Movie Club: Iron Man

WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE LATEST DISCUSSION THREAD OF THE NEW MOVIE CLUB, DESIGNED TO RUN PARALLEL WITH R.O.C.K.S. A big thanks to everyone that are joining us through all of this.

This week we're continuing the Stan Lee tribute to with Iron Man.

Remember any ideas for films to discuss are most welcome, and should be made on the Movie Club Introduction thread (the sticky one), and anyone is welcome to add their thoughts about movies already discussed on their respective threads.

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that, whilst fans are obviously welcome to passionately discuss and give their views on these movies, please remember to keep things on a friendly footing and respect your fellow posters.
Also, please do not post where or how to find the full movie online. And do not post asking others to PM it to you. You are however allowed to watch the movie in whatever manner you want.

Iron man. The start of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).
Personally I have never had much knowledge or interest in Iron Man.
Aside from one comic and a couple epiosdes of the mid 90's cartoon that was all I knew of Iron Man.
After seeing this movie when it came out I was indeed somewhat interested in the character and did some research.
Robert Downey Jr was perfectly cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man. Aside from completely looking the part the actor also had some real career lows dealing with drugs and alcohol addiction Around the mid 2000's Robert got his life and career back on track and Iron Man was definitely one of his stepping stones.
After seeing the various movies and reading comics etc, I do like the character more...but still not as much as a lot of others.
There definitely is a comparison between Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark. But I admire Wayne's approach more. Stark uses his genius and technology at his disposal to make an invincible suit unlike Batman who mostly relies on his ingenuity, detective skills and physical prowess.

I found the other characters in the movie quite boring. This was all Robert Downey Jr's star power carrying the movie.
Jeff Bridges and Gwyneth Paltrow etc are all okay in their roles but I just found them rather bland. That really is more a problem with the writing than the acting.

The plot of he movie is quite good with a rather faithful homage to the comics with Stark creating a very primitive IM suit that looks very much like the original first appearance outfit. And how he refines the design and upgrades it into the iconic IM look. I also like how Stark's experience made him see the consequences his profiting from war was having on people.

One big issue I have with this movie...well the MCU is that the plot has Obadiah Stane make his own version of IM suits so the final battle has IM face someone with similar powers to himself. This isn't a bad thing in this movie...but is a bit annoying how many time it is repeated in other movies.
Most notably The Incredible Hulk (also released 2008), Captain America, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Captain America 2:Winter Soldier and Dr Strange.

After Spider-Man (2002) previously discussed here, comic book movies again were very hit and miss, and they were mostly misses. Some will have different opinions on these movies but these included the Spider-Man sequels, the two Fantastic Four movies, Hulk, Daredevil, Blade sequels, Superman Returns, X-Men sequels, Batman Begins and Ghost Rider etc.
IM really seemed to be the turning point for Marvel when it was announced that there was going to be a cinematic universe and an eventual Avengers movie which really got lot of fans excited.

Overall I do like the movie and it's quite fun. It just wouldn't be my favourite of the Marvel movies and perhaps that is just because I have never really been that big of an IM fan compared to the other heroes. But this is the movie that basically started the MCU and Robert Downey is a big part to its success. It is definitely the best Iron Man movie. I really wasn't too impressed with the sequels. Although I really liked IM/Stark's character/stories in the the other MCU movies.

My thoughts on the movie aren't that different from those of Mark. I actually didn't know ANYTHING about the Iron Man character or that such a character even existed in the Marvel universe. As I had mentioned in my post in the "Spiderman" thread, I really wasn't into comics in my childhood.

But after watching IM I immediately fell in love with the character! And the main reason for that is Downey's performance. Like Mark said, Downey was perfectly cast and really made the character his own. I liked how his attitude was a lot different than that of most other famous superheroes, like how he openly admits that he is Iron Man, unlike Superman or Batman or Spiderman who all live a dual life. Also, as Mark said, the other characters all were overshadowed by Downey and seemed to be there just for support. However, I really liked Jeff Bridges' performance in this. Yinsen was also a very likeable character.

