What Movie Did You Just Watch

[Rynnec]

Beautiful.

[gunswordfist]

i might watch that later. i have been liking the commercials they've been showing. besides how ugly the turtles are, the only problem i've seen is the shredder is apparently white.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I just re-watched Iron Man 3, which was available free on demand from Starz, which my family got a free 3-month trial of when we switched to Dish Network.

My thoughts on it are exactly the same as they were the first time I watched it: the movie is a fun watch, and miles better than IM2, but overall it does feel a bit half-baked compared to the top tier Marvel films. I still think that the first IM is the best of the lot, by far. It just nailed the formula down so perfectly that it's kind of baffling to me that they weren't able to ever fully capitalize on it after that. It's a shame that RDJ will no longer be doing anymore solo IM movies. There was potential for an even greater film, but it looks like we'll never get it from him if he's done with the role after his contract with Marvel expires, and I just can't picture anyone else doing the role any justice if they decide to recast his role in any future sequels.

One of these days I'll also get to re-watching Thor: The Dark World, which is also available for free on demand. Still, as far as phase 2 MCU films go, I think that this year's Captain America and Guardians blows both of those movies from last year out of the water. They just felt like a bigger deal in the MCU with tighter pacing, and a healthy dose of fun to keep them engaging and enjoyable the entire way through. I really can't wait for Avengers: Age of Ultron, at this point. I feel that it really has the potential to top the original, if handled properly. Let's hope that Joss Whedon manages to deliver again.

[talonmalon333]

I disagree on it feeling half baked compared to the top tier, because in my book it is on the top tier.

I've always thought Iron Man 3 gives the first Iron Man a run for its money, or is maybe even better. That may be an unpopular opinion, but it's one I stick to. I feel like it was the most well written and gave Robert Downey Jr. room for wider dramatic acting than he gives in any other movies. I love him in Iron Man and Iron Man 2, but in those movies he was always sort of winking at the audience, if you know what I mean.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Eh, IM3 is far from perfect, though. For one thing, it has a lot of elements that seem like set-up for later, but go nowhere. One example is Tony's anxiety attacks. It seems like they will give us greater insight into his character, but later on, they just drop that element from the film and don't do anything with it. Another example, and a much bigger problem, is Maya Hansen's character. She basically has no purpose in the film. In the movie she is just in a few scenes and it sets up that she is working for Aldrich Killian, but that she has better intentions than he did and would receive some redemption. Then he just shoots her later on and her character is completely forgotten about, even by Tony who was supposed to have a rich history with her and feel more betrayed by the path she chose. In contrast, she was actually the main villain and mastermind behind Extremis in the comics (which I actually did read), and her character had a clear thematic purpose as the contrasting road to the one that Tony ended up pursuing in his life. Aldrich Killian was the one who got used and killed off, but even his character didn't feel like such an after-thought in the comic as Maya's did in the film. It's not really a matter of changing things from the source material, because that always happens, but looming at the film on its own, stuff like that just waste's screen-time.

The movie also has some serious plot-holes. For instance, even if you overlook the fact that Tony was stupid enough to give away his home address in public without a proper plan for defense in a fit of rage, it still begs the question of why the hell he didn't just unleash all of his suits on the attacking helicopters to save himself, Pepper, and Maya. I mean, no reason is ever given for it, and he clearly uses all of those suits at the end of the movie, which means that they were there the whole time. Why he couldn't just use them right where they were in his own freaking house is something that I'll never understand.

You can say that you like IM3 the best, that's just opinion, which is fine. However, you can't convince me that it's a tighter written and directed film than the original without some solid reasoning to explain how it outdoes it. I think that the first movie told a far simpler but also far more engaging story. It only had one plot and no sub-plots to get in the way, and IMO that worked in its favor. Thematically it was a good origin story for Tony Stark to go from being a guy who just profited off war to being a true hero. In IM3, they try to take say something about Tony Stark by having him go through anxiety attacks and then blow up all of his suits at the end. What they were actually trying to convey, though, is lost on me because I don't think that they did such a great job of showing the progression of his character from beginning to end. Like I said, I enjoyed the movie as a popcorn film, but when it comes to analyzing it on a level of story and character, it does feel half-baked to me, personally.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Looking at Iron Man 3 and Thor the Dark World, I'm confused how people can call GotG sexist when those movies pointlessly kill off or underuse female characters (Maya, Thor's mom).

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

More people are calling it sexist, now? I though that was just JO, Zac, and their brainwashed followers.

[Dr. Insomniac]

I saw Gail Simone say that the movie had a few issues (she did reiterate that she really liked the movie despite that), regarding how Gamora isn't shown to be as powerful as a Daughter of Thanos would be assumed to be.

[Foggle]

I saw Gail Simone say that the movie had a few issues (she did reiterate that she really liked the movie despite that), regarding how Gamora isn't shown to be as powerful as a Daughter of Thanos would be assumed to be.

To be fair, all five main characters were extremely underpowered in comparison to the comics, probably in an attempt to make them more relatable and grounded (which I liked).

[Rynnec]

Eh, I never got the whole idea of underpowering a character making them more relatable (especially since that would mean making the rest of the cast underpowered as well), but that's just me.

[The Shadow Gentleman]

Eh, I never got the whole idea of underpowering a character making them more relatable (especially since that would mean making the rest of the cast underpowered as well), but that's just me.

I'm kind if agree with this. I've always held that it's more about how the charaters are written that determines how relatable they are.

[talonmalon333]

Eh, IM3 is far from perfect, though. For one thing, it has a lot of elements that seem like set-up for later, but go nowhere. One example is Tony's anxiety attacks. It seems like they will give us greater insight into his character, but later on, they just drop that element from the film and don't do anything with it. Another example, and a much bigger problem, is Maya Hansen's character. She basically has no purpose in the film. In the movie she is just in a few scenes and it sets up that she is working for Aldrich Killian, but that she has better intentions than he did and would receive some redemption. Then he just shoots her later on and her character is completely forgotten about, even by Tony who was supposed to have a rich history with her and feel more betrayed by the path she chose. In contrast, she was actually the main villain and mastermind behind Extremis in the comics (which I actually did read), and her character had a clear thematic purpose as the contrasting road to the one that Tony ended up pursuing in his life. Aldrich Killian was the one who got used and killed off, but even his character didn't feel like such an after-thought in the comic as Maya's did in the film. It's not really a matter of changing things from the source material, because that always happens, but looming at the film on its own, stuff like that just waste's screen-time.

The movie also has some serious plot-holes. For instance, even if you overlook the fact that Tony was stupid enough to give away his home address in public without a proper plan for defense in a fit of rage, it still begs the question of why the hell he didn't just unleash all of his suits on the attacking helicopters to save himself, Pepper, and Maya. I mean, no reason is ever given for it, and he clearly uses all of those suits at the end of the movie, which means that they were there the whole time. Why he couldn't just use them right where they were in his own freaking house is something that I'll never understand.

You can say that you like IM3 the best, that's just opinion, which is fine. However, you can't convince me that it's a tighter written and directed film than the original without some solid reasoning to explain how it outdoes it. I think that the first movie told a far simpler but also far more engaging story. It only had one plot and no sub-plots to get in the way, and IMO that worked in its favor. Thematically it was a good origin story for Tony Stark to go from being a guy who just profited off war to being a true hero. In IM3, they try to take say something about Tony Stark by having him go through anxiety attacks and then blow up all of his suits at the end. What they were actually trying to convey, though, is lost on me because I don't think that they did such a great job of showing the progression of his character from beginning to end. Like I said, I enjoyed the movie as a popcorn film, but when it comes to analyzing it on a level of story and character, it does feel half-baked to me, personally.

I don't intend to convince you that Iron Man 3 is a superior movie. You're entitled to your opinion. However, since you're curious about why I liked the writing of the movie, I just think it was more story driven, to start. Iron Man 2 also pushed the storytelling to an extent, but that movie was kind of a mess so the story came off as more clutter in many ways. With Iron Man 3, the story was more straightforward and I thought was taken in a more serious direction. I liked that the movie was more about Tony Stark this time, rather than Iron Man, and I felt this was the movie where he shined the most as a character. I liked that he had to rely on smaller, less powerful means of survival being that his suit was destroyed for the majority of the film. And as I said before, I felt it allowed Robert Downey Jr. to show a wider range of acting, more than what he showed in the first movie where he was mostly the joke cracking super dude (and I did love him in that movie, too), a side that he was also allowed to show in Iron Man 3. And I might be alone in this, but I thought the Mandarin plot twist was phenomenal. In every way, it had to have taken a lot of faith to go that route with the "character". I also liked what they did with Pepper (I can never understand why people were surprised by her survival and claimed that she should have died in the movie, because the plot was building up to her survival, and really, she didn't deserve to die), and thought the ending in general was great.

To be honest, I haven't seen the movie since I watched it in theaters. In general, I haven't seen any of the Avengers movies more than once (with the exception of the first Iron Man and The Avengers). So in many ways I might be better off not approaching this debate since you're more educated on the topic than I am. But that's just the reaction I got from when I saw the movie, that I like it as much if not more than the first movie, even if it's not as "fun" as the original. It's certainly not perfect and I'm not denying that maybe it has its share of plot holes (though other superhero movies have their own plot holes as well). I should definitely watch it again, at which point I'll be able to give my own thoughts on things such as your interpretation of the Maya character, but I thought I remembered her getting a certain degree of redemption, and was essentially killed because of the path she chose. As for not utilizing the suits when his house was being destroyed, maybe he was essentially caught off guard in that situation and didn't really get the chance to activate all of them.

[gunswordfist]

i didn't even know she was thano's daughter. either way, even in cartoons, main characters are depowered. heck, alfred did better against hush than dick grayson did and the butler also ko'd 4 league of assassin guys by himself and with just a stick in the comics a few years. don't get me started on the top heroes. if that's what gail meant, then her comment was completely useless. they nerf heroes even more in live action.

[Foggle]

i didn't even know she was thano's daughter. either way, even in cartoons, main characters are depowered. heck, alfred did better against hush than dick grayson did and the butler also ko'd 4 league of assassin guys by himself and with just a stick in the comics a few years. don't get me started on the top heroes. if that's what gail meant, then her comment was completely useless. they nerf heroes even more in live action.

The thing is, she's not really his daughter - she's adopted. So she wouldn't have any Thanos powers regardless.

[gunswordfist]

oh gail...also, someone needs to photoshop a gif of thor saying "she's adopted".