:spoiler:
I don't know if this thread will contain actual "spoilers", per se, but figured I'd put the tag just in case.
I read Mighty Avengers #1 and Ms. Marvel #12 (12 or 13 whatever it is). I must say overall that the character of Ms. Marvel has really come on strong in just these two issues. I've always been a Ms. Marvel fan (though I prefer calling her Warbird, because the name is cooler) but with the Mighty Avengers I felt that the character has really taken off. Her leadership of the team is spot on and seems to be respected by the other members which is a good thing. And can somebody just find a way to get rid of Sentry? Please? I find nothing interesting about his character and the writers are now treating him as though he's a five year old with this tremendous power. Basically he's now too naive to do anything on his own. With Wonder Man and Ares on the team there's enough 'tank' in the Avengers. This brings me to Iron Man.
The entire Civil War has completely destroyed Iron Man/Tony Stark in my eyes. What used to be one of my favorite characters in the Marvel U is now a character I just want to see get completely smashed into oblivion. I don't even want to see him in a single panel. I loved when Ms. Marvel belted him in front of all the news outlets. It's pretty clear that Ms. Marvel would have preferred to not have the superhuman registration act but picked the side she did because she knew that side would win. And it's obvious she has issues with her actions - there's a sense of guilt over what she's done. I practically cheered when Tony was transformed into Ultron. At least I like Ultron. I know Tony will be back but I really hope he suffers. As a side note I'm now wondering if Marvel will be continuing Warbird's....I mean Ms. Marvel's mag. Last month you could subscribe to her mag through Marvel, now you can't. I was also confused to see that you can no longer subscribe to Captain America's mag even though Marvel has stated the mag will continue. I guess it's a matter of timing before the new Cap is officially declared. Although IGN.com reported today that The Punisher is the new Captain America - but we all saw that coming so it's nothing new.
Then there was The Confession...i.e. another mag that allows Marvel to drag on the whole Civil War crap. It was pretty clear, from the beginning of the issue who Tony was talking to. So the revelation at the end wasn't as climactic as the writers would have hoped. Yet there sat Tony, crying his eyes out talking about how the whole thing wasn't worth it. With each new panel I found myself loathing Tony even more than the previous panel. I wanted to reach into the panels and slap him silly. As far as I'm concerned Tony doesn't deserve the right to cry. As far as I'm concerned Tony doesn't deserve the title of "hero". The title of "hero" was no longer good enough for Captain America once Tony decided to hunt him down and imprison him. Tony could have worked a pardon for Steve, the same way he worked pardons for the others. But apparently Steve's dedication to his country and the countless times he saved the world wasn't good enough for leniency. Okay. I know Steve's death makes him a martyr now for those who are underground - and at least that's something. So if participating in the Civil War was enough to strip the "hero" title from Steve (in the eyes of Tony), then participating in the Civil War is enough to strip the "hero" title from Tony in my eyes.
In closing I can honestly say that the writing of The Mighty Avengers was really good. I can't wait to read more. And I love the fact that Ms. Marvel is the leader of the team.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that I didnt read much at all of Civil War, but Tony's new position actually makes him far more interesting to me. But I was never a big fan of Iron Man.
The Initiative could turn out to be a great idea for the short term. It opens some story ideas that just weren't possible before. But it will all come down to the execution. I'm really interested in the new Avengers: the Initiative title.
If you think Civil War is responsible for Stark being screwed up, you must not have read much Iron Man over the last decade or so, because Stark has been seriously mishandled about that long. Civil War is just the icing on the cake and has transformed him into a badly written character into a full on villain. I don't care what his reasons for doing what he did may be or how `noble' they might come off in some people's eyes, he's taken actions that only a supervillain would do (the Thor clone, for instance), and the ends do NOT always justify the means.
I said in a post where Civil War was brought up over at the John Byrne forums that Iron Man used to be my second favorite Marvel hero (after Captain America), but hasn't been for a long time, and is now a supervillain in my eyes. I really do wish they'd do a major cop out (someone suggested he could be under a magical spell by Morgana La Fey or someone and not realize it, since Stark apparently mentions the Camelot storyline from Iron Man #149-150 as being around when he realized there could be a superhero war in one of the books, and that doesn't really make sense) or kill Stark off....as a mercy killing.
