Marvel Universe >> View Post
Post By
Nitz the Bloody

In Reply To
Omar Karindu

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,242
Subj: Re: What friendship doesn't survive. With various Dark Reign tie-in SPOILERS
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:14:18 pm EDT (Viewed 113 times)
Reply Subj: What friendship doesn't survive. With various Dark Reign tie-in SPOILERS
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:29:52 am EDT (Viewed 136 times)

    Except that at this point, I'm not sure the heroes can genuinely think they're helping their fellow man all that much anymore -- after all, most of their efforts to do so seems to have created the conditions for disasters like Dissassembled/the House of M, Secret Invasion, and Dark Reign.

From a systematic sense, no, but superheroes have always been troubling from a systematic sense. Tony Stark learned that the hard way from Civil War onwards, by trying to reform society via iron heel ( no pun intended ). But if you think of a superhero as a fantastical samaritan, a cop or a firefighter or a soldier, then the saving of innocent lives is help enough.

    But Peter's not really "rich in friends" these days. The most recent arcs of Amazing seem to revolve around the idea that he can vanish for months and no one especially cares. Why? Because he's considered an irresponsible flake. His friends have, in essence, already decided that Peter is at best a marginal part of their lives. And when he comes back, he can effectively stay in costume most of the time.

Haven't read the more recent issues ( up to Kraven's First Hunt ), but don't Peter's friends always come through when he really needs it? Furthermore, isn't Peter's mission based on responsibility instead of recognition-- his self-centered dismissal after refusing to stop that burglar ( " It's not my problem " ) being what resulted in his uncle's death ( a fate a bit worse than a temporary falling out with a loved one )?

    Of course, the other side of all of this is that Tony's friends end up being his tools most of the time. He treats them like crap, and they always come back. In the current storyline, he hasn't even explained what Hill; and Pepper are doing in his plan (other than, in Pepper's case, distracting Osborn a bit).

    That's not a healthy set of social relationships so much as it is Tony Stark, abuser and his codependent crew.

But by being " co-dependent " on Tony, his friends save lives. They recognize that Tony is a force for tremendous good in the world, even if he's an emotional mess. It's no more co-dependent than Alfred Pennyworth ( in that while you can make the argument that Alfred has sacrificed his own life to indulge Bruce's unhealthy lifestyle, when the benefits so far outweigh the costs on the karmic scale, what's the point in arguing against it? )

Also, it's been shown time and time again that it's not just Tony's closest " enablers " that devote themselves to him, but even his employees. When Iron Man was pit against the Titanium Man, Happy Hogan nearly sacrificed himself to give Tony the weapon he needed to survive ( despite the fact that Tony was an obstacle for Happy and Pepper ). When Obadiah Stane took over Stark International, almost all of Tony's best employees quit in protest ( the exception being security chief Vic Martinelli, whose reaction was still the other side of the coin; so hurt by Tony's alcohol-induced dereliction of responsibility that he practically worked for Stane out of spite ). The early Director of SHIELD issues of Iron Man had the organization's troops quickly warm up to him and his utopian views. And the conquest of SHIELD by Osborn has shown a similar response from Tony's loyalists.

    The problem I have with that is that solicitations seem to indicate that Dark Reign will outlast many of these apparent catastrophes, and that, for example, Bullseye's going to get away with the horrible things he's doing in his miniseries and the Sentry will not take down the Dark Avengers as a result of Hawkeye's media blitz. (In fact, recent issues of New Avengers seem to indicate that Clint's news appearance was filed away with the Paris Hilton sorts of stories and did almost no damage at all to Norman.)

As early as the " Secret Invasion: Dark Reign " one-shot, it's been established that Norman's in control of everything but himself, and to keep up his Iron Patriot charade, he has to hold on by his fingernails. Even if Lester remains Hawkeye by the end of his mini, he still caused Norman a lot of grief, and it's going to take its toll.

    That's rather dodging the problem with the statement, which is self-negating.

Referencing Star Wars was me being somewhat facetious; Lucas' universe is even less morally complex than Marvel at its most simplistic , but those heavy-handed messages carry a point.

Also, I think the recent New Avengers scene where Peter ( re ) reveals his secret identity to Clint's team was a tremendous positive for the book; even though the Avengers have changed from the professional bright-and-shiny superheroes to the underground resistance, the dynamic has changed from that of an oft-insensitive sports team to an intensely loyal Nakama.

Posted with Apple Safari 4.0 on MacOS X
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software