sextonseven said:

Jon Favreau is a big fan too. He even made a joke in an interview about how he's combining the regular Marvel universe with the Ultimate one.

I thought Iron Man was excellent...I really dont know what people expect from hero movies but as far as I'm concerned, Iron Man delivered...I get so sick of the doom and gloom, ultra realistic backstory presented by other hero movies...it was cool to see how the origin was presented in this movie, simple and reasonably quick...

I personally would prefer to see the Avengers make it to the big screen moreso than the Justice League...imo, the Avengers epitomize comic book superheros...flashy, bold and ass kicking...the Justice League is great, but there is so much baggage that goes along with those characters...

ButterscotchPimp said:

I never said she was supposed to be "dripping with sex appeal." I said she doesn't have any at all.

And it's not just nitpicking to be nitpicking. She's not only blah, but she also doesn't have the good sense to run when a guy in giant armor is chasing her and trying to kill her and is only a few feet away. They actually showed her supposedly running out of the lab, and she did it at a snail's pace.

roodboi said:

i'd like to see the Avengers film happen as well but with the JLA I feel that the heroes would have lots more in the way of character development. I mean, each has a specific story that is easily expanded upon. J'onn J'onzz has his Mars thing plus the fire problem, Aquaman has the dethroning thing in Atlantis and Green lantern has the whole thing with his dad and not having any fear.
Unfortunately, how on earth could you pack all that into 2 and half hour film? Personally, the JLA should be a trilogy like Lord of The Rings or Star Wars 4, 5 and 6.

i was really looking forward to seeing the JLA but i'm sort of glad it has been put on hold as well simply becuz you can't mess up this kind of movie. The characters are much too well known for Warners just to botch it up. I hope they really take their time with it.

sextonseven said:

You're absolutely right. I am out of the loop. It's totally gross to me that they redesigned an iconic character to resemble an actor so they could later cast him in a film adaptation.

"Let's re-imagine Wonder Woman so we can cast Zac Efron." Pleagh.
[Edited 5/12/08 17:23pm]

Jestyr said:

That wasn't the reason for it at all. The Iron Man movie wasn't even thought of when they started Marvel Ultimate universe. They wanted to modernize everything. Therefore they had to make said changes so newer readers could relate to the character, and who doesn't know Sammy L as a bad ass?

Twiki said:

i thought she and Terrence Howard had the appeal of a cardboard box in the movie. And i dont understand why we keep portraying Arab people as idiots.

Milty said:

Beeeeyotch puh-leease
'Superman Returns' sucks balls, big time.

Sinister said:

Twiki said:

That's actually the appeal of of Marvel comics to most people. These superheroes are people with problems. Some of them are every day problems (Peter Parker) and some of them are metaphorical (the Thing, the X-Men), which is what helped to bring Marvel to the fore. It had characters you cared about and who had problems just like you (or analogous ones).

FuNkeNsteiN said:

hardly. I have to admit i did not like the fact that Lois had Supes's kid. That actually turned it into a soap opera for me. But everything from the acting to the sets to the way it was filmed was excellent. I mean that whole plane/baseball stadium thing was awesome. the story was ok but it certainly wasnt pedestrian and formulaic like Iron Man. The pacing of Iron Man was too fast. I wanted more character development. You got Tony Stark's character right away that was cool (and Downey Jr. was good) but I wanted to know more about his dad and shit. Tony Stark just came over as just a little shit. I wanted him to do something really terrible. Also, they cast big name actors in it. I actually dont like that.

The things I didnt like about Iron Man:
1. It moved way too fast at the start. It was just one scene after another until he escaped from the cave.
2. speaking of the cave, the film made those terrorists look really bumbling. What is this? The 80s? Plus how on Earth could those terrorists not realize after 3 months of holding these two guys hostage what the hell they were building in there?
3. I really don't think that Tony Stark would have not got shot in that hail of bullets from all those machine guns like in the spaces at his neck or his hands. I mean, the suit wasnt totally metal.
4. The fight scenes were just that. fight scenes. no big crescendo fight scene, nothing.
and finally,
5. CG. Altho not as bad as say the Star Wars prequels or some of Spiderman, CG just messes it up for me everytime. Even King Kong had much better CG than Iron Man.


