Iron Man How comic accurate is this movie?

[Nebins]

Hey all! Let me start by saying I absolutely loved this movie! Everything about it was fantastic from the acting to the vfx to the story. Loved it all. With that being said, how accurate is this movie to the comics? I know the time period has changed but what else is different? Characterizations, relationships between characters, stuff like that. What do you all think?

 

[deathshead2]

Everything worked like the comic except Stanes death.

The movie had everything else
-Rumor of IM as bodyguard
-group that uses Mandures rings
-Happy Hogan
-shield
-ect

 

[Enriquespy]

Good enough...


Actually, I believe its extremely well "adapted", no too corningfully acurate, not too different.

 

[Bubonic]

I actually like the fact that they gave nods to things even if they weren't going to use them... [BLACKOUT]A good example is the nod toward the bodyguard explanation which is dismissed (totally understandable, it makes things convoluted)[/BLACKOUT] and much better then something like the Wolvie joke about yellow spandex...

 

[Tony Stark]

Everything worked like the comic except Stanes death.

The movie had everything else
-Rumor of IM as bodyguard
-group that uses Mandures rings
-Happy Hogan
-shield
-ect

You are correct, but they couldn't have Stane's comic book death on screen and maintain the PG-13 rating. I remember that issue and was haunted with him taking a repulsor ray to the head for weeks.

 

[TheVileOne]

It's fairly accurate, though it certainly updates and changes events to make it more contemporary.

To my recollection, Stane was a competitor to Stark in the comics, not a partner in Stark Industries.

Hogan was also Stark's . . . head of security right? Hogan and Pepper also became an item and got married and had a long-time relationship that went on and off at times, plus the still romantic tension between Stark and Pepper.

Tony Stark outs himself as Iron Man to save a little boy's puppy that's about to get run over in the comics.

 

[Hiruu]

It's fairly accurate, though it certainly updates and changes events to make it more contemporary.

To my recollection, Stane was a competitor to Stark in the comics, not a partner in Stark Industries.

Hogan was also Stark's . . . head of security right? Hogan and Pepper also became an item and got married and had a long-time relationship that went on and off at times, plus the still romantic tension between Stark and Pepper.

Tony Stark outs himself as Iron Man to save a little boy's puppy that's about to get run over in the comics.

Stane was eventually a competitor, but he was a business partner of Tony's Father, but later tried to take over Stark Ind. Maybe you're thinking about Justin Hammer?!

 

[Riven]

Tony Stark outs himself as Iron Man to save a little boy's puppy that's about to get run over in the comics.

How early into the comics run did that happen? Nearer to Stark's first year(s) as Iron Man or well into his career?

Not that I mind, I actually thought it was such a cool, bold move for Tony to just fess up being Iron Man. It fit perfectly with his characterisation throughout the movie. Keeping the secret ID would seem so tedious and unnecessary to him...

It reminded me of Bond flippantly dispensing with the useless alias in Casino Royale.

 

[Rac]

I didn't know Yinsen was in the movie and I was happily surprised by it! Plus he actully looked like the comic-Yinsen, though he had longer beard and hair.

 

[Rocker22]

I think it was very accurate to the comics.

 

[Darknightnomis]

Very accurate and respectful to the source material! Well done!!

 

[TheVileOne]

Yinsen in the books was Asian, not Middle Eastern. He also . . . didn't die .

I wasn't thinking of Justin Hammer. I know he and Stane are two separate characters.

Also the revealing of Stark's identity is VERY recent. It happened a few years ago not long after Joe Quesada became editor in chief over at Marvel. A lot of fans cried foul at the time. The way in which it was done was a little stupid, but whatever.

 

[The Guard]

It's fairly accurate. Kind of a condensed version of the mythology, but what movie isn't? They sort of bypassed the whole "Iron Man is Tony Stark's bodyguard" angle, which went on for years in the comics. I think they're in a hurry to get to his Avengers phase.

 

[Gamma Ra]

Very acrute and respectful to the source material! Well done!!

Source material...I don't know why studios don't get it, they need to stay true to the source material. There's a reason many of these characters have been around for more than a few decades.

Batman Begins did and now Iron Man has and I like the results.t:

 

[kedrell]

^It's ego, mainly. A lot of these film makers want to put their own stamp on things.

 

[Spidey220987]

Yinsen in the books was Asian, not Middle Eastern. He also . . . didn't die .

I wasn't thinking of Justin Hammer. I know he and Stane are two separate characters.

Also the revealing of Stark's identity is VERY recent. It happened a few years ago not long after Joe Quesada became editor in chief over at Marvel. A lot of fans cried foul at the time. The way in which it was done was a little stupid, but whatever.

I'm pretty sure he died. Doesn't he run out and shout something like "death to Wong-Chu? Then he gets killed

 

[Blade X]

Yinsen in the books was Asian, not Middle Eastern. He also . . . didn't die .

As depicted in the ORIGINAL comics, Yinsen does die. However, during Joe Quesada's crappy run on the book 7 years ago (as writer), it was revealed that his brain survived (don't ask).

 

[PCG_Norman]

how about the fact that jarvis isn't an AI in the comics.

he's a skrull.

 

[zanos]

I don't know if I would bother to ask this question. If people decide this is a good movie than they would all agree that's it's accurate and faithful no matter how inaccurate it actually is. If the movie turns out to be crap than the consensus will be it's inaccurate and not faithful, blah, blah, blah. It's the same story everytime. Comic book fans should really be ashamed of themselves. It's no wonder filmmakers take so many liberties when the fans themselves can't even distinguish the origins of their favorite character from those made up by some writer paid to make one up.

 

[echostation]

what about his revelation at the end??? that certainly isn't part of the comics

 

[The Guard]

Sure it is. Just not right after he appears.

So what we've arrived at is that this movie WASN'T all that faithful. Interesting.

 

[TheVileOne]

That's not a big deal. Even 300 fabricated that whole stupid subplot with Leonidas's annoying wife.

Iron Man did reveal his identity to the public at a press conference. But he did it while jumping away and going into his Iron Man suit to save a kid's puppy. It simply happened several years ago.

However the movie tossed aside the subplot where Iron Man was publically viewed as Tony Stark's body guard/super hero.

 

[The Guard]

You mean the subplot that ran for years...and years...and years?

 

[RonStoppablefan]

It was pretty acurate to me. Thank goodness.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

In terms of accuracy, yes it was more than fairly accurate. You could chock up most of the changes as cosmetic, or done out of necessity to update the source material to a modern setting. The sexual tension between Pepper Potts, the origin, Obidiah Stane more or less were all the same. The final battle was, more or less, a retelling on what happened in Invincible Iron Man #200. While you can say certain things happen out of sync with the comic, I must say for once we got a movie where almost every detail can trace it's origins back to the comics. For once we got a story that was done with respect to the original, even if it does massively condense the near 50 year history of the character.