Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 8:39:20 GMT -5
Mostly the stuff with Black Widow, the scenes with Nick Fury where they go back and forth on Tony joining the Avengers, and the random side thing with Tony inventing Vibranium or something (I don't know, I don't at all understand the logistics of Tony creating a thing that already exists from a step-by-step guide and then being praised for inventing it) because we need to set up Captain America's shield. Ah, I see. Got to disagree there. The stuff about Tony joining/not joining the Avengers is during the last scene of the movie, so it's not really stopping the plot as much as it's a post-credits teaser that takes place right before the credits roll, while Tony creating the element for his arc reactor has nothing to do with vibranium, and Cap's shield is a sight gag that comes and goes in a matter of seconds. None of that details the plot of the movie or slows it down. Black Widow I suppose isn't really an essential character so could be considered a set up for the Avengers, I suppose, but even that makes sense within the plot. The government is worried about Tony's tech ending up in the wrong hands and he's refusing to play ball with them, so placing a spy in his company is the most logical thing to do. If the Avengers never happens the plot still works fine as a stand-alone. The problem with the movie is it's a shallower rehash of the first movie. Same basic Tony vs. Evil Guy Also in a Suit conflict, same Tony dealing with an internal conflict subplot, but never properly exploring either. Admittedly been a good while since I've seen it myself. But really biggest issue I have with Iron Man 2 is that Hammer is the villain 100% carrying the plot but is a total joke while Whiplash is interesting and threatening but could be left out of the story entirely with nothing changed beyond a couple of action beats. That and strictly going off the events in the movie he comes off far more likable than Tony does and like his grievance with Tony's dad is completely justified.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 20, 2017 8:58:59 GMT -5
I don't ever want to see Flashpoint honestly. It's not interesting at all.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 20, 2017 9:03:34 GMT -5
Ah, I see. Got to disagree there. The stuff about Tony joining/not joining the Avengers is during the last scene of the movie, so it's not really stopping the plot as much as it's a post-credits teaser that takes place right before the credits roll, while Tony creating the element for his arc reactor has nothing to do with vibranium, and Cap's shield is a sight gag that comes and goes in a matter of seconds. None of that details the plot of the movie or slows it down. Black Widow I suppose isn't really an essential character so could be considered a set up for the Avengers, I suppose, but even that makes sense within the plot. The government is worried about Tony's tech ending up in the wrong hands and he's refusing to play ball with them, so placing a spy in his company is the most logical thing to do. If the Avengers never happens the plot still works fine as a stand-alone. The problem with the movie is it's a shallower rehash of the first movie. Same basic Tony vs. Evil Guy Also in a Suit conflict, same Tony dealing with an internal conflict subplot, but never properly exploring either. Admittedly been a good while since I've seen it myself. But really biggest issue I have with Iron Man 2 is that Hammer is the villain 100% carrying the plot but is a total joke while Whiplash is interesting and threatening but could be left out of the story entirely with nothing changed beyond a couple of action beats. That and strictly going off the events in the movie he comes off far more likable than Tony does and like his grievance with Tony's dad is completely justified. Definitely. Wasting Rourke like that when he was on such a hot streak at the time was criminal. Even he is bitter about it to this day.
|
|
OGBoardPoster2005
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Proud TS member.
Posts: 18,688
Member is Online
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Nov 20, 2017 9:22:43 GMT -5
I forgot what thread I was in....
|
|
|
Post by WoodStoner1 on Nov 20, 2017 9:25:41 GMT -5
I don't ever want to see Flashpoint honestly. It's not interesting at all. Forget uninteresting, it led to the New 52, even worse! As for the Iron Man content here...was it me or did Iron Man not save anyone necessarily at the climaxes of his movies? Most of his main fights were just personal grudges.
|
|
|
Post by WoodStoner1 on Nov 20, 2017 9:28:07 GMT -5
Glad they didn't do that one. That sounds pretty terrible honestly, not least of which is why would they go see him? Because he's G-D Batman. So yeah if I was doing the Flash movie I'd do Flashpoint. Let Affleck leave (if he wanted) and ignore MoS and BvS. Pave the way, perhaps also, for a movie that references or has the DCTVU fight alongside the DCCU? (yes I still say that somehow, if this eventually led to Crisis, the DCCU can partially be saved)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 9:50:22 GMT -5
was there ever any reason given why they decided to fast track the whole thing instead of making individual movies? Cause more movies means more money
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 10:15:59 GMT -5
was there ever any reason given why they decided to fast track the whole thing instead of making individual movies? Cause more movies means more money Because nobody ever accused movie executives of being smart and they probably just thought, "Marvel got the fifth and seventh highest grossing movies of all time out of their team crossovers, we can do that!" And that I guess is par for the course really since in pretty much every medium except cartoons DC's pretty much always been aping off Marvel and trying to play catch-up with them. Which sucks because, and nothing against Marvel by any means, when both companies are done correctly I far prefer DC.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Nov 20, 2017 11:08:14 GMT -5
Just finished watching. I enjoyed it. Fun film. Villain was boring though.
Marvel and DC movies tend to have a problem with dull and forgettable villains. The villain was the weak part of wonder woman too.
|
|
|
Post by The Heartbreak TWERK on Nov 20, 2017 12:46:48 GMT -5
I saw it, I liked it. Good, not great.
The movie came off like more of an apology for the monumental screw ups of BvS and MoS, and a highlight reel of things to come.
|
|
The Unconquered Sun
King Koopa
He has no pants! What a heathen!
Lord of Storms and Kittens!
Posts: 11,554
|
Post by The Unconquered Sun on Nov 20, 2017 17:55:28 GMT -5
Saw it. Let's not compare it to The Avengers. Let's compare it to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It's much closer. Throw a bunch of people together, don't worry about the story and say "f*** it. The people will love the characters anyways." Then be shocked when it didn't work. I will say this, I was glad to finally see Henry Cavill play a version of Superman I liked instead of Sadsack McSourPuss. I thought he would make a great Superman, if they would. Have let him.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Nov 20, 2017 19:45:19 GMT -5
was there ever any reason given why they decided to fast track the whole thing instead of making individual movies? Cause more movies means more money Guessing they didn't have confidence in a solo Aquaman movie given stand up comedians/Momoa box office history, thought Cyborg was too obscure, and wanted Flash to be Spider-Man.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Nov 20, 2017 19:51:31 GMT -5
was there ever any reason given why they decided to fast track the whole thing instead of making individual movies? Cause more movies means more money Green Lantern bombing hard played a big role in it.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 20, 2017 20:10:29 GMT -5
Just finished watching. I enjoyed it. Fun film. Villain was boring though. Marvel and DC movies tend to have a problem with dull and forgettable villains. The villain was the weak part of wonder woman too. That really is one of the bigger problems I have with the modern run of superhero movies; the "villain of the week" format that 'cinematic universe' moviemaking seems to necessitate leaves so many of the villains feeling dull, uninspired, repetitive from whomever the villain was in the last movie, etc. Villains work best when they act as foils to the heroes, or visa versa; the Joker is so iconic precisely because he's smart and resourceful like Batman, but uses his wits to bring about chaos and crime instead of justice and peace, and also challenges Batman's more simplistic perception of what criminals are ("a superstitious, cowardly lot"). Lex Luthor resents Superman's god-like abilities, since Lex values his own intellect and sees Superman as the universe refuting his ego. Zod is Superman without his humanity. Professor Xavier and Magneto are both driven to help mutants, but take radically different paths to accomplish their goals. Darkseid represents order at the expense of free will and liberty, a great yet simple archetype any hero could play off of. When you do either a standalone film or a trilogy or something, it can be a lot easier to delve into the relationships heroes have to their villains; a self-contained story could make that dynamic the heart of the film (e.g. The Dark Knight), while a series can allow the relationship to go through a development arc. But in these cinematic universes, it acts more like individual episodes of a TV show where there needs to be a new bad guy each time, and they all fall flat because the goal of the universe is to get an audience to want to keep seeing these films that keep coming out one after another, and the way you end up accomplishing that is by focusing almost exclusively on the internal arc of the hero, which often comes at the expense of the villain's development. I had that feeling when watching Guardians of the Galaxy 2 this year; it was a good movie, but Ego was such a big character, especially within the character arc of Peter Quill, that he felt like he should've been in the narrative for two movies instead of one (maybe waiting to reveal his villainous side until his second appearance). Yet, well, sure he played his role in the narrative, but his overall presence became much flatter than it should have been. Now, with DC there is really no excuse for flat villains. If there's one big factor I've always personally felt DC has had over Marvel, it's a ridiculously good rogues gallery. Problem is, this storytelling format doesn't really lend itself well to well developed villains.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 22:22:04 GMT -5
I had that feeling when watching Guardians of the Galaxy 2 this year; it was a good movie, but Ego was such a big character, especially within the character arc of Peter Quill, that he felt like he should've been in the narrative for two movies instead of one (maybe waiting to reveal his villainous side until his second appearance). Yet, well, sure he played his role in the narrative, but his overall presence became much flatter than it should have been. Something that has bugged me with Marvel movies for awhile but was at its worst with Ego... What the hell makes Thanos, who's constantly just sitting around in his chair doing nothing but snarling, so scary when people are having to save the world on a constant basis? Ego was especially bad because nothing Thanos could do - short of if they actually adapt Infinity Gauntlet straight which they basically cannot do because it's really not at all an Avengers story and the heroes barely have anything to do with it - could possibly compare to the level of destruction Ego was prepared to carry out. It was especially stupid when at the end of GotG2 everyone's going, "Yeah, we did it, we stopped a god! ... But we can't possibly beat Thanos. Just too scary."
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Nov 20, 2017 22:31:56 GMT -5
I had that feeling when watching Guardians of the Galaxy 2 this year; it was a good movie, but Ego was such a big character, especially within the character arc of Peter Quill, that he felt like he should've been in the narrative for two movies instead of one (maybe waiting to reveal his villainous side until his second appearance). Yet, well, sure he played his role in the narrative, but his overall presence became much flatter than it should have been. Something that has bugged me with Marvel movies for awhile but was at its worst with Ego... What the hell makes Thanos, who's constantly just sitting around in his chair doing nothing but snarling, so scary when people are having to save the world on a constant basis? Ego was especially bad because nothing Thanos could do - short of if they actually adapt Infinity Gauntlet straight which they basically cannot do because it's really not at all an Avengers story and the heroes barely have anything to do with it - could possibly compare to the level of destruction Ego was prepared to carry out. It was especially stupid when at the end of GotG2 everyone's going, "Yeah, we did it, we stopped a god! ... But we can't possibly beat Thanos. Just too scary." The thing about Thanos is where to after him, Aren't most of the most powerful villains under X-men & F4* (Apocalypse, Galactus, Doom) Dormammu is really the only one I can think of *I'm spotty on who owns what though If they can somehow gets the right to F4's universe then that sorts a ton of issues out
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,150
|
Post by andrew8798 on Nov 20, 2017 22:49:36 GMT -5
Would help if Marvel stops killing off all their villains
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 20, 2017 22:52:22 GMT -5
Something that has bugged me with Marvel movies for awhile but was at its worst with Ego... What the hell makes Thanos, who's constantly just sitting around in his chair doing nothing but snarling, so scary when people are having to save the world on a constant basis? Ego was especially bad because nothing Thanos could do - short of if they actually adapt Infinity Gauntlet straight which they basically cannot do because it's really not at all an Avengers story and the heroes barely have anything to do with it - could possibly compare to the level of destruction Ego was prepared to carry out. It was especially stupid when at the end of GotG2 everyone's going, "Yeah, we did it, we stopped a god! ... But we can't possibly beat Thanos. Just too scary." The thing about Thanos is where to after him, Aren't most of the most powerful villains under X-men & F4* (Apocalypse, Galactus, Doom) Dormammu is really the only one I can think of *I'm spotty on who owns what though If they can somehow gets the right to F4's universe then that sorts a ton of issues out Part of me wonders if that's why Disney are considering buying Fox. Obviously there's a lot more than just Marvel at stake, but it would easily extend the shelf life of the MCU by at least a decade, which would pay for the cost of Fox by itself.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 20, 2017 23:06:52 GMT -5
Something that has bugged me with Marvel movies for awhile but was at its worst with Ego... What the hell makes Thanos, who's constantly just sitting around in his chair doing nothing but snarling, so scary when people are having to save the world on a constant basis? Ego was especially bad because nothing Thanos could do - short of if they actually adapt Infinity Gauntlet straight which they basically cannot do because it's really not at all an Avengers story and the heroes barely have anything to do with it - could possibly compare to the level of destruction Ego was prepared to carry out. It was especially stupid when at the end of GotG2 everyone's going, "Yeah, we did it, we stopped a god! ... But we can't possibly beat Thanos. Just too scary." The thing about Thanos is where to after him, Aren't most of the most powerful villains under X-men & F4* (Apocalypse, Galactus, Doom) Dormammu is really the only one I can think of *I'm spotty on who owns what though If they can somehow gets the right to F4's universe then that sorts a ton of issues out Well, there's always a returning Red Skull and a proper Mandarin.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Nov 21, 2017 2:17:11 GMT -5
|
|