Oh, right, thanks for reminding me.
Your welcome. lol
First of all, don't use money as a certificate for quality. Second, I never said the dialogue was as bad as FF, I said it was as light-hearted.
The FF dialogue was bad because it was ultra light hearted to the point of corniness.
No scene was deemed inappropriate for a joke or one-liner.
I answer this later in my post.
Yinsen dies, Tony remarks "My turn".
Which is neither a joke, a one-liner, or humorous in any way. Horrible example.
Tony and Pepper supposedly have a heart-to-heart at the operation scene, it's played for laughs with buzzing sounds and heart-attacks. And why wasn't a doctor present again?
THAT particular scene was played up lightly. In Die Hard 4, McClane tries to talk with his daughter, but she blows him off. It's not a movie about father-daughter drama... it's a huge action film. McClane later has a discussion about the quality of Credence Clearwater Revival. It's not a commentary film about classic rock music. It's an action movie.
If the action movie was nothing but action with no story, I guess it would be called "X-Men 3". Or if it was dark and somber 100% of the time, we'd call it "American History X". But some films mix in humor along with drama and action to make solid summer blockbuster.
And a doctor wasn't present because Tony was keeping the arc light reactor SECRET. Did miss all the parts where he wanted to avoid going to a hospital... where he was surprised Stane knew about... where he told Stane he was keeping it for himself... where Stane later said Tony was being selfish for not sharing the technology?
I believe you need to buy tickets and see it again.
t:
Humor aside, there never was any real danger, any loss, any relief, any gravity. Tony supposedly has a change of heart, all we get is "yeah, I'll stop making weapons".
That's utter bull crap, my friend.
That's akin to saying, "There was no saddness, gravity, or sense of drama in Forrest Gump. Just outrageous situations involving a ******ed person."
Again, I never said that every scene was a joke set up, I said there was a joke in almost every scene, even inappropriate ones.
What you said:
Everything was a chance to crack a joke.
That implies every scene was a joke set up... allowing a chance to crack a joke.
And no, there was not a joke in almost every scene... as I pointed out later in my post you responded to. Yes, Tony the billionaire playboy made witty remarks about situations. This somehow makes the film "light hearted"?
Get outta here with that.
The Yinsen scenes are the most unbelievable of all. Oh, the wise stranger with the accent tells us Stark has personality problems. That's not how these scenes should be written. We should have a discussion, have Tony realize what he's missing.
Changing gears now are we? I prove your "everything is a chance for a joke" "light-hearted" idea to be completely false, and you switch to discussing "believability".
Believability was never an issue of discussion. Unless your claiming that the scenes were SOOOO unbelievable that you were laughing in the theater.
If that's the case, then you must have felt weird with a theater full of people looking at you like you're a fool. Because as far as I know, know one has held as similiar opinion or reaction to that as you.
But no, I doubt that was your rection. I just think you saw your initial point
demolished and decided to attack the film through other means.
In any case, the Yinsen scenes played out fine in my opinion. They were not used to develop Tony's charcter... they were used to SHOW his past character to the audience. Thus far, we had only seen his playboy persona. These scenes introduced the idea that Tony does have a more somber, thoughtful side. One that does consider having a lack of true friends and family. One that isn't always making smartass remarks.
Oh, well there it is again: Tony isn't always cracking jokes. Shall we move on?
And believable or not, none of those scenes (a decent chunk of film) were family-oriented or light hearted. I'd say the film was aimed more at teens and adults in the 18 - 30 age range.
We should see Tony longing for connection at some point, not suddenly decide it's time to hit on Pepper. Why Pepper anyway? What does she have that makes him see her differently? We never see anything other than she's available. And what does she see in him, when every other character considers him a shallow, spoiled kid? None of that there, either.
1) There was no actual love story between them. She's just the closest thing to a true friend he has. When he decided to change his life around, he saw her... a dependable, intelligent woman... as a source for romance instead of just hooking up with blonde bombshells for cheap sex.
But even though Tony is trying to change, he still goes by his old methods a lot. For example, he vows to stop making weapons... but in order to purge the world of his old weapons, he creates a bigger badder weapon (his armor) to deal with the problem. Likewise, even though he decided to start looking for more meaningful relationships, when did he decide to go for Potts? When she was wearing a sexy dress.
Pepper represented what Tony THOUGHT he wanted, but it was wishful thinking. Hence we have the awkward dance floor scene. And at the end of the movie when Tony tries questions Potts about the possible romance of the evening, Potts responds with, "You mean the night you went to get me a drink and then left?"
Tony's a driven man, but like most people, he's very simple when it comes to trying achieve emotionl desires. In the past, he went after booze, women, and good times. When it comes to longing for a meaningful relationship, he picks a loyal and loving employee on the night that she happens to be dressed to kill.
2) We're not sure why Potts sees a good man in Stark. She's certainly not romantically attracted to him in any serious way (hell, she seemed to show more of an eye for the SHIELD agent at the end). But at some point, she clearly saw something good in him that made her strive to help him when he needed it. Most powerful people have a righthand man (or woman). A trusted advisor. The exact reasons for the devotion of the advisor are not always needed, but on some level, you get the idea that Potts kind of "mothers" Tony a bit.
Again though, none of this has anything to do with the movie being light hearted or fmily friendly. You're just raising new points to distract from the horrible point you originally made.
As for Yinsen's death, again, the stranger died and we get a cheesy line about how he's going to meet his family. People die here and there, why should we care about this one? There's absolutely no connection to him.
Why should we care about this one? Yinsen saved Tony's life. He also sees the good in Tony, and to try and help them both get freed, he was willing to take a hot coal to the mouth.
In the short period of time we saw, Yinsen came off as an intelligent, resourceful, and brave man. The revelation tht his family was already dead and that he WOULD get to see them again was pretty cool. I wouldn't say it was the greatest death scene ever, but it was solid... and certinly not typical action genre cheese.
Then again, let me remind you, your initial point was that this was a film that cracks a joke at every chance. Your like or dislike of Yinsen's death scene is... again... you trying to distract us from the fact that your initial point was decimated.
I'm sorry, but if you really do think this "disproves my ridiculous assertion", then I guess this conversation has no point. Simplistic writing like this, as much as it tries (not much, as is the case here), doesn't help making a film serious.
So for a film to be "serious", it has to be "complex"? I'd love to see the dictionary you use to come up with this stuff.
You suffer from some level of "movie snobbery". You think if you can find ways to trash talk the "simplicity" of a movie that appeals to the masses, that you somehow prove yourself to be a cultured and well educated individual.
Instead, you come off as narrow-minded and elitist. Not every film has to be Oscar-worthy to be "serious". Not every film has to be "dark" to be serious.
And sometimes, a simple, straightforward story done well can be more finely crafted than overly complex, self-important pieces of cinema.
This conversation
truly has no point if you can't understand that.
Again, this is no longing, it's simple flirting. We never see any reason why this should be different than any other of Tony's "relationships". Except that Pepper is a protagonist.
It's not longing... because it's simple flirting? (sidenote: he's again diverting your attention from the fact that all my post was aimed at proving the movie wasn't just a light-hearted family-friendly jokefest).
To get "longing" across to you, did the scene require that Tony cry? Or compose a sonnet? Or vow his love to her while rain falls in the background?
He's flirting with HER because he's longing for a more meaningful relationship. Typically, people in real life will *gasp* flirt or even TALK with people they interested in.
But as I explained earlier, this was all part of Tony not knowing how to get what he desired. He saw Potts as being very different from all his shallow women and shallow relationships in the past. But breaking from movie cliches both in romance and in action, Favreau shows us that Tony isn't going to fall in love with his ever-loyal assistant who has always been there for him. They may have a loving relationship, but no true romantic love exists there... which leads to awkwardness of him wanting to dance and trying for a kiss.
And the point is further hammered home when Potts later reminds him that he left her there without warning after saying he'd go get drinks.
Or maybe the "simplicity" of the scene shot right over your head?
The hero acts bad-ass, nothing more, nothing less. Having violence in a film doesn't make it serious. Rambo 3 is pretty violent, is it serious too?
Nor does the ocassional joke in an action movie make the film a comedy or light-hearted. Violent scenes alone kind of kill the idea that the film is light-hearted. Nor is it family friendly.
But at no point did I hinge the seriousness of the film 100% on it's action. Sounds like you are (again) throwing up new points to veer away from your first disasterous attempt at making one.
Oh, remind me, why were the terrorists attacking the people? I'm seriously asking, I don't remember the reason.
One good reason would be that they are members of an organization with the goal of taking over the region. Yinsen mentioned that there were people in the organization speaking more languages than even he knew. It was an organization spread out across the middle east and asia from what we can gather. And Raza (the main leader) mentions desiring weapons for conquest.
We later see on the news clips that the Ten Rings are in fact taking over villages and towns.
For the purpose of THIS film (the Ten Rings will likely be expanded on in the sequel), they served as a modern day threat (terrorists) to capture Stark and demand he build a weapon, giving him motivation to build his first armor. In the comics, I believe he was captured in Vietnam, seeing as how the Vietnam War was the main issue of the day.
I didn't realize though that the motivations of terrorists played a key part in whether a film is "serious" or "light-hearted family fun".
I guess if the terrorists sang songs and were part of a Disney movie, you'd have a point. When the terrorists kill women and children, raze villages to the ground, and kill Americn soldiers... well, that tends to support my point of view.
Stane with Pepper, a little tension, I'll give you that. Although what would Stane do? Kill her? For being in his office?
Stane yelling. Standard villain vs employee.
So "standard" = "every chance to crack a joke"? Or does standard = light-hearted comedy?
This is getting ridiculous how much you're steering away from the initial point.
Final battle. A car dragging Iron Man around? That wasn't humorous?
WTF? Did you find that stuff funny?
Casually asking about the freezing problem?
Yes, one moment of levity in the action scene. OMG! It's a ****ing comedy!!!!!
The wittiness of the remark stems from Tony's own *****ure attitude. He out-smarted his opponent, and he couldn't help but rub it in when given the chance.
Hint: sometimes in real life, real people do the same thing. This scene wasn't exactly forced or rammed home for pure comedy.
Stane's ultra-cheesy lines?
In your opinion.
Him standing 5 feet away in front of Tony and unable to kill him? What damaged targeting system? Move your arm a little to the left, it's not like you can't do it.
Did you notice the size of Stane's armor? His arm isn't inside the suit's arm. He controls the suit through the chest and shoulder cavity. The targetting systems (as also seen in Tony's armor) allow the armor to do what the user wishes. Without the systems working, Stane had little control over his aim.
Were you even paying attention? And again, none of this reflects on jokes or this film being light-hearted and family oriented.
And a generic ray to the sky killing the bad guy? Again, no feeling of danger or urgency.
L. O. L. Please, sir. This level of ignorant snobbery is ridiculous.
Said it before. All we see of this big change in character is him stating he's going to stop making weapons. End of story. He could just say "I'm a moral guy now". One of the film's biggest shortcomings.
Sure it is. You're now just making baseless, general accusations in an attempt to look the opposite of wrong.
But I'm not going to try and make it something it's not.
That's pretty much all you've done.
I too think it was good, but not great (maybe great as far as a comic movie goes). Unlike you, I don't toss out crap points with no basis. I also don't label action blockbusters as joke fests or light-hearted. Certainly not as family friendly.
But don't expect a further response from me (towards you) in this topic. As you said earlier, there's no point to further conversation. Not when I and others see things for the way they are, and you and others skew events into what you want to see.
, me wike Batman Begins.
