is would have make a nice bookend mirroring the other shit with Stark's Dad in the MCU, (different in the comics).
Rhodey never got really his due either as Stark's best friend or as War Machine. I wasn't that hot on Terrence Howard, but Cheadle didn't really work at all, either as the Black person sidekick who calls Stark "Boss", or the BAMF he became as War Machine.
So many good stories, but also just story moments for Stark. Motherfrickers getting killed and him stepping over the line then having to deal with the fallout, riches-to-rags-to-riches. Really good shit.
I enjoy Tony's comics too and think they have potential, but he existed since the 60s. Of course in 50-60 years of stories, he'll have enough good stuff to use for MCU. My point was, overall, Bruce has gotten better full stories. Not moments. And that's up to 00s. From then on, iron man stories are downright offensive
To be fair, I stopped reading when Marvel caught a case of the gay AIDS.
>Black person sidekick
Anon just had to. Haha.
the the opposite now
How?
DC writers have zero respect for Batman and has the absolute shits nowadays
DC have only recently (last 1-2 years) began treating Bruce like Tony has been treated for since civil war
>They both have similarly great potential
Define "potential", if you mean which one could be the most complex Tony COULD have more potential since he's supposed to be beyond just "hero and villain" labels and his goals are supposed to be based on politics and economics, he ins't tho, his comics are mostly cheap drama and character assassination.
If you are talking about marketability then Batman wins no contest, seriously he's simply the most versatile superhero ever, he works in any tone, he works in the most cartoonish and grounded stories, he works against any kind of villain be it aliens from another dimension or just some random violent drug addict, and his stories are always fun, it's very easy to write a decent Batman story of any kind, Tony is very limited in several ways.
I am talking about what stories you can tell with them.
The stories you can tell with the two have very big overlap.
I think the best way to settle this is to imagine superheroes sitting around at a poker game together talking about what happened to them that week:
Batman: Well I sat around brooding for a bit, and then I punched a clown ... again. What did you do Stark?
IRON MAN: Well, a funny thing did happen. I was fighting this giant alien robot that had been recharging from geothermal energy by bathing in magna for a decade or so. Well he pops up out of a volcano and we're fighting ... well, I say 'we're fighting, but I'm actually using a nuclear-powered remote suit controlled by a telepresence headset from home, so you know ... technically ... but then right in the middle of it my girlfriend comes in all pissed off, so I wind up doing both at once, arguing with her and fighting Ultimo, and this motherfricker has thermal eyebeams that can slice through advanced alloys so you know, screw that right? Anyway you know how it is, she winds up distracting me with her bullshit and the suit ends up getting grabbed by this guy and ripped clean in half. Gave me a bit of headache after that to say the least, but I got better. Then I got a call from the Avengers, we had to go do some space stuff. The damn Kree again. Long story ... how about you Arthur?
Aquaman: I fold.
I wonder why people forget Batman first 3 years of comics or so already had him saving Atlantis, killing a vampire and defeating robots
Because no one cares about comics. Only (You) think they matter when in reality the movies do.
Iron Man, he shows much more of character progression, much more as a person. Batman is stagnant, his personality, his personal issues are frozen, he's what he already was and remains that.
>he shows much more of character progression, much more as a person
They just go through an endless cycle of being a regular hero to villain to hero again.
I find Gotham very boring while Iron Man doesn't feel locked to one place.
That said I've never actually read an Iron Man comic I liked enough to remember, and he's often just kind of there in team ups.
Get a trade paperback like 'Armor Wars' or 'The Power of IRON MAN', and it'll catch you up on a lot of the older stuff. A lot of good compilations of good stories out there.
I can take iron man more seriously as a concept and feel like he has a lot of potential, though Batman has better story’s so far
I think the fact all the Batman movies as far as story goes are kinda the same says a lot too. To the point seeing his parents getting shot in the alleyway yet again started to really bore people.
If they do Stark again, there's a lot of different ways to tell that basic story, and it has be retconned in the comics and updated for different wars, etc. anyway. Like his armour and tech is naturally upgraded over time. They could just do standalone movies for a while, other team ups - it's why it was so piss-easy and not at all unnatural to have him just show up in the Spiderman movies.
Armor Wars is a great arc because he's going off on his own illegally crossing international borders going up against supervillains and heroes alike. Hilariously taking down third-rate shitbags to dealing with major players.
Movies? Tony by far. BVS Batman was fricked up in the head and the worst detective ever.
I think the film and that actor acts very well. But Batman has the better lore for me
Batman is a cancer on comics, so Iron Man by default, even though he has had aggressively bad books for quite some time now.
I like the idea of Iron Man needing to develop new technology to face the new challenges like Mandarin developing a hypothetical gun. So Tony develops a metaphorical armor wich disproves the Mandarins hypothesis.
The one who’s not a pathetic homosexual still stuck on one night of his entire life.
Iron Man as a concept, but I've also just gotten progressively sick of looking at Batman.
Same with me. I don’t care about Batman anymore. He comes off as a sad sack of shit of a manchild. And he used to be my favorite.
Going by this thread, Iron Man should have a bunch of better comics than Batman, but the reality is that he has nothing as good or interesting as
>The Dark Knight Returns
>Year One
>The Killing Joke
>Arkham Asylum
>the Bat epic
and others.
Batman is pretty much finished now, but Iron Man was never there.
>Morrison
>good
God damn this board is tasteless quit drinking the estrogen water
Iron Man doesn't even have any comics nearly as "good" as the Bat Epic, the worst one on that list.
A lot of this thread is about what Tony "should be" but the truth is, he will probably never reach this "potential"
The character is 60 years old, he will not develop a collection of fun gadgets and weapons like he should, his rogue gallery still suck, his development stagnated decades ago, his company lore and worldbuilding is still shallow, his political views are still basically nothing.
Nevermind how Marvel just suck now, last time they created a memorable character was 30 years ago.
If you go to characters, Pre-MCU, Tony was far more compelling. More realistic, more well-rounded, he had flaws and virtues, he had bigger picture goals, he was more varied. Batman is too simplistic, especially in the age where he's "dark and gritty" so you get him beating up gangsters and psychos for the nth time, instead of having time travel adventures in the jungle or something.
If you get down to it, I think both have potential, maybe the most out of big name characters, but it's never utilized.
>Batman
Batman can only work and keep his relevance if you expand him globally, galactically, and so on. A one man war on terror. Not just "criminals", but everything. Batman travelling to some forgotten tomb to punch the shit out of a monster and drive a stake through its heart. Batman infiltrating a terrorist base and leaving everyone maimed and scarred for life. Batman travelling to a lunar base to blow up some aliens that are terrorizing the colony. Batman as is, will be forgotten, because he's not unique enough and also a product of the past. Take away the design, and he's just Shadow/Spider/Phantom. There's nothing he can do that Daredevil or Spider-Man cannot do. But if you lean on him becoming a modern boogeyman, a global force, an idea that transmits through the ages, then you've got something unique, especially with the demonic iconography. Point is, you cannot have a billionaire supergenius thinking so small. You need to go back to the Silver Age of sorts.
>Iron Man
I'd argue Stark is the true "Man Of Tomorrow" and is the most relevant type of super-hero that has unlimited potential, as he can change and evolve with the times. But you need to approach him as an idea of sci-fi that can fit the mold of what you're tackling, rather as just another superhero. You need to write about boardroom politics, new ideas, rapid changes in tech and geopolitics and so on, which comic "writers" are too dumb to do, so he's squandered.
I can expand if you'd like.
>I can expand if you'd like.
Do it.
Well, personally, I think the vast majority of cape characters have never reached their potential. And while I can think of a lot of characters I like, find interesting and entertaining, most of them are "limited" in the sense that they have certain stories to tell, certain environments they work within, and so on. Which isn't a bad thing. Han Solo is a memorable character, but you could hardly "reinvent" him as anything but what he is; you get my point. But then you have characters that have succeeded in becoming more of a core concept that you can play with. These have more longevity, more potential. The problem arises when they become commercialised "icons" first, and characters second, since they lose what they were designed to be and end up as just hollow slogans and endless carbon copies. See Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, and so on.
Anyway, you have characters who do very similar things and if one or two or all of them disappeared, you wouldn't particularly lose anything. Crime fighters? Dime a dozen. Flying bricks? Too many. Someone like Captain America or Daredevil or Wonder Woman, could've never been created and nothing would be "lost". But then you have characters that strike a chord between being characters and "symbols" which makes them flexible yet identifiable and thus "long lived". My argument is that while Superman is the "definition" of the Superhero, he's not all that flexible. His powerset is overpowered yet limited. His origin is too specific to be screwed with, and it harkens to an outside force instead of drawing from the core of humanity. He's a representation of the "Future Man" that is incomplete and myopic. His "core" is too dated and with no room of growth. But in contrast, someone like Iron Man is the perfect idea of a comic book character that can keep chugging along as the world moves forward.
