Iron Man Was this really Iron Man?

[8blades]

Yes, we've heard all the BO figures and stuff, but sit back and think....was this really Iron Man?

Iron Man was the realest and one of the most down to earth comic books out there and I think given it the RDJ comedic family-feel treatment is a HUGE disservice. My mind is cast back to Batman 89. It did so well commercially but was very unfaithful to the comics. It's like Batman Begins, not so great at the BO, but is probably the most faithful comic-book film ever.

Tony Stark is a dark and conflicted character. He HAS to battle alcoholism, there HAS to be serious tone. You can't lighten things up and joke about weapons of mass destruction. I think as time passes, Iron Man fans will feel let down when you see how much Batman Begins tried to remaing faitful to its comic-book roots.

 

[Excel]

ive said all along the best comparison will be batman from 1989. Good film, hard to not like; but for fans somethings may be missing.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Let me just save everyone else on this board the trouble:


GTFO! You are just a lame Batman fan! Take that trash elsewhere. Iron Man rules and you're just jealous.

 

[8blades]

Umm, I like Iron Man too and any true Iron Man fan will know that this was a good film that was not faithful to the comic.
Tony Stark is a SERIOUS dude, not a comedian.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Umm, I like Iron Man too and any true Iron Man fan will know that this was a good film that was not faithful to the comic.
Tony Stark is a SERIOUS dude, not a comedian.

I wasn't being serious, just teasing.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

batman begins had something missing too....an interesting plot...

Stark being light in this film probably is a reflection of his past non caring playboy manner.

There's a duality of stark and that he's incredibly driven when he wants to be and chilled when he doesn't. The alcohol thing will come later. As origin films go, it's one of the best ones but its layed the foundation for the character to be come fan-complete in the sequels.

 

[Figs]

I disagree. I'm a big fan of the comics and felt it was very accurate and well done.

As it's been said numerous times...Favreau said they will deal with his alcohol problem in the sequel. I'm sure that will make the character and film a lot darker and serious.

The only real thing they left out from the comics(at least the original early years) was him constantly needing to plug himself in to recharge. Hell, sometimes they had him plugging himself into the damn lighter socket in a car.

That was the main thing I noticed they left out that I felt was for the better. They just did the smarter move and had him create a longer lasting chest piece.

If anything they can always show a bit of that tension/drama/suspense in the sequel with having him in a major fight and needing to run off to recharge or something...personally I didn't miss it due to it being over used in the comics.


As for the comedian part...read some more issues of earlier 616 stuff. He's constantly cracking jokes at the villains/bad guys he fights...just like all superheroes do.

I don't think the humour was that bad, it worked for this first film and like I said and we all know...they'll deal with the alcoholism in the sequel.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I have a feeling this thread is going to turn into an ugly Batman Begins vs. Iron Man fight.

Better get the popcorn ready.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Please g-d no. I did perfer Iron Man though.

 

[Figs]

I have a feeling this thread is going to turn into an ugly Batman Begins vs. Iron Man fight.

Better get the popcorn ready.

Your not talking about my post are you?

I've never once in any Iron Man thread brought up that comparison.

Personally, I find it idiotic and mind boggling why people keep comparing those two and not comparing Iron Man with any other 1st/origin comic film.

I think people got too carried away with the notion that their both millionaires/billionaires and don't have much for family.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Your not talking about my post are you?

I've never once in any Iron Man thread brought up that comparison.

Personally, I find it idiotic and mind boggling why people keep comparing those two and not comparing Iron Man with any other 1st/origin comic film.

I think people got too carried away with the notion that their both millionaires/billionaires and don't have much for family.

No, definitely not. I think its fair game to compare Iron Man to BB and any other origin movie for that matter. I just hope it doesn't deteoriate into anything ugly.

 

[Excel]

I think Iron Man could have used a good 20-30 minutes more to establish what was up Obidiah, and so that the finale was something other than him just suiting up cause the cops come. But it still worked fine.

 

[EternalMaster]

Stark's general attitude was more like his Ultimates version. As for making quips and witty remarks, every hero did that **** back in the silver age. Stark has rarely been "real" or "down to Earth".

Stark himself is a business man, and movie clearly showcased that. Stark's battle with alcoholism was NOT present in his early years AT ALL. It was something that came later... and Favreau has already said that the "Demon in a Bottle" (alcoholism) will probably come up in one of the sequels.

Nothing about Iron Man had a family-friendly tone to me, so I'm not sure what 8blades was babbling about at that part of his post. Stark is drinking booze in half of his scenes where he isn't building something... he and Rhodes even get drunk on his private jet that has stripper flight attendants... he openly kills bad guys at times... and he bangs that reporter chick early in the movie.

Sure, it was all PG-13, but a "serious" hero film doesn't need to be rated R.

I think the movie took good qualities from the various incarnations of Tony Stark in the comics (currently, Stark is an a-hole, so they avoided using that version), and gave us a faithful adaptation without being panel-for-panel accurate.

This movie IS the Batman begins for Iron Man. And hell, Batman Begins isn't even 100% faithful to Batman. Ra's Al Ghul never trained Batman in the comics. The whole Wayne Enterprises side story never happened. Alfred has never been so "comedic" in the comics as he was in the movie. In the comics, Ra's Al Ghul was an immortal guy who used a secret pit to keep himself young. In the comics, Gordan was a pretty hardcore dude. In the movies, he has a good heart and courage, but he's rather "soft".

Now none of those things made Batman Begins bad at all. Even with modifictions, the BB movie was awesome. Likewise, Iron Man was awesome as hell even with it's slight modifications to specific details.

 

[Figs]

No, definitely not. I think its fair game to compare Iron Man to BB and any other origin movie for that matter. I just hope it doesn't deteoriate into anything ugly.

I agree it's fair game, what I meant in my previous post is that is just about the only comparison I've seen.

No one seems to want to compare it to the first Spider-Man or the first X-men.

I just think a lot of it has to do with the whole Marvel VS DC thing.

 

[Angeloz]

Isn't he really Computer Man because of the CGI?

Angeloz

 

[Raiden]

Tony Stark is all about living the high life, with fast cars, beautiful women, and hi-tech armors. Therefore, I don't think it's out of character for him to have an easy-going personality like RDJ does in the movie. Tobey Maguire's Spider-man is more out-of-character, since his Spidey doesn't crack jokes like he does in the comics during fights. RDJ's Stark is imo right on target.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Yes, we've heard all the BO figures and stuff, but sit back and think....was this really Iron Man?

Iron Man was the realest and one of the most down to earth comic books out there and I think given it the RDJ comedic family-feel treatment is a HUGE disservice. My mind is cast back to Batman 89. It did so well commercially but was very unfaithful to the comics. It's like Batman Begins, not so great at the BO, but is probably the most faithful comic-book film ever.

Tony Stark is a dark and conflicted character. He HAS to battle alcoholism, there HAS to be serious tone. You can't lighten things up and joke about weapons of mass destruction. I think as time passes, Iron Man fans will feel let down when you see how much Batman Begins tried to remaing faitful to its comic-book roots.

Ugh here we go again.

The early version of Tony Stark was a care free social drinker like the movie.

NO he didn't have to battle alcoholism in this movie, he doen't even need to battle it in the next one to be honest. The alcoholism didn't come in to play until 15 after he was created and only lasted 5-7 years before kicking the habit.

Tony Stark isn't a dark drunk character and the movie doesn't have to be a dark serious tone.

To answer your question from a life long fan, that knows EVERYTHING Iron Man including the history, except for Stane being a business parter, YES this was pretty faithful to the comics.

 

[8blades]

I disagree. I think this is RDJ just being RDJ and people just fall for it because he is a likeable guy.
When Bale was Batman he felt he had to create some sort of character and aura, something that was not Christian Bale. Spiderman was a freakin joke, all three of them and Singer and Ratner pissed on the great X-men.
I think that Iron Man benefits a lot more being a hardcore serious movie. Bridges was the only character that really brought forward what Iron Man should be in film-form. Come on guys, yes it's made all this money because the family can so easly watch it because it is just sooo light. Iron Man is waaay more than that and they should show that right from the get go. I think the danger now is they have a formula that works, so they'll just keep on using it.

 

[Iron_Stark]

LMAO, and that's a bad thing? They have a winning formula that made them a money maker and a great movie, but they should steer clear from it now? riiiiiiight.

 

[Raiden]

I disagree. I think this is RDJ just being RDJ and people just fall for it because he is a likeable guy.
When Bale was Batman he felt he had to create some sort of character and aura, something that was not Christian Bale. Spiderman was a freakin joke, all three of them and Singer and Ratner pissed on the great X-men.
I think that Iron Man benefits a lot more being a hardcore serious movie. Bridges was the only character that really brought forward what Iron Man should be in film-form. Come on guys, yes it's made all this money because the family can so easly watch it because it is just sooo light. Iron Man is waaay more than that and they should show that right from the get go. I think the danger now is they have a formula that works, so they'll just keep on using it.

Why should they make Stark into another Bruce Wayne/Batman? And besides, IM is meant to be more light-hearted, humorous, and action packed superhero movie, so Stark as a dark, brooding hero simply just won't work. And in a summer with Hulk and Batman, it's better that we have a superhero who doesn't have a tortured, conflicted psyche.

 

[Franklin Richards]

What did you want? A boring guy who is supposed to be a woman magnet but never displays any charisma? Just sits around talking about technical advances and business figures?

It sounds like you never read an Iron Man comic in your life.


And you say Batman Begins was so faithful? Rachel Dawes? Ra's Al Ghul trains him to be a ninja? Bruce takes a gun to court? Faust instead of Zorro? Microwave Machine that doesn't kill people? Tumbler? Chill's day in court?

You have an agenda my friend. Bash Iron Man for the sake of Batman.

 

[Iron_Stark]

What did you want? A boring guy who is supposed to be a woman magnet but never displays any charisma? Just sits around talking about technical advances and business figures?

It sounds like you never read an Iron Man comic in your life.


And you say Batman Begins was so faithful? Rachel Dawes? Ra's Al Ghul trains him to be a ninja? Bruce takes a gun to court? Faust instead of Zorro? Microwave Machine that doesn't kill people? Tumbler? Chill's day in court?

You have an agenda my friend. Bash Iron Man for the sake of Batman.

Pretty much sums up his posts.

 

[Raiden]

Batman Begins is a fine film, but I don't understand whenever Batman fanboys herald BB as true to Batman comics, when Nolan clearly made some changes to suit his script. Just don't accuse IM for being unfaithful to the comics and cite BB as the perfect model.

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

I agree, Raiden.
And I'm huge Batman fan but I think Iron Man is an awesome movie and the better one as well.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Yes, we've heard all the BO figures and stuff, but sit back and think....was this really Iron Man?

Iron Man was the realest and one of the most down to earth comic books out there and I think given it the RDJ comedic family-feel treatment is a HUGE disservice. My mind is cast back to Batman 89. It did so well commercially but was very unfaithful to the comics. It's like Batman Begins, not so great at the BO, but is probably the most faithful comic-book film ever.

Tony Stark is a dark and conflicted character. He HAS to battle alcoholism, there HAS to be serious tone. You can't lighten things up and joke about weapons of mass destruction. I think as time passes, Iron Man fans will feel let down when you see how much Batman Begins tried to remaing faitful to its comic-book roots.

Tony Stark was not dark nor did he have a drinking problem until much later on in his comic book run. I'd say the movie did a great job in capturing the feel of the earlier issues, absolutely.