[Iron Man 3] is out now! Man of Steel coming soon.

Chincymcchilla

Devlin_Dragonus wrote: »

so i cant wait til tomorrow and Nov 1st

http://youtu.be/0OHtH_RWnZE

The enemy's gate is down.

I was going to say there is a thread for this but if you actually want to discuss the movie that is maybe not the best place.

Mysst

You're Harrison Ford?! WOOOOAAAAHH

Turambar

I was completely off with my pre-movie predictions

With Mandarin in the trailers being all "no more heroes" and anti-Avengers etc I figured he had been given the Ten Rings by Thanos or something
Like Thanos wanted the heroes removed before he took his revenge on earth, so he gave advanced alien technology to a terrorist in exchange for him taking out the superheroes

But nope, not even close

Harry Dresden

BigBear wrote: »

Something I kind of realized about the villian:

In the comics, Mandarin's Ten Rings are pretty much magic, right?

I'm just speculating here, but I think that could be, in addition to all the racist stuff, one of the reasons we didn't get a Mandarin close to the comics.

I don't think magic has been officially confirmed as being a thing in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I mean, yeah, you have Thor and Asgard and all that, but it's been left intentionally ambiguous whether or not the beings that inhabit Asgard are magical, powerful gods, or super-intelligent aliens with really advanced technology.

Also, a big theme in the Iron Man movies is both science and the development of technology, and it being used for good and/or evil. While I don't think that having Tony fight a magic-based villian would bother people all that much, perhaps it was thought that having one would not be thematically appropriate for this particular franchise.

I wonder if magic will actually be confirmed to exist in the MCU at any point. At least then I'd know if we ever get a Dr. Strange movie or not. :P

Edit: OK, never mind all this. I should have fact-checked this before I posted it.

The rings are alien technology, not magic.

Solar

FAQ wrote: »

I've been through this before, but as someone who aint rises biggest fan, he quits because Batman was unneeded he states it explicitly.

in the end he quits because, they can actually give the hero an ending that doesn't really get done in comics.

It's strange that I thought it was ballsy to give Batman a happy ending.

I didn't really see it as a happy ending

sure, it was happy for Bruce

but for the general citizenry of Gotham, there was no reason that things wouldn't just fall right back to how they were before i.e. shit

Ceno

Solar wrote: »

FAQ wrote: »

I've been through this before, but as someone who aint rises biggest fan, he quits because Batman was unneeded he states it explicitly.

in the end he quits because, they can actually give the hero an ending that doesn't really get done in comics.

It's strange that I thought it was ballsy to give Batman a happy ending.

I didn't really see it as a happy ending

sure, it was happy for Bruce

but for the general citizenry of Gotham, there was no reason that things wouldn't just fall right back to how they were before i.e. shit

Which is very un-Batmanlike.

The great tragedy of Batman is that nothing is ever good enough. He could lock away all the supervillains in Gotham and it wouldn't be enough.

-Tal

Turambar wrote: »

I was completely off with my pre-movie predictions

With Mandarin in the trailers being all "no more heroes" and anti-Avengers etc I figured he had been given the Ten Rings by Thanos or something
Like Thanos wanted the heroes removed before he took his revenge on earth, so he gave advanced alien technology to a terrorist in exchange for him taking out the superheroes

But nope, not even close

Thanos wants to fight the heroes, because to do so would be to court death

FAQ

Solar wrote: »

FAQ wrote: »

I've been through this before, but as someone who aint rises biggest fan, he quits because Batman was unneeded he states it explicitly.

in the end he quits because, they can actually give the hero an ending that doesn't really get done in comics.

It's strange that I thought it was ballsy to give Batman a happy ending.

I didn't really see it as a happy ending

sure, it was happy for Bruce

but for the general citizenry of Gotham, there was no reason that things wouldn't just fall right back to how they were before i.e. shit

agree, really it's underdeveloped, the status quo looks like it remains, I think the only nod towards improvement is the quote from tale of two cities. I wonder how it would be addressed in a longer cut.

FAQ

Ceno wrote: »

Solar wrote: »

FAQ wrote: »

I've been through this before, but as someone who aint rises biggest fan, he quits because Batman was unneeded he states it explicitly.

in the end he quits because, they can actually give the hero an ending that doesn't really get done in comics.

It's strange that I thought it was ballsy to give Batman a happy ending.

I didn't really see it as a happy ending

sure, it was happy for Bruce

but for the general citizenry of Gotham, there was no reason that things wouldn't just fall right back to how they were before i.e. shit

Which is very un-Batmanlike.

The great tragedy of Batman is that nothing is ever good enough. He could lock away all the supervillains in Gotham and it wouldn't be enough.

