What's new

May 3, 2013 Iron Man 3 announced (1 Viewer)

Morphling

Auditioning
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
4
Real Name
Raigor Stonehoof
TravisR said:
I envy anyone who thinks Iron Man 2 is truly awful because they must not have seen too many bad movies. I'm not saying Iron Man 2 is particularly good but it's bravura filmmaking compared to some of the garbage that I've seen in my life. Even leaving out things like no budget terrible movies (Manos: The Hands Of Fate) or low budget terrible movies (the Police Academy movies), it's still better than many other comic books movies like Elektra or Ghost Rider or The Punisher movies or Jonah Hex or Catwoman or the third and fourth Superman movies or the Schumacher Batman movies or the third X-Men movie.
actually they are the same series,they are The Avengers. :dance:
 

Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
5,938
Real Name
Sean
I liked it quite a bit. I still think the first one is the best, but I'd put "Iron Man Three" up near it as a worthy successor in the series (IM2 was "okay" and definitely had some good stuff, but it was not quite up to snuff and was somewhat disappointing considering the first, but part three delivers). Quite a different style/vibe with this one. It had some great humor (but I certainly wouldn't consider it anywhere near being a "comedy"), cool action, and nice character stuff for Tony with his PTSD and identity issues. Pepper of course had some great stuff too. I'd say its really more of the adventures of Tony Stark than "Iron Man", but thats really pretty cool since, as Tony comes to accept, Tony IS Iron Man.Honestly, I think this movie really speaks to the question Cap raised in The Avengers: "Big man in a suit of armor. Take that away and what are you?"Tony's retort in Avengers was true and amusing, but this movie is basically the serious answer to that question. He's Iron Man. Nice.I really like the new theme for Iron Man, and the retro version of it used during the end credits was really fun to listen to. It kind of had an "Incredibles" vibe. I loved the after credits scene. I thought it was perfect. Definitely my favorite out of all 7 films' post credit scenes. It was character and fun and gave a little bit more information about THIS movie. Sure the future movie foreshadowing stuff has been cool in the others, but this was just .... " big smile inducing". "I'm not that kind of doctor." Ha! Great stuff!
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328
Sean Bryan said:
I liked it quite a bit.I still think the first one is the best, but I'd put "Iron Man Three" up near it as a worthy successor in the series (IM2 was "okay" and definitely had some good stuff, but it was not quite up to snuff and was somewhat disappointing considering the first, but part three delivers).Quite a different style/vibe with this one. It had some great humor (but I certainly wouldn't consider it anywhere near being a "comedy"), cool action, and nice character stuff for Tony with his PTSD and identity issues. Pepper of course had some great stuff too. I'd say its really more of the adventures of Tony Stark than "Iron Man", but thats really pretty cool since, as Tony comes to accept, Tony IS Iron Man.Honestly, I think this movie really speaks to the question Cap raised in The Avengers: "Big man in a suit of armor. Take that away and what are you?"Tony's retort in Avengers was true and amusing, but this movie is basically the serious answer to that question. He's Iron Man. Nice.I really like the new theme for Iron Man, and the retro version of it used during the end credits was really fun to listen to. It kind of had an "Incredibles" vibe.I loved the after credits scene. I thought it was perfect. Definitely my favorite out of all 7 films' post credit scenes. It was character and fun and gave a little bit more information about THIS movie. Sure the future movie foreshadowing stuff has been cool in the others, but this was just .... " big smile inducing". "I'm not that kind of doctor." Ha! Great stuff!
I agree it was fun, but they did "fun" with the "Avengers" aftercredits - I just hoped for a little teaser!
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,598
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Colin Jacobson said:
I agree it was fun, but they did "fun" with the "Avengers" aftercredits - I just hoped for a little teaser!
Actually, they did give you a little teaser as to the type of relationship between those two characters.
 

Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
5,938
Real Name
Sean
Now that the film has been released both internationally and domestically, how do you guys feel about open discussion of spoilers?
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,425
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Sean Bryan said:
Now that the film has been released both internationally and domestically, how do you guys feel about open discussion of spoilers?
I generally wait through at least the opening weekend (and usually even longer) before freely using spoilers but once the movie is released to the general public, I think people who don't want to read a spoiler should avoid the threads specific to that movie. I stayed out of this thread from Thursday night until Friday afternoon because I wanted to remain spoiler free (I didn't even know Guy Pearce was in the movie).
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,598
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Sean Bryan said:
Now that the film has been released both internationally and domestically, how do you guys feel about open discussion of spoilers?
People reading this thread now with it being released to the general public and haven't see the film yet, do so at their own risk. You have to expect people wanting to talk about it especially during its opening weekend.
 

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,565
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
I liked it a lot too. Much better than Iron Man 2( which I hardly even remember). Much funnier than I thought, especially one character, and all around a good time at the theater. Saw it in IMAX 3D and it was well worth it. 3 1/2 out stars out of 4Btw, the 945am IMAX screening I saw was about 90% full and of that 90, about 90% stayed thru the credits for the extra scene. First time I have ever seen that many people do that.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,598
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Tino said:
I liked it a lot too. Much better than Iron Man 2( which I hardly even remember).Much funnier than I thought, especially one character, and all around a good time at the theater. Saw it in IMAX 3D and it was well worth it.3 1/2 out stars out of 4Btw, the 945am IMAX screening I saw was about 90% full and of that 90, about 90% stayed thru the credits for the extra scene. First time I have ever seen that many people do that.
I watched it in IMAX 3-D too. My 12 noon showing on Friday was basically sold out and though many left before the credits were done, I would say about 60% stayed for them.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328
Robert Crawford said:
Actually, they did give you a little teaser as to the type of relationship between those two characters.
I guess - I just wanted something that felt like a more concrete story lead-in to "Avengers 2". This seemed like an echo of the shawarma scene...
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,598
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Colin Jacobson said:
I guess - I just wanted something that felt like a more concrete story lead-in to "Avengers 2". This seemed like an echo of the shawarma scene...
To each his own as I'm sure we can't all agree on what we want for those type of add-on scenes.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,425
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Unless I have to hit the bathroom, I generally stay for the credits anyway but after seeing the PS, I felt like "I waited for almost 10 minutes just for that?" I think after how funny I found The Avengers one, I built it up too much. :)
 

Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
5,938
Real Name
Sean
Colin Jacobson said:
I guess - I just wanted something that felt like a more concrete story lead-in to "Avengers 2". This seemed like an echo of the shawarma scene...
This was interesting from Feige:
Feige: And the other thing is, when you see THE AVENGERS 2, you'll see there was stuff that is leading up to it. It's just not as overt, because, frankly, it doesn't need to be as overt. Audiences already get it, they already understand. Actually, it's going to be the opposite problem. Some people will ask, "How come Nick Fury didn't show up? How come he didn't call Captain America to help him?" And there are answers for that, too.
I'd bet that AIM will be a factor in The Avengers 2. I'm wondering what else might be?Also, regarding the "Mandarin", does anyone else wonder if there might be more to the character than was overtly portrayed in this film?SPOILER WARNING!!!!!So in this Marvel Cinematic Universe, the Mandarin was just a theatrical deception created by Killian as a cover for explosions caused by his Extremis subjects that were unstable and went BOOM and as a catalyst for helping him maneuver power plays behind the scenes. As Killian said in the climax, ultimately he was the true "Mandarin". I thought that was pretty cool and I have no issues with it (not being a huge follower of Iron Man comic books). However, I have a bit of a lingering feeling that there is a small possibility that maybe there is more to Kingsley's character. Everyone in Killian's group was aware that the "Mandarin" was working with Killian and I assumed they were also aware he was "just an actor". But he was referred to as "The Master" and there was talk of not looking him in the eyes during his broadcasts for fear of being shot in the face. Is Master just an "actor reference"? Or maybe an inside joke for all of them? Was the talk of getting shot in the face just a figurative expression referring to temperamental actor? Or do only the "top people" know he was just an actor while the test of the henchman thought he was real? Probably one of those, or something along those lines. I'd say it should probably to be taken at face value as portrayed in the movie. Although Kingsley's character (I forget his name) did give them some misdirection about the Vice President. The info he gave them indicated that the VP was being targeted, but the VP was in on it and the POTUS was the real target. So was his character all to be taken at face value and these little things have explanations, or is there a small chance there is really a third persona working there that might play into a future film? Probably not, but a small part of me is wondering about that. I need a second viewing to see if I'm still suspicious. Any thoughts on that?
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,971
Location
Albany, NY
I'm probably one of the rare people who liked Iron Man 2 better than Iron Man 3, because I thought Favreau's sensibility was a better fit with the character, but I still really really enjoyed the movie. It's got easily the most inventive action sequences of any Marvel movie. Each one is like a mini-story within itself, with the stakes and changing circumstances clearly telegraphed.
todd s said:
One nitpick that bothered me and some others.... (spoiler)You have this huge terrorist with the Mandarin. So Tony goes to get the Mandarin at his compound with no suit or support. Then when he has to decide whether to save Pepper or Air Force 1. He wouldnt contact Shield or the other Avengers. Yes, I know its an IM movie. But, this is the problem you have when you mesh heroes together in one cinematic universe.
I actually thought they did a good job of accounting for this, better than the comics usually do; at that point in the story, basically the entire world thought Tony Stark was dead. At that point, it worked to Tony's advantage and -- given the way the U.S. government was infiltrated -- he wasn't going to expose himself to an entire organization like S.H.I.E.L.D. The amount of story time between when the anonymity of being dead was useful and when he had to choose between Air Force One and Pepper was very short.
TravisR said:
Maybe I'm a dope but I totally bought into (spoiler)Pepper's apparent death. I was shocked by how needlessly cruel of a turn that would be but I totally bought it.
I probably would have if they hadn't shown her in the video with the fiery internal glow. As soon as I saw that, I knew she was safe.Given that Rebecca Hall's character had the injection in her hand when she was shot, and she didn't die instantly, I wouldn't be surprised if she injected herself and saved herself.
Todd H said:
And speaking of the Iron Man armor, how is it that it took hits from Thor, one of the most powerful heroes in the marvel universe, as well as invading aliens with advanced technology yet a bunch of juiced soldiers were ripping the armor apart like papier-mâché? Absolutely ridiculous. Heck, most of the armor just blew up when Stark's home was attacked. So it can survive going through a dimensional portal into the coldness of space but a few missiles make it blow apart instantaneously?
It's different armor than the armor from the first two films and The Avengers. Tony made the choice to sacrifice some of the construction strength in exchange for the portability of having it come at his call and cloak him. Getting into and out of the armor from the earlier films was a much more involved process. Since the new armor was designed to bring into a bunch of light portable pieces, it makes sense that it'd be more vulnerable at the joints between the pieces.
And when (spoiler)Potter appeared to die, Tony didn't seemed to be bothered emotionally at all. Heck, get angry...shed a tear...do something. All we get is more one-liners and mugging for the camera.
He was in the moment, in a life or death struggle with the person who apparently just killed the love of his life. His focus was on stopping the threat, and he couldn't let the other stuff intrude.
Lastly, the whole Mandarin story was one of the biggest slaps in the face to those of us that grew up reading the comics. (spoiler)He goes from one of the most menacing and dangerous villains in Marvel comics to a joke. What a waste of Mr. Kingsley.
I can definitely see why you and a lot of other comics readers feel that way. For me, it was my very favorite part of the film. I don't think it weakens the movie, because it basically transforms the Mandarin from being a single vulnerable person to being an idea; if an actor is the face of the Mandarin, then the Mandarin is immortal because you can replace the face over and over again.And I don't think it was a waste of Ben Kingsley at all. He can do the operatic Mandarin in his sleep at this point. But the truth of the character is completely different from every other role he's played, and I would bet is the reason he agreed to do the film. You could tell he was having a blast the entire time, and he was the standout character of the film to me.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,971
Location
Albany, NY
Sean Bryan said:
Everyone in Killian's group was aware that the "Mandarin" was working with Killian and I assumed they were also aware he was "just an actor". But he was referred to as "The Master" and there was talk of not looking him in the eyes during his broadcasts for fear of being shot in the face. Is Master just an "actor reference"? Or maybe an inside joke for all of them? Was the talk of getting shot in the face just a figurative expression referring to temperamental actor? Or do only the "top people" know he was just an actor while the test of the henchman thought he was real?
My guess is that Killian, the guards assigned to babysit the Mandarin and maybe Hall's character knew the truth and everybody else thought he was for real.
 

Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
5,938
Real Name
Sean
Yep, that's most likely it. Still a little suspicious with his misdirection about the VP, but will pay more attention to this during the next viewing.As for the structural integrity of the new mark 42 armor, Fiege had this to say:
The notion of the prehensile suit, the Mark 42, that comes to him in pieces, was really cool and allowed for any number of new action sequences. But it was important that, with this relatively fantastical tech, that each piece can rocket at him. That's very different from the first movie. We said, "Okay, we're willing to take that step, but it has to barely work. It has to have so many limitations to it for the audience to even buy it." As you see in the movie, Jarvis reminds him midway through the mansion attack, "It's a prototype, sir!" That was a lot of fun.
So it was their intention that the mark 42 barely work in the first place. Tony only built it to work out the remote self assembly trick. Structural integrity probably would have been the next problem he'd have to work out with this new design. But unfortunately for Tony due to the circumstances of the film, this was the only thing he had to work with during the story until the climax, and it was beat to hell on top of that. I'd imagine that Tony would want a "modular suit" because it has certain advantages for when he needs it in a pinch when he's not expecting to need it. When he's out and vulnerable. He'll probably still use more traditional suits when he's preparing to go out.As for the Extremis soldiers ripping apart the drone armors, well they did have super strength after all. Comparing them to Thor's battle with Stark in The Avengers isn't really fair if you want a "power gauge". Thor wanted to deal with his brother and Stark was in the way. He wasn't trying to kill him. He wasn't trying to rip him to pieces. He wasn't trying to rip the head off of one of Earth's defenders (the Earth Thor swore to protect). He brawled with someone that was in his way. But you can't believe that he was throwing 100% of his strength with deadly intent at Stark in The Avengers. If you think that, then you should consider what Thor's motivation was in that scene again. Plus, Stark's armor did have a 400% power boost thanks to Thor's lightening. It's an apples and oranges comparison.I wondering if I'm Sheldon or Leonard in this discussion. :)Anyway, I thought that Tony's battle with the guards with just one IM hand and one IM foot was one of the coolest actions pieces in all of seven films. That was just really nice.Also the line
Dads leave. Don't be a pussy about it.
has to be one of the best lines in all of these films as well, especially considering who he was saying it to.
 

Sam Favate

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
12,948
Real Name
Sam Favate
It was a lot better than Iron Man 2. I thought the story moved along at a nice pace once Tony was in Tennessee (before that it was dragging just a bit). I liked the ideas in the movie, although I'm not sure I understand Killian's motivation -- was he staging terrorist attacks just to be able to sell his technology to the army? (Like they wouldn't buy it anyway?)

I did not like that the film was so destructive. Look, everyone will feel differently about this, but in this day and age, I personally don't need to see landmarks and random bombings while at the movies. It's not entertainment. I know the film had no way of knowing what would happen in Boston, but films in general have been blowing up landmarks for more than 15 years (since Independence Day started the trend). Enough already.

I also didn't like that the film was so visually dark, and I thought the editing was horrid. Images moved by so quickly, especially in the conclusion that I couldn't focus on what I was seeing. I assume Tony was switching into the various suits of armor at the end, but I have no way of really knowing that, since it was so dark and was edited so badly. If I was someone who worked on production design or costume design for this film, I'd be pissed that the editor left my work unidentifiable.

The cast was really good. Downey is still terrific in the role, and actually found new places to take the character in his fourth outing. Paltrow was also good, and did more than play the irritated wife (for all intents and purposes) to Tony. I also liked that she wasn't the damsel in distress. I wish Cheadle had been given more to do, but I enjoyed him. Likewise, Kingsley - who was terrific in "both" of his roles. Like I said, I was confused about Pearce's motivation, but he plays a good bad guy (although, did he have to have a thing for Pepper too, on top of everything else? Does the conflict always have to have that silly personal element? Does the woman always have to be the object?)

Overall, I did enjoy it, but not to the extent I enjoyed the first Iron Man or the Avengers. It's a worthy entry to the Marvel series. I just wish the films would maybe lighten up a little.

Oh, and I liked the post-credits scene, and the "Tony Stark will return" tag at the end.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,533
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top