or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Iron-Man 3 Movie Threa (May 3, 2013)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iron-Man 3 Movie Threa (May 3, 2013) - Page 6

post #76 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teger View Post

you say this but i think my chief complaint about any of these movies is that you always know how its gonna turn out: good guys win, bad guys lose. that's what i've liked the best about nolan's batman movies - more layers of nuance.

Agreed, but that can be said for 99.9% of all movies nowadays, including the latest Batman trilogy. It was a much darker victory for the hero involved, but a similar outcome despite the loss of his love interest.
post #77 of 209
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrateCustomer View Post

Agreed, but that can be said for 99.9% of all movies nowadays, including the latest Batman trilogy. It was a much darker victory for the hero involved, but a similar outcome despite the loss of his love interest.

Not really, not to the Batman trilogy at least. Nolans tone really gives you a feeling that Batman could die and it is actually still being argued if he actually did die in TDKR. Begins is the only film that is almost certain that he won't die but TDK had somewhat of a grim feeling that he could die too.


Anyways, by the looks of the rings, it looks like they might not incorporate magic tot he film as the the director and producer stated but I am not sure why since this is a follow-up to the Avengers which dealth with magic and aliens already so Mandarin having magic isn't so far fetch in the IM world anymore.
2nkuouf.jpg
post #78 of 209
I agree. They should just go with the fact he has magical rings at this point. Realism doesn't matter much.
post #79 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

Marvel controlled the 2nd film too much, Favreau has stated several times that he was limited to what he wanted to do and that is why he stepped down from directing the 3rd film and I believe he was offered the Avengers as well but turned that down as well.
Both he and Rourke wanted more depth to Whiplash but Marvel only wanted to set it up for the follow up Marvel films and that is why the film pretty much sucked.

favreau's making a cop out, imo.... of course marvel will dictate the direction of their character's movie, and of course its gonna be an avengers teaser... it was already an idea even before they started shooting im1. did disney insist on putting precious movie minutes on ivan vanko wanting his pet bird?
post #80 of 209
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by acidboy View Post

favreau's making a cop out, imo.... of course marvel will dictate the direction of their character's movie, and of course its gonna be an avengers teaser... it was already an idea even before they started shooting im1. did disney insist on putting precious movie minutes on ivan vanko wanting his pet bird?

I don't think it's a cop out. It's been reported that both Favreau and Rourke wanted to make Vanko a much better villain, give him more screen time and develop him, Marvel apparently said no to that. Marvel/Disney pretty much wanted it to be a cash cow and they didn't care if it was any good. Look at the reports for IM1, they just got lucky at making that film successful because they were rushed by Marvel and the story wasn't even complete or to their liking, the actor had to improvise way more than usual. If they had a different/less talented cast, it would have flopped from the get go.

Marvels had these franchises in a chokehold from the beginning, I really am surprised Avengers turned out as well as it did even with all the forced advertisement.
post #81 of 209
^ but I also believe marvel doesn't want so much leeway with regards to the director's or actor's take on their characters hence their nose sniffing up the production's ass. this was why they chose to produce their own movies, rather than have idiots like brett ratner destroy their franchises, yes?
post #82 of 209
Thread Starter 
Eh, They just have to hire the iSight cast, director, writer, etc.... Look at Nolan's Batman, hands down the best comic book trilogy today.

SM1 and SM2 were great, I think they got forced to put Venom in the 3rd one it was just a huge failure. I thought ASMARA was pretty good too for a quick reboot.

Most Marvel films are good but only IM1 and Avengers is really what we can really consider as great. Actually Avengers felt more epic seeing it for the first time in the theater but it just isn't as good as TDK and likely TDKR., for me anyways. CA and Thor were good but it doesn't hold up to being viewed over and over again. Hulk films has been ok, barely being good.

You can't hit a home run all the time, just hire the right people and you'd be good to go. New Wolverine is looking much better right now too.
post #83 of 209
Honestly, after that last few Xmen/Wolverine movies, I don't know if I want to bother anymore. They've been absolute abortions of those characters and the story-lines in general. So "much better" doesn't really matter when the bar is so low to begin with. Avengers is the first truly epic feeling comic movie to date. Something all of the others haven't been able to capture in any real spectrum. Even TDK movies haven't been epic, and the complete character misrepresentations with that series are pretty awful. I can't even begin to express my disappointment with Bane, nor can I figure out why they even put his ass in that movie since any old henchman could have filled that role.

To be honest, I think Amazing Spider Man was a pretty good reboot, and I look forward to what's coming. The cast is far better than the prior group, and they did some cool stuff with his powers this time around.
post #84 of 209
Thread Starter 
I disagree about Bane, you can't just have a henchman who can plan, be as cunning and be as devastating as him in the film? You think just anybody off the streets could kick bats ass and break him like bane did? If someone were to break Bats back, it had to be Bane and no one else. I'm with you with Banes representation from the beginning but dude is just a bad ass in the film and Hardy made it his own. Plus we never really even know who planned the whole thing, for all we know Bane was still the brains and Talia was just there for the ride or it's just her idea to destroy Gotham but everything else was Banes doing. Again, no regular henchman would be able to accomplish that, they needed Bane. This has been beaten in the TDKR thread so I'll go ahead and stop there but this one gets ruined too.


As for the Avengers, it felt epic in the theater but it's mostly because we see an assembly of all these heroes we've come to enjoy from their origins films. But seeing it at home for the 4th or 5th time and it kind of loses that "epicness", it becomes an entertaining film but that is about it, not much depth there really. TDK feels more epic even after multiple viewings years later, Heaths Joker is still great to watch to this day. Even Begins is pretty damn good to watch this days, hard to turn away when it's on television.