What is Iron Man defined by? Tony's eternal quest for better and better armours and technological advancement. As the world keeps changing, "Iron Man", as both concept and character, can keep moving with it. Going from bulky armours, to sleek android looks, to whatever the future holds. He represents man's potential not as some abstract strongman, but as an ever-evolving seeker of knowledge. Batman taps into a different kind of "core truth", that of the Boogeyman. Whatever the origin, at his core Batman is about a man turning himself into a "monster" that instills fear on his "prey". That is a basic story and archetype that can keep going on and on. The personal vendetta, the genius mixed with the brawn, the demonic silhouette, gives Batman the edge over other crime fighters that have come and gone. In 2174 you could still write a comic about "Batman" delivering punishment on X/Y/Z, as a supernatural demon or a man made super-human. The same could be applied to Spider-Man. He lacks the inherent "anger", but with a few tweaks, he also taps into both the primordial predator god delivering justice, and also the concept of "Web Of Fate", a thing found in various mythologies, such as the Fates and the Norns.
Basically for me, if a character has an easily identifiable symbol, a basic story that can be pushed and pulled, and a "higher dimension", then that character has potential to change and remain identifiable while telling various stories, no matter the era. Iron Man and Batman, stripped of their specifics of this time, can still survive, representing archetypes in their cores that will never truly be gone from humanity. Superman represents an idealistic "shepherd" from an outer world. You never know where this world is heading, how can that be eternally relevant? But progress, in whatever form it takes, or the representation of fear lording over sin, these things are timeless.
Anyway, I think a few other characters have "cracked" this balance as well. Mr. Fantastic perfected the Science Hero look that the likes of Doc Savage made popular, and I could argue that Doctor Doom is the quintessential 20th Century fictional character. But that's another talk.
Speaking specifically about Batman and Iron Man, I see them as two sides of the same coin. The core is a determined, omni-talented man driven to an "extreme" that surpasses others. But whereas Iron Man stands for the ever-evolving ingenuity of man, and all the problems and successes that brings, Batman represents the more primal fear. Both surpass "crime fighting", comic book tropes, and could very well survive as concepts even after capebooks stop being published, DC and Marvel perish, and so on and so forth. Because they've tapped into some "eternal" forces that also do not stop them from being entertaining and memorable as characters. It all comes down to symbolism and purpose.
What about Hal Jordan and the green lanterns
nta but I agree with the above, and Green Lantern is a great example of what he's talking about. He starts out as rather lame superhero with a magic space ring with the stupid yellow limitation, but once a good writer retcons that into his thing being 'force of will' and the colour spectrum, you've got yourself a genuine and cool superhero that human beings can relate to, and the whole 'will vs fear' thing. Didn't understand the appeal of that character at all until I read a good GL comic with that shit.
Every superhero needs not only the 'super' part but the 'hero' part to be the real deal. With Spiderman it's the 'great power, great responsibility' thing, with Captain America it's the fighting on principle for good, no matter how outgunned. With a lot of them it's kinda in the name, like 'the INVINCIBLE IRON MAN', where he always gets back up after he's knocked down, (Endgame notwithstanding).
Perfect example is all the superheroes with similar powers. Nobody really gives a shit about any speedster outside The Flash, and that's because he's Barry Allen. With his personality, his problems, his motivations. Which is not to say they can't write a more compelling speedster, or better Green Lantern, or even Superman, etc. They kind of do all the time in alternate realities and shit, but the ones that stick do for a reason, and are truly tapping into something timeless.
Eh, I don't know. The basic concept of a man getting super-powers based on his will can endure, but the things that make Green Lantern what he is are too specific and hokey to be enduring. His name is "Green Lantern". What's that an allusion to? Spider-Man, Batman, they're both named after "scary" animals, the human mind instantly recognises that. Mr. Fantastic instantly tells you what you're dealing with. Iron Man prompts the brain to make the connection to an android, to a battle armour, to something pertaining to technology. Even something else, like Dr. Strange, a magician protecting reality, instantly makes you "get it". Even if you translate it to other languages, they'll work as core archetypes. "Green Lantern" is too specific. Why a Lantern? Why Green? If he was called Lightbringer or something, yeah, it'd work. But GL is also more of a general Corp deal. Like Superman, the core of the character and story lies with something external, which means that it can never truly be absorbed into the collective, as it doesn't express an eternal truth. Green Lantern has more uses than what he is, see Tangent, but are they limitless and able to keep up with an ever changing world? Iron Man and Batman cover things beyond just the "good guy beats bad guy".
I think GL falls in the "Han Solo" type of character I mentioned above. A specific thing that is done well, and could survive, the way something like Conan has survived, but the concept lacks the "ideal". But to be fair, it's hard for characters to be remembered in general, let alone survive as something more than just a certain iteration. I don't see the T-800 or Ripley surviving another 50 years for example. Or Daredevil and Swamp Thing. Green Lantern could, as one of the few capes. But the kinds that will go on to live as more than just characters, would be very striking and specific ones, like I mentioned above. Batman, Iron Man, Spider-Man, maybe Ghost Rider, or someone like Darth Vader.
>someone like Darth Vader
What makes him stand out?
For better or worse, Star Wars became the quintessential Space Opera, and Anakin/Vader is the protagonist. With the mishandling of the IP who knows what will happen, but I think it has struck a chord within the general populace to survive in some way. But why Anakin/Vader in particular? For one he became iconic in his Vader form as the face of the "dark scary techno wizard in black". The silhouette brings to mind everything there is to know. Once you go into the story, it harkens back to tales eternal. A misguided Chosen One, a Fall, a Redemption, it's all there. But not in isolation, tied instead to a wider appeal product that has penetrated the collective unconscious. Star Wars may die, but I think the general idea will survive as it is rather timeless in whatever form it takes. Anakin/Vader is the personification of it as it puts a spin on it where the Hero becomes the Villain but it's all ultimately part of the "plan". The Emperor is too generic to be remembered in particularity, as is Luke. If they are remembered, they will be in relation to Vader. But Anakin himself will join the types of Sherlock and Dracula and so on, I feel.
I don't disagree with any of that, but personally I don't think it's enough for the core concept to penetrate the general sphere in the way Batman or Iron Man can. Batman's the Boogeyman, and in whatever form he takes, he will always exist for humanity. Iron Man is technology, in a way or another he's been there since forever, and will always be relevant. GL is a specific take on the "light in the dark" bit, which has applications, but doesn't tap that "high ideal". I can see GL surviving even after he goes into Public Domain, and getting reinventions here and there. But I don't think he's on the same level as Iron Man, Batman, Mr. Fantastic, Doom and the such.
>For better or worse, Star Wars became the quintessential Space Opera
Literal White Knight literally dressed in white, with the help of a wizard, saves kidnapped princess trapped in an impenetrable castle/fortress from literal Black Knight literally dressed in black. You can keep on going, fighting with swords, light vs dark, young vs old, Black Knight works for an evil king, charming rogue to help him, etc. - but IN SPACE! It's no secret that Star Wars is such a simple and timeless story.
In the same way it's no secret that superheroes are a reflection of the old gods:
?t=34
And people back it those days would take their stories just as seriously, not just for religious reasons, and would get as pissed if you wanted to change them. Like if you started running around retelling the myths where Zeus is now a Nubian woman they'd crucify you - literally.
>I don't think it's enough for the core concept to penetrate the general sphere in the way Batman or Iron Man can
To be fair, IRON MAN was never a top-tier character in the comics. Nobody is as happy as I that the MCU made him top tier, (mostly because now when I talk about him normies know who I'm actually talking about), I can assure you they never did before the MCU. He was just one of the characters Marvel still had the licence to after selling off Spiderman, the F4, and the X-Men, etc. So who knows about any other lower-tier character if the movie is good enough? Normally IRON MAN only strikes a chord with a certain type of gay, but RDJ made him cool for normies. Same potential with GL to some degree I'm sure.
Watching IRON MAN 2 because supposedly Bambi Arbogast is in it, but it's a blink-and-miss-it part. Would have to be for me to miss it. But then this movie is even more unwatchable than I remember - even for me. What a clusterfrick.
>In the same way it's no secret that superheroes are a reflection of the old gods:
Let's not go that far. They're products. We can find similarities, intentional and not, but equating Shazam to Zeus I find insulting. What we're talking about here is which of these products can resonate on a deeper level to take on a life beyond that. Comic book characters have this extra bit over other fictional characters such as Sherlock and Conan in that they can be "symbols" as well as characters. I put "symbols" in quotes because it's silly to pretend that some capeshlock is going to truly "inspire" anyone serious. They're fun stories and characters that inform parts of our characters maybe when we're young and impressionable. To take a product and go
>Supaman is da personification of hope
is peak corposchlock.
What we're discussing is which characters touch on something beyond their use and could evolve to be in a perpetual relationship with the world. Characters that can be stretched and swapped and tinkered with, and still remain familiar and fresh while being used to explore various topics and ideas as the world marches on. Sherlock is a different case. He has come to embody the Detective. So it's always likely that there will be someone who'll want to write
>what if we put Sherlock in [current day]
Characters like Iron Man and Batman are different in that they can be swapped and remain true. The Boogeyman can be put anywhere; past, present, future. He can change with the times and be used to tackle what each society is worried for and by. Iron Man is technology personified. He is politics coupled with ingenuity. You can put them in comics, movies, games, you can twist them and abuse and they'll go back to the Boogeyman and the "Android".
>top-tier
Agreed. But that doesn't mean that he will go back to that. He has the potential to keep going and come to represent something in the collective entertainment subconscious. Only time will tell.
Green Lantern is actually an interesting case, because it's so hard to gauge cosmic level planet-pushing powers, and know who is winning or losing. But 'First Flight' and 'Emerald Knights' does a really good job where it's made pretty clear the power in the rings is finite, but even at full charge is still just a manifestation of the user's imagination and will. As a result you know what's going on in this scene and what really makes Hal a hero, how he still manages to beat Sinestro, etc.:
Also gives them two possible weaknesses, running out of power, or their will failing:
Something they tried to get across in the movie version by tell-don't-show, but the whole thing was handled so shittily that nobody would have got what's actually cool about GL. A real shame since the animated films were so action-packed and a good introduction to the Corps.
The relatable human element is the 'will' necessary to break a bad habit or act on a good one, or to otherwise do something we don't wanna, (like overcoming fear). We all know what that feels like because even the most pathetic frick up can muster that feeling momentarily. But Hal is the personification of that. The guy the ring seeks out for that specific quality. It didn't pick (You) because you're the kind of homosexual who already gave up on your New Year's Resolution two weeks ago. Hal doesn't on day 364 and counting because he's a fricking badass.
That's why he appeals to anyone in the first place and why the otherwise hokey-as-frick Lantern Oath survived as long as it has. It means something to people on some level. I bet there are plenty of people with addiction issues and shit that can totally relate even more.
All the other bullshit, the green colour, etc. is obviously some comicgay thinking most superheroes are other colours, so why not green for a change, or green ink was cheaper/easier for printing, or to make the Justice League more colourful or whatever, (I don't think it was exactly any of those, but you get the idea). It stuck, and it doesn't even matter anymore. Green = "the colour of will"? Yeah, okay. Doesn't make any real sense, but I'll go with it.
A strong will is a pretty basic quality for most superheroes to be fair, but it's not so explicit. Meanwhile Hal has other qualities that make him heroic. But personality-wise he doesn't have to be so anal about them, because overcoming fear is his primary job description at the end of the day. He can frick around and have some fun with his cosmic power level more than your average hero, have an attitude, think/act creatively and independently when he's on the beat, so if he colours outside the lines a bit it's all good if he saves the universe in the end.
This is just a bunch autistic ramblings from a moron who never touched grass.
I like Batman better, but I will concede this.
I WISH that Bruce Wayne got the attention that Tony Stark does as a character semi-separate from his superhero identity.
There's just not much to Bruce at all just fake playboy shit. It's his Clark Kent glasses.
Actually there's more to Clark Kent without Superman.
Batman.
Iron man does not have a single memrable enemy.
Batman's villain gallery has surpassed in quaility and quatity 90% of everythig else written in comic history.
>Iron man does not have a single memrable enemy.
The MCU totally failed with his villains.
1. Stane was so close to being epic with good casting, performance, and making him part of Stark Industries rather than a competitor was a good idea, (in the comics Stark later absorbs his company and has to deal with the fallout of his dirty business dealings, so similar in concept). But aside from being generic 'le evil' bad guy, there's nothing apparently nothing special about him at all.
As pointed out above he is a chess master and tactician who has multiple backup strategies ready to execute should his primary one fail, and he'll stop at nothing, even killing babies and shit. He has his own cool motivations, and only gets into the Iron Monger armour himself because Stark has him on the ropes. I wasn't expecting to see his goofy "Chessmen" in live action, but the potential left on the table with this guy is a pity normies can't possibly fathom.
2. Justin Hammer was turned into a fricking joke. Sam Rockwell change could have worked but it just didn't.
3. Ivan Vanko Whiplash combo instead of Crimson Dynamo, what a fricking mess. His battle with the Dynamo and Titanium Man during the Armor Wars while at a massive firepower disadvantage is some good shit.
4. Stark's enemies are mostly not single spandex-wearing homosexuals, they are entities like AIM, Roxxon Oil, and himself in some ways, (like people stealing his tech for evil purposes).
Ironically reading the source material will make you appreciate the MCU Stark a lot more, how a lot of that shit comes right off the page in some form, or is otherwise peppered in there, (no pun intended).
