Larry Young
Master Member
heh heh heh
Jon Favreau NOT directing Iron Man 3.
- Thread starter Qui-Gonzalez
- Start date
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
Iron Man 2 simply didn't have the magic of Iron Man 1. I've watched the Blu-Ray over and over again, trying to like it more. I then go back to the first film and enjoy it without end. I love the new suits. I love the new tech. But the character development suffered between Stark and Pepper, and Stark and Vanko.
The story of first film was told through the eyes of Tony Stark - a mere mortal faced with incredible odds and trying to engineer his way out. It was about the thrill of discovery, testing the limits of ingenuity and creativity. And despite all the technological achievements, our hero had to put his life on the line - and in the end it was about the strength of his heart rather than the abilities provided by his technology.
The second story was about.... Sorry, I can't really figure that one out.
Favreau made a directorial mistake. Every comic book buff, by now, knows that a hero is defined by the enemy. If Vader defining Luke as a hero wasn't enough, Nolan's recent film The Dark Knight should have made everyone very clear that how you tell a story is more important than throwing objects into the film that you can merchandise as toys later. So who was the enemy in IM2? Vanko? Hammer? The assortment of drones?
In the comics, people got tired, tired and extremely tired of Spider-man beating up on robots or armored bad guy teams. Why? Because there is no struggle at a character level. Spidey dances from drone to drone and defeats them without the story developing any dramatic tension. Spidey vs. Firelord? Hell yeah. Spidey vs. Juggernaut? AWESOME. Those of you who have read those two landmark issues will know what I'm talking about.
Vanko didn't truly fight Stark until the very last minute, and for a very brief moment. All his time was fighting from behind a keyboard. The actors had no human actor to react against in the way Stark had to react to Obie in IM1.
Spider-man 3 was abysmal. Superb special effects and all, but now Spidey's focus is divided among two enemies instead of one. Spider-man 2 was in many ways a good character arc from Spider-man 1, and more enjoyable. Peter only had to deal with one enemy. The focus of the entire movie was the tension between one hero, one villain. SM3 diluted the dramatic focus and just threw merchandisable characters into the soup.
If Iron Man 3 is anything like Iron Man 2, the studios will be calling for a reboot, then try some gimmicky formula where they can appeal to a younger audience who is less critical. Well, the studios had better learn of the Burton-Schumacher Batman series of films, as they did EXACTLY that, and look what Nolan did to save the franchise.
Iron Man 3 simply has to capture the magic that made Iron Man 1 what it was and build upon it.
The story of first film was told through the eyes of Tony Stark - a mere mortal faced with incredible odds and trying to engineer his way out. It was about the thrill of discovery, testing the limits of ingenuity and creativity. And despite all the technological achievements, our hero had to put his life on the line - and in the end it was about the strength of his heart rather than the abilities provided by his technology.
The second story was about.... Sorry, I can't really figure that one out.
Favreau made a directorial mistake. Every comic book buff, by now, knows that a hero is defined by the enemy. If Vader defining Luke as a hero wasn't enough, Nolan's recent film The Dark Knight should have made everyone very clear that how you tell a story is more important than throwing objects into the film that you can merchandise as toys later. So who was the enemy in IM2? Vanko? Hammer? The assortment of drones?
In the comics, people got tired, tired and extremely tired of Spider-man beating up on robots or armored bad guy teams. Why? Because there is no struggle at a character level. Spidey dances from drone to drone and defeats them without the story developing any dramatic tension. Spidey vs. Firelord? Hell yeah. Spidey vs. Juggernaut? AWESOME. Those of you who have read those two landmark issues will know what I'm talking about.
Vanko didn't truly fight Stark until the very last minute, and for a very brief moment. All his time was fighting from behind a keyboard. The actors had no human actor to react against in the way Stark had to react to Obie in IM1.
Spider-man 3 was abysmal. Superb special effects and all, but now Spidey's focus is divided among two enemies instead of one. Spider-man 2 was in many ways a good character arc from Spider-man 1, and more enjoyable. Peter only had to deal with one enemy. The focus of the entire movie was the tension between one hero, one villain. SM3 diluted the dramatic focus and just threw merchandisable characters into the soup.
If Iron Man 3 is anything like Iron Man 2, the studios will be calling for a reboot, then try some gimmicky formula where they can appeal to a younger audience who is less critical. Well, the studios had better learn of the Burton-Schumacher Batman series of films, as they did EXACTLY that, and look what Nolan did to save the franchise.
Iron Man 3 simply has to capture the magic that made Iron Man 1 what it was and build upon it.
Larry Young
Master Member
...the sins of the fathers are vistited upon the sons.
I'm not arguing the various merits of the two films, but I can totally see where they were going with IM2 and I can guess where they were asked to go off the rails to help sell toys. :lol
Wasn't that the first film?
Larry Young
Master Member
Naw, the first film was all about being detrimental to women. :lol
nickytea
Master Member
The few recurring thematic bits with the father, and even the aesthetic of that one sequence featuring the expo-footage were the only redeeming bits of IM2 for me. As someone who only casually enjoyed the first, I was really hoping they woudl step it up in regard to character the second time around, and was disappointed in largely everything save those bits.
Wish I could say I thought their inclusion justified saying the movie was "about" that, but the structural priority of the movie was pretty clear. I dig robot suits bashing on robot suits as much as any other guy, but it can only take me so far. Here's hoping the director that takes Favereau's reins on the franchise can step it up in that regard.
Here's my really big problem with Iron Man 2.
In the first film, Tony Stark was a jerk who in the course of the movie turned into a decent, all around nice kind of guy. I started the movie hating him, but than liking him. A hard feet to accomplish in any story. In the second movie, they throw all of that development out the window and turn him into an unbearable a&@hole. To make it worse, every time I bring that up, everyone and their mother tells me "That's how Tony Stark is in the Comics!". Well, I guess the first film was a big let down for you than since he actually turned into a likable character.
I hate it when movies make me root for these characters.
thumbsdown
In the first film, Tony Stark was a jerk who in the course of the movie turned into a decent, all around nice kind of guy. I started the movie hating him, but than liking him. A hard feet to accomplish in any story. In the second movie, they throw all of that development out the window and turn him into an unbearable a&@hole. To make it worse, every time I bring that up, everyone and their mother tells me "That's how Tony Stark is in the Comics!". Well, I guess the first film was a big let down for you than since he actually turned into a likable character.
I hate it when movies make me root for these characters.
thumbsdownLarry Young
Master Member
Yeah, but we're not talking structure, we're talking theme, right? It's not just Tony and his father but Ivan and his father as a dark mirror to that... and Justin Hammer and his view of Tony as a father figure to rebel against. If you're really looking for it, you can throw in Gary Shandling as the personification of the government (ultimate parental figure), but I'm not sure I'd go that far unless I was writing a paper for an Intro to Action Film class. :lol
We probably would have figured out those elements if we cared about Tony, but I don't think a lot of viewers did.
Also, I think you're giving this film a little bit too much credit since that sequence with him watching his father almost rivals the randomness of the houseman's confession from Spiderman 3.
Besides, I've had it up to here with the father/son trope that plagues almost every hero movie. Give the mothers and daughters some credit for once.
Larry Young
Master Member
I'm sure they'll get to it if Hollywood ever makes a movie starring a woman. :lol
Same goes to Pixar.
Larry Young
Master Member
Wasn't Nemo a girl fish?
Oh, no.
Marlin: Meanwhile, my son is missing.
Dory: Your son Chico?
Marlin: Nemo.
Dory: Right. Got it.
Larry Young
Master Member
Maybe you'll like SUCKER PUNCH?
jarvis
Sr Member
Feminists will surely line up for that one.
Larry Young
Master Member
I was being wry. I think I need my own emoticon. Maybe a small Cyrus screaming CAN YOU DIG IT?
Similar threads
