! I appreciate this movie for injecting some genuine unpredictability. I agree the villain Kingsley was pretending to be was more interesting than Killian himself, but its not like it would have been absolutely groundbreaking if we actually got the Mandarin from the trailers. Even if it would have been slightly better we've seen that villain before. I think the twist was worth sacrificing that character.
Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
-
-
@RobbyBevard:
! Ben Kingsley should have played Killian… with the exact same tone and charisma he brought to the Mandarin role. I think that would have been the best way.
! Killian, as acted, just sort of comes off as a petty crazy idiot... similar to what happened in IM2.
! The Mandarin fake out wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't the more intriguing better acted character.! I think if that was done, it would have made the twist a little less surprising.
! I still think the twist was fine IMO. I enjoyed it. I appreciate and applaud the risk they took. Too few movies take risks these days. -
It's… not really a risk or a dazzling new idea when Batman Begins did the exact same thing.
-
@RobbyBevard:
It's… not really a risk or a dazzling new idea when Batman Begins did the exact same thing.
Exactly. They should have went the Batman Begins route! I thought the exact same thing.
Good movie…but waaaay too much comedy. The tone of the trailers had me thinking there was going to be more depth and emotional impact then the other Marvel movies....when really it had less. Kind of disappointed.
-
It is true. The trailers for the film gave off an entirely different feeling than what was presented in the movie itself.
-
@RobbyBevard:
It's… not really a risk or a dazzling new idea when Batman Begins did the exact same thing.
It didn't hit me the same way in the movie. Was more of a shrug. I'll admit I wasn't really into the film at all though, so wasn't all that invested.
It does seem like it was a risk though given some of the reaction it is getting.
-
Comedy and tragedy aren't mutually exclusive themes. A good movie can have a good balance of both. You could laugh at tony the whole time but if you know someone who has serious panic attacks you can also see how vulnerable he is. Similarly you can laugh at his back and forth with a lot of characters but it's usually to hide some underlying insecurity and if you have watched the other two Iron Man movies and The Avengers then you are already invested in these characters. There were some pretty deep emotions going on and I think what makes the Iron Man movies so good is that they can have those themes if you look closely because they aren't shifted to the side and/or you can just enjoy the laughs. The chemistry between all the actors even the minor ones is evident and used well.
-
@RobbyBevard:
It's… not really a risk or a dazzling new idea when Batman Begins did the exact same thing.
! Batman Begins did the exact opposite. They had the big time star and (arguably) better actor end up being the villain the whole time. It really wasn't that surprising, just like it wasn't a surprise when Cotillard ended up being Talia Al Ghul in DKR. It is different and it is a risk when you advertise Ben Kingsley as the bad ass terrorist villain and make him a red herring.
-
It saddens me a little to know that maybe avengers is as close as we are gonna get to a genuine comic book in movie form.
Simple, fun, and with a huge sense of wonder. It's not a hard formula but it seems like it's some sort of forbidden fruit that they dare not reach for
-
@RobbyBevard:
It's… not really a risk or a dazzling new idea when Batman Begins did the exact same thing.
! It's actually very ballsy since they taking an actually intimidating villain well performed and turning the expectations upside down by revealing him to be a decoy. Begins only had a decoy who wasn't hyped or really a huge part of the film. Fictionalizing the archenemy as being just a front man within the context of that fictional world is very innovative and different. Ra's Al Ghul did actually exist within the Nolan world, while Mandarin does not. I have to give the moment credit for being ballsy. The quality of the twist can be disputed but one thing is clear…they were bold.
-
@wolfwoof:
It saddens me a little to know that maybe avengers is as close as we are gonna get to a genuine comic book in movie form.
Simple, fun, and with a huge sense of wonder. It's not a hard formula but it seems like it's some sort of forbidden fruit that they dare not reach for
You can thank Nolan for that.
-
It's a bit much to attribute that to Nolan, when this was staple long before he even was considered for Batman.
-
@The:
You can thank Nolan for that.
