The Spoiler That Changed the World
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Two pages to make half of a point...
The way it was portrayed added to the context of the plot.
It will take not only mutual respect for the styles between the directors of all the heroes that will unite to be the Avengers.
And a special talent to juggle it together in a seemingly believabel storyline for the actual Avengers movie.
Hell, the avengers themselves in the comics never really convinced me as group. Good luck doing that in the movies.
The only time I remmeber this being pulled off to a slightly satisfying level was in the Hellboy comics, when Mike Mignola drew a gigantic space vessel monitoring an ancient cosmic horror.eels05 said:
The way it was portrayed added to the context of the plot.
It will take not only mutual respect for the styles between the directors of all the heroes that will unite to be the Avengers.
And a special talent to juggle it together in a seemingly believabel storyline for the actual Avengers movie.
Hell, the avengers themselves in the comics never really convinced me as group. Good luck doing that in the movies.
I still think that the other hook in the film was funnier.
Same SHIELD agent finds Captain America's half built shield in Tony's garage. It is flattened to hold up the Particle Accelerator
I think you might be suffering from a bit of fan boy puppy love this time around Bob. I found Iron Man 2 a significantly less interesting and fun movie than the first. And tying this into the current thread regarding the avengers, I think the primary issue with the movie was including shield at all!
Now before you all get your panties in a bunch, I'll state on the record that Iron man 2 wasn't a BAD movie. It just wasn't good, and the worst thing is that it had the potential to be SO much better. Just by tightening the story and removing some of the truly unnecessery elements, change the pacing a little, and give the bad guys more character development time, and you got a good film. Lets break down exactly what did go wrong.
First off, there's the entire protagonist deliemma we're presented with. Stark spends the ENTIRE movie trying to deal with his daddy issues and his mortality, only at the 11th hour to look at a model of a city, que the flashbulb light on how to solve the paladium degredation issue, and hes fixed! The entire plot of the story essentially boils down to this
Tony Stark: "Oh noes, imma die! Better go out with a bang!"
1.5 hours of going out with a fizzle. Time to wrap things up.
Nick Fury: "I am sick of the motherfucking sickness in this motherfucking hero! Fix yourself!"
Tony Stark: "Why didn't my daddy love me. Oh look, old behind the scenes footage! Daddy DID love me!"
Robot AI butler: "It is impossible to create a new power source master."
Tony Stark: "I'll show YOU robo butler! Get me some duct tape, captain America's shield and a large hadron collider!"
Robot AI butler: "You have created a new element in 5 minutes. MACGRUBER!"
Tony Stark: "I win!"
Make out with Pepper Pots.
Fin.
Now it's easy to poke fun at this plot, because the simple premise of it is redicilous. WHY spend an entire superhero movie watching a rich kid chuck a tantrum only to resolve all his issues in a 5 minute building montage scene with ACDC playing in the background? And even THEN it was a relucatant return to stark's history. The writers seemed adamant on including as much S.H.I.E.L.D action as possible, all to no avail. the bad guys got NO airtime, there was no character development, the love interest plot with Peper was back to square 1, nothing really HAPPENED! I can't fault the acting, nor the cast, nor the action. Just the plot and the pacing.
See, this is why writing is so important. The cast was excellent, every actor put their A game, but they just had nothing to work with. Even the fight scenes played second fiddle to Stark's shannegans, which with the proper script would have been great, but simply fell flat due to uneven pacing. There was just such a high level of inconsistency and lack of overall direction. If anything, Iron Man tried to do TOO much, then realized it only had a set amount of time to play with and tried to wrap everything neatly in a bow.
Take ScarJo's character. Sure it was great to see such a high class hottie in some tight leather, but exactly how would Iron man have suffered had she not been included? Seriously, her ONLY relevant addition to the entire movie was stopping the hack on War Machine, which could have been achieved by that negative nancy robo butler ("I cannot hack the suit remotley, we need a babe in leather to fix this situation). This same concept applies to the entire shield involvement in the movie. Save it for the avengers imo, let Iron man be Iron man and keep the universes and movies separate.
Now I am excited for the Avengers as well, but if Iron Man 2 has shown us anything it's that you should keep comic book movie adaptations in their own micro bubble - Tie it together like with the bonus scene at the end of the first Iron Man, and the End of Iron Man 2. Thats fine! But don't think for a second that explaining how stark got to be part of SHIELD in Iron Man 3 Means you don't have to explain it in the Avengers Movie.
Now before you all get your panties in a bunch, I'll state on the record that Iron man 2 wasn't a BAD movie. It just wasn't good, and the worst thing is that it had the potential to be SO much better. Just by tightening the story and removing some of the truly unnecessery elements, change the pacing a little, and give the bad guys more character development time, and you got a good film. Lets break down exactly what did go wrong.
First off, there's the entire protagonist deliemma we're presented with. Stark spends the ENTIRE movie trying to deal with his daddy issues and his mortality, only at the 11th hour to look at a model of a city, que the flashbulb light on how to solve the paladium degredation issue, and hes fixed! The entire plot of the story essentially boils down to this
Tony Stark: "Oh noes, imma die! Better go out with a bang!"