"Mark M, post: 126412, member: 5058" said:

One big issue I have with this movie...well the MCU is that the plot has Obadiah Stane make his own version of IM suits so the final battle has IM face someone with similar powers to himself. This isn't a bad thing in this movie...but is a bit annoying how many time it is repeated in other movies.
Most notably The Incredible Hulk (also released 2008), Captain America, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Captain America 2:Winter Soldier and Dr Strange.

A great point you make, Mark! I actually hadn't noticed it until you mentioned it. Seeing all those movies employing the same plot of pitting a similarly powered villain against the hero definitely has been used quite a lot by the MCU.

"Mark M, post: 126412, member: 5058" said:

After Spider-Man (2002) previously discussed here, comic book movies again were very hit and miss, and they were mostly misses. Some will have different opinions on these movies but these included the Spider-Man sequels, the two Fantastic Four movies, Hulk, Daredevil, Blade sequels, Superman Returns, X-Men sequels, Batman Begins and Ghost Rider etc.
IM really seemed to be the turning point for Marvel when it was announced that there was going to be a cinematic universe and an eventual Avengers movie which really got lot of fans excited.

Agreed. Marvel took a big risk when they decided to create MCU which would involve so many movies connected together. Especially when many of the Marvel movies before the MCU had been either moderately successful or outright bombs. And without the success of IM, MCU might have died before it started. Before MCU, DC movies were much more popular and successful. I do feel kind of sad at how the DC movies have become these days. As much as I love the Marvel movies, Superman still remains my favorite superhero and i am still waiting for him to get a movie that he deserves. Of course with every passing day it seems less likely to happen.

One thing that I have found to be crucial for any superhero origin movie to succeed, is to keep it simple. Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Iron Man, all did this. They kept the story simple, straight forward and introduced one villain. Many other origin movies failed because they tried to do too much in the first movie, especially by introducing too powerful or too many characters and villains.

I just saw this film for the first time yesterday. Iron Man was not a character I had any familiarity with either, it was all new to me too.

The first thing that's apparent within the Marvel universe - if Spiderman is their equivalent of Superman (both have a blue & red costume and both work for a newspaper), then Iron Man is definitely their answer to Batman - both are eccentric millionaires without any actual superpowers other than what gizmos are built into their costumes.

Speaking of which - how many gadgets does Iron Man have in that big suit of his, eh? It's almost as if James Bond had said to Q, "I want to be a superhero" and Q had obliged! I hasten to add I don't mean that in a bad way!

One thing that stuck out in my mind was how obvious it was, even for a newcomer like myself, that Obadiah Stane was going to be the bad guy even from his very first photographic appearance in the flashback prologue of Stark's early life. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, there were such a small number of main characters that you knew there was going to be one traitor so what the hell. It's when there's a large cast of characters and it's obvious early on who the snake-in-the-grass is going to be that there's a problem.

One thing I really did like was the way the relationship with Pepper Potts was kept on a strictly "will they-won't they" level, and unresolved (at least in this first film, I don't know how it progresses in the sequels but I'm guessing they end up together).

The biggest flaw in this film, as with Spiderman, was the time taken to set things up in the early part. They could again probably have trimmed off a few bits here and there.

Still on the whole, I thought it was all right. The way Stark's character is introduced and how he developed his conscience is excellent, the playboy arms maker who sees firsthand what his weapons are actually doing and realises something needs to be done about it. Also his willingness to admit to being Iron Man - pretty unique among superheroes. Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker all go to massive lengths to hide their identities. This makes for a fascinating departure from the norm. Makes me wonder whether he had any particular motive for doing so. Maybe there's something about it in the sequels.

As for the comment of the big finale between the hero and a villain with basically the same set of powers, yes, it can be overdone, but if used sparingly it would be the perfect finale to the franchise closer. Thundercats' first season ended with "Fond Memories" in which Mumm-Ra became an evil version of Lion-O for the real thing to battle. Of course, that still ended with the usual gimmick but still . . .