I just compared the Dark Knight trailer to the Iron Man trailer and you can clearly see which film is going to be superior.

Milty said:

Personally I didn't think the movie moved fast at all, it was a very good pace and told you how me came to create his suit and get a change of heart about his business. Tony is when you get down to it a very complex character to deal with and they didn't want to put too much in it so you got overwhelmed, eg his an alcoholic which was subtly brought up but not brought to the front light.

Its also the 1st of a trilogy so it was more of a building block for the rest of the movies.

Sinister said:

THAT EVERYTHING POOK THINK!

EVEN THING ABOUT MASK

WOW

Milty said:

Wow. What superhero movies DID you like?
Did i read in a previous post that you thought "Superman Returns" was better? I hope not. Although that would explain a lot.

Seriously, this is probably (again other than Batman Begins) the most faithful adaptation of a comic book to make it to the silver screen.

I thought the flow of the movie was perfect! It didn't take too long to explain his origins and for the non-comic fans it was easy to follow. You liked Tony Stark as a character before he ever put on the costume which is RARE in comic book flicks.

C'mon! How much of a pimp is Tony Stark? For as much as Bruce Wayne pretends to be a playboy, Tony IS ONE. The stripper pole on the plane? CLASSIC!!!

I'm going to ignore that King Kong comment because that was ridiculous. I was shocked at how good the suit looked. I mean even as long as it took him to tweak the suit and figure things out, that made it believable to the average movie goer.

Besides, the truth is in the numbers. Obviously, people really like this movie.

Milty said:

If you want slow pacing, lots of character development and father issues then go back and watch Ang Lee's Hulk movie.

You don't like big name actors in superhero films yet you're looking forward to the new Dark Knight movie with Heath Ledger?

spelling
[Edited 5/14/08 8:29am]

Milty said:

That's how I felt. I felt like I was watching Rambo with all the jingoistic, anti-Arab, USA! USA! crap. I was waiting for the Iron Sheik to show up.

I found the movie enjoyable, but that part was shit.

sextonseven said:

yeah the Hulk film was dreadful. let's see what this new one offers. i actually dont think Heath Ledger was a major film star.

Milty said:

You might have been able to argue that before Brokeback Mountain.

ButterscotchPimp said:

not sure what that "that would explain a lot" comment meant but i'll ignore it for now.
I don't really know the Iron Man story anyway. I like Iron Man as a character but as a film it didnt rock with me. The whole stripper pole thing to me also seemed like a cheap gag from a movie like Charlie's Angels or even a bad movie of the week. Maybe i just wasnt into the fun of the whole film.
I admit i like the moodiness of Batman better.
Did i say i didnt like the suit? I cant remember now but if i did then on second glance, i guess it was cool - the inside the helmet thing was cool too. maybe i should list what i did like about it.
King Kong was a shit film but the special F/X were awesome.

and trust me, numbers dont prove anything to me most of the time. if that was the case, then in 2004, you could call George Bush a great president.

I think we'd all be better off if we accept that they aren't adapting these movies to satisfy comic fans...they make 'em for the general public...generally, they throw comic geeks a minimal bone in the movies, something that only we'd pick up on...that being said, I agree that Iron Man was probably the best adaptation to date...
I think some comic book purists hold these films to an unrealistic standard...

Milty said:

To me wither.

Stymie said:

wither...
[Edited 5/14/08 9:53am]

roodboi said:

Like the terrorist group's name, 'The Ten Rings'

roodboi said:

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Stymie said:

...in a heartbeat

roodboi said:

Stymie said:

Yes numbers can be deceiving at times (The Cat In The Hat grossed $100 million ), but this is the rare case where both critics and the general public agree it's a good film.

sextonseven said:

And that's great. I am very happy a lot of peope saw it just for Robert Downey's sake. My only beef is when people try to convince me it was good and ask: you didn't like such and such part? What about this? What about that? They act like I'm disliking it on purpose.

Stymie said:

hater...