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

[jmc]

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.

But the concept still works, that's the point.

 

[Chewy]

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 malleable 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.

A success, probably. The 1.5B success it was, no.

People didn't need to have seen the other phase one movies to enjoy Avengers, that only means that it works as a piece of storytelling - you should never have to see something else to enjoy a movie as a piece of entertainment. But it grants you a deeper understanding of the characters and a deeper appreciation of the story. The DVD/BRD sales of Thor, Captain America, Iron Man and Iron Man 2 exploded when the Avengers trailer first came out, and again closer to the Avengers' release. That's not a coincidence. The fact that the movie was a big event that had been built up is a major reason it became what it was; without the solo movies it's not a big team-up event, it's just another superhero team movie like X-Men or Fantastic Four.

I think you're being tremendously shortsighted here - yes, AS A MOVIE, Avengers works without the context of the other films. It maybe seems a bit shallower, which modern audiences don't seem to mind. But as a piece of merchandise, as a piece of pop culture, as an event, it's not even close to what it was without the four years of buildup.

 

[jmc]

A success, probably. The 1.5B success it was, no.

People didn't need to have seen the other phase one movies to enjoy Avengers, that only means that it works as a piece of storytelling - you should never have to see something else to enjoy a movie as a piece of entertainment. But it grants you a deeper understanding of the characters and a deeper appreciation of the story. The DVD/BRD sales of Thor, Captain America, Iron Man and Iron Man 2 exploded when the Avengers trailer first came out, and again closer to the Avengers' release. That's not a coincidence. The fact that the movie was a big event that had been built up is a major reason it became what it was; without the solo movies it's not a big team-up event, it's just another superhero team movie like X-Men or Fantastic Four.

I think you're being tremendously shortsighted here - yes, AS A MOVIE, Avengers works without the context of the other films. It maybe seems a bit shallower, which modern audiences don't seem to mind. But as a piece of merchandise, as a piece of pop culture, as an event, it's not even close to what it was without the four years of buildup.

Chewy, I'm not disagreeing with you with what you're saying, but you're only going on about the level of success. That's not at all that important to what I've been saying. I'm saying conceptually the story works so well and is so accessible that it would have been a success regardless. Would it have been as big? Probably not, but then again I didn't think Avatar would be so big, so who knows, what they've both got in common though is they're easy to watch, have some fun characters and take you on an action filled ride.

 

[The Joker]

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

Exactly. That and Pepper being CEO.

 

[TeeKay]

Man people at the IMDB boards are *****ing and ripping this movie apart,saying stuff like it has plot holes,VFX were bad,it was too goofy,a character who breathes fire is unrealistic,why did Tony put the armour into______ during the mansion attack and other nonsense.

You guys should head over there and see what I'm talking about.Some of the **** being said there is just plain dumb and stupid,you will literaly facepalm hen you read some of the posts over there. -_-

 

[Broseph44]

They really don't need to reference all the other films. We don't need a full blown recap of every little thing from the previous films. Pretty safe to assume when you go to see a movies sequels, you've seen the ones prior to it and should know what's already taken place. Does everyone really need **** spelled out for them and shown all the time? I don't get it.

 

[jmc]

Eh, IMDB boards scare me.

 

[Chewy]

Chewy, I'm not disagreeing with you with what you're saying, but you're only going on about the level of success. That's not at all that important to what I've been saying. I'm saying conceptually the story works so well and is so accessible that it would have been a success regardless. Would it have been as big? Probably not, but then again I didn't think Avatar would be so big, so who knows, what they've bot got in common though is they're easy to watch, have some fun characters and take you on an action filled ride.

Right, I'm going on about the level of success, because that's what's important here. You keep saying it would have been successful without the solo movies, and I keep telling you that you're right, but that it's much much much MORE successful with the solo movies. Which means that people care about the concept of the MCU, and think it's neat, even if they didn't religiously watch each one or care about all the Easter Eggs

 

[tay1]

Man people at the IMDB boards are *****ing and ripping this movie apart,saying stuff like it has plot holes,VFX were bad,it was too goofy,a character who breathes fire is unrealistic,why did Tony put the armour into______ during the mansion attack and other nonsense.

You guys should head over there and see what I'm talking about.Some of the **** being said there is just plain dumb and stupid,you will literaly facepalm hen you read some of the posts over there. -_-

Well the movie wasn't perfect. The VFX was spot on though.

 

[jmc]

Right, I'm going on about the level of success, because that's what's important here. You keep saying it would have been successful without the solo movies, and I keep telling you that you're right, but that it's much much much MORE successful with the solo movies. Which means that people care about the concept of the MCU, and think it's neat, even if they didn't religiously watch each one or care about all the Easter Eggs

Look, I'm going to leave it there, I don't think with disagree all that much, we're just looking at things from slightly different perspectives. Anyway, didn't mean to take over the boards. And for those wondering I did enjoy IM3.

