[worry]

Maybe give them all a SPACE SURFBOARD that might normalize things for everybody.

[amphibian]

polishgenius, on 08 March 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

I find it odd that the raccoon is causing so much more difficulty to people than the talking tree.

There's a talking tree? Wow.

Maybe the ents in the Lord of the Rings movies conditioned these semi-mythical audiences. These paragons of cinema viewing cerrrrtainly won't get alienated by talking trees like they would by aliens thanks to Peter Jackson and that writer dude whose son hates the movies. Or not-puppets.

[Primateus]

amphibian, on 08 March 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 08 March 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

I find it odd that the raccoon is causing so much more difficulty to people than the talking tree.

There's a talking tree? Wow.

Maybe the ents in the Lord of the Rings movies conditioned these semi-mythical audiences. These paragons of cinema viewing cerrrrtainly won't get alienated by talking trees like they would by aliens thanks to Peter Jackson and that writer dude whose son hates the movies. Or not-puppets.

No, it pretty much just screams "GROOOOOOT" and then tries to smash things, kinda like hulk, but it's a tree.

[worry]

That's pretty cool. If you have wood, or know anybody with wood inside them, then you know how important it is to have that kind of heroic figure represented on the big screen.

[tiam]

Isnt it going to be difficult to pitch Thanos as a legitimate villain when it appears his backstory is him fighting the cast of a heavily armed Ice Age film?

Hope they dont make an appearance in the Avegers. Are the GoTG really popular comics then and Marvel thinks it will transfer over to film?

[Orlion]

Maybe crazy characters work in cinema so long as they don't jive talk.

I still stand by my statements (I'm a stubborn old mule), but I also remembered that a movie(s) about space robots that transformed into various vehicles was a hit with a general audience.


Sooo... Iron Man 3...I noticed the Mandarin was wearing rings in the trailer, maybe he still retains some magical powers in this incarnation?

[worry]

Yah from what I've read he does. But since they cast Kingsley instead of an actual Chinese person, they had to change his back story to fit the name. Apparently he's got a thing for oranges...and he'll stop at nothing to get them all.

[dktorode]

Its strange how serious some of you seem to be taking cominc book characters and their plausibility in the (in your?) comic book world.
A talking raccoon is now any less plausible or more silly than a man that can fly?
Nolan and his batman have somewhat changed peoples expectations/perceptions of what a comic book movie is supposed to be me thinks.

If we are talking about an intergalactic space superhero "team" with only one (i believe) actual human in the squad then it stands to reason that the "aliens" playing the other roles will not look like humans. You would prefer a standard alien stereotype i guess?

In the end tho... each character, be it raccoon or tree alien, will be judged on how awesome/fun his ROLE is, and not on what it looks like.
Like any other film and any other character. Its what they do with the character that makes or breaks it, Jar-Jar was shite because his cahracter was shite. Not because he had those silly floppy ears.

Anyways...i digress.

I do also hope that the mandarin in this IM3 has his powers.
Since avengers has now openeed up the IM world to the fact that there is magic in it. Why not?

[Illuyankas]

I have, I enjoyed it - had flaws, still fun, definitely better than 2 (not hard of course), that big plot development I also liked. 471,940,121,888,147,102 iron molecules out of 601,275,634,443,582,908.

[Ain't_It_Just_]

I saw it a few nights ago. Thought it was a vast improvement upon Iron Man 2. However,

Spoiler

The Mandarin was just a big disappointment in the end for me. I suppose it was clever how he was just a front for the Extremis project but I was looking forward to Ben Kingsley being a badass villain instead of a comic relief character.

Still, great movie and thoroughly enjoyed it And the after-credits scene? HAH!

[Chance]

Wow are they showing another version in foreign lands.

It ain't a good movie, after it me and my friends agreed that each movie should in a honest and resonable universe be rated at half the previous movie's rating.

Biotech simply doesn't look like anything but magic on screen and really doesn't make for very interesting fighting scenes.

[Illuyankas]

You must have hated the X-Men films then.

[Chance]

Illuyankas, on 04 May 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

You must have hated the X-Men films then.

This one felt more like the people behind it decided they had enough of machine vs machine action in earlier movies and decided to try to go with fairly booring fire themed super zombies. I guess the real difference is that powers and stuff in many other marvel movies are fun, interesting and usually none uniform. Fun/Entertaining forgives much, boring does not.

This post has been edited by Chance: 04 May 2013 - 12:33 PM

[Aptorian]

Watched it last weekend. Left me somewhat confused, pleasently surprised by the alternative take on an Ironman movie, somewhat disappointed about the lack of actual Ironman action.

The entire promotional wind up for this film is basically one big faint.

Spoiler

Watching this film sort of felt like a call back to other, older super hero like movies and TV-shows from the 90s, etc. where they didn't have the money to do everything they wanted so they power down the hero and put him in some kind of weird tangle that he needs to over come to return to his prior/ultimate strength.

The trailers suggested that this was going to be a much more personal movie for Ironman, and it certainly turned out that way, just not the way you expect. This isn't a movie about Ironman at all. This is a movie about Tony Stark. It's strange, this is sort of the story I wanted out of the second film, but it's way too PG13 for the story to have any real impact on the audience. I think they could have fucked up Tony a lot more (like they did in the Extremis mini-series), killed Happy and Pepper, re-introduced Tony's alcoholism in connection with his PTSD, etc. but I understand why they wrote the manuscript the way they did.

It was a bit too... well, fucking idiotic, to see Tony Stark run around for half the movie with out his suit, attacking a highly secured military compound guarded by super soldiers using nothing but "Home Alone" style tricks and gadgets. Okay, so his suit is on the fritz. How about he picks up the phone and calls up Nick Fury and bring in SHIELD to handle that shit instead? Or even just the regular old FBI? I didn't like that one bit. Also, you'd think he'd be able to call Jarvis via a phone and make it send him a new suit instead of having to leave it in Alaska or where ever he crash landed. And then Tony and token black guy decide to infiltrate the enemies strong hold using a couple of pistols... seriously. It boggles the mind that this kind of stuff still gets approved during the planning of a movie.

On the other hand I liked the Extremis stuff. It made for a completely different style of Ironman story and a much more unconventional villain. It was nice to not have Tony just fighting yet another mook in a metal suit. Guy Pierce was a great bad guy. My only complaint would be that, as always, I am still waiting for Marvel or DC to make an actual comic book style ending. By that I mean 20 minutes of non stop action where the superhero and super villain knock each other around while the city gets demolished around them.

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 05 May 2013 - 06:29 PM

[Dolmen 2.0]

Aptorius, on 05 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Watched it last weekend. Left me somewhat confused, pleasently surprised by the alternative take on an Ironman movie, somewhat disappointed about the lack of actual Ironman action.

The entire promotional wind up for this film is basically one big faint.

Spoiler

Watching this film sort of felt like a call back to other, older super hero like movies and TV-shows from the 90s, etc. where they didn't have the money to do everything they wanted so they power down the hero and put him in some kind of weird tangle that he needs to over come to return to his prior/ultimate strength.

The trailers suggested that this was going to be a much more personal movie for Ironman, and it certainly turned out that way, just not the way you expect. This isn't a movie about Ironman at all. This is a movie about Tony Stark. It's strange, this is sort of the story I wanted out of the second film, but it's way too PG13 for the story to have any real impact on the audience. I think they could have fucked up Tony a lot more (like they did in the Extremis mini-series), killed Happy and Pepper, re-introduced Tony's alcoholism in connection with his PTSD, etc. but I understand why they wrote the manuscript the way they did.

It was a bit too... well, fucking idiotic, to see Tony Stark run around for half the movie with out his suit, attacking a highly secured military compound guarded by super soldiers using nothing but "Home Alone" style tricks and gadgets. Okay, so his suit is on the fritz. How about he picks up the phone and calls up Nick Fury and bring in SHIELD to handle that shit instead? Or even just the regular old FBI? I didn't like that one bit. Also, you'd think he'd be able to call Jarvis via a phone and make it send him a new suit instead of having to leave it in Alaska or where ever he crash landed. And then Tony and token black guy decide to infiltrate the enemies strong hold using a couple of pistols... seriously. It boggles the mind that this kind of stuff still gets approved during the planning of a movie.