1.5 hours of going out with a fizzle. Time to wrap things up.
Nick Fury: "I am sick of the motherfucking sickness in this motherfucking hero! Fix yourself!"
Tony Stark: "Why didn't my daddy love me. Oh look, old behind the scenes footage! Daddy DID love me!"
Robot AI butler: "It is impossible to create a new power source master."
Tony Stark: "I'll show YOU robo butler! Get me some duct tape, captain America's shield and a large hadron collider!"
Robot AI butler: "You have created a new element in 5 minutes. MACGRUBER!"
Tony Stark: "I win!"
Make out with Pepper Pots.
Fin.
Now it's easy to poke fun at this plot, because the simple premise of it is redicilous. WHY spend an entire superhero movie watching a rich kid chuck a tantrum only to resolve all his issues in a 5 minute building montage scene with ACDC playing in the background? And even THEN it was a relucatant return to stark's history. The writers seemed adamant on including as much S.H.I.E.L.D action as possible, all to no avail. the bad guys got NO airtime, there was no character development, the love interest plot with Peper was back to square 1, nothing really HAPPENED! I can't fault the acting, nor the cast, nor the action. Just the plot and the pacing.
See, this is why writing is so important. The cast was excellent, every actor put their A game, but they just had nothing to work with. Even the fight scenes played second fiddle to Stark's shannegans, which with the proper script would have been great, but simply fell flat due to uneven pacing. There was just such a high level of inconsistency and lack of overall direction. If anything, Iron Man tried to do TOO much, then realized it only had a set amount of time to play with and tried to wrap everything neatly in a bow.
Take ScarJo's character. Sure it was great to see such a high class hottie in some tight leather, but exactly how would Iron man have suffered had she not been included? Seriously, her ONLY relevant addition to the entire movie was stopping the hack on War Machine, which could have been achieved by that negative nancy robo butler ("I cannot hack the suit remotley, we need a babe in leather to fix this situation). This same concept applies to the entire shield involvement in the movie. Save it for the avengers imo, let Iron man be Iron man and keep the universes and movies separate.
Now I am excited for the Avengers as well, but if Iron Man 2 has shown us anything it's that you should keep comic book movie adaptations in their own micro bubble - Tie it together like with the bonus scene at the end of the first Iron Man, and the End of Iron Man 2. Thats fine! But don't think for a second that explaining how stark got to be part of SHIELD in Iron Man 3 Means you don't have to explain it in the Avengers Movie.
I was REALLY annoyed that it was after the credits, I saw it opening night and we didn't know that there was a scene after the credits. Oh sure it's just the movie makers wanting you to watch the credits but [i/]fuck them[/i] I paid to see the movie and watch what I wanted to watch don't force me to watch through some crap just because you want your name to be glanced at and ignored. Would it have hurt them terribly to put that scene in front of the credits, really?
EDIT: I was still half way convinced that the Scarlet Witch would be the third avenger, it seemed like a better fit.
EDIT: I was still half way convinced that the Scarlet Witch would be the third avenger, it seemed like a better fit.
I don't think it's a scam to get you to watch the credits.pantsoffdanceoff said:
It's just that the after-the-credits teaser is the taint of the movie. It's where you put the crassly-marketed cliffhanger that's too much of a non sequitur to include in the actual movie.
-- Alex
I think the Thor magic thing could be handwaved quite easily through dialogue
Captain America: So he's actually a magical god?
Iron Man: (flippantly) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (quoting A. Clark), convergent evolution, alternate univer-
Thor (entering): If only it was that easy Mr Stark
That way you can accept either explanation that he's actually a Norse gods with magic powers or just an alien with advanced technology that resembles a myth.
Captain America: So he's actually a magical god?
Iron Man: (flippantly) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (quoting A. Clark), convergent evolution, alternate univer-
Thor (entering): If only it was that easy Mr Stark
That way you can accept either explanation that he's actually a Norse gods with magic powers or just an alien with advanced technology that resembles a myth.
I'm of the opinion that we're going to look back on Iron Man and see the appearance of more fantastical superheroes with actual powers as sort of the beginning of the end of everything good about these movies. See, the best stuff about the original Iron Man is the bits where different types of drama than typically seen in superhero movies (i.e. NOT the damsel in distress crap) is shown. Stark designing for his very life in a dank hole in a mountain? Sweet! Comedic banter between an egotistic hero and a bigger, cigar-smoking, money-loving narcissist? Awesome! A mech suit wrecking a bunch of lame army tanks of the sort Michael Bay wishes he could molest? Cool.
But now we've inserted fantastical super powers which aren't even remotely explainable, we've hinted at superhero team-ups with these more conventional supes and I'm sure more stereotypical villains are in the works as well. Pretty soon there'll be nothing to differentiate the Iron Man property from Fantastic 4.
