@papajay: Concerning the Evil Industrialist story-lines....You need to understand that Iron Man just doesn't really have the Batman or Spider-Man like rogues gallery. Most of his villains are either IM Clones, Evil Industrialists, or Gimmick characters like the Mandarin or the Melter.
In other words, we basically got all three in this film.
Do all the third installments in superhero movie franchises have to feature the hero fighting a dark, corrupted version of themselves?
Alright ALL the Iron Man movies have him fighting a version of himself but:
Superman 3, Clark Kent vs Superbad Spider-Man 3. Spidey vs Venom Dark Knight Rises, Batman vs Bane (with a similar origin story for Bane) X-Men 3 .Professor X vs Dark Phoenix Batman Forever, Batman vs Nicole Kidman. Well she's taller than him, and the top part of her face doesn't move any more, and I'm really reaching here :-/ but...
Do all the third installments in superhero movie franchises have to feature the hero fighting a dark, corrupted version of themselves?
Batman Forever, Batman vs Nicole Kidman. Well she's taller than him, and the top part of her face doesn't move any more, and I'm really reaching here :-/ but...
If you think about it...Jim Carrey's Riddler was basically a wannabe Bruce Wayne.
Do all the third installments in superhero movie franchises have to feature the hero fighting a dark, corrupted version of themselves?
Batman Forever, Batman vs Nicole Kidman. Well she's taller than him, and the top part of her face doesn't move any more, and I'm really reaching here :-/ but...
If you think about it...Jim Carrey's Riddler was basically a wannabe Bruce Wayne.
Saw it last night. I enjoyed it a lot, but was surprised at how much it strived to not be what we expect an Iron Man film to be. Sometimes that worked, sometimes not. Downey is entertaining enough to work without the armor, but I think in the hands of another actor, audiences might find it unusual just how little Tony Stark actually dons the armor. The most elaborate sequence involving the armor even has him controlling it remotely.
The twist was good, but for some reason I've had a feeling all along that something was up with that character. The trailers just felt off, somehow. And when Kingsley got very evasive during his interview on the Daily Show my radar went up. He specifically got weird when Jon Stewart asked him if he got to do many scenes with Downey. So, I was kind of expecting it, but didn't know all the details. I was still waiting to learn that there was a real Mandarin waiting in the wings for Iron Man 4, but apparently not. I'm a little disappointed that the first two films actually weren't building up to a larger than life, major villain for Iron Man, but I'm also impressed that Marvel would allow someone to totally subvert one of the biggest names in Iron Man's small Rogue's Gallery for the sake of an interesting film.
I was also surprised at just how little I knew from seeing the trailers. It felt like they showed a lot, but once we got past the attack on Stark's house, I had not idea where the film was going.Tennessee? Really? That was the mysterious snowy location we saw in the trailers? It's been a while since I went to a film and was that surprised, which was refreshing.
Overall, I think it's a much stronger film than the second one - much tighter script, stronger development of themes and characters. But the second one had the set-up for the Avengers going for it, so I think in some ways it was a little more exciting to watch. This one was very much self-contained, and gives a glimpse of what we might expect from these solo films now that the heavy lifting of setting up the Universe has been done.
I've heard people say they were disappointed with the scene at the end. How do you guys feel?
It sort of fit in with my comparison between 3 and 2. Everything 3 did made sense for the type of film it was, but at the expense of the extras we've come to expect from these films. So, that scene was great for the film I'd just watched, but comparing it to 2 encapsulates my gut reaction to both films. My head tells me 3 is a better film, but the geek in me was much more excited by the things unfolding in 2.
I've heard people say they were disappointed with the scene at the end. How do you guys feel?
Utterly prosaic point but I was disappointed that it was set at night...what's the point in designing thirty-something new armours and having them battle spectacularly in a badly lit environment. Is there a union rule that all Iron Man third reels must occur at night? Give me Avengers-level daytime spectacle any day of the week.
I've heard people say they were disappointed with the scene at the end. How do you guys feel?
Utterly prosaic point but I was disappointed that it was set at night...what's the point in designing thirty-something new armours and having them battle spectacularly in a badly lit environment. Is there a union rule that all Iron Man third reels must occur at night? Give me Avengers-level daytime spectacle any day of the week.
Makes it easier on the poor FX people, probably cheaper too, maybe a little quicker and simpler for those big time ending scenes. Think about it. Iron Man 1, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor (talking about the climax in Asgard), Captain America (maybe not at "night" but definitely a darkened environment), Spider-Man 1 (i dn't remember), Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3, Amzing Spider-Man? (didn't see it), Batman... hello... all of them, except maybe oddly TDKR but a LOT of that was done for realz, X-Men 1, X-Men 3,
I can't think of anymore, but I bet probably much more often than not the big climax happens at night or in a darkened environment.
Can someone explain why I've seen many people on numerous message boards saying stuff like "can we get an Iron Man movie where he doesn't just fight robots?"
First of all... HELLO, ITS IRON MAN. And second... uh, didn't we just get that in part 3? Why are people acting like he was fighting robots in part 3?
I've heard people say they were disappointed with the scene at the end. How do you guys feel?
Utterly prosaic point but I was disappointed that it was set at night...what's the point in designing thirty-something new armours and having them battle spectacularly in a badly lit environment. Is there a union rule that all Iron Man third reels must occur at night? Give me Avengers-level daytime spectacle any day of the week.
I as referring to the after-credits scene.
I... probably should have just said "after-credits" in the original post.
finally saw it tonight. i honestly don tknow what i think just yet. i liked it and enjoyed it, but i just dont know to what degree yet or how i would compare it to the rest of the stable thus far. on one hand i hate how they handled the manderin while on the other i liked it. some nit picks, some inconsistencies and questions and pros and cons but ultimately it was pretty good.
I get the feeling most people's (or rather comic book fans) enjoyment of the movie rested on the Manderin. If you didn't enjoy the twist, you probably didn't enjoy the movie.
Comments
In other words, we basically got all three in this film.
Alright ALL the Iron Man movies have him fighting a version of himself but:
Superman 3, Clark Kent vs Superbad
Spider-Man 3. Spidey vs Venom
Dark Knight Rises, Batman vs Bane (with a similar origin story for Bane)
X-Men 3 .Professor X vs Dark Phoenix
Batman Forever, Batman vs Nicole Kidman. Well she's taller than him, and the top part of her face doesn't move any more, and I'm really reaching here :-/
but...
By the way, how does his mole look?
;))
M
Incase you were curious...
The twist was good, but for some reason I've had a feeling all along that something was up with that character. The trailers just felt off, somehow. And when Kingsley got very evasive during his interview on the Daily Show my radar went up. He specifically got weird when Jon Stewart asked him if he got to do many scenes with Downey. So, I was kind of expecting it, but didn't know all the details. I was still waiting to learn that there was a real Mandarin waiting in the wings for Iron Man 4, but apparently not. I'm a little disappointed that the first two films actually weren't building up to a larger than life, major villain for Iron Man, but I'm also impressed that Marvel would allow someone to totally subvert one of the biggest names in Iron Man's small Rogue's Gallery for the sake of an interesting film.
I was also surprised at just how little I knew from seeing the trailers. It felt like they showed a lot, but once we got past the attack on Stark's house, I had not idea where the film was going.Tennessee? Really? That was the mysterious snowy location we saw in the trailers? It's been a while since I went to a film and was that surprised, which was refreshing.
Overall, I think it's a much stronger film than the second one - much tighter script, stronger development of themes and characters. But the second one had the set-up for the Avengers going for it, so I think in some ways it was a little more exciting to watch. This one was very much self-contained, and gives a glimpse of what we might expect from these solo films now that the heavy lifting of setting up the Universe has been done.
I can't think of anymore, but I bet probably much more often than not the big climax happens at night or in a darkened environment.
First of all... HELLO, ITS IRON MAN. And second... uh, didn't we just get that in part 3? Why are people acting like he was fighting robots in part 3?
I... probably should have just said "after-credits" in the original post.
M