Ironheart Trailer

[Excraft]

2 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

EDIT: never mind, there’s no point in continuing this conversation. Guns for home defense are definitely the same as defense contractors who sell warplanes. Well done, you win.

 

The problem here is that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You can't.  You're saying weapons manufacturers are evil people while at the same time saying weapons are ok.  Warplanes can be used to defend ones resources, land and people too, just like a handgun can protect an individual in their home.

 

37 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I think you lost the point of the discussion. There are people here saying Riri is a bad character because she makes bad choices and gets involved in crime. 

Tony was brought up as a counterpoint to show a double standard. The consequences of his arms deals are far worse than the crimes Riri is involved in. But he is redeemed (after almost getting yeeted by his own weapons) and becomes a beloved figure in the MCU. You pointing out that Tony, even after his redemption, continues to make bad decisions that have almost world ending consequences makes that double standard even more apparent. 

 

It's abundantly clear you've lost the point.  Tony Stark selling weapons did not do anything criminal or illegal with his legitimate business.  Riri Williams committing crimes to steal things that don't belong to her is illegal.  That's the difference.  It doesn't matter if she's stealing a candy bar from a Becker's.  Stealing is stealing.  That is what makes her unrelatable.  Her intentions may be good, but that doesn't justify turning to crime as a means to an end.  

 

40 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Yes, because that's what sane people do. You look at the consequences of what something is meant to do, how it will be used, what the effect on the public will be, etc. That's what public policy is: picking and choosing. We allow people to go into a store and buy Tylenol. We imprison people selling heroin on the street. Why? They're both selling a drug that can be misused. The reason is that societies generally aren't governed by cartoonishly simple comparisons. 

 

You're trying to have your cake and eat it as well.  You've said weapons manufacturers are evil people, but now you're saying that weapons are acceptable.  Are they good or are they bad?  Which is it?  Pick one.

[BrandX]

13 hours ago, JKCarrier said:

Pop down to your local Veterans' Administration office, and ask the people you meet there if they are assassins. You should get some interesting responses.

 

Government agents following orders.  Right?  Not to mention, military does train some of their people for targeted elimination of high value targets (aka assassination).

Edited Tuesday at 02:40 PM by BrandX

[BrandX]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

 

I think you lost the point of the discussion. There are people here saying Riri is a bad character because she makes bad choices and gets involved in crime. 

Tony was brought up as a counterpoint to show a double standard. The consequences of his arms deals are far worse than the crimes Riri is involved in. But he is redeemed (after almost getting yeeted by his own weapons) and becomes a beloved figure in the MCU. You pointing out that Tony, even after his redemption, continues to make bad decisions that have almost world ending consequences makes that double standard even more apparent. 

 

 

Yes, because that's what sane people do. You look at the consequences of what something is meant to do, how it will be used, what the effect on the public will be, etc. That's what public policy is: picking and choosing. We allow people to go into a store and buy Tylenol. We imprison people selling heroin on the street. Why? They're both selling a drug that can be misused. The reason is that societies generally aren't governed by cartoonishly simple comparisons. 

 

Tony didn't commit any crimes.  Him making weapons, is not a crime.  Hell, Riri is wanting to make a weapon, with her own Ironman suit.  I say this as someone who hasn't hated on the show, just pointing out, she's making some terrible choices for a genius who has the world handed to her due to her intellect.  She can get a job and she can get funding.

 

My one thought tho, is them trying to say she's smarter than Tony, without her saying it and saying she won't rip on Tony.  She's copying Ironman's suit.  Hasn't made anything new like Tony, who invented a new element, the arc reactor (and a mini version out of a box of scraps in a cave), time travel and yes his suits.  Don't think he'd have access to Wakada tech, so figure nanotech to his level too.

 

I will say, I thought her WF armor looked more anime inspired.

[Troo]

 

 

[battlewraith]

4 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Tony Stark selling weapons did not do anything criminal or illegal with his legitimate business. 

Then why did he stop? Why was it a major plot point in the series that he chose to shut down his arms division? 

The point is not that he couldn't legally do it. The point was that he recognized it was unethical. He could not guarantee that his weapons would not be used on innocent people and there was already a death toll associated with his business. That's the key word: business. That's the thing you're not getting. Someone like Justin Hammer is villainous in large part because they have no concern with the damage that they enable and encourage in the world as long as they can make profits and legally get away with it. Meanwhile Riri would be irredeemable for stealing a candy bar.

 

Stark continues to make weapons in the series, but it's no longer a business. That means he no longer has an implicit interest in seeing those weapons used to make the enterprise profitable. He also doesn't use political influence to direct governments towards military interventionism. If anything he's trying to undermine the justification for nations investing in defense contracting, with mixed results. 

 

The arguments that arms dealing is fine are basically this:

 

The arguments against amount to this:

Duvall's character thinks he's in the right. As an individual he even helps the woman and her child. But anyone who puts any thought into this scene, or that pointless war, understands that this guy probably had cooked hundreds of such women and children the same way. Dow certainly understood this and didn't care. And the use of napalm was eventually restricted when people ethically objected to it. 

[El D]

29 minutes ago, BrandX said:

Tony didn't commit any crimes.  Him making weapons, is not a crime.  Hell, Riri is wanting to make a weapon, with her own Ironman suit.  I say this as someone who hasn't hated on the show, just pointing out, she's making some terrible choices for a genius who has the world handed to her due to her intellect.  She can get a job and she can get funding.

 

'She can get a job' - that's not how Marvel characters work. Heck, that's not how comic book superheroes work with money in-general. They're either self-funded billionaires where money is of no consequence, government/secret society agents whose blatantly excessive funding is never actually addressed, have extraterrestrial or magical means to just ignore the issue (usually 'being an alien/wizard/alien wizard' is their job), or are constantly broke. Also, her having a job like that robs the show of its focus. It's the same core issue with the 'Batman would accomplish more if he invested his time and money in civic improvement and proper rehabilitation' argument. Sure it's the 'logical & real' choice, but the point is to watch him be Batman. Riri having to go through questionable means to acquire funding and resources after the legitimate paths are closed to her is both a practical means to get to her being Ironheart and a narrative means establish an on-going test of character. 'Our hero has a nice, well-paying job that allows them to safely moonlight as a gundam on weekends with no moral quandaries or ethical questions' does not possess nor allow for the same level of drama. Will she gain effective employment as an Avenger or with some other faction by the end of the series? Possibly, but that will be a result of her arc as a superhero, not as plot-miring starting point that prevents her from being one in the first place.

 

29 minutes ago, BrandX said:

My one thought tho, is them trying to say she's smarter than Tony, without her saying it and saying she won't rip on Tony.  She's copying Ironman's suit.  Hasn't made anything new like Tony, who invented a new element, the arc reactor (and a mini version out of a box of scraps in a cave), time travel and yes his suits.  Don't think he'd have access to Wakada tech, so figure nanotech to his level too.

 

Listing out the 10+ years of feature-length film progression and accomplishments against the brand new origin series is going to be one-sided, yes.

[BrandX]

27 minutes ago, El D said:

 

'She can get a job' - that's not how Marvel characters work. Heck, that's not how comic book superheroes work with money in-general. They're either self-funded billionaires where money is of no consequence, government/secret society agents whose blatantly excessive funding is never actually addressed, have extraterrestrial or magical means to just ignore the issue (usually 'being an alien/wizard/alien wizard' is their job), or are constantly broke. Also, her having a job like that robs the show of its focus. It's the same core issue with the 'Batman would accomplish more if he invested his time and money in civic improvement and proper rehabilitation' argument. Sure it's the 'logical & real' choice, but the point is to watch him be Batman. Riri having to go through questionable means to acquire funding and resources after the legitimate paths are closed to her is both a practical means to get to her being Ironheart and a narrative means establish an on-going test of character. 'Our hero has a nice, well-paying job that allows them to safely moonlight as a gundam on weekends with no moral quandaries or ethical questions' does not possess nor allow for the same level of drama. Will she gain effective employment as an Avenger or with some other faction by the end of the series? Possibly, but that will be a result of her arc as a superhero, not as plot-miring starting point that prevents her from being one in the first place.

 

 

Listing out the 10+ years of feature-length film progression and accomplishments against the brand new origin series is going to be one-sided, yes.

 

And not reading the rest.  She's done nothing to prove she's smarter than Tony, but they're having others say she's smarter than Tony.  She hasn't done anything to prove it, is the point.  However, they could, admittedly, be saying it to just boost her ego.

 

Riri going through questionable means to acquire funding and resources (which hasn't been closed to her, as we never see her even try to get into AIM, Stark Industries, Hammer Industries...etc  In fact, what she's doing is also the origin story of a lot of Spider-Man's rogue gallery.

 

I'm sure by episode 6, some how, she'll be redeemed.  However, that still doesn't mean "What was she thinking?" until that point.

[Excraft]

35 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Then why did he stop? Why was it a major plot point in the series that he chose to shut down his arms division? 

The point is not that he couldn't legally do it. The point was that he recognized it was unethical. He could not guarantee that his weapons would not be used on innocent people and there was already a death toll associated with his business.

 

I understood this just fine.  The issue you're either not seeing or willfully ignoring just to be argumentative is that none of what Tony Stark did was illegal.  Riri Williams turning to actually committing crimes is illegal.  Going by that alone, why aren't you criticizing her for not only committing actual crimes, but in doing so she's actually unethical?  To further another point, if she's half as smart as we keep getting reminded she is, she's certainly quite stupid from not learning from the mistakes others have already made.  

 

1 hour ago, BrandX said:

My one thought tho, is them trying to say she's smarter than Tony, without her saying it and saying she won't rip on Tony.  She's copying Ironman's suit.  Hasn't made anything new like Tony, who invented a new element, the arc reactor (and a mini version out of a box of scraps in a cave), time travel and yes his suits.  Don't think he'd have access to Wakada tech, so figure nanotech to his level too.

 

This doesn't seem right to me either.  We keep getting reminded how smart she is and how much smarter she is than Stark... but she needs "funding" to build her armor.  Well, as you pointed out, Stark built his first suit in a cave with barely any equipment out of scraps.  His billions that Riri is so envious of didn't mean anything to him in that cave and didn't help him at all.  So she's how smart again?  Can't she accomplish at least the same thing with scraps?

[ShardWarrior]

56 minutes ago, El D said:

Riri having to go through questionable means to acquire funding and resources after the legitimate paths are closed to her is both a practical means to get to her being Ironheart and a narrative means establish an on-going test of character.

 

None of which could have been accomplished by having her do any number of other things besides becoming a common criminal?  She is supposed to be a super genius.  Surely she can come up with other ways to obtain the funding she believes she needs other than crime?

 

It seems to me the writers were trying to go for the Robin Hood "steal from the rich, give to the poor" type theme, but it falls flat and does not work in my opinion.  

[battlewraith]

8 minutes ago, Excraft said:

I understood this just fine.  The issue you're either not seeing or willfully ignoring just to be argumentative is that none of what Tony Stark did was illegal.  Riri Williams turning to actually committing crimes is illegal.  Going by that alone, why aren't you criticizing her for not only committing actual crimes, but in doing so she's actually unethical?  To further another point, if she's half as smart as we keep getting reminded she is, she's certainly quite stupid from not learning from the mistakes others have already made.  

 

 

Note that you didn't answer the question. If what he did was legal--why did he stop selling arms? Why did they make such a big deal about it? The answer is simple: the writers saw his arms deals as incompatible with virtuous heroic behavior. His arc in the first film was to go from "Pa always did right for 'Murica" to "I need to take responsibility for my tech and keep it out of other people's hands." Legality is not synonymous with morality.

 

Is Riri ethical or right in her criming? No, but I don't see her as an irredeemable character. Particularly in regards to the mayhem to which Tony would've contributed.

 

If illegality is a dealbreaker for you and characters simply can't recover from that, I would like to introduce you to a character named Batman. Batman routinely violates laws that get in his way and has no intention of ever changing in that regard. 

[Excraft]

15 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Note that you didn't answer the question. If what he did was legal--why did he stop selling arms? Why did they make such a big deal about it?

 

Because he did not want the weapons he was creating to fall into the wrong hands.  He didn't stop because what he was doing was illegal, he did it because he saw innocent people were getting hurt by his weapons.  You're confusing morality and ethics with legality.  

 

17 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

His arc in the first film was to go from "Pa always did right for 'Murica" to "I need to take responsibility for my tech and keep it out of other people's hands."

 

And in doing so, to quote Obadiah Stane - 

Quote

"How ironic, Tony! Trying to rid the world of weapons, you gave it its best one ever!"  

 

 

18 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Is Riri ethical or right in her criming? No, but I don't see her as an irredeemable character.

 

I don't think anyone has suggested she's irredeemable.  At least to me, I just don't think having her go the route of being a common criminal to steal from others was a good idea.  That's all.

[ShardWarrior]

30 minutes ago, Excraft said:

I don't think anyone has suggested she's irredeemable.  At least to me, I just don't think having her go the route of being a common criminal to steal from others was a good idea.  That's all.

 

^ This exactly.  

[JKCarrier]

3 hours ago, BrandX said:

Tony didn't commit any crimes. 

Arguable. Tony's "privatized national defense" (e.g., going after the Ten Rings in Gulmira) probably violated a lot of laws. I think a case could be made that involving Peter Parker in Civil War constitutes child endangerment. Regardless, even if he didn't do anything illegal, he did many things that were very dumb and/or very immoral.

And hey, if breaking the law is your deal-breaker, around half of the Avengers were guilty of violating international law by defying the Sokovia Accords. A bunch of them even went to prison for it. They appear to have been quietly pardoned sometime during the five-year blip, but they knew they were breaking the law when they did it.

Quote

She can get a job and she can get funding.

So you keep saying, but I think you severely underestimate the money and resources it would take to create something like this. There's a reason why even really rich guys don't have the equivalent of an F-16 fighter jet parked in their backyard. We're talking billions here. An internship at Microsoft ain't gonna cover it. (Sure, Tony made a suit out of "a box of scraps" --  but it completely fell apart within minutes, similar to the difficulties we see RiRi having with her suit in episode 1).

Quote

She's copying Ironman's suit.  Hasn't made anything new like Tony

Not strictly true. RiRi's suit is very different from Tony's, since it runs on wind/solar power instead of an ARC reactor. There's also the Vibranium detector she came up with in "Wakanda Forever".

[BrandX]

3 hours ago, JKCarrier said:

Arguable. Tony's "privatized national defense" (e.g., going after the Ten Rings in Gulmira) probably violated a lot of laws. I think a case could be made that involving Peter Parker in Civil War constitutes child endangerment. Regardless, even if he didn't do anything illegal, he did many things that were very dumb and/or very immoral.

And hey, if breaking the law is your deal-breaker, around half of the Avengers were guilty of violating international law by defying the Sokovia Accords. A bunch of them even went to prison for it. They appear to have been quietly pardoned sometime during the five-year blip, but they knew they were breaking the law when they did it.

So you keep saying, but I think you severely underestimate the money and resources it would take to create something like this. There's a reason why even really rich guys don't have the equivalent of an F-16 fighter jet parked in their backyard. We're talking billions here. An internship at Microsoft ain't gonna cover it. (Sure, Tony made a suit out of "a box of scraps" --  but it completely fell apart within minutes, similar to the difficulties we see RiRi having with her suit in episode 1).

Not strictly true. RiRi's suit is very different from Tony's, since it runs on wind/solar power instead of an ARC reactor. There's also the Vibranium detector she came up with in "Wakanda Forever".

 

I think you're complaining to much about the breaking the law thing, as if people are attacking your favorite character (which, I'd wager she isn't...could be wrong, but odds I believe would be on my side).  

Yes, it does run on solar panels instead of the more powerful arc reactor.  But she can't invent an arc reactor.  And you're right, it would take billions, she's not looking to be stealing billions, but rather millions.

 

She could work for companies worth billions, I did mention Stark Industries.  I can't imagine they wouldn't want to hire her.

[JKCarrier]

2 hours ago, BrandX said:

I think you're complaining to much about the breaking the law thing,

I think you're complaining too much about the breaking the law thing. 

[BrandX]

10 hours ago, JKCarrier said:

I think you're complaining too much about the breaking the law thing. 

 

I wasn't complaining.  I was merely pointing out the flaw.  And as stated, her origin matches a lot of Spider-Man's villains.  It did make me want to see Spider-Man show up in her show tho.  To bad she's in Chicago and not New York.

[battlewraith]

11 hours ago, JKCarrier said:

I think you're complaining too much about the breaking the law thing.

 

The "why doesn't Riri have funding" objection reminds me of the people who didn't like the first Matrix movie and complained "Why didn't they just use cows?"

 

 

[Excraft]

2 hours ago, battlewraith said:

The "why doesn't Riri have funding" objection reminds me of the people who didn't like the first Matrix movie and complained "Why didn't they just use cows?"

 

Why didn't Thanos use the Infinity stones to create limitless self-replicating resources instead of wiping out half the population of the universe?   

 

Is there anything that people are allowed to question or criticize or dislike with this stuff?

[Excraft]

20 hours ago, JKCarrier said:

Regardless, even if he didn't do anything illegal, he did many things that were very dumb and/or very immoral.

 

There is a difference between illegal and immoral/dumb.

[ZacKing]

Looks like rumors were true.  

 

Spoiler

 

On 5/18/2025 at 1:33 AM, ZacKing said:

Rumor has it Sasha Baren Cohen is going to be Mephisto, and the Hood here is being controlled by him. 

https://www.superherohype.com/features/609164-ironheart-episodes-4-6-review-major-villain-reveal-cant-save-mcu-show

 

For those of you out there who are going to want to complain about this article, I'm just linking it because it discusses Mephisto being in the show, which is something I had read earlier.  I'm not including it deliberately because it's got a negative review of IronHeart.

 

 

[battlewraith]

7 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Is there anything that people are allowed to question or criticize or dislike with this stuff?

 

That's the whole point. These movies are inherently ridiculous. To see people fixate on one specific aspect of a plot as some sort of defeater is amusing, particularly in light of what has occurred in the other films.

 

14 minutes ago, Excraft said:

There is a difference between illegal and immoral/dumb.

 

Laws reflect societal interests, cultural mores, etc. at a point in time. Laws have permitted all kinds of atrocities over the course of human history. 

Treating the law as some sort of moral arbiter of behavior leads to all sorts of silliness.

 

You can root for people who were arms dealers, thieves, assassins, walking rage machines that are environmental hazards, etc. because they aren't breaking the law (which is doubtful). 

At the same time you can pinch your nose at some character that steals money in order to get their superpower going. 

[BrandX]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

 

That's the whole point. These movies are inherently ridiculous. To see people fixate on one specific aspect of a plot as some sort of defeater is amusing, particularly in light of what has occurred in the other films.

 

 

Laws reflect societal interests, cultural mores, etc. at a point in time. Laws have permitted all kinds of atrocities over the course of human history. 

Treating the law as some sort of moral arbiter of behavior leads to all sorts of silliness.

 

You can root for people who were arms dealers, thieves, assassins, walking rage machines that are environmental hazards, etc. because they aren't breaking the law (which is doubtful). 

At the same time you can pinch your nose at some character that steals money in order to get their superpower going. 

 

In that, she has the armor.  She wants the funding because she wants to mass produce them and people are just pointing out that she could've easily got funding.  The only thing that getting kicked out of college seems to have meant, is she might have less control on it's construction?  Maybe?  We never see her try and fail to get a corporate/government job to fund her.  We don't even see her try to go to another college.  MIT throws her out.  She goes home.  She takes up the first offer of crime thrown her way.

 

Also, people on forums will throw out flaws of movies all the time.  I think the difference that has some here upset is that some pointing out the flaws are also saying "This show sucks" and people want to disagree with that statement.

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

That's the whole point. These movies are inherently ridiculous. To see people fixate on one specific aspect of a plot as some sort of defeater is amusing, particularly in light of what has occurred in the other films.

 

You didn't answer the question.  Is there anything that people are allowed to question or criticize or dislike with this stuff?

 

4 minutes ago, BrandX said:

Also, people on forums will throw out flaws of movies all the time.  I think the difference that has some here upset is that some pointing out the flaws are also saying "This show sucks" and people want to disagree with that statement.

 

Exactly this.  It seems more and more people are too fragile to have their opinions challenged.  For me, I just found parts of the story poorly contrived and would've liked to have seen something better.  That's all.  I'm not saying the entire series sucks or the actress sucks or anything of the sort.  Unfortunately, that gets treated like bashing here by a select few.

 

6 minutes ago, BrandX said:

In that, she has the armor.  She wants the funding because she wants to mass produce them and people are just pointing out that she could've easily got funding.  The only thing that getting kicked out of college seems to have meant, is she might have less control on it's construction?  Maybe?  We never see her try and fail to get a corporate/government job to fund her.  We don't even see her try to go to another college.  MIT throws her out.  She goes home.  She takes up the first offer of crime thrown her way.

 

Her turning to crime is really the only objection I have and would've liked to have seen something different.  Tony Stark built his first arc reactor and armor out of scraps with almost no tools.  Peter Parker built stuff by dumpster diving and using his school chemistry set.  Riri Williams - who we've been told over and over is smarter than all of them - can't at least do the same?  Crime was her only alternative?  

[JKCarrier]

4 hours ago, Excraft said:

There is a difference between illegal and immoral/dumb.

I'm aware. But tell it to @BrandX, who kept trying to argue that breaking the law is the only thing a character should ever be criticized for or feel guilty about. And once I pointed out that most of the Avengers have indeed broken the law at some point, they were suddenly no longer interested in discussing the law. 😁

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, BrandX said:

In that, she has the armor.  She wants the funding because she wants to mass produce them and people are just pointing out that she could've easily got funding.  The only thing that getting kicked out of college seems to have meant, is she might have less control on it's construction?  Maybe?  We never see her try and fail to get a corporate/government job to fund her.  We don't even see her try to go to another college.  MIT throws her out.  She goes home.  She takes up the first offer of crime thrown her way.

 

This has already been commented on. Corporations, governments, institutions, etc. don't fund you to do what you want. They fund you to serve their own interests. You would get a paycheck and access to a lab. There would be layers of oversight and supervision and she would not own the technology she was making. I don't know why this point isn't sticking with people. You could have some eccentric billionaire show up and throw money at her for some vague reason but I don't think that would be an improvement. People are irritated that she gets involved in crime--at least it's not cliche. 

 

If your university throws you out, you don't just show up at another one. You have to go through the admission process somewhere else, which could be difficult if you got thrown out of a prestigious program. You're going to go home unless you're wealthy and can afford to live elsewhere. 

 

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

You didn't answer the question.  Is there anything that people are allowed to question or criticize or dislike with this stuff?

 

 What people are allowed to say is up to the mods. If you don't want people pushing back on your ideas, stop quoting them. Or say something like "this is just how I feel don't argue with me about it." Something like that. 🙂