If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Man dressed up as Iron Man robs bank, because who would expect a drunken, alcoholic, Vietnam War-scarred technological genius to pull off a bank heist   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 16
    More: Florida, Iron Man, Iron Man robs, Florida Area, Flagler County, jumpsuits, tall man, superstar  
•       •       •

2658 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jun 2013 at 9:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



16 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-21 10:03:49 AM
Man, having "war vet" as a hero's origin story mucks with the story over time, doesn't it?
Didn't Suspense 39 have him in Korea?
 
2013-06-21 10:04:18 AM
nobody farks with the jesus
 
2013-06-21 10:06:12 AM
About 10 people were in the bank at the time, deputies.

That's some fine reportin' there, Lou.
 
2013-06-21 10:09:26 AM

unlikely: Man, having "war vet" as a hero's origin story mucks with the story over time, doesn't it?
Didn't Suspense 39 have him in Korea?


It does, but I think they update accordingly, though they can't do that with Magneto or Xavier.
 
2013-06-21 10:12:01 AM
cdn.ebaumsworld.com
 
2013-06-21 10:16:50 AM
Flaunt your guns.
 
2013-06-21 10:17:33 AM
It's actually Vietghanistan.
 
2013-06-21 10:28:06 AM

unlikely: Man, having "war vet" as a hero's origin story mucks with the story over time, doesn't it?
Didn't Suspense 39 have him in Korea?


Sargent Nick Fury and his howlin' commandos want Stark to get off their lawn. And yes, it does.

This has become a core problem with the whole superhero business. Once upon a time, the characters were essentially disposable: cheesy origin story, run of generic crime-busting adventures, end of series, repeat. Before Superman nobody really expected a superhero to be an enduring and continuing character with all of the problems of continuity, aging, etc. that introduces, and especially the difficulty of engaging new readers. (Even long-running precursors concerned themselves very little with continuity, preferring the unchanging "eternal now" of most sitcoms). The smart but brave thing to do is to allow the character to run its course, aging more or less with the reading audience, then retire them in favor of something fresh.

Unfortunately, too many characters have passed a threshold where they have become too valuable to let go, so instead we get the modern era of retcons, reboots, resets, resurrections, do-overs, start-overs, etc. But these create their own problems: unless you reboot the whole universe, one character's reset creates continuity errors in others' timelines (much like what happened to Knot's Landing when Dallas undid the death of Bobby). And for longstanding readers, they can't just forget what they have previously known, and that colors their reading of the new material, like watching Macbeth is never the same after reading the Wasteland.
 
2013-06-21 10:28:18 AM

texdent: unlikely: Man, having "war vet" as a hero's origin story mucks with the story over time, doesn't it?
Didn't Suspense 39 have him in Korea?

It does, but I think they update accordingly, though they can't do that with Magneto or Xavier.


During the last run I saw (Siege) his old base containing his first Iron Man suit (which he had kept around and sealed up and with a standby arc reactor for nebulous reasons) was in Afghanistan.

80s Afghanistan works if he's now past 40, ('89 + captured at 17-to-22 + comic in 2010 or so) which is doable.

As always it works best if you just don't think about it in the first place.
 
2013-06-21 10:32:34 AM

czetie: unlikely: Man, having "war vet" as a hero's origin story mucks with the story over time, doesn't it?
Didn't Suspense 39 have him in Korea?

Sargent Nick Fury and his howlin' commandos want Stark to get off their lawn. And yes, it does.

This has become a core problem with the whole superhero business. Once upon a time, the characters were essentially disposable: cheesy origin story, run of generic crime-busting adventures, end of series, repeat. Before Superman nobody really expected a superhero to be an enduring and continuing character with all of the problems of continuity, aging, etc. that introduces, and especially the difficulty of engaging new readers. (Even long-running precursors concerned themselves very little with continuity, preferring the unchanging "eternal now" of most sitcoms). The smart but brave thing to do is to allow the character to run its course, aging more or less with the reading audience, then retire them in favor of something fresh.

Unfortunately, too many characters have passed a threshold where they have become too valuable to let go, so instead we get the modern era of retcons, reboots, resets, resurrections, do-overs, start-overs, etc. But these create their own problems: unless you reboot the whole universe, one character's reset creates continuity errors in others' timelines (much like what happened to Knot's Landing when Dallas undid the death of Bobby). And for longstanding readers, they can't just forget what they have previously known, and that colors their reading of the new material, like watching Macbeth is never the same after reading the Wasteland.


Deep, man.
 
2013-06-21 10:41:34 AM
I don't know what subby is talking about. In the movies he's not a vietnam vet. Jeez it's like you didn't even watch it.
 
