Iron Man 3 The IRON MAN 3 News & Speculation Thread - - - - - Part 14

[Crimson King]

Yes, I was agreeing with his point on the Avengers.

Yes, I do believe as long as the movie kept it's fun factor (and RDJ) anyone could have been plugged in and it would've worked.

Yes, I was talking about the solo movies success because you said people "kept coming back" to see these movies, as you said that was the reason for the Avengers's success. I disagree.

I said they kept coming back to see it, singular, referencing Avengers. Then you inexplicably brought up the solo films.

Either way, the idea that RDJ + anyone they felt like putting in there =/= 1.5 billion dollars. It was all about the build-up to the team of IM, Cap, Thor, and Hulk.

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

Once again, I disagree. They could have used anyone from the Fox or Sony movies and it wouldn't have made a difference to the GA.

 

[Crimson King]

Once again, I disagree. They could have used anyone from the Fox or Sony movies and it wouldn't have made a difference to the GA.

I see you've overdosed on Wrong pills this morning. Best of luck with your recovery.

 

[DorneyDave]

People care about the MCU. People came in droves to the Avengers because it was a first-time ever team up of superheroes that were established in previous films.

That was THE biggest selling point of Avengers, the team and the fact that there were already successful films made about those team members.

If we are throwing out random evidence, the place where I work at has a giant set-up for Iron Man 3 AND "Avengers Assembled" merchandise all in one giant set-up.

People react to the connected world in a positive way because every movie Marvel has put out has been generally well-received. The fact that those characters, who were successful and established were teaming up...THAT is what made Avengers huge. The same effect would happen with a Batman/Superman movie. People care about these characters.

 

[Tony Stark]

I said they kept coming back to see it, singular, referencing Avengers. Then you inexplicably brought up the solo films.

Either way, the idea that RDJ + anyone they felt like putting in there =/= 1.5 billion dollars. It was all about the build-up to the team of IM, Cap, Thor, and Hulk.

yeah, I love the revisionist history from some people. Last year at this time, people were predicting about 750-800M for Avengers, because none of the MS solo films had made more than just over 600M world wide.

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

I see you've overdosed on Wrong pills this morning. Best of luck with your recovery.

I guess that's why many of the GA complained about why Spider-Man and Wolverine weren't in the movie. But, okay.

And what a fresh joke. Got any other circa 1990 ones you want to throw out there?

 

[cherokeesam]

I see you've overdosed on Wrong pills this morning. Best of luck with your recovery.

People care about the MCU. People came in droves to the Avengers because it was a first-time ever team up of superheroes that were established in previous films.

That was THE biggest selling point of Avengers, the team and the fact that there were already successful films made about those team members.

If we are throwing out random evidence, the place where I work at has a giant set-up for Iron Man 3 AND "Avengers Assembled" merchandise all in one giant set-up.

People react to the connected world in a positive way because every movie Marvel has put out has been generally well-received. The fact that those characters, who were successful and established were teaming up...THAT is what made Avengers huge. The same effect would happen with a Batman/Superman movie. People care about these characters.

yeah, I love the revisionist history from some people. Last year at this time, people were predicting about 750-800M for Avengers, because none of the MS solo films had made more than just over 600M world wide.

Yep, and I was one of those who came to that conclusion. I've never been happier to be wrong.

Avengers' box office is proof that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Tony Stark]

Nothing wrong with posting a projection and being wrong. My problem is those people who said Avengers was only going to make 750M WW, and now are coming back and saying, "anyone could have made that film, you just needed RDJ".

I predicted Avengers to make a little over 1B, and I said it had a shot with 3D of out grossing TDKR, I never would have thought it would have made 1.5 billion. I don't know if anyone called that, if they did, I'd like to know the powerball numbers for this week.

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

Yep, and I was one of those who came to that conclusion. I've never been happier to be wrong.

That certainly wouldn't be the first time you've thought irrationally. History does repeat itself.

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

Nothing wrong with posting a projection and being wrong. My problem is those people who said Avengers was only going to make 750M WW, and now are coming back and saying, "anyone could have made that film, you just needed RDJ".

What is with all the psychic opinion auditing today.

How the heck did you draw the conclusion that those were the same people?

 

[jmc]

No, you weren't. You were talking about the solo films' success.

JMC wasn't talking about Iron Man at all in the passage you quoted. He was saying that because of the fun factor, anyone could have been plugged into the roles and it would've worked. I normally don't have a beef with the guy because I think he's a level-headed dude, but that statement was nonsense.

If you look at it objectively there's nothing overly important about who the superheroes are in Avengers, you could have easily replaced some or all with various other superheroes in recent year because ultimately that film is about the formation of the team, it's not about any one individual. Now would it have been exactly the same film? Of course not, it's stupid to think it would, things are going to change if you start switching characters around, however the core concept of the story makes interchangeability relatively easy because no-one is the centre of the story. That's kinda what I was trying to say, I'm not saying it would have been exactly the same movie, far from it, I'm saying the concept would have worked no matter which characters you had available. The film is so accessible because of that concept.

 

[Tony Stark]

What is with all the psychic opinion auditing today.

How the heck did you draw the conclusion that those were the same people?

I have a good memory.

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

If you look at it objectively there's nothing overly important about who the superheroes are in Avengers, you could have easily replaced some or all with various other superheroes in recent year because ultimately that film is about the formation of the team, it's not about any one individual. Now would it have been exactly the same film? Of course not, it's stupid to think it would, things are going to change if you start switching characters around, however the core concept of the story makes interchangeability relatively easy because no-one is the centre of the story. That's kinda what I was trying to say, I'm not saying it would have been exactly the same movie, far from it, I'm saying the concept would have worked no matter which characters you had available. The film is so accessible because of that concept.

No question. It's not meant to belittle the movie's content or overall quality. It's just the way it is with Hollywood's bombardment of superhero franchises.

I have a good memory.

More like failure to display sound judgement. Don't blame yourself though. I've been on this board for an hour now and it seems no one here can.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Well you clearly know sound judgement when you see it....

 

[jmc]

No question. It's not meant to belittle the movie's content or overall quality. It's just the way it is with Hollywood's bombardment of superhero franchises.

Wasn't belittling at all, that's just how it is and why it was so accessible. Ain't nothing wrong with that. People get way too defensive of the MCU and its importance. After watching IM3 I'm not even convinced Marvel are given how self contained the film is.

 

[Chewy]

If you look at it objectively there's nothing overly important about who the superheroes are in Avengers, you could have easily replaced some or all with various other superheroes in recent year because ultimately that film is about the formation of the team, it's not about any one individual. Now would it have been exactly the same film? Of course not, it's stupid to think it would, things are going to change if you start switching characters around, however the core concept of the story makes interchangeability relatively easy because no-one is the centre of the story. That's kinda what I was trying to say, I'm not saying it would have been exactly the same movie, far from it, I'm saying the concept would have worked no matter which characters you had available. The film is so accessible because of that concept.

It's accessible because of that concept and the cast. People love love love the cast of that movie. Yes, RDJ was and is the most popular. Yes, neither the Thor or Captain America sequel is going to make a billion. But they're both going to explode, maybe double their predecessors' gross. People loved that cast - the chemistry both on and off the screen was palpable, and every actor slid right into the ensemble perfectly.

Avengers was a monstrous hit for many, many reasons. If you think the very specific characters and actors in it wasn't one then you are wrong

 

[Quasimod0]

I guess we could make a movie about a team consisting of Big Bertha, Atom Ant, Space Ghost, The wonder twins, and The tick, headlined by RDJ as iron man, and itd make over a billion dollars.

though to be honest, i would watch that movie soooo many times.

 

[Chewy]

Wasn't belittling at all, that's just how it is and why it was so accessible. Ain't nothing wrong with that. People get way too defensive of the MCU and its importance. After watching IM3 I'm not even convinced Marvel are given how self contained the film is.

Marvel are still making movies that lead into an Avengers sequel, no? Then how can you possibly come to the conclusion that they don't value these films as a series?

What are you even trying to argue here? Isn't the concept of the MCU just that the films exist in the same world, and that the characters can (and will) crossover at some point? Isn't the concept that you tell a bunch of stories about the individual characters, and then bring 'em all together for an action-packed crossover event? In what way does a more self-contained storyline indicate that Marvel doesn't value that?

 

[Quasimod0]

People complained about iron man 2 having too many links to the avengers, and now people are complaining about IM3 being too self contained? Not surprised

 

[jmc]

It's accessible because of that concept and the cast. People love love love the cast of that movie. Yes, RDJ was and is the most popular. Yes, neither the Thor or Captain America sequel is going to make a billion. But they're both going to explode, maybe double their predecessors' gross. People loved that cast - the chemistry both on and off the screen was palpable, and every actor slid right into the ensemble perfectly.

Avengers was a monstrous hit for many, many reasons. If you think the very specific characters and actors in it wasn't one then you are wrong

I'm not saying that Chewy, I'm saying you could have adapted the exact same story concept for another bunch of characters and it still would have worked and would have been a success. Yes all you have said is correct, I'm not disputing that, I'm saying the concept is so flexible that it transcends the characters involved. The characters did play a part, but they only do so much, in the end it's the story concept that is the one kicking the goals, you know, you don't need to have seen the entire phase one slate of film to enjoy Avengers. If you're talking about the film being not exactly the same that's a different story, of course it would be different, but the underlying story arc in the film means it's of little importance as to who exactly the superheroes in the film are. Look at Avatar, that film is exactly the same, who the characters are isn't important, that story works because it's accessible to everyone. This isn't a knock toward the film, that's just how it is.

 

[jmc]

Marvel are still making movies that lead into an Avengers sequel, no? Then how can you possibly come to the conclusion that they don't value these films as a series?

What are you even trying to argue here? Isn't the concept of the MCU just that the films exist in the same world, and that the characters can (and will) crossover at some point? Isn't the concept that you tell a bunch of stories about the individual characters, and then bring 'em all together for an action-packed crossover event? In what way does a more self-contained storyline indicate that Marvel doesn't value that?

Dude, I think you're taking things a bit too literally, what I'm saying is I don't think they are too worried about how 'connected' things are in the lead up to Avengers 2 much like they were during the lead up to Avengers one. One of the complaints I've heard so far with IM3 is 'where's the Avengers' etc.

 

[tay1]

Dude, I think you're taking things a bit too literally, what I'm saying is I don't think they are too worried about how 'connected' things are in the lead up to Avengers 2 much like they were during the lead up to Avengers one. One of the complaints I've heard so far with IM3 is 'where's the Avengers' etc.

If people can't come to the conclusion as to why the Avengers aren't available, then they're simple. Each member of the Avengers has their own mission and lives to deal with and that's not hard to understand.

 

[tay1]

And you can't just shuffle any characters into the team. Substitute War Machine for Iron Man and you would've had a lesser interesting movie.

 

[The Joker]

People complained about iron man 2 having too many links to the avengers, and now people are complaining about IM3 being too self contained? Not surprised

My problem with Iron Man 3 in that regard is that it makes absolutely no references whatsoever to Iron Man 2,

Spoiler

Not counting the few little clips from it in the end credits.

. It's as if the entire movie never existed. Iron Man 1 and The Avengers are both referenced.

Spoiler

The cameo with Yinsen, Tony mentioning how he was trapped in an Afghan cave, all The Avengers verbal references, Tony's nightmares and panic attacks over the worm hole etc

. But not a mention of anything pertaining to Iron Man 2.

Then there's

Spoiler

the way Tony's shrapnel problem was just magically solved like with Pepper's Extremis condition. It makes all the hassle Tony went through with his arc reactor in Iron Man 2 seem pointless.

You could skip over Iron Man 2 altogether and it wouldn't matter a jot when watching Iron Man 3. Most good third chapters in trilogies carry over plot elements from both previous movies.

 

[Quasimod0]

My problem with Iron Man 3 in that regard is that it makes absolutely no references whatsoever to Iron Man 2,

Spoiler

Not counting the few little clips from it in the end credits.

. It's as if the entire movie never existed. Iron Man 1 and The Avengers are both referenced.

Spoiler

The cameo with Yinsen, Tony mentioning how he was trapped in an Afghan cave, all The Avengers verbal references, Tony's nightmares and panic attacks over the worm hole etc

. But not a mention of anything pertaining to Iron Man 2.

Then there's

Spoiler

the way Tony's shrapnel problem was just magically solved like with Pepper's Extremis condition. It makes all the hassle Tony went through with his arc reactor in Iron Man 2 seem pointless.

You could skip over Iron Man 2 altogether and it wouldn't matter a jot when watching Iron Man 3. Most good third chapters in trilogies carry over plot elements from both previous movies.

I see what you mean. And yeah that is a valid complaint. Only thing i can think of is the fact that Rhodey has his own armor. Youd have to see IM2 to know why that is