It's arguably the most polarizing MCU film ever. There are some great threads in it, and some really bad ones too.
It's worth watching though. I still don't know where I'd rank it with the other two.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Marvel Cinematic Universe |OT2| Discussion on released and future projects (spoilers)
- Thread starter TDLink
- Start date
- Status
It's worth watching though. I still don't know where I'd rank it with the other two.
Iron Man 3 is an interesting one. I had a lot of fun with it, but it was also just an odd movie.
Ending spoiler:
Edit: GAH, I think I might just watch Iron Man right now. Combination of Enzo's avatar and talking about IM3 is putting the idea in my head.
Though, I did just get Cap 2. So, really, Cap 2 vs. Iron Man 1.
Ending spoiler:
The way it concluded was the weirdest, but it made sense in terms of how the movie was put together. It felt like a definite ending to the Iron Man movies.
Tony having himself "fixed" by removing the arc reactor and shrapnel from his chest was a huge step forward for him as a character to move on. At the same time, I initially thought when I saw it the first time was "why didn't you just do that sooner?"
Tony having himself "fixed" by removing the arc reactor and shrapnel from his chest was a huge step forward for him as a character to move on. At the same time, I initially thought when I saw it the first time was "why didn't you just do that sooner?"
Edit: GAH, I think I might just watch Iron Man right now. Combination of Enzo's avatar and talking about IM3 is putting the idea in my head.
Though, I did just get Cap 2. So, really, Cap 2 vs. Iron Man 1.
When I first watched Iron Man 3 I knew it would be the hardest MCU movie for me to form an overall opinion on. There are things that annoy me, and other times there are flashes of brilliance. In the end, the more times I watched it the more I liked the character arc they put Stark through which lifted my feelings towards the movie. I'd say it is a middle of the road MCU movie in terms of quality. If I had to give it a position, I'd say that it isn't joining the upper echelon of Cap 2, Avengers, IM 1, and GotG, but it is certainly the next best movie beneath them.
Personally I loved IM3 very much and it's definitely at almost the top of my MCU list, but yeah, there are some things here and there that end up making it quite a divisive movie.
To me
it ended just perfect, and why he didn't do it early is quite clear: he was scared, and he'd end up with a huge hole in his chest.
eastx
Member
Problem is there's no story leading up to his deciding to fix it. They just throw the scene in there without connective tissue. Sure, it fits the theme about him outgrowing the suits (which is a lame theme IMO) but it needed some direct buildup. The scene is mostly in there as a result of their Chinese financing deal, as I understand it (the doctor is big in China or something).
I fucking love Iron Man 3. Everything from the script to the direction was just so smooth. It's like watching a lost 80s/90s action film with a mix of buddy cop themes, hero-meets-a-boy, and a crazy villain who's actually charismatic and a total douchebag you want to punch in the face. It was just pure fun watching the characters interact with each other. Great dynamics. It's also probably the most violent Marvel movie to date, maybe on par with Winter Soldier, but in very different ways.
alexandros
Banned
I wish I could agree. It's a fun watch if you are in the proper mindset, that I won't deny, but there are glaring issues with the script that left me really disappointed. I've forgiven some of its shortcomings over time and after the Hail to the King one shot but when I first watched it in the theater I wanted to get up and leave at some point. It's just filled with plot holes, inane actions by the protagonists, dumb twists, bad dialogue, horribly bad villains and unsatisfying action. A couple of good action set pieces is all the movie has to offer.
Same here, this never happened before...
eastx
Member
I actually like the dialogue pretty well. Totally agreed on plot holes and inane actions. But do you really think the villains are worse than those of other Marvel villains? At least the main bad had relatable motivation for hating Tony. Ronan, Dark Elf, and Red Skull have less development and just want to hurt the heroes because they hate everybody.
Loved it. It's my second favourite solo film behind Winter Soldier.
alexandros
Banned
It's true that the MCU in general lacks interesting villains so far, hopefully Age of Ultron will fix this. Still, Killian was just awful. I didn't see why he had to hate Stark, ok so he stood him up, was that really enough to drive him to think about suicide? I mean he was part of a think tank, they had a promising research project going, in what way was Tony snubbing him off so important that he hated him for it? Why did he become desperate? Was it ever established that AIM had financial or other problems and needed Stark desperately?
Further more, what was Killian's overall plan? To create conflict so that his soldiers could find work? Why? One would think that in a world where superheroes exist the potential for human augmentation would be really lucrative for most governments worldwide. I don't understand what he's trying to achieve.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I just learned that Vin voiced Groot's role also in Spanish and a bunch of other languages. I intend to watch the subbed version, but that's way cool.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
I see what you folks mean by diverting opinions regarding IM3.
Okay, another question that has me wondering....
Is Asgard and the Nine Worlds in another dimension (sans Midgard, of course) or do they occupy our physical universe? So, for example, could Star-Lord conceivably fly to Asgard or Vanaheim or would he need a dimensional portal? I was under the assumption they're all in our cosmos but I've heard some people say, or at least think, they're in an extradimensional space.