Actually the best example of a hero having to face an enemy who is actually a version of himself occurs in Defenders Of The Earth - we covered this in ROCKS 2A-2D, look up the episode "Flash Times Four". Flash Gordon has to beat not one but four robot clones of himself created by Ming. It's arguably his best episode in the whole series (most of Flash's episodes had room for improvement, this was one of the two episodes he had that was top quality).

But I digress - Iron Man. Yes, enjoyable. I think I enjoyed it more than Spiderman or Fantastic Four.

"LiamABC, post: 126414, member: 25438" said:

One thing I really did like was the way the relationship with Pepper Potts was kept on a strictly "will they-won't they" level, and unresolved (at least in this first film, I don't know how it progresses in the sequels but I'm guessing they end up together).

Yes, they do! But I liked their relationship in this movie better than when they get together. It is more interesting here.

Another thing I forgot to mention in my post is that while I loved Downey's portrayal of Iron in this movie, with every subsequent movie I felt that he kept on going overboard with his acting. It was almost as if he was parodying his character from this movie. Tony Stark keeps on becoming more and more of a caricature of himself with every MCU movie that follows this. I believe the term is "Flanderization", and not just Tony Stark but almost all the heroes of MCU suffer from this same problem. I only liked Tony in IM and "The Avengers".

Also, and this is quite obvious and mentioned many times by fans on many forums. Wouldn't it have been easier for Tony to just get the shrapnels surgically removed from this heart? I mean surgeons these days can perform really complicated and intricate operations, surely Tony's problem isn't beyond them. Of course if they did this, we wouldn't have Iron Man, but it just seems like such an obvious fix that the writers simply ignored. Perhaps a short explanation/a meeting with a doctor scene/a line of dialogue as to why surgery wasn't possible would have been nice.

[USER=25043]@Wilycub[/USER] I don't think Downey's acting in the sequels was the biggest problem. The only thing I really liked and good thing I can say about Iron Man 2 is that it introduces Black Widow and War Machine. I didn't like the story but I much preferred it to the complicated boring mess that was Iron Man 3.

"LiamABC, post: 126414, member: 25438" said:

Also his willingness to admit to being Iron Man - pretty unique among superheroes. Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker all go to massive lengths to hide their identities. This makes for a fascinating departure from the norm. Makes me wonder whether he had any particular motive for doing so. Maybe there's something about it in the sequels.

I think he has two reasons for not hiding his identity.
1. He doesn't have any family or loved ones that any villain could hurt to use against him.
2. Even though he is a ''superhero'' he is still Tony Stark and he has a big ego and loves all the media and celebrity attention from being a billionaire and now adding the notoriety of being Iron Man is just the icing on the cake putting him ahead of all the other rich celebrities and superheroes.

You're probably right about his reasons for going public. Tony Stark's ego is apparent from the word go in this film, and even when he's realised the horrors of war for himself he's still got his ego, when he's not invited to his own event he gets mad. And yes, I guess he doesn't have any loved ones that a villain could go after. At least, not at this point.

One other thing that I should mention is that Iron Man's suit is pretty great. It actually looks like robotic/technological armour rather than someone in strange foam/cosplay looking suit. I am not that familiar with the various armours in the comics, but if they had gone with the more classic 60's-80's looks I think it would have looked rather comical/childish that people probably couldn't take seriously.
For the most part in the MCU the Marvel/Disney design team have done an excellent job of making the characters costumes aesthetically real world looking and practical yet still suitable for the character. Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow are probably the best examples. Aside from some added colours and emblems Cap's outfit is still a very practical military outfit.
I think tis is one big fault of Nolan Batman films. With the exception of Batman and Joker and possible Two Face, no one really looks that much like their characters. But having said that aside from awful costumes they all had serious character problems. If it weren't for the names and in the case of a couple characters you couldn't say it was a Batman movie.