Iron Man 3 The Mandarin in Iron Man 3...Love it or hate it?

[Colossal Spoons]

Exactly, it was done, seemingly, for the comedy of it and nothing else. But I will say that, at least to me, it does go a bit deeper than that. Because Marvel has carved out the possibility of magic and Thunder gods and aliens from different dimensions arriving through portals in this Cinematic Universe.

So...what the hell would be so tough about The Mandarin just being The Mandarin that we all know and expect? I feel like this "twist" is something you do to a lesser villain in a character's rogues gallery. You don't do it to the main arch enemy, you just don't. And it feels even worse because Marvel themselves oversaw this and let it happen.

Completely agree. Tony was suffering from anxiety b/c he fell though a wormhole created via alien technology where he fought alongside a Norse god; but 10 alien rings would have been absurdly unrealistic?

I think when people say the twist was brilliant or that Killian was really a better villain than Kingsley's Mandarin had the potential to be, they're trying too hard to defend what was a fatal flaw in the movie. Not only was it a twist that falls apart upon further inspection (so who was that Roxxon hostage he shot?), but Trevor's "comedy" completely destroys the pacing. It wouldn't have even been that bad if Mandarin was a patsy of Killian's like Bane was of Talia al-Ghul's, but to make him basically Russell Brand's Arthur. C'mon..... it was awful. And the movie never recovered after that momentum killing moment.

Yeah, I've never had my enjoyment of a movie halted so abruptly. But to be honest, I wasn't enjoying it all that much before this anyway.

 

[Doc Samson]

Let us not forget that Marvel is going to spend a crap load of money to get Joe Sixpack to care about seeing a space raccoon and a talking tree on the big screen. I actually found Killian's and Tony's holograms more ridiculous than the prospect of magic alien rings.

Yeah seriously lol, I mean, would it be that much of a stretch? I just never understood how The Mandarin is such a far fetched character, smh...

It is tough because this isn't an Avenger film. 'Magical' rings with near unlimited powers don't belong in an Iron Man movie. Especially when an actual iconic villain will be using a similar power in Avengers 2 or 3. Far too much build up would be needed to explain Makulan rings and spaceships. It was never a good idea. The IM3 Mandarin was more creative and true to character. The 'Mandarin' was two people. A flamboyant, colorful facade representing what the Mandarin always was--a greedy, business-minded, brilliant foil to Tony Stark. That's why the changes were good.

Doesn't matter if it's an Avengers film or not, we're dealing with a man in a mechanical suit flying around trying to save the world. Killian and the Extremis plot itself, IMO, takes just as much suspension of disbelief, if not more so, than Mandarin's rings. In fact, trying to make us believe that a stage actor and some elaborate sets could pull off these "terrorist events" and our government is none the wiser, makes even less sense. IMO, of course.

Completely agree. Tony was suffering from anxiety b/c he fell though a wormhole created via alien technology where he fought alongside a Norse god; but 10 alien rings would have been absurdly unrealistic?

Yeah, that's really the part that bothers me. Trying to pull that off in IM1 would be understandably tough. But at this point, the boundaries of the MCU have been sufficiently expanded to allow for this, with minimal changes necessary. I just fail to grasp what's so tough about it?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I can get the annoyance over the Mandarin thing. Especially considering they seem to be it into your head. But I think the idea was good and it worked for the most part. Just how they handled the whole actor thing just kinda of felt like they were piling on.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I think when people say the twist was brilliant or that Killian was really a better villain than Kingsley's Mandarin had the potential to be, they're trying too hard to defend what was a fatal flaw in the movie. Not only was it a twist that falls apart upon further inspection (so who was that Roxxon hostage he shot?), but Trevor's "comedy" completely destroys the pacing. It wouldn't have even been that bad if Mandarin was a patsy of Killian's like Bane was of Talia al-Ghul's, but to make him basically Russell Brand's Arthur. C'mon..... it was awful. And the movie never recovered after that momentum killing moment.

I disagree. I found it to be an entertaining twist that was a nice deconstruction of several superhero movie tropes. I do admit that Killian's motives were weak, but I didn't feel like the movie ruined because the movie itself never really weighed on the Mandarin the same way movies like The Dark Knight, Thor, or even The Dark Knight Rises placed emphasis on the villain. This movie was much more heavily weighed by Tony's post Avengers Trauma and him dealing with a dangerous crisis without a suit and minimum technology.

I think making Killian the real Mandarin was a smart choice within the context of the movie. Tony's psychological struggles with being a hero and later without technology mirrors Killian's struggles after Tony rejected him. He had nothing, and when he gained everything he went the opposite direction of what Tony did, before or after Iron Man. Killian wanted to single-handedly control the war on terror. Tony wanted to protect the USA (and as Iron Man everyone).

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I disagree. I found it to be an entertaining twist that was a nice deconstruction of several superhero movie tropes. I do admit that Killian's motives were weak, but I didn't feel like the movie ruined because the movie itself never really weighed on the Mandarin the same way movies like The Dark Knight, Thor, or even The Dark Knight Rises placed emphasis on the villain. This movie was much more heavily weighed by Tony's post Avengers Trauma and him dealing with a dangerous crisis without a suit and minimum technology.

I think making Killian the real Mandarin was a smart choice within the context of the movie. Tony's psychological struggles with being a hero and later without technology mirrors Killian's struggles after Tony rejected him. He had nothing, and when he gained everything he went the opposite direction of what Tony did, before or after Iron Man. Killian wanted to single-handedly control the war on terror. Tony wanted to protect the USA (and as Iron Man everyone).

Not really. Because Killian does exist.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

 

[The Sage]

It is tough because this isn't an Avenger film. 'Magical' rings with near unlimited powers don't belong in an Iron Man movie. Especially when an actual iconic villain will be using a similar power in Avengers 2 or 3. Far too much build up would be needed to explain Makulan rings and spaceships. It was never a good idea. The IM3 Mandarin was more creative and true to character. The 'Mandarin' was two people. A flamboyant, colorful facade representing what the Mandarin always was--a greedy, business-minded, brilliant foil to Tony Stark. That's why the changes were good.

Iron Man 3 isn't an Avengers film, but it is a film that's part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's either it's own universe or it's part of a wider one, it can't be both. Questions and conundrums like this are why I've been weary of a shared universe.

I thought one of the reasons for having a shared universe is so scenarios like this could occur.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

All the ideas you would be trying to deconstruct are lost because of Killian. He is very typical.

Iron Man 3 isn't an Avengers film, but it is a film that's part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's either it's own universe or it's part of a wider one, it can't be both. Questions and conundrums like this are why I've been weary of a shared universe.

I thought one of the reasons for having a shared universe is so scenarios like this could occur.

IM3 is an Avengers films. They are all Avengers films. That is sort of the point.

 

[The Sage]

IM3 is an Avengers films. They are all Avengers films. That is sort of the point.

You're right. I didn't word it correctly. But they could've gotten away with the alien rings if they wanted to. Or they could've introduced magic and mysticism, and later on linked it to Dr Strange since they do plan on making a film for him down the line.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You're right. I didn't word it correctly. But they could've gotten away with the alien rings if they wanted to. Or they could've introduced magic and mysticism, and later on linked it to Dr Strange since they do plan on making a film for him down the line.

Oh, sorry. I was actually agreeing with you. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was disagreeing.

As you pointed out the shared universe is suppose to open up all these doors. Aliens, magic, Norse Gods, etc. To state anything is too outlandish or "doesn't fit" is missing the point. As is the idea that you should just ignore the absence of certain characters at certain times.

We will be getting Wanda, Dr. Strange and Ant-Man in phase 2 and 3. No such thing as outlandish.

 

[jmc]

Iron Man 3 isn't an Avengers film, but it is a film that's part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's either it's own universe or it's part of a wider one, it can't be both. Questions and conundrums like this are why I've been weary of a shared universe.

I thought one of the reasons for having a shared universe is so scenarios like this could occur.

I'm actually going to defend Marvel in this instance because I understand the logic in what they are doing. As a whole, the shared universe is virtually a secondary element and in some ways an unimportant aspect of the solo films. I equate it to being how the James Bond films were for 40 years all in the same universe yet had few instances where elements from the past were brought up or elements for the future were set up, frankly it wasn't important because the story at hand didn't demand it. When we look at the solo films we're not looking at the MCU, we're looking at the character at hand, the character just happens to share the same universe as other characters. Thing is Marvel learned with IM2 you can't just force elements of a wider universe into the story because it's not important. Subsequently, Thor, Cap, and even IM3 showed they learned the best way to have a connected universe is frankly not to acknowledge it because once you start with the 'yeah but..' type of questions story wise you start limiting yourself. I made the mistake of assuming post Avengers everything would be more connected and the stakes leading up to Avengers 2 would be greater, but with IM3 and even the Thor 2 trailer its obvious Marvel are treating the solo films and the team up films almost as separate entities, and to be honest I don't think that's a bad thing. Look at it this way, the solo films are the where the stories are, the team up film is where the party's at.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm actually going to defend Marvel in this instance because I understand the logic in what they are doing. As a whole, the shared universe is virtually a secondary element and in some ways an unimportant aspect of the solo films. I equate it to being how the James Bond films were for 40 years all in the same universe yet had few instances where elements from the past were brought up or elements for the future were set up, frankly it wasn't important because the story at hand didn't demand it. When we look at the solo films we're not looking at the MCU, we're looking at the character at hand, the character just happens to share the same universe as other characters. Thing is Marvel learned with IM2 you can't just force elements of a wider universe into the story because it's not important. Subsequently, Thor, Cap, and even IM3 showed they learned the best way to have a connected universe is frankly not to acknowledge it because once you start with the 'yeah but..' type of questions story wise you start limiting yourself. I made the mistake of assuming post Avengers everything would be more connected and the stakes leading up to Avengers 2 would be greater, but with IM3 and even the Thor 2 trailer its obvious Marvel are treating the solo films and the team up films almost as separate entities, and to be honest I don't think that's a bad thing. Look at it this way, the solo films are the where the stories are, the team up film is where the party's at.

But then maybe you shouldn't market it in the exact opposite way.

Also, Thor and Cap very much played into the connected universe.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It does make me wonder what the hell the other Avengers were doing while this was going on.

I still think there should have been a post-credits scene with Captain America coming home to a really full answering machine.

 

[The Sage]

I'm actually going to defend Marvel in this instance because I understand the logic in what they are doing. As a whole, the shared universe is virtually a secondary element and in some ways an unimportant aspect of the solo films. I equate it to being how the James Bond films were for 40 years all in the same universe yet had few instances where elements from the past were brought up or elements for the future were set up, frankly it wasn't important because the story at hand didn't demand it. When we look at the solo films we're not looking at the MCU, we're looking at the character at hand, the character just happens to share the same universe as other characters. Thing is Marvel learned with IM2 you can't just force elements of a wider universe into the story because it's not important. Subsequently, Thor, Cap, and even IM3 showed they learned the best way to have a connected universe is frankly not to acknowledge it because once you start with the 'yeah but..' type of questions story wise you start limiting yourself. I made the mistake of assuming post Avengers everything would be more connected and the stakes leading up to Avengers 2 would be greater, but with IM3 and even the Thor 2 trailer its obvious Marvel are treating the solo films and the team up films almost as separate entities, and to be honest I don't think that's a bad thing. Look at it this way, the solo films are the where the stories are, the team up film is where the party's at.

So pretty much, the Avengers existed in its own world, while the solo film series have their own?

That's very odd, especially when characters from the other films appear in the solo films eitherm during the main plot of the after credits scenes.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There were plenty of references to Avengers in Iron Man 3, so... how does that work? Tony even had flashbacks.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So pretty much, the Avengers existed in its own world, while the solo film series have their own?

That's very odd, especially when characters from the other films appear in the solo films eitherm during the main plot of the after credits scenes.

It is wanting your cake and eating it too. Ignore the man behind the curtain.

I am still baffled that the President of the United States was kidnapped and Captain flippin' America wasn't anywhere to be found.

 

[WarrenPeace2012]

IMO using lava people isn't anymore realistic than alien rings. When I saw that, that's the point I started to lose interest but gave me some hope that the Mandarin would actually use his rings... Haha yeah was I surprised -_-

 

[jmc]

You're taking what I'm saying too literally. The goal is for the solo films not to be handcuffed to the universe. Essentially for the sake of story telling you're going to have to have some compromises in order to not shackle characters, so the universe needs to be treated as a secondary element. Where was Shield in IM3? Doesn't matter. Where's Cap? Not important, because the story is about Tony Stark, not the MCU.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You're taking what I'm saying too literally. The goal is for the solo films not to be handcuffed to the universe. Essentially for the sake of story telling you're going to have to have some compromises in order to not shackle characters, so the universe needs to be treated as a secondary element. Where was Shield in IM3? Doesn't matter. Where's Cap? Not important, because the story is about Tony Stark, not the MCU.

It is important when you play up a large terrorist plot that is focused on attacking America and the President. It might be personal to Tony, but it was still an attack on America.

It is ridiculous to think otherwise. You can't praise the shared universe and then act like it doesn't matter when something like this happens. Not asking for a lot, but Cap should have been in the final fight scene. He should have been there to help rescue the President.

 

[The Sage]

You're taking what I'm saying too literally. The goal is for the solo films not to be handcuffed to the universe. Essentially for the sake of story telling you're going to have to have some compromises in order to not shackle characters, so the universe needs to be treated as a secondary element. Where was Shield in IM3? Doesn't matter. Where's Cap? Not important, because the story is about Tony Stark, not the MCU.

You're saying they're acting like solo films. And they need to include some elements from the shared universe, like how Black Widow and Nick Fury will be part of Captain America 2, if they're needed for the story being told.

 

[jmc]

It is important when you play up a large terrorist plot that is focused on attacking America and the President. It might be personal to Tony, but it was still an attack on America.

It is ridiculous to think otherwise. You can't praise the shared universe and then act like it doesn't matter when something like this happens.

Of course you can, you've just got to look at it as a Tony Stark story and not an MCU story. Honestly if you're unwilling to let the shared universe aspect go on occasion then you're never going to enjoy the films for what they are.

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

It is important when you play up a large terrorist plot that is focused on attacking America and the President. It might be personal to Tony, but it was still an attack on America.

It is ridiculous to think otherwise. You can't praise the shared universe and then act like it doesn't matter when something like this happens. Not asking for a lot, but Cap should have been in the final fight scene. He should have been there to help rescue the President.

They didn't need to involve them as in giving them screen time but they at least needed to say where the hell he and the rest of SHIELD are when the President of the United States has gone missing.

 

[Flemm]

It is ridiculous to think otherwise. You can't praise the shared universe and then act like it doesn't matter when something like this happens. Not asking for a lot, but Cap should have been in the final fight scene. He should have been there to help rescue the President.

I don't agree. It's really not different at all from the comics. On some basic level, Cap isn't there because it's an IM story. If Cap shows up in this movie, and Thor in Cap 2, then Avengers 2 doesn't feel anywhere near as special.

They could explain what happened somehow, of course, but even if they don't, I don't think it really matters.

You're saying they're acting like solo films.

Well, they are.

Not entirely: this movie used the Avengers experiences in a prominent way, and there were some other references to the shared universe. But they basically focused on how the big crossover affected the hero of this particular film. Could the lack of SHIELD references have been a bit of an over-reaction to IM2's SHIELD-related clutter? Yeah, maybe.

Another thing to keep in mind is: this is the first time anyone's done this. They wanted to make sure the phase two solo films worked as standalone films. They can always tinker with the formula later on. Plenty of time for that.

Or they fill in the blanks with a short film. Could be fun.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Of course you can, you've just got to look at it as a Tony Stark story and not an MCU story. Honestly if you're unwilling to let the shared universe aspect go on occasion then you're never going to enjoy the films for what they are.

So this isn't Phase 2 now? All the references to the Avengers were not there?

And not sure what you mean by that last sentence. I did enjoy the movie for what it is, but part of what it is is a contradiction. That is the problem with the shared universe and making such a big deal out of it.

They didn't need to involve them as in giving them screen time but they at least needed to say where the hell he and the rest of SHIELD are when the President of the United States has gone missing.

At the very least this. But considering how fast they move around the globe in The Avengers, I doubt they couldn't get there in time, no matter what they were doing.

I don't agree. It's really not different at all from the comics. On some basic level, Cap isn't there because it's an IM story. If Cap shows up in this movie, and Thor in Cap 2, then Avengers 2 doesn't feel anywhere near as special.

They could explain what happened somehow, of course, but even if they don't, I don't think it really matters.

Actually it is the other way around. The crossovers in comics are constant. Thor right now is hunting a killer of Gods. Who does he ask for help on Earth? Iron Man. Spider-Man and many other heroes just showed up in JIM.

In this case, the story dictated that Cap should be around.

 

[Doc Samson]

I'm actually going to defend Marvel in this instance because I understand the logic in what they are doing. As a whole, the shared universe is virtually a secondary element and in some ways an unimportant aspect of the solo films. I equate it to being how the James Bond films were for 40 years all in the same universe yet had few instances where elements from the past were brought up or elements for the future were set up, frankly it wasn't important because the story at hand didn't demand it. When we look at the solo films we're not looking at the MCU, we're looking at the character at hand, the character just happens to share the same universe as other characters. Thing is Marvel learned with IM2 you can't just force elements of a wider universe into the story because it's not important. Subsequently, Thor, Cap, and even IM3 showed they learned the best way to have a connected universe is frankly not to acknowledge it because once you start with the 'yeah but..' type of questions story wise you start limiting yourself. I made the mistake of assuming post Avengers everything would be more connected and the stakes leading up to Avengers 2 would be greater, but with IM3 and even the Thor 2 trailer its obvious Marvel are treating the solo films and the team up films almost as separate entities, and to be honest I don't think that's a bad thing. Look at it this way, the solo films are the where the stories are, the team up film is where the party's at.

Perhaps, in terms of just storytelling. But, in regards to the laws and physics of the universe, I would like to think those things are connected. Especially when Killian himself acknowledges how things changed once the "big guy with the Hammer" dropped out the sky.

And since the main reason The Mandarin was kept away, at least from interviews, was because of the nature of his abilities and how they would interact with the established IM1 tone, it appeared that the Avengers fixed that. It allowed all those things such as magic, science & other dimensions to intermingle and coexist.

Being as it may, utilizing The Mandarin as some sort of bastardized alternate version which, to me, felt more like a cross between Fin Fang Foom and Iron Fist than anything else, seemed just very unnecessary. And didn't fully press upon the point of The Mandarin's relationship to IM in the first place. Much as Luthor represents business & big industry as the antithesis to Superman's good ol' boy American values, The Mandarin's use of magic in tandem with technology shows a different spin on Stark and how he uses technology & science. I didn't really feel that connection too much from this film version at all.