|
On May 09 2008 15:42 sutureself wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2008 18:58 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Oh yea and, a black man for Nick Fury was the only funny part in the movie.
On the plus side, now Ghostface Killa has a bunch of new samples to work into his songs. In the Ultimate Marvel Universe, Nick Fury is not only black, but drawn intentionally to look like Samuel L. Jackson...
Is that the brand new series where Iron Man and his band are versus Captain America and his band? Pretty lame.
PS- I wonder why they started to all the sudden make him black... Nick Fury was always a white dude, I even have the Overpower cards.
|
sorry for bumping an old topic, but i finally got around to seeing this tonight. did anybody else feel underwhelmed? the special effects were great but well, a lot of movies today have great special effects. robert downing jr is a great actor, and he was very funny at parts, but he was completely one dimensional in this movie. it was always the same very downplayed and sharp-tongued delivery, and it made his character seem totally unrealistic. it's like he wasn't capable of feeling any emotion except cockiness. also, obediah or whatever his name is, is a seriously boring villain. until halfway through the movie he's basically a minor character (like the black guy) then all of a sudden he's the big bad evil dude? i could've cared less that he was defeated *yawn*. and the black guy, the movie would still make good sense if you removed every scene he was in. actually, you could say that for about pretty much every character. you can say this was one of those "you had to see the original" movies, but seriously, that's no excuse for a shitty script.
but then, i guess my criticisms apply to every single comic book adaptation except Watchman. every single comic book, for that matter. i guess it's a matter of personal taste :\.
|
oh also:
how the fuck do you not notice the guy is building a suit of armor, and not a missile? was it the glowing ring on his chest? does it have secret powers of hypnosis?
|
Ahrara, sorry but if you haven't read the comic book, you might not want to go nuts with the critiquing. The good parts of the movie had very little to do with special effects and a LOT to do with the delivery and characterization. The way Tony Stark was introduced at the awards ceremony with a promo video was SPOT ON and just hilarious. The way pop culture was infused into the movie was fun, immersive, and made the audience feel like Iron Man existed in OUR world.
It doesn't seem like you're at all familiar with the comic book either if you think the character was one-dimensional. First off, if you're a billionaire genius since you were 5 years old, you're going to be cocky. Robert Downey Jr. pulled off Tony Stark better than the freakin comic book one! That's the first adaptation I've seen where the acting didn't just do the comic justice, it did it BETTER.
On top of that, you disregard the fact Tony Stark did change. He changed his company, he tried to take it in a new direction, he even had a brief moment where tension between him and Pepper Potts goes through the roof. Then again, I guess you're looking for some kind of melodramatic breakdown where Tony Stark becomes a flower-picking born-again Christian and totally repents his evil ways.
Obediah wasn't a spectacular villian, but this movie wasn't about some epic clash between good and evil. The story was about Tony Stark's invention of the Iron Man suit. There's 4 different aspects to stories when it comes to SF/Fantasy. It's an acronym called MICE. Milieu, Idea, Character, and Event. The movie Iron Man was based more on idea and event, with a strong smattering of milieu and character. It's not always necessary to go full bore on all four aspects to create a good movie.
Btw, the black guy is War Machine, and he's a major easter egg for Iron Man fans.
And I'd advise you get off your intellectual high horse because a lot of these comics are quite good. Especially X-men and Iron Man. Watchman, on the other hand, feels like nothing but blatant preaching of left-wing ideals and societal commentary that feels elementary in its execution. In fact, Watchman owes most of its existence to the original comic characters, because it's mostly just a post-modern inversion of them. In my opinion, the author of Watchman is too in love with trying to be deep and philosophical and shies away from actually saying anything by just presenting the entire gamut of philosophies. It's a nice attempt, but to me I felt like he was recycling ideas any intelligent human being is already aware of. But I guess it's a matter of personal taste.
And the script is far from shitty. If you can do better, I'd love to see.
|
Braavos36379 Posts
ahrara_ are you actually from afghanistan because iron man totally saved ur village, u should be happy
|
oh whoa whoa
hold your horses, don't take it so personal. i could get all mean and suggest you're an illiterate tard who hasn't read a book in his life that didn't have pictures, but i won't. because i'm not that kind of guy.
As for your post, we need to get something clear: No, punchlines do not a good movie make. Nor do references to pop culture. I'll admit the movie was "good" in that sense. It had a lot of polish and Downey is a fine actor, and it was funny. There were some very witty moments, and ya, some of the action was pretty enjoyable. It scored above average on "milieu", mmk?
The movie's problem is with the characters. First though, this thing about needing to have read the comic book is ridiculous. The fact that I haven't read the original should give me more credibility as a critic. I'm not biased for or against it (actually I was looking forward to seeing it), and I don't have the benefit of knowing the characters already. I'm not a fanboy, and I can judge the movie for what it is.
What it is was a smattering of cute scenes, punchlines, and pretty graphics tied together by an abominable story. It fails completely at the one thing you say it's supposed to do: characterization. Downey's moral turnaround is cliche and completely pretentious. Sure, he stops selling weapons and decides to be a superhero, but there is nothing in his persona that reflects this change. He's still pretty much an smartass to everybody. The script is terrible because it doesn't know when to stop being witty. Like that scene after his friend dies? It's like he feels bad the guy is dying but he doesn't really care too much so he says some typical filler shit because he feels it's appropriate. It doesn't help that Downey delivers this part just like every other line in the movie: offhanded and uncaring. He doesn't say anything the rest of the movie that suggests any kind of hurt or fallibility as a person.
The other characters, like I said, were throwaways. I don't care if they're in the comic book. Every minute I'm sitting there listening to people I don't care about talk about things I don't care about and distracting me from the action, I like the movie less. It doesn't help that the plot is totally arbitrary and boring. Like the fact that the villain comes out of nowhere. And that it's completely predictable, and that everything that happens is a setup for the next action scene, without any sense of cohesion.
Ya, Watchmen had its flaws. The ending was tacky, and the philosophizing was a little too much. But where it succeeded where most books in the medium don't even bother to try is in characterization. The people behave like human beings, have flaws like human beings, talk like human beings. The plot was a little flimsy, but it all came together in the end. It wasn't all arbitrary. You wanna talk about presentation? Just flip to the first page: You have Alan Moore writing about blood in the gutters as the "camera" flys up out of a closeup of the comedian's own blood right up into the office window where he was thrown out of. Now THAT is beautiful presentation. Fuck man, it really makes me sad that people think good directing and cinematography is when there's a lot of visual punchlines.
And the script is far from shitty. If you can do better, I'd love to see.
It's not my job to write scripts for shitty comic book adaptations. Seriously, your post pissed me off with your attitude. I was just posting my views on the movie, and you come in here acting like I'd just made fun of your mother. Fuck off, twat.
|
On May 27 2008 12:51 EGoldman wrote:
Ahrara, sorry but if you haven't read the comic book, you might not want to go nuts with the critiquing. The good parts of the movie had very little to do with special effects and a LOT to do with the delivery and characterization. The way Tony Stark was introduced at the awards ceremony with a promo video was SPOT ON and just hilarious. The way pop culture was infused into the movie was fun, immersive, and made the audience feel like Iron Man existed in OUR world.
It doesn't seem like you're at all familiar with the comic book either if you think the character was one-dimensional. First off, if you're a billionaire genius since you were 5 years old, you're going to be cocky. Robert Downey Jr. pulled off Tony Stark better than the freakin comic book one! That's the first adaptation I've seen where the acting didn't just do the comic justice, it did it BETTER.
On top of that, you disregard the fact Tony Stark did change. He changed his company, he tried to take it in a new direction, he even had a brief moment where tension between him and Pepper Potts goes through the roof. Then again, I guess you're looking for some kind of melodramatic breakdown where Tony Stark becomes a flower-picking born-again Christian and totally repents his evil ways.
Obediah wasn't a spectacular villian, but this movie wasn't about some epic clash between good and evil. The story was about Tony Stark's invention of the Iron Man suit. There's 4 different aspects to stories when it comes to SF/Fantasy. It's an acronym called MICE. Milieu, Idea, Character, and Event. The movie Iron Man was based more on idea and event, with a strong smattering of milieu and character. It's not always necessary to go full bore on all four aspects to create a good movie.
Btw, the black guy is War Machine, and he's a major easter egg for Iron Man fans.
And I'd advise you get off your intellectual high horse because a lot of these comics are quite good. Especially X-men and Iron Man. Watchman, on the other hand, feels like nothing but blatant preaching of left-wing ideals and societal commentary that feels elementary in its execution. In fact, Watchman owes most of its existence to the original comic characters, because it's mostly just a post-modern inversion of them. In my opinion, the author of Watchman is too in love with trying to be deep and philosophical and shies away from actually saying anything by just presenting the entire gamut of philosophies. It's a nice attempt, but to me I felt like he was recycling ideas any intelligent human being is already aware of. But I guess it's a matter of personal taste.
And the script is far from shitty. If you can do better, I'd love to see.
So true so true, Iron man, spiderman2 and maybe batman begins are awesome comic adaptations. But since whether or not something is good or bad is completely relative there is no point in arguing... I say the movie is good because it is able to satisfy a vast majority of the population's expectations.
ps. how the heck you guys saw watchmen already? isn't that suppose to come out in 2009?
|
On May 06 2008 11:48 Xception704 wrote:Ironman was an extremely well-made movie, in my opinion. + Show Spoiler +The directors really knew how to make the audience laugh: "Just say it was military testing or something ... isn't that the usual BS?" "It's not that easy ..." (screen cuts to a new scene) "Due to military testing ... " ... that was a MAJOR LOL moment. Those minor details in travis's post On May 06 2008 11:33 travis wrote:I thought it was awesome, despite the fact that the technology actually makes no sense + Show Spoiler +
I don't mean that making the suit would be impossible or whatever, I mean that
1.) bullets should knock him over
2.) flying should make him black out
3.) it should hurt him horribly or maybe kill him every time he slams into shit
oh and hey, what was with the tank shooting him out of the air. wtf, like a tank could just snipe down something the size of a man flying at supersonic speed
were rendered minor and insignificant in the face of ... well, the pure awesomeness that is Ironman and his special effects. =)
Don't forget how he falls through his roof after his first flight test, yet somehow stands on glass at the end when hes fighting on the roof top.
oh well, great great great movie, his personaltiy MADE it, the next one should be even better imo. That one will probably have better action. This one had a crappy villain and not much fighting and i hope they fix that in the next one. Just make sure you leave in the tony stark personality, all in all a great movie with the potential for an even BETTER sequal. Unless hollywood fucks this one too.
|
This movie was awesome but near the end
+ Show Spoiler +I didn't really like how there wasn't an epic clash between Stark and Obediah. At the end it was pretty much a weakened Stark that had to outsmart Obediah, not really fighting headon. Hopefully they'll fix this in the next one. And how the hell did a weakened Stark and Pepper survive the blast but not Obediah???
|
It was good but no action at all. So much construction of the superhero. But yeah it was enjoyable.
|
|
|
On May 27 2008 13:58 Umbrella wrote:This movie was awesome but near the end + Show Spoiler +I didn't really like how there wasn't an epic clash between Stark and Obediah. At the end it was pretty much a weakened Stark that had to outsmart Obediah, not really fighting headon. Hopefully they'll fix this in the next one. And how the hell did a weakened Stark and Pepper survive the blast but not Obediah???
That's how it normally goes. Just to show wits > brute force ~~
It's a common theme and should be more so in IRON man as he's protrayed as a clever character.
|
On May 27 2008 11:13 ahrara_ wrote:
sorry for bumping an old topic, but i finally got around to seeing this tonight. did anybody else feel underwhelmed? the special effects were great but well, a lot of movies today have great special effects. robert downing jr is a great actor, and he was very funny at parts, but he was completely one dimensional in this movie. it was always the same very downplayed and sharp-tongued delivery, and it made his character seem totally unrealistic. it's like he wasn't capable of feeling any emotion except cockiness. also, obediah or whatever his name is, is a seriously boring villain. until halfway through the movie he's basically a minor character (like the black guy) then all of a sudden he's the big bad evil dude? i could've cared less that he was defeated *yawn*. and the black guy, the movie would still make good sense if you removed every scene he was in. actually, you could say that for about pretty much every character. you can say this was one of those "you had to see the original" movies, but seriously, that's no excuse for a shitty script.
but then, i guess my criticisms apply to every single comic book adaptation except Watchman. every single comic book, for that matter. i guess it's a matter of personal taste :\.
Hmm... I disagree with your reading of the movie, though whether you like it or not is certainly a matter of personal taste. And I don't think just because a movie is "true to the comic" it should be considered a good movie either.
1. I agree that the special effects were not that important.
2. I don't think the character of Ironman is one dimensional. He starts out as an arrogant ass. After Afghanistan, on the surface he's still an arrogant ass, but the look on his face when he sees the "proof that Tony Stark has a heart" thingy shows that he has another side. The important thing in a story is that the main character learns something and changes in a believable manner. These two criteria have been satisfied, so on that count I think the character moves the plot along fine. To sum up, he changes from arrogant ass to arrogant ass on the surface with a very real, very strong streak of humility and reponsibility inside.
3. I disagree that the bad guy is a let down. His motivation is that he's always in Stark's shadow, so an unfortunate side effect of portraying this is not giving him a huge amount of screentime. But the portrayal comes from a combination of subtle things. Basically, you've got a young Tony Stark treating an older Obidiah like a servant. I do agree, however, that they could have played up his character more... maybe even to get the audience to sympathise with him. But that would have added to an already packed movie. I found him okay, but I'll admit I wasn't blown away by him.
4. I agree that the black guy could have been removed completely. However, he didn't make the movie worse while setting up for a sequel, and that's the important thing! Seriously though, he does have some purpose in the movie:
a. He helps us see how alone Tony Stark is when he changes the direction of his company. Tony Stark is generally alone in his basement anyway, so the message doesn't come through well until the black guy, who is supposed to be his friend, gives him the cold shoulder.
b. He comes to understand Tony Stark's mission to change the world. I think we're all intelligent enough to know that one Ironman cannot solve all our problems. But when the black guy (this is how minor he is, I cannot even remember his name), a high ranking military official, starts to understand what Tony Stark is trying to say, it brings Tony Stark's vision closer to realisation.
5. I just like the irony of it all - the more human Tony Stark becomes, the more robotic his appearance. Upon his first realisation, he gets a chestpiece. Then as he becomes more and more human, he makes modifications to his suit. It's like the opposite of Star Wars.
6. I really like the use of flashback. Classic technique which should be used more often - start with something exciting from the middle and flashback to the boring bits at the beginning. Too many films have these long, rambling beginnings, and to salvage it they throw in some random action sequence. On the count of pacing I think Ironman is really, really good.
Ultimately, a good superhero movie has to INSPIRE. I think Spiderman has tried to do that (not very successfully) and so has X-men (more successfully). The message has to be "here's this hero, here he is busting crime, but he can't solve all our problems. We have to do that for ourselves." I think Ironman, by emphasising responsibility and humanity over the iron suit, is moving in the right direction.
|
On May 27 2008 13:38 ahrara_ wrote:
What it is was a smattering of cute scenes, punchlines, and pretty graphics tied together by an abominable story. It fails completely at the one thing you say it's supposed to do: characterization. Downey's moral turnaround is cliche and completely pretentious. Sure, he stops selling weapons and decides to be a superhero, but there is nothing in his persona that reflects this change. He's still pretty much an smartass to everybody. The script is terrible because it doesn't know when to stop being witty. Like that scene after his friend dies? It's like he feels bad the guy is dying but he doesn't really care too much so he says some typical filler shit because he feels it's appropriate. It doesn't help that Downey delivers this part just like every other line in the movie: offhanded and uncaring. He doesn't say anything the rest of the movie that suggests any kind of hurt or fallibility as a person.
Tony Stark is a flawed human/hero (womanizer, alcoholic, depression). I think the movie painted him in too good of a light for hollywood purposes. The character is very deep. The most common trademark of Tony Stark is his smartass facade.
|
Basically, a good superhero movie should leave me with a sense of awe, like "holy shit that is so cool i want to be just like that." When I left Iron Man, all I thought was "oh, well, that's a cool suit." Ya, the problem with the movie's take on stark is that he's made into this perfect being. The personal and moral conflicts he faces are rendered with a layer of saran wrap. Everything feels plastic and inhuman. The story didn't build to much of a climax at all... and I couldn't help but feel that some last minute edits had been made to the story to make it appeal more, especially that whole "oh no you're gonna die" but then he lives and Obediah dies? wtf. there wasn't much build up at all. no suspense whatsoever, and not much of a catharsis.
|
Ahrara, realize all comic ADAPTATIONS are tributes to the original series first, and a literary work of art SECOND. If that's not your cup of tea, then that's on you. But don't go slamming a movie as "good" or "bad" based on your own ignorant understanding of what's going on.
