Iron Man, Re-inventing the re-invention of the.. Options

[Scammer]

Iron Man has been re-invented.

Re-invented

Re-started

Re-run

Warren Ellis and Adi Granov. A new start with one of the original Avengers. Didn't we just go through the "re-invention" a while ago? Wasn't Heroe's Reborn a "fresh start" for Tony Stark? Weren't they (Marvel) able to go something like 300+ issues WITHOUT having to ever re-invent the title?

I understand the "re-invention" philosophy. Take a "name brand" and repackage it for a new generation of reader who's never heard of Iron Man (except maybe referenced in an old Black Sabbath song). Make him young, make him hip, make him "accessible" (I think that's the right marketing lingo).

Trouble is, it's Iron Man. He's been around forever. I grew up with the guy (figuratively speaking, of course). I remember him as a fall down drunk, I remember his friendship with Jim Rhodes, I remember his battles with Stane Industries. He may not get the publicity and notoriety that the other Marvel icons get (Spidey, Wolverine, Hulk) and he may not be as well known, but dammit, don't go messing with his history. You want to "remake" the character, fine, DON'T CALL IT IRON MAN. Call it "Ultimate" Iron Man (wait, they did that already in the Ultimates) or maybe toss it into the Marvel Knights department. But don't go jerking the chain of everyone who's ever lived with the character as long as we have (ok, so the membership has dwindled down to single figures over the years...but we're still here!).

Sorry 'bout the rant. I picked up IM #1 today. The art is great. The story, ok, it's a start. The dialogue isn't cheesy. But they're setting up his past as they tell the new story. Remaking all that we've known. So it's Tony Stark and Iron Man in name only. No history. Nothing. Maybe that's the toughest thing to get over. I "know" Iron Man, but now I find that I don't. I liked what I had. I liked the history. Now, it's all gone.

You don't see DC restarting Batman and dumping his history. It's not like they sat down and said, "know what, let's stop Batman now and restart it with Issue #1. And instead of Bruce being a product of his parents brutal murder, let's say that Bruce is a modern day yuppie, having inherited Wayne Corp and.....".

How are you supposed to grow to love and respect your comic heroes, if the companys are just gonna rip them apart and rewrite them every 2 years?

Again, sorry 'bout the rant.

[Fogs]

The problem I have is that I see both sides on this issue.

I know what you're saying, and you have a lot of valid points.

But sometimes a characters origin is made outdated. Bruce Wayne's doesn't need a revamp because it's timeless - his parents were a victim of crime. But dating Iron Man back to Vietnam would put him where? In his sixties? Seventies?

How long could you hold to that origin without giving the suit to another character? How long would Tony Stark make sense?

And of course, there's also the fact that origin stories are intersting, powerful stories. Forget attracting new readers, a good retelling of an origin story can be good for old readers as well.

The question (to me) is - how often? And for what purpose?

After each arc is silly, right? But should you wait 100 years?

And should you do it as a sales gimmick? If the titles sales are slipping? Wouldn't you rather see a relaunch than a cancellation? What if there's a really, really good story to be told?

Of course, none of this specifically applies to Iron Man, I'm just being general about it. I'll have to see how this new Iron Man plays out. There are lots of questions still to be answered.

[Scammer]

I understand and realize the "economics" of it. Marvel does it. DC does it. They ALL do it.

Sales are lagging....throw a stunt. Marry the main figure. Kill off a major sidekick. Restart the title. Trouble is, don't you think that the Marvel and DC honchos know better than to think that will suddenly reverse sales?

Titles go south (sales wise) because the buying public is no longer entertained/interested in the title. Maybe the story telling is sub-par, or maybe the artwork is horrible, or maybe the author's representation of the character is so far out of whack, that nobody buys it. Either way, change is the norm.

But it seems, especially nowadays, that writing/artist teams come and go each and every arc. There is no continuity in the titles anymore. There's no time to grow into a familiarity with the artist/author. Just as you get used to a team...POOF...they're gone to the next title and in come whatever Dick and Harry they want to "spotlight".

I'm just sick and tired of Marvel and DC jerking my chain.

[K26dp]

I understand where you're coming from Scammer. Grant Morrison has similar feelings as you -- a writer is on a title for a set period, and tries to write the "definitive" take on the character, typically abandoning all but the most popular story elements of previous writers, and then leaving it to another writer who does the same thing.

Both of the majors do this, some with their best selling titles -- DC with Batman, Marvel with Avengers, etc.

But I think the trend is starting to reverse itself, especially on the DC side of things. Fans have enjoyed long runs by Geoff Johns on JSA and Flash, Devin Greyson on Nightwing, Ed Brubaker on Catwoman (just ended). Johns doesn't look to be leaving Teen Titans or Green Lantern any time soon, I can't see anyone other than Winick writing Outsiders, and Rucka seams settled in with Wonder Woman.

Even on the Marvel side, Bendis should stick with Avengers for awhile, JMS with Amazing Spider-Man.

JSA's and Flash's sales have steadily improved during Johns' run bucking typical trends of long stretches with the same writer. Hopefully this will lead to more continuity with titles, although I suspect we will always see a goos amount of "stunt casting" with writers.

[Chaomancer Omega]

Frazier Irving talks Iron Man: Inevitable

[Fogs]

Wow, this thread hadn't been posted to in a year.

[Chaomancer Omega]

It's like the comic.

[Chaomancer Omega]

According to Joe Fridays, Warren Ellis's arc is turning Tony Stark into a literal iron man.

I have to admit I haven't been reading the arc. Those of you who have... has it been a good arc? Because I can't help but think this is a remarkably stupid concept.

[Fogs]

Yup, you're right. This has been flat out dumb. And delayed. The daily double if you will. Between this and Ultimate Extinction I'm beginning to sour on Ellis as a writer. Frankly, if it weren't for the flat out brilliance of Planetary I might think he wasn't very good at all.

[Chaomancer Omega]

Well, I haven't read Planetary. The only thing I remember reading by Ellis was his arc on JLA: Classified which was, perhaps, marginally better than Chuck Austen's JLA arc.

[BarefootRanger]

I agree, Ellis is becoming very hit or miss. But Planetary is one of the best things I've ever read.

[Chaomancer Omega]

Matt Fraction and Salvador Larocca will be launching The Invincible Iron Man starting in May; it will be a second ongoing series.

[TwinkyMaster]

Marvel's Top 10 Required Reading Iron Man Collections.


I'm no expert on Iron Man and I've never really read any of his comics so I'd appreciate any feedback on any of these that people feel inclined to.

[Soylent Daveage]

Funny thing... I'm looking at their listing of the Top Ten Iron Man books and then I notice the baner add at the top of the page...

For a Justice League DVD...