Page 34 of 52 FirstFirst ... 2430313233343536373844 ... LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 779
  1. #496
    Observer Vibranium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    19,267

    Default

    does Ultimate Stark have chest piece thingie?

    I really don't think its "necessary" to have it there, its always served as a plot point in the early years of the character, but not necessary anymore IMO
    Support your local roller derby league

  2. #497
    Hey, Larry! Darrell D.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    11,369

    Default

    Ultimate Stark had a brain tumor, dunno if that was resolved, though...

  3. #498
    The Governator ImpulseUCF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalorama View Post
    I'm not "mixing you up" with anything. I'm responding to what you stated directly to me. And what you stated didn't qualify as "misleading." You said it yourself: "The movie hinted at The Mandarin as showed by Kingsley being the primary villain." That's the same thing the trailer hinted at. The trailer didn't imply anything that wasn't actually in the film. If it had, then it would have been misleading.

    Now, if you don't actually have a problem with the relationship between the trailer and the movie, then I'm left to wonder why you made such a point of trying to dispute a post in which I was basically making the same point. Mysteries of the Internet, I suppose.
    And I'm left to wonder at your micro focus on minutiae and pedantry yet still missing the point. I was trying to be conciliatory, but you insist on twisting my words.

    And don't be absurd, of course it was misleading. Both the movie and the trailer mislead the audience in the same way, is all. Both the trailer and the movie showed certain things but withheld vital information to cause viewers to get the impression that Mandarin was the primary villain in the movie, which is not the case. This is literally an example of exactly what misleading is. The reason they did this is to preserve a plot twist, but this is factually misleading. The definition is below.

    mis·lead
    /misˈlēd/
    Verb
    Cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something

    I mean, trailers are misleading all the time. It's the nature of the beast. The marketing folks often cut trailers months before filming is even done, and they don't even know if all the scenes will make it to the final cut. Also, a trailer's job isn't to be a synopsis of the movie. It's to get people to pay money to see the movie. I have no beef with the trailer doing what it did, but to say you can't see how anyone would find it misleading is willful ignorance at best or not getting it at worst.

    Sorry, dude, you're wrong on this point. I mean, twist some more and argue back if you insist, but there's really nothing more to say on this particular topic.
    Last edited by ImpulseUCF; 05-06-2013 at 01:59 PM.

  4. #499
    The Governator ImpulseUCF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    nevermind...duplicate...just edited original

  5. #500
    registered meethraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mostly here.
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImpulseUCF View Post
    And I'm left to wonder at your micro focus on minutiae and pedantry yet still missing the point. I was trying to be conciliatory, but you insist on twisting my words.

    And don't be absurd, of course it was misleading. Both the movie and the trailer mislead the audience in the same way, is all. Both the trailer and the movie showed certain things but withheld vital information to cause viewers to get the impression that Mandarin was the primary villain in the movie, which is not the case. This is literally an example of exactly what misleading is. The reason they did this is to preserve a plot twist, but this is factually misleading. The definition is below.

    mis·lead
    /misˈlēd/
    Verb
    Cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something

    I mean, trailers are misleading all the time. It's the nature of the beast. The marketing folks often cut trailers months before filming is even done, and they don't even know if all the scenes will make it to the final cut. Also, a trailer's job isn't to be a synopsis of the movie. It's to get people to pay money to see the movie. I have no beef with the trailer doing what it did, but to say you can't see how anyone would find it misleading is willful ignorance at best or not getting it at worst.

    Sorry, dude, you're wrong on this point. I mean, twist some more and argue back if you insist, but there's really nothing more to say on this particular topic.
    You were replying to someone who was addressing the idea that the trailer promised something that wasn't delivered in the film. That was the original point of the whole "misleading trailer" debate, which goes back to the early posts of this thread. Some people believe that the trailer created an expectation that the film failed to deliver. That's different than a trailer helping setup a twist in the film, yes? Surely you can acknowledge that.
    Last edited by meethraa; 05-06-2013 at 02:12 PM.
    P-Man "Does no one remember the NES? Flashing grey screens? Hmmm? Cartridges you had to blow so much that you expected there to be a fifty dollar bill on the nightstand in the morning?"