 

[Anno_Domini]

^ no

That's something else that's disappointing, then.

Spoiler

I would think it would be this huge deal that goes back to the first film since Killian is the real Mandarin and leader of the Ten Rings. So....Raza just never told his leader that they had Stark? Lol.

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.

Well damn, I was hoping there was something relating to Iron Man 2. At least something pertaining to Hammer and his company since his arrest.

 

[C. Lee]

Man people at the IMDB boards are *****ing and ripping this movie apart,saying stuff like it has plot holes,VFX were bad,it was too goofy,a character who breathes fire is unrealistic,why did Tony put the armour into______ during the mansion attack and other nonsense.

You guys should head over there and see what I'm talking about.Some of the **** being said there is just plain dumb and stupid,you will literaly facepalm hen you read some of the posts over there. -_-

I have enough face palming from this site...I have no desire to go to another just so that I can face palm myself.

 

[J.Howlett]

That's something else that's disappointing, then.

Spoiler

I would think it would be this huge deal that goes back to the first film since Killian is the real Mandarin and leader of the Ten Rings. So....Raza just never told his leader that they had Stark? Lol.

Well damn, I was hoping there was something relating to Iron Man 2. At least something pertaining to Hammer and his company since his arrest.

You can't skip over Iron Man 2 (as much as I would like to) because of all the set up to Avengers. You can't watch Iron Man, Avengers, and Iron Man Three to get the full picture of Stark. 2 is still an integral part, even if Three didn't reference it.

 

[The Joker]

They really don't need to reference all the other films. We don't need a full blown recap of every little thing from the previous films. Pretty safe to assume when you go to see a movies sequels, you've seen the ones prior to it and should know what's already taken place. Does everyone really need **** spelled out for them and shown all the time? I don't get it.

No, it's not that at all. It's about how the third part in trilogies completes the tale by taking story elements from the first two movies and wrapping them up to make it all complete, connected, and necessary as one big three part story.

Just to give you some examples on part three's that don't practically ignore the part 2 movie like IM3 did. X-Men 3 relies on the events of X-2 with Jean's death and how they're on better terms with the President thanks to X-2's ending, Pyro becoming a member of Magneto's Brotherhood, Cyclops as mess because of Jean's death, Jean rising out of Alkali lake as the Phoenix etc. Spider-Man 3 and Harry knowing Peter is Spider-Man, finding the Goblin lair, MJ knowing Peter is Spidey, Peter and MJ becoming an item, the city being in love with Spidey and Peter being genuinely happy with life as Spidey, Aunt May living in apartment after losing her home, Aunt May being a Spidey booster etc all due to Spider-Man 2. TDKR has Gotham in peace time thanks to Harvey Dent's legacy, Batman retired because of the Dent Act, Gordon wracked with guilt because of the Dent cover up, Bruce hobbling on a cane because of his fall with Dent, given up on finding love because Rachel was dead, the fall out between Alfred and Bruce because of Rachel's letter about her moving on with Dent, Bane exposing the Dent lie to Gotham etc.

Flawed as each of those movies are, none of them make either of their predecessor movies feel unnecessary to the overall trilogy story. But Iron Man 3 does it to Iron Man 2, IMO.

 

[Chewy]

Look, I'm going to leave it there, I don't think with disagree all that much, we're just looking at things from slightly different perspectives. Anyway, didn't mean to take over the boards. And for those wondering I did enjoy IM3.

Fair enough

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

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

Well, he did say "next time baby" in IM1 and here we are.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Man people at the IMDB boards are *****ing and ripping this movie apart,saying stuff like it has plot holes,VFX were bad,it was too goofy,a character who breathes fire is unrealistic,why did Tony put the armour into______ during the mansion attack and other nonsense.

You guys should head over there and see what I'm talking about.Some of the **** being said there is just plain dumb and stupid,you will literaly facepalm hen you read some of the posts over there. -_-

If people think the "other site" can be a cesspool at times, I'd say IMDB is much worse, to the point where just reading the thread titles is enough to make you regret going there.

 

[Sharkboy]

So wait self contained films are bad now? Iron Man 2 was terrible because it was pretty much a glorified build up to the Avengers. I'd rather not Iron Man 3 feel like a glorified fallout.

 

[The Joker]

So wait self contained films are bad now? Iron Man 2 was terrible because it was pretty much a glorified build up to the Avengers. I'd rather not Iron Man 3 feel like a glorified fallout.

