So in the Registration Act storyarc Iron Man was a bad guy?

  • 54 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by SuperTide (15578 posts) - - Show Bio
#2 Posted by Dane (10649 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, it depends on your point of view really.
 
I consider him to be a bad guy in that story, others might not.

#3 Posted by ComicMan24 (147047 posts) - - Show Bio

It depends on what side you wanted to win.

#4 Posted by ComicCrazy (1505 posts) - - Show Bio

There were two sides to the story. It's kind of unfair to say he was the bad guy.
#5 Posted by LT1085 (3635 posts) - - Show Bio

Marvel tends to be a lot less black and white about the whole good guy/bad guy thing compared to dc.

#6 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

According to Marvel, no. According to common sense, yes.

#7 Posted by Jake Fury (19232 posts) - - Show Bio

 
<<<<some people tend to think that Tony Stark is always the bad guy...
#8 Posted by amc26 (207 posts) - - Show Bio
@AtPhantom said:
" According to Marvel, no. According to common sense, yes. "
#9 Posted by MI 6 (63 posts) - - Show Bio

The two point of view are coherent. 
The point is that Iron-Man want to emprison his friend and made so big mistakes (Clone Thor, negative zone).

#10 Posted by IrishX (2468 posts) - - Show Bio

While it depends on your point of view there is the argument that Iron Man using villains to hunt down his fellow heroes makes him a bad guy.

#11 Posted by Duo_forbidden (1119 posts) - - Show Bio

Like pretty much everyone else wrote, it depends on your point of view. Both Capt and Tony did some questionable things and both wanted what was best, but when you look at it, Tony made the most mistakes.

#12 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4165 posts) - - Show Bio

To brake it down simplistically during Civil War Tony Stark was the bad guy, along with Reed Richards and other "Pro-Registration" heroes. But Civil War wasn't really about good or bad. It was more about what is the responsibility of the hero community to the public at large and the role the government should or should not have in the lives of those heroes. You can look at both sides and say, "I agree with Cap the heroes should not be under the government thumb and used as they see fit." But then again you can also say, "But I see where Tony is coming from because its the heroes responsibility to keep the public's safety in mind at all times."
 
Now with that being said, to make the answer slightly simplier then that, Tony and all Pro-Reg heroes and the government, where the bad guys because they were going against the Constitution.

#13 Posted by Mediant (321 posts) - - Show Bio

Defining either side as "good" or "bad" is overly simplistic. That grey area and moral ambiguity is one of the thing the Civil War arc got really right.

#14 Posted by Knightofthelight95 (27 posts) - - Show Bio

NO!!!!!! NO HE WASN'T!!!! NOW YOU GO SIT IN THE CORNER!!!!!!!!!
#15 Posted by Knightofthelight95 (27 posts) - - Show Bio

Hey, I honestly think the better question is, "Was Cap. the villain?" Captain AMERICA went against what the AMERICAN people wanted. Which BTW the same ppl that wanted it, were protesting it later. Let's just all agree. Civil War was a VERY interesting premise, but it turned out to be shit.
#16 Posted by Theworldbreaker (1622 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes he was 
 
Captian america ftw.
#17 Posted by ShirEPanjshir (581 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends on how you look at it. Legally speaking Iron Man + Pro-Registration were the good guys, and Cap + Anti-Registration were the bad guys. 
Morally speaking Iron Man + Pro-Registration would be considered the bad guys, while Cap + Anti-Registration would be considered the good guys.
 Either way; Iron Man did what he thought was the right thing to do for the greater good, while actually having his own personal and moral objections to what he, himself was doing..
He didn't want to do it, but he did it anyway because he thought it was the right thing. So I don't believe you can call him the "bad guy". He didn't do this for selfish or evil reasons.
 
Which is not to say that he didn't make mistakes. He did some wrong things, made some wrong decisions. And he turned out to be blamed for the Civil War ( and Captain America's death + Bill Foster's death, Secret Invasion and Dark Reign ( and also World War Hulk ). Which I kind of do think is exaggerated. Iron Man became the scapegoat for every bad thing that happened.
  Right now he's trying to redeem himself, he's apologizing for things he didn't remember doing. He's lost everything and is trying to rebuild by building something new, something to really help people.
 
Funny thing is; all this made a lot of readers see him as a bad person. Which kind of surprises me. People are OK with their hero slashing through their enemies and killing them like Wolverine, Deadpool, etc. do.
They are OK with the destruction that Hulk has caused several times. They are OK with so many things. But a genius like Iron Man making a few fatal mistakes turns readers around so fast that he immediately becomes the bad guy?