5. The Mandarin was basically stolen from IRON MAN and repurposed in the MCU mostly due to moronic CURRENT YEAR shit.
>Fu Manchu type shit is now considered 'muh racism' by homosexuals
>modified ten rings used for diversity movie Shang-Chi
Which is another reason the Ben Kingsley shit was so offensive to comicgays. There was nothing wrong with Kingsley's performance or the concept of a funny fake bad guy per se, and it might have been fine in another movie or context, but it was really fricked in that IRON MAN film.
>" ... This revealed the film's connection to the Ten Rings organization, which previously appeared throughout the MCU, and its leader Wenwu who was adapted from the problematic comic book characters Fu Manchu and the Mandarin. Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings is the first Marvel Studios film with an Asian director and a predominantly Asian cast ... "
Obviously the different functions of the Ten Rings bore similarity to the Infinity Stones as well.
6. Rolling the Mandarin into Killian
Stupid and destroys both villains.
>"I AM THE MANDARIN!"
Yeah okay, a stupid line just so Pepper can stronk whammen him with a metal pole, (when exploding armour didn't kill him, huh, have you ever seen such obviously tacked-on shit?) Whatever. You can see how that movie is so undermined by CURRENT YEAR frickery it barely works at all.
>"Hello Tony, I'm going to inject your girlfriend with Extremis which will probably give her superpowers she can use to escape and stop me! Mwhahahahaha!"
Frick off. The real Stark would have laughed in his face.
7. Also making AIM all about Killian in particular is missing the point, so undermines that enemy too.
I like both of them as a concept, as a character I hate them both
Ironman. I don’t care about comics or Batman. His MCU journey was great.
Conceptually, Iron Man
I like the idea of power being tied to something that could be mass-produced and used by others (albeit not easily or perfectly)
You might like the 'What If ...?' comic, "What if IRON MAN Sold Out?"
He sells his armour tech after agonising over the decision seeing how it can be a boon to the world, and it is, (like you have squads of construction workers flying around I-beams and wrist-mounted hot riveters building skyscrapers in a fraction of the time, etc.) But shit goes sideways of course in the usual 'What if ... ?' kinda way.
Still good to see that little alternate reality, and also get to see the reason he share all his tech in the main timeline. Which he does want to do but is limited by its weapons potentional and other misuse. He has AI constantly trying to make projections to figure out what he can release and what he can't because he's actually cool and not some whiny little moron in a bat suit.
What I always wonder was that why Tony didn't make (very) dumb downed versions of his technology for the public market
Presumably he did as much as possible. But it's like how do you 'dumb down' something totally innovative like a Beta Particle Generator from the comics? Which in real terms seems to be a distorted take on a Neutrino Generator where if you could interact with, slow down, and extract a fraction of the energy from particles passing right through you, the Earth, and pretty much everything else, you'd have infinite power anywhere, anytime, (like omnidirectional solar that works day and night).
In the MCU the Arc Reactor is basically like John Galt's engine in Atlas Shrugged that extracts electric charge from the atmosphere, (an old idea since lightning is one proof that there's a differential in charge to be had in the atmosphere itself), so is practically infinite also but doesn't work in space, (pity they didn't make that perfectly clear before he flies through the space hole in Avengers). Might be hard to commercialise shit like that without giving the game away entirely no matter how dumbed down.
Though it's cool how in the MCU they have the big uneconomical Arc Reactor tech to 'shut the hippies up', (conveniently destroyed at the end), and Stark is the only one who knows how to miniturise it in a cave from a box of scraps! But then you have Vanko.
Still you do see him installing free power into Stark Tower, presumably with a view to making it available to more people in the future, giving repulsor tech to SHEILD for their Helicarriers, outfitting the Avengers with Stark tech, the Iron Legion, etc.
Thanks for bringing it up, that was a fun read. For a minute, I thought the "we'll start again JC, live in villages" route was going to be the actual ending, with the message that Stark sharing his technology made it objectively worse. Successfully threatening the world into armor non-proliferation also seems farfetched, but I guess the comic needed to end on a happier note
Incidentally, it's a bit funny how "Stark-tech applied to sentinels" is relevant today
Yeah, the 'What If ...?' comics can be a little spotty, but they're nothing if not unpredictable - often in a good way. Some of the premises seem obvious, but they don't just follow the bouncing ball, (like there's no reason to expect Magneto to show up in particular), and don't always end on the happiest of notes either. Seems a number of good ideas come out of them that are used later on in some form too.
I haven't watched any of the MCU 'What if ...?' shit, but from what I know of it I'm probably better off. The old comics though were actually pretty cool and quite popular. Some good Spiderman issues like 'What If Spiderman Joined the Fantastic Four?', (a reference to one of the early issues of the mainline comic where he tried - unsuccessfully due to misunderstandings - and answered that question once and for all if it ever came up why Parker was so busy being a poorgay and not getting their help fpr shit when he's swinging past the Baxter Building every other day). Been a while since I read it but they might have even used some ideas from that for the MCU with him joining the Avengers, (or at least made oblique references to it).
Bruce is a simp.
Tony is the rational male.
I like Batman better, but Iron Man is the superior solo character in the movies. Doesn’t help that Batman keeps getting cucked.
ESL rambling imminent...
I think I'm not alone in my development:
As a kid I prefered Batman, as a teen I prefered Iron Man with the MCU and all and as an adult I came to prefer Batman again.
I don't think children really get much out of "playing Iron Man", when not even his own writers ever managed to scratch his potential in 60 years. The concept of a guy who constantly upgrades his battle armor is cool for a while, but there isn't much past that. And they don't really get the appeal of a playboy personality like teens do.
Meanwhile any kid can make up a decent Batman story while playing. Batman himself is a good role model as a stoic and disciplined guy who became a superhero through hard work. That archetype will always be cool. He gets away with being a Gary Stu because of his setting. Gotham is scary but also not too traumatizing for children, even the gritty interpretations. A strong hero conquering that setting is very appealing to them. And if Batman is outside of Gotham with the Justice League he is the underdog, a normal man amongst gods, which of course also has a big appeal.
To adults Batman also has more appeal because while his personality is simpler than Iron Man's, he gets explored much deeper. Compare the amount of discussion about the morality of Iron Man and his setting to the amount of discussion about Batman and if his methods would really work irl or if he would be better off donating his money to charity, if he should have a no-kill rule and all that.
I hate Batgays I really do, but Batman objectively has better comics.
In terms of concept I prefer Ironman because mechs and power are based.
In terms of actual character and stories? I dislike Tony Stark and can't say I like any of his comics, so Batman wins by default.
>power are base
*power armor
Plenty of heroes and villains wear armour and mech suits, (including Batgay because he can't realistically handle a lot of shit). Stark would know, he spends a lot of his life kicking the shit through them. Yet none of them are anywhere near Stark in terms of cool, actual character, or the ability to use one. So it's a common mistake for people to simplify him down to that, (not saying you are necessarily, but very common).
Was cool that they at least tried to show him inside and outside the armour and in-between in the MCU movies:
?t=198
Pity about a lot of the execution, but in the comics he'd do shit like use Justin Hammer's wall socket to shock the guards and escape captivity. Not that it's a particular amazing example, just that he's more of a threat than anyone thinks without his armour, and any technology he can lay his hands on multiplies that threat, (just like him building the original suit in a cave - from a box of scraps!)
Better writers have tackled batman
Iron man is really great in the mcu
& having his kryptonite be alcohol is pretty great
I wish the MCU didn't switch it to 'muh PTSD' after obviously building up to the alcohol angle like they did in the comics. Like that scene with Loki in the first Avengers movie where he's drinking is no accident normiegays.
Could have been worse, but I just thought it was a little too nebulous and less relatable.
But kiss my arse Batgays who didn't even know Demon in a Bottle was awesome and no small thing for a comic hero at the time - especially when it's going to have long-lasting and permanent effects. Also seeing him trying to superhero while drunk off his arse is pretty cool too.
The later comics weren't as good, but there's one comic where his body gets taken over by an AI that doesn't know how to be human and it starts drinking and fricking up his romantic relationship by responding to it's new animal urges. When Stark finally takes his body back he discovers he's drunk as a skunk. Pretty fricking tragic shit for an addict to suffer the fallout from something like that when they aren't even responsible.
Shit like that does show the story potential, and I guess the MCU did okay with some of the PTSD shit all said and done. Stark has fricking problems that for sure, and overcoming them in the end is part of what makes him a hero.
The AI eventually can't handle living in Stark's body because being a human being - especially Stark - is so existentially hellish it literally can't hack it.
Normally I'm against modern gradient recolors but IM's '80s-'90s stuff is something that could benefit from recolors.
It was a very odd time for comics with the boom, bust, and aftermath. Things got a little janky in terms of the artwork and everything, but in a best-of-times, worst-of-times kinda way you did get some real gems. The 'Death of Superman' didn't help matters, (since that got so much traction everygay tried to copy it with mixed results), as well as other gimmicky shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Age_of_Comic_Books#Rise_and_fall_of_the_speculator_market
I generally liked the run up to Issue #300 of IRON MAN. There was a lot of good shit going on like War Machine and the modern suits, Remote, Modular, and the Hulkbuster came out of that era - an instant hit btw so was glad to see it in the MCU and done so well, (but a total no-brainer, they'd be morons not to use it), but after that, shit dropped off rather precipitously. Which I found it a pity because I only ever cared about actually reading them, not collecting them. The BS 'muh Issue #1' titles and foil covers were obvious horseshit, but I must admit the latter were rather beautiful - especially worked well for IRON MAN comics as you might imagine.
