You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 10:09:57 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen  (Read 4301 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline consortium11

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2014, 04:23:26 PM »
And honestly, I'm glad Ben Kingsley wasn't actually the Mandarin. I hate it when white actors are hired to play what were originally minority characters. If the character is Asian, then cast an Asian actor to play them. Even though he's not Chinese, I would much rather have Ken Watanabe play the actual Mandarin than Ben Kingsley.

I'm not sure if you're ignorant of the facts or deliberately being somewhat insulting here but to deny Ben Kingsley's heritage in this way strikes me as grossly insensitive and bordering on the offensive. Kingsley's father was of Gujarati Khoja descent and born in Kenya; only his mother was white. Which actually fits remarkably well with the Mandarin character, who's father was a close descendent of Genghis Khan and who's mother was English (and white).

The idea that a Japanese actor with (as far as I know) entirely Japanese ancestry is a more appropriate choice to portray a Mongol/English character than a Gujarati/English actor strikes me as actually falling into the "all Asians are the same" trap which has plenty of negative connotations.

Would an actor of Mongol/English descent been a better choice in terms of ticking boxes? Maybe... but I'm not aware of many and have no idea if they could have done the job Kingsley did.




On the topic of the Mandarin twist in general, I have mixed thoughts about it. For me, looked at in isolation, the twist was fantastic. With no hint of it in the trailers or publicity and only being hinted at when spoilers came out combined with Kingsley's menacing performance it was the sort of twist that should have made the movie and been a really clever bit of film-making.

But I can't look at it in isolation.

I wanted to see the Mandarin vs Iron Man from the moment the first film was announced. Iron Man may have an extensive rogue's gallery but few of them are anything near iconic; we're not talking Spiderman, Batman or the X-Men here, all of which have a vast number of high profile villains they could face. Iron Man only really has the Mandarin. Yes, the classic dragon alien Makluan science version may not have fitted but he could certainly have been re-imagined; technology based rings (although that might hark back to Iron Man 2 a little), some rejigging of extremis or, if you want to tie it into the rest of the universe, add some infinity gem element to them.

That wanting was not diminished in anyway by the start of the movie. Kingsley was excellent as the Mandarin... as mentioned above menacing, sinister, cool and calculated. I wanted there to be a confrontation... and however well handled the twist was I'll always be disappointed that I never got to see one. 

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2014, 04:25:19 PM »
, if you want to tie it into the rest of the universe, add some infinity gem element to them.

That wanting was not diminished in anyway by the start of the movie. Kingsley was excellent as the Mandarin... as mentioned above menacing, sinister, cool and calculated. I wanted there to be a confrontation... and however well handled the twist was I'll always be disappointed that I never got to see one.

See, now this would have been fantastic. And now I'll always live in regret that not only could Mandarin have been not-terrible, he could have been awesome while still appropriate to the cinematic setting.

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2014, 04:53:20 PM »
I'm not sure if you're ignorant of the facts or deliberately being somewhat insulting here but to deny Ben Kingsley's heritage in this way strikes me as grossly insensitive and bordering on the offensive. Kingsley's father was of Gujarati Khoja descent and born in Kenya; only his mother was white. Which actually fits remarkably well with the Mandarin character, who's father was a close descendent of Genghis Khan and who's mother was English (and white).

Huh, I was unaware of him having that heritage. I stand corrected then.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2014, 05:43:18 PM »
One More Day is something that single-handily killed any remaining interest I had in Spider-Man. I can't take the character seriously anymore.

Thank you, Quesada... *shakes fist*

Yeah..with me it was the 'Captain American isn't relevant in the 21st century.' comment after they killed off Steve Rogers.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2014, 02:31:18 PM »
Continuing on about IM3:

The 'action' scenes that had Tony outside of the suit were hardly just that. That's why people are mocking it by calling it Tony Stark 3, featuring Iron Man. They downplayed the suit usage so much it hardly seemed like an Iron Man movie for most of it.

Ben Kingsley's performance as the Mandarin was wasted (especially in the trailer) because of the revelation that it wasn't really him and yes, his heritage (as well as the actual Mandarin's) were why I had thought he was the perfect choice, plus if you think about it how racially insensitive would it be to have an obviously Asian-descent actor portray a Fu Manchu-style stereotype? Talk about selling out. That's like asking an African-American to play a jive character nowadays; people just don't want to see that because it's embarrassing. Pulling off the Mandarin of the comics in the MCU would have been no freakin' problem, I even wrote a script to fix all these horrendous errors and it was extremely simple to have him come into possession of some scavenged alien technology to make into his rings. I mean, Agents of SHIELD does this kind of thing all the time, what's so surprising about someone else getting to an 084 first and finding the mother lode of power? Then it would actually have been worth bringing the Iron Legion into the battle. He could probably wipe out half of them in one stroke with his strongest ring. The suggestion of using an infiniti gem would have been even better. Plus, if you think about it, they wasted an opportunity to open up the space exploration in anticipation of Guardians of the Galaxy by not having the real Mandarin with his scavenged alien tech. Oh, and there was no worthwhile post-credits scene in IM3, either. It just opened up the 'Where the fuck was Banner that whole time, then, or SHIELD for that matter' can of worms. I could probably bitch about it more but I'm already wheezing. One last crack at it: The Hulkbuster from the trailer was a real letdown, too. It didn't do shit!

Looking at the box office numbers, it looks like Guardians of the Galaxy is only going to make back double its budget, not triple as I previously guessed. Too bad. But at least the sequel is already planned regardless. Shame it won't be making the kind of numbers that Cap and Thor's sequels did, at least. I would hope that by now, every MCU film would be pulling in, minimum, 500 mil.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2014, 02:40:23 PM »
Continuing on about IM3:

The 'action' scenes that had Tony outside of the suit were hardly just that. That's why people are mocking it by calling it Tony Stark 3, featuring Iron Man. They downplayed the suit usage so much it hardly seemed like an Iron Man movie for most of it.


It almost feels like you're being ironic on purpose here...because that's the entire point of the movie. Tony is going through post-Avengers PTSD and a 'what am I without my armor' crisis of faith. Most of IM3's storyline is about Tony proving to himself/the audience that yes, he is still Iron Man the superhero even when he's not wearing his power armor.

If you prefer explosively showy action sequences over character development, more power to you. But that wasn't what IM3 was looking for, so it didn't fail because it lacked your particular niche entertainment.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2014, 02:48:25 PM »
It almost feels like you're being ironic on purpose here...because that's the entire point of the movie. Tony is going through post-Avengers PTSD and a 'what am I without my armor' crisis of faith. Most of IM3's storyline is about Tony proving to himself/the audience that yes, he is still Iron Man the superhero even when he's not wearing his power armor.

If you prefer explosively showy action sequences over character development, more power to you. But that wasn't what IM3 was looking for, so it didn't fail because it lacked your particular niche entertainment.

That's funny because what I walked away with from that movie was the answer that, no, in fact, he is not Iron Man without the armor. He became a pussy-whipped pansy and as far as I was concerned, this meant Rhodey was going to be taking up the duties of Iron Man in future films. Whatever the intention was to make Tony complete his hero's journey, it was done so poorly (regardless of the other failings of the film) that it all went to waste. He didn't even learn that it wasn't okay to make fun of crippled people. I think if the film spent more time having him feeling the guilt of all his past actions that would have been a better reason for his stress and insomnia.

If he did use a modified version of Extremis to cure himself later on, it still was a complete waste because in the comic arc of Extremis he actually used it to upgrade himself before the final confrontation and that would have been a more plausible means for him to control and summon his suits in the never-explained telepathic manner he did near the end; did he really just copy Vanko's drone models or did JARVIS give himself an aneurysm trying to control all the complex actions each individual drone had to perform?

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2014, 07:11:56 PM »
That's funny because what I walked away with from that movie was the answer that, no, in fact, he is not Iron Man without the armor. He became a pussy-whipped pansy and as far as I was concerned, this meant Rhodey was going to be taking up the duties of Iron Man in future films. Whatever the intention was to make Tony complete his hero's journey, it was done so poorly (regardless of the other failings of the film) that it all went to waste. He didn't even learn that it wasn't okay to make fun of crippled people. I think if the film spent more time having him feeling the guilt of all his past actions that would have been a better reason for his stress and insomnia.

If he did use a modified version of Extremis to cure himself later on, it still was a complete waste because in the comic arc of Extremis he actually used it to upgrade himself before the final confrontation and that would have been a more plausible means for him to control and summon his suits in the never-explained telepathic manner he did near the end; did he really just copy Vanko's drone models or did JARVIS give himself an aneurysm trying to control all the complex actions each individual drone had to perform?

I... don't understand how you're getting "pussy-whipped pansy" out of Tony in IM3, and I honestly don't think I ever will. When I watched Iron Man 3, I felt like I was really getting to see Tony realize that even without his armor, he was still smart enough and courageous enough to get his way out of pretty much any situation, and that the armor just makes it easier. And honestly, I don't think a subplot  about Tony learning not to make fun of crippled people was necessary, because that scene happened years before the first Iron Man movie, and especially after The Avengers, it's pretty clear that Tony is a much different person than he was back then.

Also, I think making guilt and regret of his past actions the cause of his stress and insomnia would be re-treading way too much ground from Iron Man 1. Think about it. His whole arc in that movie revolves around the guilt and regret he feels for being so arrogant and careless with his company and the weapons he developed. That's the whole reason he became Iron Man. So to repeat essentially the same thing in Iron Man 3? Yeah, no. I vastly prefer the post-Avengers PTSD angle and think it makes much more sense, given what Tony actually went through in the Avengers.

I agree about the Extremis upgrade being poorly handled and at least potentially wasted, but they actually did explain how he could control the suit "telepathically" right in the beginning, when he's injecting the sub-dermal implants into his arms. I also think they made it quite obvious it was JARVIS controlling the Legion. Tony tells him straight up in the beginning of the fight, "JARVIS, target all Extremis heat signatures...". I also say potentially wasted, because I think there's a very decent chance of this coming back up in Age of Ultron. Maybe Cap asks where his Arc reactor is, or during a scene where he shows off his new suit.

EDIT: Also, they never actually said the heavy-lift suit was Hulkbuster, and we're actually getting the REAL Hulkbuster in Age of Ultron. So, yeah. That's gonna be some fun stuff. :P
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 07:13:33 PM by ShadowSlider »

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2014, 02:17:55 PM »
I... don't understand how you're getting "pussy-whipped pansy" out of Tony in IM3, and I honestly don't think I ever will. When I watched Iron Man 3, I felt like I was really getting to see Tony realize that even without his armor, he was still smart enough and courageous enough to get his way out of pretty much any situation, and that the armor just makes it easier. And honestly, I don't think a subplot  about Tony learning not to make fun of crippled people was necessary, because that scene happened years before the first Iron Man movie, and especially after The Avengers, it's pretty clear that Tony is a much different person than he was back then.

Also, I think making guilt and regret of his past actions the cause of his stress and insomnia would be re-treading way too much ground from Iron Man 1. Think about it. His whole arc in that movie revolves around the guilt and regret he feels for being so arrogant and careless with his company and the weapons he developed. That's the whole reason he became Iron Man. So to repeat essentially the same thing in Iron Man 3? Yeah, no. I vastly prefer the post-Avengers PTSD angle and think it makes much more sense, given what Tony actually went through in the Avengers.

I agree about the Extremis upgrade being poorly handled and at least potentially wasted, but they actually did explain how he could control the suit "telepathically" right in the beginning, when he's injecting the sub-dermal implants into his arms. I also think they made it quite obvious it was JARVIS controlling the Legion. Tony tells him straight up in the beginning of the fight, "JARVIS, target all Extremis heat signatures...". I also say potentially wasted, because I think there's a very decent chance of this coming back up in Age of Ultron. Maybe Cap asks where his Arc reactor is, or during a scene where he shows off his new suit.

EDIT: Also, they never actually said the heavy-lift suit was Hulkbuster, and we're actually getting the REAL Hulkbuster in Age of Ultron. So, yeah. That's gonna be some fun stuff. :P

I say pussy-whipped pansy because he blows up all his suits just because Pepper tells him to despite how shitty of an idea (not to mention an extremely wasteful and expensive decision) it is and takes out his arc reactor to basically really ram home the fact that he isn't Iron Man anymore. And I'm aware of his probes working for only the Mark 42 armor but not for any of the others, so if he was only telling Jarvis to target Extremis heat signatures, how did the other suits know to go rescue him when he jumped off a crane? Seriously, him having an Extremis upgrade modified to make him and his suits more compatible, that would have taken the whole 'telepathy' thing out of being an asspull. And the 'Igor' version of the Hulkbuster still ought to have had a bigger role and instead held up a falling tower which was like...why even bother? The Iron Legion actually managed to cheapen the idea of itself by being so mediocre.

Anyway, I haven't heard any updates on Ant-Man lately and I'm still really worried they're going to kill any chance of him making an impressive splash on the big screen. Losing Edgar Wright as director wouldn't have been as bad of a loss if they'd gotten his pal Joe Cornish to direct it but they went in a totally different direction and from what I've heard about who the villains are going to be, I'm doubtful it will be as super as we expect from superheroes.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 02:38:36 PM by Mathim »

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2014, 12:13:04 AM »
I say pussy-whipped pansy because he blows up all his suits just because Pepper tells him to despite how shitty of an idea (not to mention an extremely wasteful and expensive decision) it is and takes out his arc reactor to basically really ram home the fact that he isn't Iron Man anymore.

But that was the whole point of the movie. The single theme and issue was "Does the suit make the man, or does the man make the suit?" Tony even says it himself at the very end. You can take away his toys, you can take away his suits, and none of it matters because at the end of the day, everything that really makes Iron Man Iron Man comes from who Tony is as a person. Without him, the suit is just a suit.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2014, 10:24:20 AM »
They failed to make the point effective or accurate, is what I'm saying. As if to justify the failure at the end, they shoehorn in this phony self-discovering epiphany. It's as pathetic as the Hail to the King bluff to gloss over the glaring mistakes and oversights.

Blade, Ghost Rider and a few others are already back in Marvel Studios' pocket and I'm wondering how that's all going to work. In a world monitored by SHIELD you'd think things like vampires and demons would be difficult to justify only now starting to come onto their radar. Maybe they're waiting for Doctor Strange's movie before they start allowing these supernatural things to come out of the woodwork in a big way.

What does everyone think about Aquaman appearing in the BvS movie? I was kind of hoping Marvel might squeeze in their aquatic hero Namor the Sub-Mariner before, but I think Universal still owns the rights to his character (like they're ever going to do something with him!) Which of the two would you guys rather see, Aquaman or Namor, in their own stand-alone film?

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2014, 11:03:17 AM »
It depends.  I've seen an interpretation of Aquaman that was somewhat more respectable than the earlier comics versions - he'd lost a hand, and had a beard is my recollection of the physical differences.  Otherwise, Namor would win my vote.

Offline consortium11

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2014, 11:46:55 AM »
Aquaman suffers from the fact that for a long while, fairly or unfairly, he was considered a bit of a running joke, largely because his powers essentially came down to "can talk to fish" and occasionally "has a hook hand he can fire". Because of that he generally hasn't really had too many iconic storylines which relate to him and there have been several attempts to "redefine" the character but, as is the way with comic writers, most of that redefining consists of adding a load of angst and grimdark elements and little of it stuck.

Namor in contrast has a lot of options available. There's his links with the Fantastic Four but one could also focus on his role as the ruler of Atlantis (which is something the comics have tended to focus on in recent years) and possibly the conflict with Wakanda and the Black Panther, his time with the Invaders, his bromance/rivalry with Dr Doom etc etc.

He also has one of the better catchphrases in comics which means you've got a built in iconic moment for any film.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2014, 02:35:20 PM »
Aquaman suffers from the fact that for a long while, fairly or unfairly, he was considered a bit of a running joke, largely because his powers essentially came down to "can talk to fish" and occasionally "has a hook hand he can fire". Because of that he generally hasn't really had too many iconic storylines which relate to him and there have been several attempts to "redefine" the character but, as is the way with comic writers, most of that redefining consists of adding a load of angst and grimdark elements and little of it stuck.

Namor in contrast has a lot of options available. There's his links with the Fantastic Four but one could also focus on his role as the ruler of Atlantis (which is something the comics have tended to focus on in recent years) and possibly the conflict with Wakanda and the Black Panther, his time with the Invaders, his bromance/rivalry with Dr Doom etc etc.

He also has one of the better catchphrases in comics which means you've got a built in iconic moment for any film.

I don't know about conflict with Wakanda (would be hard to bring an Atlantean beatdown on a landlocked country, and the other ones are owned by different studios so none of that will be happening) but I'd love to finally see them make a Black Panther movie already, dammit. I'm tired of waiting for Marvel to let their balls descend and start taking more risks than just pumping out sequels to popular titles. Then again, they did that with Guardians and haven't yet doubled their budget. I wish I understood peoples' attitudes; Marvel or not, the movie rocked and should have been able to earn more than that even if not quite as good as the 600M average.

A Namor film would probably need a ton of CGI for the underwater environments and that would probably inflate the budget to the point where it would hurt it too much at the box office. It's weird but I always thought if Disney would remake The Little Mermaid in live action with all CGI backgrounds and stuff, that would be the only movie they'd spring for where the bulk of it takes place underwater (stuff like Finding Nemo doesn't count since it's 100% animated). Too bad DC and Marvel are unlikely to ever get their aquatic heroes their own films. Who has the right look to play Namor, anyway? He's the one hero where I can't immediately conjure up decent look-alike candidates to portray him.

Edit: I googled Namor catchphrases and couldn't pinpoint any good ones. Which one were you referring to?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2014, 02:39:31 PM by Mathim »

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2014, 02:51:03 PM »
Imperius Rex, maybe?

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2014, 02:58:15 PM »
Is that really a catchphrase, though? I have no idea what that even means.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2014, 03:03:52 PM »
According to TV Tropes,
Quote
Catch Phrase: "Imperius Rex!" It sure sounds cool. Namor's saying he's top dog, pretty much. Imperius is power, empire, while rex means king. Stan Lee did his homework.

So it's not a grammatically correct Latin sentence, but the meaning is easily translatable.

Wikipedia:
Quote
By now, during a period fans and historians call the Silver Age of Comic Books, he is more authoritative, arrogant and solemn than the impetuous youthful character of the 1940s and mid-1950s, speaking in neo-Shakespearean dialogue rather than the more colloquial speech of his youth, often shouting his battle cry, "Imperius Rex!".

And it's apparently iconic enough for at least one comic book fansite to use it as the headliner text in a Namor Movie Rights article.

http://www.comicbookbrainsplatter.com/2014/05/imperius-rex-namors-film-rights-are.html?m=1

So yeah, looks like that's his catchphrase.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2014, 03:05:46 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #42 on: August 16, 2014, 12:18:08 PM »
I grasp its meaning, it's just so...redundant? I think that's the right word. It just seems like ballast. Even "HULK SMASH!" has more clout.

Offline VonDoom

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #43 on: August 16, 2014, 07:04:26 PM »
Not quite a catchphrase, but he liked to refer to himself as 'The Avenging Son'.

An Invaders movie would be amazing, incidentally. Not sure if the FF license would interfere with the Original Human Torch or Namor, but with the success of Avengers it'd be pretty hard for it to fail -- it features a super-powered team, Captain America ... and the enemies are Nazis! What could possibly go wrong?

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #44 on: August 16, 2014, 07:29:41 PM »
But that was the whole point of the movie. The single theme and issue was "Does the suit make the man, or does the man make the suit?" Tony even says it himself at the very end. You can take away his toys, you can take away his suits, and none of it matters because at the end of the day, everything that really makes Iron Man Iron Man comes from who Tony is as a person. Without him, the suit is just a suit.
And that's the thing, that's not what we wanted to see in Iron Man 3.  We were expecting something more in the vein of Winter Soldier.  Instead we got Whiny Stark.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #45 on: August 18, 2014, 02:26:42 PM »
And that's the thing, that's not what we wanted to see in Iron Man 3.  We were expecting something more in the vein of Winter Soldier.  Instead we got Whiny Stark.

Exactly. Why bother having Tony make even more suits and power them up even more if he's just going to ultimately think of them as refuse? If they were going to go that route, the trailers could have been modified to show us in what direction they wanted to take us. Instead they bilked us out of 1.3 billion by feeding us bullshit.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #46 on: August 18, 2014, 02:45:10 PM »
Mathim brings up a good point.  The trailers and movie don't match, it feels like a Bait and Switch.  We were shown one thing in the trailers, got another out of the movie.

Offline consortium11

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2014, 05:40:46 AM »
Exactly. Why bother having Tony make even more suits and power them up even more if he's just going to ultimately think of them as refuse? If they were going to go that route, the trailers could have been modified to show us in what direction they wanted to take us. Instead they bilked us out of 1.3 billion by feeding us bullshit.

Mathim brings up a good point.  The trailers and movie don't match, it feels like a Bait and Switch.  We were shown one thing in the trailers, got another out of the movie.

Outside of the Mandarin twist (which I've already said I think was extremely well done but the wrong decision) I'm not sure I can agree.

