The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Iron Man > Iron Man 3

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-12-2012, 01:04 AM   #1
Artistsean
Monkey Boy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,261
Default Shrapnel Removed?



At a point in the comics didn't Stark get the shrapnel removed? Didn't he not need the thing in his chest anymore? Maybe they changed it back in the comics, but there was a time where he had it removed.
So should Tony get it removed in the movie? It could be an important thing to show, now that he doesn't have that thing in his chest, and doesn't technically have to be Iron Man anymore will he? Sort of like, in the 1st movie he nearly died and now has this shrapnel in his chest and he feels like he has to use his life for good. If he gets it removed it sort of undoes that, so will he go back to being a jerk? Give up? Or still be Iron Man?
That scene could also have cameos by Bruce Banner and Dr. Pym (as Ant Man from the soon to be released movie).


Last edited by Artistsean; 06-12-2012 at 01:09 AM.
Artistsean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 01:20 AM   #2
Tony Stark
Armored Avenger!
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a cave with a box of scraps
Posts: 7,897
Default Re: Shrapnel Removed?

Originally he didn't have anything in his chest. The idea evolved over time. In his first appearance in Tales of Suspense, it's implied that Tony could never remove the suit. Because Tales of Suspense was a throw away book (meaning it was a vehicle for the writers to test out ideas before dedicating a whole series to a character) when the sales figures came in and they decided to continue the book, they changed it to where Tony had to wear the entire breast plate under his clothes. Eventually he receives an artificial hart which solves the shrapnel problem.

Personally I like Tony with the ARC implant. What he says in Avengers about IM being a "terrible privilege", is exactly who Tony should be.

__________________
“Whenever you see somebody crossing over to something it gives it pop. Like Murder She Wrote and Magnum [P.I.] — great crossover. I got excited.” Joss Whedon on Spider-man joining the Avengers.
Tony Stark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 05:39 AM   #3
ZeroDegrees
Newbie First Class
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 23
Default Re: Shrapnel Removed?

First of all, he already is a jerk (but a good-hearted one). Second, that will be butchering his character. The shrapnel is essential to the character. It doesn't serve a point anymore but it's an powerful part of him.

ZeroDegrees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 12:52 PM   #4
Artistsean
Monkey Boy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,261
Default Re: Shrapnel Removed?

The other reason I thought of this was that its been rumored that he might get the Extremis (spelling?) armor, or maybe just the implanted gold stuff that coats his body before the other armor is attached. And if he had that technology available why wouldn't he be able to remove the shrapnel now? If he could implant nano tech stuff into his body why not remove that from his body. The movie could have the shrapnel removed and still keep the arc reactor in him.
Maybe they could say he did get it removed but the arc reactor is still part of him, and he cannot remove it now because its too connected to him now. That way you get both.

Artistsean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 02:12 PM   #5
Webfoot Hero
Side-Kick
 
Webfoot Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,876
Default Re: Shrapnel Removed?

I've constantly thought about why Stark continues to wear the arc reactor and doesn't just get get the shrapnel removed. With how rich he is, I bet he could easily find some surgeons who could easily remove every little bit of the shrapnel. I'm sure he's thought about doing that, but I'm starting to think he's grown too attached to being Iron Man that he doesn't want to give up what makes him tick now, wounds and all.

Webfoot Hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 02:26 PM   #6
Adamantium Man
Just Another Metal Person
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 374
Default Re: Shrapnel Removed?

I'm just assuming it's inoperable, no matter how much money he'd care to throw at a surgeon. Besides, his heart probably got damaged along the way and needs a pacemaker by now, which is what the reactor is powering, as well. (At least, that's my head canon.)

From a storytelling perspective, removing the reactor would take away from what makes him this universe's Iron Man. I never liked the way they were going back and forth in the comics, either. He needs the breastplate. No, wait, he doesn't. He needs an artificial heart. No, he doesn't. He needs a thing in his chest to "power his biology" (whatever that means). And so on. They should just stick with the thing they have now, which is awesome, photographs nicely, and is iconic by now.

Adamantium Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 02:41 PM   #7
Webfoot Hero
Side-Kick
 
Webfoot Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,876
Default Re: Shrapnel Removed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamantium Man View Post
I'm just assuming it's inoperable, no matter how much money he'd care to throw at a surgeon. Besides, his heart probably got damaged along the way and needs a pacemaker by now, which is what the reactor is powering, as well. (At least, that's my head canon.)

From a storytelling perspective, removing the reactor would take away from what makes him this universe's Iron Man. I never liked the way they were going back and forth in the comics, either. He needs the breastplate. No, wait, he doesn't. He needs an artificial heart. No, he doesn't. He needs a thing in his chest to "power his biology" (whatever that means). And so on. They should just stick with the thing they have now, which is awesome, photographs nicely, and is iconic by now.
With how much medical technology/knowledge has progressed in the area of cardiac surgeries, they can fix just about anything in the heart nowadays. I'd say that in all likelihood, he'd probably continue wearing the arc reactor after the surgery since I think him and IM are now inseparable and to stop being IM would take away part of his reason for living.

Webfoot Hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 02:45 PM   #8
Artistsean
Monkey Boy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,261
Default Re: Shrapnel Removed?

Not saying I absolutely want this by the way. Just an idea, a thought I had and wanted to bring up. I am fine with them not even dealing with the issue. It does look cool, is iconic by now, and no one is really questioning it.
But if they did remove the shrapnel I am sure that he would still have the arc reactor in his chest and they could explain it in many ways. First he has had this hole in his chest for so long that I don't think he could just remove it and heal. Also maybe his art did get damaged and he still needs the reactor to keep it going. Or maybe the reactor is so ingrained into his entire system that he cannot simply remove the reactor. But I don't see a problem with them saying or showing the shrapnel getting removed. So that he no longer has this shrapnel inches away from killing him at all times.
Would it still bother you guys if they had the shrapnel removed and not his arc reactor? He still had the glowing thing on his chest, but no longer had the metal shards near his heart?
The scene could even cameo some characters like Banner and Pym.

The idea of the shrapnel no longer inches from his heart would show that he isn't being Iron Man out of pressure or worry, that he isn't doing this because he feels like at any second he could die and needs to make every minute count as Iron Man. Maybe it would show that he is a hero and not doing this because of the pressure put on him by the shrapnel.

Again though, I don't think they have to show this in the movies ever. And now that Iron Man is going to become a James Bond type where other actors will play him and the films should go on forever they need to consider how something like this would effect the infinite possible movies. If he no longer has the shrapnel in his chest in Iron Man 3 he should never have it it the rest of the films, even Iron Man 47. If he still has the shrapnel though and he has the Extremis armor implanted inside him people might start asking why he has such super tech and still hasn't removed the shrapnel.
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:



Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:




Last edited by Artistsean; 06-12-2012 at 03:00 PM.
Artistsean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 02:57 PM   #9
Adamantium Man
Just Another Metal Person
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 374
Default Re: Shrapnel Removed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artistsean View Post
Would it still bother you guys if they had the shrapnel removed and not his arc reactor? He still had the glowing thing on his chest, but no longer had the metal shards near his heart?
The scene could even cameo some characters like Banner and Pym.

The idea of the shrapnel no longer inches from his heart would show that he isn't being Iron Man out of pressure or worry, that he isn't doing this because he feels like at any second he could die and needs to make every minute count as Iron Man. Maybe it would show that he is a hero and not doing this because of the pressure put on him by the shrapnel.

Again though, I don't think they have to show this in the movies ever. And now that Iron Man is going to become a James Bond type where other actors will play him and the films should go on forever they need to consider how something like this would effect the infinite possible movies. If he no longer has the shrapnel in his chest in Iron Man 3 he should never have it it the rest of the films, even Iron Man 47. If he still has the shrapnel though and he has the Extremis armor implanted inside him people might start asking why he has such super tech and still hasn't removed the shrapnel.
I think part of the reason why I don't want the shrapnel removed is what you said - with the shrapnel, he needs the reactor to live. If it powers down, he'll die sooner or later. This is a weakness that ties into the armor. Iron Man needs the reactor to work, and Tony needs it to live. Remove the shrapnel, and it loses its symmetry, if that makes sense. If you remove the shrapnel, what reason should there be for the reactor to remain in his chest? You could re-construct his chest and make him independent of the reactor, turn him back to what he was before the first Iron Man movie. But that, in my opinion, would take away from what makes him Iron Man - the cyborg aspect of him. He should need his tech to live.

YMMV, of course.

Adamantium Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2012, 11:48 AM   #10
Artistsean
Monkey Boy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,261
Default Re: Shrapnel Removed?

Now, this would just be making up a storyline. But what if they do introduce the Extremis armor, meaning Tony surgically implants that nano technology into his body. Its possible that he could remove the shrapnel, but also hook the Extremis armor up to the Arc Reactor for a power source. That means he has not only taken the accident that put shrapnel in him and turned it into a weapon against the bad guys, but would have also turned himself into more of a weapon and more of a cyborg.

Artistsean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2012, 01:23 AM   #11
Adamantium Man
Just Another Metal Person
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 374
Default Re: Shrapnel Removed?

Which is also just making up a storyline.

The point is, which is the better one? And this is where it's all about taste. I prefer the possibility of drama. Invincible heroes don't interest me. A Robocop knockoff doesn't interest me. I prefer my Iron Man strong but flawed. Let him keep his weakness, his basic, formative injury. Give him Extremis if you must, but don't take away that which lies at the core of him. You'd only make him more boring.

But it's not our decision, anyway. I'm content to see where Marvel is taking this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artistsean View Post
Now, this would just be making up a storyline. But what if they do introduce the Extremis armor, meaning Tony surgically implants that nano technology into his body. Its possible that he could remove the shrapnel, but also hook the Extremis armor up to the Arc Reactor for a power source. That means he has not only taken the accident that put shrapnel in him and turned it into a weapon against the bad guys, but would have also turned himself into more of a weapon and more of a cyborg.

Adamantium Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.