Iron Man Is ‘Iron Man’ An Anti-War Film?

[ShadowBoxing]

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/08/31/is-iron-man-an-anti-war-film/

Castmember Terrence Howard sure seems to think so, describing “Iron Man” as “a modern-day comparison to what took place in 1973 when this Tony Stark character was invented.” The star of “The Hunting Party” also claims than for the sequel, the crew will be “a little more free … non-responsive to anyone,” particularly the Defense Department. Watch him dish out in this video.

“a modern-day comparison to what took place in 1973 when this Tony Stark character was invented.”

Someone should tell him that's about 10 years off.

 

[3dman27]

a honest mistake on mr .howards part i'd say

 

[ultimatefan]

Well, from the start Tony was a weapons manufacturer who was made a war prisoner and had a wound in his heart, so a political allegory is nothing gratuitous or forced to be "fashionable". Stan always felt like an anti-war guy to me, his Vietnam Spider-Man story was pretty ballsy for the time.

 

[3dman27]

"vietnam spider-man story?"

 

[ultimatefan]

"vietnam spider-man story?"

Stan wrote a story in the sixties where Flash went to Vietnam.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Well, from what I could hear from him in the Comic-Con footage, he does sound like a slight parody of the right-wing businessmen when it comes to Iraq and the like, so while I'm certain it won't be the main focus of the film, part of it will be him finding that he needs to use his intelligence to make a weapon for peace instead of war...thus, the Iron Man suit.

 

[echostation]

sort of like Batman when he becomes a peace activist later on against the Joker

 

[strikezone89]

its a little anti war

 

[Argyle of Sock]

I think having a slight anti-war undercurrent is a good thing as long as the film doesn't beat you over the head with it. Then it can get frustrating.

 

[TheVileOne]

Well, from what I could hear from him in the Comic-Con footage, he does sound like a slight parody of the right-wing businessmen when it comes to Iraq and the like, so while I'm certain it won't be the main focus of the film, part of it will be him finding that he needs to use his intelligence to make a weapon for peace instead of war...thus, the Iron Man suit.

A weapon for peace isn't a liberal view-point. Sorry.

One can argue by this logic that the atomic bomb was a weapon of peace as well.

A weapon for peace is not a left-wing, anti-war liberal ideal.

 

[ultimatefan]

A weapon for piece isn't a liberal view-point. Sorry.

One can argue by this logic that the atomic bomb was a weapon of peace as well.

A weapon for peace is not a left-wing, anti-war liberal ideal.

Still, it´s against the use of lethal weapons, which is at least a more moderate view. Stark at first seems insensitive about the consequences of the use of his company´s products.

 

[TheVileOne]

Still, it´s against the use of lethal weapons, which is at least a more moderate view. Stark at first seems insensitive about the consequences of the use of his company´s products.

I'd hardly buy that when there is nothing non-lethal about Stark's armor.

Or have you forgotten all the lethal destruction he's caused over the years?

That seems to be a pretty two-faced view-point.

I mean let's face facts. For years Tony Stark has almost always been a more politically conservative character. And he hasn't been above taking lethal action before.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I'd hardly buy that when there is nothing non-lethal about Stark's armor.

Or have you forgotten all the lethal destruction he's caused over the years?

That seems to be a pretty two-faced view-point.

I mean let's face facts. For years Tony Stark has almost always been a more politically conservative character. And he hasn't been above taking lethal action before.

Accidentally killing someone is what drove him to alcoholism in the first place. Iron Man, much like most heroes of his day, was above killing.

 

[Figs]

Well, from what I could hear from him in the Comic-Con footage, he does sound like a slight parody of the right-wing businessmen when it comes to Iraq and the like, so while I'm certain it won't be the main focus of the film, part of it will be him finding that he needs to use his intelligence to make a weapon for peace instead of war...thus, the Iron Man suit.

I think in an interview either Favreau or Downey Jr. had something similar to this. Think about it, before he gets the injury, he doesn't really care about stopping or causing war. Just making more money from his creations and new technology. After he makes the suit he comes to realize he may be the only one powerful enough to stop the threat and it changes his perspective on things going on in life. That's what I always saw in the comics at least.

 

[kedrell]

Accidentally killing someone is what drove him to alcoholism in the first place. Iron Man, much like most heroes of his day, was above killing.

He sure blew Malen's head off when the villain wouldn't stand down and allow himself to be arrested.

 

[TheVileOne]

Accidentally killing someone is what drove him to alcoholism in the first place. Iron Man, much like most heroes of his day, was above killing.

Yeah but that goes to show right there that there is nothing NON-LETHAL about his armor. The repulsor rays are the ****ing definition lethal.

He also created a Thor clone that killed Goliath.

Also in the comics even after Stark creates the armor he continues to do questionable and dubious things. And this is outside the alcoholism.

He started attacking super heroes that wore armor that came from his design specs. This included Captain America.

So Tony is never a saint with his so-called "weapon of peace".

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Accidentally killing someone is what drove him to alcoholism in the first place. Iron Man, much like most heroes of his day, was above killing.

Actually, in the Extremis version of his origin, he killed an entire terrorist cell to get out of captivity when he first uses the grey Iron Man suit.

"I made the first version of this suit to save myself and a friend from criminals with guns. I must've killed fifty people, trying to free us. And my friend still died."

 

[Figs]

Actually, in the Extremis version of his origin, he killed an entire terrorist cell to get out of captivity when he first uses the grey Iron Man suit.

"I made the first version of this suit to save myself and a friend from criminals with guns. I must've killed fifty people, trying to free us. And my friend still died."

People also forget that he killed in the originals as well. He was never above killing, he just wasn't aiming for it. He killed Wong-Chu, the man who captured him which drove him to create his very first suit. If you have either the original issues or Marvel Masterworks Vol.1-4 you'll see that he has killed a few times or more. He isn't kill happy or anything but sometimes he does happen to take lives.

 

[Sun_Down]

The movie's about a weapons manufacturing billionaire who becomes a POW, of course there's going to be a lot of stuff about war in the film. That doesn't mean, however, that the movie has to "take a stance" against or for war.

 

[X Knight]

is anyone concerned that IM will have an anti-war / anti-military tone or theme?

some of the early reviews seem to suggest so. plus....there's that Terence Howard interview.

I'm really excited about this movie.......but that just might dampen my enthusiasm for the film......

 

[The Major]

Yeah but that goes to show right there that there is nothing NON-LETHAL about his armor. The repulsor rays are the ****ing definition lethal.

Which he barely ever uses to kill enemies with. He's not The Punisher. Never was.

He also created a Thor clone that killed Goliath.

Also in the comics even after Stark creates the armor he continues to do questionable and dubious things. And this is outside the alcoholism.

All this is recent stuff.

Marvel needed military industrial complex proxy to be the lead bad guy hero for Civil War. Iron Man became that guy. Marvel has been pretty sporatical in how to deal with him ever since. In some titles he's a self pitying villain (Thor), an evil psycho (there was an issue in Civil War where he guided Spidey through a prison where his minions tortured anti-registration heroes forever until they gave up to join it --- which made Pete seriously consider leaving the Iniative) while in others he's much more heroic with his actions (Captain America, Iron Man).

Within ten years time I'm sure none of his will be mentioned again anyway.

He started attacking super heroes that wore armor that came from his design specs. This included Captain America.

But he didn't kill them when they fought.

That type of story isn't unique to IM, either. Batman, Xavier and BP have all had secret plans to take down their team-mates and allies.

So Tony is never a saint with his so-called "weapon of peace".

Neither is any super-hero who beats up criminals.

 

[The Major]

I'm really excited about this movie.......but that just might dampen my enthusiasm for the film......

Why is this a surprise? Comic creators rarely are Republican or pro-war.

 

[DACrowe]

A weapon for piece isn't a liberal view-point. Sorry.

One can argue by this logic that the atomic bomb was a weapon of peace as well.

A weapon for peace is not a left-wing, anti-war liberal ideal.

Not to get off topic, but who says liberals are all pacifists and anti-war? Perhaps they are against stupid unneeded war, but that does not make them pacifists. I'm pretty sure Democrats and Republicans (given Harry Truman was a Democratic, albeit a moderate one) supported the use of the nuclear bomb in 1945 ending WWII and saving thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives by invading the mainland of Japan (counting both side's potential casualties).

Anyway, Sam always struck me as someone on the left, which is not surprising, given his background. He did have Flash Thompson go off to war and returned almost shell shocked and feeling out of place, relying later on a woman he met in Vietnam to help him get over his past (Sha Shan, if I recall her name correctly) in Amazing Spider-Man.

As for Tony Stark. It has always been a somewhat liberal tale of the weapons dealer who gets held captive and has a mid-life crisis and returns making a weapon to combat what he has seen. The movie adds to this by having him see the terrorists use the weapons he created and feeling guilty.

But I doubt it will be overtly political or anything to alienate any audiences.

 

[The Major]

DACrowe:

Well said.

 

[TheVileOne]

Liberals generally hated the Reagan arms race and nuclear proliferation in the 1980's. Things like the STAR WARS program. The history academics I had in college sneered in disgust about things like this.

So once again, using weapons "for peace" is not a liberal viewpoint. Iron Man is very much not a liberal character.

As for recent stuff, others have already pointed out how Iron Man has killed people in the past, but no he's not kill happy like the Punisher.

Spoiler

In the new movie Iron Man is not above killing either and takes the lives of many "terrorists".