All of the Nolan crucificying is bull. You can thank all the hack producers who thought his movies were popular only because they were dark. He did Batman his way, made a but-load of money and indirectly made the Avengers possible if anything. You don't have to like his movies, but don't blame him for the lack of movies like the Avengers. The Avengers isn't just good because its "light-hearted and simple." It was meticulously built up through five other films and was well-made in its own right. (Not just singling you out, I've been hearing a lot of talk like this in general lately.)
-
All of the Nolan crucificying is bull. You can thank all the hack producers who thought his movies were popular only because they were dark. He did Batman his way, made a but-load of money and indirectly made the Avengers possible. You don't have to like his movies, but don't blame him for the lack of movies like the Avengers. The Avengers isn't just good because its "light-hearted and simple." It was meticulously built up through five other films and was well-made in its own right. (Not just singling you out, I've been hearing a lot of talk like this in general lately.)
Apparently you don't understand business, because a large part if Nolan's fault for the tone superhero movies have taken in recent years. The same concept applies to any industry, when any company has major success with any product.
-
All of the Nolan crucificying is bull. You can thank all the hack producers who thought his movies were popular only because they were dark. He did Batman his way, made a but-load of money and indirectly made the Avengers possible. You don't have to like his movies, but don't blame him for the lack of movies like the Avengers. The Avengers isn't just good because its "light-hearted and simple." It was meticulously built up through five other films and was well-made in its own right. (Not just singling you out, I've been hearing a lot of talk like this in general lately.)
Weird double-post… Sorry.
-
So it's Pixar's fault that there are no more hand-drawn 2-D animated films anymore? Even though everyone in Pixar loves 2-D movies and would love to see more of them.
Even if Nolan caused it, all he did was make a superhero movie in his style. Its dumb to blame him like getting rid of Superman's red underwear was all part of his master scheme…
-
So it's Pixar's fault that there are no more hand-drawn 2-D animated films anymore? Even though everyone in Pixar loves 2-D movies and would love to make one if they got the chance.
Even if Nolan caused it, all he did was make a superhero movie in his style. Its dumb to blame him like getting rid of Superman's red underwear was all part of his master scheme…Yes. It is. Because the big wigs who only see $$$ see the profit of 3-D movies in this day and age over that of 2-D movies. The lower people may not like it, but the lower people don't call the shots.
-
So no movie should try to be different or have its own distinct style, because it might become successful and someone may try to copy it?
-
@The:
You can thank Nolan for that.
@The:
Apparently you don't understand business, because a large part if Nolan's fault for the tone superhero movies have taken in recent years. The same concept applies to any industry, when any company has major success with any product.
@The:
Yes. It is. Because the big wigs who only see $$$ see the profit of 3-D movies in this day and age over that of 2-D movies. The lower people may not like it, but the lower people don't call the shots.
Lol… screwed up logic of accountability...
-
LOL fucking Nolan haters man. They'll stoop to anything to trash the man these days. Pathetic.
-
<3 <3 <3
-
Laughing Man seriously your logic is just wrong. Nolan has barely influenced the genre, there were grim and dark superhero flicks before even Nolan was attached to Batman. The only exemplar of Nolan's influence is the first Iron Man(which is very lighthearted) and the latest Spidey reboot aside from that there's not much of Nolan's touch in any of the other super flicks.
-
Ellen looked great as Kitty again. Kitty's costume reminds a little of Kitty looked in Kitty Pryde and Wolverine mini series.
-
Just got back from seeing Ironman 3 and
! It didn't go the way I thought it would but it was still a great movie overall Ben Kinglsy Mandarin was a huge troll but he was still hilarious. And I will be perfectly honest Pepper Potts bada$$ moment at the end was my favorite part of the movie It's pretty much a slap in the face for people who called her a b**ch lol I also liked the small town kid he was pretty awesome
Oh and great to see Ellen Page still as K Pride
Steam Friend Code ---> 48796480
-
My bullshit detector was going off from a mile away.
