|
I still maintain that Vanko should have had the solution to the palladium problem all along, and eventually gives it to Tony at the end of their drawn-out conflict, allowing Tony to make recompense for the sins of his father (as previously mentioned). I also maintain that Justin Hammer deserved a much better movie than he was in. "This is a bird in Russia, right?"
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Hewlett posted:I still maintain that Vanko should have had the solution to the palladium problem all along, and eventually gives it to Tony at the end of their drawn-out conflict, allowing Tony to make recompense for the sins of his father (as previously mentioned). Yeah, the arc drawn out in the Overthinking It article is spot-on: Tony finds out his father stole credit from Vanko's father, Tony makes amends, Vanko provides the cure. Ideally they would then team up to take on Hammer, who could use Vanko's technology in a way that is actually threatening and somehow relevant to his goal of ruining the Stark name (such as by outing papa Stark's misbehavior). Hewlett posted:I also maintain that Justin Hammer deserved a much better movie than he was in. "This is a bird in Russia, right?" The dude is 300 lb of charisma in a 150 lb bag. They even included a bit where he got to dance. His performance as the villain is, similarly, the most entertaining part of the Charlie's Angels movie.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The dude is 300 lb of charisma in a 150 lb bag. They even included a bit where he got to dance. His performance as the villain is, similarly, the most entertaining part of the Charlie's Angels movie. Every role where Sam Rockwell doesn't dance is a missed opportunity.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Hewlett posted:Every role where Sam Rockwell doesn't dance is a missed opportunity. No joke: if I catch Charlie's Angels is playing on TV, I have to check to see how close it is to the dancing. If it's within a half hour or so...I'm watching Charlie's Angels.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
So there's a rumor the Frank Miller/Geof Darrow comic Hard Boiled is being developed again. I'm a big fan of Darrow's art but the idea of a movie seems weird to me. Honestly is there anyone that thinks its a good comic outside of Darrow's artwork? I guess it's possible that they could make the film look like his artwork but I don't even know if that would look any good in real life. I mean I imagine its only getting made because 300 and Sin City are getting sequels but it just seems like a weird project.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
I liked Iron Man 2. Its probably the weakest Marvel movie, but its got RDJ being fantastic, Iron Man blowing stuff up, and Rockwell and Rourke were great, so its okay to me  .
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Iron Man 2 had a lot of very interesting ideas that didn't quite come together, and which were revisited in a sequel. In that regard it is an extremely faithful superhero movie. I think its problems are echoed in microcosm by the repeated incidence in the script of characters talking over each other.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah. I don't think it's legitimate to criticize a movie for merely not being what you hoped it would be. But when half-a-dozen of the film's most evident problems could be resolved by this sort of change it's pretty frustrating. And I think it puts some weight to the theory that this was, in fact, how the movie was supposed to go before Marvel interfered. Yeah, as others have mentioned, "frustrating" is the perfect word to describe Iron Man 2 because the bits with Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke are totally loving awesome and nothing else in the movie lives up to them. Iron Man 3 was similarly kinda frustrating, but less so since it wasn't quite such an obvious mess. I'd still cut the entire Mandarin plot, though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
I hope Bendis writes for the Shield show. It's straight up Powers in Marvel clothes.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:I hope Bendis writes for the Shield show. It's straight up Powers in Marvel clothes. Is that ever going to be made? They've been talking about it for years.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:Please tell us how it told the story well. I'm not sure how you can say that after everything that's just been pointed out. I just don't understand how you can enjoy and gobble up all this poo poo that Marvel tends to put out. SHIELD has had Tony on their radar since the first movie. In the second movie they decide to embed someone close to him, which doesn't become really front and center until Tony starts to make some really bad decisions and is in obvious need of intervention. SHIELD shows up to make sure this potential asset doesn't completely gently caress up, and they do so by forcing him to make a serious effort to fix his current situation. Honestly, go back and watch the movie. The SHIELD part of the plot makes sense within the context of the overall narrative. Saying it's literally just a shoehorned in Avengers ad means you either didn't watch Iron Man 2, or simply disregarded everything in the film that conflicted with your already set in stone opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Even though the people who made the film said it?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
I like to imagine that the video from Howard Stark was a fake produced by SHIELD to snap Tony out of his funk.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:The SHIELD part of the plot makes sense within the context of the overall narrative. By "overall narrative" are you referring to the narrative of Iron Man 2 specifically or of the Marvel Universe movies? Because when people suggest that it's shoehorned in they're usually talking about the experience of watching Iron Man 2 as an independent work. Whether or not you want to view it as an advertisement, it's a parallel story that began in another film and concludes across two others, but is only loosely related to the events of Iron Man 2.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Is that ever going to be made? They've been talking about it for years.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:By "overall narrative" are you referring to the narrative of Iron Man 2 specifically or of the Marvel Universe movies? Because when people suggest that it's shoehorned in they're usually talking about the experience of watching Iron Man 2 as an independent work. Whether or not you want to view it as an advertisement, it's a parallel story that began in another film and concludes across two others, but is only loosely related to the events of Iron Man 2. This is a really odd direction to be travelling down but SHIELD involvement in Iron Man 2 has more to do with (and more "fit, to") the story and its narrative than basically any other place SHIELD has popped up except Avengers. So it's doubly ironic that Iron Man 2 is the one most singled out for a shoehorned SHIELD.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:By "overall narrative" are you referring to the narrative of Iron Man 2 specifically or of the Marvel Universe movies? Because when people suggest that it's shoehorned in they're usually talking about the experience of watching Iron Man 2 as an independent work. Whether or not you want to view it as an advertisement, it's a parallel story that began in another film and concludes across two others, but is only loosely related to the events of Iron Man 2. True, it began in another film, but that film was Iron Man. It's not unreasonable for them to carry over story elements into the sequel. And while the story continues in Avengers, there isn't a sense of a cliffhanger or anything left really unresolved with the SHIELD story (save for the stinger, which shouldn't really count). As for being only loosely related, I would disagree. It doesn't directly tie into the Vanko plot, but it is directly connected with Tony and the questions about his father. The second movie in any franchise isn't going to function as a completely autonomous narrative, and I think Iron Man 2 works as a standalone as well as, for example, Empire Strikes Back.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
ShakeZula posted:The second movie in any franchise isn't going to function as a completely autonomous narrative, and I think Iron Man 2 works as a standalone as well as, for example, Empire Strikes Back. It's obviously not going to be autonomous, because it's a sequel but it shouldn't just function as an ad for the next one (in this case The Avengers). Godfather 2, The Dark Knight, Superman 2 and, yes, Empire Strikes back all work much better (yes, Empire ends in a cliff hanger but it also features huge amounts of character growth for almost every single character. Luke realizes his past and they're going off to rescue Han and because Han and the rest of the cast have confronted their demons, you believe they'll succeed). Iron Man 2 was Tony not learning a goddamned thing, but still being smarter than everyone all of the time except for his daddy who saves him in a terrible Deus Ex Machina.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
 I want to believe.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Why did he pic that picture of Cage it's loving retarded. That said, I'd loving love to see a Power Man movie with the Rock as Luke Cage. Rock is so awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
I'm down. And Namor too.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
gently caress yes, I hope they do this.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Hanks Lust Cafe posted:
I usually think the Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's roles are pretty vapid and... you know... action movie-y, but this casting actually is something that dreams are made of. Where do I go to sign the petition to get Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in a Cage movie?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
We should start a white house petition to address Dwayne Johnson and whether the White House endorses him as a candidate for Power Man.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
I'd still rather see him as Namor.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I'd still rather see him as Namor. Isn't the rights to him in a mess or something? If that's the case, we will take what we can get.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I'd still rather see him as Namor. If there was ever an occasion for a crossover movie, the Rock as Namor and Black Adam was it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
The Rock as Luke Cage sounds great if it's for his own film, or paired with Iron Fist. But I wouldn't want him in an Avengers movie...because the Rock's high profile acting status would mean that a disproportionately large amount of time would have to be spent on him compared to the character's overall importance. He'd basically be the co-lead with RDJ and everyone else gets shoved to the background.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Isn't the rights to him in a mess or something? If that's the case, we will take what we can get. I love the idea that there is a very real possibility that the question of whether Namor is a mutant or not could end up being decided in court.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
bbf2 posted:The Rock as Luke Cage sounds great if it's for his own film, or paired with Iron Fist. But I wouldn't want him in an Avengers movie...because the Rock's high profile acting status would mean that a disproportionately large amount of time would have to be spent on him compared to the character's overall importance. He'd basically be the co-lead with RDJ and everyone else gets shoved to the background. There are two reasons why this doesn't bother me. Firstly, the exact same thing was said about Downey before The Avengers and how Avengers would be the Tony Stark Show with guest appearances by some other dudes, and in my pinion they managed to balance it rather well. Secondly, there is nothing about "focus on Robert Downey Jr. and The Rock" that doesn't sound awesome to me.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:There are two reasons why this doesn't bother me. Firstly, the exact same thing was said about Downey before The Avengers and how Avengers would be the Tony Stark Show with guest appearances by some other dudes, and in my pinion they managed to balance it rather well. I think the rock is a smart enough guy to realize he is part of an ensemble and not be a glory hog. It worked in X-men and its not like Jeremy Renner was a small actor when he made that cameo in Thor
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
The Rock was also pretty good in Fast 5, and he was the latest addition in an already large cast.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
Plus the dude is smart enough to know what works well. He would put the rest of the cast over. He has done so in his wrestling career too!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:The Rock was also pretty good in Fast 5, and he was the latest addition in an already large cast. He's easily easily the best part of Pain & Gain, which is saying a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:He's easily easily the best part of Pain & Gain, which is saying a lot. And I thought he did a great job in Snitch as well. Still has room for growth as a dramatic actor, but he carried that movie just fine.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:its not like Jeremy Renner was a small actor when he made that cameo in Thor That being said, a couple of sites were reporting yesterday that Renner may be out of the Marvel picture, given that he isn't making appearances in Thor 2 or Captain America 2, and Disney / Marvel were apparently pissed at him for comments he made about The Avengers (he hated Hawkeye's arc in it).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I love the idea that there is a very real possibility that the question of whether Namor is a mutant or not could end up being decided in court. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I ask you, have you ever heard of an Atlantian with wings on his ankles? No, of course not. It's just unnatural for these sea-breathing underwater inhabitants to have ankle wings. They're not flying fish. I'm asking you to do what you know is right, what is just. We, all of us here, have taken on the duty to uphold the law. So I'm asking you, when myself and opposing council finish our closing statements, to go back into the jurror's room and do just that. Uphold the law. Do the right thing. Declare for all the world that Namor the Sub-Mariner is, in fact, a mutant.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
A reminder that Marvel once argued in court that toys of mutant characters are not toys of human characters. I forgot the reason for this, but it was definitely to stop them from spending more money.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:A reminder that Marvel once argued in court that toys of mutant characters are not toys of human characters. I forgot the reason for this, but it was definitely to stop them from spending more money. For purposes of import/export, dolls and non-doll toys are subject to different rates.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Gyges posted:Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I ask you, have you ever heard of an Atlantian with wings on his ankles? No, of course not. It's just unnatural for these sea-breathing underwater inhabitants to have ankle wings. They're not flying fish. For some reason I read this in Harvey Birdman's voice.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 19:23
|
|
