Ambush Bug, that was a pleasant review with many new points. Thank You.

angle grinder man

google

www.freecomicbookday.com

I'm not affliated with anyone, I'm just spreadin' the word

I stopped collecting a while ago, but i will not part with any of the true classics. From the gorgeous Johhny Craig issues, up to the incredible (can I use that term with Iron Man?) David Michelinie/Bob Layton collaboration.

I bought IM 128 off the stands, then bought a second copy off the stands because I knew it was something special.

Suffice it to say, i am totally geeked about seeing the movie. It could have had the worse reviews of all time, and I still would have gone, just to see with my own eyes.

I am very glad however, that a fellow long timer, has chimed in with such a positive review.

So for him the behave in such a radical & despicable manner, I think it is very justified that long time fans would feel alienated.

I do realize that characters must grow. That change is the one true dynamic. I also realize that new writers are brought in to inject new storylines and ideas. But to completely betray a character that has been built up over 40 years, is far more than saying 'there is another side of the character that you have never seen, and now we reveal it.'

No. Marvel can and will do what they want to the character, but I truly hope someone comes to their senses over there and brings back the Golden Avenger - flawed, yes. Heroic, undoubtedly.

There has been some revisionism from subsequent writers on the series - Denny O'Niel for one, that said the alcohol issue was too compact, and thus O'neil dragged Stark through the gutter -literally. I didnot agree with his take on the character at all.

IM 128 stands as one of the truly groundbreaking issues in comics.

That being said, I have zero problem with characters espousing political doctrines that I either agree or disagree with, but make sure that it is a part of their established character to do so, not just pulled out of thin air.

I characterize a fundamental shift, as one that ignores 40 plus years of a character, in favor of a radical ret-con.

I'd guess they'll go with characters who can carry a film on their own. That means Captain America, Black Panther, and probably Ant Man.

I can't imagine a Scarlet Witch or Vision movie. I can't see them making a Hawkeye flick. Wonder Man is out because he's pretty weak as a character.

I could see a possible Ms. Marvel film though. She'd be interesting and would break up the sausage-fest in Avengers Mansion.

Within the Avengers, he was second only to Cap with the respect from the others. And his power could be off the charts - when he so desired. Tony Stark, on the other hand, was flamboyant, and care free, but haunted.

Being rich does not solve all of ones problems. He even at one time thought to escape totally within his Iron Man persona.

Yes, Stark provided weapons to SHEILD and the U.S. govt'. Yes, Stark was and is Patriotic, but he was never a jingoistic, sadistic, morals and ethics be damned individual. And neither was the Iron Man persona.

There was a character already like that, he name is Nick Fury.

This is my point, there were several major playors who started out as the type that could easily become what the writers have turned Iron man into, a fascist. Ther was no need to Ret-Con Stark into something he never was in his entire 40 plus year career. And no amount of, 'revealing the hidden, sly, side' can explain away that kind of shift.

I am not saying that it is impossible, because people can become more conservative, or more liberal over time. What I am saying is that the shift was too far, too out of character, and not even necessary.

However, while I re-read my earlier post, i noticed that I said 'The Iron Man i grew up with'.That sounds like and old foggy, and I do not mean to say that he should not change. Of course he will be different, change is inevitable, but great characters, while changing in ways we might not expect, still need not become fundamentally different.

Just one long time fans opinion. new fans who like this direction, well, I hope it brings you the same amount of joy that I derived while having the heroic Iron Man to look forward to.

And by SF did you mean VFX?

And just to refute one more thing, the poetic and graceful shots of the Falcon swooping and flying in Empire (original version) WERE directed by the VFX guy, and WERE done with a digital move (never heard why Dykstraflex was such a big thing?) and WERE out of place with the rest of the film, which is mostly done with shot composition and editing, not movement within the frame. Yet those Falcon shots work beautifully BECAUSE of the juxtaposition. Don't tar everything with the same brush, dude.