    Wannabe "It worked better if you slightly licked the game. I know it sounds odd, but it works really really well. At least on N64."

  6. #501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalorama View Post
    They've been making Iron Man comics for 50 years but somehow, after only 4 movies, there's "little more to say about the character" on film? Yeah, okay.

    As for the rest . . . that's what you'd prefer. And that's dandy for you. But there's zero reason to expect Marvel to make their business decisions based on that.
    Ok, so what's the pitch for Iron Man 4? Keep in mind the "coming out of semi-retirement" angle will most likely be played in Avengers 2. Who's the villain, Stane's son? What's the plot, some mish-mash of Armor Wars? Is Tony going to team up w/ the GotG?

    Tony Stark has gone from rich douche to flamboyant adventurer to a true hero, along the way coming to grips with saving the world and becoming comfortable with who he is. And he's found love. Each entry has been a character study in his personal evolution. Marvel certainly could reduce the series to a repetitive string of loosely connected shallow actioners like the Bond franchise, but it would be a complete reversal of everything they've done so far with their characters on film.

    Beyond that, a huge portion of Marvel's success with IM has been directly because of RDJ. He defined the tone of the first IM movie which in turn inspired the tone of the entire MCU. RDJ brought Stark to life, gave personality where there was none. Historically, Stark had always been as milquetoast as Hal Jordan. RDJ imbued so much personality into Iron Man that it spilled over into Hal Jordan's portrayal in the Green Lantern movie. RDJ's Tony Stark is the lynchpin of the MCU. To think Marvel could swap him out, like a penciler mid-story-arc, and not severely diminish its product is a ludicrous thought.

    Marvel would be much better served evolving the character of Tony Stark and exploring the concepts of Stark as SecDef or even Director of SHIELD as a way to keep RDJ involved in the franchise as long as possible rather than just cramming another actor in the suit and staying stagnant with the character.
    Last edited by Pauly T; 05-06-2013 at 02:09 PM.
    "Don't Reboot The Bat!" Keep Going!
    MoS is a PoS.
    Twitter
    The Facebook

  7. #502
    The Governator ImpulseUCF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    But the trailer did, in fact, create an expectation that was not delivered. The only difference is that was intentional to, as you say, help setup a twist. The crux of the matter, though, is that a significant number of people liked the pretense more than the final product, and they are upset about it. Personally, I don't agree that anything was "promised" by the trailers because as I mentioned above, trailers needn't be reflective of the film content, but it's disingenuous to suggest the trailer didn't present the material in a way that would lead people to expect something different. Talk of "no promises" or the trailer showing "nothing that wasn't in the movie" is really splitting hairs and avoiding the plain meaning of the point people are trying to make.

    Anyway, I seem to have wandered into the middle of an argument between the two sides, so I ought to step out of it, I suppose.

  8. #503
    Observer Vibranium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    19,267

    Default

    well if they are upset they can write a tersely worded note or boycott the remaining films...maybe even start an online petition
    Last edited by Vibranium; 05-06-2013 at 02:30 PM.
    Support your local roller derby league

  9. #504
    The Governator ImpulseUCF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    That'll show 'em! :P

  10. #505
    Psylocke's Pal Tazirai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,573

    Default

    Loved it, and even if it didn't live up to Everything I would have wanted. It held my attention, had a great plot twist.. Fortune Cookies anyone? It delivered on dialogue, and character development. I thought it was good, hated seeing the certain things go boom, but Know they'll be back for the Avengers!
    My Armor will Protect me from the brunt of your attacks. But who will protect your mind from mine.
    - (Psylocke)
    My deviantly deviant deviations http://tazirai.deviantart.com/

  11. #506
    Hey, Larry! Darrell D.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    11,369

    Default

    The more I think about it, the more I realize this is the movie that truly makes the statement at the end of IM1 ("I am Iron Man") fully realized.
    It completes the character arc for Tony, in that he stops relying on the armor and begins to trust what he has inside and what he is capable of as Tony Stark, as a true Iron Man.
    He also regains his heart, negating the need for the reactor.
    It really is perfect ending for the trilogy on several levels.

