Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Iron Thread 3: Out Now! [Iron Man 3] (Use SPOILER Tags!)
Posts
Bad writing is still bad writing, no matter how much I like the subject material and, just like Michael Bay films, I will not give it a pass just because it has cool explosions and mechanized main characters.
Its obvious the people guarding Slattery were hired thugs, not given all the details to Killian's plans and not appearing in the movie very long. Extremis soldiers were the opposite, that's why they needed greater depth. It needn't have been detailed or specific but they needed some explanation for joining KIllian's world domination scheme.
But most of the military isn't somehow better than hired thugs.
I read through an IRC chat today where a high percentage of coworkers bitched about The Fed being out of gold.
Adding that they're military doesn't somehow make them an exception from jackass #7 who's working for the villain.
Wow. Stay classy @Quid.
Seen many Squids and Jarheads that I really questioned their reasons for joining.
Hell, several guys from my own command were caught doing a drive-by.
The Kitty Hawk had a gang problem for a few years (Crips/Bloods throwing down in the main engineering spaces). Chiefs (E-7s) supervising meth labs.
Same as anywhere else.
Just the military likes to loudly proclaim when they caught someone screwing up.
Sorry but the only difference for a lot is the name. Service members aren't some special breed of people. Most are in it for the paycheck.
Hell if any movie ever went in to the back stories of henchmen more than a few would probably be prior military.
Only if he knew everyone in the military, which I doubt.
Of course they all aren't all shining paragons. "Most of [group X] is [quality Y]" is too sweeping a generalization for any group. I could just as easily say "most forum posters are mouth-breathing basement dwellers." It still wouldn't make it true.
This is a retarded tangent that is going to end now! Thanks!
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
For any given movie, a thug might be motivated by:
-Greed
-Hunger for power
-Psychopathy
-All his friends were doing it
-Got in over his head
-More scared of the bad guy than of the good guy
Any of these work, and probably many more. Does picking one of these over the other, in the context of a guy who is basically cannon-fodder, really matter? Pretend there is a one-line sequence prior to some fight scene in which a random thug says, "This job pays super well!" or "Man, I like killing people!" or "I hope I don't fail because then the boss will kill me!" Then Iron Man busts in and blows everything up. Did that enrich your viewing experience? Honestly? Now that you know precisely what that thug's motivation is, are you totally satisfied? No, you're not, because it was pointless and didn't contribute to the story at all.
Keeping something like that in the film would be dumb, because it shows you don't trust the viewer to come to his own reasonable conclusions about minor details. And any savvy filmmaker is going to know that all of the people bitching about something like the motivations of Thug 238 aren't going to be satisfied by giving them a motivation for Thug 238. They are going to just bitch about something different. So by keeping in that line, you make nobody happier, and you drag your film's momentum down for all the people who were perfectly fine drawing their own conclusions about this minor detail that doesn't matter one bit in the larger context of the movie.
Same goes for minor plot details, like
If these sorts of things really got in the way of your ability to enjoy the movie, then this was not a movie that was ever going to make you happy. Meanwhile, addressing all of these minor concerns would have hurt the momentum of the film in numerous parts, decreasing the ability of the rest of us to enjoy this flick. There are probably legitimate reasons why people didn't like this movie, but none of them would have been addressed by "fixing" the things a lot of people are actually bitching about in here.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Those aren't the thugs we've been discussing.
And you've yet to explain why the ones we are needed more motivation than the others.
Actually, I did that at least once.
You've yet to give a good explanation.
I've explained in a previous post and I'll repeat - the Extremis soldiers on AIM's payroll weren't normal thugs by any stretch. Not just because of their super-powers but how deeply involved and obedient they were to AIM/Killian's goals, which were doing more than guarding an actor.
No one needs it explained that the soldiers realize these two men are there to fuck up their plans.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
I'm gonna hop my super powered ass over there and start wailing on them.