#18 Posted by karrob (4264 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mediant said:
" Defining either side as "good" or "bad" is overly simplistic. That grey area and moral ambiguity is one of the thing the Civil War arc got really right. "
#19 Posted by John_Feaster (341 posts) - - Show Bio

  It's not really a Good vs. Bad situation...but as I've said before, Reed, Tony and Carol were VERY BADLY HANDLED durring the whole storyline. Reed went all "Nazi Scientist" (cranking out murderious clones and secret prisons), Tony sent villains (Thunderbolts) to hunt down and capture (in several cases even cripple) heroes before imprisoning them without trial...then when Blastarr attacked the prison and the guards fled WITHOUT freeing the prisoners...Tony couldn't be bothered with a rescue attempt. And Carol always acted like she KNEW what Tony was doing was wrong...but never once stopped obeying his orders. 
 
   The best argument against the Civil War...is that even though Reed just ignores the events, Tony and Carol now both KNOW they did the wrong thing, and neither would ever do it again.
#20 Posted by John_Feaster (341 posts) - - Show Bio
@ShirEPanjshir said:
Funny thing is; all this made a lot of readers see him as a bad person. Which kind of surprises me. People are OK with their hero slashing through their enemies and killing them like Wolverine, Deadpool, etc. do. They are OK with the destruction that Hulk has caused several times. They are OK with so many things. But a genius like Iron Man making a few fatal mistakes turns readers around so fast that he immediately becomes the bad guy? "
 
   Nobody expects The Hulk or Deadpool to make better decisions, but Tony should have known better. Heck, the Regestration Act wasn't going to pass till Tony paid a supervillain (the 3rd Titanium Man) to publicly attack him...which a lot of people don't seem to remember...
#21 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes, he's a bad guy. He's responsible for OMD, Cap's death, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign and Siege.

#22 Posted by The Mango (1474 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
" Yes, he's a bad guy. He's responsible for OMD, Cap's death, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign and Siege. "
He's not responsible for any of that.
#23 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio
@The Mango said:
" @FadeToBlackBolt said:
" Yes, he's a bad guy. He's responsible for OMD, Cap's death, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign and Siege. "
He's not responsible for any of that. "
Fine, technically Bendis and Quesada are, but in terms of fictional continuity, he is. And I'll also drop the Cap death part, but the rest falls directly on his shoulders. He convinced Spidey to reveal his identity to the world, then turned on him as soon as Pete decided he wasn't comfortable with Stark's ideas or methods. While Nova and the Guardians were fighting of a Universal threats, Stark, Reed and Cap were b****ing about masks. Secret Invasion happened because Stark had his head too far up his own exhaust pipe to realise that his defences weren't impregnable, and Siege was a direct result of his negligence. Osborn used HIS armor to further his aims, he used Stark's lapdog (Bendis-Sentry) to do his wetwork, and he used Stark tech to equip his grunts. 
 
It's all Stark's (and Reed's) fault. 
 
I'm guessing he's a favourite of yours, and I'm sorry that I'm bagging him out so much, but this is how I see the state of the MU over the last few years. He and Osborn should have been the  ones to have a helicarrier dropped on their heads, but we all know that Siege was a disgrace, so I wont go there.
#24 Posted by ShirEPanjshir (581 posts) - - Show Bio
@John_Feaster said:

"The best argument against the Civil War...is that even though Reed just ignores the events, Tony and Carol now both KNOW they did the wrong thing, and neither would ever do it again. "

Actually Tony said (to Maria Hill I believe?) in a recent issue of Invincible Iron Man that he actually WOULD probably do all the things he did all over again - because he's sure that from his perspective he was doing the right thing, or at least he was convinced he was doing the right thing.
 
  @John_Feaster said:

"Nobody expects The Hulk or Deadpool to make better decisions, but Tony should have known better. Heck, the Regestration Act wasn't going to pass till Tony paid a supervillain (the 3rd Titanium Man) to publicly attack him...which a lot of people don't seem to remember... "

Which doesn't necessarily make Tony 'a bad guy'. Sure that whole paying-Titanium Man-to-fake-an-attack deal was morally gray, at best, but Tony's always been a guy with an the-end-justifies-the-means vibe. And yes I agree that Tony and the other Pro-Registration heroes did some terrible things and made some bad calls. But (especially in Tony's case) it's been made very clear that they did these things because they were convinced they were saving the world and ensuring that heroes could still function in the future. Most of them did these things even despite their own personal feelings that objected against this. Tony for example was torn up inside, because he felt that what he was doing was wrong, he would've also rather objected to that law together with Cap, but in his mind, he knew that someone had to take charge. Sure he made a mess of things, but he did it for the right reasons.
 
