Kirkatronics Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 He burned them =] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Just watched this and really enjoyed it. I want War Machine now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 All I'm trying to say is there is no such thing as no meaning in anything created. You 'just' haven't spotted it. You say the film had an 'opportunity to say something important or insightful', but these are utterly subjective sentinents. To what degree should it say something 'important' or 'insightful'? What if the movie was 'important' because it didn't try and use itself as a vehicle to propagate a whatever-life-message or worldly-observation or important-human-nature-thing? What if it was insightful because it introduced a lot of people to a comic book hero whom they'd never heard of? Or heard much about? Storytelling and meaning are inseparable because they're not in the same league. All art is about meaning, and storytelling is one aspect to delivering it. I think comic book movies are more about the charicatures that the characters are. They're not supposed to be hugely complex individuals. Iron Man to me wasn't about the cool fighting or the explosions, but the cohesive characters and their interactions. It was wholly predictable but enjoyable, which is what generic movies should be. I think you devalue comic books and you devalue films when you claim them to be 'just' anything. I never claimed them to be 'just' anything, though. The only time I used th world 'just' was in describing my own post. Now excuse my poor arguing this post, I've just woken up and I've hit me head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 I liked the fact there wasn't a real villain, except Absorbing Man (yes, that's who it was). No way, that was not the Absorbing Man, this is the Absorbing Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Just because he doesn't look exactly like him doesn't mean it wasn't him rok, and after all, he did absorb things =] but as to what he absorbed? um...the hulk...:S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Just because he doesn't look exactly like him doesn't mean it wasn't him rok, and after all, he did absorb things =] but as to what he absorbed? um...the hulk...:S How did he absorb him, taking his powers by touching him, because that's how the absorbing man works. What was in the film seemed a lot more like Zzzax to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haver Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 You're arguing yourself into the ground. I think we all know by now about opinions when it comes to art. That's a different load of boring shit. I'm saying the movie would have been been bolstered by having a stronger message on the weapons-trade line because it would have made the character of Iron Man stronger. And I think (BLAR BLAR) that 'generic' comic book movies (and indeed most successful) in particular rely on a moral (Spiderman, Batman). That's what makes them great. The moral is part of the storytelling in this instance (and I would say in most instances). It certainly wasn't good enough on its own. Watch RDJ on Letterman, he knows it's gash. Yes, it's my opinion and BLAR BLAR BLAR usual shit about subjectivity. It is, of course, easy to argue for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 How did he absorb him, taking his poers by touching him, because that's how the absorbing man works. What was in the film seemed a lot more like Zzzax to me. No, that's how Rogue from X-men works. Absorbing Man can transform his body into whatever material he comes into contact with. See in the film when his hand became metal and stuff. Wiki It says he can absorb traits of superhumans, but that's not gaining their powers. I think if he touched Thing, he'd turn all orange and rocky, but if he touched Storm, he wouldn't be able to control the weather... IIRC. ----- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 No, that's how Rogue from X-men works. Absorbing Man can transform his body into whatever material he comes into contact with. See in the film when his hand became metal and stuff. Wiki It says he can absorb traits of superhumans, but that's not gaining their powers. I think if he touched Thing, he'd turn all orange and rocky, but if he touched Storm, he wouldn't be able to control the weather... IIRC. ----- Thanks for the link. Film The Absorbing Man was featured in an early script of the 2003 film Hulk. [33] In the final version of the film, Bruce Banner's father - David Banner - is depicted as having similar powers to the Absorbing Man, although his powers are derived from nanotechnology as opposed to magic. Similar, but not the Absorbing Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Well they came to the same, but origins were understandably different, (loki was certainly not involved). Who's the enemy in the latest hulker then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Well they came to the same, but origins were understandably different, (loki was certainly not involved). Who's the enemy in the latest hulker then? Abomination. If not the best, then one of the best Hulk villains. :heart: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Oofft, i'd like to see how they deal with that one, he's stronger than the hulk... ANYWAYS, off to see iron man today, i'll keep an eye out for the shield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Thanks for the link. Similar, but not the Absorbing Man. Well for the sake of arguement, he was The Marvel Movieverse equivalent. I highly doubt that it was a coincidence they had the same powers (especially since they said they considered him as a full character). It probably just suited the story better than introducing "the villain" randomly. --- Abomination is stronger than the Hulk, he doesn't get stronger when he gets angrier, like Hulk does, so that's how he always loses. ----- Fave Hulk Villains; (In no particular order) Boomerang - Simply because he's so bad, but actually has a life against Hulk. Abomination - Normally boring "evil counterpart", but I publically clapped for 5 days when it was revealed he killed Betty via poisoning. Absorbing Man - An interesting take on the "strong villain" archetype. The U-Foes - A Fantastic Four counterpart with funnier powers, and are EEEEEEEVil, so are way cooler. Moonstone - A joke psychiatrist, with a fetish for crime. Like how she turned good years later in Thunderbolts. Mercy - Just feels like a massive joke for a Hulk villain. Really mean fairy. So i'm happy Abomination is in the remake/new/non-sequel Hulk movie. Better than The Leader... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 I wish they'd write more Boomerang stuff. Last I read (And in fact only Ive ever read of him) was in The Initiative. Just read this from Wiki. Around this time he also works for the villain Hammerhead. He teams up with the super-powered villain, the Grizzly. Both create new stylish outfits for themselves, Boomerang's resembling a three-piece business suit. Wish I knew what comic that was in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Well considering hammerhead died...(atleast, i think he did...he was caught in an atomic explosion and then was out of sync with time haunting doctor octopus..) so i'd say it was in the mid to late 70s era... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Well considering hammerhead died...(atleast, i think he did...he was caught in an atomic explosion and then was out of sync with time haunting doctor octopus..) so i'd say it was in the mid to late 70s era... No it was recently. Hammerhead has cheated certain death several times over the years. During a gang war with Doctor Octopus, Hammerhead was consumed by a nuclear detonation, a unique chain of events transforming him into a "living wraith" rather than killing him. Hes cheated death a few times (apparently) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 No it was recently. Hes cheated death a few times (apparently) Well, i have the comics upstairs, but the death of him (like i said, atomic ghost thingy) i can't actually remember how that arc ended, with hammerhead dying or not, i have a feeling doc oc (who, by this stage was homeless and dying) killed him with help from spiderman. I stand corrected, doc oc revived him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 killed him with help from spiderman. W...w....whaaaa? *Maybe we should take this to the comics thread lol* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 So the only thing wrong was the movie was that it lacked a stronger stance on arms dealing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haver Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 It would have helped if there were a strong emotional hook, because the storytelling itself was not thrilling. It could have helped it out of the 'incredibly average' movie slot and into the 'better than average' slot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 It would have helped if there were a strong emotional hook, because the storytelling itself was not thrilling. It could have helped it out of the 'incredibly average' movie slot and into the 'better than average' slot. You make it sound like a series of check boxes. Like you sitting there watching the film with a pen and clipboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haver Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 No, I just have an inquisitive mind and I'm passionate about art. So when I leave the theater and go 'I didn't like that' it follows that I ask myself 'I usually like comic book movies, why didn't I like this one?' When I'm in a movie I don't really think at all, no matter how bad it is. I'm totally in there, in whatever world. If I do start thinking about it, I know it is a shit shit shit movie, like when I took my Mum to see Eragon :( Of course, we all know the spiel from Ratatouille about the critic and criticism and I'm well aware of the real value of criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mundi Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 Movies like Iron Man shouldn't be appreciated as a contribution to the art world but as entertainment and should be watched as a form of entertainment not as a message about some global dilemma. Super hero movies sell on the fantasy view point and Iron man was made and marketed as a fantasy movie if that would have been the point of the movie they would have marketed it as an anti-weapons sales movie. But they didn't because that was not the point of the movie. From the looks of your posts your beef with the movie is that they didn't make the movie you wanted to see and looking at the trailers and advertisement they weren't really trying to strife for what you were expecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 Ok, so i saw iron man last night, and in my opinion, it was AMAZING!! i loved it, but i do agree that a stronger voice against the arms dealing, maybe explored that side more, but other than that, it was the best so far. Iron man 2: avengers initative anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 Ok, so i saw iron man last night, and in my opinion, it was AMAZING!! i loved it, but i do agree that a stronger voice against the arms dealing, maybe explored that side more, but other than that, it was the best so far. Iron man 2: avengers initative anyone? Avengers is a seperate movie altogether, however Iron Man 2 is introducing Thor, with the Thor movie out coming out (a few months) after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts