Another badly done comic movie, god when is going to end? Theres something I just dont get with the latest comic-to-movies conversions, and thats it why they have to change the story so much? Take for example Transformers: in the original series the decepticons tried to both destroy the autobots and transform earth resources into energon cubes. Fuck, check the first episode and you can see how the decepticons attack an oil platform and start making energon cubes out of crude oil. Now, unless some of you were in a 28 days later-like coma theres no chance that you are unaware of the huge energy crisis the world is in. This is in perfect match with the transformers plot, but no! is not enough for the ignorant idiots of hollywood! they have to pull some LoTR shit with the allspark cube that just like the ring in tolkien's works is a super-duper weapon that gets destroyed so it doesnt falls into the wrong hands. Then theres the fact that 70% of the film was product placement crap for GM and the military. All I know now is that I better join the army so I can fight huge robots with a motorcycle! At that leads us to Iron Man: combine military bullshit ("we cant bomb there, theres human shields!" yeah right, like that happens IRL) and replace GM for Audi (I heard they destroyed 3 R8s for a scene, thats a $100k car). However, I thank that unlike in transformers they did respect most of the original story, instead of replacing it with a dipshit, a hot girl, the worst hackers ever and no fucking robots at all, or a lame emo (you know which movie I'm talking about there). But then, theres no Mandarin, which blows. We hear about the ten rings but in any case I say is lame to cut down the story just to make a sequel. Is Iron Man! theres over 40 years of story to get stuff from. Is not like say, a Comboy Bebop movie where all you have is 26 half hour episodes to work with. All I can say is that after hearing all the buzz coming from critics (almost 90% in rotten tomatoes) one would expect a truly masterpiece, not a movie thats barely better than most comic-to-movies adaptations. Pros: neither tobey maguire stars in it or michael bay directs it, for which I thank god for. Who knows what kind of bullshit we would have to endure if those two made an Iron Man movie. Cons: its still full of blatant product placement, government propaganda and craptastic tech-dribble that makes little johnny believe that being a hacker and/or scientist means playing with awesome graphics on a 30" computer monitor and talk to robots. Ugly: Theres gonna be like 4 or 5 of these movies, since it beated any other one of its kind in both profits and critics. There, thats my rant.
I loved the movie honestly and hated Spiderman 3. I would also pay to see it a second time of which I haven't been willing to do in well over 6 years. Nuff said.
YES! Thankyou for making this thread, because it is honestly the first time I've seen someone complain about it! :nod: I have yet to see it, yet I am dying to considering all of my friends have told me that its "The Best Movie Ever." Must mean atleast something eh?:lol:
the movie was pretty good...i thought so atleast. will be a must buy when it comes out on blu ray. the only complaint i had was there wasnt enough action.Like i wanted Tony Stark to just go batshit crazy on some city and the most i got was a 10 minute fight with him punching people and shooting rockets at tanks.
the action scenes were alright. there wasn't really too much that we haven't seen before. the best part of the movie (and i'll agree with the critics on this one) is Robert Downey Jr. i thought he did an awesome job as Tony Stark. as far as product placement goes, comic books have always strived to be real. for example, you can go to the place where Peter Parker grew up. Or how Gotham and Metropolis are inspired by New York City. but in the movies, they just go over the top with the product placement, trying to make you think what you're watching is taking place in modern times but it just gets rediculous after a while. like when the 360 in Transformers starts to transform...
No. Shitty movies make tons of money. They are also quite often highly acclaimed. He's a great actor. I loved him as Wayne Gale.
I wanted to see Iron Man, but I never have read ANY of the comics. Never was much of a comic collector.
Again, what do you expect? It's a superhero movie, and as a superhero movie it's obviously going to be ridiculous and unrealistic and the science is going to be completely impossible. That's a given, and besides, most comic books themselves are like that. Given that it was working within those constraints, I think they did a fairly good job - it was good for what it was. As far as the product placement, that annoyed me as well but in the end it didn't really take away from the movie all that much.
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one here who isnt bananas over this movie... Not saying it sucks, actually it is by a considerable margin the best comic book adaptation so far, but that doesnt means I loved it. The thing with product placement is that it gets tired. One thing was the Back to the Future 2 kind of product placement were there was a Nike/Texaco/B&D logo here and there and some branded stuff in the background, but nowadays this stuff is no longer a curiosity, and the in-your-face atitude make movies look like ads. Like, in tranformers there were more close-ups of the cars (all of them ugly BTW) than of the robots themselves. In Iron Man I say we're even, cuz all I remember is awesome armor/cut to R8 going fast or something. On the action part, yeah the scenes were kinda short, but maybe that better than the usual CGI abuse we see so many times in movies these days. The last movie I recall was both highly acclaimed and box office sucessful was LoTR. Thats was almost 5 years ago... And la-li-lu-le-lo, obviously I wouldnt want Iron Man to look like DARPA's exoskeletons (slow, tacky and like put together with technic blocks and duct tape) but they could cut the crap on the real tech and make it look and work like it does in real life. On the other hand, if you watch the making-of theres a very interesting part were the stun engineers explain how difficult it was to make the Audi cars skid, because of all the brake systems built into them. They had to disconect several components to get the cars to behave erratically. Score one for real life tech.
How were the Spiderman's rated? Never saw 3. 2 was a steaming pile of shit, with corn. I know you are, but what is it?
LOL! Don't see Spider-Man 3 if you didn't like numero 2! I can see it now... you giving your tv the finger the entire length of Spider-Man 3, if you even finish the movie... :lol:
If you can be that certain about someone you ve never met before, I can be a thousand times more certain that indeed it reeked of shit - naturally this will extend to its fans, so in a sense I guess we're shit-brothers Paul ;-)
Never read the comic, don't care about the movie. GF works at a theater and said it was blah. The game demo was pretty retarded too. I just hope Batman isn't vomit, I don't think anything made in this modern day and age can top the original with Jack Nicholson as the Joker though.
I saw 3 on a plane and it was fine. If you really want to enjoy it, watch the Rifftrax version. :nod:
Well I could care less about the Iron Man movie,Im looking forward to the new Indiana Jones and Batman movie.
Burton's Batman are the type of movies that as time goes on you realize how much they really sucked. It is only because stuff (not counting the Animated Series) that came before and after sucked so much more that they seems better than they really are. Nicholson was good for what he had to work with but to me Mark Hamill was by far the best representation of the Joker so far.