The only Marvel title I read with a fairly close connection to Civil War is Iron Man. As I said when it came out, Tony Stark as head of S.H.E.I.L.D. looks like it's going to be a great ride. Thanks to Daniel and Charles Knauf, long time Iron Man fans can at least see the real Tony Stark in his own comic. I was relieved to see they didn't adopt the mis-characterization of the character seen in Civil War. Speaking of which:
Quote from: MyndVizionThe entire Civil War has completely destroyed Iron Man/Tony Stark in my eyes. What used to be one of my favorite characters in the Marvel U is now a character I just want to see get completely smashed into oblivion. I don't even want to see him in a single panel.
I've seen this kind sentiment a lot lately. I keep wondering why 7 months of bad characterization outweighs 40 years of Iron Man's history.
Anyway, in the interest of spurring a bit more conversation here are a couple of previews of upcoming Civil War inspired titles.
Avengers: The Initiative #1I've gotta say, I really don't like the way Justice just stands by while the New Warriors are being insulted. They stood by him after he was sent to prison for killing his father but now when some guy basically spits on their graves he just politely asks him to stop.
Omega Flight #1This looks pretty interesting. I'm glad to see Michael Avon Oeming is addressing the fact that Canada has had a Superhero Registration law for years now. Clearly this isn't about heroes moving to Canada to escape America's SHRA.
ThorI'm not sure this counts as being Civil War related but I thought I'd include it anyway. I like Thor's new duds. Less superhero-y but plenty of nods to the original.
Quote from: GhostMachine on March 30, 2007, 12:37:08 PM
If you think Civil War is responsible for Stark being screwed up, you must not have read much Iron Man over the last decade or so, because Stark has been seriously mishandled about that long. Civil War is just the icing on the cake and has transformed him into a badly written character into a full on villain. I don't care what his reasons for doing what he did may be or how `noble' they might come off in some people's eyes, he's taken actions that only a supervillain would do (the Thor clone, for instance), and the ends do NOT always justify the means.
"The last decade or so?" When was the last time you read Iron Man? The character was doing just fine before Civil War. Ever since Marvel restarted the title 3 or 4 years ago Tony Stark has been sitting pretty (in his own book at least). Warren Ellis had a good take on the character. Unfortunately thanks to Adi Granov's inability to handle art chores for a monthly book it took about 18 months for a six issue story to see print. Then the Knaufs came onboard and showed they too had a good grasp of the character and his history. Then Civil War came along. :angry:
I didn't mean he was constantly mishandled, just that's its been about a decade since the mishandling started. The whole thing with Tony being manipulated by Kang into being a killer, teen Tony, and a lot of other crap. And don't even get me started on how his identity was finally revealed to the public.....
I was looking forward to the new Thor series......until I found out JMS is writing it. He messed up Spider-Man, and I expect him to do the same with Thor. So I'm guessing that by issue #6, we'll learn that Sif had an affair with Fandral, Loki isn't really Odin's adopted half-giant son but actually Odin's biological son by either Karnilla or Hela, and Balder is homosexual and his weakness isn't really being vulnerable to mistletoe but being addicted to it. I do like Thor's new outfit, though; he actually looks like a Viking god, instead of a superhero based on a Viking god. Wish he had the beard still, though.
Iron Man Debate... I'm in.
Iron Man and Captain America are my favorite comic book charcaters. I have every Iron Man comic from #1 (the original series), most of the Captain America series and most of the Tales of Suspense (that started both of their books).
They are still my favorite characters. I simply ignore the whole Civil War debacle.
BOTH characters where misrepresented in the series. These guys wouldn't have fought each other. Cap wouldn't have used Tony's outstretched hand as an opportunity to attack him. Tony wouldn't beat Steve senseless while wearing the armor. Neither of them... well, you get the point.
I guess the writers never read these characters before. Perhaps they missed when Cap ran into a burning building to save his then drunk friend who didn't care if he died. They also seem to g=have forgotten Iron Man and Captain America trapped in a poisonous gas chanber, when Iron Man removed his helmet and put it on an unconcious Captain America. Anyway...
Simply put, bad writers, write bad comics.
They needed a bad guy- Tony is rich... it's easy to hate the rich. Tony's has been a politician... it's easy to hate politicians. Tony's powerful in most ways that matter... and the main bad guy had to be strong on all fronts.
They needed a good guy- Steve is an american soldier.... fighting for civil rights fits any good guy. Steve is an icon.... everybody believes in Captain America. Steve isn't as powerful as Tony... everybody loves an underdog.