I mean, watch the original trailer:



It features the suits being blown up, Tony talking about his PTSD, a harrowing look at a cracked Iron Man mask, Tony ripping the mask off, him dragging the Iron Man suit through the snow and only five or six clips of him actually in the suit, only one of which lasts more than a second or two (and that features him being dragged down to the depths). In contrast the first and second film trailers heavily featured him in the suit and suit-based action scenes.

Likewise one can look at the official blurb that went out with the trailer:

Quote
In Marvel's "Iron Man 3", brash-but-brilliant industrialist Tony Stark/Iron Man played by Robert Downey Jr., is pitted against an enemy whose reach knows no bounds. When Stark finds his personal world destroyed at his enemy's hands, he embarks on a harrowing quest to find those responsible. This journey, at every turn, will test his mettle. With his back against the wall, Stark is left to survive by his own devices, relying on his ingenuity and instincts to protect those closest to him. As he fights his way back, Stark discovers the answer to the question that has secretly haunted him: does the man make the suit or does the suit make the man?

That seems to say pretty clearly to me that this is a film about Stark breaking away from the suit.

Offline Neysha

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2014, 01:55:45 PM »
Imperius Rex is Namors most popular phrase.

And Iron Man 3 was a success by every measure.  1.2 billion box office. 78% on Rotten Tomatoes,  and a 7.4 user rating on IMDB. Top seller on home video that year.  People's opinions on the movie might differ,  but the film didn't fail to any stretch of the imagination.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2014, 02:34:27 PM »
Outside of the Mandarin twist (which I've already said I think was extremely well done but the wrong decision) I'm not sure I can agree.

I mean, watch the original trailer:



It features the suits being blown up, Tony talking about his PTSD, a harrowing look at a cracked Iron Man mask, Tony ripping the mask off, him dragging the Iron Man suit through the snow and only five or six clips of him actually in the suit, only one of which lasts more than a second or two (and that features him being dragged down to the depths). In contrast the first and second film trailers heavily featured him in the suit and suit-based action scenes.

Likewise one can look at the official blurb that went out with the trailer:

That seems to say pretty clearly to me that this is a film about Stark breaking away from the suit.

Them releasing another trailer after the first one, with the Iron Legion popping in at the end, kind of said otherwise, though. I remember the first trailer where I did get that impression but the rest of them really did pull the bait-and-switch that Chris Brady mentioned. If actions speak louder than words, I'd have to defer to what the trailer showed rather than any written statements.

Iron Man 3 failed to be a good IRON MAN movie, and at best I thought it a lackluster sci-fi/action movie on its own merits. It didn't fail in many other ways as Neysha pointed out (though I may disagree about whether it deserved not to fail in those other ways) and while I still want I and my friend's $25 back for that insult to our sensibilities and waste of two hours, I'm glad that Marvel did get that little bonus in their pockets that will hopefully give them more courage to take risks on other properties instead of just pumping out sequels with the same characters. It did cost them the price of the 3D tickets I flatly refused to shell out for Thor 2 and Cap 2 as a result; both of those films pleasing me made me trust Marvel Studios enough to spring for 3D on Guardians of the Galaxy and they impressed me even beyond my inflated expectations for it. So I'll definitely be shelling out the extra for 3D on Age of Ultron, though if they fuck THAT one up, I'm going to stay pissed at Marvel forever.

And I'm not sure if it's too soon to talk about Captain America: The Winter Soldier without spoilers but I'd like some opinions on a few things and I'll wrap them in spoiler tags just to be safe for sensitive viewers.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
I didn't like that the Falcon wasn't a knock-off Super Soldier like Bucky and that he didn't have the ability to commune with avians which Anthony Mackie reportedly said would be one of his abilities in an interview. How do you guys feel about this?
Also, SHIELD getting totally neutered while HYDRA is still out there seemed like a bad idea, especially with Agents of SHIELD looking forward to a second season. Your thoughts?
Finally, did anyone else feel like, as with Iron Man 3's villains having extremely weak and flimsy motivations for their actions, that the new HYDRA was a sort of cop-out for not being more in line with the Red Skull's ideals or at least having any intention of maybe finding or reviving him? Just seems like the fanatical cult turning into that watered-down version isn't really a good approach to defining this new threat (not to mention having a leader who isn't superpowered himself). But maybe that's just me. Opinions?