@The:
Apparently you don't understand business, because a large part if Nolan's fault for the tone superhero movies have taken in recent years. The same concept applies to any industry, when any company has major success with any product.
Nolan's choice for Batman works because Batman's best stories were always the darkest. The realism aspect, because Batman is a "real hero." More than Iron Man who uses technology that doesn't actually exist. "Big-Wigs" know this. They can try it with Superman, because a darker style is completely in contrast with who Supes is and what he stands for, so it becomes a literary technique, but they're not making it tonally dark and bleak like Nolan's Batman film, because that doesn't work for Superman.
And, all of the Marvel films are nothing like Nolan's Batman films, especially The Avengers. There's nothing realistic about them, and tonally they're rather bright (outside of maybe Captain America, but that one had to be dark.) And, if it were only about the money (because it mostly is–see below,) Avengers made more than Rises, as it's more accessible because of it's tone. It's much more family friendly than Nolan's Batman films ever were. So, really, you're argument is dumb and unfounded.
But that's not what I want to rant about.
@The:
Yes. It is. Because the big wigs who only see $$$ see the profit of 3-D movies in this day and age over that of 2-D movies. The lower people may not like it, but the lower people don't call the shots.
As one of those lower people, let me way in here. I like it; I like it a lot.
Like you said, their main goal is to make money, but they can't be faulted for that. Nobody goes to work for free, no matter how much you love your job. Especially in an industry as deadly as production. Do you know how many companies that used to churn out Oscar winning pictures don't even exist anymore? All because they didn't make money. The hipster bullshit response to this "better to make something you're proud of than make money." And that is the dumbest thing ever.
Bands don't make music to not make money. If they want to keep performing they have to make money.
Artists don't paint because they're a free spirit. They paint to sell their paintings so they can do what they love yet still live. Starving artist is a rather accurate description.
I don't write scripts to not sell them; I write scripts to make money. The joy I get from telling stories is great, sure, but the paychecks I've gotten for the two scripts I have sold is way better than that joy, because it pays my student debt and my bills.
So when production companies need to make money they churn out blockbusters. Is it the best script in the world? No. Is it the best direction? No. But everyone who works on a film, especially behind the scenes, which is the hard part–fuck actors who say otherwise, their make up artist has to be up even earlier than they do, and they leave even later-- is always somewhat proud of their work, and even happier to have that paycheck.
Be it some low budget slasher, Transformers, or Argo, it's all done to make money.
And, the best part, the best part: the money from the terrible blockbusters is what funds the "art" films and the Oscar contenders. Argo was funded by the likes of Rises, Rock of Ages, and Chernobyl diaries.
So don't you shit on people for trying to make money.
-
This also explains why uwe boll movies exist!
Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pomeranianhero
deviantart: http://pomeranianhero.deviantart.com/
-
This also explains why uwe boll movies exist!
Sad, but true. :sad:
While I'm here, I should clarify that I'm not advocating the production of trite, but I am advocating for the production of fun blockbusters that don't require you to be fully invested in the movie. Being able to make a paint by the numbers movie is really nice. Churn out a couple of those a year and you can make something you really like.
Call it a necessary evil if you want. (I won't as I like brainless entertainment a la Transformers from time to time.)
Also, there was a lot of generalizing in my above post. So, to clarify: Transformers is not equal to The Avengers in quality, but they were both created for the same purpose: to make money so that DreamWorks and Disney (respectively) and all of their subsidiaries could stay afloat and keep making movies.
-
The Avengers isn't just good because its "light-hearted and simple."
A large part of what made the avengers great was that it didn't get all up it's own ass with "complex" plotlines that need not be
And that it dared to play up the comic book factor. The shield helicarrier was a superb little touch.
The only exemplar of Nolan's influence is the first Iron Man(which is very lighthearted) and the latest Spidey reboot aside from that there's not much of Nolan's touch in any of the other super flicks.
In what way did Nolan's style influence IM1?
-
So it's Pixar's fault that there are no more hand-drawn 2-D animated films anymore?
They are a large factor actually, yes.
-
Saw IM3 and really enjoyed it. Definitely on par with the first one, as it had that fun quality to it that I loved so much about IM1. Was worried this was going to be another stepping stone to another Avengers movie like IM2 was, but that never became an issue. Although I do wonder which movie this time around will be the sacrificial lamb for Avengers 2, if Marvel's going to be as bold to do that again.
Speaking of bold, the Mandarin
! twist was hilarious, although I could hear a couple of disappointed sighs in my theater. Would've been nice to have a good villain though, because I kept expecting Killian to fill that big void that Kingsley's Mandarin (serious side) had left, to which Killian never really lived up to it.
! Very fun 3rd act, though.! the scientist that Stark meets in the cave in IM1. The cameo at the beginning was a nice touch.
! A little surprised to see Stark get rid of the arc reactor at the end, as I always saw it as being iconic as the Iron Man itself. But all in all, it was a good ending anyway. -
@wolfwoof:
A large part of what made the avengers great was that it didn't get all up it's own ass with "complex" plotlines that need not be
And that it dared to play up the comic book factor. The shield helicarrier was a superb little touch.
Avengers did keep it simple to an extent and did a lot of the little things right. But that's not the only reason it was good. People act likes its so easy to make a movie like the Avengers and all you have to do is make it fun and like a comic book. There is more to that movie including the five movies that set it up, the plethora of great actors, the movie producer who enjoys and respects the source material and was willing to risk it, and the talented director who likes the comics as well. I loved the Avengers for a lot of reasons, but keeping things simple can just as easily make a movie boring.
@RobbyBevard:
They are a large factor actually, yes.
I'm not saying their success had nothing to do with it, but it's dumb to blame a filmmaker for the trends in Hollywood. Jaws made modern blockbusters a thing so I guess I should sarcastically roll my eyes and say thanks Stephen Spielberg whenever I see a trailer for Jack the Giant Killer or whatever.
-
Avengers did keep it simple to an extent and did a lot of the little things right. But that's not the only reason it was good. People act likes its so easy to make a movie like the Avengers and all you have to do is make it fun and like a comic book. There is more to that movie including the five movies that set it up, the plethora of great actors, the movie producer who enjoys and respects the source material and was willing to risk it, and the talented director who likes the comics as well. I loved the Avengers for a lot of reasons, but keeping things simple can just as easily make a movie boring.
In my mind things like having good actors, and people behind the screen who enjoy comics were so obvious that it didn't really feel like it needed to be put out there.
I mean can you ever make a great movie without great actors and direction? Barring the room of course.
But to me it was the simplicity of it all that made it. Keeping the plot simple left alot of room for fun, character interaction and just plain old action
-
@wolfwoof:
In my mind things like having good actors, and people behind the screen who enjoy comics were so obvious that it didn't really feel like it needed to be put out there.
I mean can you ever make a great movie without great actors and direction? Barring the room of course.
But to me it was the simplicity of it all that made it. Keeping the plot simple left a lot of room for fun, character interaction and just plain old action
I don't really want to argue with you any further because I agree with everything you're saying. I'm just saying that the Avengers may have had a simple plot, but it was anything but simple to make. And I don't just mean like how any movie is difficult to make. The plot got to be so simple and comic book-like because every single important character was established and developed over the previous five movies. And then it was an awesome movie in its own right.
-
I'm not saying their success had nothing to do with it, but it's dumb to blame a filmmaker for the trends in Hollywood. Jaws made modern blockbusters a thing so I guess I should sarcastically roll my eyes and say thanks Stephen Spielberg whenever I see a trailer for Jack the Giant Killer or whatever.
Him and Lucas. Yup.
-
@wolfwoof:
But to me it was the simplicity of it all that made it. Keeping the plot simple left alot of room for fun, character interaction and just plain old action
The Expendables did all of that too. But it wasn't good.
