Marvel movies

[noetsi]

For those that don't know, Marvel has started to create its own movies as compared to relying on established houses. The first, Iron Man, made a fortune so far. Hulk will start in a few weeks. Through 2011 they plan another Iron Man movie, Thor, Captain America, the Avengers and (strangely) Ant Man. I would guess that a third FF will come out as well.

I was really impressed with the Iron Man movie. They stuck far closer to the actual character than is common in such movies and downy jr (who's live matches many of the habits of Tony Stark) did an awesome job I thought. This was the second movie (the first being Batman Begins) where I actually thought (if the pace of technology continues) at times it could actually happen.

There is a neat scene at the end of the movie, after the really long credits, that most miss which is well worth seeing. I totally missed (despite following Marvel for decades) the SHIELD reference throughout the film

Its worth seeing if you like superhero movies, well action movies generally.

[TylerDurden]

The after-the-credits scene in Iron Man with a certain Marvel character played by a certain 'bad ***' actor was just bleeping awesome.

'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz' director Edgar Wright is tackling the Ant-Man movie. I think I'm more looking forward to that one than I am even Captain America.

[dlb]

I said this elsewhere, but I thought Iron Man was dull and lifeless. Far too much time was spent building the suit and far too little using it to blow stuff up in new and exciting ways.

As an action flick, I thought it was a near-complete failure. An action flick should be a roller coaster ride - lots of thrills, no substance. This movie included way too much plot not necessary to the blowing up of stuff. Beyond that the (interminably) long cave sequence lacked believability.

Paltrow was fun, and the Potts/Stark tension would have been more welcome in a romantic comedy, but here, it simply didn't deliver enough good reasons to blow stuff up. Overall, the film tried too hard in all of the wrong places and not hard enough in the right ones. Wait for it to come out on TV. It surely isn't worth spending any money on.

[DiamondDave]

Wish I would have bought the stock when my best friend and I were talking about it a few years back... but I was in the middle of a separation and divorce, so the timing was just all funky... I had put it in my stock tracker and it is ONLY up about 780% since then

[TylerDurden]

The fanboys were looking for loyalty to the comics and all-around entertainment, not just 'cool explosions' dlb. You want cool explosions sans substance spend your ten bucks on a Michael Bay movie. I hear Transformers 2 will be boring audiences next year.

The action there was was original, memorable, and perfectly directed. Robert Downey Jr. was the exact right guy for that role. And the flick did an excellent job of introducing the character to audiences unfamiliar with Tony Stark, who may not know much about Marvel beyond Peter Parker.

I'd further add that the movie was effective at having an underlying point regarding the War on Terror. That only a small portion of American society, the volunteer US military, has been asked (well, forced) to sacrifice for the cause. And that America is at its best when all elements of her society, including the rich and comfortable like Tony Stark, are committed to both the sacrifice overseas and the debate at home. Hence the importance of that final line in the movie, where Tony admits to the planet that he, the world's most famous billionaire and military industrialist, is Iron Man. Its only partly an impulse of his own massive ego, its also out of a sincere desire to let the world know he shares in that sacrifice. Far more effective at conveying that message than Redford's half-assed 'Lions for Lambs.' Not that thats saying much. 'Smokey and the Bandit' was more effective at conveying that message than that cinematic turd.

What will be interesting is how they contrast Captain America with Iron Man. In the comics they kind of represent the American left and right. Captain America the liberal-minded idealist, Iron Man the militaristic defender of the status quo.

[DiamondDave]

Downey was a great choice and he did a great job...

I am actually anticipating how they are going to be translating Thor to the screen in 2009... IMHO that is going to be a VERY hard one to do right

[dlb]

The fanboys were looking for loyalty to the comics and all-around entertainment, not just 'cool explosions' dlb. You want cool explosions sans substance spend your ten bucks on a Michael Bay movie. I hear Transformers 2 will be boring audiences next year.

"Cool explosions sans substance" does not equal "boring." A good action flick (e.g. the original Terminator) is about building and releasing tension. I only need to know enough about Stark to care whether or not he gets killed.

The action there was was original, memorable, and perfectly directed.

I disagree. I thought the action sequences were staid (the breakout from the cave); lifeless (the encounter with the fighter planes); and silly (the final battle with Stane). They in no way justified all of the dull "substance" that ran between them.

Robert Downey Jr. was the exact right guy for that role.

Downey was good, but I think there are about a dozen actors who could have handled the role just as well.

I'd further add that the movie was effective at having an underlying point regarding the War on Terror. That only a small portion of American society, the volunteer US military, has been asked (well, forced) to sacrifice for the cause. And that America is at its best when all elements of her society, including the rich and comfortable like Tony Stark, are committed to both the sacrifice overseas and the debate at home. Hence the importance of that final line in the movie, where Tony admits to the planet that he, the world's most famous billionaire and military industrialist, is Iron Man. Its only partly an impulse of his own massive ego, its also out of a sincere desire to let the world know he shares in that sacrifice.

This is a real stretch.

[Cochise22]

Originally Posted by dlb

I said this elsewhere, but I thought Iron Man was dull and lifeless. Far too much time was spent building the suit and far too little using it to blow stuff up in new and exciting ways.

Thats what I felt made the movie interesting. It added a small hint of realism to it. Through the failures in testing it showed a sense of being human and imperfect, which is where I feel a lot of superhero movies fail.

Not to mention I found some of the things done when building the suit to be absolutely incredible creative and downright cool (for example the 3D CAD and simulation device was amazing).

[noetsi]

I hate to agree with DD but I think he is right about Thor. I can't imagine how they will do that especially if its set in Asgard largely. Ant Man is a strange choice because that character was never very popular in the comic and for the most part a minor character.

If you like a pure action film than marvel generally is probably not the right place for you. They rose on interest in super heros as people not simply action figures and to me films like this one that stick to that are the best done and most ejoyable to watch. Obviously taste differ, but the movie has made a ton of money.

To me one of the few major departures from the comics in the movie was having SHIELD armed with normal pistols. Not sure why they did that. I imagine SHIELD will be in many of the forthcoming movies. They picked the right guy for SHIELD director......

My guess is that the Avengers will be Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Giant Man and the Wasp fighting the Hulk.

[TylerDurden]

I think Ant-Man is going to be great because Hank Pym is such a minor and overlooked character. He's literally an inferiority complex. A mediocre superhero with all the insecurities that go along with it. That opens up a world of story-telling possibilities. I got high hopes for what Edgar Wright will do with that movie.

[dlb]

So, what, exactly does Ant Man do? Ruin the bad guy's picnic, maybe?

[noetsi]

In the comic he controlled ants and shrunk. The original ant man (Henry Prym) was a scientist who specialized in ants and robotics. He later became, and stayed for most of his career, Giant Man but at best he was a mundane character who's major appearances were in the Avengers and who's major achievements were his marriage (before it failed badly) and creating Ultron.

There was a later character who took over the role after Henry unraveled.

[domat]

Originally Posted by noetsi

In the comic he controlled ants and shrunk. The original ant man (Henry Prym) was a scientist who specialized in ants and robotics. He later became, and stayed for most of his career, Giant Man but at best he was a mundane character who's major appearances were in the Avengers and who's major achievements were his marriage (before it failed badly) and creating Ultron.

There was a later character who took over the role after Henry unraveled.

a movie of the latest ant-man would be more fun.

[noetsi]

Other than the name, I dont know much about the new character

[domat]

Originally Posted by noetsi

Other than the name, I dont know much about the new character

Ant-Man (Eric O'Grady) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia