Best CBM Threequel AFTER CW and TDKR

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Okay
So while you didn't have much attachment to Batman, I'm getting from what you say that you did form a fairly emotional attachment to the TDK series, that's the main reason Alfred's scene and Bruce's rock bottom start point have such an impact for you.

I get that

For me, seeing Tony and Steve- regardless how you feel about their 'friendship' but just as teammates and co-leaders- breaking down and beating the ever-loving piss out of one another was much more emotional imo... not in the tear-jerky melodramatic Alfred kinda way, but in a more "stop fighting I can't take this!" way

and I disagree with... pretty much everything else, but such is the beauty of opinions I suppose t:

Ah see, I never felt like that about Tony and Steve fighting, for me it's been coming for a little while, so it felt inevitable to me and wasn't emotional at all really. I have built up a connection and emotional attachment to Steve and Tony as well, but I didn't feel any emotion during their fights. If anything, I felt Steve was in the wrong during part she of the movie. I only felt emotion from Tony's side in the final battle.

I don't feel the previous movies built up their 'friendship' enough for their battles to be emotional though either. I also have other issues in the final battle about power levels which takes me out of it each time I watch it.

I got an emotional attachment to the TDK characters but that was just from the movies themselves. I am not a huge Batman comics fan, I am a Superman guy all day long. So that's a credit to the movies for me. And TDKR did a great job of completing that journey. I didn't like some story choices before seeing it, like the 8 years in hiding, etc, but the movie made them work brilliantly for me, same with Bruce retiring. I didn't find the Alfed scene emotional in a melodramatic way either, it felt genuine coming from the built up relationship the movies had created. Alfred leaving and saying he failed to Bruce and Martha felt as painful as it looked to me anyway.

But alas, we clearly aren't going to agree on this. And really, it's not what this thread is for, so let's move on .

 

[Bayne]

Care to explain how?

I'll hit the highlights, since that's not entirely what the thread is about and I don't want to rewrite my entire IM3 review(which I think was at least a page or two long).

Tone: The humor is terrible and completely out of place. It's the only IM movie in which Downey isn't at all funny - which should be fine in a movie about IM having PTSD, except they still kept in all the crappy slapstick stuff that was only funny in the other movies because Downey was on point making fun of it as it happened. The movie needed to either embrace its serious subject and let go of the humor or let Downey be Downey and let go of the PTSD.

Plot: The twist is a fine idea in theory that completely fails in execution. Killian is boring and basically just a superpowered version of the same villain IM already fought in both other movies. The PTSD plot never makes sense. They try to make you think IM's problem is that he's too invested in being IM and he needs to get back to being Tony Stark, but the only 'solution' presented to him over the course of the movie is to invent stuff (which is clearly squarely in IM territory) and everything he does as plain Tony Stark fails miserably (which completely undermines the idea that he's supposed to be regaining his confidence in himself). Ultimately he is rescued by the IM suits, which only exist because of his obsession, therefore undermining the idea that his obsession was a bad thing.

Ending: In a story about Tony Stark regaining his own trust in himself (rather than the suits), he is given no reason to trust himself. He fails utterly and completely, gets his @ss handed to him and ultimately just gets rescued by automated suits, War Machine and Pepper. The only thing that goes right for him in the entire movie is the airplane rescue sequence, which ends with him blindly flying into a truck. If the movie had been trying to convince Stark to let go and trust in his friends rather than regaining confidence in himself, that might've worked, but that idea is never even mentioned

Also, the fact that the suits weren't available during the entire movie but all show up at the exact same time at the end is ridiculously convenient. And then he destroys them all, with no warning, no foreshadowing and no logical reason - a move so confusing and unclear that literally every single conversation I saw about the movie at the time included at least one or two people arguing about whether he was retiring from being Iron Man or he just wanted some sort of clean slate. (Civil War seems to suggest he was trying to retire, but ultimately couldn't do it, but that doesn't make IM3's ending any clearer)

 

[Iron_Stark]

Best CBM Threequel AFTER CW and Iron Man 3

Corrected the title.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Corrected the title.

There was nothing to fix

 

[Erzengel]

I think IM3 is easily better than the rest of this list. Going by RT scores and obviously the one sidedness of this poll most here agree. So in a way he's kinda right. It's just not in the same category as CW.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think IM3 is easily better than the rest of this list. Going by RT scores and obviously the one sidedness of this poll most here agree. So in a way he's kinda right. It's just not in the same category as CW.

I was kidding . But yeah, this poll shows that while it's not in league with TDKR or CW, its still pretty well thought of in terms of CBM threequels and is 3rd behind those 2. Even though I personally don't agree.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Tone: The humor is terrible and completely out of place. It's the only IM movie in which Downey isn't at all funny - which should be fine in a movie about IM having PTSD, except they still kept in all the crappy slapstick stuff that was only funny in the other movies because Downey was on point making fun of it as it happened. The movie needed to either embrace its serious subject and let go of the humor or let Downey be Downey and let go of the PTSD.

Different folks, different coping mechanisms, we saw his.

Spoiler

Plot: The twist is a fine idea in theory that completely fails in execution. Killian is boring and basically just a superpowered version of the same villain IM already fought in both other movies.

No power suit worn by the villain.
In IM1 the villains wanted his partner's share of fortune.
In IM2 the villain is a guy seeking vengeance over the death of his father, and another villain is a bitter rival.
IM3? The villain seeks to prove Tony was wrong in not paying him attention, and made his own thing.

Different villains.

Spoiler

The PTSD plot never makes sense. They try to make you think IM's problem is that he's too invested in being IM and he needs to get back to being Tony Stark, but the only 'solution' presented to him over the course of the movie is to invent stuff (which is clearly squarely in IM territory) and everything he does as plain Tony Stark fails miserably (which completely undermines the idea that he's supposed to be regaining his confidence in himself). Ultimately he is rescued by the IM suits, which only exist because of his obsession, therefore undermining the idea that his obsession was a bad thing.

He was an engineer decades before Iron Man armors, and one lone man against an army of powered villains won't do much good in raising confidence, it'll kill him.

Spoiler

Ending: In a story about Tony Stark regaining his own trust in himself (rather than the suits), he is given no reason to trust himself. He fails utterly and completely, gets his @ss handed to him and ultimately just gets rescued by automated suits, War Machine and Pepper. The only thing that goes right for him in the entire movie is the airplane rescue sequence, which ends with him blindly flying into a truck. If the movie had been trying to convince Stark to let go and trust in his friends rather than regaining confidence in himself, that might've worked, but that idea is never even mentioned

I think you missed the part of his inability to properly sleep for days, that is taxing.

Spoiler

Also, the fact that the suits weren't available during the entire movie but all show up at the exact same time at the end is ridiculously convenient. And then he destroys them all, with no warning, no foreshadowing and no logical reason - a move so confusing and unclear that literally every single conversation I saw about the movie at the time included at least one or two people arguing about whether he was retiring from being Iron Man or he just wanted some sort of clean slate. (Civil War seems to suggest he was trying to retire, but ultimately couldn't do it, but that doesn't make IM3's ending any clearer)

He summoned the suits, that was his 'House Party Protocol'.
Destroying the suits feel weird and needless.

 

[Erzengel]

I was kidding . But yeah, this poll shows that while it's not in league with TDKR or CW, its still pretty well thought of in terms of CBM threequels and is 3rd behind those 2. Even though I personally don't agree.

After CW, TDKR and IM3, I'd say it's a toss up between Spider-Man 3 and Apocalypse.

Personally, I hope Logan and Ragnarok can be added the former and not latter.

 

[Bayne]

Different folks, different coping mechanisms, we saw his.

And it didn't do the movie any favors. But it's not even really about his coping mechanism. All the worst humor in the movie came from outside IM, and most of it was blatantly dumb slapstick. That sort of thing had been used before in the other movies and worked fine *when combined with Downey's wit*. When they took Downey's wit out of the eqation, the humor completely fell apart and should've just been removed from the movie (or replaced with some other character who was actually in a place to be honestly, naturally funny).

No power suit worn by the villain.
In IM1 the villains wanted his partner's share of fortune.
In IM2 the villain is a guy seeking vengeance over the death of his father, and another villain is a bitter rival.
IM3? The villain seeks to prove Tony was wrong in not paying him attention, and made his own thing.

Different villains.

IM1 - Evil arms dealer who wants control of powerful technology so he can sell it.
IM2 - Evil arms dealer who wants control of powerful technology so he can sell it (Whiplash is indeed a whole separate thing, and that aspect is something I appreciate about IM2)
IM3 - Evil arms designer who wants to use his (and Tony's) powerful technology to 'control the war on terror', for his own benefit of course. It's a variant, yes, but not a particularly impressive departure.

He was an engineer decades before Iron Man armors, and one lone man against an army of powered villains won't do much good in raising confidence, it'll kill him.

I think you missed the part of his inability to properly sleep for days, that is taxing.

As much as those things are fair enough in terms of logical justification, they don't change the fact that writing the movie in that way obviously undermines the central theme of the movie ("*I* am Iron Man).

He summoned the suits, that was his 'House Party Protocol'.
Destroying the suits feel weird and needless.

And the fact that he could just summon them so easily and have them all arrive right on time blatantly begs the question of why didn't he do that an hour ago, instead of going to wal-mart to build his crappy electromittens.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Ugh. This is like trying to figure out which turd in a pile is the most edible.

But Iron Man 3 is pretty good. I feel like RDJ phoned it in a little and the villains' powers were kinda ridiculous, but it was still a pretty decent movie. Much better than any of these other crapfests, that's for sure.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

After CW, TDKR and IM3, I'd say it's a toss up between Spider-Man 3 and Apocalypse.

Personally, I hope Logan and Ragnarok can be added the former and not latter.

Seems it's between Spidey 3, Apoc and, surprisingly, Batman Forever for 4th.

And I am confident in Logan because of the director, Mangold has made some really good movies.

Not sure on Waikiki (sp?), but Marvel are pretty consistent so I have faith there as well.

 

[Patchwork Man]

And it didn't do the movie any favors. But it's not even really about his coping mechanism. All the worst humor in the movie came from outside IM, and most of it was blatantly dumb slapstick. That sort of thing had been used before in the other movies and worked fine *when combined with Downey's wit*. When they took Downey's wit out of the eqation, the humor completely fell apart and should've just been removed from the movie (or replaced with some other character who was actually in a place to be honestly, naturally funny).



IM1 - Evil arms dealer who wants control of powerful technology so he can sell it.
IM2 - Evil arms dealer who wants control of powerful technology so he can sell it (Whiplash is indeed a whole separate thing, and that aspect is something I appreciate about IM2)
IM3 - Evil arms designer who wants to use his (and Tony's) powerful technology to 'control the war on terror', for his own benefit of course. It's a variant, yes, but not a particularly impressive departure.



As much as those things are fair enough in terms of logical justification, they don't change the fact that writing the movie in that way obviously undermines the central theme of the movie ("*I* am Iron Man).



And the fact that he could just summon them so easily and have them all arrive right on time blatantly begs the question of why didn't he do that an hour ago, instead of going to wal-mart to build his crappy electromittens.

I agree with all of this. I emerged from the theater similarly baffled by Shane's creative choices. From a "stranded" Stark to dragon breath-Killian to SuperPepper, the entire movie's a farce. It took the worst elements of the previous films and dialed them up to 11. It did manage to accomplish one significant thing: make Iron Man 2 a more enjoyable film than it initially was.

 

[TeeKay]

I'll hit the highlights, since that's not entirely what the thread is about and I don't want to rewrite my entire IM3 review(which I think was at least a page or two long).

Tone: The humor is terrible and completely out of place. It's the only IM movie in which Downey isn't at all funny - which should be fine in a movie about IM having PTSD, except they still kept in all the crappy slapstick stuff that was only funny in the other movies because Downey was on point making fun of it as it happened. The movie needed to either embrace its serious subject and let go of the humor or let Downey be Downey and let go of the PTSD.

The PTSD moments could have been handled better and the humour toned down a bit. I definately agree on that.

Plot: The twist is a fine idea in theory that completely fails in execution. Killian is boring and basically just a superpowered version of the same villain IM already fought in both other movies. The PTSD plot never makes sense. They try to make you think IM's problem is that he's too invested in being IM and he needs to get back to being Tony Stark, but the only 'solution' presented to him over the course of the movie is to invent stuff (which is clearly squarely in IM territory) and everything he does as plain Tony Stark fails miserably (which completely undermines the idea that he's supposed to be regaining his confidence in himself). Ultimately he is rescued by the IM suits, which only exist because of his obsession, therefore undermining the idea that his obsession was a bad thing.

I liked Killian. He was a genius. From the trailers, Sir ben Kingsley's portrayal of the Mandarin seemed to me like the typical "I hate America" generic villain. I think the approach they took with the Mandarin worked perfectly because not only did Killian end up being a more than a physical threat for Tony but it added to his intellect, supposedly Tony's greatest asset, yet he was out-smarted every step of the way. This made the Mandarin so much more than a scary guy in a robe, he was a terrifying idea. The very concept of terrorism is real in general, is well, terror. He's not real, it's all all smoke and mirrors but it gives America an obvious and easy to hate villain to take to reponsibility hence why Killian said, "The second you give evil a face, a Bin laden, a Kadafi, a Mandarin, you hand people a target". He's the smartest MCU villain.

Ending: In a story about Tony Stark regaining his own trust in himself (rather than the suits), he is given no reason to trust himself. He fails utterly and completely, gets his @ss handed to him and ultimately just gets rescued by automated suits, War Machine and Pepper. The only thing that goes right for him in the entire movie is the airplane rescue sequence, which ends with him blindly flying into a truck. If the movie had been trying to convince Stark to let go and trust in his friends rather than regaining confidence in himself, that might've worked, but that idea is never even mentioned

But the suits were getting destroyed easily in that final battle. I took the suits being destroyed was also a symbolic way of showing Tony's emergence as the actual Iron Man in the suits. The film was showing that he doesn't need the suits, the suits need him.

Also, the fact that the suits weren't available during the entire movie but all show up at the exact same time at the end is ridiculously convenient.

Tony couldn't access the Iron Legion when he was in Ross Hill because the suits were trapped under the rubble of his house. It's shown in the film. Jarvis clearly says, "Sir I have an updated from Malibu, the cranes have finally arrived and the cellar doors are being cleared as we speak".

And then he destroys them all, with no warning, no foreshadowing and no logical reason - a move so confusing and unclear that literally every single conversation I saw about the movie at the time included at least one or two people arguing about whether he was retiring from being Iron Man or he just wanted some sort of clean slate. (Civil War seems to suggest he was trying to retire, but ultimately couldn't do it, but that doesn't make IM3's ending any clearer)

This and CW's ending are probably the most misinterpreted endings in any CBM. Remember Steve's infamous line from The Avengers in which Tony responds," Genius, Playboy Philanthropist."But really you're left with a guy who can build a suit of armour in a cave full of scraps, a man who can out smart his enemies with creativity and ingenuity. That is Tony's real power, not his money nor his suit but his brain and his new found sense of right or wrong. Because of Steve's words and his encounter with Gods, aliens and super soldiers, Tony is now questioning himself. Is he more than just a man is a suit of armour? Does the man make the suit or does the suit make the man? That's one of the main theme of this movie and does Tony reach a conclusion to that question? Yes he does in the end. How? Those 42 suits he built were symbolic of an unhealthy mind. He created them all in a feverish, weak mental state. By initiating "Operation Clean Slate Protocol", destroying all the suits and then also having the arc reactor removed (I was a bit iffy on that), he's taking away his dependence on the suits and the obsessive need he's had through all three films to be the one to solve the problem. He's realized it's the Man that makes the suit. Carry over to AoU. He's trying to replace him and the Avengers with the Ultron program. So they dont have to fight anymore. "Build a suit of armour around the world". Stark OFFICIALLY retires at the end of AoU.

 

[Bayne]

The PTSD moments could have been handled better and the humour toned down a bit. I definately agree on that.



I liked Killian. He was a genius. From the trailers, Sir ben Kingsley's portrayal of the Mandarin seemed to me like the typical "I hate America" generic villain. I think the approach they took with the Mandarin worked perfectly because not only did Killian end up being a more than a physical threat for Tony but it added to his intellect, supposedly Tony's greatest asset, yet he was out-smarted every step of the way. This made the Mandarin so much more than a scary guy in a robe, he was a terrifying idea. The very concept of terrorism is real in general, is well, terror. He's not real, it's all all smoke and mirrors but it gives America an obvious and easy to hate villain to take to reponsibility hence why Killian said, "The second you give evil a face, a Bin laden, a Kadafi, a Mandarin, you hand people a target". He's the smartest MCU villain.




But the suits were getting destroyed easily in that final battle. I took the suits being destroyed was also a symbolic way of showing Tony's emergence as the actual Iron Man in the suits. The film was showing that he doesn't need the suits, the suits need him.



Tony couldn't access the Iron Legion when he was in Ross Hill because the suits were trapped under the rubble of his house. It's shown in the film. Jarvis clearly says, "Sir I have an updated from Malibu, the cranes have finally arrived and the cellar doors are being cleared as we speak".



This and CW's ending are probably the most misinterpreted endings in any CBM. Remember Steve's infamous line from The Avengers in which Tony responds," Genius, Playboy Philanthropist."But really you're left with a guy who can build a suit of armour in a cave full of scraps, a man who can out smart his enemies with creativity and ingenuity. That is Tony's real power, not his money nor his suit but his brain and his new found sense of right or wrong. Because of Steve's words and his encounter with Gods, aliens and super soldiers, Tony is now questioning himself. Is he more than just a man is a suit of armour? Does the man make the suit or does the suit make the man? That's one of the main theme of this movie and does Tony reach a conclusion to that question? Yes he does in the end. How? Those 42 suits he built were symbolic of an unhealthy mind. He created them all in a feverish, weak mental state. By initiating "Operation Clean Slate Protocol", destroying all the suits and then also having the arc reactor removed (I was a bit iffy on that), he's taking away his dependence on the suits and the obsessive need he's had through all three films to be the one to solve the problem. He's realized it's the Man that makes the suit. Carry over to AoU. He's trying to replace him and the Avengers with the Ultron program. So they dont have to fight anymore. "Build a suit of armour around the world". Stark OFFICIALLY retires at the end of AoU.

I agree with your interpretation of the symbolic intent of the movie. But that symbolism is not supported by the events in the movie. Tony doesn't rescue the suits. They rescue him. Multiple times over. Tony doesn't succeed at anything without them - he just gets himself beat up, then gets himself captured. Based on the events of this movie he absolutely does need those suits, so when - at the end of the movie - he has this big 'I am Iron Man' epiphany, it literally comes out of nowhere and makes no sense.

I can also agree that Killian's plan was one of the better conceived plans in superhero movie history, but the character himself still feels boring and stale to me.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The ending makes out that Pepper is the reason he retires though, not some realisation that the suits were built from an unhealthy mind. He doesn't destroy them until Pepper comes back from the 'dead' and even asks if she approves of him destroying the suits. And smiles when she does. If anything the movie implied the suits were coming between him and Pepper and this is the realisation he has at the end and that's why he destroys them. The PTSD was addressed earlier in the movie.

I am not disagreeing as such with what you say about the ending TeeKay, I am just saying the movie did a poor job of pointing those things out.

I also agree with Bayne that it has made me appreciate IM2 more also.

 

[Awest66]

Corrected the title.

TDKR is better than Iron Man 3 though so it's not a correction.

 

[lordofthenerds]

They're all terrible... other than the one at the bottom with the huge lead. What is it with threequels?

 

[batfreakforever]

Civill War is essentially The Avengers 3.
Plus it's not Captain America 3 either.

 

[TeeKay]

Its called CAPTAIN AMERICA: Civil War. It's recognised as a captain America film whether you like it or not and it is a continuation of Caps story from TWS and AoU.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Civill War is essentially The Avengers 3.
Plus it's not Captain America 3 either.

So? It is a threequel either way and the topic explicitly excludes it (along with TDKR). Calling it Avengers 3 has exactly zero impact on this poll.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Civill War is essentially The Avengers 3.
Plus it's not Captain America 3 either.

This from the guy who defends BvS to the death, despite it being a Batman movie with a special appearance by Superman rather than a Man of Steel sequel.

 

[Patchwork Man]

This from the guy who defends BvS to the death, despite it being a Batman movie with a special appearance by Superman rather than a Man of Steel sequel.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Batman is part of the film's title. The entire point of the film is the confrontation between the titular characters. That was revealed from the get-go in 2013.

There's nothing wrong with saying Civil War is an Avengers film, especially when Iron Man/Tony Stark has as much screen time as Captain America/Steve Rogers in a movie that features a large roster. Think of it as an Avengers Annual.

 

[Flint Marko]

Except Tony does not have as much screen time as Cap.

 

[TeeKay]

It's funny because in both Avengers film, Cap always had the most screen time.

 

[Erzengel]

I believe Tony has more screen time by 3-4 minutes than Steve does in Avengers and AOU. Although, that would even out if they included that really cool deleted scene with him at the cafe in front of Grand Central Station. In CW, though Steve does have more.