Iron Man 3 How Captain America in AVENGERS gave the true meaning behind everything IRON MAN 3

[Norek]

In Iron Man 3, he thinks he cannot deal with superheroic stuff and other problems without the suits since in Avengers, he wouldn't have been able to save the day without the suit. That created trauma and anxiety in Tony, thinking he is nothing without the suit. We find out that Tony can be superheroic without the suits. The question in IM3 isn't about Tony's motivations like in Avengers(whether Tony is a hero or not), it's about his skills/abilities/self-confidence/capabilities (whether he needs the suits or not in being a great superhero).

Tony has no superpowers, and as far as I understand, you can't be a superhero without being 'super' in some way. People have been debating whether or not Batman is a superhero for decades, and I doubt that this movie somehow brought the revelation that a person with no superpowers can be a superhero. Unless of course, you mean just 'hero', which Tony is, and was.

I always felt that the suit, the whole Iron Man persona, is the sole reflection of what Tony Stark really is - a reflection of his own skills as a man, his abilities, self-confidence, his capabilities. He made an arc-reactor in a cave out of nothing, and he created an impossible to synthesize new element. He saved New York from being nuked, he saved the Helicarrier from falling from the sky, and ****ing laid the most critical damage to the Chitauri, next to a god and an unstoppable monster. None of that he could've had the chance to do if he wasn't a hero himself, or he didn't have any of those abilities/traits you've listed, if he was just an average Joe who happened to have an accident or develop superpowers out of nowhere, or was born this way. He's not a nobody who happened to find a suit, and learned how to be a hero afterwards. Even the first movie emphasizes on that:

-Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave! With a box of scraps!
-I'm sorry.. I'm not Tony Stark.

He had a change of heart in the first film and came up to be a hero on his own terms, and used his brilliance to catch up with the rest of the big guys. Did they really need to prove all this stuff again in this movie?

 

[antonydelfini]

There's a difference between Tony's journey in IM1 and IM3.

1A. Tony at the start of IM1: Tony uses his intellect and skills in making weapons to gain more fame and fortune with no regard to the effects of what he's doing. In short, Tony is a selfish and irresponsible genius.
1B. Tony at the start of IM3: Tony is consumed by the Iron Man tech. He is obsessed with making suits all the time because he thinks the only way he can protect Pepper and save the day is through the Iron Man suits. Tony has this misconception he is suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks caused by the events from the Avengers movie wherein Tony was able to save New York and survive the battle because of the Iron Man suit.

2B. What Tony goes through in IM1: Tony's own weapons bite him in the ass. He sees the negative effects, deaths, pain, and suffering caused by his own creations.
2B. What Tony goes through in IM3: He loses the thing he has become obsessed about: the Iron Man tech. The person he loves the most is in peril and he doesn't have access to the thing that he thinks can save her: the Iron Man technology.

3A. What Tony learns in IM1: Tony learns that he needs to be accountable and responsible for his actions and that there's more to life than making weapons.
3B. What Tony learns in IM3: Tony learns that the he can save the day without the Iron Man suits. That the suits don't define him. That he doesn't need to spend all his time making suits because he can kick ass in other ways and create other neat stuff because he is that smart, intelligent, resourceful, and awesome.

4A. The gist of Tony's journey in IM1: I should be more responsible and selfless because being irresponsible and selfish can cause death and destruction.
4B. The gist of Tony's journey in IM3: Losing my greatest creations and inventions shouldn't bother me too much because I have my own abilities and skills to help me survive, bounce back, and do great things.

So although there are some similarities in the character's journey in the 2 movies mentioned, it is also different enough to be fresh and exciting IMO.

 

[bullets]

I'm disappointed with pretty much everything you guys are saying. You're telling me Stark didn't already perfectly answer Captain America at the end of The Avengers ?

It's like you guys are taking too much at face value.

When Cap asked "...take your armor away and what are you ?" Tony answered him by showing he was willing to die to do the right thing. He laid himself down on the proverbial wire to let the other guy (Manhattan and the other Avengers) crawl over him. He did something where he expected the armor to be of little to no help at all. Flew into another dimension not expecting to return, effectively rendering the armor useless.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Tony earned Cap's respect. They might still argue over something else , but to go back to "take away the armor and what are you?" is pointless and very redundant.

 

[antonydelfini]

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Tony earned Cap's respect. They might still argue over something else , but to go back to "take away the armor and what are you?" is pointless and very redundant.

As I said in my previous post, in Avengers, it's about whether Tony is a real hero or not, whether he can make the sacrifice play or not.

In IM3, it's not about earning anybody's respect or proving that he's heroic or not, because Tony already knows that. It's about believing in himself, bouncing back from losing Iron Man, and using his own skills and abilities and not being too reliant and obsessed with the Iron Man tech.

 

[Norek]

What Tony goes through in IM3:[/B] He loses the thing he has become obsessed about: the Iron Man tech. The person he loves the most is in peril and he doesn't have access to the thing that he thinks can save her: the Iron Man technology.

Except he would've failed to save her (without his Iron Man tech) if she wasn't infected by EXTREMIS. And if he didn't "cover" her up with the Mark 42 while his house in Malibu got destroyed. In fact, she's the one that has to save him by using her EXTREMIS abilities combined with his own Iron Man tech at the end.

What Tony learns in IM3:[/B] Tony learns that the he can save the day without the Iron Man suits. That the suits don't define him. That he doesn't need to spend all his time making suits because he can kick ass in other ways and create other neat stuff because he is that smart, intelligent, resourceful, and awesome.

Except he doesn't save the day without the Iron Man suits. He couldn't possibly defeat an army of EXTREMIS soldiers on his own, couldn't save the President if he never invented the War Machine armor, couldn't save 14 people falling from a plane without the suit, and couldn't defeat Killian as Tony Stark without the armors. And he didn't, because it was Pepper who killed him before he managed to kill Tony Stark.

And that's exactly why I think if they wanted to keep the idea of having Tony Stark prove himself without the Iron Man suit, the Mandarin Ben Kingsley appeared to be would've been a great enemy for him, even without the rings or any super-powers. Having Tony Stark defeat him using creative ways, without the advantage of his armor, against an enemy who has the upper hand in such confrontations AND the wits, would've been much more satisfying and different. And for those who say that would've been a generic practical fight - instead we got a generic CGI-fight with Tony hopping in and out in a bunch of armors that the enemies slice through with ease (which they shouldn't), against a fire-breathing super-soldier who he can't possibly defeat (and he didn't) by using his wits and without the armor.

 

[antonydelfini]

Yeah that's why I said this in my post:
"The gist of Tony's journey in IM3: Losing my greatest creations and inventions shouldn't bother me too much because I have my own abilities and skills to help me survive, bounce back, and do great things."

Tony did use the Iron Man suits to defeat AIM, but his outlook and perception of the suits are different.

He now believes in himself more than the suits.

He only used the suits because they became available to him again, but even if he loses it completely, he now knows and believes there are other ways to succeed (because he now believes in his own skills and abilities), hence, the clean slate program activated at the end.

He doesn't have PTSD and panic attacks anymore, he's not scared of losing his suits anymore, as long as he has his intellect and resourcefulness he will be able to find a way to succeed. If he has to use the suit, it's fine with him, if not, he knows his intelligent and resourceful mind can come up with something else. No more fear, no more anxiety.

And these themes are different from IM1's themes.

 

[gogolbb]

I'm disappointed with pretty much everything you guys are saying. You're telling me Stark didn't already perfectly answer Captain America at the end of The Avengers ?

It's like you guys are taking too much at face value.

When Cap asked "...take your armor away and what are you ?" Tony answered him by showing he was willing to die to do the right thing. He laid himself down on the proverbial wire to let the other guy (Manhattan and the other Avengers) crawl over him. He did something where he expected the armor to be of little to no help at all. Flew into another dimension not expecting to return, effectively rendering the armor useless.

That's what he is without armor. THAT answered Cap perfectly. If he was just the armor and nothing more on the inside why not say "Hey Thor I have this nuke, you can survive in space I can't with just my armor. Kindly deliver this bomb to the Chitauri mothership." He certainly had the time to set something like this up with Thor. But it didn't even occur to him, with his genius mind. He chose not to "...cut the wire".

No, he said armor or no armor I am a hero, I AM Iron Man, eat crow Cap.

For Shane Black to rethread that topic in the way he did in IM3 just seems redundant at this point. I hear they did it to show how resourceful and heroic he can be without the armor but who at this point did not already know he's a Macgyver on steroids ? Who still doubted that this is a smart and heroic man who can get out of a pinch ? No one that's who.

So they strip him of his armor and what does he become ? A man with some sort of nailgun, electric glove, bombs, a real gun, weapons also found in his armors. He then gets captured and only escapes with the aid of what ? Thats right, his armor, albeit in bits and pieces. I wanna facepalm my head off at that point. So to get out of a pinch he apparently DOES need his armor. Whatever point they were trying to make about him not needing his armor to be a hero is severely weakened at this point if not completely ruined.

The armor is just a tool he uses, like the weapons he used to storm the mansion. But without the heart of a hero what good are any of those ? Notice how without the armor he's either running or backing away from Killian.

He can build a miniature arc reactor and Mk1 armor in a cave, with a box of scraps.

You're telling me Iron Man and The Avengers hadn't already nailed these aspects of Tony Stark to perfection ?

Cap's question has so many layers. On the surface, he challenged Tony's heart and made Tony to think about the true meaning of being a hero. Tony answered that part and earned cap's respect. But Cap's question also raised a serious issue about Tony's vulnerability without his armor - "...take your armor away and what are you ?" - at the end of the Avengers, He wouldn't have made it Had the Hulk not saved him when his armor ran out of power. The whole experience caused Tony to doubt himself. In IM3, everything he had was taken away, he still managed to get his revenge against his most dangerous nemesis, which proved to himself that his true power lies in his mind. His genius/determination/heart are what make him a superhero. When needed, he can make his armors anywhere with limited resources and his armors can be in any form (a boot or a glove). He, Tony Stark, IS the iron man.

I like how the same words - "I am the iron man" he spoke twice at two different time of his life had completely different meanings.