It was both. I enjoyed the movie but I found the lack of characterization noticeable from the
That's just it, the whole
The other possibility is that they knew it was a hoax, but that leaves more questions. Why would ex soldier, amputees, with no apparent ideological axe to grind cause some of the most destructive attacks against their home country ever? Do none of them have families or friends? Was it just a happy coincidence that everyone who used the serum thought 'fuck, yeah let's kill the president and control the war on terror, that's totally a reasonable life choice!'
Basically it comes down to context. The context of a fanatic acting like a fanatic for a terrorist organization raises no real questions. The context of a few dozen ex US soldier/amputees agreeing to kill the president, take credit for terrorist attacks, and picking a fight with a dude who just saved the planet from an alien invasion raises a whole lot of questions. Those are some ENORMOUS risks to life, family, and reputation. To throw that away and not attempt to explain it is a pretty glaring flaw.
The regular movie henchman needs no real explanation because there's nothing incredibly unique about their situation. They perhaps have loose morals, but could come from anywhere in the world from any kind of background. It's reasonable that regular henchmen are just hired security and from their perspective are just guarding a mansion (For example). The guys who get limbs regenerated, get super powers, and attempt to kill the president know something's up!
For me, once it got to the end scene the first thing I said was 'wait, why are there so many extremis soldiers? How did they get here and why are they fighting to the death? Where were they before?
But even by itself it's not SO bad really. It's a flaw but tons of these movies have inexplicable flaws. The difference to me is that they're were just so many of them that about 3/4 through the movie I couldn't help but notice every time one happened. And it really hurt immersion while I was watching it.
That said, I find in this case that the criticisms are being leveled at how the plot developments occur in Iron Man 3, and I may even go so far as to say that some people might be mistaking their dissatisfaction with Black's methods as valid criticisms to the overall plot, rather than just being tangled up in their own misconceptions.
Or they could just not like the plot of the movie because it's a mess full of loose ends and plot holes.
I tend to lean toward that rather than imagining Black is some genius we all "just don't understand, man."
"There is not a man of us who does not at times need a helping hand to be stretched out to him, and then shame upon him who will not stretch out the helping hand to his brother."
Okay, fair enough.
Regarding Shane Black, I don't think he's a genius that we don't understand, or anything. I do think that he is a writer and director more concerned with tone and theme than with plot details. If you like what he's doing, you can probably look past it. If you don't like what he's doing, you probably are going to be less forgiving.
FWIW, I don't think he's sloppy at all. I think he's making a conscious decision to go with snappy dialogue and brisk momentum over smaller details, because he probably feels that they don't much matter to the larger picture. I suspect people who are sympathetic to this sort of big-picture mentality are going to like his work, while more detail-oriented folks are going to like it less. I'm in the former category, and I love what he does with dialogue, so I think the dude is fuckin aces.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
I can agree with that.
Uhhh nope, gonna have to disagree. Let's say we're watching "It's a Wonderful Life". At two points in the movie, having money becomes incredibly important. Let's say at the end of the movie, it is revealed that George has a Savings Bond worth $10,000 that he could presumably cash at any time. That would torpedo the entire plot, in multiple places. Now it's not impossible to have this still be in there, but then you'd have to THOROUGHLY explain that "Oh, he can't afford the taxes if he cashes it at the wrong time and he would lose his house" or "That's a last ditch safety for his dying grandma's medical care, he would NEVER cash it before she died" or whatever. You can't just handwave such a crucially meaningful reveal and how it effects the film as a whole.
Similarly,
Which would be relevant
And if Maya launched a cyber attack, people would just be bitching about how she's a geneticist, not a hacker; or how Tony's security should be better than that, or whatever specific chain of reality they find dissatisfying.
Point is, the movie gave an explanation as to why he didn't use the suits until then. Apparently it was enough rubble to keep the suits from getting out, because it was enough rubble to keep the suits from getting out. :P
Nitpicks aren't necessarily criticisms. It could just a recognition of how the movie should be viewed. It would be like if I pointed out all the plot holes and logical errors in Commando, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy the movie since I fully realize that those things don't really matter for that movie. In fact, pointing out how absurd certain movies are can make them more fun to watch.
When was that stated in the film? I don't remember it.
It's implied