I'm talking MCU, btw. I know in the comics they are in another plane of existence.
Okay, another question that has me wondering....
Is Asgard and the Nine Worlds in another dimension (sans Midgard, of course) or do they occupy our physical universe? So, for example, could Star-Lord conceivably fly to Asgard or Vanaheim or would he need a dimensional portal? I was under the assumption they're all in our cosmos but I've heard some people say, or at least think, they're in an extradimensional space.
I'm talking MCU, btw. I know in the comics they are in another plane of existence.
X
Xpike
Unconfirmed Member
I'm sure he's still Groot.
If the hammer flying through space is any indication, yes, same dimension. The portals are merely fast travel
He'll probably reprise his role as Groot. Judging by his interviews & massive amounts of GotG stuff he's doing/posting, he loved every second of voicing Groot.
After everyone wanting him to say more than 3 words Feige will probably cast him as Black Bolt for the lols.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Just saw that on my feed a few minutes ago.... Interesting.Is Vin Diesel trying to tell us something?
ratcliffja
Member
Vin Diesel is a comics nerd so I wouldn't read too much into it.
Doalateralus
Neo Member
I think if he plays any kind of hero, Black Bolt suits him best.
Although it's a little bit of a shame he was used for Groot, I think he'd actually have pulled off an interesting Dormammu voice.
Although it's a little bit of a shame he was used for Groot, I think he'd actually have pulled off an interesting Dormammu voice.
superdeluxe
Member
Old article, but does Marvel have Cable?
Gathering of scribes will help Marvel come up with creative ways to launch its lesser-known properties, such as Black Panther, Cable, Doctor Strange, Iron Fist, Nighthawk and Vision.
http://variety.com/2009/film/news/marvel-s-hiring-writers-1118001734/
Gathering of scribes will help Marvel come up with creative ways to launch its lesser-known properties, such as Black Panther, Cable, Doctor Strange, Iron Fist, Nighthawk and Vision.
http://variety.com/2009/film/news/marvel-s-hiring-writers-1118001734/
Cable's a mutant, so no.
Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver... Even Namor is a Mutant but seperated from the X-Men licence. But in this case I dont when the licence was sold and Namor established as a mutant.
Cable is a key character in many X-men storylines, was created firstly to be part of the X-men storyline, and headlined X-Force which is clearly part of the X-men franchise. Fox has everything under the X-men umbrella, so that will include Cable and X-Force. Marvel never had him.
Question for you guys here. Bug and the Badoon were originally planned for GotG, but were cut from the film because Marvel didn't own the film rights to them. (Bug was removed from the team, Badoon were replaced with Sakaaran)
So is the Fantastic Four license the reason Marvel can't use them? I've never read much of Fantastic Four so I'm not really sure, but I always associated that stuff with cosmic Marvel. I'm especially curious about Bug's situation.
So is the Fantastic Four license the reason Marvel can't use them? I've never read much of Fantastic Four so I'm not really sure, but I always associated that stuff with cosmic Marvel. I'm especially curious about Bug's situation.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Bug would I of been great, but he was connected with the micronauts mostly. Idk if that is a FF property or not.
The Badoon are definitely Fantastic Four, but I imagine Bug's problems are tied up with the Micronauts - I think Hasbro currently owns the rights to them. Marvel should have full ownership of Bug, since he's an original character, but there might be something weird tied up in his rights. Wikipedia says Hasbro was trying to make a Micronauts movie a few years ago, so maybe that has something to do with it?
Thanks for the replies.
I looked up Bug on Wikipedia and he sounds like a mess.
This whole thing makes no sense. Marvel only sold the rights to X-Men, FF, and Spidey, so they should still own Bug. How they can continue to use him in comics, but not on film doesn't make sense either unless Marvel's lawyers just want to cover their ass in case of a lawsuit from Hasbro over his origins.
Miggytronz
Gold Member
oops
Two questions about Iron Man 3:
1. Rhodey gets captured by Killian and 2nd in Command. Killian takes off, I guess 2nd in command does too. Then Rhodey is free to go? I don't understand why they didn't off him while they had the chance, because in the next scene he is shooting dudes again. Its not the biggest problem, but am I missing something here?
2. Is it possible that he didn't actually remove extremis from Pepper but just got rid of the explodey part? The whole time during the movie they wanted him to finish the fix that he started 13 years earlier. So he said he did some tinkering, and got her straightened up (or something).
1. Rhodey gets captured by Killian and 2nd in Command. Killian takes off, I guess 2nd in command does too. Then Rhodey is free to go? I don't understand why they didn't off him while they had the chance, because in the next scene he is shooting dudes again. Its not the biggest problem, but am I missing something here?
2. Is it possible that he didn't actually remove extremis from Pepper but just got rid of the explodey part? The whole time during the movie they wanted him to finish the fix that he started 13 years earlier. So he said he did some tinkering, and got her straightened up (or something).
