[Quora Answer] Tony Stark vs Bruce Wayne (Compare and Contrast)

I swear I occasionally write about things that aren't comic books. Trust me. It happens. Very, very rarely, but it does happen.

Some spoilers for Avengers: Infinity War ahead.

See more of my content on Quora.

Is Iron Man Now a More Depressing Character than Batman?

While Tony’s certainly lost a lot (his parents, his mentor figure, the closest thing he had to a son, etc), he still has had a much better support network than Batman tends to have. Tony’s closer to the remaining members of the Avengers than Batman tends to be to the Justice League, or even the Bat Family.

Now, as of Infinity War, you could make an argument either way. I think a lot of it will revolve around how Tony reacts to these losses. Typically, when Tony loses something, he attempts to fix things, not break things.

This could be pretty important, because Batman, as we’ve seen, tends to deal with loss by punching it away.

He’s got a lot more anger in his system than Tony’s really ever had (with the possible exception of that one scene in Civil War). While Batman focuses on destroying and intimidating the criminal element in Gotham, Tony tends to focus on building suits, designing drones, AI, armor, support equipment, what have you. Batman needs to take out his anger and guilt issues on the criminal element. Tony needs to atone for his mistakes by building something better.

With Spider-Man, we see this take another form. He essentially views Peter Parker as his next project, as well as a surrogate son. He wants to make Peter a better version of himself, so Peter won’t make the same mistake, but also so that Peter will be able to do the job better than Tony ever could.

Batman cannot rest as long as there is crime, because he feels he is needed. Tony is trying to create a world where he, himself, is no longer needed.

With Peter gone, Tony could very well sink into a mire of depression and misery.

Or.

He could try to fix things.

Build something better.

Make it so no one will ever have to go through what he just endured.

Batman’s character is, to a certain extent, based around pessimism. Batman can’t really win. Not finally. He can’t rest or retire. It’s heavily implied that Batman is a destructive force, not only to crime in Gotham, but to Bruce Wayne as well, and everyone he cares about. Because Batman is working out his anger and guilt on all the individual petty criminals in his path, as well as the supervillains. And each act of violence he commits tends to create or inspire a new antagonist. Most of Batman’s villains exist because of Batman’s own obsessions. He essentially creates his own monsters. And so the cycle continues.

While Tony has created his own fair share of monsters, I think he’s got a hopeful streak that Bruce never really had. He believes he can make something better, so long as he just keeps trying.

As long as he keeps trying in Avengers 4, I don’t think Tony will ever be quite as depressing as Batman. Because Batman knows he’s going to die alone, having either driven away or ruined the lives of the people that he cares about. But Iron Man truly believes he can fix anything.

[Quora Answer] Vision's Powers in Infinity War

Another day, another Quora answer in place of an actual post. This one has some spoilers for Avengers: Infinity War, so read at your own risk.

Spoilers...

Seriously, don't even read the title if you haven't seen the movie.

See more of my content on Quora.

Why Do Vision's Powers Fluctuate in Infinity War?

I believe the in-universe answer is that Corvus Glaive’s…well…glaive, was designed to pierce anything. The glaive “disrupts my phasing” he says. Since Vision’s powers mostly revolve around “hardening” or “softening” his body, the glaive effectively makes the bulk of Vision’s abilities unreliable at best. He’s still got the space laser thing going for him, but that’s pretty much always had a slightcollateral damage issue.

In a crowded city, like at the beginning, he probably didn’t want to risk it, even at the cost of his own life, until it was absolutely necessary.

Most likely, Corvus’s attempts to remove the stone directly with his glaive interfered even with that. I’m guessing Thanos didn’t send Corvus specifically after Vision just because he thought it would be a fun match-up. Pretty much all the Children of Thanos have some sort of advantage during their initial showing. Maw can hold his own against Strange. Corvus can overpower Vision.

Towards the end of the movie, Vision seems like he still hasn’t fully recovered from Corvus’s attack on him. He acts like he’s injured pretty consistently. It’s also possible, too, that whatever Shuri was doing to attempt to remove the stone from him was also weakening him, as it effectively would involve slowly cutting off his access to the source of his powers.

The out-of-universe reason is that Vision and Wanda needed to be in danger, and Thanos and the Children of Thanos needed to seem like a credible threat. Hard to threaten a guy who can make himself intangible at will. So give Corvus the ability to cancel out that power.

Problem solved.

[SPOILER TALK] Incredibles 2 - How I Would Have Handled Screenslaver

Just for fun, I started thinking of how I would have handled Screenslaver in Incredibles 2. This is just a fun thought-experiment, because I felt there was more potential to this villain than we wound up seeing. I'm nowhere near as good a storyteller as Brad Bird is, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

Mostly I just really like playing around with villains, and this is a thinly veiled excuse for me to do so, disguised as some sort of critique.

Also, as the title suggests, spoilers ahead. Don't read this if you haven't seen the movie and don't want some twists spoiled for you.

...

Are they gone?

Okay, we can continue.

How They Did It

Now, The Incredibles 2 does some fun stuff with Screenslaver, but I felt like they could have done more if they went in a slightly different direction.

In the movie, Screenslaver hypnotizes people through screens, and even has a pair of goggles that can hypnotize people, so long as the goggles are on. If the screens or the goggles are broken, then Screenslaver's control is broken.

Secretly, Screenslaver is a hypnotized pizza delivery guy, being controlled by Evelyn Deavor (she literally has Evil Endeavor in her name, by the way, which as foreshadowing goes is just shy of putting up neon signs) for the purpose of making the supers illegal forever. She wants to destroy Supers because her father was killed, though he relied on Supers coming to save him.

How I Would Have Done It

Depending on what you want, you could have Evelyn or Winston turn out to be Screenslaver in my version. Personally, I'd like Winston to be the face, because that's what he does, and Evelyn to be the support, effectively making them both Screenslaver. Like the Parr family plotline revolving around how they're stronger together, you could have Winston and Evelyn be a powerful villain, but only when they're working in concert. Their motives are aligned, and neither of them can truly be effective without the other. Winston is enough of a geek to know the weak points of various heroes, and also understands human psychology well enough to be able to sell them on anything, while Evelyn is the mind behind all the tech.

Hypnotism still works through screens and goggles, providing an instant override of another person's mind. However, hypnotism works more like it does in real life, where responses and behaviors can be programmed into a person's mind, even after the hypnotism has concluded. Breaking the glasses and the screens disrupts direct control, but programmed responses still remain.

Why this change? One, it means that the problem of hypnotism isn't easily resolved. Two, it works into this new Screenslaver's master plan.

See, bitterness against superheroes is kind of bland, I think. We've already basically seen that done much more thoroughly in Captain America: Civil War. So part of my idea is a villain overhaul, an overhaul that will, hopefully, tie all the plot threads of The Incredibles 2 together in a much more satisfying way.

I'd write Screenslaver's motives as being to make sure Supers succeed. Not to take their place or supplant them like Syndrome wanted, but to make sure all Supers everywhere succeeded, became popular, became...well, marketable. With screen-based hypnotism, and a very public face of villainy, the Deavor siblings could effectively generate their own conflicts, creating the threats and then dispatching heroes to deal with those threats, all while serving as the main advocates for the supers, the only ones willing to give them a break when no one else would. A lot of power and influence would come with that. But on top of it, it gives the supers brand recognition.

The main thing we're told about Winston is that he can sell just about anything. Whatever he gets his hands on, he markets. Later in the movie, we see the Incredibile (really should have been Incredicar, just saying) in some rich guy's living room. Bob gets really upset, noting that he was told the car was destroyed, but this guy was able to buy it anyway. As it is, this is mainly used as comic relief, as well as a way to get the kids out of a messy situation later. The car is little more than a plot device.

But what if the car was on the market for a reason? What if Bob being told the car was beyond all repair actually had bearing on the plot? What if this reveal leads to someone (say Dash, he needs more to do) discovering that superhero paraphernalia is being auctioned off at insane prices. In the wake of Supers being declared illegal years before, surely all those devices and vehicles and gadgets wouldn't have been something people wanted to keep around. So Winston was able to snatch them up for pennies. Maybe he believed that Supers would come back on their own, but now he's realized he needs to take a little initiative. In the wake of Syndrome's attack, the time is perfect for Supers to make a comeback.

Whereas Syndrome did what he did for status and revenge, and Evelyn in the movie did things out of bitterness, this new Screenslaver does everything for gain, for profit, effectively, for merchandising.

This would put the Incredibles into conflict with someone who, effectively, is trying to use Supers for financial gain, effectively generating superpowered battles for popularity, merchandise, maybe even good TV somewhere down the line. Rather than someone who is trying to destroy what the Incredibles stand for, you have someone who is trying to give them everything they want, pre-packaged, but working with them would potentially corrupt the very idea of superheroes.

If behaviors programmed into people during hypnosis stick around, then they can effectively use TV coverage of heroes to program their audiences into buying more merchandise, maybe even program troublesome supers into going along with it. Effectively, it makes Screenslaver less about destruction and more about gaming the market. Less about a somewhat transparent "let's discredit heroes by having them robotically state their intention to turn evil while wearing these mysterious goggles that are identical to the ones on the supervillain that controls minds" plot, and more about manipulation, subtlety, ruthlessness.

I feel like that kind of villain could have been truly interesting, if done correctly. And when the Incredibles start to unravel Screenslaver's plot, the screens could then be used to turn everyone against them. Not just the people wearing the goggles or watching the videos at that moment, but everyone.

This would grant the Incredibles a chance to choose:

Go along with Screenslaver's plan, amass fame and fortune, be beloved by everyone...

Or be hated and hunted by the very people you're trying to protect, all in the name of doing what's right.

There's a line that Rick Dicker says early in the movie. "People in power don't understand people like you, people that do good just because it's the right thing to do." This line could have come back, even been the driving theme of the movie. The Incredibles would have to deal with real consequences for their actions, they'd have a choice to be heroes, or to become a part of the evil plan, and see exactly what the consequences of that choice would be. Effectively, they'd have a chance to prove that they're the sort of people who do good, simply because it's right. It doesn't gain them anything. In theory, they could lose everything they have. The fancy house Winston gave them, the cushy life, the adoration of the public, the middle-class existence they've grown used to...they could lose all of it. But they choose to do what's right anyway.

And Winston and Evelyn Deavor are powerful people. They could very well think that Supers are just trying to get ahead. Towards the beginning of the movie, they're effectively able to buy Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl, and Frozone. The only real weakness Screenslaver would have in this version, is what Agent Dicker said.

Not everyone is in it for the reward or the money. Some people do good solely because it's the right thing to do. That's not something Screenslaver would understand.

Anyway, that's just me playing around with the concept of Screenslaver. What do y'all think? How would you guys handle a villain like that, given the chance?