Comic geeking intersects politics
comments powered by Disqus
Robert Hugh Hodges - 2/22/2007
I am a comic book fan, though I don’t have any special knowledge of Iron Man and have never read the original Stan Lee comics. My ignorance aside, what’s wrong with updating the origin of comic book character to fit the times and what’s politically correct about it?
Almost every comic book movie or cartoon changes the source material to better fit the sensibilities of the audience, both in setting, content, and behavior of the character. Part of the appeal of iconic characters is that they survive these superficial changes. And furthermore even if the changes that post record do violate the integrity of Iron Man’s character I still do not see why we, as libertarians, should care.
From the descriptions I’ve read here and elsewhere, Tony Stark as originally conceived was a real asshole who profited off weapons sold to the US government that were used to murder fighters in a national liberation movement and civilians. Tony Stark may’ve been a weapons-building genius, but I don’t see anything to idealize about genius in the service of evil. And as a libertarian I am glad that here is at least one cartoon that won’t glorify the military-industrial complex (G.I. Joe anyone?) even if it does violate Iron Man’s “character.”
David T. Beito - 2/22/2007
Ironman PC is not new. As I recall around 1970, Tony Stark shifted his production line from munitions to tampons or some other such harmless product.
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- How Does It Feel To Have One’s Work as a Historian Cited by the Supreme Court? Cool. Very Cool. Thank You Very Much.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing
- Russian historian slams Putin