Well, I read the issue and I might as well chime in. To be honest, for all the hype they put in this #500th issue - I found it a bit boring. I think the highlight of the entire thing was the preview of Ironman 2.0 - which is probably bad considering that has nothing to do with the story. [tilts head] I think the problem with Fraction's take on Tony is the fact he keeps him at square one. Where personally, I have no idea about Tony's past cannon and how he's really supposed to be pre-movie wise...an interview with Fraction made me (-_-)' and I realized he has no concept of where the character should be. His take on Tony is a "recovering alcoholic" and while that is admirable and all that jazz, I think he missed the point of Tony's flat out determination to never give up. I think, what I believe Ironman is supposed to be is a character who strives to be better, to change himself so that he doesn't have to hate himself so much. He's a character that...needs to make people acknowledge the real him and not the one that everyone else paints him out to be. He messes up - sure, but I think Marvel should at least try to give Tony a win every once in awhile. Their fascination of "Tony dooms the world" just make for an unlikable character. In this issue - he comes off as stupid - both present and past selves. How the !@#$ can you forget you build a fail-safe? I mean I admire Spidey being portrayed as smart, but dumbing down a character to make it so - that's bad writing. The Titanomech...I'm sure I yelled "it's a Gundam!" Enter the mobile suits! Lawl... I think I've lowered my expectations to believe there is no such thing as GOOD Marvel comic book writing. Sure this is supposed to be the "bad ending" future view but - technically since Peter suggested the failsafe doesn't that mean he'd assume there was some sort of spider-shaped fail-safe thing too when the mobile suits go evil? Exactly how many apocalyptic futures do we have running in 616 now anyways?
no subject
His take on Tony is a "recovering alcoholic" and while that is admirable and all that jazz, I think he missed the point of Tony's flat out determination to never give up. I think, what I believe Ironman is supposed to be is a character who strives to be better, to change himself so that he doesn't have to hate himself so much. He's a character that...needs to make people acknowledge the real him and not the one that everyone else paints him out to be.
He messes up - sure, but I think Marvel should at least try to give Tony a win every once in awhile. Their fascination of "Tony dooms the world" just make for an unlikable character. In this issue - he comes off as stupid - both present and past selves. How the !@#$ can you forget you build a fail-safe? I mean I admire Spidey being portrayed as smart, but dumbing down a character to make it so - that's bad writing.
The Titanomech...I'm sure I yelled "it's a Gundam!" Enter the mobile suits! Lawl...
I think I've lowered my expectations to believe there is no such thing as GOOD Marvel comic book writing. Sure this is supposed to be the "bad ending" future view but - technically since Peter suggested the failsafe doesn't that mean he'd assume there was some sort of spider-shaped fail-safe thing too when the mobile suits go evil? Exactly how many apocalyptic futures do we have running in 616 now anyways?