-
Simplicity is good, it can be very good. Pirates 4 would have been a far better movie had it simpliflied the plot and jsut had it be Jack and Blackbeard try and get some treasure rather than the complicated mess it became. Die Hard 1 is still the greatest action movie ever made because it was so simple and focused (opposed to the sequels that ranged from good to horrible partially due to losing some of that simplicity). Admittedly, there are many movies that are bad because they try to be too overambitious and overcomplicate the plot (Dark Knight Rises being my favorite example).
With that said, simplicity can also be boring and when a complicated movie pays off on its promises, it can be very, very satisfying. In my opinion, this was the case with Iron Man 3.
Yes, the story had flaws. The subplot with the botanist being mostly pointless, switching the movie for a less compelling villain (I still think the twist was more than worth it and hey, at least it wasn't anywhere as bad as the switcheroo in Rises), the ending epilogue feeling a bit tacked on yadda yadda. But on the whole, it game a more interesting, complicated story which suits a film like Iron Man more because the character is about evolution and being adaptable and modern. It was just so much more creative and played around with mroe concepts and took the character to more original, interesting directions than the first one did which I always found to be a bit too played straight as an origin story, where the simplicity might have worked a bit too much against it (but then again, it was an origin story, playing it simple was honestly the best way to go). Iron Man 3 though was a chance to use the world that has been set up and take it into far more interesting directions. It's why Back to the Future 2 is my favorite of the trilogy. Yes there is something to the drive and relative simplicity of the first one that's very appealing but 2 was the one that worked with the built up concepts and played around with them. For me, this movie worked fantastically. Again, favorite superhero movie next to Avengers. Entertaining as hell.
-
Saw Iron Man 3 last night, and I personally loved it. It was a little long, but there was so much awesome stuff going on throughout the movie that I didn't mind.
The Mandarin thing…yeah, I can definitely see how that would anger comic book fans, but having never read any Iron Man comics, it didn't bother me.
Thanks to PirateNeko for the avatar!
-
The Mandarin thing…yeah, I can definitely see how that would anger comic book fans, but having never read any Iron Man comics, it didn't bother me.
I don't think anyone really cares about it differing from the comics. The racist origin, and the magic angle were clearly going to be changed up anyway.
I think everyone is upset because
! the more interesting villain (in performance, appearance, intimidation factor, apparent motivation, mystery, and vendetta against Tony) was replaced by a lesser one. It'd be kind of like if an hour into Dark Knight Joker left the film to be replaced by one of the ordinary mobsters in a suit.
! The twist itself isn't bad, but the tradeoff in villains is meh. Mandarin could also have been everything he appeared and been stopped earlier, or upstaged/killed/sold out by the underling… rather than just being a joke. Same surprise twist in the villain switch, but without instantly destroying all the credibility and interest of the original threat. -
@RobbyBevard:
I don't think anyone really cares about it differing from the comics. The racist origin, and the magic angle were clearly going to be changed up anyway.
I think everyone is upset because
! the more interesting villain (in performance, appearance, intimidation factor, apparent motivation, mystery, and vendetta against Tony) was replaced by a lesser one. It'd be kind of like if an hour into Dark Knight Joker left the film to be replaced by one of the ordinary mobsters in a suit.
! The twist itself isn't bad, but the tradeoff in villains is meh. Mandarin could also have been everything he appeared and been stopped earlier, or upstaged/killed/sold out by the underling… rather than just being a joke. Same surprise twist in the villain switch, but without instantly destroying all the credibility and interest of the original threat.! I can see that, for sure. Killian wasn't exactly the most interesting villain. To be honest, though, if it weren't for the trailers, I would've thought Killian was going to be the main villain anyway - he was established before the Mandarin, it immediately showed his motivation, and we only saw glimpses of the Mandarin throughout the film. Yeah, it felt like the Mandarin was being built up to an extent, but Killian felt like the more natural villain to me, if for no other reason then because the film starts with Stark explaining how he screwed him over, and how that would come back to haunt him. Regardless, though, I can easily see how the twist was disappointing; we didn't know much about the Mandarin, so you're kind of waiting for a WHAM moment when we learn why he's doing what he's doing. And…well, we got that, except it ended up being a joke. There was definitely potential for a more interesting villain.