  @FadeToBlackBolt said:

"Fine, technically Bendis and Quesada are, but in terms of fictional continuity, he is. And I'll also drop the Cap death part, but the rest falls directly on his shoulders. He convinced Spidey to reveal his identity to the world, then turned on him as soon as Pete decided he wasn't comfortable with Stark's ideas or methods. While Nova and the Guardians were fighting of a Universal threats, Stark, Reed and Cap were b****ing about masks. Secret Invasion happened because Stark had his head too far up his own exhaust pipe to realise that his defences weren't impregnable, and Siege was a direct result of his negligence. Osborn used HIS armor to further his aims, he used Stark's lapdog (Bendis-Sentry) to do his wetwork, and he used Stark tech to equip his grunts.   It's all Stark's (and Reed's) fault.   I'm guessing he's a favourite of yours, and I'm sorry that I'm bagging him out so much, but this is how I see the state of the MU over the last few years. He and Osborn should have been the  ones to have a helicarrier dropped on their heads, but we all know that Siege was a disgrace, so I wont go there.

For your Civil War arguments, see my argument above this. Secret Invasion wasn't all Stark's fault. I mean, if Stark hadn't been around, and wasn't director of SHIELD, could you still blame him? You can't honestly expect one guy to make sure that Earth never gets invaded the way it did like in Secret Invasion. And just because Osborn's a sneaky little bastard who was able to get a hold of Tony's armor, this makes Tony a bad guy? Tony has always been an arrogant fool who thinks himself to be invincible, even though he has gotten more than a few armors stolen from him. That doesn't make him evil, it just makes him who he is, an arrogant fool. 
 
Anyway it really shows that your view of a 'bad guy' is very different from mine. As I said before; Tony Stark made wrong decisions, did some very morally gray things, but he always did it for the right reasons, he always intended good things. And sure, he overlooked a lot of things that a genius like him perhaps could 've seen coming, but heck, he's still human, and humans make mistakes.
This all makes Tony a human who did some wrongs, even though he tried to do good. But this does not make him a bad guy, since he didn't intend to do wrong.
#25 Posted by Chaos Burn (1789 posts) - - Show Bio

IronMan was just bein' Tony Stark

#26 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio
@ShirEPanjshir said:

 
  @FadeToBlackBolt said:

"Fine, technically Bendis and Quesada are, but in terms of fictional continuity, he is. And I'll also drop the Cap death part, but the rest falls directly on his shoulders. He convinced Spidey to reveal his identity to the world, then turned on him as soon as Pete decided he wasn't comfortable with Stark's ideas or methods. While Nova and the Guardians were fighting of a Universal threats, Stark, Reed and Cap were b****ing about masks. Secret Invasion happened because Stark had his head too far up his own exhaust pipe to realise that his defences weren't impregnable, and Siege was a direct result of his negligence. Osborn used HIS armor to further his aims, he used Stark's lapdog (Bendis-Sentry) to do his wetwork, and he used Stark tech to equip his grunts.   It's all Stark's (and Reed's) fault.   I'm guessing he's a favourite of yours, and I'm sorry that I'm bagging him out so much, but this is how I see the state of the MU over the last few years. He and Osborn should have been the  ones to have a helicarrier dropped on their heads, but we all know that Siege was a disgrace, so I wont go there.

For your Civil War arguments, see my argument above this. Secret Invasion wasn't all Stark's fault. I mean, if Stark hadn't been around, and wasn't director of SHIELD, could you still blame him? You can't honestly expect one guy to make sure that Earth never gets invaded the way it did like in Secret Invasion. And just because Osborn's a sneaky little bastard who was able to get a hold of Tony's armor, this makes Tony a bad guy? Tony has always been an arrogant fool who thinks himself to be invincible, even though he has gotten more than a few armors stolen from him. That doesn't make him evil, it just makes him who he is, an arrogant fool. 
 
