Iron Thread 3: Out Now! [Iron Man 3] (Use SPOILER Tags!)

AspectVoid

shoeboxjeddy wrote: »

Undead Scottsman wrote: »

Infer nothing

The movie TELLS you they were buried under rubble right before introducing them.

Which would be relevant

if they weren't super powerful robot suits with laser beams that can be controlled remotely. That's where the "explaining the basic plot" part of storytelling comes in. Like maybe JARVIS breaks because Maya launches a cyber attack just prior to the physical, missile based one. That would have erased 90% of the complaints!

There's an easier explanation for it.

Tony, while a genius, is also arrogant. He was up against 3 helicopters. Why wouldn't he believe, in all his arrogance, that he could handle three Helicopters in a single, half broken suit? He's been hit by tank shells while wearing these suits and came out no worse for wear.

It wasn't until he was confronted by Extremis agents that he realized that he needed more firepower, and by then his connection to the other suits (the Mark 42) was already damaged to the point that he could not remotely access them while the suits themselves were buried under his house.

DanHibiki

AspectVoid wrote: »

shoeboxjeddy wrote: »

Undead Scottsman wrote: »

Infer nothing

The movie TELLS you they were buried under rubble right before introducing them.

Which would be relevant

if they weren't super powerful robot suits with laser beams that can be controlled remotely. That's where the "explaining the basic plot" part of storytelling comes in. Like maybe JARVIS breaks because Maya launches a cyber attack just prior to the physical, missile based one. That would have erased 90% of the complaints!

There's an easier explanation for it.

Tony, while a genius, is also arrogant. He was up against 3 helicopters. Why wouldn't he believe, in all his arrogance, that he could handle three Helicopters in a single, half broken suit? He's been hit by tank shells while wearing these suits and came out no worse for wear.

It wasn't until he was confronted by Extremis agents that he realized that he needed more firepower, and by then his connection to the other suits (the Mark 42) was already damaged to the point that he could not remotely access them while the suits themselves were buried under his house.

It didn't happen that way though. He had just enough time to put the suit on and drown, after which he didn't wear a suit again until the end of the movie.

Him biting off more then he can chew was never presented as an issue. He was quite capable of facing all his problems even with a broken ass suit and was overwhelmed by not much more then bad luck.

Same really with Extremis soldiers who he killed with Riggs like proficiency.

shoeboxjeddy

Somewhat incorrect. He defeats two helis through improvisation and THEN drowns.

AspectVoid

What shoeboxjeddy said.

He gets the suit on. Pepper is out of the building. He can fight back, and he is Iron Man. Flight system doesn't work? No problem. Throw a piano at one helicopter. It's dead. He can do this. His missiles won't fire? Big deal, he just grabs the missile off his arm and throws it. Two helicopter's dead. He's got this in the bag, who needs other suits?

Wait, oh shit, the building is collapsing under him! He's in the water! And the water seals on this prototype have failed? Oh shit, drown, drown, drown.

Then he wakes up in Tennessee and barely gets his barings before the Mk42 shuts down.

DanHibiki

edited my previous post, but that's exactly it. The danger is not from fighting three choppers, he can do that pretty easily and would have won without much of a problem if he didn't get trapped under a building. There's a reason he's arrogant in this movie, and that's because he is ridiculously competent and most of the tension is comical any way, so there's never a sense of urgency or danger.

ElJeffe

shoeboxjeddy wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

Same goes for minor plot details, like

why precisely the suits couldn't get out of the rubble on their own. It isn't like the suits were just standing out in the open and Tony never thought to use them. You want a reason why the suits couldn't respond? The film gave you one: they were buried under a mound of fucking rubble. This was plenty of reason. Yeah, yeah, technically the Mk 23 had a special attachment that could drill up through no less than 15 feet of solid rock and was clearly equipped with a blast shield that would protect it from no, shut up, stop it. The suits could not get out because of rubble. That is all the reason that is needed. And, again, if the film had spent five minutes expositing why the drilling suit didn't work and Jarvis's communications could only go through X feet of solid matter and yadda yadda, these people would just be bitching about other stuff.

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,

a basement OVERFLOWING with Iron Man suits is a rather shocking reveal in a movie where Tony's main suit frequently 1) cannot fly, 2) has insufficient weapon systems, 3) runs out of power, 4) loses contact with JARVIS, etc. The explanation for why he couldn't use even ONE of these as a backup had better be outstanding AND fully understood by the audience. In fact, it is neither in this case. "Oh umm, I inferred that random house materials trapped them, or alternatively they blocked the signal to turn them on if you don't buy that first explanation. Also, I won't explain why JARVIS acts like he was somehow hurt by a power failure so that he can't help. None of this stuff is ever directly stated." This isn't like in Star Trek (Abrams version) where you might start arguing the physics or whatever. This is basic coherence level plot stuff. "In this movie Iron Man is alone and without his resources." "Why?" "That is not something the movie is interested in explaining actually." :?

Like was said, the movie gave a reason: Rubble. So in your savings bond example, let's pretend that they mentioned "...and I couldn't cash it earlier because it didn't mature until just now!" And then everyone still bitches because what about the emergency provision where you can cash a bond in early at a heavy loss, and why couldn't he just sell the bond to another investor to get some quick money, and <reasons>. And then we say, "The movie gave a reason - the bond hadn't matured yet." And you're all, "But that violates the laws of economics, and all the movie had to do was give some little reason why he couldn't cash that bond at any time!" And we're all, "Dude, it hadn't matured!" and you're all, "Just one little reason, any reason would do!"

Undead Scottsman

Actually, looking at it more, I don't the problem is with the explanation.

I think the problem is with how the movie didn't make a big enough deal out of it. We don't hear about the rubble being an issue until it's been cleared up. The movie really could have used a line with Tony trying to get access to the suits (You can be coy and have him tell JARVIS to access the Wine Cellar, in order not to spoil the big surprise.. that the trailer already spoiled. :P ) and JARVIS telling him there's just too much rubble for them to get out and/or for a signal to reach them. As is, Tony just magically ignores the suits until they're available to use.

I can see that putting people off.

IIRC; there was a line in the comic-con footage where Tony tells Jarvis to "seal the wine cellar" during the attack too, which would have been nice as a way of referencing the thing earlier on. (IIRC, the only other time it's referenced is in how Tony is in the mark 42)

ElJeffe

Undead Scottsman wrote: »

Actually, looking at it more, I don't the problem is with the explanation.

I think the problem is with how the movie didn't make a big enough deal out of it. We don't hear about the rubble being an issue until it's been cleared up. The movie really could have used a line with Tony trying to get access to the suits (You can be coy and have him tell JARVIS to access the Wine Cellar, in order not to spoil the big surprise.. that the trailer already spoiled. :P ) and JARVIS telling him there's just too much rubble for them to get out and/or for a signal to reach them. As is, Tony just magically ignores the suits until they're available to use.

I can see that putting people off.

IIRC; there was a line in the comic-con footage where Tony tells Jarvis to "seal the wine cellar" during the attack too, which would have been nice as a way of referencing the thing earlier on. (IIRC, the only other time it's referenced is in how Tony is in the mark 42)

I can see that putting people off. That makes sense. I think they were trying to make it a less obvious turn of events, which didn't work so well for anyone who had seen the trailer, but even so it could've been foreshadowed a little better.