That's just it. Iron Man 3 is not self contained.

Spoiler

The Avengers is important to it's story because of Tony's angst and panic attacks over the worm hole. Even IM1 gets a look in with the Yinsen cameo and Tony's imprisonment in the Afghan cave reference.

I know Shane Black didn't care for Iron Man 2 which is probably why it wasn't really acknowledged in any significant way.

 

[Sharkboy]

That's just it. Iron Man 3 is not self contained.

Spoiler

The Avengers is important to it's story because of Tony's angst and panic attacks over the worm hole. Even IM1 gets a look in with the Yinsen cameo and Tony's imprisonment in the Afghan cave reference.

I know Shane Black didn't care for Iron Man 2 which is probably why it wasn't really acknowledged in any significant way.

But that should be all the film needs in terms of references to old films, why does it need to set up the next thor film, or the next avengers? I would hate it if all these films turned more episodic. Makes each film feel less important...maybe im too old fashioned to get what Feige is trying to do.

Well apparently he's not trying to do it very hard because apparantly he wants Thor and Cap to be just as contained.

 

[-JKR-]

That's just it. Iron Man 3 is not self contained.

Spoiler

The Avengers is important to it's story because of Tony's angst and panic attacks over the worm hole. Even IM1 gets a look in with the Yinsen cameo and Tony's imprisonment in the Afghan cave reference.

I know Shane Black didn't care for Iron Man 2 which is probably why it wasn't really acknowledged in any significant way.

Spoiler

It's pretty much a self cointained movie. As we find out later, Tony's atatcks aren't really due to what happened in New York. His attacks are cause by his current state of paranoia, and by how obsessed he has gotten by his toys. Later in the movie, when he's in the car, and the kid tells him the suit hasn't recharged, he gets a panic attack, and the kid hadn't even mentioned the Avengers or New York. At all. Aaaaaand... Tony's response to the kid about the Avengers is pretty much a "f**k you" to the people who care too much about where the Avengers are when this movie happens, and much other useless stuff these crossovers bring with them.

But that should be all the film needs in terms of references to old films, why does it need to set up the next thor film, or the next avengers? I would hate it if all these films turned more episodic. Makes each film feel less important...maybe im too old fashioned to get what Feige is trying to do.

Same here. I guess we share similar tastes.

 

[The Joker]

But that should be all the film needs in terms of references to old films, why does it need to set up the next thor film, or the next avengers? I would hate it if all these films turned more episodic. Makes each film feel less important...maybe im too old fashioned to get what Feige is trying to do.

Well apparently he's not trying to do it very hard because apparantly he wants Thor and Cap to be just as contained.

I never mentioned anything about setting up another movie. Read my post above about trilogies.

Spoiler

It's pretty much a self cointained movie. As we find out later, Tony's atatcks aren't really due to what happened in New York. His attacks are cause by his current state of paranoia, and by how obsessed he has gotten by his toys. Later in the movie, when he's in the car, and the kid tells him the suit hasn't recharged, he gets a panic attack, and the kid hadn't even mentioned the Avengers or New York. At all. Aaaaaand... Tony's response to the kid about the Avengers is pretty much a "f**k you" to the people who care too much about where the Avengers are when this movie happens, and much other useless stuff these crossovers bring with them.

Spoiler

That's not the point though. The point is it uses The Avengers' events as a crutch for these panic attacks and nightmares Tony has until the real truth is revealed at the end.

 

[-JKR-]

I never mentioned anything about setting up another movie. Read my post above about trilogies.

Spoiler

That's not the point though. The point is it uses The Avengers' events as a crutch for these panic attacks and nightmares Tony has until the real truth is revealed at the end.

Spoiler

It isn't revealed at the end, rather in the middle. And that's really not important. The brilliance of the movie, I thought, was making people comfortable thinking they were watching a straight follow-up to the Avengers, and instead going in another direction, starting with the scene of the first Extremis victim. From then on, the movie becomes a PURE Shane Black throwback to 1980's - how much I love them - blockbusters. And even at the beginning, the presence of previous movies isn't heavy, at all. It works just fine as a stand-alone movie.

 

[cherokeesam]

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

how 'bout a big ol' wet sloppy kiss, sunshine?

luv ya mean it

 

[MynAmeIsedDie90]

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

There will always be complainers because those who hated all the links to Avengers in IM2 spoke up, while those that liked it had nothing to complain about. For IM3, it's probably a reversal, meaning the people that liked all the avengers links are probably now the ones complaining about the lack of them in the movie.

Lesson #1: Completely satisfied viewers, there is no such thing.

In other words, don't be bothered by complainers. If you like a movie, then