If you want a chick flick, where you can get weepy and feel emotive toward the character, go watch a Julia Roberts film. You can lactate all you want there.
And you can pop off with the invectives all you like, but what you are is an armchair critic that's in the vast minority on this opinion. You can keep your 400 afghani and keep your mouth shut. Thanks. If anything, it's your own smarmy, condescending attitude that's more annoying than anything. Sorry, but pseudo-intellectuals annoy me. Especially ones that use antiquated syntax and think that somehow makes them look like a blue-blooded Ivy Leaguer. And insult me all you like, I'm a published writer. I'm used to the criticism  .
|
What annoys me are people who are so obsessed with the original material they think that the movie is made for themselves only. If we judge the movie based on your own arbitrary measure of quality, then of course it's a great movie. But if we're going to judge like I judge most movies, then IMO it wasn't that great. I could give a fuck less if I'm in the minority here. I wouldn't have posted if I wasn't.
I'm not arguing that every movie has to have deeply developed characters. You can never get to know the characters but still appreciate a movie. But that's not the case with Stark because all these things some of the other posters have been mentioning -- the personal flaws, his problems with pepper -- they're all glossed over in the movie. All you get is the tip of the iceberg of his personal conflicts. That's fine, if the rest of the movie wasn't just a series of action scenes thrown together sloppily.
I love the part where you mention you're a published writer. I didn't know we were comparing the size of our penises. But since you went down that road, I have to ask, what kind of writer criticizes someone else's grammar while using redundant phrases like "literary work of art" and making usage errors like "emotive" and "lactate". Seriously, "lactate"? You realize that means to produce milk from my tits? What does it have to do with anything? If you're that shitty of a writer and you're really "published", I'm not surprised at all that you're used to criticism. Can you even tell me what's so antiquated about my syntax, or is that just a phrase you picked up from your editors and it makes you feel good to use it on others?
Please Christ you childish fuck. I've been in school long enough to know that "published" is more often a dressed up word for "i have a blog" or "my poetry is available in POD" or "i write for a shitty niche magazine". You can criticize my writing if you want, but I never claimed to be an expert, or a "blue blooded ivy-leaguer". Your own insecurity is why you perceive it that way.
edit
Just because I know this will totally rile you up: You should realize that you're in way over your head here. Just the fact that you think MICE refers to just fantasy/sci-fi tells me how little you know about what you're talking about. Claiming ignorance doesn't win you arguments. Take your anti-intellectualism to 4chan or something, where people care.
|
ps. how the heck you guys saw watchmen already? isn't that suppose to come out in 2009?
Ya, sorry, I was referring to the comic book. I'm not too excited about the movie, because I have a hard time believing they'll do a good job of translating the slow pace of the comic book to film. They'll probably try to shoot it like some kind of philosophical thriller and fail badly. I just don't know how all the exposition in the book can be made to work in the movie... especially the ending.
|
On May 28 2008 04:06 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +ps. how the heck you guys saw watchmen already? isn't that suppose to come out in 2009? Ya, sorry, I was referring to the comic book. I'm not too excited about the movie, because I have a hard time believing they'll do a good job of translating the slow pace of the comic book to film. They'll probably try to shoot it like some kind of philosophical thriller and fail badly. I just don't know how all the exposition in the book can be made to work in the movie... especially the ending.
Lol yeah I don't really want to see how Hollywood botches the end of Watchman... although I thought the ending was already botched 
|
On May 09 2008 15:42 sutureself wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2008 18:58 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Oh yea and, a black man for Nick Fury was the only funny part in the movie.
On the plus side, now Ghostface Killa has a bunch of new samples to work into his songs. In the Ultimate Marvel Universe, Nick Fury is not only black, but drawn intentionally to look like Samuel L. Jackson... The authors of The Ultimates said that they did the first arc movie-like. I wouldn't be surprised if the first Avengers movie has a similar storyline (of course it can't have the same one, since Hulk gets his power from a different source)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