But that was the state of batman at the beginning of the movie! He won but was still having a shit life trying to save the world in other ways. The whole arc of the movie was him learning to have a normal life which you can do because it's the finale.

-Tal

batman

it kind of feels wrong for bruce to just whisk off completely

like you don't want to be batman fine, being batman sucks, I get it

but Martha and Thomas Wayne helped the city to the day of their death without being superheroes

Ad astra

Saw this recently, and I'm really not sure how I feel about it.

There were lots of things I liked, and quite a few things I didn't.


I need to think on it some more.

Blankzilla

New Man of Steel rumor

Wayne Enterprises and Batman will be referenced, but not actually shown.

Ceno

That one I definitely believe.

Olivaw

I could see that

Not sure if it'll be anything in dialogue, more something in the background, but yeah

Devlin_Dragonus

Chincymcchilla wrote: »

Devlin_Dragonus wrote: »

so i cant wait til tomorrow and Nov 1st

http://youtu.be/0OHtH_RWnZE

The enemy's gate is down.

I was going to say there is a thread for this but if you actually want to discuss the movie that is maybe not the best place.

I ... did not know all that hate on Card, and now i am literally concerned about my love for the series.

Man. Like im through 1 page of that thread and i feel like such a bad person by association. Jesus.

Rehab

Goddamn this movie was good! Wish I could have gotten some better previews, but the next Star Trek was among them so even that wasn't too bad. And I most certainly would also be for a War Machine spinoff.

I really liked how

this movie, much like how Skyfall managed James Bond, was all about removing Tony Stark from most of his toys and having him endure through most of the movie with very little. The final battle suddenly having a ton of Iron Man suits was quite the opposite of the Skyfall finale of course, but it was better being the all out mayhem that it was. There was a lot that reminded me of The Dark Knight Rises too, with Tony Stark spending so much time out of the suit and all.

SirEtchwarts

So it just occurred to me that with it being the end of the semester, I could sell some of my books back and get money

Long story short I should be seeing this tomorrow

UnbreakableVow

School is good for something

Chincymcchilla

Devlin_Dragonus wrote: »

Chincymcchilla wrote: »

Devlin_Dragonus wrote: »

so i cant wait til tomorrow and Nov 1st

http://youtu.be/0OHtH_RWnZE

The enemy's gate is down.

I was going to say there is a thread for this but if you actually want to discuss the movie that is maybe not the best place.

I ... did not know all that hate on Card, and now i am literally concerned about my love for the series.

Man. Like im through 1 page of that thread and i feel like such a bad person by association. Jesus.

He's kind of a monster.

But as a nerdy kid its kind of hard NOT to be suckered in by Ender's Game. I wouldn't feel too bad about it.

Weaver

Re: my earlier confusion, yeah I was thinking of onslaut and heroes reborn. Also I know Tony was director for a while (great series btw). I just remember that way back in ye olden days there was a comic where Tony brought Fury in, gave him the job, and taught him to always use LMDs whenever he went anywhere.

Theodore Floosevelt

Saw this on Friday and I loved it; it really went to some unexpected, totally enjoyable places which have been covered pretty well by everyone so far so I'll refrain

only strike against it was

that slow pan down to the daughter of the VP's leg, which was wack as hell

UnbreakableVow

Why was that a strike against?

Theodore Floosevelt

UnbreakableVow wrote: »

Why was that a strike against?

it was just a hacky move

oh, the VP is evil. Okay, that happens commonly enough for whatever reason, but veeps in action movies are always bein evil for power grabs and all, it's tired but it's not a big deal. But then: oh, his daughter is missing her leg from the knee down. So the VP is willing to murder POTUS and numerous others and allow and encourage terrorism in the US because maybe his daughter's leg could be grown back.

Aside from being pretty unbelievable, it's cheesy, soapy motivation. Not to downplay the handicap, but it's not even a life-threatening debilitation, and the character isn't developed near enough to justify his behavior.

Goatmon

Ceno wrote: »

Solar wrote: »

FAQ wrote: »

I've been through this before, but as someone who aint rises biggest fan, he quits because Batman was unneeded he states it explicitly.

in the end he quits because, they can actually give the hero an ending that doesn't really get done in comics.

It's strange that I thought it was ballsy to give Batman a happy ending.

I didn't really see it as a happy ending

sure, it was happy for Bruce

but for the general citizenry of Gotham, there was no reason that things wouldn't just fall right back to how they were before i.e. shit

Which is very un-Batmanlike.

The great tragedy of Batman is that nothing is ever good enough. He could lock away all the supervillains in Gotham and it wouldn't be enough.

I think the list of ongoing comics/stories/books/games where this doesn't hold true would be a relatively short list, because the vast majority of media tends to resort to upping the stakes to keep things interesting.

nightmarenny

Ceno wrote: »

I'm a DC fan (and a Marvel one too, we abominations do exist) and I didn't care for The Dark Knight Rises. It's servicable, but a poor follow up to DK, and I didn't really end up liking Nolan's take on Batman. I think the DCAU is just about perfect, and going from a Bruce that says "I know I'm not crazy because I don't call myself 'Bruce' in my head" to a guy who immediately quits being Batman after experiencing his first real tangible consequence for being Batman just kinda rubbed me the wrong way.

Maybe I'm shallow, but I don't come to this stuff to see if the hero will ultimately free himself from being the hero. I come to this stuff to see heroes. To see people in costumes beat up other people in costumes for melodramatic fantastical reasons.

I have hopes for Man of Steel. Superman is and always will be my favorite guy, but I want the DC film universe to take clues from the MCU in more ways than just tying the universe together. Good things are being said about the tone for MoS, so I'm looking forward to it.

I get all these movies on blu ray anyway, because I lubs me some superheroes.

I'm sorry what? You know most people just read comics right? We may have a preference but its not at all like you are implying.

About DKR

I dislike this argument. The movie starts us with the Bruce you wanted and the whole thing is about Bruce freeing himself from his obsession. The movie isn't about a different batman but about the obsessed Batman undergoing character development.

Devlin_Dragonus

Theodore Floosevelt wrote: »

UnbreakableVow wrote: »

Why was that a strike against?

it was just a hacky move

oh, the VP is evil. Okay, that happens commonly enough for whatever reason, but veeps in action movies are always bein evil for power grabs and all, it's tired but it's not a big deal. But then: oh, his daughter is missing her leg from the knee down. So the VP is willing to murder POTUS and numerous others and allow and encourage terrorism in the US because maybe his daughter's leg could be grown back.

Aside from being pretty unbelievable, it's cheesy, soapy motivation. Not to downplay the handicap, but it's not even a life-threatening debilitation, and the character isn't developed near enough to justify his behavior.

to be fair

there is no maybe about it, even in its flawed stage Extremis is shown to be able to regrow limbs. The daughter could have other health issues as well, and its not outside the realm of possibility that a father is willing to risk anything for the well being and future of their child.

SO VP is not so much evil as morally compromised or even morally malleable

Xehalus

Artereis

Devlin_Dragonus wrote: »

Theodore Floosevelt wrote: »

UnbreakableVow wrote: »

Why was that a strike against?

it was just a hacky move

oh, the VP is evil. Okay, that happens commonly enough for whatever reason, but veeps in action movies are always bein evil for power grabs and all, it's tired but it's not a big deal. But then: oh, his daughter is missing her leg from the knee down. So the VP is willing to murder POTUS and numerous others and allow and encourage terrorism in the US because maybe his daughter's leg could be grown back.

Aside from being pretty unbelievable, it's cheesy, soapy motivation. Not to downplay the handicap, but it's not even a life-threatening debilitation, and the character isn't developed near enough to justify his behavior.

to be fair

there is no maybe about it, even in its flawed stage Extremis is shown to be able to regrow limbs. The daughter could have other health issues as well, and its not outside the realm of possibility that a father is willing to risk anything for the well being and future of their child.

SO VP is not so much evil as morally compromised or even morally malleable

I just assumed her lost limb was his fault.

Undead Scottsman

Xehalus wrote: »

Shot him in the shin, that baby on the lower right is up to something!

Theodore Floosevelt

Devlin_Dragonus wrote: »

Theodore Floosevelt wrote: »

UnbreakableVow wrote: »

Why was that a strike against?

it was just a hacky move

oh, the VP is evil. Okay, that happens commonly enough for whatever reason, but veeps in action movies are always bein evil for power grabs and all, it's tired but it's not a big deal. But then: oh, his daughter is missing her leg from the knee down. So the VP is willing to murder POTUS and numerous others and allow and encourage terrorism in the US because maybe his daughter's leg could be grown back.

Aside from being pretty unbelievable, it's cheesy, soapy motivation. Not to downplay the handicap, but it's not even a life-threatening debilitation, and the character isn't developed near enough to justify his behavior.

to be fair

there is no maybe about it, even in its flawed stage Extremis is shown to be able to regrow limbs. The daughter could have other health issues as well, and its not outside the realm of possibility that a father is willing to risk anything for the well being and future of their child.

