Iron Man 3 *Spoilers* Problems caused by the MCU

[Victarion]

I didn't like Iron Man because it was grounded. I liked Iron Man because the characters behaved like real people. It doesn't matter how fantastic the threat is. As long as your characters have a realistic response to the fantastic elements, its fine. This goes for Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, too. It isn't realistic at all; the characters simply respond like real people would to the events of the trilogy.

 

[metaphysician]

^ Pretty much that.

 

[BenKenobi]

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....."

You're still not understanding what I'm saying. It's not about believability, it's about the uniform tone the films have had since the MCU really came to fruition.

Iron Man was a science fiction/corporate espionage film before being a superhero movie. It had some over the top aspects but for the most part the incredible powers and other worldy aspects were explained by technology.

The Incredible Hulk was more of a government conspiracy thriller than a superhero movie as well. It was a basic action summer block buster, but it didn't feel like a fantasy.

Everything from Iron Man 2 and on however has had pretty much the same cartoon fantasy type of tone. None of them stand out as being particularly unique. Pretty much the same dynamic each time, with different characters, set pieces, and scenarios.

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.

That's completely besides the point. It's a general rule of thumb that the farther you get away from the original work, the source material, the less and less it feels like it. When you get into movie 4 and 5 the subtleties that existed early on begin to fade away and the movie no longer builds upon it's message but itself. One of the reasons I enjoyed Iron Man 3, infact was because Shane Black gave it a different flavor, while understanding core reasons we reacted well to the original.

The problem I'm beginning to notice this universe is so heavily standardized the individuality of the movies produced under it's blanket are restricted to the point they can't shine as bright as they perhaps could have if they stood alone.

 

[Rock Sexton]

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

Please ..... by all means, speak more of this absolute nonsense.

 

[metaphysician]

I don't see it. What about Iron Man 1 shows even a hint of Nolan influence? Especially since the only Nolan comic book movie prior to it was Batman Begins ( TDK was contemporaneous, clearly not an influence ).

 

[cherokeesam]

You're still not understanding what I'm saying. It's not about believability, it's about the uniform tone the films have had since the MCU really came to fruition.

Iron Man was a science fiction/corporate espionage film before being a superhero movie. It had some over the top aspects but for the most part the incredible powers and other worldy aspects were explained by technology.

The Incredible Hulk was more of a government conspiracy thriller than a superhero movie as well. It was a basic action summer block buster, but it didn't feel like a fantasy.

Everything from Iron Man 2 and on however has had pretty much the same cartoon fantasy type of tone. None of them stand out as being particularly unique. Pretty much the same dynamic each time, with different characters, set pieces, and scenarios.



That's completely besides the point. It's a general rule of thumb that the farther you get away from the original work, the source material, the less and less it feels like it. When you get into movie 4 and 5 the subtleties that existed early on begin to fade away and the movie no longer builds upon it's message but itself. One of the reasons I enjoyed Iron Man 3, infact was because Shane Black gave it a different flavor, while understanding core reasons we reacted well to the original.

The problem I'm beginning to notice this universe is so heavily standardized the individuality of the movies produced under it's blanket are restricted to the point they can't shine as bright as they perhaps could have if they stood alone.

You're still saying the same thing I'm saying, in a roundabout way. It *is* about willing suspension of disbelief, in the end analysis. And again, I don't think audiences have shown any trouble in that department at all.

It seems that you're saying that because the earliest MS movies had very definite genre structures --- spy thriller, WWII war/pulp movie, misguided monster movie, etc. --- that they didn't feel like superhero movies as much as the new ones do. That everything is becoming a single catch-all generic "superhero" genre. But that's to be expected --- the "superhero" genre really is a mixmash of pretty much *every* form of speculative fiction (sci-fi, fantasy, supernatural horror) thrown into a contemporary ("real world") universe.

And I'd also argue that the new films *do* establish their own identities through different subgenres --- IM3 and CATWS as political thrillers; TDW as high fantasy; GOTG as space opera.

And it's pretty clear that Shane Black and Alan Taylor have been allowed to put their own stylistic stamp on their movies; and it's reasonable to assume that the Brothers Russo, James Gunn, and Edgar Wright will be given similar leeway.

 

[Victarion]

I kind of see where BenKenobi is coming from. I would like that each film feels like its own...genre (for lack of a better word). For example, you have Thor which is a bit more of a fantasy than Hulk, which is more science-fantasy. However, I'd also like each film the have subtle incursions from the other films' genres. Hints at the dark elves in a future Iron Man film; stuff like that.

 

[Doc Ock]

Too be honest I love the fantasy elements in the MCU and comic book movies in general more than trying to have a lot of realism like Nolan's Batman. The thing about sci-fi is usually in many ways is fantasy or a form of it. I think I love Iron Man 3 more than the first two because of how it doesn't try to focus on being in a realistic world, which the first one did and the second had less of. The MCU has plenty of science fiction over fantasy, I then even the comics is more sci-fi than fantasy. I think it's why I enjoy Thor and Captain America more than Iron Man 1 as well, it has what I want in comic book films.

I'm hoping Man of Steel presents more of the same, having great stories in a fantastical/sci-fi world. Although I can see MOS being the "Iron Man" that begins the path to Justice League for DC.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Please ..... by all means, speak more of this absolute nonsense.

Favreau himself said so back in 2008. His first IM movie had been inspired by Batman Begins.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I think I get what the op is trying to say, and if I understand him correctly, then I agree.

Does everyone recall the block sorting toy nearly every baby has? Where you have to fit different shaped blocks into their corresponding holes? The rectangle block goes in the rectangle hole, the triangle block goes in the triangle hole, etc. If we were to look at each marvel character as different shaped blocks, then their corresponding holes would be that character's "world" (not just the physical world, but the tone, athestic language and boundaries of what is considered "plausible", etc). Each movie/block fits nicely within its world/hole, because each character is different, and it requires different things of its respective world.

The problem is that in wanting to create a unified cinematic world, Marvel is trying to fit squares, triangles, and ovals into a circular hole. By trying to coalesce these distinctly separate and individual films/blocks into one hole, they lose their individuality; the language and concepts and boundaries that allows each character to fit nicely within their own respective "holes" are being squeezed and contorted. What we're left with are cookie-cutter films, whose uniqueness has been sacrificed two-fold: once in order to fit it within the over-arching Marvel Universe, and a second time because the filmmakers have a difficult time marrying the unique needs of the character with the restrictions imposed by this unified world.

Now, I do enjoy the marvel films, and am very fond of IM3 (I love Shane Black), but I would be lying if I said I did not feel that the overall quality, risks, etc of the Marvel films seem less than what they could be - they seem forced into fitting a single circle (Marvel Universe) hole. Marvel needs to rethink its strategy - when trying to fit different shaped blocks into a circular hole, it's far easier to enlarge the circle hole, than to force I'll-fitting blocks in. Marvel needs to allow the individual movies to carve their own paths instead of sacrificing their quality for the sake of the occasional team up film.

 

[DOOZlovesBOOZ]

Did you really just use geometry as a metaphor for a movie universe? You are really thinking way to hard.

 

[cherokeesam]

I think I get what the op is trying to say, and if I understand him correctly, then I agree.

Does everyone recall the block sorting toy nearly every baby has? Where you have to fit different shaped blocks into their corresponding holes? The rectangle block goes in the rectangle hole, the triangle block goes in the triangle hole, etc. If we were to look at each marvel character as different shaped blocks, then their corresponding holes would be that character's "world" (not just the physical world, but the tone, athestic language and boundaries of what is considered "plausible", etc). Each movie/block fits nicely within its world/hole, because each character is different, and it requires different things of its respective world.

The problem is that in wanting to create a unified cinematic world, Marvel is trying to fit squares, triangles, and ovals into a circular hole. By trying to coalesce these distinctly separate and individual films/blocks into one hole, they lose their individuality; the language and concepts and boundaries that allows each character to fit nicely within their own respective "holes" are being squeezed and contorted. What we're left with are cookie-cutter films, whose uniqueness has been sacrificed two-fold: once in order to fit it within the over-arching Marvel Universe, and a second time because the filmmakers have a difficult time marrying the unique needs of the character with the restrictions imposed by this unified world.

Now, I do enjoy the marvel films, and am very fond of IM3 (I love Shane Black), but I would be lying if I said I did not feel that the overall quality, risks, etc of the Marvel films seem less than what they could be - they seem forced into fitting a single circle (Marvel Universe) hole. Marvel needs to rethink its strategy - when trying to fit different shaped blocks into a circular hole, it's far easier to enlarge the circle hole, than to force I'll-fitting blocks in. Marvel needs to allow the individual movies to carve their own paths instead of sacrificing their quality for the sake of the occasional team up film.

You really think Marvel isn't taking risks, or allowing filmmakers to individualize each film? From what I see of Phase II, Marvel has gone the *opposite* direction from cookie-cutter films. Shane Black's Iron Man has a very different vibe from Jon Favreau's; Alan Taylor's Thor is very different in look and tone than Branagh's; and so far, from set pics, CATWS is a very different beast from CATFA. And it goes without saying that GOTG and Ant-Man are two of the biggest risks Marvel Studios has ever gambled on.

 

[metaphysician]

I simply can't take any argument seriously that uses "Marvel is playing it safe" as a premise. Virtually nothing Marvel Studios has done has been "safe". People just feel like they can get away with *calling* it "safe" because it has, in fact, turned out successful.

 

[jacobed]

I'd say they've been playing it pretty safe. The only risk they've taken is Iron Man 1 I'd say. They risked their entire lively hood on that movie, on the shoulders of Kevin Feige's idea which was a gigantic risk. But once that successful there was no more risk, they and everyone knew they could do whatever they wanted and people would go see it. Even the terrible Iron Man 2 and 3 made butt loads of money. They're playing it safe because absolutely nothing of consequence happens in any of these movies. It's like a sitcom. Something bad happens but by the end everything is back to normal. Now in most movies that is absolutely fine but because this is a huge shared universe, there needs to be some type of consequence.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I simply can't take any argument seriously that uses "Marvel is playing it safe" as a premise. Virtually nothing Marvel Studios has done has been "safe". People just feel like they can get away with *calling* it "safe" because it has, in fact, turned out successful.

Dismissing any kind of opinion outside of gushing acceptance because you think people are upset over the films' success is ridiculous.

I enjoy these films. Hell, I saw The Avengers three times in theaters. Whatever complaints I have with the films has nothing to do with negative feelings about their success, but everything to do with my desire to see the future films surpass their predecessors limitations.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I simply can't take any argument seriously that uses "Marvel is playing it safe" as a premise. Virtually nothing Marvel Studios has done has been "safe". People just feel like they can get away with *calling* it "safe" because it has, in fact, turned out successful.

Dismissing any kind of opinion outside of gushing acceptance because you think people are upset over the films' success is ridiculous.

I enjoy these films. Hell, I saw The Avengers three times in theaters. Whatever complaints I have with the films has nothing to do with negative feelings about their success, but everything to do with my desire to see the future films surpass their predecessors limitations.

 

[Steve Holt]

my feeling is while IM 1 was a big risk, from IM 1 - TA they had to play it safe, to build the biggest fanbase they could, now that TA is the 3rd highest grossing film of all time they can start taking bigger risks, they have a wider fanbase and Marvel is a bigger brand now.
Phase II should be pretty amazing

 

[cherokeesam]

I'd say they've been playing it pretty safe. The only risk they've taken is Iron Man 1 I'd say. They risked their entire lively hood on that movie, on the shoulders of Kevin Feige's idea which was a gigantic risk. But once that successful there was no more risk, they and everyone knew they could do whatever they wanted and people would go see it. Even the terrible Iron Man 2 and 3 made butt loads of money. They're playing it safe because absolutely nothing of consequence happens in any of these movies. It's like a sitcom. Something bad happens but by the end everything is back to normal. Now in most movies that is absolutely fine but because this is a huge shared universe, there needs to be some type of consequence.

What is this, revisionist history....?

"once that successful there was no more risk, they and everyone knew they could do whatever they wanted and people would go see it..." What, like TIH which fell immediately after IM1, and proved to be so ill-received that the studio fired the entire cast and crew and tried to sweep it under the rug? Nor did Thor or CATFA generate enough box office to compete seriously with Batman, Iron Man, Spidey, Superman, Wolverine and the X-Men, or even frickin' Incredibles or Hancock.

The simple truth is the same in 2013 that it was in 2008, and has yet to be disproven: Marvel Studios rides on the shoulders of Tony Stark, and probably Robert Downey Jr. specifically. No other Marvel Studios franchise has proven itself yet. (Hopefully that changes soon, beginning with The Dark World in November. But for now, it's still a gamble.)

And I fail to understand why you're concocting a myth out of sheer thin air that a cinematic universe needs to "have something bad happen." Do you think nothing "bad" has happened in the MCU? Thousands killed in the Battle of New York. Thor destroying the Bifrost Bridge, launching dozens of worlds into interstellar war and destroying the balance of power in the multiverse. The consequences of The Avengers and Thor are far, *far* more far-reaching than anything Fox, Sony, or Warners have done to their superhero universes. We're seeing the first waves of those consequences right here in Phase II of the MCU.

 

[Visualiza]

Favreau himself said so back in 2008. His first IM movie had been inspired by Batman Begins.

Where is everyone getting this?

All I've been able to find is that Favreau commended him for his contributions to the genre; never have I seen a quote where he explicitly claims that IM took direct influences from BB.

Nolan gets way too much reverence on these boards.

 

[Doc Ock]

Nolan gets way too much reverence on these boards.

Yes, you get used to it after a while. Accepting it is a different story though...

 

[Visualiza]

Yes, you get used to it after a while. Accepting it is a different story though...

You sure about that? t:

I think the guy is one of the most talented film makers around, but damn...seems like with every successful movie, some folks insist that the film makers just have to render honors to Nolan for his contributions, influence, and inspiration...heaven forbid you believe otherwise. The Skyfall nonsense was about the worst I've ever seen.

"It copied the TDK blueprint"

"Bond is basically Batman"

Right now, looks like the flavor of the day is that Favreau aped Nolan for Iron Man.

 

[roach]

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

Because in this day and age a filmmaker could make a film about a 50 foot tall fire breathing baby and by saying the key words : "Realistic or grounded" automatically convinces fanboys of the movie's quality.

 

[Visualiza]

Because in this day and age a filmmaker could male a film about a 50 foot tall fire breathing baby and by saying the key words : "Realistic or grounded" automatically convinces fanboys of the movie's quality.

Thank you for that...sometimes I think I'm the only one..

 

[roach]

Thank you for that...sometimes I think I'm the only one..

my take is this...I like MOS and I plan on being there thursday night to see it but you can't really throw around realistic or grounded in a movie about Superman...sure they can say its more about the world Superman is in but which Superman movie didn't take place in a similar world to ours?

 

[Visualiza]

my take is this...I like MOS and I plan on being there thursday night to see it but you can't really throw around realistic or grounded in a movie about Superman...sure they can say its more about the world Superman is in but which Superman movie didn't take place in a similar world to ours?

Wait for it...somebody is gonna take a long, hard tug at the straws with this one.

I've said it in another thread earlier today, but realism is not a selling point for a feature film. In and of itself, it doesn't make a film superior, but in the case of this genre we're all fond of, what you said is spot on - there isn't much realism in the first place, despite what the producers try to hammer into our brains.

I feel like it's as much of a cop out to praise a movie by lauding its realism as it is to criticize another film for its 'campy, cheesy, humor'