Your first point is a big plothole that a lot of people pointed out at the movie's release. As for your second point, I would assume that Tony somehow got Extremis removed from Pepper or he made it dormant in her since even if he fixed the part about exploding, I doubt Pepper would still have the powers or regenerative abilities that came from Extremis.
The movie deals with
something that was happening in the last few movies and specifically brought up in The Avengers when Cap says to Tony "Big man in a suit of armour. Take that off, what are you?": Tony is having an identity crisis where his being is defined entirely by Iron Man, not "Tony Stark". This is also why a lot of the movie is outside the suit (plus all that "the mechanic" thing with the kid is meant to be a self rediscovery journey), and by the end he has come to terms with himself and realised that the suits, the arc reactor in his chest, the "shrapnel constantly threatening my life" are (optional) part of him but are not him nor should be what defines who he is. And this is made abundantly clear by the final line of the movie: "My armor was never a distraction or a hobby, it was a cocoon, and now I'm a changed man. You can take away my house, all my tricks and toys, but one thing you can't take away - I am Iron Man".
Also no,
he did not "outgrow" his suits, only disposed of the shitty ones he did (remember that he built like 35 suits in a couple of months while sleep depraved, which is a lot).
*Brofist*
So you are one of those that
hate it for the Mandarin twist
I also love how people forget that
the entire movie is being told by Tony to Bruce in a "therapy" session, and Tony is an unreliable narrator.
It's likely that Killian idolized Tony, and "promising project" doesn't equal real funding especially when said project is prone to exploding so it probably wasn't going anywhere. Also people commit suicide in real life for the stupidest reasons, I can buy it for him to contemplate it in that situation.
Profit clearly, and beating Tony at his own game. And it's not conflict only to get work for his soldiers, but he could potentially control warfare as a whole.
I don't recall if it has been explicitly stated but an argument could be made for either really.
Well, AoS is pointing towards the appearance of Inhumans, so hopefully he's not trolling usIs Vin Diesel trying to tell us something?
1. Pretty sure Rhodey just escaped, but I'll blame that on Tony not being there.
2. I do believe that he did just that,
having Pepper being an almost unkillable super strong person would help him greatly as he'd have to worry less about her.
eastx
Member
Tony outgrowing the suit is just a metaphorical summary of exactly what you said. That he doesn't need it to be a hero, yadda yadda. It's the theme of the movie, and I totally get it even though I don't care for it.
Removing the arc reactor from his chest,
Maybe it makes more sense in the extended Chinese version, although the impressions I read at Kotaku said the extra footage was really crappy and didn't fit the movie either.
alexandros
Banned
The last line of the movie (and the movie as a whole) is a complete antithesis to Stark's line from Iron Man 2 that "he and the suit are one", which is a much more accurate and realistic description of the Iron Man character. The "you can take away my tricks and toys" bit contradicts the whole movie before it, as Tony Stark by himself failed multiple times and was saved by his "tricks and toys". The suit saved him during the initial mandarin assault on his house, his tech saved him during the confrontation with Killian's goons in that town, the remote-controlled suit saved the airplane passengers, the suits in the end saved the day at the ship.
I suppose the movie's trying to say that "look, Tony is still awesome even with a crappy suit or no suit at all!" Great, but without the suit and his tech he's just a very smart guy. He's not Iron Man. Iron Man 3 is a movie that basically doesn't feature Iron Man (Tony + suit) at all, which may be fine for those people who watch the Iron Man movies solely to see RDJ being RDJ but it sucks for people who love the Iron Man character. Stark in the end lost to Killian and he would have died if not for Killian's dumb, dumb, dumb decision to give a woman that hates him superpowers. "I want you as a trophy wife, here's some superpowers so that you can kick my ass in case you don't die". What the fuck!
I suppose the movie's trying to say that "look, Tony is still awesome even with a crappy suit or no suit at all!" Great, but without the suit and his tech he's just a very smart guy. He's not Iron Man. Iron Man 3 is a movie that basically doesn't feature Iron Man (Tony + suit) at all, which may be fine for those people who watch the Iron Man movies solely to see RDJ being RDJ but it sucks for people who love the Iron Man character. Stark in the end lost to Killian and he would have died if not for Killian's dumb, dumb, dumb decision to give a woman that hates him superpowers. "I want you as a trophy wife, here's some superpowers so that you can kick my ass in case you don't die". What the fuck!
Actually, Age of Ultron starts off with Stark creating Ultron drones so he doesn't have to don the Iron Man suit.
Do you think this or was this confirmed?
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Ironically enough, yes. The parallel is particularly odd since Stark helped develop the next generation helicarriers SHIELD deployed.
They could spin it as Stark trying to "do it right", which would be doubly morbid since it results in Ultron. Bit of a cock up there.
I just watched the Winter Soldier, and Fury said Stark helped with the repulsor engine. He didn't say anything about helping design the new helicarriers entirely.
Designing those helicarriers himself contradicts Iron Man 1 with Stark stopping weapons development for the government.
Designing those helicarriers himself contradicts Iron Man 1 with Stark stopping weapons development for the government.
- Status