>PROTIP: When you read about some guy selling comics/real-estate/crypto in the mainstream press, you probably missed the boat. Find something else to invest in or you're likely buying high and will have to sell low. I've seen few bubbles that were as conspicuous right from the start over my lifespan. That kind of investing isn't as easy as it looks. Like if you bought the fricking Mona Lisa day one from Leonardo Da Vinci and stored it until today then sold it, it seems like you would make a lot of money, but you could have done way, way better over the same timespan investing in perfectly mundane shit. Run the numbers and see.
Kane's batman: based af
Lee's iron man: based af
Moderno iron bat and manman are cringe af
Batman is vague enough to be popular in wildy different versions and interpretations.
Iron Man is successfull in just one, the MCU. All other versions of the character are very niche.
The concept of a stoic Bat-themed ninja detective with Bond-level gadgetry and colorful gimmicky villains is fun, fantastic and works really well for the desired escapism.
A self-made billionaire with guilty conscience trying to prevent his deadly tech to be used by evil people while dealing with military stuff hits too close to what America really is.
Iron just because he's not a moron with a no killing rule
IRON MAN kills more people ACCIDENTALLY over the average weekend than that pussy Batman has his entire career. Just goes to show you what a pussywillow Batgay is.
Man I missed Beth in the MCU. Actual cool badass strong woman who doesn't suffer from currentyear-itis. I guess they had to consolidate all his romantic interests into Pepper, and there wasn't room for another physically capable redhead, but such a pity. I guess it's all good, since she's a redhead they probably would have swapped her with a Black person if she was introduced too late in the game. Just more fodder for the 'Girls get it done' shot in Endgame.
>That's her casually telling Stark she figured out he's IRON MAN in 1979, about five years before Parker's redhead tells him she knows he's Spiderman.
She was the one for him. Pepper was supposed to belong with Happy Hogan.
Imagine signing up to play a superhero like Spiderman knowing he has a hot redhead supermodel girlfriend, then you meet the woman they cast and you realise you just got royally fricked by the CURRENT YEAR. Man that would suck balls. That job used to at least have fringe benefits.
>She was the one for him.
Even if not, it would be more consistent with the comics for him to have at least a couple of chicks, one that comes and goes. Didn't even have some temporary thing with Rae LaCoste or have some near-miss with psycho Kathy Dare, or reference any women in particular past or present. Which is weird when you think about it since the MCU was so big on setting up other characters, and half his b***hes turn out of be villains or someone of note. Would have been a good gag for Paltrow to hire Stark's new secretary for him when she gets promoted, and tell him her name was 'Bambi' too, which sounds better than it is, (and she's a cool character).
Something by the way, I don't think Batgay has as good a prostitutes Gallery, like last I checked they're just dumb reporter b***hes or other boring nobodies, like that unbelievably boring b***h in Dark Knight.
>Pepper was supposed to belong with Happy Hogan.
Fat Producer/Director getting Gwyneth Paltrow? Well, I guess she's used to sucking Harvey Weinstein's dick so that probably wouldn't even seem weird to her.
>don't think Batgay has as good a prostitutes Gallery
I liked Silver St. Cloud, and felt sorry she got whacked so badly, but that's bout it.
Talia is a nutjob like her father, I thought she had potential once though.
Selina... Bruce is an object to steal for Selina, not a genuine love interest. That's easy to see. She's manipulative.
Batman. Batman is the anti-Superman, the masturbator hero lurking in the shadows to take down candy colored psychopaths. He is far more interesting to juxtapose with other characters than Iron Man who is just rich hero in a suit.
Iron man would beat Batman
It would end in a draw because why would Marvel or DC let their character lose in a crossover? Don't be a mark-ass fanboy.
batman beyond combines them together
Which just goes to show you that Batman has been trying to muscle in on IRON MAN's shtick for a long time. A lot of shit Batgays think is cool, like the Batgay Armour he wears in Batman v Superman was done better by Stark before and since. That's the real coup de grace in this little debate.
Batman would break your arm and call you a coward for trying to shoot a rapist who assaulted your sister while Iron Man would energy blast the nonce himself.
>heh, just trust the system bro. He won't escape Arkham again.
Batgays are deranged.
>Which one do you prefer?
How come Miller's Iron Man hasn't been collected?
DOD suit > Extremis