Originally Posted by Jamie (Post 12307022)

You said, "Because of the backlash, that "reveal" lasted about 10 days." I'm saying the reveal would have lasted the exact same amount of time regardless of backlash.

Originally Posted by Jamie (Post 12307022)

In spite of the success of the movies, comics still don't sell particularly well. Trying to launch new characters without the boost of an existing franchise is a recipe for failure.

Originally Posted by Jamie (Post 12307022)

So you launch this character in Iron Man, and a year or so down the line Tony Stark comes back and she spins out into her own Iron Girl series. Hopefully she's built enough of a fan base in the main book to stay afloat. I really fail to see why that's such a horrible thing.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 12307043)

So, you think that Marvel would have divulged the "secret" if there had been zero backlash?

"?

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 12307090)

I think hes saying they didn't leak anything until #2 came out

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 12307043)

So, you think that Marvel would have divulged the "secret" if there had been zero backlash?

I disagree. Completely.

Originally Posted by Jamie (Post 12307126)

Okay, but it's not really a matter of opinion. The Cap-is-Hydra reveal was walked back in the very next issue of the comic, and it's practically impossible that Marvel could have changed that comic in response to the backlash and still have it come out on time.

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale (Post 12307513)

It's for killing boredom, not emotional investment. Good heavens.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 12307131)

That's a good question. There's been speculation that Marvel redid #2 after the backlash. While I agree that it was going to be revealed as false in #2, it doesn't mean that Marvel couldn't have changed the comic in less than 30 days. I'm going to ask around.

Originally Posted by Jamie (Post 12307845)

Lettering is done digitally now so they could have changed some dialog easily enough, but the whole comic is Red Skull explaining his plan and how he did it, so it would have had to have been totally redrawn. A fast artist could draw a comic in 30 days, but that doesn't leave time for the other steps in the process (writing, inking, coloring), let alone printing and shipping it out. Also pulling something like that would mean trashing whatever work was done on subsequent issues, and as far as I know #3 is still scheduled to come out on time.



Sort of a bad example since Marvel Studios divorced from the rest of the company, but yeah, it's possible that they could do something like that between animation and comics. But even though they're still both on the Perlmutter side of the company, comics isn't really in a position to dictate that to animation. And like I said before, animation doesn't really translate to comics sales.



Of course it didn't need to be, but if it gives the character a better chance of sticking, what's the harm? Does it damage the sacred title "Iron Man"? Worse than that time they revealed that Tony Stark was evil his entire adult life, killed him off, and replaced him with a teenage version of himself?

Oh, and in other news, Dr. Doom is also Iron Man.

http://i.imgur.com/vjhpxQm.jpg

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 12307861)

Why do people excuse one dumbass move by pointing to another dumbass move, as if that makes the first dumbass move alright?

Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 12308051)

Gosh, I hope, in addition to being a black woman, she's a vegan lesbian Muslim. Might as well cover all those PC bases at once.

Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 12308051)

Gosh, I hope, in addition to being a black woman, she's a vegan lesbian Muslim. Might as well cover all those PC bases at once.

Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 12308051)

Gosh, I hope, in addition to being a black woman, she's a vegan lesbian Muslim. Might as well cover all those PC bases at once.