Tony doesn't necessarily win me ove. I'm okay with Tony:I accept his character. He provides a form of entertainment, but I do not consider myself "won". I'm the idealist. I'm the man who wears Superman shirts under my button-up clothes every day and roots for Captain America to look cooler than Iron Man when they share the same movie. Nevertheless, I see his necessity, as in most hero teams the two most consistent archetypes are the Hero and the Lancer, even outside of traditional five-man bands. I appreciate him as a foil for Steve, and Steve as a foil for him. Hopefully they will help each other to grow.

Meanwhile, on another of my little thoughts about comics lately has been the redefinition of the word "hero". You see Tony Stark as an anti-hero. I do, too. Yet, what was once thought by most people to be an antihero is now what most people call a hero, and now people tend to think of antiheroes to be of the neutral allignment. That's not necessarily how I see things. I see Iron Man as an antihero, and frankly I could say the same for Batman. I think of Captain America, Spiderman, and Superman to be heroes. Nowadays, within the world of comic books people have come to take on a more Greek definition of a hero: to fit the title, one simply has to be a gifted champion and use their gifts to defeat villains. I see Batman as a champion in a fight against corruption, and Iron Man as a champion for taking out figures who gain access to dangerous technologies, but I still label them as antiheroes instead of superheroes.

Kraggh, the entire concept of the antihero is a hero who isn't all "Truth, Justice, and the American Way," often being a hero who is willing to use tactics formerly seen as villainous, underhanded, unhonorable, or dishonest, or as someone who exists as a hero and villain simultaneously. A superhero, on the other hand, is a hero with powers beyond the norm, like Superman, like Spiderman, like Iron Man, like Batman, like the Michelin Man, unlike Greymond Mann.

Some heroes aren't superheros. Jim Gordon, for example. Some antiheroes aren't superheroes, like the Punisher. But to say an antihero like Deadpool, or Wolverine, or Batman isn't a superhero is a flagrant error.

To imply that a superhero cannot also be an antihero is to imply that a cube cannot also be orange.

Another thing: Greek heroes aren't really the same heroes we call heroes today. Odysseus pillaged and plunder and killed and so on mostly for the lulz. I'm using hero here as Xaeraz defined it (and yeah, superhero ≠ hero).

I think you can be a bit too charitable toward The Avengers. For example, I thought Captain America was totally boring and lacking character.

~B~

Just remember Ballom, you brought this on yourself:

When we first meet Captain America we're introduced to him as a man seventy years out of time. We see he's a soldier and we see that he sacrificed himself. Furthermore, through his talks with Nick we find out he's feeling disconnected with the world and where it's gone. He's saddened by what winning WWII cost the world.

Later, when he's talking with Coulson, he asks if his costume (and by that what he stood for and who he is) is old fashioned. He doesn't belong. He feels that others don't think he belongs.

Upon arriving on the Helicarrier, he greets Natasha as m'am (she just says hey). This reinforces our idea as him as a bit old-fashioned but also he's a gentleman. This is further reinforced by him shielding her later in the movie when the first Leviathan explodes.

In that same scene, his dialogue with Bruce is critical. He sees him as a scientist first, monster unimportant. This tell us, again, that he seeks the best in people. He's not manipulative, he's earnest and will try to help.

When speaking to Loki in Germany, we see his idealism again. Defending the old man and all that.

But he's not all ideals and fluff. On the helicarrier, again, during the round table discussion he exclaims that he understands Fury's reference to The Wizard of Oz. What does this tell us? He's eager to fit in, to belong again.

Another scene when we really come to know him is when he's arguing with Tony and the others. Steve believes in self-sacrifice, Tony self-servitude. Furthermore we find that Steve is idealistic, but not stupid.

After Loki escapes, Steve and Tony have another argument. This one drives home the fact that Steve is a soldier, he's a man of war. That is how he deals with losing Coulson.

Finally, during the complex, it's Cap who thinks to make sure nothing happens to the civilians. Again, he's not just concerned with winning the battle, but with minimizing casualties too.

And that's just within The Avengers. Need I go into his solo movie too?

Some of what you mentioned is more of a backstory than actual character traits, such as his being out of place. Other than that, I guess my statement was worded badly. Yes, he does have character, but a self-sacrificing idealistic soldier interesting in saving lives is something that's common and boring. I suppose what I objected to was more your statement that he's interesting than that he has character.

Also, his characterization in his movie was pretty much the same as in The Avengers, as far as I remember.

~B~

Granted, but it's the self-sacrificing-idealistic-soldier in the context of others who are not that makes him stand out. That and he's not stupid. Which, yeah, is crucial. Basically he's a fleshed out self-sacrificing-idealistic-soldier, which was my point of the original post. =P

It was the same, yes. I bring it up because there are more character moments and we see a few more glimpses into him (eg: his response to Bucky's death is an attempt to drown his sorrows. So he's good, but not straight edge, haha).