Tony gets in bed with the government and sells out. Steve leads a rag tag band of freedom fighters against "the man." There's your formula for a black and white (no grey area here) Disney plot where everyone is clearly identified as hero or villian.
Agent said: "I keep wondering why 7 months of bad characterization outweighs 40 years of Iron Man's history."
I couldn't agree more. Remember that these writers and Marvel execs are out to make a buck. They made some poor choices that didn't fit their characters at all, in an effort to be dark, edgy and metaphoric of something they don't seem to fully understand.
Why dislike fictional characters? The writers and execs at Marvel screwed this storyline up. Not Iron Man. Not Captain America.
And for the record, I thought The Confession was about the only good part of Civil War. I don't think they were trying for some great climax that they never reached. I think Bendis wrote one good issue where two adults explained their views and motives, while not making either into a one dimensional villian.
Sad that it was only one issue and after the damage had been done by so many bad writers and execs.
"Well, we'll always have Paris..."
Quote from: Agent on March 30, 2007, 12:44:08 PM
Avengers: The Initiative #1 (http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/aveng_initiative/Initit_01_pre.html)
I've gotta say, I really don't like the way Justice just stands by while the New Warriors are being insulted. They stood by him after he was sent to prison for killing his father but now when some guy basically spits on their graves he just politely asks him to stop.
I'm hoping there's more to Justice's reaction. Dan Slott is writing this and he's been a New Warriors fan in the past so I have hope. Still Justice was on Cap's side during the War so he's probably trying not to push things too far. Plus Vance has always been a good honest kid, I'm kinda glad he's not flipping out into a rageover this. I wonder if we'll get any clarification of his relationship with Firestar in this series, the one-shot by Fabian kinda left things unsettled.
I expect Rage, whose also in the series, will show a big reaction to comments about the Warriors deaths in this.
I never really read all that much with Iron Man in it. I've read alot of Avengers, but very little of Tony's own title, so it's hard for me to say much on his characterization - plus I didn't read much of Civil War itself. That said, if you were moving forward to a Marvel Universe with a Superhero Registration Act and needed someone to headup Shield and be in charge of it all, who would it be? I honestly believe Tony, with his political experience, fits well with this setup. Has he been villianized to some degree, sure back near the begining of CW I was talking about how he'd become a bad guy just like everyone else. But now I've gotten past that and I see things differently.
You know, I always thought of Captain America and Iron Man as opposite sides of the same coin. Cap was the perfection of the human body (albeit with chemical assistance), and Iron Man had reached the zenith of what man's imagination and innovation could achieve. There's a little grey area in there, but that's a fair estimate, I think. I suppose their philosophical contrasts were much, much greater.
I'm very, very chagrined to see how all that potential has been squandered. The voice of reason and hope has been silenced, and now fascism runs rampant. All I can say is that this better come crashing down hard on the pro-registration forces like a ton of righteous bricks. (And yes, there are such things as righteous bricks--you can get them at Home Depot.) I hope Marvel's setting up a hell of a comeback for the other side of the issue; things are getting too grim the other way.
Surely Mephisto or hela are battleing for Cap's soul. Then both teams of Avengers must travel to Hades to save their friend from damnation.
Quote from: Agent on March 30, 2007, 12:44:08 PM
I've seen this kind sentiment a lot lately. I keep wondering why 7 months of bad characterization outweighs 40 years of Iron Man's history.
Because 7 months of bad characterization has kicked 40 years of history in the family jewels. Retcons are so common now that you can only look at recent events to judge a character. People are always going to be more interested in what a company is doing with a character
now rather than what they did before I was born. And not everyone has 40 years of Iron Man knowledge behind them either.
DK
Quote from: Dweomer Knight on April 02, 2007, 10:17:38 AM
Quote from: Agent on March 30, 2007, 12:44:08 PM
I've seen this kind sentiment a lot lately. I keep wondering why 7 months of bad characterization outweighs 40 years of Iron Man's history.
Because 7 months of bad characterization has kicked 40 years of history in the family jewels. Retcons are so common now that you can only look at recent events to judge a character. People are always going to be more interested in what a company is doing with a character now rather than what they did before I was born. And not everyone has 40 years of Iron Man knowledge behind them either.
DK
I agree that not everyone has 40 years of comic knowledge to work with. Being that as it may, perhaps those people should do some research before judging a character based on a bad writer's recent mistake. And I don't think people will ALWAYS be more interested in what a company is doing NOW, when what they are doing now sucks in comparison to what they have done in the past. I think that's the whole point of people discussing their disappointment in recent writings and characterizations in this thread.
