Iron Man Sequels Tony Stark is not Iron Man

[CyclopsWasRight]

The movies with the constant and incorrect "I Am Iron Man" have led people to think that Tony is Iron Man even without the armour.

The below quote explains it perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmwLPU5H6_Q

Tony Stark is who is underneath and Iron Man is what he can do. The two are not mutually exclusive, no one else can be Tony but others can be Iron Man.

Lets look at some other superheroes on film.

If you remove the costume from Captain America then Steve Rogers can still be Captain Americain in that he can do what Cap does as he still has the same super soldier abilities.

If you remove the costume from Batman then Bruce Wayne can still be Batman in that he can use his training & expertise to defeat the villains.

If you removie the costume from Daredevil then Matt Murdoch can still be Daredevil in that he can do what Daredevil does as he still has the same hightened abilities.

If you remove the costume from Superman then Clark Kent can still be Superman in that he retains the same abilities.

However

If you remove the costume from Iron Man then Tony Stark CANNOT still be Iron Man as he can't do what Iron Man does.

In Iron Man when he is without the armour he is easily incapacitated by Obadiah Stane and his friend has help save him.

In Iron Man 2 when without his armour he barely escapes alive from Whiplash when his friends help save him.

In Iron Man 3 he displays some resilience when storming the mansion with tech and guns, he is captured though. Has to be saved by his girlfriend when he fails to defeat the villain.

It's clear that without his armour Tony Stark isn't capable. Ne needs the suit to be Iron Man.

Thus Tony Stark is not Iron Man (when without the suit), he needs it to be a superhero.

Iron Man and Tony Stark are two seperate characters.

And even then it doesn't need to be Tony piloting Iron Man. Iron Man 3 showed that people other than Tony can pilot the suit so in effect Iron Man can be anyone... As long as Mr Stark is there to build the suit first, of course.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I'd argue that A. you're wrong about Stark (especially in the films because of what we saw in IM3) Stark can outthink and outact any of his foes and the Iron Man armor wouldn't exist without his highly advanced mind. Only about 6 people (in the films) have worn armors in the same league as Tony and only 3 of them are still alive. Of those three, Pepper would likely refuse to be "Iron Man" ever again. And Rhodey is War Machine. Stark is indeed "Iron Man" particularly metaphorically and most assuredly in practice.

B. you're wrong about Batman/CapAm. Without his batsuit Bruce doesn't inspire fear in criminals, doesn't have any of the gadgets he's so well known for and he'll die the first time a thug takes a shot at him. Without the cape and cowl he's well-trained a vigilante, plain and simple. Cap takes two shots without his suit/shield he's dead, not to mention he may be a captain but has nothing that makes him Captain "America" if he's not wearing his stars and stripes. Without the America he's just a super soldier, plain and simple.

and C. What's your point?

With the youtube vid you linked, it's pretty clear that "what Tony Stark does" defines him. And he did save millions (if not billions) of lives as Iron Man. Does that not define him as Iron Man?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

and C. What's your point?

With the youtube vid you linked, it's pretty clear that "what Tony Stark does" defines him. And he did save millions (if not billions) of lives as Iron Man. Does that not define him as Iron Man?

Without the suit he couldn't have done that, I've read people say that with or without the armour he is Iron Man.

My point is he clearly isn't, thats all

I'm not slating the character, far from it. I'm just stating that unlike many other superheroes he needs the costume to be a superhero and can't shoot repulsors out of his hand, fly, shoot missiles or other feats without his costume thus can't be Iron Man without it, which is why the ending of IM3 makes no sense (quitting as iron man but still calling himself iron man)

(P.S good points about Cap and Bats, though limited without their gadgets they still have the same abilities)

 

[DrCosmic]

Tony Stark, and thereby Iron Man, doesn't exist in this sort of vacuum cage match world. Tony Stark exists in a world where at any time, he can put together an offense. This ability, which is an ability, is one that he always possesses. With a large amount of time and unlimited resources he can put together an army of mechanical suits and take down an army of genetically modified bio-ovens. With a small amount of time and a couple hundred bucks, he can put together a set of weapons and take out a group of men that are superior to him in every other aspect. It is the same ability, just with different time constraints, and it is that superior ability that makes him Iron Man all the time. When Iron Man is fixing the Helicarrier, or crossing-the-streams to beat Whiplash, or coaching Pepper to detonate the reactor to defeat Stane, Iron Man's technical know how and inventive resourcefulness is what saves the day. His physical abilities, forged from that same know how, are simply the fun part.

If Bruce Wayne, without his flight, ranged attack and fear inducing abilities is still Batman, if Captain America, without any of his world-class defense or America-ness is still Captain America, then Tony Stark, in a cave "with scraps" is still Iron Man. His ability to overcome superior forces is very much intact, that is the point, of the statement, and it is a sound one.

Now, is he anywhere near as potent as he is with his equipment... no, he's not. Neither is Captain America, Batman, Thor, Hawkeye, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman... the list is extensive. The exceptions are people like Superman.

