|
Timby posted:For what it's worth, this has been denied by Jon Chu, who says that the nine-month delay was for the sole purpose of doing a high-quality 3D conversion and that they only did a few days of pickup shots last year. He could be full of poo poo, He is. Heavily marketed movies don't get delayed like that for 'high-quality' 3d conversion.
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
 New poster for Iron Man 3, featuring Don Cheadle as 'Iron Patriot', according to Marvel Australia's facebook page.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Robert Carlyle is totes the lead in Ravenous.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
New trailer for Iron Man 3 in five days.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke1Y3P9D0Bc
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Naw, I don't think so. She didn't get much to work with but she took her small thankless part and made it memorable and fun. Contributes to the general levity and slice-of-life quality that makes Thor the second best of all the Marvel films. First. I'm generally curious which you'd put above it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Iron Man 1, of course, which has a similar vitality. All the rest are inert and joyless. Right after I posted that, I instantly went 'oh yeah, it'll be Iron Man'. Thor was so good, I'm really apprehensive about the second one now that Branagh isn't attached.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Other than Loki, how many villains have made repeat performances in the MFU? Robert Redford's going to play a character who's two most defining traits are that he's French and an olympic level athlete?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I am assuming that is Marisa Miller as Jeff Bridges in which case I hope she's given the chance to go all out in acting like him in which case that would be awesome. That is her.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
I've heard a couple of rumors that he'll be playing the Collector.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Yes. 2014.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
They probably won't be mutants in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I really don't want Scarlet Witch, or Quicksilver in these movies. I'd vastly prefer Carol Danvers and a lesser known character join the cast in their stead. I've never really found those two all that interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Quicksilver has pretty a pretty cool superpower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Marvel_Comics_characters_who_can_move_at_superhuman_speeds I feel you, but why not have a character without all the loving baggage.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
They are this generation's Kinski and Herzog.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Calling someone Hitler doesn't even come near the craziness that was Kinski and Herzog. I might not have been entirely serious. api call girl posted:Considering he's going from P&G right into Transformers 4 preproduction, I doubt it. That movie is going to be hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
It's really dumb that Coulson is alive.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 08:50
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:There's numerous articles out there that show Favreau and Downey were upset with Marvel for rushing Iron Man 2 into production and making an infomercial for Avengers. Which isn't even considering Rourke's comments on the matter. Iron Man 2's development was a mess of editorial meddling and it shows. The 'Iron Man centric' story is rushed, self-confused with where it's headed and ends up a knotted, snarled mess of rehased ideas and pointless beats. The plotline with Tony's father goes nowhere, tells us nothing and simply ends up without any tension or drama, and likewise, Rourke is narratively absent from Stark's troubles through from Monaco until the end of the film, where he's hastily defeated. Likewise, Jackson's inclusion does nothing for the film itself and just ends up a pointless detour in a movie rife with them. What makes it even worse is that it's almost entirely meaningless to the events of The Avengers as well. jivjov posted:And yet it still had its own story to tell and did it well, despite interference from above. Nuh-uh.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I really think we'll have to agree to disagree. I liked Iron Man 2. Its one of my favorite MCU movies. I get the message that a lot of other people think that its crap, and I disagree. But I'm not a professional film critic. I don't have to vocabulary to sit down and hash it out in a way that will satisfy anyone but myself. Maybe you shouldn't throw out insults and imply that people critiquing it are 'parroting back complaints like an echo-chamber' then? Christ, guy.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:The best Marvel movies are the two Hulk movies, by the way. Personally, I think the best is easily Thor, but I do love Ang Lee's Hulk and much of the Norton/Leterrier Hulk film too. Some of the editing and camera-work in the early stages of that film are fantastic and I really like Norton's Banner. I think the CGI really drags it down, though. Especially during the middle sequences in broad daylight. Neowyrm posted:A man who has given himself over to the hilarious and fun idea of fighting crime has found out that he is dying and simultaneously has to contend with the son of his father's partner who wants to kill him to kill the legacy that his father started. Admirable, but not quite accurate and doesn't encapsulate a lot of the plot. Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 08:01 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Tony faces both down his mortality and his memories and opinion of his father when a previously unknown man from his past teams up with a rival businessman to ruin the Stark name. You've synopsised a film that doesn't also deal with Tony's first steps in joining an elite, secretive fighting force or his split with the American military.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I would argue that his first steps of joining the Avengers doesn't have enough of a presence in this film to warrant mention in a single-sentence summary. That's more a sequel-hook that pays off in Avengers. That's now what you implied earlier; jivjov posted:I still don't understand the "stopped to advertise Avengers" complaints. That's kinda the point of the MCU. It's a shared universe. If the defining 'point' of these movies, above all else, is that they're elements of a shared universe then surely the scenes featuring that in Iron Man 2 are not just noteworthy enough to be excused for their impact on the individual film, but a defining part of it. Surely?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Neowyrm posted:It got decent reviews, and a lot of people loved it, and it had Robert Downey Jr. in it. None of these are in dispute. Nor have they ever been. To clarify, I think it's great that you like Iron Man 2. I didn't. My loss. I think it's an interesting film to talk about, I'm bummed that the people who like it don't seem to think so. Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 08:16 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
jivjov posted:If you give me a second sentence, I'll hit on all that stuff too. I don't have much space to work with. If you want me to prioritize, yes, I'll put the Avengers tie-ins below the standalone parts of the film. Why?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Because while I like the Avengers tie-in stuff quite a bit, I do prefer the Iron Man 2-ness stuff on the whole. Justin Hammer is one of my personal favorite characters to ever grace the screen. I don't think declaring the 'Avengers tie-in stuff' the entire point of the MCU works if you then sub-divide each film down into 'Avengers tie-in stuff' and 'the actual films'. At that point, the Avengers tie-in stuff are essentially the ads that stop the movie that you claimed they weren't. No?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Um, okay, Iron Man 2 might not have been nearly as good as it could have been, but not because you can't systematically summarize the plot within some arbitrarily breezy guidelines. I can't summarize every detailed story point of The Empire Strikes Back in a convenient catchy slogan, but that doesn't mean the movie was hard to follow. I don't think that was intended as a measure of quality, but rather how confused and mis-managed Iron Man 2's plot is.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Fishylungs posted:I still don't get how "Howard Stark turns out to be a prick" would somehow make the movie better. Because then there's actually narrative weight and meaning to Tony's changes than him just getting a spiritual pat on the back and deciding to carry on the awesome Stark legacy. The point of Iron Man is Tony clashing with his past, not embracing it and cheering it on.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I said I bowed out, so I ask this with as little values judgement as I can...who decides what the "point" of Iron Man is? Anyone who engages with it, and anyone else is free to challenge it. That is very much the crux of discussion and debate. I have no intention of putting a giant, flashing sign stating that my posts are my opinion, but if you'd like to write yourself a note to ensure you don't forget it, help yourself.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 10:14
|
|
|
Marvel's approach to film production has led to a mind-set where things need to be references to other things to be justified. That's really depressing. The 'wierd moment' you're talking about is pretty clear in terms of film-making and the implications of the scene, as is the reason why Loki has the staff. It doesn't need to be anything more and there's no flaws, however imagined, that exist in how it's presented currently. Maybe it's another thing, but it works perfectly fine as a mind-bending weapon given to Loki, the trickster god, by his super-powerful new boss. It doesn't need any justification or 'backstory' beyond that. It's pretty clearly explained through blatant inference during the course of The Avengers. It really, really doesn't need to be patched after the fact. Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 13:50 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I will again reiterate that the only judgement I'm making is about the plot points presented IN THE TRAILERS so far. The trailers, the devices meant to hype a movie, have completely missed the mark with me. Why would I want to see a movie that (APPARENTLY, BASED ON THE PRE-RELEASE TRAILERS) hinges on a plot point that was over and done with already in the most recent (chronologically) entry in the series? Because claiming that a movie has 'absolutely zero drama' based on a trailer's scant few glimpses at the plot and disregarding it entirely because of that is really stupid and doing stupid things is a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I will admit, my initial post was unclear. I will preface every post I make on the subject of The Wolverine with "This is my subjective opinion based on the pre-release materials (trailers, production stills, etc) and may or may not hold true when the final film is released" I'm aware it's your subjective opinion based on the trailer, you'll perhaps noticed I included a reference to this fact in my post. I think it's fine to have an opinion of a trailer and anticipate issues with a film in advance because of that, I think it's really stupid to declare something utterly without drama because of plot quibbles without having actually seen the plot. r.e. 'The Wolverine', I think the fact that they're embracing what's always been kind of a strange part of the character's history and attempting to do it some sort of justice is kind of cool. I was never big into the 'Wolverine in Japan' stuff in the comics, but it's a good choice for a story to adapt and some of the imagery looks interesting, albeit somewhat hokey. I'd like to see how stuff like a giant, metal samurai fighting Wolverine in a crazy laboratory plays out on screen. Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 15:52 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Timby posted:Johansson and Renner are apparently getting lowballed on their Avengers 2 offers and are pissed about it, so I don't think Marvel's getting more generous. It's an easy pay-check with a high profile release. Why would he not do it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
ThermoPhysical posted:Do you have any links or anything about Favreau and Rourke being upset? I'm not doubting you or anything, but I haven't kept up with Iron Man 2 news and just saw it last year right after I got home from seeing Avengers so I'm not really understanding what the actors/directors thought. http://screenrant.com/mickey-rourke-iron-man-2-marvel-movies-benm-139224/ Allegedly Favreau wasn't too happy with the meddling and Portman wasn't happy with Marvel ditching Patty Jenkins for Thor 2.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Dawn remake was terrible. And even if you did like it, go watch Super and continue worrying. What. Explain yourself, right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
Uh, it hasn't been a thing for quite some time. In the movies or the comics.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 09:31
|
|
|
Devour posted:So in the upcoming film he knows why he's in Japan? He's in Japan because he was invited there at the behest of someone whose life he saved, who wants to take his healing power and use it to live longer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:If the movie can avoid a city/worldwide threat it deserves some credit. I saw a new trailer before Pacific Rim today that made the plotline a bit more overt and comprehendible. There's definitely something sinister going on with the whole 'stealing his powers' thing, but I don't know that it'll be a worldwide threat.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
Ang Lee's The Hulk is pretty drat good. It's not Iron Man 3 or Thor levels of good, but it's still pretty drat good.
Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jul 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Except it made sense in 2 for SHIELD to "wander" into the plot. Stark was a huge potential asset on their radar that they wanted to utilize, so spying on him and intervening when it became readily apparent he was self-destructing makes all sorts of sense and should have been expected. Disliking shared universes is all well and good, but some people are averse to accepting the fact that all the SHIELD stuff in Iron Man 2 fit fine from a story point of view. They simply dislike the SHIELD stuff on principle. I dislike it because it slows the movie down to an unbearable crawl and is only intense or engaging with how much it makes me think of how intensely bored I am during those scenes. They're really, really bad. I don't care that they 'make sense' or that it might be indicative of some greater problem, the script, or lack thereof, of that movie is a mess and the S.H.I.E.L.D. scenes exacerbate all the worst problems.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
It gave the first one a certain charm, but they really shouldn't have tried that approach for the second. I mean, just on the basis that they were trying to have a structured jumping off point for their wider universe, it was a terrible idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
DFu4ever posted:At the end of this version Tony dies from the blood poisoning. Or maybe we get a version where Tony overcomes that problem instead of having his dad and Fury tell him what to do in a bunch of boring, flat scenes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 17:27
|
|