On the other hand I liked the Extremis stuff. It made for a completely different style of Ironman story and a much more unconventional villain. It was nice to not have Tony just fighting yet another mook in a metal suit. Guy Pierce was a great bad guy. My only complaint would be that, as always, I am still waiting for Marvel or DC to make an actual comic book style ending. By that I mean 20 minutes of non stop action where the superhero and super villain knock each other around while the city gets demolished around them.

Wanton destruction is hard to motivate in any movie. The only DC characters I see delivering that scale of destruction would be Superman vs Apocalypse. I can't see any Marvel Hero throwing down to city destroying levels, too much responsible heroing IMO (call me biased, or un-enlightened). Even superman would have to pull punches to avoid loss of human life...You'd need a really dark over powered super hero for that kind of throw down, no one immediately comes to mind. Ironman is and always will be a finesse character so I didn't expect a balls to the walls battle. Ironman, like batman is a brilliant character because of his many limitations and his ability to overcome them, or atleast work around them. I like the fact that they point out the real hero is in fact the mind behind the suits rather than the suits themselves. So yeah I liked this movie.

I really would have liked an epic battle, real earth shattering stuff, but Ironman isn't the hero I'd expect that from. Funny enough I don't expect it much from any hero currently cast.

I suppose my hopes died with That ridiculous attempt at live-action called DBZ evolution...Worst movie I ever sat through.

But if ever there was an excuse to go all out, that was their shot.

[HoosierDaddy]

I liked it better than 2, but nowhere near as much as Thor or the original Iron Man.

Fun popcorn flick (i.e., what a comic book movie is supposed to be.)

[Tsundoku]

I have to admit I raised my eyebrow over the

Spoiler

attacking the compound thing. But then I remembered this: These guys weren't extremis soldiers. Hell, they were just hired muscle, there was nothing to indicate they were anything other than average corporate hirelings. Also, Tony is a freaking genius! He can use all sorts of household shit to hurt you. He never took on too many at once, and think about this: you may be the greatest martial artist in the world, but if you're not looking and I hit you across the back of the head with a baseball bat - you're just as dead/badly injured as if you were taken down by a master.

So ... yeah. Realistic? Not by a long shot. Realistic or at least consistent with the Marvel milieu? Abso-freakin-lutely.

[Studlock]

Haven't seen it yet, but from what I can tell, it's somewhere between the first Iron Man and Iron Man 2 (which I didn't really mind) so it sounds good to me!

As for the people asking about the GofG, I wouldn't say it was super popular (at least not the last run, I'm not sure about the current one which is both only 3 issues in and something I hate) but I will say it is probably one of the funnest and best written pieces of property Marvel has put out in the last decade. It was the Dirty Dozen meets Star Wars meets crazy multidimensional, time-traveling, super-heroic nonsense that only comics can bring to life. From what I understand the movie is based on Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning's run, and believe it or not the raccoon is not some kind of crazy mascot (though Bendis is trying his hardest, damn you Brian Michael Bendis!) but an actual character with goals and feelings. His relation with Star-man is what good buddy cop films are made of. As for the tree, he is Monarch super-genius who can't say anything other than 'I am Groot' because being wood, his vocal cords have harden (his actual words come from how he breaths in and out but I truly doubt that the movie will go that far). Seriously if you can handle Star Wars you should be fine with Guardians of the Galaxy because it's just as fun but nowhere near as stupid in terms of characters, plot and themes (the comic at least, only time will tell with the movie).

[tiam]

Surely there releasing it for a more kid friendly market then if its not the uber popular comic book. Also do comic books make any money in comparison to films?

[Studlock]

Nope, not even close. The comic books themselves don't move that many copies. Make no mistake the money makers are the IP's (which the movies probably make the most money of, then maybe toys?) which Avengers is now probably the biggest one. As for the direction of GotG, I doubt they'll be aiming for anything other than the market of the Avengers. Iron Man wasn't a super well known comic book character until the movies, nor do I really think Captain America or Thor. Really now that I think about it Avengers were never really all that well known outside of comics so who knows what'll happen.