Tony Stark: The Invincible Iron Man Appreciation 2021

[MichaelC]

The first was probably Lex Luthor, created accidentally by Superman, at least in the Golden/Silver ages.

[Habis]

I think "hero is directly or indirectly responsible for the villain's existence" has been a popular trope in the superhero genre for a long while now, and while Tony might suffer somewhat more than most these days, he's been far from the only one historically. Funny enough, I think a comedian/actor named Hal Sparks did a skit/rant about how sick of the whole trope he'd become, as it gave off the impression that the heroes (and the world) would have been better off doing nothing at all, if their actions were just going to make more villains.

Marvel heroes are weird creatures: They support the whole universe on their shoulders, keeping it from being destroyed, getting their lives wrecked while doing so, and most of the time they receive contempt from the very people they protect, but they still keep going on...

On the other hand, they are people who recklessly and impulsively do whatever they want... most often everything seems to work out, and they save the day... until the day it don't, and then they look like superpowered reckless warlords doing whatever they want, imposing their will on the helpless civilians and causing disasters...

That's why having evil enough and dangerous enough villains is important... hero vs hero events are cool and that, but in the aftermath they leave the heroes with an image of troublemakers who should never have donned shiny tights...

[Huntsman Spider]

The first was probably Lex Luthor, created accidentally by Superman, at least in the Golden/Silver ages.

And Batman is the most (in)famous, with the Joker for certain, though it's been argued by some, both in-universe and in real life, that to greater or lesser extents, his entire rogues' gallery wouldn't exist without him.

[CosmiComic]

Marvel heroes are weird creatures: They support the whole universe on their shoulders, keeping it from being destroyed, getting their lives wrecked while doing so, and most of the time they receive contempt from the very people they protect, but they still keep going on...

On the other hand, they are people who recklessly and impulsively do whatever they want... most often everything seems to work out, and they save the day... until the day it don't, and then they look like superpowered reckless warlords doing whatever they want, imposing their will on the helpless civilians and causing disasters...

That's why having evil enough and dangerous enough villains is important... hero vs hero events are cool and that, but in the aftermath they leave the heroes with an image of troublemakers who should never have donned shiny tights...

Then they had civil war and villainized the side seeking accountability in order to keep going this way

[Tony Stark]

I think "hero is directly or indirectly responsible for the villain's existence" has been a popular trope in the superhero genre for a long while now, and while Tony might suffer somewhat more than most these days, he's been far from the only one historically. Funny enough, I think a comedian/actor named Hal Sparks did a skit/rant about how sick of the whole trope he'd become, as it gave off the impression that the heroes (and the world) would have been better off doing nothing at all, if their actions were just going to make more villains.

I know it’s a trope that’s been done for decades. I’m just stating that it’s used on Tony more than anyone else lately.

[Tony Stark]

Nice addition to your stash bro. It keeps growing and growing.

Thanks brother. I try to at least once a week to get something with Tony Stark/Iron Man that I don’t have. It’s something reasonable priced of course lol.

[Marvell2100]

https://www.cbr.com/iron-man-bad-nyc-mayor/

Why would Tony even want to be mayor of NYC? That's a step down.

[Marvell2100]

I think "hero is directly or indirectly responsible for the villain's existence" has been a popular trope in the superhero genre for a long while now, and while Tony might suffer somewhat more than most these days, he's been far from the only one historically. Funny enough, I think a comedian/actor named Hal Sparks did a skit/rant about how sick of the whole trope he'd become, as it gave off the impression that the heroes (and the world) would have been better off doing nothing at all, if their actions were just going to make more villains.

Actually, the majority of Tony's villains weren't created as a response to him becoming Iron Man, it was more a response to him just being Tony Stark.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I'm fine with Tony unintentionally creating his own villians. He was a bad dude before he met Yen Sid in that cave. It's better if Marvel didn't forget that.

[MichaelC]

https://www.cbr.com/iron-man-bad-nyc-mayor/

Why would Tony even want to be mayor of NYC? That's a step down.

What? That's a severely distorted view of Stark's times in official positions. That said, I hate that they are having him run for mayor, simply because I find the idea of Stark as mayor to be incredibly boring. Stark works best when he's a maverick blend of cowboy and mad scientist. I don't understand the desire to make him The Man or The Establishment. He's at his best when he's opposed to The Man/The Establishment. I'd prefer him working to bring down Fisk in some method that doesn't involve replacing him. Using science to uncover his crimes, for example. In Iron Man III, Stark was basically a detective for most of the movie, uncovering Killian's crimes, and that worked wonderfully.

[rward777]

https://www.cbr.com/iron-man-bad-nyc-mayor/

Why would Tony even want to be mayor of NYC? That's a step down.

I wonder if during the election, Stark and Fisk both lose and Peter Parker gets written in as Mayor.

[Marvell2100]

What? That's a severely distorted view of Stark's times in official positions. That said, I hate that they are having him run for mayor, simply because I find the idea of Stark as mayor to be incredibly boring. Stark works best when he's a maverick blend of cowboy and mad scientist. I don't understand the desire to make him The Man or The Establishment. He's at his best when he's opposed to The Man/The Establishment. I'd prefer him working to bring down Fisk in some method that doesn't involve replacing him. Using science to uncover his crimes, for example. In Iron Man III, Stark was basically a detective for most of the movie, uncovering Killian's crimes, and that worked wonderfully.

What's worse is how they are categorizing the events like Tony is directly responsible for SKrulls infiltrating the superhero community. Or how it's Tony's fault that Wanda used her powers to make him appear drunk.

"With a hero as fiery-tempered and cocky as Tony Stark, a potential election of him as Mayor of New York City could cause ripple affects that would shape the entire Marvel Universe for years to come as a direct result... for better or worse!"

Fiery-tempered? Who are they talking about?

Again, why would Tony want to be mayor of NYC? He's a big picture guy who thinks of things on a bigger scale.

[Marvell2100]

I wonder if during the election, Stark and Fisk both lose and Peter Parker gets written in as Mayor.

"Your friendly neighborhood mayor!"

His bodyguards would get fired because he would keep giving them the slip to go be Spidey.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

https://www.cbr.com/iron-man-bad-nyc-mayor/

Why would Tony even want to be mayor of NYC? That's a step down.

He wants to challenge Fisk legally. It's a pragmatic move because if he wins, he overturns Fisk's mandates. If he loses he can buy time till the heroes figure out how to expose Fisk. Plus running as a candidate prevents Fisk from attacking him directly.

[Marvell2100]

He wants to challenge Fisk legally. It's a pragmatic move because if he wins, he overturns Fisk's mandates. If he loses he can buy time till the heroes figure out how to expose Fisk. Plus running as a candidate prevents Fisk from attacking him directly.

He doesn't need to be mayor to do that though. He'd do better being a donor and backing someone else to undo all of Fisk's work.

And no one has sued Fisk on the legal issues just to challenge him on it.