  12. #507
    Elder Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    16,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImpulseUCF View Post
    And I'm left to wonder at your micro focus on minutiae and pedantry yet still missing the point. I was trying to be conciliatory, but you insist on twisting my words.

    And don't be absurd, of course it was misleading. Both the movie and the trailer mislead the audience in the same way, is all. Both the trailer and the movie showed certain things but withheld vital information to cause viewers to get the impression that Mandarin was the primary villain in the movie, which is not the case. This is literally an example of exactly what misleading is. The reason they did this is to preserve a plot twist, but this is factually misleading. The definition is below.

    mis·lead
    /misˈlēd/
    Verb
    Cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something

    I mean, trailers are misleading all the time. It's the nature of the beast. The marketing folks often cut trailers months before filming is even done, and they don't even know if all the scenes will make it to the final cut. Also, a trailer's job isn't to be a synopsis of the movie. It's to get people to pay money to see the movie. I have no beef with the trailer doing what it did, but to say you can't see how anyone would find it misleading is willful ignorance at best or not getting it at worst.

    Sorry, dude, you're wrong on this point. I mean, twist some more and argue back if you insist, but there's really nothing more to say on this particular topic.
    There wasn't anything to say about it prior to your last 3 posts, yet that didn't stop you.

    In any case, don't be sorry "dude" because not only have you not actually established that I'm wrong about anything, you've just spent/wasted however long it took you to type what you clearly think is a rebuttal basically underscoring the very point I made in my original post: The movie presented the information in the same way/context the movie did. It was an accurate reflection of the film's content. It simply wasn't a complete and comprehensive reflection. But anyone who watches a trailer expecting that either has never seen a trailer before or is a complete idiot.

  13. #508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauly T View Post
    Ok, so what's the pitch for Iron Man 4? Keep in mind the "coming out of semi-retirement" angle will most likely be played in Avengers 2. Who's the villain, Stane's son? What's the plot, some mish-mash of Armor Wars? Is Tony going to team up w/ the GotG?
    The Armor Wars story is what the movies should have built up to, an unavoidable showdown between Stark and Rhodes, with the War Machine suit that we saw in the comics.

    Quote Originally Posted by ImpulseUCF View Post
    But the trailer did, in fact, create an expectation that was not delivered.
    The camps are pretty evenly divided. It's a waste of a great villain and Shane Black deserves the proverbial kick in the rear. The Ra's al Ghul comparison doesn't hold water because we still got Ra's, he just wasn't who we thought he was at the beginning of the film. Killian was more Firebrand than Mandarin, and the gratuitous "I AM THE MANDARIN!!!" line in the movie was stupid. The problem with Shane Black is he's still stuck in the '80s and he wrote Tony Stark like a version of Martin Riggs.

  14. #509
    Elder Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    16,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauly T View Post
    Ok, so what's the pitch for Iron Man 4?
    How the hell should I know? I'm not getting paid to write it. But the idea that they've exhausted all possible avenues for Iron Man stories after 3 solo movies and the Avengers when there are 5 decades worth of Iron Man comics to draw ideas from is ridiculous.

    Look, we all get it. Downey is "your" Iron Man and you don't want his work besmirched by some "imposter." That's a particularly myopic, view common to fandom. But movie execs don't live to cater to fandom nor should they. They have a larger view in mind and most of the people in the audience pool that they're looking at aren't going to vow a boycott of any Iron Man movie that doesn't star Robert Downey. The vast majority of people who queued up and bought a ticket to IM3 simply don't have that kind of deep personal interest investment in a summer action movie. They pay their money, they take thier seet, they hopefully have a good time. That's all they want and they don't particularly care how or from whom they get it.
    Last edited by kalorama; 05-06-2013 at 04:12 PM.

  15. #510
    Hey, Larry! Darrell D.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    11,369

    Default

    It was Tony versus the ultimate capitalist; all of the things that he could have become, if not for changing his path.
    The Mandarin was Killian, and The Mandarin in this movie was the perfect manipulator. The reveal of Kingsley character was perfect, and hilarious at the same time.
    This is showing Tony at his most heroic, and this is without the armor.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •