Iron Man 3 Discussion Thread

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
1. So, it's a major issue that the door to the vault with all of the armors couldn't open until the end of the movie after the cranes had removed a lot of the rubble? So, would it be better if they all busted out immediately, and defeated the bad guys 30 minutes into the movie?

4. So arc reactors are ever sustaining and never run out of power?

So his brand new arc reactor, which was supposed to be a sustaining upgraded power source is now no longer able to power his suits??? Instead we are supposed to believe he charges everything with a portable car battery charger?? The arc reactor was important, not only because it was the only thing keeping him alive but because it was the power source for the suits!!! In this one its nothing more then an accessory on his chest, because it fit the stupid ending in which they
remove it completely
with no rational explanation on why all of a sudden it could be taken out. We are left to infer that he injected himself with the super soldier crap but they don't even have the ***** to tell/show us.

If the arc reactor was out of power, as u suggest, he would have been dead as the shrapnel would have pierced his heart!!! We shouldn't have to explain the filmmakers stupidity anyway. No matter how u try to explain it, they dropped the ball marginalizing the importance of the arc reactor
 
Last edited:
I wonder if people are going to cry and complain when Iron Man and Cap don't show up in Thor II or when Thor and Iron Man don't show up in Cap II, etc. etc. I guarantee you Stark won't be.


It's literally damned if you do, damned if you don't. If Cap, Thor or Hulk popped up in this one just to say hi, or help with a few "pew, pews", people would complain about it, say it was forced. Now, it just focuses on Iron Man/Tony Stark and people still aren't having it saying it doesn't make sense. Whatever. How do you guys know the events of Thor II: The Dark World and Captain America: Winter Soldier aren't happening simultaneously with this film? How can Thor or Cap help when they're dealing with their own problems?


Wasn't the mention of New York, Stark's PTSD or the flashbacks of the worm hole enough? It's called "IRON MAN 3" not, "Avengers 2/4 assembled".

I guess it does make sense to have superheros first be capable of dealing with problems on their own before asking for help.

What good is a hero that needs assistance every single time.

Then again, superhero Potts did save his *** at the end, just throw a costume on her now, get her onto the team and call it a day.

Stark also needed Rhodey's help as well.

So help was there, just not D Avengers.

Wait until after the JL movie, everyone will be complaining that Batman should've just called Superman. :slap
 
So his brand new arc reactor, which was supposed to be a sustaining upgraded power source is now no longer able to power his suits??? Instead we are supposed to believe he charges everything with a portable car battery charger?? The arc reactor was important, not only because it was the only thing keeping him alive but because it was the power source for the suits!!! In this one its nothing more then an accessory on his chest, because it fit the stupid ending in which they
remove it completely
with no rational explanation on why all of a sudden it could be taken out. We are left to infer that he injected himself with the super soldier crap but they don't even have the ***** to tell/show us.

If the arc reactor was out of power, as u suggest, he would have been dead as the shrapnel would have pierced his heart!!! We shouldn't have to explain the filmmakers stupidity anyway. No matter how u try to explain it, they dropped the ball marginalizing the importance of the arc reactor

So the extremis juice replaced the new clean and super powerful paladium he created in IM2?

I'm so freaking confused. :lol
 
I think it was said in the first movie that the first arc reactor Tony created in the cave could power him for 50 years, so the upgraded one was probably much longer.
 
I only hope that it will not be quoted in any future MCU movies and ppl will stop taking it seriously due to post-credit scene.
For me it was just Stark's silly rambling fantasy and nothing more.
 
I agreed that there was no reason why Tony couldn't have powered the MK42 from his arc reactor. Also didn't like that the new suits kept falling apart the first hit they took, albeit some of the time they were empty shells. I guess quantity can't beat quality.
 
I guess it does make sense to have superheros first be capable of dealing with problems on their own before asking for help.

What good is a hero that needs assistance every single time.

Then again, superhero Potts did save his *** at the end, just throw a costume on her now, get her onto the team and call it a day.

Stark also needed Rhodey's help as well.

So help was there, just not D Avengers.

Wait until after the JL movie, everyone will be complaining that Batman should've just called Superman. :slap





Imagine the outrage if Cap or Thor came crashing in last minute to save Stark instead of Pepper.


Or Hulk crashing in last minute to save Batman from Bane on the Batpod, er, wait.
 
