Iron Man 3 *Spoilers* Problems caused by the MCU

[BenKenobi]

Now I just want to start by saying I liked this movie, and I am simply trying to explain how the MCU has lead to the Iron Man series inability to live up to the initial installment.

When Iron Man came out back in 08, one reason people connected with it so well was because, despite some superheroics, for the most part it was rather grounded. The superpowers in the films universe were high tech and the whole thing seemed like it could happen. S.H.I.E.L.D. was a bunch of guys in black suits, Tony had a long trial and error process with the suits, people reacted accordingly. I remember sitting in the theater and thinking that it was like they were trying to do what Nolan had done (at this point) with Batman Begins, but in a more fun adventurous way.

Now the franchize was in a position to inevitably have to connect with the likes of the magic universe of Thor and the giant green monster the Hulk, and this sense of realism would have be adjusted accordingly. One of the big things I noticed immediately with Iron Man 2, was not only how much it was setting up with cameos, but with tone. Things were much larger in scale and much more over the top, right from the beginning with the completely ridiculous in scale Stark Expo. Of coarse they had to change the dynamics of the world in order for us to believe that Thor could coexist with Iron Man, but it has been a bit detrimental to the series.

No longer is there a technopunk kind of vibe on the screen but rather just that of another flashy comic book movie. It has become more difficult to believe whats going on, hence it has become more difficult to as effectively connect with the hero. Anyway am I alone in this observation or has anyone else come to a similar conclusion as well?

 

[Eddie]

I know the first thing I thought when the Mark 1 crashed down and flew apart with Stark just fine was, "Wow! There's some realism! Thank goodness this is a realistic movie! This could totally happen! I could build that thing IN A CAVE! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS! I could fly around in a super powered tin can and crash without the horrible side effect of painful, squishy death! Yay, realism!"

 

[BenKenobi]

I know the first thing I thought when the Mark 1 crashed down and flew apart with Stark just fine was, "Wow! There's some realism! Thank goodness this is a realistic movie! This could totally happen! I could build that thing IN A CAVE! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS! I could fly around in a super powered tin can and crash without the horrible side effect of painful, squishy death! Yay, realism!"

Oh yeah and when Bruce Wayne climbed the mountain and was trained by the league of shadows as a ninja, and proceeded to be selected as the groups new leader for the sole purpose of being the title character I was thinking "oh yay realism". Not many movies are strict to the laws of real world physics but compared to Spider-Man, Superman, almost any other superhero film that had been released that I can think of. It is pretty down to earth. Theres no superpowers or spandex, just someone who's very intelligent and wealthy who is capable to putting both to a good use. Picking at plot holes doesn't change my point.

 

[Eddie]

Eh, it was made clear that Iron Man was part of a superhero world. It was shown in the film that SHIELD was trying to keep the events secret, and it was also stated that other heroes existed. The "realism" just kinda worked with the particular origin story they were telling. The hints were already there that weirder things had happened in that particular universe.

 

[ctsketch]

Eh, it was made clear that Iron Man was part of a superhero world. It was shown in the film that SHIELD was trying to keep the events secret, and it was also stated that other heroes existed. The "realism" just kinda worked with the particular origin story they were telling. The hints were already there that weirder things had happened in that particular universe.

that's not the point of his initial post... I think you should re-read it. I think his man issue is Iron Man himself became too large scale and fantastical. Not the universe itself but the solo films. They became less sciency fiction and more comicy fiction

 

[ThePhantasm]

Since when did "realism" because such a big deal?

 

[Eddie]

I really don't think that's true, though. Iron Man 3 may have been "more flashy", but that's more of a combination of the source material they were adapting and the director/writer. Iron Man 1 was just as much a "comic book movie" that wasn't incredibly realistic. It was just adapting a slightly more plausible part of the Marvel Universe.

 

[ctsketch]

Since when did "realism" because such a big deal?

It's not about realism. it's about good fiction. Some comics even suffer from terrible writing and departures from source where readers are like "How the eff did that even happen?"

 

[ctsketch]

I really don't think that's true, though. Iron Man 3 may have been "more flashy", but that's more of a combination of the source material they were adapting and the director/writer. Iron Man 1 was just as much a "comic book movie" that wasn't incredibly realistic. It was just adapting a slightly more plausible part of the Marvel Universe.

I have no problem with Iron Man either, I just like to be D.A. sometimes and try and understand both sides of the argument

 

[kaijunexus]

I remember sitting in the theater and thinking that it was like they were trying to do what Nolan had done

...aaaaand, I'm out.

 

[ctsketch]

...aaaaand, I'm out.

I bet Nolan is eating this all up! lol..... such worship

 

[Mjölnir]

I disagree with Iron Man having much at all in common with Nolan's approach to Batman. Iron Man is really fantastical in nature (and I mean really).

I really like Nolan's trilogy but one of the things I don't think work that well are the blend of the overall "realism" (in lack of a better brief description) and the more comic elements. The latter stand out as less plausible, while in Iron Man it starts off very comic inspired right from the start so I'm much more inclined to buy into whatever they are throwing out.

That's why I think Iron Man is perfectly in line with the MCU as a whole. All of that really embraces the comic genre and make every fantastical element seem natural to it's own internal logic.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Now I just want to start by saying I liked this movie, and I am simply trying to explain how the MCU has lead to the Iron Man series inability to live up to the initial installment.

When Iron Man came out back in 08, one reason people connected with it so well was because, despite some superheroics, for the most part it was rather grounded. The superpowers in the films universe were high tech and the whole thing seemed like it could happen. S.H.I.E.L.D. was a bunch of guys in black suits, Tony had a long trial and error process with the suits, people reacted accordingly. I remember sitting in the theater and thinking that it was like they were trying to do what Nolan had done (at this point) with Batman Begins, but in a more fun adventurous way.

Now the franchize was in a position to inevitably have to connect with the likes of the magic universe of Thor and the giant green monster the Hulk, and this sense of realism would have be adjusted accordingly. One of the big things I noticed immediately with Iron Man 2, was not only how much it was setting up with cameos, but with tone. Things were much larger in scale and much more over the top, right from the beginning with the completely ridiculous in scale Stark Expo. Of coarse they had to change the dynamics of the world in order for us to believe that Thor could coexist with Iron Man, but it has been a bit detrimental to the series.

No longer is there a technopunk kind of vibe on the screen but rather just that of another flashy comic book movie. It has become more difficult to believe whats going on, hence it has become more difficult to as effectively connect with the hero. Anyway am I alone in this observation or has anyone else come to a similar conclusion as well?

Almost all sequels do this though, it uses the formula that worked last time and up the stakes. However, I didn't think the tone of the movie was changed all that much, how were the dynamics changed? It was still Tony being pretty much an egomaniac, he was a bit more of a loose cannon in Iron Man 2, but it was part of the plot, he was pretty much in screw it attitude, I'm gonna die soon so let's go out with a bang.

 

[jmc]

There have been Nolan influences from day one with Iron Man.

 

[kedrell]

^Yes there have. Favreau even said so. But even more than that there was a set goal to start out small/more grounded and gradually get more comic book fantastical. Favs said that as well. Where as Nolan pretty much kept it all in line throughout his films and chose not to expand, the Iron Man franchise had a different goal all along. I would argue that Nolan after BB could have done the same as well, had he chosen to do so.

 

[Mjölnir]

If they intended to not be really fantastical they failed in my eyes. Building a world-changing invention, that Stark Industries can't build with all their resources, with a box of scraps in a cave isn't exactly a grounded start.

Then basically going from a couple of small tests to trying out the suit as soon as it's ready in an extremely dangerous text, with all but perfect results, isn't exactly grounded either. Of course Stane, who hadn't even built anything, also got his Iron Monger suit to work perfectly the first time he tested it as well. Not to mention that the whole Iron Man suit concept isn't at all realistic to begin with as there's a ton of things about it that are impossible in real life.

It all works very well in the movie but in my opinion it's because it seemingly never tries to be something that's plausible in real life. It's a comic book movie through and through in my eyes.

 

[cherokeesam]

Isn't the whole "mission statement" of Marvel Studios to create a working cinematic superhero universe? The point isn't to try to make a "realistic" superhero movie, it's to bring the fantastical into the real world and show how people would "realistically" react and interact with such vast changes in our universe. As opposed to the original comic books, which were aimed primarily at little boys who were playing with baseball cards and riding bicycles and chewing bubble gum; so trying to make any of this make any sense or be believable wasn't high on the priority list back in the 1960s.

Marvel Studios *wants* the fantastical elements. The magic, the alien worlds and weapons, the superpowers that defy the laws of physics. But they want to create a *realistic* depiction of how those things come to be in our world, and how it changes us as a people.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

LOL what 'problems'? Like Cherokeesam said, it was apparent from the beginning that making 'grounded' comic book movies were never their goal.And it looks like they've made the right choice...

I think some fans should get over this 'realistic superheroes' kick.As a looong time comicbook fan, i would be very unhappy if all future CB movies would go that route.

 

[BenKenobi]

...aaaaand, I'm out.

That wasn't a good comment about Nolan, in fact he's one of my least favorite directors. He's brilliant but it's wasted because he seems to have no grasp of the concept of fun. His movies strive to be deep and profound at the expensive of being fun and up lifting. Any man who thinks Batman could improve from taking away his cape takes themselves far too seriously.

 

[BenKenobi]

Isn't the whole "mission statement" of Marvel Studios to create a working cinematic superhero universe? The point isn't to try to make a "realistic" superhero movie, it's to bring the fantastical into the real world and show how people would "realistically" react and interact with such vast changes in our universe. As opposed to the original comic books, which were aimed primarily at little boys who were playing with baseball cards and riding bicycles and chewing bubble gum; so trying to make any of this make any sense or be believable wasn't high on the priority list back in the 1960s.

Marvel Studios *wants* the fantastical elements. The magic, the alien worlds and weapons, the superpowers that defy the laws of physics. But they want to create a *realistic* depiction of how those things come to be in our world, and how it changes us as a people.

I never said that it wasn't a perhaps "realistic" was a poor choice of words. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a uniform tone that all of these films have to abide by now to a degree. The X-Men and Spider-Man were both great films but they had strikingly different tones that didn't mesh well together at all. This to a degree allowed each of the franchises to function much better and highlight the messages they were trying to deliver much more efficiently.

The point I'm trying to make is that the reason none of the sequels have lived up to the original film is because the science fiction tone has shifted closer to fantasy, with scientific elements.

No not all superhero films should be realistic, but not all should have the same tone either. While I love the fact all of these characters can co-exist, the more rational side of me that can look past the geek out understands that this could seriously inhibit the solo films being put out.

 

[cherokeesam]

I never said that it wasn't a perhaps "realistic" was a poor choice of words. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a uniform tone that all of these films have to abide by now to a degree. The X-Men and Spider-Man were both great films but they had strikingly different tones that didn't mesh well together at all. This to a degree allowed each of the franchises to function much better and highlight the messages they were trying to deliver much more efficiently.

The point I'm trying to make is that the reason none of the sequels have lived up to the original film is because the science fiction tone has shifted closer to fantasy, with scientific elements.

No not all superhero films should be realistic, but not all should have the same tone either. While I love the fact all of these characters can co-exist, the more rational side of me that can look past the geek out understands that this could seriously inhibit the solo films being put out.

I don't think it's going to seriously inhibit the solo films at all. The point is willing suspension of disbelief, and it's pretty well established that Marvel audiences have gladly and gleefully suspended their disbelief. We all understand that it's (finally) a genuine comic book universe, so nobody's out there in the audience rolling their eyes and saying, "Yeah, right, like THAT could ever happen....."

And the tone of the movies *is* going to change, often, even within a single franchise. That's because you've got different directors and different writers with different approaches. And Marvel embraces that. Shane Black's take on IM is different than Fav's; Taylor's Thor will be different than Branagh's; the Russos will paint Cap in a different light than Joe Johnston did.

 

[kedrell]

I think an element of all this is that over the course of many years they have been trying to condition audiences to accept things more like comic book readers do. They're still not quite there but audiences have definitely come a long way in what they'll accept from the leather-clad X-Men of 2000.

 

[KDM1986]

I think an element of all this is that over the course of many years they have been trying to condition audiences to accept things more like comic book readers do. They're still not quite there but audiences have definitely come a long way in what they'll accept from the leather-clad X-Men of 2000.

They have accepted a man who turns into a monster, a soldier frozen in ice only to be awoken 50 years later, a god from Norse mythology, and an alien invasion led by said gods adopted brother that saw all these heroes brought together and repel the invasion by a man in a robotic suit going threw a worm hole and blowing up an alien mothership with a nuclear device. That had been fired by a secret world counsel.

I think the audience will accept anything at this point. We're good to go on all of marvels properties from here on out.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I am a Bat fan and Marvel and DC fan in general but RDJ as Tony Stark is WAAYYY more entertaining that watching Christian Bale play Batman. I have to be in the mood to watch Nolan's Bat films as they are overall humorless and gritty super hero movies. Though I really can't sit through Rises anymore as it just bores me. Anyway on topic, I do agree that IM 1 did have a realistic tone, but that was due to Tony's origin story which could definitely happen in the real world. But it was set up that other heroes existed in that world with SHIELDS presence.

 

[darkslayer101]

I am a Bat fan and Marvel and DC fan in general but RDJ as Tony Stark is WAAYYY more entertaining that watching Christian Bale play Batman. I have to be in the mood to watch Nolan's Bat films as they are overall humorless and gritty super hero movies. Though I really can't sit through Rises anymore as it just bores me. Anyway on topic, I do agree that IM 1 did have a realistic tone, but that was due to Tony's origin story which could definitely happen in the real world. But it was set up that other heroes existed in that world with SHIELDS presence.

RDJ obviously owns the role of Stark as the way ledger did for joker. regarding the mood of watching movies, when it comes to IM1,2, Batman Begins, TDK, i can just put it in my ps3 anytime and watch it casually. But TDKR required me to be invested to watch it a second time. TDKR cannot be just watched casually like the aforementioned movies. At this point TDKR had bored the hell out of me. Don't get me wrong the movie is good but not great, but like i said its not worth repeated viewings. (side note: i hope they reboot Batman to fit MoS universe)
I am getting the same feel for IM3, it feels like an investment heavy movie for me, but at the same time the humor and action makes it easier for me to watch it casually.
haven't been around these boards since the release, nice to be here when the boards are calm and collected.