Also, it has nothing even necessarily to do with digital. Ever notice how the cinematic language would change the instant the action started in an old western? That wasn't because it was directed by the director OR the Stunt director/2nd A.D. - and everything to do with not showing the stuntie's face. As for too cowardly and lazy, man, take a look at the process and WHY things may be done this way. Those two things don't generally have much to do with it, but VERY occassionally, yes you're right.

You might also want to take a look at your own stuff before getting so high and mighty about movie writing. That run-on sentence and lack of caps was worse than my own! ;)

I'm still trying to rein in my inner excitement so I don't overhype and implode i a big puddle of disapointment!

is it really THAT good!?

I do not doubt that it can make for fascinating and even compelling storylines. Take any hero and turn him into a real or quasi-villain, and voila, fascinating storyline. Old as time. Wrestling has been doing it for years.

Yes, it works short term. But it is still nothing more than a cheap trick. A stunt. Even when it is carried on far longer than should be expected.

It does what Marvel wants, it makes people like me and you debate the merits of the change. It gets people talking. It creates controversy. But, unless they decide to make the next 40 years of this character like this, then that is all it will ever be: a cheap stunt.

It drives sales, it probably makes fascinating, albeit temporary storylines, but at what cost?

At betraying what the character, that was built up over time was. By disgarding a figurative lifetime of achievement.

I would really be interested in what messr's Michilenie and Layton, the men responsible for creating the greatest Iron Man story's - and driving sales through the roof, while making him an even greater, albeit flawed hero, would have to say about this change.

Perhaps they embrace it, perhaps not. I did hear that they are back to scripting some story's. I may check it out and see if the start changing him back - slowly to be sure.

What blows my geeky mind are the (triple I or something? can't remember the name) CG tests that were done in 78 (78 for fuck's sake!) with the CG x-wings that had texturemapping and everything! Lucas being the cheaparse he is (well, he DID pay for Empire himself) nixed it and probably fair enough, but can you IMAGINE how much further along things would have been if CG had really started then rather than ostensibly in the nineties (not counting Young Sherlock Holmes here)? SW was a quantum leap, but if Empire had gone CG and with artists like Dennis Muren and Joe Johnston driving the ideas and shot design the way they did the computer-controlled models, animatronics and cameras, my head starts to explode. Not to mention we would have missed the whole internet whinging that's going on over in the Hulk thread (I'm going to add my two cents' worth in there too, fuck it). I just like the Empire thing because it's a great example of artists (be they director or not) at the right end of the process and the tech accomplishing their vision. How Muren and others programmed the Dykstaflex (to be fair, Dykstra did NOT invent motion control - the Trumbullflex was first) which is really an overgrown calculator to pull off those moves is to much maths for my feeble brain. I'd also like to know how many retakes 'til it was non-mechanical looking. He said in an interview it was the hardest thing he's EVER done. Actually I think there's stuff about it in a big interview he did in an old Cinefex, with the Falcon on the cover. Like from the mid-nineties.

Did you not see the little winking man? Do you now feel slightly silly? Relax, my friend.

No matter HOW weaselly Stark gets, he'll ALWAYS be more decent and righteous than DC 5th-rate Green Lantern.

Rayner's basically GL's overrated version of Steel.

Downey is a great actor. Hopefully, his drug problems are behind him and he can be the actor and movie star that many have always felt he could be.

Gotta say, it's great that comic book films are starting to cast appropriate, well regarded actors who aren't condescending toward the material. Christian Bale, Edward Norton and Robert Downey Jr. are three of the best actors around, in my book.

Little worried about the INCREDIBLE HULK. There was about one and half good movies in Ang Lee's HULK, as well was two or three bad ones. This one looks better. Dig the scene with Banner talking to the future Doc Sampson, but the CGI for Hulk and Abomination bothers me. Also, there's no reason they couldn't have made the monsters talk.