SO VP is not so much evil as morally compromised or even morally malleable

the movie presented a pretty big "maybe" in that

they show some of those subjected to Extremis explode, and Killian presents it as still being questionable at the present time in talking about whether Pepper's body will accept it

the believability aspect is that the vice president of the US would do this for such a non-proportionate reward, not just joe father. It felt hacky due to it being a limp attempt to portray him as morally compromised with the "oh he's doing it for his CHILD he just loves his baby girl he's not all bad"

-Tal

Theodore Floosevelt wrote: »

Devlin_Dragonus wrote: »

Theodore Floosevelt wrote: »

UnbreakableVow wrote: »

Why was that a strike against?

it was just a hacky move

oh, the VP is evil. Okay, that happens commonly enough for whatever reason, but veeps in action movies are always bein evil for power grabs and all, it's tired but it's not a big deal. But then: oh, his daughter is missing her leg from the knee down. So the VP is willing to murder POTUS and numerous others and allow and encourage terrorism in the US because maybe his daughter's leg could be grown back.

Aside from being pretty unbelievable, it's cheesy, soapy motivation. Not to downplay the handicap, but it's not even a life-threatening debilitation, and the character isn't developed near enough to justify his behavior.

to be fair

there is no maybe about it, even in its flawed stage Extremis is shown to be able to regrow limbs. The daughter could have other health issues as well, and its not outside the realm of possibility that a father is willing to risk anything for the well being and future of their child.

SO VP is not so much evil as morally compromised or even morally malleable

the movie presented a pretty big "maybe" in that

they show some of those subjected to Extremis explode, and Killian presents it as still being questionable at the present time in talking about whether Pepper's body will accept it

the believability aspect is that the vice president of the US would do this for such a non-proportionate reward, not just joe father. It felt hacky due to it being a limp attempt to portray him as morally compromised with the "oh he's doing it for his CHILD he just loves his baby girl he's not all bad"

I saw it was Killian left out the "she might explode" part when he was selling it to the VP

Theodore Floosevelt

-Tal wrote: »

Theodore Floosevelt wrote: »

Devlin_Dragonus wrote: »

Theodore Floosevelt wrote: »

UnbreakableVow wrote: »

Why was that a strike against?

it was just a hacky move

oh, the VP is evil. Okay, that happens commonly enough for whatever reason, but veeps in action movies are always bein evil for power grabs and all, it's tired but it's not a big deal. But then: oh, his daughter is missing her leg from the knee down. So the VP is willing to murder POTUS and numerous others and allow and encourage terrorism in the US because maybe his daughter's leg could be grown back.

Aside from being pretty unbelievable, it's cheesy, soapy motivation. Not to downplay the handicap, but it's not even a life-threatening debilitation, and the character isn't developed near enough to justify his behavior.

to be fair

there is no maybe about it, even in its flawed stage Extremis is shown to be able to regrow limbs. The daughter could have other health issues as well, and its not outside the realm of possibility that a father is willing to risk anything for the well being and future of their child.

SO VP is not so much evil as morally compromised or even morally malleable

the movie presented a pretty big "maybe" in that

they show some of those subjected to Extremis explode, and Killian presents it as still being questionable at the present time in talking about whether Pepper's body will accept it

the believability aspect is that the vice president of the US would do this for such a non-proportionate reward, not just joe father. It felt hacky due to it being a limp attempt to portray him as morally compromised with the "oh he's doing it for his CHILD he just loves his baby girl he's not all bad"

I saw it was Killian left out the "she might explode" part when he was selling it to the VP

Yeah, suppose that's safe to assume

anyway I really liked the movie

I just think that detail was lame

Harry Dresden

Xehalus wrote: »

Won't work on Punisher, Moon Knight, Deadpool or Batman on a bad day. Spider-man webs them all up.

Solar

surely you could just

shoot that guy in the head

where there are no babies

Solar

Also comic book writers who are all "haha look at me I'm so clever my villain easily pokes holes in your superheroic ideals and methods" should all stop writing effective immediately

protip: when you do this, writers, you are not actually being very clever at all

You are in fact being cheap and lazy

KingofMadCows

Blankzilla wrote: »

New Man of Steel rumor

Wayne Enterprises and Batman will be referenced, but not actually shown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYnJQqLyov0

Elderlycrawfish

This is why you should always wear a baby helmet.

Langly

Solar wrote: »

surely you could just

shoot that guy in the head

where there are no babies

making him fall and kill several of them.

Sir Platypus

Babies are a superstitious and cowardly lot

Transporter

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Xehalus wrote: »

Won't work on Punisher, Moon Knight, Deadpool or Batman on a bad day. Spider-man webs them all up.

Earth-1 Superman uses his Superbaby talk and has the babies disarm the criminal...

However, GASP!? The criminal is actually BABYTALK, the supernanny supervillian!

How will Superman get out of this one?

And is Jimmy Olsen the mother?!