X3 and Wolverine were terrible films for sure but I think they are trying to get away from that now, they actually hired Japanese cast in the next Wolverine film and what I am seeing looks good, it looks darker and more mature than the cheesy origins. I have high hopes for it.
post #85 of 209
Bane was one character I had problems with, but the leading up to a Robin character from a police officer was...just, come on. The other issue I had with TDK Rises, is that the entire synopsis is very similar to the ending scenario in the first of the trilogy, only on a bigger scale. Civilians are basically trapped on an island with a bunch of convicts running amok and pandemonium ensues until Batman and a couple others save the day. Only instead of poisoning the water supply, it's essentially a nuke. Meh.
post #86 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrateCustomer View Post

Bane was one character I had problems with, but the leading up to a Robin character from a police officer was...just, come on. The other issue I had with TDK Rises, is that the entire synopsis is very similar to the ending scenario in the first of the trilogy, only on a bigger scale. Civilians are basically trapped on an island with a bunch of convicts running amok and pandemonium ensues until Batman and a couple others save the day. Only instead of poisoning the water supply, it's essentially a nuke. Meh.

Agree, I felt the plot was overly rehashed. Maybe this was intended though, given the objective of the League of Shadows remained the same from Ra's death. New players, same essential plan.
post #87 of 209
Listening to the director's commentary from Whedon you could tell he didn't have much fun making that movie and it was basically a day by day struggle just to keep the whole production from collapsing in on itself. It was almost depressing to listen to... Try listening to his commentary on his other movie, Serenity, and you'll notice the difference immediately - he was practically giddy about talking about how that movie came together and you could tell it was a labour of love.

Seeing the extras gives you a sense of the magnitude of the rewrite that had to be done - the entire story presentation was totally different originally (basically a re-telling by Maria Hill). Being able to do that level of storyboard surgery while filming is just insane. I give Whedon all credit, working on TV for so long gives you the ability to adapt on the fly in those circumstances.
post #88 of 209
Thread Starter 
Again, that is beating a dead horse from the TDKR thread so I won't drag the discussion but the plot being the similar isn't a big deal to me personally, it was a circle and when Talia was revealed to be trying to live up to his fathers dream and exact revenge on Bruce at the same time, it was completely justified. Watching it for the first time in the theater, that honestly did not even cross my mind until I got home. It was a way to wrap up the film and come full circle so it was not a big problem to me at all.
post #89 of 209
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six View Post

Listening to the director's commentary from Whedon you could tell he didn't have much fun making that movie and it was basically a day by day struggle just to keep the whole production from collapsing in on itself. It was almost depressing to listen to... Try listening to his commentary on his other movie, Serenity, and you'll notice the difference immediately - he was practically giddy about talking about how that movie came together and you could tell it was a labour of love.

Seeing the extras gives you a sense of the magnitude of the rewrite that had to be done - the entire story presentation was totally different originally (basically a re-telling by Maria Hill). Being able to do that level of storyboard surgery while filming is just insane. I give Whedon all credit, working on TV for so long gives you the ability to adapt on the fly in those circumstances.


It's very similar to IM1, they had to come up with shit on the fly. Posted this several times already but it really it really is a big surprise how IM1 turned out and lightning simply did not strike twice with IM2. Here's Jeff Bridges on the script of the film.

Quote:
The actor revealed certain anxieties involved in filming "Iron Man," the major one being... the lack of a script?

"They had no script, man," Bridges revealed. "They had an outline. We would show up for big scenes every day and we wouldn't know what we were going to say. We would have to go into our trailer and work on this scene and call up writers on the phone, 'You got any ideas?' Meanwhile the crew is tapping their foot on the stage waiting for us to come on."

According to Bridges, Marvel Studios had "a release date before the script" and — in his own words — didn't "have their s--- together" on the first "Iron Man" movie. But as we all know, most moviegoers adored the film and spent plenty of hard-earned cash on ticket sales, so something had to have gone right. In Bridges' mind, his own success came from improvisation.

"It happens in movies a lot where something's rubbing against your fur and it's not feeling right, but it's just the way it is," he said. "You can spend a lot of energy bitching about that or you can figure out how you're going to do it, how you're going to play this hand you've been dealt. What you can control is how you perceive things and your thinking about it."

"So I said, 'Oh, what we're doing here, we're making a $200 million student film. We're all just f---in' around! We're playin'. Oh, great!' That took all the pressure off. 'Oh, just jam, man, just play.' And it turned out great!"


As I said before, if they had casted less talented actors (someone other than Bridges and RDJ), IM1 would have been a failure too.



And Rourkes take on his character and Marvel ruining his character.
Quote:
“[W]hen I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought… You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Favreau, that I wanted to bring some other layers and colors [to the charater], not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the [people] at Marvel just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up the floor.”

I commend Marvel for what they have done but let's not forget that at the end of the day, they really do care more for the $$$$$.

2u9s7cl.jpg
post #90 of 209
Look, I'm not saying I disliked the film, I enjoyed it. I think for someone who knows the characters in the comic, it's a bigger issue. The series, as a whole, was a really good one with TDK obviously being amazing (I think that hurt Rises inherently, how do you follow that up?). I was just mentioning some things that rubbed me.

I heard, even in Avengers, RDJ ad-libbed most of his lines. I don't have a link or anything on that though. I just though that was his gig in these films.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Iron-Man 3 Movie Threa (May 3, 2013)