For instance, a new writer does the next Harry Potter book, and depicts him as a cross dressing serial killer. Should all readers just take that at face value and accept it because it's the most recent work? That's an exaggerated example, to be sure, but essentially the same thing.
For me personally Iron Man has gone downhill since he got shot. He reached his peak in the late 80's with Armor Wars and since than has been handed to more bad writers than good. I'm probably not alone when I say I wish they could go back to Tony as a drunk.
It'll be interesting how the spin him now knowing that a movie is due out soon. Maybe they can get him hooked on drugs like the actor playing him used to be. That's some shock factor there.
Threads like this make me glad I stopped reading in the early 90's, nothing has been worth my money since then.
Quote from: Mowgli on April 02, 2007, 01:07:58 PM
And I don't think people will ALWAYS be more interested in what a company is doing NOW, when what they are doing now sucks in comparison to what they have done in the past. I think that's the whole point of people discussing their disappointment in recent writings and characterizations in this thread.
Well part of what I was (trying) to get at was that it does suck compared to what's being written now. Iron Man in Civil War is portrayed very differently than he was/is in his own title. But not everyone reads Iron Man; then or now. CW as Marvel's current "Crisis" style event is being read by many. This is the only version of Iron Man they're going to see.
I think it's silly to expect readers to have to do "research" on every character everytime a major decision is made; that's just unreasonable. If you've been following a certain character for a long time, it's easy to be on top of things regarding that character. But if you haven't, research, with all the retcons and writers who weren't internally consistent to begin with anyway, just makes things even more confusing.
You shouldn't have to read twenty titles and do a school research paper on some Z-rate character from 20 years ago to understand what's going on today. If you do, it's lazy writing at best and pure crap at worst.
Iron Man's own title (whether you think that's a good portrayal is another issue), right now, is at odds with how he was portrayed in CW. That's going to resonate far more strongly with the VAST majority of readers than what happened 20-40 years ago (much of which has been retconned or ignored by even the "good" writers in any case) and most readers who haven't been following that long don't care about.
DK
Quote from: Dweomer Knight on April 03, 2007, 08:07:50 AMI think it's silly to expect readers to have to do "research" on every character everytime a major decision is made; that's just unreasonable. If you've been following a certain character for a long time, it's easy to be on top of things regarding that character. But if you haven't, research, with all the retcons and writers who weren't internally consistent to begin with anyway, just makes things even more confusing.
You shouldn't have to read twenty titles and do a school research paper on some Z-rate character from 20 years ago to understand what's going on today. If you do, it's lazy writing at best and pure crap at worst.
Iron Man's own title (whether you think that's a good portrayal is another issue), right now, is at odds with how he was portrayed in CW. That's going to resonate far more strongly with the VAST majority of readers than what happened 20-40 years ago (much of which has been retconned or ignored by even the "good" writers in any case) and most readers who haven't been following that long don't care about.
DK
The point I made was that people who made a snap decision, based on one recent story, were wrong. I stand by that. One story doesn't always convey a character well, and in this case, not at all. That's like people who see a trailer for a movie and decide it sucks before seeing it. They miss out. If you read just Civil War and based all of your decisions about the characters within on what you read there, then:
- Iron Man is more evil than the Emperor in Star Wars
- Mr. Fantastic is a mad scientist who doesn't care at all about his family
- Captain America is wishy washy and indecisive
- Speedball is a major character
None of these things (and many more) depicted in Civil War are consistant with the characters or stories Marvel has written and published for a long time. I strongly disagree that what happened in such a popularly disliked story such as Civil War will resonate with most readers more than what happened before. That's why there are so many discussions on web forums and in chat rooms about how wrong these characterizations are. The majority (I don't know if it's vast or not) of comic readers are regular readers. They do know a thing or two about the characters they read and pick up books based on those characters appearances in them.
I never said anyone should write a research paper (not sure what that was about). But if someone thinks, "Hey, isn't it strange for a well known hero (like Iron Man or Mr. Fantastic) to do something so criminal?" Maybe they should answer their own question by asking someone who reads those characters, or even reading a few back issues (or trades) themselves.
Mowgli,
If Civil War was an "Elseworlds" type story then I would be inclined to agree with your assessment. However, it isn't and it is the apparent direction that Marvel has asked for the character to be taken. Why is an answer that I have no clue to given the forthcoming Iron Man movie.