2013-06-21 10:43:22 AM

unlikely: Man, having "war vet" as a hero's origin story mucks with the story over time, doesn't it?
Didn't Suspense 39 have him in Korea?


Nope. He was in Vietnam demonstrating the effectiveness of 'transistorized' miniature mortars.

The update of his origin to Afghanistan was quite appropriate, I think.
 
2013-06-21 11:01:43 AM
I blame Will Smith's kid for promoting the inappropriate uses of Iron Man.
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 11:02:19 AM

czetie: unlikely: Man, having "war vet" as a hero's origin story mucks with the story over time, doesn't it?
Didn't Suspense 39 have him in Korea?


Unfortunately, too many characters have passed a threshold where they have become too valuable to let go, so instead we get the modern era of retcons, reboots, resets, resurrections, do-overs, start-overs, etc. But these create their own problems: unless you reboot the whole universe, one character's reset creates continuity errors in others' timelines (much like what happened to Knot's Landing when Dallas undid the death of Bobby). And for longstanding readers, they can't just forget what they have previously known, and that colors their reading of the new material, like watching Macbeth is never the same after reading the Wasteland.



I actually really do have a problem with this sort of thing.  Everytime I see a new "reboot" coming about, especially one that's already been done in recent times, for instance, Spiderman, and Batman.  I mean, is it really necessary to tell the same story with new actors, and just make it look a little better?

It just screams of the fact that Hollywood is totally out of ideas.  Well, maybe not.  Because at least the stories are a little different.  But they have no faith that a completely NEW story with completely NEW characters will sell.

Well...  I beg to differ with their assesment of that.  I just think they are being a bunch of pussies.  If movies like Avatar or Watchmen didn't teach them something, I don't know what could.  But then again, I'm not the one spending $150M to make a movie and only hope to break even.

So, I guess I'll just have to STFU.

//I still will complain, though, that I can't afford to take my family to the movies nowadays.  And that sucks.
 
2013-06-21 12:04:59 PM

durbnpoisn: czetie: unlikely: Man, having "war vet" as a hero's origin story mucks with the story over time, doesn't it?
Didn't Suspense 39 have him in Korea?


Unfortunately, too many characters have passed a threshold where they have become too valuable to let go, so instead we get the modern era of retcons, reboots, resets, resurrections, do-overs, start-overs, etc. But these create their own problems: unless you reboot the whole universe, one character's reset creates continuity errors in others' timelines (much like what happened to Knot's Landing when Dallas undid the death of Bobby). And for longstanding readers, they can't just forget what they have previously known, and that colors their reading of the new material, like watching Macbeth is never the same after reading the Wasteland.


I actually really do have a problem with this sort of thing.  Everytime I see a new "reboot" coming about, especially one that's already been done in recent times, for instance, Spiderman, and Batman.  I mean, is it really necessary to tell the same story with new actors, and just make it look a little better?

It just screams of the fact that Hollywood is totally out of ideas.  Well, maybe not.  Because at least the stories are a little different.  But they have no faith that a completely NEW story with completely NEW characters will sell.

Well...  I beg to differ with their assesment of that.  I just think they are being a bunch of pussies.  If movies like Avatar or Watchmen didn't teach them something, I don't know what could.  But then again, I'm not the one spending $150M to make a movie and only hope to break even.

So, I guess I'll just have to STFU.

//I still will complain, though, that I can't afford to take my family to the movies nowadays.  And that sucks.


I mostly agree, but I don't think it's only a lack of ideas. I think it's also a lack of support for risk-taking. Striking out with new characters and unfamiliar stories is risky: for every Avatar, there's a John Carter. If somebody makes Batman Forever and Ever and Ever and it bombs, nobody gets fired because it was a safe decision that everybody got behind. If somebody makes a bust on an unfamiliar or original property, heads roll because it's easy to point fingers at the "bad" decision. That's why we get an endless parade of dreck like Terminator V, Mission Impossible 8, Die Hardest, Indiana Jones and the Retirement Home of Doom, etc. There's nothing modern Hollywood loves more than a "franchise", and anytime I see a new movie being talked about as a "potential franchise" I reach for my gun.

But it should also be said that in fairness, Hollywood has never particularly not been out of ideas. Go look up how much of early Hollywood's output was remakes of Ben Hur, Robin Hood, or The Three Musketeers. The big difference today is the discovery that you can make essentially the same film three or four times over, even if it wasn't particularly good to begin with, and if you can persuade people it's a "sequel" in the "franchise" they'll keep paying to see it. See for example Transformers or Fast and Furious.
 
2013-06-21 12:08:14 PM
"He was last seen in a maroon compact car"
Stark's slumming it.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report