Now, if you're talking about some world where scraps don't exist... then yeah, Tony Stark is just a genius billionaire playboy philanthropist... but in any any modern day setting, Iron Man resides *in* Tony Stark and it's just a question of how much time Tony has to see how powerfully he manifests Iron Man. This is not true of other heroes, without other people to give Captain America his shield or Batman his gadgets, those heroes would never gain their abilities back, but with Tony Stark... it's just a matter of time before he makes the Mark 43 which will be badder than all the marks before it. In that way, Tony Stark is more Iron Man than Bruce Wayne is Batman.

 

[Steamteck]

Iron man is the synthesis of the man and the suit. Tony is the man and intellect behind it all but with the suit he is not quite Iron Man IMO.

 

[Silver Lantern]

If there is going to be a Iron Man 4 movie then I think that Mark Walhberg can play Iron Man but he cannot play Stark but another character who is given or finds the suits and becomes the new hero. Someone as intelligent as Stark or a close friend of his or family member who becomes the new one in the movie. Please DO NOT allow him to be Stark but Iron Man is okay to play in a movie.

 

[Lord]

Mark Wahlberg as Iron Man? I'm sorry but that sound terrible, they need a different kind of actor who has less the stature of a body builder and the face of a millionaire, the next Tony Stark should be more serious but still closer to the one in the films than in the comics, he could have a gradual evolution into that character.

 

[Kurt Wagner]

The issue of whether or not Tony Stark is Iron Man really boils down to the simple point of view on how you define "Iron Man." Is Iron Man just Tony Stark in a high powered mechanical suit? OR... Is Iron Man the brilliant mechanic that creates things like the Iron Man suit. As crappy as IM3 was, I think the movie was saying that Tony Stark is Iron Man the brilliant mechanic!

 

[jonathancrane]

This tension - does the alter ego equal the superhero-can be extended to any character. Is Steve Rogers Captain America? Is Bruce Wayne Batman? Any answer to this inquiry is arbitrary, as there is a mound of comic books that say otherwise.

 

[Steamteck]

The issue of whether or not Tony Stark is Iron Man really boils down to the simple point of view on how you define "Iron Man." Is Iron Man just Tony Stark in a high powered mechanical suit? OR... Is Iron Man the brilliant mechanic that creates things like the Iron Man suit. As crappy as IM3 was, I think the movie was saying that Tony Stark is Iron Man the brilliant mechanic!

I personally think it proved the opposite no matter what it was trying to say.

 

[TeeKay]

Tony Stark is Iron Man. The suit and him are one. His whole arc in IM3 was him questioning whether the man makes the suit or the suit makes the man.

 

[Bren]

To me, Stark plus suit is Iron Man.
Someone else in the suit is not Iron Man.
Stark without the suit is not Iron Man.

 

[MichaelChen]

Tony Stark, and thereby Iron Man, doesn't exist in this sort of vacuum cage match world. Tony Stark exists in a world where at any time, he can put together an offense. This ability, which is an ability, is one that he always possesses. With a large amount of time and unlimited resources he can put together an army of mechanical suits and take down an army of genetically modified bio-ovens. With a small amount of time and a couple hundred bucks, he can put together a set of weapons and take out a group of men that are superior to him in every other aspect. It is the same ability, just with different time constraints, and it is that superior ability that makes him Iron Man all the time. When Iron Man is fixing the Helicarrier, or crossing-the-streams to beat Whiplash, or coaching Pepper to detonate the reactor to defeat Stane, Iron Man's technical know how and inventive resourcefulness is what saves the day. His physical abilities, forged from that same know how, are simply the fun part.

If Bruce Wayne, without his flight, ranged attack and fear inducing abilities is still Batman, if Captain America, without any of his world-class defense or America-ness is still Captain America, then Tony Stark, in a cave "with scraps" is still Iron Man. His ability to overcome superior forces is very much intact, that is the point, of the statement, and it is a sound one.

Now, is he anywhere near as potent as he is with his equipment... no, he's not. Neither is Captain America, Batman, Thor, Hawkeye, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman... the list is extensive. The exceptions are people like Superman.

Now, if you're talking about some world where scraps don't exist... then yeah, Tony Stark is just a genius billionaire playboy philanthropist... but in any any modern day setting, Iron Man resides *in* Tony Stark and it's just a question of how much time Tony has to see how powerfully he manifests Iron Man. This is not true of other heroes, without other people to give Captain America his shield or Batman his gadgets, those heroes would never gain their abilities back, but with Tony Stark... it's just a matter of time before he makes the Mark 43 which will be badder than all the marks before it. In that way, Tony Stark is more Iron Man than Bruce Wayne is Batman.

This^

Tony Stark's superpower is super-genius intellect. That manifests in many ways, not just armor. Indeed, his power is more inherent to him than Captain America's. Take away the super-soldier serum, and Rogers is just a man. Take away the armor, and Stark just builds a new armor or some other weapon entirely.

 

[Mr.T]

Iron Man is Tony Stark