As long as the character I'm reading bears a close family resemblence (to
borrow a term from Wittgenstein) to the same character historically*,
they're being written well, and there's an attempt to maintain the illusion
of continuity**, I'm usually kept happy.
I actually like the idea of flawed obsessional Reed (1234 anyone?) who is
capable of ignoring his family (the FF), even endangering them, if something
punches his buttons. Not because he loves his work more than them, but
because he is blinded by his own enthusiasms. That's the price he pays for his epic genius. IMO, that's a character with a lot of dramatic potential.
In Tony's case we have Millar riffing on Ellis's utopian reading of the
character. A man convinced that world is changing whether he likes it or
not, but equally convinced that, given the right tools, he can sculpt that
change to fit his vision of a better world. As for going up against Cap,
firstly it's not clear that he intends to do that, at least it's not clear
that he intends to do that with his fists. Secondly, history is littered
with examples of old relationships torn asunder by ideals.
Now, that said, I like some of the characterisation thus far (I say "some" because sociopath Cap also has me worried), whether I'll continue to like it is another question entirely. Millar being Millar, I suspect he won't know where to draw the line with any of the major players, and they'll all come out stinking of shit. Which would be a shame, because I think there's some real fun to be had here.
*Bear in mind I am of the opinion that the personalities of ongoing
characters are better viewed as heterogenous resource pools than homogenous
entities. For example, you have Morrison's take on Reed, and Straswooski's
take, and Kirby's take, etc...
**I don't particularly mind if it's a half hearted attempt if the
story is good enough to justify treading on history's toes |
