stinkychops said:
dwightsteel said:
stinkychops said:
Um, well I think that IronMan had a terrible plot. There wasn't a single part in the movie that could be explained with logic, yet the movie tried so hard.
So, I'm not flaming you, because I don't want to get suspended again, but explain yourself. The fact that you said, and I quote, "There wasn't a single part in the movie that could be explained with logic" feels like a complete cop out. Considering how many people love this movie, I think you owe it to us to explain that statement with some detail, unless you're content to be the schmuck who claims that Iron Man made no sense with absolutely nothing to back up your statement.
Okay buddy,
I'm sorry but I was too tired to go through an hour and a half of bad logic.
To begin with, how did he build a suit with flamethrowers, which was impenetrable to armor-piercing rounds. It then burst open from impact with the ground, leaving him unharmed. The very fact he suffered no injury from the bullets. He then made it home, I forget how. Went and built one, which he flew no problem sraight away. The othe rguy, makes a suit 10x better from the plans of the old one. He crushes ironmans head like it was foil, but then can't crush ironman. Why was the convoy flown into the middle of hostile territory? So that it could then drive out of it? None of it made any sense, come on man.
I hate doing this because it makes me look like a massive nerd, but here goes.
First point: Flamethrowers. He was given a massive stock of munitions to play with to build his missile. Two engineering geniuses (which the movie implied they were) would have no problem building a flame thrower with fuel (which they'd need to power the rocket) and other basic supplies.
Your second point: first suit being impenetrable to armor piercing rounds. Firstly, they never once said or even implied that they were using armor piercing rounds. They lived in a poor country, and it's not like that terrorist cell was well funded. Who's to say they had such bullets? If they did, who's to say that the material used to construct the Mach 1 wasn't outfitted with better alloys to combat that very problem? It's not an unreasonable assumption considering Stark Enterprises was known in the movie to be on the forefront of munitions and they built the suit with those materials.
Your third/fourth point: the suit cracked open upon impact with the ground, and Tony Stark was mysteriously unharmed. High altitude stress upon the armor can easily explain that, but your second part of that point has merit. It is unlikely that he would have survived that fall, especially unharmed, but that is where the term "suspension of disbelief" comes in to play. If Spielberg can reasonably expect an audience to believe Indiana Jones would survive a nuclear explosion in a lead lined refrigerator, then Jon Favreau should be given at least a little latitude on this point. Hey, if Chev Chelios can survive a fall from a helicopter, then I'd say Tony Stark should be able to fall a less perilous fall in the desert with soft sand to cushion his fall. He made it home when a search party found him, not an entirely unlikely scenario.
Third point: his Mach 2 outfit could fly right away. Not necessarily true. There was a sequence where he was testing his flight capabilities before he put them in the suit. In one of said tests, he is quite unsuccessful. With proper navigation software (which he had in the suit), his test flight went relatively successfully. If you're willing to accept that Iron Man could ever fly in this movie, then your whole point is moot. And if not, I point back to my "suspension of disbelief" point. It's a superhero movie, it's not meant to be grounded in absolute logic.
Fourth Point: The Iron Monger armor Obidiah built being better than Starks. The difference here was addressed in the movie and actually quite a strong part of the subtext. Could Stark have built the suit the way that Stane did? Of course he could. He built the mini ARC generator that powered the suit, that Stane needed to steal. But Stark built his suit to fix a problem he felt he created and to help people. It was thus streamlined and built to be as non-lethal as he could, without limiting his ability to incapacitate other war machines. Stane on the other hand built his suit to be the ultimate war weapon. Thus it was bigger with more intense weaponry. This isn't a matter of logic, but philosophy. As for not being able to crush tony, he wasn't trying to. He was toying with him, trying to hurt him before he killed him.
Fifth Point: the Convoy. I don't suppose it occurred to you that Stane was deliberately helping the enemy?
Finally, there isn't a movie made that holds up to absolute logical scrutiny. Especially in the genre of Superhero flicks. Iron Man did WAY better then most. The fact is that most of your points are mere nitpicks, and yet you can amazingly use them to discredit the whole movie, claiming it's illogical. If logic is all your care about (and I'm seriously starting to wonder), then you best be considering the irony of your own statement.
