Cruising the web to see what folks have to say about Iron Man 3. And the movie has sparked a huge range of reactions. You have to weight out who is saying what though. Comic franchise fan or movie critic who has never read the comic? Sometimes they say what category they fit into and sometimes they don’t. But I did see some interesting aspects on the film that sparked my need to add to the conversation.
And if these thoughts crossed your own minds, well, check these ideas out.
Other Iron Man 3 posts:
- Iron Man 3 – Mandarin, Avengers, Extremis Explained
- ‘Iron Man Three’ Spoiler Conversation & Recap
- ‘Iron Man Three’ Movie Review
I’ve been having a field day reading various opinions, perspectives and such regarding Iron Man 3.
As a movie, it was a good action flick with a smart story for the hero forced to deal with his adversaries without his favored weapon.
Non comic fans should love it. As a continuation of the Iron Man film franchise and the send off of Phase 2 of the Marvel movie universe, it was acceptable. Though I will buy the movie when it comes out on DVD/Blu-ray, the enthusiasm for such isn’t as high as when I snagged the first movie, or The Avengers.
To be honest fans were expecting the new movie, with the new armor that’s been in all the marketing. We were waiting to see what this new armor is capable of while facing off against the Mandarin and Aldrich Killian’s Extremis issue.
Instead, well, we got a lemon in transition (Pronounced armor in development) and a useless threat of a drunk! So be it… despite the charade that’s been pulled over our heads, it was a rather sharp ruse of marketing. Because as you look at the marketing, it echoed the sentiment of Killian’s use of the Mandarin to distract everyone from his real activity.
So in a word, brilliant marketing, even if it ticked off fans.
In regards to some of the points I’ve seen around the web, well… In a few cases, I came across some interesting takes on how the movie failed. I get some perspectives on the failures, but the failures I’ve seen, were deemed such because I think they missed a few moments in the film. Much like when I first saw The Avengers and missed a tiny line on how Thor got back to Earth. (Duh.)
Over on News.com.au, there’s a bit on how technology fails the movie.
The first question was why Tony didn’t see the missiles coming, the destroyed his house?
I’m thinking that’s a pretty easy question. After he told the Mandarin, via his little press interlude outside the hospital, where he lives, if you didn’t catch it, his house was surrounded by press helicopters afterwards. And if you looked closely, the attack helicopters were disguised as press helicopters.
Why doesn’t the suit perform its basic functions?
Meaning why wasn’t it working for him. It was, as put forward in an interlude between Tony and Jarvis, that this was a prototype suit that has not been fully developed. Unfortunately, Jarvis reminded Tony while he was being buried by his house.
Of course, it might have been evident when he was having issues having it suit up on him earlier in the film.
I’m not sure why they were digging on the fact that Tony fell out of the sky when the suit was alerting him to battery life being down to five percent. Sure, five percent should be enough for minimal operation, but when’s the last time your phone stayed powered up at 5%?
He was burning up power flying, the suit was severely damaged and not operating in an optimal fashion. So I’m accepting of this situation.
They question the timing of Jarvis transporting Tony to Tenn. at a very bad time, but again, the suit was damaged and as we find out, Jarvis was also damaged.
They call the suit a racist.
They refer to the closing scenes, in the final battle when Rhodes asks for a suit so he can get into the battle.
News questions why Tony couldn’t dress Rhodes up in his suit like Tony did to Pepper earlier. But alas, Tony says the suits that are flying around are coded to his body only. And these suits weren’t the prototype. They were being operated by Jarvis. It was the prototype (Mark-42) that Tony could operate to his will, and hence, he adorned Pepper with. During the battle the M-42 was not there. Can we say pro-to-type? I knew we could!
Over on /Film, they confront five things that bothered them about the movie.
They start out saying “this film is as dumb as a bag of door knobs.” We all have our opinions.
Why does Tony Stark spend time repairing his suit when he has a remote controlled suit army at his disposal?
Ah, that’s an easy one… Though I don’t know the actual semantics of the situation, but before summoning his remote army, he did ask Jarvis if it was ready? ( I forget what he called it) And when Jarvis said yes, he then told Jarvis to send them.
So before that point, the process of Jarvis controlling them or the condition of all the armors weren’t ready yet.
They had issues with all the product placement in the movie.
Every film has product placement in it. Period. Brands pay good money to have their name splayed across the screen of movies. Especially movies that are known to have a potential for a huge box office existence. I mean, real quick: What car does Tony Stark drive? Do you remember Reese’s Peices from E.T.? Back in Iron Man 2, it had 64 recognizable brands brandished across the screen.
You would never see brands flaunted in a movie without it.
They question Iron Patriot getting on Air Force One.
In truth, it seemed odd that no one questioned that Iron Patriot did not open the face plate upon landing outside the airplane. But I suppose there’s a certain expectation that it could be no one other than Rhodes in their super-powered body guard armor. Oops.
What Was Killian’s Plan?
I’m guessing taking over the U.S.. He had a pawn in the White House, that being the VP. That, and he had a vendetta against Stark. But I’m guessing, as I look back. Not from any valid conjuncture on the issue.
They called the closing scenes (after the fight) a disaster of an ending, because of the short time spans it took to broach the issues and their resolutions, or as it stands, glossed over.
I can see the ending being such that it seemed fanciful. I took the leap of faith that the fix to Pepper took a very long time. It was a closing dialog, as if you just watched a movie about two people meeting, and in a closing scene, they talk about the next 30 years of their lives, buying houses, having kids, etc..
As far as removing the shrapnel from his heart and not needing the reactor in his chest, in the comic franchise, when the technology existed that enabled the removal of the metal from his chest, he did have it removed. Thus the movie fulfilled mirroring that event without needing an entire movie to do so.
And then, some brilliance was set forth in the article… looking at the events in the closing scenes, they question why such were set forth in the film’s franchise? And they suggest that everything was set up so that there’s the possibility that Tony Stark isn’t needed as Iron Man. That they’ve set forth that possibility, this could set up the possibility that Marvel does not need to depend on Robert Downey Jr. down the road. He’s not locked into the character.
To me, I like what they’re thinking, and suspect that this movie ending is much like a TV series spin-off series. It’s leverage that can be used when an actor and studio renegotiate contracts.
But the comic franchise of Iron Man does continue beyond the heart surgery and need for the armor. It goes into the responsibility of the man, Tony Stark, as his role within the Marvel world grew of some importance. And hey, how can one not be Iron Man… he does mention in the movie he builds cool things and every now and then, he saves people.
A subtle nod towards his true potential and place in the future of the Marvel universe (of movies).