Comics geekery (late-night ramblings, not that coherent)

[mrph]

I've been thinking about Marvel comics again recently. Yes, I know. But I'm bored, so humour me.

To be more exact, I've been thinking about Iron Man. One of Marvel's oldest characters (he's been around since the 60s), high-profile member of their flagship superhero team for most of that time, has had his own book for decades...

But he's never quite made it to the same levels as Spider-Man, the Hulk or even Captain America. No cinema or TV success, probably no single run on the book that's attracted critical acclaim and 'redefined' the character. He's really a bit of an also-ran, when viewed in those terms. I'm starting to see why, too - he just doesn't work

Maybe it's the moustache. It's not often you see a superhero with a moustache - but then, with Iron Man, the moustache isn't visible when he's in costume anyway. And the costume is definitely part of the problem, as it's armour - with an expressionless mask, a metal face that's just mouth and eye slits.Which can make it a bit different for the creators to convey any emotion when he's in action. OK, you can say the same about Spider-Man... but he's got a seemingly endless supply of wisecracks (and occasional angsty monologues), which balance that neatly.

I think the real problem, though, is the man inside the armour. Tony Stark, a multimillionaire with his own corporation. He's rich, he might as well be Bill Gates... and he doesn't immediately look like hero material. With Batman, it's been established that Bruce Wayne has spent most of his life training for this, fuelled by the deaths of his parents. With Iron Man... well, he lost his parents to foul play, yes. But he was an adult at the time, and he didn't become Iron Man because of that. He became Iron Man because he was captured by an Asian warlord (during some unspecified war - I think it was Korea at one point, then possibly Vietnam. As the years have gone by, the details have shifted) and needed a way to escape and save his own skin.

Like Batman, he does have ingenuity - but it's a much less attractive kind, and relies on MacGuffins and lab time rather than dramatic quick thinking. Iron Man's far more likely to reverse the polarity of his armour's repusor rays than claim a hard-fought victory through any other kind of quick thinking. There's also the fact that his armour is what takes the real punishment - Batman, even battered and broken, will often rise to his feet for one final clash. Iron Man might just do the same, but it's more likely to be a question of physical damage to the armour than sheer willpower. Especially when fighting hi-tech foes, it feels like he wins because he designed the best suit, long before the actual battle. So there's normally a little less intensity to such moments.

There's no one setting that characterises the series, either. He's not a hero who fights in city alleyways (and even if he did, his repulsor rays would wreak havoc on the scenery...), and he's not one of those heroes who often visits space or other dimensions. Instead we usually get Bond-villain bases or battles high in the air - sometimes both combine and we get a flying base the size of an aircraft carrier...

But back to our Mr Stark. Most of the things that don't quite seem to work could be sidestepped or changed. Tony, however, isn't one of them - well, not unless the man in the armour changes, which has happened before. But I think too many comics have done that in recent years (we've had a replacement Flash, a replacement Spider-Man, a replacement Green Lantern, a replacement Spectre, a replacement Green Arrow - even a replacement Batman for a while...), so maybe not. He's rich. He wants to do good things. He worries about not telling the women in his life about his dual identity. He's had a long battle against alcoholism - and that's probably the only thing that's added some fire to an otherwise tepid personality.

There's no great tragedy that's really added to the setting - no Gwen Stacy or Jason Todd. There's no one great love of his life. There's not usually any juggling of day-to-day concerns with crimefighting, as his "crimefighting" tends to be aimed at menaces who show up on the TV news or come looking for him to settle a grudge. And his day-to-day life is pretty flexible, too. So what are the stakes? What's really driving him? And what does he actually do with his life - we've seen him at cocktail parties, concerts, health spas, beaches... is that it? Really? Almost forty years now, and that's it? Something here just seems to be missing...

Comments

Re: (£*&£"&*(^&(&^$£

[mrph.livejournal.com]

misstemperance has been collecting the Ultimate stuff (aside from The Ultimates itself) and I've mostly ben reading her copies - what I've seen of it has been pretty good.

Spider-Man in particular has been very slick - the Ultimate X-book hasn't been bad either, but has had too many in-jokes and cameos designed to appeal to those who've read the original, which surely defeats the object. And yes, the little I've seen of Tony Stark has been far more interesting than his mainstream counterpart.

Unsurprisingly, I'm also looking forward to seeing the upcoming mistersleepless take on Ultimate FF...

Re: (£*&£"&*(^&(&^$£

[markeris.livejournal.com]

If theres not an extending knob gag in the first 5 pages I`ll be wanting my money back.

Re: (£*&£"&*(^&(&^$£

[gashinryu.livejournal.com]

I'm finding pretty much all of the Ultimates titles to be well worth the money. The Ultimates itself, is extremely good with much more adult spins on all the characters (just be prepared to suspend disbelief and accept Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury).
However, if you want to see the characters told how they really should be told for a mature audience, then check Marvels MAX Comics range. The retellings of The Punisher & Thor have been wonderfully written and drawn...and with plenty of splattered claret. ;-)

Re: (£*&£"&*(^&(&^$£

[mrph.livejournal.com]

I'd agree about the Garth Ennis Punisher - his original 12-issue run was classic stuff.

Not so sure about Thor - the Vikings story was well told, and the art was lovely, but it mostly boiled down to "Thor gets his arse kicked by undead vikings, Doctor Strange turns up with a suitably hokey solution and some new allies, allies (oh, and Thor) beat up vikings and save the day".

It was a Thor story that really just used him as a big tough plot device. The allies got better lines and did at least as much in the final battle... Thor got his victory handed to him on a plate, and didn't actually get to do much. Compared to some of the better Thor tales from ye olde days - the Simonson run, or the Warren Ellis "Worldengine" reboot - it was just a bit lacking.

The reason the Max Punisher worked so well is that he's a very strong character, and he's insanely competent. Using him as the narrator helped a lot, too. Sadly, none of those things apply to the Ennis Thor - it just felt like he was on autopilot.

*ahem* Sorry. Will stop ranting now. :)

Re: (£*&£"&*(^&(&^$£

[gashinryu.livejournal.com]

Hehehe...don't stop ranting!
I kinda liked Thor personally, but then I'm one of those people who think Garth Ennis can do no wrong. It heartens me to think that the new Punisher movie is taken from his stories. :-)

Re: (£*&£"&*(^&(&^$£

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Ah. Whereas I think he's a damn good writer but he can be so fucking lazy sometimes. Well, either that or he's just patchy as hell.

Unknown Soldier was utterly excellent. So was that first Punisher run, so were large chunks of Preacher and a few bits of Hellblazer.

But then you have a large heap of self-indulgent tripe (including other large chunks of Preacher and Hellblazer), the brainless Judge Dredd tales and all the stories that just about hold together due to his knack for dialogue and characterisation, but have nothing else going for them...

Lots of cool moments with nothing to stitch them together, that's my usual grudge against Ennis...