Iron Man 3 Discussion Thread

[jye4ever]

It doesn't help that the kid whispers "wormhole" into his ear like a little demon either. I'm surprised he didn't have a crude crayon drawing of Iron Man being decapitated by a space monster.

 

[Frank]

It wasn't the disease that was the problem, it was the cure. The suits should have been his therapy in a good way. Instead he tucks it between his legs as Gwenny-Poo guilts him into oblivion. I could have partially gone with it if they showed him in a new mark at the end having a blast sans Paltry.

Unlike other superheroes out there, his costume represents more than just kicking ***. It's about having a ****load of fun while doing it. You could have a story with him starting to dread the suit for whatever reason, but he's not going to be better than ever until he's getting new kicks from a new mark.

Most of us are bigger fans of RDJ than of IM though, so it's understandable up to a point why the criticism doesn't hit home.

 

[DiFabio]

I'd rather be Tony Stark than these two currently.

 

[Frank]

Definitely.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

I'd be Tony for the riches. Peter for the youth and hot girlfiredn and Logan for the badassness

It wasn't the disease that was the problem, it was the cure. The suits should have been his therapy in a good way. Instead he tucks it between his legs as Gwenny-Poo guilts him into oblivion. I could have partially gone with it if they showed him in a new mark at the end having a blast sans Paltry.

Unlike other superheroes out there, his costume represents more than just kicking ***. It's about having a ****load of fun while doing it. You could have a story with him starting to dread the suit for whatever reason, but he's not going to be better than ever until he's getting new kicks from a new mark.

Most of us are bigger fans of RDJ than of IM though, so it's understandable up to a point why the criticism doesn't hit home.

I'd say they left out him having a new armour and blatently continuing to be iron man as Downey was not secured in coming back yet, and all it would'e done is tease the next film which at that point wasn't set in stone. Also applies to the post credit scene, it didn't further anything like the others did.

Same with why they didn't include that deleted scene in The Wolverine as a sequel wasn't greenlit and all it would've done is tease such.

 

[Khev]

It's weird how nobody really criticizes that scene and it retains this dramatic feel while everyone craps on Iron Man 3. I don't get it. I guess people are more forgiving of the Batmobile than the Mark 47 suit. That doesn't seem fair.

Maybe it's just Batman's demeanor.




Ahh, but there are stakes. The Air Force one staff can die. On everyone's first viewing, they don't know that Stark isn't in the suit, so it still has drama. It gives audiences that, PLUS the surprise of "oh, he ain't in the suit" which is played up in the beginning of the film. Love it or hate it, nobody here can say that Iron Man 3 wasn't packed with interesting twists and turns. It wasn't predictable like other superhero comic book films.

Meh, being unpredictable for the sake of it doesn't mean anything unless the payoff serves the characters and story, which it certainly didn't IMO. "The Village" had a huge twist that was also idiotic and ruined what came before.

And sure the lives of the passengers were at stake but not Tony's. There's a reason John McClane was the hero and badass of Die Hard and not Al or anyone else watching from afar.

 

[DiFabio]

John McClane wasn't an inventor with a huge ego that built 47 flying superhero suits in just under a year.

 

[jye4ever]

I'd rather be Tony Stark than these two currently.

Missing Superman.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

Tony didn't risk his life to save people in that scene, thats the difference. The end result is the same But the hero risking his life for others is the base principle of superheroism

 

[Frank]

Tony didn't risk his life to save people, thats the difference. The end result is the same But the hero risking his life for others is the base principle of superheroism

No, it's definitely heroic to use remote technology to save people, it's just not the core of what Iron Man is. Remember, he loves being in the action. He loves being associated with his technology, he doesn't hide it away like Batman. The suit is the purest expression of his genius while at the same time offering him freedom from the burdensome (and comparatively boring) life of a CEO/multibillionaire.

 

[DiFabio]

Tony didn't risk his life to save people, thats the difference. The end result is the same But the hero risking his life for others is the base principle of superheroism

But we've seen him do it before so it's not beyond him. You guys are crying over ONE stunt in a series of four films and questioning heroism like it somehow negates the he saved that village in Gulmira, Afghanistan, in the suit. Or when he saves Pepper, in the suit. Or when he saves that family, in the suit. Or when he saves those children and citizens at the Expo, in the suit. Or when he saved ALL OF NEW YORK, in the suit.

It just seems so silly and obnoxious. It's ONE time. Are people in danger? Yes. Does Stark save them? Yes. Is it an exhilarating action stunt scene? Yes. Wow, for the first time he was controlling a suit from a boat. Since he wasn't in the suit and wasn't in danger (despite seeing him in danger throughout the film), it's less heroic? Pretty petty if you ask me, especially when the situation was people that needed saving and the outcome was that they were saved.

In this case, drone was bettah. Bottom line, if Stark wasn't involved in the action and controlling the situation, a dozen people would have been dead. Suit or not.

And face it Nova, even if he was in the suit, you'd still have a problem with it because it's Iron Man. For the film and the depiction of the character at that point in time, the scene was a appropriate.

 

[Dr. Odd]

Word

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

But we've seen him do it before so it's not beyond him. You guys are crying over ONE stunt in a series of four films and questioning heroism like it somehow negates the he saved that village in Gulmira, Afghanistan, in the suit. Or when he saves Pepper, in the suit. Or when he saves that family, in the suit. Or when he saves those children and citizens at the Expo, in the suit. Or when he saved ALL OF NEW YORK, in the suit.