Imagine the outrage if Cap or Thor came crashing in last minute to save Stark instead of Pepper.


Or Hulk crashing in last minute to save Batman from Bane on the Batpod, er, wait.

Hmmm.... Outrage or simply "That's awesome!"? I was hoping at the end of TDKR that Superman And GL would have came and saved his a as! Thus leading into JLA...Oh well:dunno
 
Like it or hate it, I think we can all agree IM3 was ballsy. Personally, I prefer ballsy writing to playing it safe. YMMV :dunno

When Iron Man does it, it's "ballsy". When Indiana Jones does it it's "nuking the fridge" and "raping childhoods". Got it.
 
This also reminds me how I didn't like...

The cop out that' he is a smart guys and just cures her of the Extremis'. Why couldn't she just have kept it? That would have been a pretty good plot point moving forward.

Why did they just cure Tony of his shrapnel too? Why did they throw that in there? Definitely out of left field.

I think the arc reactor thing and how it works was poorly handled from the start. All it did was act as an electromagnet to keep the shrapnel from slowly reaching his heart. Then they make it seem like it powers his heart. If he took it out, he wouldn't feeling anything happening until it just suddenly killed him sometime down the road. Why didn't he hook up the car battery again in IM2 when he was getting Palladium poisoning?
 
At least he wasn't some guy in a suit, a bigger suit than IM and WM, of course.
 
Man, you guys just need every little detail to be explained in the movie.....And I still haven't seen anyone bother to ask

How the heck did they get the President in the IP suit off of Air Force One in mid flight, and how did the Mk 42 suit get on board mid flight?

This stuff would drive you mad if you let it.

As for the Mk 42 being powered by the arc reactor
Maybe the suit itself required charging in addition to the power from the arc reactor? After all, each individual piece obviously had to have some sort of individual power source and onboard computer.
 
The question "where are the rest of the Avengers?" is going to be Marvel's biggest struggle now. Once you bring them all together you're gong to have to explain why they aren't there for each other in the solo films. I get that Thor is up in the sky with his own issues. But Banner and Cap should have been there. The after credit scene only further proves that. He can show up and sleep on Tony's couch but doesn't have the time to smash some things with him?

And you're telling me SHIELD wasn't anywhere to be found when the President was being attacked? Yeah, I don't buy that - especially after SHIELD's heavy involvement in Iron Man 1 and 2. The lack of Fury in this film was more distracting than the inclusion of Fury in Iron Man 2. Winter Soldier better take place during the same time as Iron Man 3 just so they have a good reason for Cap and SHIELD's absence. Otherwise this is going to be a constant struggle for them.

If they did this then there'd be no solo movies just Avenger movies. Easiest way to settle this is stop the sequels and just do Avengers movies to tell these characters stories.

The only one that should've been around was Cap I think. Or just a small cameo. They tried so hard to build this universe. It almost feels real, they should've tried to show that life went on for the other Avengers as well. I mean just a little

Thats what Caps movie is for ;)

Argh, all these questions will be burning through our brains until Cap2 comes out (or possibly later, until Avengers 2) and I have a feeling they will be handled it very poorly.

It simply does not make sense for SHIELD not to be present at this movie. They could spare a bunch of Agents during the events of IM2 but not now that things are 100 times worse they are no where to be seen?

They will be answered in AV2, with a few instances of one line fob-offs that contradict the established events :lol
 
Man, you guys just need every little detail to be explained in the movie.....And I still haven't seen anyone bother to ask

How the heck did they get the President in the IP suit off of Air Force One in mid flight, and how did the Mk 42 suit get on board mid flight?

This stuff would drive you mad if you let it.

As for the Mk 42 being powered by the arc reactor
Maybe the suit itself required charging in addition to the power from the arc reactor? After all, each individual piece obviously had to have some sort of individual power source and onboard computer.

I just assumed the suits parts charged in a circuit while connected together and on a power source (ie, Tony's arc or while in storage)
 
Box Office Mojo:

Kicking off the Summer movie season this weekend, Iron Man 3 lived up to sky-high expectations with an estimated $175.3 million haul. That ranks second all-time behind last year's The Avengers ($207.4 million), and is way up on the previous Iron Man outings. The movie also continues to do phenomenal business overseas, and is on its way to earning well over $1 billion worldwide.

Iron Man 3's $175.3 million debut is a huge leap over Iron Man 2's $128.1 million. That's a remarkable achievement given the dodgy history of three-quels—nearly all of them decline from their predecessor—and Iron Man 2's questionable reputation. The main reason for this is simple: audiences viewed Iron Man 3 more as follow-up to The Avengers, which is almost universally beloved, than as a sequel to Iron Man 2.

The Avengers was a cultural phenomenon, though, and it took an exceptional marketing effort from Disney to retain so much of that movie's audience. The centerpiece of the campaign was the destruction of Stark's Malibu home, which managed to up the personal stakes while also showcasing some impressive action. The marketing also emphasized Stark's conflict with the elusive Mandarin, which is typically a good strategy with superhero movies (a hero is most interesting when juxtaposed against a strong villain). Add in a marketplace devoid of competition, and this was a perfect recipe for a blockbuster opening.

It's worth noting that the other Avengers follow-ups (Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: The Winter Soldier) aren't going to earn anywhere close to this—from a box office perspective, Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Tony Stark/Iron Man is the cornerstone of the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the entries that don't feature him are going to gross noticeably less.

Compared to The Avengers, Iron Man 3's audience skewed a bit older (55 percent over 25, compared to 50 percent) but was about even gender-wise (61 percent male vs. 60 percent). 3D ticket sales accounted for 45 percent of the weekend, which is noticeably lower than The Avengers (52 percent). Thanks to an increased screen count, though, Iron Man 3's $16.5 million IMAX haul was a slight improvement on The Avengers.

While some fanboys aren't thrilled about the movie's twists, general audiences dug it, giving it an "A" CinemaScore. From here on out, if Iron Man 3 performs like Iron Man 2 it will close with $427 million; if it holds up like The Avengers, though, it could earn over $500 million. While word-of-mouth will be more Avengers and less Iron Man 2, a particularly competitive May could keep it closer to Iron Man 2.

The box office was all about Iron Man 3 this weekend—it accounted for over 82 percent of the Top 12's business—and the rest of the lineup suffered as a result. In its second weekend, Pain and Gain tumbled 63 percent to an estimated $7.6 million. Through 10 days, director Michael Bay's poorly-received bodybuilder thriller has earned a modest $33.9 million.

Jackie Robinson biopic 42 had a decent hold, easing 42 percent to $6.2 million for a new total of $78.3 million. Oblivion, on the other hand, got obliterated by Iron Man 3: the Tom Cruise sci-fi adventure plummeted 67 percent to $5.8 million. To date, the movie has earned just $76 million, and it's on track to be Cruise's latest outing to fall short of $100 million.

The Croods rounded out the Top Five with an estimated $4.2 million, which is off 37 percent. Through its seventh weekend, the DreamWorks Animation hit has earned $168.7 million.

After an awful start last weekend, The Big Wedding dropped 49 percent to $3.9 million in its second frame. Through 10 days, the poorly-reviewed wedding comedy has earned a terrible $14.2 million.

Mud expanded to 576 locations and took seventh place with an estimated $2.15 million. With $5.2 million in the bank already, the movie appears on pace to earn at least $10 million by the end of its run.

Around-the-World Roundup

While its domestic debut was the big story this weekend, Iron Man 3 is doing even better overseas so far. The movie added $175.9 million from overseas markets, and in just 12 days has already earned over $500 million.

Since opening on Wednesday, the movie has amassed an incredible $63.5 million in China; that's more than recent comic book movies The Dark Knight Rises and The Amazing Spider-Man earned in their entire runs. Other top territories for Iron Man 3 include South Korea ($42.6 million), the U.K. ($38.3 million) and Mexico ($35.8 million).

Iron Man 3 should be in for another good outing next weekend, though Star Trek Into Darkness could provide tough competition when it opens in the U.K., Australia, Germany and Mexico. Still, a final total north of $800 million seems like a guarantee now, and it could even match The Avengers ($888 million) eventually.
 
Box Office Mojo:

Kicking off the Summer movie season this weekend, Iron Man 3 lived up to sky-high expectations with an estimated $175.3 million haul. That ranks second all-time behind last year's The Avengers ($207.4 million), and is way up on the previous Iron Man outings. The movie also continues to do phenomenal business overseas, and is on its way to earning well over $1 billion worldwide.

News just in... Iron Man 4 has just been greenlit.
 
Back
Top