Still loved the movie, regardless.
Thanks to PirateNeko for the avatar!
-
@wolfwoof:
A large part of what made the avengers great was that it didn't get all up it's own ass with "complex" plotlines that need not be
And that it dared to play up the comic book factor. The shield helicarrier was a superb little touch.
In what way did Nolan's style influence IM1?
Begins clearly influenced the first Iron Man, the director even admits so, though obviously not tonally but certainly structurally.
-
! I can see that, for sure. Killian wasn't exactly the most interesting villain. To be honest, though, if it weren't for the trailers, I would've thought Killian was going to be the main villain anyway - he was established before the Mandarin, it immediately showed his motivation, and we only saw glimpses of the Mandarin throughout the film. Yeah, it felt like the Mandarin was being built up to an extent, but Killian felt like the more natural villain to me, if for no other reason then because the film starts with Stark explaining how he screwed him over, and how that would come back to haunt him. Regardless, though, I can easily see how the twist was disappointing; we didn't know much about the Mandarin, so you're kind of waiting for a WHAM moment when we learn why he's doing what he's doing. And…well, we got that, except it ended up being a joke. There was definitely potential for a more interesting villain.
Still loved the movie, regardless.
! I honestly thought Killian was going to be a Justin Hammer of this movie I thought Ben Kingsley Mandarin was going to be using the tech Killian had to give himself power.
-
@RobbyBevard:
I don't think anyone really cares about it differing from the comics. The racist origin, and the magic angle were clearly going to be changed up anyway.
I think everyone is upset because
! the more interesting villain (in performance, appearance, intimidation factor, apparent motivation, mystery, and vendetta against Tony) was replaced by a lesser one. It'd be kind of like if an hour into Dark Knight Joker left the film to be replaced by one of the ordinary mobsters in a suit.
! The twist itself isn't bad, but the tradeoff in villains is meh. Mandarin could also have been everything he appeared and been stopped earlier, or upstaged/killed/sold out by the underling… rather than just being a joke. Same surprise twist in the villain switch, but without instantly destroying all the credibility and interest of the original threat.! Guy's performance was fine. His appearance, especially after you see him with extremis is fine. His intimidation was fine. Mystery isn't really necessary to make a good villain. Whether more of less of it matters it depends on the character's story. The Mandarin has no vendetta against tony. He's a terrorist against the US which Tony doesn't even work for. Tony isn't mentioned or referred to at all in his videos. Killian enters the story with a clear vendetta against Tony from the first scene. Most of these claims seem extremely subjective. You clearly have a preference of Mandarin as the villain but I and clearly a significant amount of others disagree and were satisfied with the twist.
-
Since we might get a black Torch why not a black Thing as well?
Ben Grimm would be a black athletic jock football player from Detroit who was High school mates with the nerdy white guy Reed Richards who Grimm protected from bullies.
He would be a black Jewish dude who has a white jewish mother and a black father.
I'm a genius.
-
Gotta love Jeremy Jahns. Best reviewer out there.
And here is the spoiler discussion one. Don't watch if you have't seen the movie.
-
Warning: Fanboy rage
!
-
On the whole, I liked it quite a bit, but there's the big elephant in the room.
! I don't like the twist; I don't think it was necessary at all to take the guy who is easily Iron Man's most iconic villain and turn him into a clown playing pretend. Even worse is that he's replaced by another corrupt tycoon after having those in the two previous films. Sure, Killian is a lot better than Hammer, but it's still the same basic concept of Stark's competitors going after him.
! Hell, if nothing else, I'd have just as soon that there was a real Mandarin at some point that had actually been killed by, let's say SHIELD, and replaced with this guy to keep up appearances. But no, it had to be Killian from the start.
! I will say, though, while I don't like the idea at all, it was well-executed. Kingsley was perfect in both roles. -
I must be stupid or something, but I don't see the connection between Ironman 1 and Batman Begins either.