You're basically asking readers to ignore the character as depicted in Civil War and instead go back to how the character was previously. In that case, then they shouldn't have picked up Civil War to begin with. They also should not continue to read the comics that Marvel puts out with said character as long as they continue with that direction that is the results of bad writing.
If Marvel were to suddenly do an about face and say "Hey the previous seven months contained in Civil War" didn't happen and Cap didn't get assassinated and The New Warriors are not dead" then there would be just as much of a backlash.
DK has a point in saying that one shouldn't have to know 20+ years of the character to understand what's going on today. I'll do him one better on it and say that one shouldn't have to know 20+ worth of a character especially if that character is not being represented based on those 20+ years worth of good, bad, and ugly.
Mowgli, the Civil War books where the characters were depicted seriously out of character were written by Mark Millar. Millar either didn't bother to do his research to make sure he wrote the characters consistantly and in character or just didn't care.
I will not buy anything written by Millar or by JMS, who quite frankly should both be run out of the business. Millar is a hack and JMS doesn't care about characters' history, character, or continuity. (Just about all of JMS' Spider-Man work should be tossed out of continuity)
What I find funny is Stark being in charge with S.H.I.E.L.D. and making weapons for the government again. In the late 70's-80s, Stark specifically quit manufacturing weapons for ethical reasons and even got into a sort of feud with S.H.I.E.L.D. over that. It makes no sense!
Mr. Hamrick : I'm not asking anyone to do anything. I never told anyone to stop reading anything. I am saying that I am ignoring what is an obvious mistake in the writing of a mini-series. I know that won't make it go away, but I also know the characters are nothing like the mini-series depicted them.
As GhostMachine said, "it makes no sense." And he's absolutely right."
I also never said anyone has to know 20+ years of comic history to understand comics today. My point was that people are hating these characters based on a very recent misrepresentation of them. I believe that's true. I wouldn't start hating steak because one cook botched my order at a local restaurant. That's not the fault of the meat. And if someone else, who had never tried steak, had that bad steak for their first try, I would tell them to try it somewhere else, because steak is good. Even if this chef can't cook it.
GhostMachine: You hit the nail on the head, hence this, and many other discussions about problems with Civil War. Perhaps the writers (apparently Millar in particular) should try reading a bit about characters before writing them. :blink:
But it isn't a misrepresentation if that's the direction that Marvel wants to take that character in. A person not liking how a character is portrayed doesn't mean that the particular character in question has been misrepresented. Characters change, and not always for the better. Thanks to numerous retcons and "Crisis" style events, most characters only superficially resemble how they were when first created. Hawkeye, just within the pages of Avengers, has been shown to be "has something to prove", "effective leader" and "problem with authority" (among others). Which of them was right? They all were. That's how Hawkeye was at that time. Not liking one of those aspects, or even everyone not liking one of those aspects, doesn't mean he was misrepresented. But if you went to do research on Hawkeye, you'd probably be confused as hell as to who he "really" is.
It wasn't that Mr. Fantastic didn't care about his family, it was that he felt this issue was important enough the personal matters, however strong, were secondary. He then makes a plea to his wife to come back and, apparently in an attempt to reconcile themselves, they leave F4. Whether we like it or not, in 20+ years this will be as valid a view of him as any other.
Of course, future retcons and "Crisis" style events, which seem to be happening with increasing frequency, will make most past comparisons, especially the distant ones (which you shouldn't even need to know) irrelevant anyway.
Iron Man is who he is right now; not who he was five, ten, twenty or whatever years ago (even though we might wish otherwise). Do I like it? No. Is it ugly? Yes. But if that's the direction they want to take the character in (as it appears they do), then that's what he is.
DK
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. As far as I know, a hero, repeatedly taking villianous actions, in only one particular story arc, is a misrepresentation of that character. This is made more obvious by the fact that many of these actions are directly contradict things the character has previous said and done when they explained their own motivations and reasoning.
As far as Mr. Fantastic is concerned, I wasn't even referring to the wife situation. I was thinking of how he was told that Johnny Storm was beaten badly and was in critical condition at the hospital. His reponse was that he would try to go later, as he didn't even look up from his work. They mentioned that he had never been to visit while everyone else had several times. Very out of character for Reed Richards.
