"Superior Iron Man" and More Headline Marvel's "Avengers NOW!"

[cranger]

Are you really still making a stink about this? Look at the claim again: "in the past, when the mantle shifted, it went to someone of a different name."

Masterson is the most notable example of the mantle shifting, and the claim does not hold up. That's it. Again, you can bring up all the in-universe details you want (stuff that we don't even know about the female Thor yet to compare this to, might I remind you and Brian), but that doesn't change the fact that Brian's claim is simply inaccurate.

It is not true that "in the past when the mantle shifted, it went to someone of a different name." It is simply not.

I already pointed out the bold and, for the sake of accuracy, making it clear that Eric Masterson is first identified with Thor by the fact that he was possessed by Thor for two years is a very valid point to make in defending Brian's claim. You should also quote the entire claim he made which was that the name was not taken away from Thor during that era. Although that might not actually be happening here, either, as Alonso and Aaron have made contradicting statements about that.

[Objectively Biased]

All-New Superior Avengers 100th Anniversary #1.NOW

[Kasper Cole]

It's said in the article that Tony will be an Anti-Hero. That doesn't automatically mean he'll be a villain.

[TresDias]

I already pointed out the bold and, for the sake of accuracy, making it clear that Eric Masterson is first identified with Thor by the fact that he was possessed by Thor for two years is a very valid point to make in defending Brian's claim. You should also quote the entire claim he made which was that the name was not taken away from Thor during that era. Although that might not actually be happening here, either, as Alonso and Aaron have made contradicting statements about that.

I've already quoted his entire claim twice, which you know because you responded to those posts:

http://community.comicbookresources....l=1#post316006
http://community.comicbookresources....l=1#post317347

I focused on the smaller excerpt this most recent time because you keep coming back with these story-related tangents when all I've been pointing out is that a statement which has to be plainly true or false (i.e. that no one else has ever been called Thor) is simply false.

By your own admission, anything else (whether the name is being transferred just because of wielding the hammer, whether Thor Odinson himself will no longer be called "Thor," what other circumstances or in-universe reasoning may be involved with the name and power transfers) is all speculative assumption, but we have a number of comic book fans treating these speculative assumptions as fact to fuel entitled butthurt while refusing to even wait to let the story (which could end up being really good and make lots of sense when we get there) play out.

And it's thoroughly annoying.

[cranger]

By your own admission, anything else (whether the name is being transferred just because of wielding the hammer, whether Thor Odinson himself will no longer be called "Thor," what other circumstances or in-universe reasoning may be involved with the name and power transfers) is all speculative assumption, but we have a number of comic book fans treating these speculative assumptions as fact to fuel entitled butthurt while refusing to even wait to let the story (which could end up being really good and make lots of sense when we get there) play out.

And it's thoroughly annoying.

Yeah it is annoying but the speculation is all due to how Marvel is promoting the change. It is all people have to go on. If people were not getting so butthurt by it that would be a bad sign for Marvel. It would mean no one has felt invested in this character, this brand, to even care. The same mentality that leads to the butthurt is what Marvel also relies on to generate interest in this, otherwise why the heck would anyone be going on about how great this sounds based on nothing but speculation?

[Shadowras]

It's said in the article that Tony will be an Anti-Hero. That doesn't automatically mean he'll be a villain.

It's kinda funny that Superior Ironman's armor is white.

[Nomads1]

Superior is the new Dark.

Peace

[TresDias]

Yeah it is annoying but the speculation is all due to how Marvel is promoting the change. It is all people have to go on. If people were not getting so butthurt by it that would be a bad sign for Marvel. It would mean no one has felt invested in this character, this brand, to even care. The same mentality that leads to the butthurt is what Marvel also relies on to generate interest in this, otherwise why the heck would anyone be going on about how great this sounds based on nothing but speculation?

Those are valid points.

My reaction to the whole thing has really just been, "Well, we'll see." Aaron's run on "Thor: God of Thunder" has been good, and it's promising that he claims the whole thing grew organically out of a plot that involves Mjölnir no longer deeming Thor Odinson worthy. On the other side of that, we have Aaron's "Original Sin" storyline -- and that one is just so much no. lol

The only review I can think of that it deserves thus far is

spoilers:

"A spy has been hiding something. Not a question. A statement. Turn to the person on your left. Now , turn to the person on your right. They both think this is fucking stupid."

end of spoilers

As for drawing conclusions from the marketing thing with the female Thor, I honestly don't know why people get in a tizzy over that stuff. That is obviously advertising meant for prospective readers, not the people already following the book. They announced it on The View for (thunder) god's sake!

[megaharrison]

It's said in the article that Tony will be an Anti-Hero. That doesn't automatically mean he'll be a villain.

Marvel these days doesn't understand the concept of anti-hero well though, anti-hero means psychotic lunatic who does evil things that everyone calls evil but him. They demonize anti-heroes, and Marvel's silly moral absolutism prevents any kind of serious discussion on the topic.

[Donuts]

All-New Superior Avengers 100th Anniversary #1.NOW

Nice dig at Marvel right now with their odd obsessions.

[Kasper Cole]

Marvel these days doesn't understand the concept of anti-hero well though, anti-hero means psychotic lunatic who does evil things that everyone calls evil but him. They demonize anti-heroes, and Marvel's silly moral absolutism prevents any kind of serious discussion on the topic.

I'd say it's more than fandom demonizes anti-heroes.

Marvel just tells their stories and fan choose how the interpret the actions of heroes. We saw this already with Stark during Civil War. Many people felt Tony and Reed were outright villians but a lot of other people saw it differently. Same goes for how people currently view Cyclops.

[runguy]

Those are valid points.

My reaction to the whole thing has really just been, "Well, we'll see." Aaron's run on "Thor: God of Thunder" has been good, and it's promising that he claims the whole thing grew organically out of a plot that involves Mjölnir no longer deeming Thor Odinson worthy. On the other side of that, we have Aaron's "Original Sin" storyline -- and that one is just so much no. lol

The only review I can think of that it deserves thus far is

spoilers:

"A spy has been hiding something. Not a question. A statement. Turn to the person on your left. Now , turn to the person on your right. They both think this is fucking stupid."

end of spoilers

As for drawing conclusions from the marketing thing with the female Thor, I honestly don't know why people get in a tizzy over that stuff. That is obviously advertising meant for prospective readers, not the people already following the book. They announced it on The View for (thunder) god's sake!

I know Alonso and Tom B. have stated these changes were not editorially mandated (Thor, Cap, Iron Man) but it does seem highly unlikely that 2 different writers at around the same time came up with similar status quo changes

[jphamlore]

I'd say it's more than fandom demonizes anti-heroes.

Marvel just tells their stories and fan choose how the interpret the actions of heroes. We saw this already with Stark during Civil War. Many people felt Tony and Reed were outright villians but a lot of other people saw it differently. Same goes for how people currently view Cyclops.

Didn't the cause of the Stamford tragedy eventually turn out to be the corporation that was tasked with cleaning up the aftermath of superpower battles and other disasters decided to amplify villains' powers to pad their profits? That wasn't the readers' fault, that was Marvel's own telling of the story that eventually made the pro-registration side to be villains. Because the pro-registration side did nothing to determine the actual cause of the disaster, and the disaster was a pre-text.

[Kasper Cole]

Didn't the cause of the Stamford tragedy eventually turn out to be the corporation that was tasked with cleaning up the aftermath of superpower battles and other disasters decided to amplify villains' powers to pad their profits? That wasn't the readers' fault, that was Marvel's own telling of the story that eventually made the pro-registration side to be villains. Because the pro-registration side did nothing to determine the actual cause of the disaster, and the disaster was a pre-text.

And yet there was a large segment of fans that didn't see them as villains. As i said it a lot of times it's more about hte fans perception than the actual story being told.

[Cmbmool]

Okay....doesn't anyone remember the LAST TIME TONY HAD THE EXTREMIS and how that turned out ?