Anyway it really shows that your view of a 'bad guy' is very different from mine. As I said before; Tony Stark made wrong decisions, did some very morally gray things, but he always did it for the right reasons, he always intended good things. And sure, he overlooked a lot of things that a genius like him perhaps could 've seen coming, but heck, he's still human, and humans make mistakes.
This all makes Tony a human who did some wrongs, even though he tried to do good. But this does not make him a bad guy, since he didn't intend to do wrong. "
That's a very solid viewpoint there, and I agree with you that Tony isn't a bad guy in the respect that he's evil or anything. He's as you said, an arrogant fool, but I don't like the fact that whilst he is forgiven, others aren't; Hank Pym for instance. Marvel is known for their double-standards though, so it's not exactly Stark's fault.
#27 Posted by ShirEPanjshir (581 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
" That's a very solid viewpoint there, and I agree with you that Tony isn't a bad guy in the respect that he's evil or anything. He's as you said, an arrogant fool, but I don't like the fact that whilst he is forgiven, others aren't; Hank Pym for instance. Marvel is known for their double-standards though, so it's not exactly Stark's fault. "
Oh with this I agree with you as well. I agree that the 'hate' for some other characters who simply made some mistakes, but aren't actually 'evil' is unjustified. It just seems that a lot of people seem to simply live in a black-white world and if you'd ask me, they should just simply pick up Superman or something of the likes, where everything is (more or less) black-white, good-evil, without anything in between.
I myself love a superhero, who has it's faults, which is something Marvel's pretty good at. Tony's pretty much one of the strongest heroes there is, but he's been an addict, he's an arrogant fool, etc. The list goes on for other heroes as well. But sometimes, a hero's mistakes just simply seems to cross some sort of weird OMG-that-bastard! line with people. 
This seems to be the case with Tony Stark right now. But it has indeed happened to a lot of heroes, who sometimes remain 'evil' to a lot of people. I'm still shocked for example to see how many people have dropped Iron Man books because of what happened with Civil War etc. Same goes for Hank Pym for instance.
#28 Edited by The Mango (1474 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt: It's his fault that the skrulls had the technology to shut down his defense systems? They would have shut down any defense system if they could do it to Stark's. The skrulls were coming either way,
 
Nick Fury is the one who let Osborn take over, when he didn't use a more secure communication between himself and Deadpool. And even though Stark wasn't responsible for Osborn's takeover, he was still willing to sacrifice his mind, possibly even his life, to keep Osborn from abusing the registration lists.
 
Osborn and Loki are the ones responsible for Siege.
#29 Posted by Virago (1005 posts) - - Show Bio
@Knightofthelight95 said:
" Hey, I honestly think the better question is, "Was Cap. the villain?" Captain AMERICA went against what the AMERICAN people wanted. Which BTW the same ppl that wanted it, were protesting it later. Let's just all agree. Civil War was a VERY interesting premise, but it turned out to be shit. "
Really?!?! You thought it was shit? I liked it, I thought the debate was great, and it's come up in conversations with people who are super hero enthusiasts as well as those who haven't read many comic books. Everything is relative in the series, that's what I loved about it. 
@Supertide: It all depends on your own point of view. Iron Man isn't portrayed in the best light, but neither are a lot of the dudes who are anti-registration. That's the fun of it =D
#30 Posted by xybernauts (853 posts) - - Show Bio

Technically the story seemed to be written in such a way that you rooted for Anti-Reg, but from a real world perspective, technically Iron Man was a good guy. He merely sided with the law plain and simple. The problem is how the registration was carried out. It's like the government has no PR skills in Civil War. Imagine if we rolled out the National Guard and sent them on a no holds bar zero tolerance mission to round up all the illegal immigrants in the US. Technically the villain is the US. Iron Man isn't a villain he was just stupid to get in between.  
 
Civil War started off great, but it ultimately was anti-climactic. 

#31 Posted by John_Feaster (341 posts) - - Show Bio
@ShirEPanjshir: 

   I don't agree with most of your points, ShirEPanjshir    ..but I like the sane, well thought out and rational way you made them ;>) 
 
   I suppose my biggest problem is the whole "He did what he thought was best." argument. A HELL of a lot of people are dead because someone thought they were doing the right thing. The Crusades, the Final Soloution and more "Justified" wars that you can shake a stick at all get a miss if we follow that logic. I have NEVER been an "ends justify the means" kind of person. If taking someone freedoms or rights from them will help someone else...then they don't deserve the help. Perhaps the the Americans use of Japanese Interment Camps DID stop a few terrorist attacks durring WW2...but I'd have rather had those entirely hypothetical attacts than have so many people lose their homes, rights and dignity so the rest of the country could FEEL safe. 
 
   Roosevelt was a good man...just like Tony...but that was an EVIL action. Even good people can be villains...and Tony was the Villain of the Civil War.    
#32 Posted by The Mango (1474 posts) - - Show Bio

Where in the constitution does it say that we are allowed to perform vigilante justice without anyone knowing who we are, and those with special abilities only answer to people like ourselves rather than the American people?
 
 The one thing I didn't agree with the registration act about was that everyone had to work for and presumably take orders from either shield or the government.

#33 Posted by d0npierre (377 posts) - - Show Bio

Vigilants will always change the world. Let that be a lesson from Civil War.

#34 Posted by ComicStooge (14026 posts) - - Show Bio

I dunno, I personally am GLAD that Tony's side one so...I say he's a hero. Although some of his methods were pretty villian like. (example: sending a bunch of villian to beat the cr#p out of Spider-man when he went rouge) but still, everyone makes mistakes...
 
 

Go Tony!
#35 Posted by ComicStooge (14026 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt: By extension he also caused the death the Punisher...
#36 Posted by ShirEPanjshir (581 posts) - - Show Bio
@John_Feaster:  I can't argue with that logic. Though I think it is safe to say that the crusades and some other things that happen ( or have happened ) in name of a certain faith haven't always been because people thought it was the right thing. A lot of the ones who followed the orders might have thought this, but I pretty sure that there were some people higher up with somewhat more selfish intentions to enrich themselves. But the comparison with Roosevelt, that one is indeed somewhat accurate.
 
By the way; I didn't agree with Tony's actions either ( nor what happened in WW2 ), just so we're clear on this. But the fact is that people like these, sometimes have to make some very important decisions and since they're still only human, they too make mistakes. The only difference is when I make a mistake I could for example accidently bump my car into my neighbour's car. When Tony ( or Roosevelt if you want to take it out of the comics world ) made a mistake, it cost a lot of ( good ) people their lives and eventually led to the Secret Invasion > Dark Reign > Siege. 
I'm not saying he should be completely excused ( though I must admit if I were in his shoes, and to have to constantly apologize for things I can't even bloody remember because I lobotomized myself in order to safeguard the information from Norman Osborn, I'd might not handle it that well ), but he shouldn't be simply regarded as a villain. 
 
At least that's my point of view. I mean; I get why some people regard upon him more as a villain. But I think there are also quite a few that don't realize that he has somewhat had his penance, and is even kind of trying to make up for his past errors.   
 
 As for the whole logic of causes, one could blame Speedball for everything. Because the whole New Warriors thing sparked the Civil War thing etc. :P But lets not get into that ( though I'm surprised no one has yet ).
( PS. I also do not agree with the above logic by the way :) )
#37 Posted by The Mango (1474 posts) - - Show Bio

Even the roosevelt comparison is inaccurate. He imprisoned anyone who had japanese ancestry, Stark imprisioned anyone who was an unregistered hero.
 
You can't stop having Japanese ancestry, but there are 2 ways to stop being an unregistered hero: 1) register, or 2) stop being a hero.

#38 Posted by John_Feaster (341 posts) - - Show Bio
@The Mango said:

"Even the roosevelt comparison is inaccurate. He imprisoned anyone who had japanese ancestry, Stark imprisioned anyone who was an unregistered hero. You can't stop having Japanese ancestry, but there are 2 ways to stop being an unregistered hero: 1) register, or 2) stop being a hero. "


    That sounds like it should be true...but it's not. The writers kept either forgetting or changing things as the series went on. Arana just wanted to stay out of things and work at the fast food restaurant, but she was told she had to regester AND join the Iniative. Silverclaw wasn't an American, but she was attacked for not regestering. The Tinkerer was a retired villain with no outstanding warrents or super powers, but he was dragged off the street by SHIELD agents IN FRONT OF HIS GRANDCHILDREN and thown into prison without trial. As the series progressed, heroes were being arrested for simply trying to leave the country instead of regestering. And heck, wasn't Shag Chi (not and America OR a super human) hunted down by SHIELD in the Savage Land? That wasn't even on American soil...
 
   And why didn't they want to regester their secret identites? Because they all knew they couldn't trust the government OR Tony Stark to keep them a secret. 
 
   And what was the first thing Norman went after once he had the office? The Secret Identities of the heroes under his command.  
 
   
 
    
  
#39 Posted by John_Feaster (341 posts) - - Show Bio
@ShirEPanjshir: 
   First of all, thanks for being a pro and not yelling at me for not agreeing with you. I can't TELL you how refreshing that is ;>) 
 
   Second, I don't consider Tony A Villain...I consider him THE Villain of the "Civil War". 
 
   In your comment you make mention of "...some people higher up with somewhat more selfish intentions to enrich themselves." and you're right, of course...but I say that the comparison still fits with the Marvel Civil War. 
 
   After all, not all of the people Tony surrounded himself with were on board for the sake of the betterment of all. Tony Stark brought a LOT of villains to his side, and gave some (Norman Osborn, for example) positions of importance in his organization. Would Norman have been promoted to head of EVERYTHING if he'd been...left out of the loop? I think not. All Norman was able to do was take advantage of the position Tony had give him. People act like Norman took over through some grand scheme or masterful brinksmanship...when in actuality Norman was JUST LUCKY ENOUGH to be filmed shooting the right woman in the head.  
 
   Norman wouldn't even have been there...if Tony had left him in prison. Tony didn't do it all intentionally, but most of his decisions durring and after the Civil War seem not just flawed...but obviously so. 
  
#40 Posted by ShirEPanjshir (581 posts) - - Show Bio
@John_Feaster said:
" @ShirEPanjshir:    First of all, thanks for being a pro and not yelling at me for not agreeing with you. I can't TELL you how refreshing that is ;>)     Second, I don't consider Tony A Villain...I consider him THE Villain of the "Civil War".     In your comment you make mention of "...some people higher up with somewhat more selfish intentions to enrich themselves." and you're right, of course...but I say that the comparison still fits with the Marvel Civil War.     After all, not all of the people Tony surrounded himself with were on board for the sake of the betterment of all. Tony Stark brought a LOT of villains to his side, and gave some (Norman Osborn, for example) positions of importance in his organization. Would Norman have been promoted to head of EVERYTHING if he'd been...left out of the loop? I think not. All Norman was able to do was take advantage of the position Tony had give him. People act like Norman took over through some grand scheme or masterful brinksmanship...when in actuality Norman was JUST LUCKY ENOUGH to be filmed shooting the right woman in the head.      Norman wouldn't even have been there...if Tony had left him in prison. Tony didn't do it all intentionally, but most of his decisions durring and after the Civil War seem not just flawed...but obviously so.    "
No problem for the not yelling etc. I realize that different people have different opinions, and I always find it intriguing to see how someone else thinks on a certain subject ( especially is it's a rational thought out process ^^).. Now I agree that Tony did indeed surround himself with some wrong people. But I also think that if you get caught up in a Civil War like that, it's easier for people with bad intentions to get mixed into things. I agree that Norman might 've never gotten to where he got without Tony sort of inviting him to the table. But I also think Tony had a lot of things on his mind, thus making bad decisions happens faster, though it indeed shouldn't have.
On the Norman Osborn shooting note; he actually did plan that. He somehow -- I don't think it was ever explained how -- learned of the fact that Deadpool was going to steal sensitive information on how to take down the Skrulls ( and more specific their Queen ) for Nick Fury and when Deadpool completed this mission and sent Fury the stolen information, Norman somehow intercepted the data and used it for his advantage. He also planned for his 'heroic act' to be captured by the camera's etc. So it actually was pretty thought out, but as you said; the question could indeed be asked; would Norman Osborn have gotten that far without Tony Stark "allowing" him to gain more power during the Civil War.
I agree that since Civil War, it seems like Tony made a lot of flawed decisions, especially for someone who thinks of many possible bad scenario's and prepares for them. Something that I always found odd is that Tony did prepare for an invasion by building that gigantic War Machine armor satellite thingy. But someone never built in a protection/back-up system for his own cybernetic systems etc. And some other weird things like that. I just assume it's a part of "bad writing". They needed someone douchy at the helm to make some fatal mistakes as a reason to trigger all these events they've been throwing at us, and Tony drew the short straw.
#41 Posted by John_Feaster (341 posts) - - Show Bio
@ShirEPanjshir said:
" @John_Feaster said:
" @ShirEPanjshir:    First of all, thanks for being a pro and not yelling at me for not agreeing with you. I can't TELL you how refreshing that is ;>)     Second, I don't consider Tony A Villain...I consider him THE Villain of the "Civil War".     In your comment you make mention of "...some people higher up with somewhat more selfish intentions to enrich themselves." and you're right, of course...but I say that the comparison still fits with the Marvel Civil War.     After all, not all of the people Tony surrounded himself with were on board for the sake of the betterment of all. Tony Stark brought a LOT of villains to his side, and gave some (Norman Osborn, for example) positions of importance in his organization. Would Norman have been promoted to head of EVERYTHING if he'd been...left out of the loop? I think not. All Norman was able to do was take advantage of the position Tony had give him. People act like Norman took over through some grand scheme or masterful brinksmanship...when in actuality Norman was JUST LUCKY ENOUGH to be filmed shooting the right woman in the head.      Norman wouldn't even have been there...if Tony had left him in prison. Tony didn't do it all intentionally, but most of his decisions durring and after the Civil War seem not just flawed...but obviously so.    "
No problem for the not yelling etc. I realize that different people have different opinions, and I always find it intriguing to see how someone else thinks on a certain subject ( especially is it's a rational thought out process ^^).. Now I agree that Tony did indeed surround himself with some wrong people. But I also think that if you get caught up in a Civil War like that, it's easier for people with bad intentions to get mixed into things. I agree that Norman might 've never gotten to where he got without Tony sort of inviting him to the table. But I also think Tony had a lot of things on his mind, thus making bad decisions happens faster, though it indeed shouldn't have.
On the Norman Osborn shooting note; he actually did plan that. He somehow -- I don't think it was ever explained how -- learned of the fact that Deadpool was going to steal sensitive information on how to take down the Skrulls ( and more specific their Queen ) for Nick Fury and when Deadpool completed this mission and sent Fury the stolen information, Norman somehow intercepted the data and used it for his advantage. He also planned for his 'heroic act' to be captured by the camera's etc. So it actually was pretty thought out, but as you said; the question could indeed be asked; would Norman Osborn have gotten that far without Tony Stark "allowing" him to gain more power during the Civil War. I agree that since Civil War, it seems like Tony made a lot of flawed decisions, especially for someone who thinks of many possible bad scenario's and prepares for them. Something that I always found odd is that Tony did prepare for an invasion by building that gigantic War Machine armor satellite thingy. But someone never built in a protection/back-up system for his own cybernetic systems etc. And some other weird things like that. I just assume it's a part of "bad writing". They needed someone douchy at the helm to make some fatal mistakes as a reason to trigger all these events they've been throwing at us, and Tony drew the short straw. "

   "Bad Writing"? 
 
   You know...that explains the whole Civil War....and the Skrulls...Dark Avengers...Brand New Day...and so on... 
#42 Posted by crusader8463 (214 posts) - - Show Bio

 The whole point of the arch was that the reader decided who was right and who was wrong. By the end of it all they kind of left Iron Man looking like the obvious asshole though, but not because of his pro REG choice but because of the lengths he went to to defend his side. They tried to do the same with Captain America to even it out, but they never went far enugh to make it as on par with what Iron Man did.
 
Personally I feel in the middle and felt both sides were wrong. As a normal person living in a world where individuals had the power to blow up cities I would want to know that there were equally powerful people looking in on them. I think the best option would have been to form a completely independent organization, funded equally by all the worlds countries, to form a school where anyone with super powers could freely come to and learn how to control them. No names would have to be given, no mandate to server the whims of any country or to even use the powers to fight crime. Simply a school to teach people how to control there powers and to teach them why they should not abuse them. Just have a simple phone number that you can call any place in the world and have some one come and take you to thw closest school where you can stay as long as you like.

#43 Edited by Deadcool (6755 posts) - - Show Bio

No, he is the main atagonist, but he is not evil, he believed that all that he did was good. He has a guilt complex, and he believed that that thing that happened in Stamford was also his fault, so he wanted to do everything needed  for that not to happen again.

#44 Posted by John_Feaster (341 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deadcool:
   I never said he was evil...I just said that a lot of evil has been done by people who are certain that their ideas are just what the doctor ordered, and if they just bulldoze through and ignore the screams right now, in the end...things will work out. They had Tony doing crazy, stupid stuff he'd never have done under better writers, and in the end...he gets to be the goat. Captain America was usually in character, but aside for a few instances (like the "It wasn't worth it!" breakdown) he was usually blindly convinced that he was in the right. Over all, the Civil War and following story archs really soured me on the Marvel universe...or at least, on the moron curently running it. 
 
   Actually, if I had to pick the real villain...it would be Reed Richards. Between the Thor Clone and the Negative Zone Prison, He acted like a Nazi Scientist half the time, and never seemed to feel any of the guilt Tony later felt. To Reed Richards, everything was going just fine till it all blew up.
#45 Posted by Deadcool (6755 posts) - - Show Bio
@John_Feaster:  But the Negative zone was Tony's Idea, right? For that reson Spidey betrayed him (also for the Thor cloned)
#46 Posted by John_Feaster (341 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deadcool said:
" @John_Feaster:  But the Negative zone was Tony's Idea, right? For that reson Spidey betrayed him (also for the Thor cloned) "

   Yeah...I forgot about that.  
 