It just seems so silly and obnoxious. It's ONE time. Are people in danger? Yes. Does Stark save them? Yes. Is it an exhilarating action stunt scene? Yes. Wow, for the first time he was controlling a suit from a boat. Since he wasn't in the suit and wasn't in danger (despite seeing him in danger throughout the film), it's less heroic? Pretty petty if you ask me, especially when the situation was people that needed saving and the outcome was that they were saved.

In this case, drone was bettah. Bottom line, if Stark wasn't involved in the action and controlling the situation, a dozen people would have been dead. Suit or not.

And face it Nova, even if he was in the suit, you'd still have a problem with it because it's Iron Man. For the film and the depiction of the character at that point in time, the scene was a appropriate.

You quoted before i editted that it was just that one scene where he wasn't fully in the armour.

Sure it's still heroic to do remotely save the people. But it's more heroic to physically put ones life at risk to do so.

It is just one scene. But that was one of several scenes which twist the perceptions of the audience afterwords. Once is fine and interesting twice is annoying but several is just plain messing with the audience.

And face it Nova, even if he was in the suit, you'd still have a problem with it because it's Iron Man. For the film and the depiction of the character at that point in time, the scene was a appropriate.

Wrong sir, Wrong. As the trailers were coming i was getting as amped as everyone else fr this movie. Iron Man (2008) is in my top 5 Superhero movies.

It's not like i viciously hate Iron Man, my complaints with the movie are exactly the same as most others have expressed.

 

[Frank]

But we've seen him do it before so it's not beyond him. You guys are crying over ONE stunt in a series of four films and questioning heroism like it somehow negates the he saved that village in Gulmira, Afghanistan, in the suit. Or when he saves Pepper, in the suit. Or when he saves that family, in the suit. Or when he saves those children and citizens at the Expo, in the suit. Or when he saved ALL OF NEW YORK, in the suit.

It just seems so silly and obnoxious. It's ONE time. Are people in danger? Yes. Does Stark save them? Yes. Is it an exhilarating action stunt scene? Yes. Wow, for the first time he was controlling a suit from a boat. Since he wasn't in the suit and wasn't in danger (despite seeing him in danger throughout the film), it's less heroic? Pretty petty if you ask me, especially when the situation was people that needed saving and the outcome was that they were saved.

In this case, drone was bettah. Bottom line, if Stark wasn't involved in the action and controlling the situation, a dozen people would have been dead. Suit or not.

And face it Nova, even if he was in the suit, you'd still have a problem with it because it's Iron Man. For the film and the depiction of the character at that point in time, the scene was a appropriate.

Would have been better if he was in the suit, that's just the way it is. He might be real awesome at remote control, but I don't watch IM movies to watch Tony phone it in.. or to magically turn his armor into ****ty cgi fireworks for his domineering gf. What a gimp he turned into by the end.

 

[CelticPredator]

Superman murdered thousands of people because he went out and risked his life.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

Superman murdered thousands of people because he went out and risked his life.

Wrong. To murder is to intently kill someone. At best it was causing accidental death, in the process of saving billions.

He murdered Zod, but defense of others.

I Wonder how that would go in court, he did Murder Zod but it was either that or let that family be murdered by Zod and possibly the rest of humanity. That would be the most intriguing court cases in history.

 

[DiFabio]

You quoted before i editted that it was just that one scene where he wasn't filly in the armour.


Sure it's still heroic to do remotely save the people. But it's more heroic to physically put ones life at risk to do so.

It is just one scene. But that was one of several scenes which twist the perceptions of the audience afterwords. Once is fine and interesting twice is annoying but several is just plain messing with the audience.

Don't forget though, the suit was iffy to begin with and even at 92% the suits power was rapidly draining. We saw how crappy it was in the beginning. We saw how these Extremis soldiers could easily take them over.

There's also that whole added drama of, "We've got to make a decision. We can either save the President or Pepper. We can't do both" while Stark is still in the suit. It's not like it was just some random decision the script makers through in. Those two reasons set it up.

Wrong sir, Wrong.

Takin' my material . . .



Anyway, "I am Iron Man", "the suit and I are one". Iron Man/Tony Stark STILL saved those people, regardless.

Would it have been better if they simply cut out the truck slamming the suit into oblivion and Stark being aboard the boat off to save Pepper? Sure. But they clearly set up the idea of a remote suit in the beginning of the film where Stark is downstairs making more suits and Pepper thinks she's talking to him, in suit. That was the beat, the play off. Something we'll probably never see again in a future Iron Man film.

 

[CelticPredator]

Superman would be charged with Manslaughter then. Still a crime.

Wait, why the **** are we talking about it like a court case......**** isn't real. ****ing Superman is a killer, and killed people while poorly defending the city due to terrible terrible writing. MoS blows.

 

[Frank]

MOS fails to take into account that the superhero genre is constrained in part by the happy outcome. Superman has a wider scope than most superheroes in that he's expected to not only defeat the bad guy but do it without loss of life. More so than Batman and on a much bigger scale. If he didn't have something to be emo about at the start of the film, he certainly does now.

If the writers are jonesing to slap Supes with a god device that wipes out millions of people before he even figures out what's going on, that's alright but it removes the "save the day" aspect which has traditionally been a big part of the character. Once you take that away he's kind of average as far as superheroes go.

 

[jye4ever]

Screw it, DiFabio has convinced me IM3 kicked ***.