The Four Color Media Monitor

Nor are they being very kind to his fans, if I'm reading the following article correctly:

Hero: Iron Man

Love Tony Stark or hate him — and there are plenty of fans who can't stand him these days — there can be little doubt that he and his red-and-gold armored alter-ego are more prominent in the Marvel Universe than ever before.

Name a big event in 2007 and he was involved in it. He fought Captain America before winning Civil War; he was the first hero to confront the Hulk on his return to Earth (and of course Stark was one of the Illuminati who voted to send the Hulk into space in the first place, which caused the whole thing).

The approach they're taking here to writing this article is awfully misleading. It's not that fans hate Tony Stark. Quite the opposite, they hate how he's being written. Is it really that hard to make clear?

And if the writer of this sugary piece thinks that superheroes, or even anti-heroes, fighting each other, is such a great thing, I'd say no. Because that's pretty much what things have come down to circa Civil War, where the heroes aren't fighting the villains anymore, but rather, each other. And the way it was done was so forced, that's why it wasn't great at all.

He even had a role to play in Spider-Man's "One More Day" storyline.

On that subject, I've just found some very maddening news about what the ending to that turkey may be like. If it turns out to be as awful as what a thread at CBR is saying might be, I'll certainly have something very cross to say (we can only hope it's just some ruse to get people talking, but who knows). But even if not, I'm still not encouraged to buy Spidey books anew, as by now, it only helps fuel Joe Quesada's career.

Name a big fight fans wanted to see and there was a great chance he would be one of the participants. Readers couldn't wait to see the Hulk unleash his fury on one of the primary architects of his betrayal and exile.

Likewise, when Thor returned, they were anxious to see what the Thunder God's reaction would be when he learned his longtime friend had cloned him and that clone had hunted down former allies and killed in his name. Better yet, both battles were worth the wait.

Wrong. Neither were, and the whole notion that Tony would make a clone of Thor who'd resort to vicious slaughter is disgusting, and even if Tony turns out to be a Skrull, that won't help matters, considering how this all took the place of well written stories.

Stark also had a significant role to play in the aftermath of Captain America's death, which many believe he is at least indirectly responsible for.

If that were so, how can they call Tony a hero if he really did things that were abominable?

...it is clear that 2007 was truly golden for Iron Man.

Judging from the examples of activity studied above, I don't think so.

I'm also not impressed with the writer's take on Ed Brubaker:

Brubaker's Death of Captain America issue ("Captain America" No. 25) was an instant classic and sold tons. Remarkably enough, he kept the book going forward without its title character and there was not any appreciable loss of quality.

"Captain America" became and stayed an absolutely-must-have book, joining Brubaker's book, "Daredevil" in that category.

His "Uncanny X-Men" was a notch below but still told memorable stories with cool moments. Even "Immortal Iron Fist" kicks butt.

Blah...blah...blah. And might I add, since he didn't, that the book has slowly been going back to what it was like before Steve's "death"?

These are not memorable moments, and I doubt most people will consider them such in the next 20-30 years. Rather, these are just some of the reasons why comics are slowly being defeated as an industry and a form of entertainment.

Labels: Iron Man, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda