That is disappointing, if not terribly surprising. As I understand it, Fi-Core means for all intents and purposes leaving the guild. He can't abandon it altogether and still must pay basic dues, but he's no longer bound by the guild's limitations--he can work for guild signatories and nonunion shops. More importantly, he can go back to work right now. As you point out, Greg, that pretty much makes him a scab. (I'm not sure which part of that he learned from superheroes, though.)

As for his work, I liked Undercover Brother, too, and Three Kings was a pretty spiffy movie. I haven't been as impressed with his comics work, though. Given this news, I'm not sure I'm interested in seeing any more of it.

I'm not sure which part of that he learned from superheroes, though.

My title was bitterly ironic. But also, Ridley's superhero work pretty clearly indicates that he's not an idealist. Those Who Walk in Darkness considers all super-characters the enemies of society; The American Way is a bog-standard example of superheroes as insincere tools.

So, really, it's not all that surprising. I see superheroes and I see selflessness and standing up for the little guy and striving to be better than you are. Ridley sees superheroes and sees hypocrisy in service of the status quo and elitism, I guess.

My title was bitterly ironic.

I assumed as much, but these days it's hard to tell. I'd imagine that the current characterization of Tony Stark wouldn't have a problem with strikebreaking, for example.

Do you think Stark is being written as morally ambiguous-to-evil deliberately, in an attempt at a sophisticated, structured "literature of ethics" approach to the modern superhero story? Or is he being written morally ambiguous-to-evil because this country is ridiculously polarized and propagandized and his writers and editors are simply unaware how his actions look to the reality-based half of the country?

I heard Ridley about week 2 or 3 into the strike on NPR basically hinting that he would go this way. At the time he stood with his peers but he was leaning so far off base that it seemed clear to me he would steal.

THREE KINGS was not his movie, just to set the record straight. He had a script about soldiers who go after Saddam's gold but it was re-written from the ground up by David O. Russel and only after a lawsuit (I believe) did Ridley get story credit. Still, good idea and I think Russel nailed it.

The link had an interesting response attached to it from a guy comparing this to George Lucas and his bid to leave the Guild when their rules got in the way of how he wanted to do his movies (essentially the most expensive set of independent pictures ever put to film). They pointed out that Ridley is currently working with Lucas on his Tuskegee Airman movie so may have been influenced to some degree on this direction (meaning: it didn't hurt George to leave the guild, why would it hurt Ridley?). I think I liked George's reason to leave more than Ridley's, though.

On a comparison, I also agreed with Robert Rodriquez's reason to leave the Director's Guild when they refused to recognize co-directors (with SIN CITY). This was a stupid Guild rule that benefits no one and so he left (as I assume the Wachowski's or Coen's had to do, at some point).

I think Ridley's a scab leaving for the wrong reasons and, personally, I hope he gets whats coming after this deal is made. I mean, I assume the studios are going to eventually realize the internet exists and is a viable form to sell their works, right?

fil, I'd guess that it was WGA arbitration that won Ridley story credit. I believe it's mandatory and binding when there's a dispute, or when a producer claims a writing credit.

The DGA's rule against co-credit is pretty dopey, but it's the closest to auteur theory they can get in America; the writers won that little dispute. IIRC, one of the Coens is listed as producer, one as director. Not sure what the Wachowskis do.

The studios are busy telling the business community and their investors that the internet is going to be their next cash cow. That's exactly why they're working so hard to screw the guilds over the net, and why the guilds are so opposed; a shitty internet residual deal will kill residuals forever!

I noticed that on LADYKILLERS the Coen brothers both got director credits, so I think that particular DGA rule was changed at some point. I'm not sure, but I think the Wachowskis got the shared credit because their movies were made outside the US.

Greg(#4): I'd love to think that your first possibility is correct, but I fear the true answer is much closer to the second. I'll preface this by saying I dropped Iron Man some time ago, so I can't speak specifically to Tony Stark's character at the moment, but I think his handling is indicative of comics writing in general today. The ideas in today's stories are only an inch deep, and no one seems to be thinking through the implication very far.

I have little or no faith that the creators have command enough of their craft to know what they're doing. We've had too many instances of potentially intriguing premises being bungled. I went through the first issue of Identity Crisis waiting for some clever twist that would prove the heavy-handed treatment of threats against Sue Dibny to have been misdirection, but that twist never came. Instead, Sue's death became even more heavy-handed than I'd expected, and the miniseries went downhill from there. Civil War had potential, but instead of exploring issues, it just presented out-of-character heroes moving through a series of contrivances that ended when Cap gave up for no good reason. (Cap would never believe in simple majority rules--when the majority is wrong, he'll work to change opinion, not just give in to the mob wisdom.)

As to the original question, even though I'm not reading Iron Man, I'm going to answer it anyway. I don't think Stark is deliberately being written as morally ambiguous-to-evil. I do think he's being written as a neocon hero. For me, that raises moral problems, but if Marvel is aware of those problems, they've shown no indication of it so far.

Per Slate:

Why couldn't Rodriguez bring in a co-director? The guild has stuck to a one-director-per-film policy since 1978, to keep producers and stars from demanding "gift credits." Exceptions are made under special circumstances: The guild recognizes "bona fide directing teams," like the Coen brothers, the Farrelly brothers, and the Wachowski brothers; and the policy can be waived for directors on films with multiple languages or stories. Rodriguez was unable to get a waiver for Frank Miller, who had never directed a movie before, so he quit the guild.

One interesting thing I hadn't known -- Rodriguez had intended to follow-up Sin City with an adaptation of John Carter of Mars. However, since Carter was a Paramount production and Paramount is a signatory to the DGA agreement, Rodriguez had to drop out of the project when he quit the guild.

I wonder whether Rodriguez's decision had any bearing on Miller's relationship with the DGA. He's currently directing The Spirit. Is he a DGA member, or does the directing credit on Sin City disqualify him for membership?