   Still, Tony may have ordered it...but he couldn't have done it without Reed. Man...that was such a poorly handled series...
#47 Edited by Serpent (205 posts) - - Show Bio

Tony Stark was written to be a fascist dictator in his actions, regardless of his meaning. All fascist dictators believe what they're doing to be the right thing.  Doesn't stop them being fascist.  I've seen many people compare him to Hitler even, though I personally compare him more-so to Stalin.
 
I think it was a stupid way to write a very smart man.  And then they lumped Reed in with him.. totally against both characters intelligence and morals.  It was a terrible excuse to just have heroes fight one another.  Both of them were written to be very stupid, giving in to public uneducated soccer mom fear opinion that is actually a very real result of tragedy that real world leaders are smart enough to not go along with.  Real world leaders wait for the bloodcries to die down and do their best to calm people down.   What Tony's side did was comparable to what Stalin's regeme did to their own people.  Dragging them away in the streets in front of their family, locking them up where they may never be found, sending killers after those they see as betraying them, hunting down those who are just trying to legally leave the mad country, etc.  
 
To me it was the death of Marvel comics, and I have only purchased 3 Marvel comics since that entire series.

#48 Edited by John_Feaster (341 posts) - - Show Bio
@Serpent said:

"Tony Stark was written to be a fascist dictator in his actions, regardless of his meaning. All fascist dictators believe what they're doing to be the right thing.  Doesn't stop them being fascist.  I've seen many people compare him to Hitler even, though I personally compare him more-so to Stalin. I think it was a stupid way to write a very smart man.  And then they lumped Reed in with him.. totally against both characters intelligence and morals.  It was a terrible excuse to just have heroes fight one another.  Both of them were written to be very stupid, giving in to public uneducated soccer mom fear opinion that is actually a very real result of tragedy that real world leaders are smart enough to not go along with.  Real world leaders wait for the bloodcries to die down and do their best to calm people down.   What Tony's side did was comparable to what Stalin's regeme did to their own people.  Dragging them away in the streets in front of their family, locking them up where they may never be found, sending killers after those they see as betraying them, hunting down those who are just trying to legally leave the mad country, etc.   To me it was the death of Marvel comics, and I have only purchased 3 Marvel comics since that entire series. "


   Bravo! Well spoken! And as far as Marvel goes, I dropped all titles except for Uncanny X-Men. 
 
   For my part, I hate when people squawk that Cap was wrong because Tony had the law on his side. To me, law should come second to basic morality. Durring most of the 1800's, Slavery was legal and protected. That didn't make it right, and John Brown (who tried to organize a slave revolt) always seems a more heroic figure to me than the people who killed him in the name of the law. Heck, in certain Muslim countries, a woman can be legally beaten to death with stones for cheating on her husband, The law my be on the side of the action, but sometimes resistance to a foolish or evil law is the more heroic path. 
 
   And to those how will use this argumant against me, I'll say that the comic book world and the REAL world are two different things...and should ALWAYS be viewed that was. The Civil War was an attempt to inject a supposed REALITY into the comics...which was insane. Superheroes are a part of the comic world. In the real world, when people say "Morality trumps the law" they're usually talking about bombing an abortion clinic or something like that. In comics though...it HAS to be "Morality first". Think about how often the X-Men have been ander attack from forces that could hide behind the law, or were legally empowered to hunt them down.  
 
   That's what killed my love for the Avengers. When almost all of them blindly followed Tony, they went from being Superheroes to Costumed Adventurers. Costumed Adventurers worry about popularity and fan mail. They get parades and paychecks while real heroes (like the X-Men) get rocks hurled at them from the people they just saved for free. 
 
   Well...that's my opinion.
#49 Posted by SladeRogers (273 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes, Tony was the villian. I remember someone sayin' Tony is close to a villian in the way he lives. But a part from that, yes he was.
#50 Posted by Antiochus (34 posts) - - Show Bio

 @John_Feaster said:

    Nobody expects The Hulk or Deadpool to make better decisions, but Tony should have known better. Heck, the Regestration Act wasn't going to pass till Tony paid a supervillain (the 3rd Titanium Man) to publicly attack him...which a lot of people don't seem to remember... "

It was the opposite.  The point of Titanium Man was to show that heroes who had to go public were further endangered.  He pointed out that they were saved by Spider-Man, who had to rely on his secret identity at the time.
 
 

@Nova`Prime`

said:

"Tony and all Pro-Reg heroes and the government, where the bad guys because they were going against the Constitution. "

I still dare people to point out how!

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.