I understand that this may be the direction that Marvel wants to go. Many comic companies seem to think that "gritty and darK" will outsell everything else. Personally, I think that's poor marketing and a cop out. It seems a shame that they would try to drastically change multiple characters so quickly that readers wouldn't believe the writing. But it's their creative proprety and their choice. But again, if they had done it well, or in a way that readers understood or agreed with, there wouldn't be so many discussion about how bad
lt they were doing it.
The readers just don't buy that the characters would do the things they did in Civil War.
If Marvel is making such drastic changes with unbelievable immediacy, they are destined to lose readers. That's a shame for everyone involved.
Does anyone remember that Marvel Team-Up story from about 10 years ago, in which Iron Man and Captain America are on a mission or something, and Iron Man gets the chance to wipe the memory of his true identity from all the minds on Earth? And he does so? Because his secret identity is too important to the safety of those around him?
What a jerk.
Quote from: Dweomer Knight on April 04, 2007, 01:26:31 PM
But it isn't a misrepresentation if that's the direction that Marvel wants to take that character in.
If that were true there wouldn't be more than one interpretation of Tony Stark. As has already been pointed out, Tony Stark in Iron Man (as well as a few other CW related titles) isn't the same as the one in CW. Frontline, the Confession, and the Casualities of War one shot all tried to create the balance that was lacking in CW with varying degrees of success. The Civil War tie ins I read gave me the distinct impression that Marvel was a little concerned by the lack of balance as well as the amount of vitriol being directed at Tony Stark. After Civil War #7, Newsarama had a Return to the Civil War Room (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=103980&highlight=civil+war) feature were Civil War's editor Tom Breevort answered fan questions. The most striking comment I saw was Breevort's response to posters who asked about the jerkification of Tony Stark. According to Breevort Tony Stark wasn't acting like a villain at all. It was just how some writers portrayed him. Even more strange was his assertion that Tony Stark was usually portrayed as a hero in Civil War and a villain in various tie-ins. From what I read it was the exact opposite.
Not only is Marvel actively avoiding the perception that they are trying to vilify Stark, they are putting the responsibility for his depicition squarely on the heads of the various writers. Millar simply decided to make Stark and the pro-reg heroes the bad guys (despite promises that neither side would be portrayed as evil) and ignored whatever he needed to ignore to make that happen. If he's willing to ignore the work of dozens of writers who wrote Stark, Reed, Hank Pym, etc. before him, why shouldn't readers interested in a different, better, more accurate, and more heroic portrayal of those characters ignore Millar.
Quote from: Dweomer Knight on April 04, 2007, 01:26:31 PMHawkeye, just within the pages of Avengers, has been shown to be "has something to prove", "effective leader" and "problem with authority" (among others). Which of them was right? They all were. That's how Hawkeye was at that time. Not liking one of those aspects, or even everyone not liking one of those aspects, doesn't mean he was misrepresented. But if you went to do research on Hawkeye, you'd probably be confused as hell as to who he "really" is.
DK
You seem to be suggesting that having something to prove, being an effective leader, and having a problem with authority can't all be characteristics of the same person. They seem to describe Hawkeye very well to me. Those different personality traits are what make the guy interesting, again when he's handled well and in character. He's grown and developed over time but at his core he's still the same courageous, sometimes impulsive, relentless bow slinger we know and love. That's character development and that's what makes readers fall in love with these 2 dimensional scribbles on a piece of paper. Millar ignored all that in Civil War and the story suffered as a result.
Amen Agent. Characters can and do change. A good writer takes the time to show the change occur. A good writer also creates a good reason for the change. That reason makes the new motivations believable. Unexplained, immediate changes are just seen as misrepresentation or mischaracterization.
To say that any change made in a character is, "just the direction that (the company) wants to go in", is to say there is no such thing as misrepresentation. If a character has well established and documented traits and one storyline displays a completely different set of traits for said character, that is, by definition, misrepresentation.
SHJ: Actually, I didn't read that story at all. But I will say, it sounds like an easy out for a writer, trying to clean up the mess another writer made. Speaking of that, Tony's identity was originally exposed when he saved a puppy publicly (thanks for that brilliant bit of writing Mr. Grell). This is the same guy who beat his best friend mercilessly, cloned another great friend and threatened yet another friend's family. The same guy? That's a tough case to make indeed.
[spoiler]I was down with the Initiative:Avengers #1 book until at the end they kill off the best newcomer MVP in the FIST ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbdown:[/spoiler]