I wonder how they going to handle this in the Iron man movie

[IamtheRock3]

Tony Arms dealing. Cause the director going to keep that in

Which begs the Question to some of you more knowledgble Iron man fans

Who exactly did he sale to. Was it only America and our Allies


if not it be a harder sale to Mainsteam audience in this day and Age of Al Queda and stuff

Was he like Nick Cage charcter in LORD OF WAR.

[Mister Mets]

I'm pretty sure he only sold arms to the Americans.
Which means his hands aren't completely clean.

It will be interesting to see how they play this in the movie.

[agrich]

Why would they touch on anything recent in the movie?

Did the Spider-man movie deal with anything that happened in the last couple decades of Spider-man, really? Obviously the Hulk movie was only distantly related to the comic book. Fantastic Four movie, again, nothing that was any newer than the '60s, even.

I suspect the Iron Man movie, aside from leaving out the Korean War element to his origin, won't touch on anything from the last 20 years of Iron Man comics.

It needs to be said again: the main goal of these superhero movies is NOT to make fans of the comics happy or comfortable with the continuity. That's an audience they've already got. They want people to see it who maybe aren't into comics, and that's why we'll likely get an Iron Man whose flaws and controversies will be limited to maybe a drinking problem for Tony Stark or something.

[IamtheRock3]

Why would they touch on anything recent in the movie?

Did the Spider-man movie deal with anything that happened in the last couple decades of Spider-man, really? Obviously the Hulk movie was only distantly related to the comic book. Fantastic Four movie, again, nothing that was any newer than the '60s, even.

I suspect the Iron Man movie, aside from leaving out the Korean War element to his origin, won't touch on anything from the last 20 years of Iron Man comics.

It needs to be said again: the main goal of these superhero movies is NOT to make fans of the comics happy or comfortable with the continuity. That's an audience they've already got. They want people to see it who maybe aren't into comics, and that's why we'll likely get an Iron Man whose flaws and controversies will be limited to maybe a drinking problem for Tony Stark or something.


The arms dealing was pretty early in his career. That was his Job. And the director SAID he would deal with it

He actully said the drinking thing may not be a MAIN plot point for the first movie sense its an orgin. Tony didnt really getting falling down drunk till later

[niall mc cann]

Why would they touch on anything recent in the movie?

Did the Spider-man movie deal with anything that happened in the last couple decades of Spider-man, really? Obviously the Hulk movie was only distantly related to the comic book. Fantastic Four movie, again, nothing that was any newer than the '60s, even.

I suspect the Iron Man movie, aside from leaving out the Korean War element to his origin, won't touch on anything from the last 20 years of Iron Man comics.

It needs to be said again: the main goal of these superhero movies is NOT to make fans of the comics happy or comfortable with the continuity. That's an audience they've already got. They want people to see it who maybe aren't into comics, and that's why we'll likely get an Iron Man whose flaws and controversies will be limited to maybe a drinking problem for Tony Stark or something.

But didn't Tony start life as an arms dealer?

That's not a recent addition; it's been there all along, surely?

[MaxofSteel]

But didn't Tony start life as an arms dealer?

That's not a recent addition; it's been there all along, surely?

Yea I think that's how he got captured in the first place. As a weapons specialist, the terrorists (or whoever) kidnapped him, but he ended up making the first IM suit instead.

I'm not too familiar with my IM history, but I think that's what happened.

[Serik]

Yes, Tony as a weapons manufacturer has to be in the film because that's how the character started. It wasn't until later that Tony got out of the arms business. But I’m sure he’s been in and of it over the years.

I always imagined that the early Stark Industries was like Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman.

[Gargus]

A arms dealer doesnt make you a automatic bad guy.

Besides he sold weapons to the us and shield in the comic. A couple simple telephone calls or maybe a memo his secretary reads wraps that all up in one small scene.

Him selling weapons is a very small, almost non important segement about tony stark. I mean I know its a explanation of his wealth and such but isnt a big deal really.

Last batman movie showed bruce wayne and his company in the production of military weapons and it was a quick playoff that fed into the basis of his gear and wealth without going into any real detail.

I guess I dont see the problem here really.

[batturtle]

Yes, I have been curious as to how the filmmakers are viewing the current Civil War /Iron Man arc...if any aspects from it might show up on the big screen or if they care about it at all?

Especially since it seems like there's no way that Tony's getting out of this without being totally villified.

I guess there's been some speculation that he might even die and that it's someone else in the Iron Man armour for the new Avengers book. I can't imagine that marvel would allow that to happen though considering how they always seem to like to fall in line with what happens on the big screen (example: Spidey's organic webshooters).

I'll be seeing it more as a fan of the director and actor than the character to be truthful.

[Serik]

I doubt the film will deal with the Civil War aspects of Tony because that would require too much backstory for general audiences. And while I haven't been following the Civil War thing, I think it would be silly for Marvel to kill off a star character before a movie release (unless they plan on rebooting IM again to coincide with the film).

[StoneGold]

Him selling weapons is a very small, almost non important segement about tony stark. I mean I know its a explanation of his wealth and such but isnt a big deal really.


Actually, for Tony, it's a huge thing. Stan said it himself. Tony Stark was a guy who, by all rights, should have been the bad guy. He was an arms manufacturer. In the 60s. Kind of the opposite of Dr. Strange there.

But by losing his heart, he found his. And eventually, he takes himself out of the arms game. Granted, a lot of this was written significantly afterwards, but as far as a movie goes, it's part of the main arc. It's what makes Iron Man different from being just an action hero in a metal suit.

[The Batman]

Yeah there's alot of places they can go with the arms manufacturer/dealer angle beyond just having it be a reason for Stark to be in a bad place at a bad time to get that heart injury that makes him need the armour. It's a way of giving him a character arc and a relatively interesting one at that. Frankly I'm surprised that they're including this. I'd have expected them to play it a little safer like they did with Banner in the Hulk movie.

[niall mc cann]

A arms dealer doesnt make you a automatic bad guy.

Besides he sold weapons to the us and shield in the comic. A couple simple telephone calls or maybe a memo his secretary reads wraps that all up in one small scene.

Him selling weapons is a very small, almost non important segement about tony stark. I mean I know its a explanation of his wealth and such but isnt a big deal really.

Last batman movie showed bruce wayne and his company in the production of military weapons and it was a quick playoff that fed into the basis of his gear and wealth without going into any real detail.

I guess I dont see the problem here really.

Unfortunately for tony, though, he did.

it's kind of fundamental to his early characterisations that he can't rationalise it away.

[Rik Levins]

Yes, I have been curious as to how the filmmakers are viewing the current Civil War /Iron Man arc...if any aspects from it might show up on the big screen or if they care about it at all?

Especially since it seems like there's no way that Tony's getting out of this without being totally villified.


Yellow Fear Monster.

[Agent Helix]

Yellow Fear Monster.

The Vietnam War?

[Jmacq1]

I'm sure they'll come at it pretty straightforward:

He'll start the movie as an arms manufacturer for the U.S., and by the end of the film will have a change of heart and stop selling weapons.

It really isn't that difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if he's played up as an arrogant jerk for the early portions of the movie, so that he comes around to being a hero by the end. It's as much about Tony's change in outlook and behavior as it is about building the super-suit.

[kalorama]

Just to be clear:

He was a weapons designer and manufacturer, not an arms dealer. The former term is most often applied to legitimate corporations and munitions manufacturers who work under contract with the government. The latter term is generally applied to black market gun merchants.