But now we've inserted fantastical super powers which aren't even remotely explainable, we've hinted at superhero team-ups with these more conventional supes and I'm sure more stereotypical villains are in the works as well. Pretty soon there'll be nothing to differentiate the Iron Man property from Fantastic 4.
Im not even a comic book reader but I knew about this.
Ive even seen the picture of the hammer, and the famous 4 fight off that doom fella... like I said Im not a comic book person - so I cant really comment on what was going on... but I know the reference at least ^^
Ive even seen the picture of the hammer, and the famous 4 fight off that doom fella... like I said Im not a comic book person - so I cant really comment on what was going on... but I know the reference at least ^^
Im going to be as nice as I can about this. Anyone that knows the original Nick Fury knows he was alive in WW2. Unlike Cap, who was frozen, he was given an experimintal drug that slowed his aging, he still looks in his early forties with a touch of gray in his hair.MovieBob said:
Now I can see why they chose the Ultimates model of Nick, how the hell else you going to get Sam Jackson?(Btw I hate the marvel's Ultimate line and hope they stick to true marvel canon) But everything about his origins should still be canon untill said otherwise in the Avengers movie.
For you to say say "Wouldnt Nick fury be older than he looks?" Tells me your completly oblivious to the Marvel-verse. Do some research, I'll give you my Marvel encyclopedia so you can at least have a laymans understanding.
I speak as someone who has had to reference Wikipedia many times reading this thread - mainly to see what is so good about Captain America, as well as to learn of Mandarin and why he's revered so.
My knowledge on the Marvel universe is contained primarily within their cinema adaptations, with some knowledge on other characters vaguely recalled from childhood cartoons (mainly X-Men and Spiderman - how I was disappointed by my favourite Gambit in Origins).
As such, I feel it necessary to state that each and every film, no matter how grounded they attempt to make the Universe in which they reside, is viewed with the same fantastical view. To the extent that all superheroes live in the same world anyway - as effort is always taken to make sure the viewer knows this is Earth.
As a result, even though Iron Man 1 did a good job of being mildly plausible within our real world constraints, it is still tarred with the "man that can shoot laser beams from his eyes" believability. In that it isn't.
But we (as in the collective majority) don't watch these films for their real world correlation, nor their continuity between each film as part of a greater mother structure. We watch them for fantastical fights, with maybe a bit of story to tie it together.
Where Bob's analogy falls flat is that the Godfather for all intents and purposes could be actual historical events and Star Wars couldn't. Iron Man and Thor are both in tone with one another.
That being said, I know what he was trying to state; in that Iron Man is no longer "believable" as he has been introduced into Thor's world. For the audience majority, he never was as he was always part of the super family.
My knowledge on the Marvel universe is contained primarily within their cinema adaptations, with some knowledge on other characters vaguely recalled from childhood cartoons (mainly X-Men and Spiderman - how I was disappointed by my favourite Gambit in Origins).
As such, I feel it necessary to state that each and every film, no matter how grounded they attempt to make the Universe in which they reside, is viewed with the same fantastical view. To the extent that all superheroes live in the same world anyway - as effort is always taken to make sure the viewer knows this is Earth.
As a result, even though Iron Man 1 did a good job of being mildly plausible within our real world constraints, it is still tarred with the "man that can shoot laser beams from his eyes" believability. In that it isn't.
But we (as in the collective majority) don't watch these films for their real world correlation, nor their continuity between each film as part of a greater mother structure. We watch them for fantastical fights, with maybe a bit of story to tie it together.
Where Bob's analogy falls flat is that the Godfather for all intents and purposes could be actual historical events and Star Wars couldn't. Iron Man and Thor are both in tone with one another.
That being said, I know what he was trying to state; in that Iron Man is no longer "believable" as he has been introduced into Thor's world. For the audience majority, he never was as he was always part of the super family.
I don't know about anyone else, but the easter egg that excited me the most wasn't Cap's shield or Thor's hammer. It was when Tony started calling his little semi sentient robotic arm "U." They even had a couple of shots of a U stamped on it's hydraulics. U is for Ultron, or am I the only one who thinks that Tony's abused little robot sidekick is going to become one of the Avengers biggest foes????
P.S. I know that Ultron was created by Hank Pym, not Tony Stark, but I'm pretty sure any chance of an Ant Man movie is dead.
P.S. I know that Ultron was created by Hank Pym, not Tony Stark, but I'm pretty sure any chance of an Ant Man movie is dead.
they're really not though.Rabid Badger said:
the movies don't really follow any comic line continuity or cannon. Rather, they are like a new series in and of themselves... like, original Iron Man, Ultimate Iron Man (which reallllly sucked, what sort of origin is that? and giving tony stark real super powers just to explain how he survives being in his SUPER ARMOR is silly), The Iron Man movies.Primus1985 said:
Thats exactly why Thor never did fit in with the "realistic" movie slant things are taking, but let's face it...I'd rather they include Norse Gods than make Thor just some dude with a scientifically enhanced hammer that isn't the son of a Norse God.
We knew this was coming, so relax.
We knew this was coming, so relax.