Great trailer. Lots of fun. Movie could be anywhere on the map.

The comic-book/Black Sabbath convergence pushed Dave buttons for Suz. He would have loved that trailer.

I showed the trailer to my two oldest boys the other night. It was nearly as fun watching their faces as it was watching Robert Downey Jr. wailing away in that clunky suit. Afterwards both kids asked me fervently, in unison, "Dad, WHAT WAS THAT SONG???" immediately followed by "Can I have it for my mp3???"

Favreau knows what he's doing with this project, I believe.

I've always had faith in Favreau as a director, and--if trailer is any indication--I think he's going to blow people away with the movie. I'm VERY excited.

This reminded me of the DC hero to whom Iron Man is often compared: Batman, the billionaire industrialist with no innate superpowers.

But Tony Stark is worlds away from Bruce Wayne, isn't he? Whereas Wayne affects a decadent personality, a la Scarlet Pimpernel, to mask his true motives and activities, Stark really is a lech and affects an heroic character to do good. Whereas Bruce Wayne is in peak physical condition, Stark is nearly dead with a defective heart (metaphor?), needing the iron suit to give him abilities.

Or maybe my knowledge of Iron Man is too dated.

No, you're right on Marvel's latest depiction of him in The Ultimates, which by the suit design, seems to be the line inspiring the movie.

Well, I wasn't sure. IIRC, in the original IM, Stark invented the iron suit not out of any violent necessity or desire to stop bad guys, but it was instead a vest designed to keep his heart beating...pure self-interest. That (the heart problem) wasn't really mentioned in the trailer (although there was the 'hearbeat' sound following the IED, and the line "I should already be dead...").

Question: Given that Stark is basically a capitalist pig, why doesn't he mass produce the suit for the U.S. military?

Maybe he grows to like being a hero?

Paramount grounds 'Iron Man'
Superhero flies in trailer but won't in film
Variety, September 14

Crash and burn.

That is such a toweringly stupid decision, they HAVE to rethink it.

I'm not so sure. This seems to be one of the most inaccurately titled articles I've read in quite a while, unless my comprehension skills are grounded today. Reading the article, it looks to me like all it's saying is that these *particular* shots aren't likely to be in the film, but nowhere does it suggest in the article that other (better?) flying sequences won't be featured....

Good call, Solishu. You're right, the article doesn't say anything like that -- it's just the sub/head, which is usually tacked onto the piece by an editor who didn't write it or do the research.

The idea really seemed too stupid to, er, fly -- it wouldn't surprise me if some studio exec really had said such a thing, but I honestly would be surprised if any such decision weren't pretty quickly eighty-sixed. Iron Man will fly. Even if the movie sucks, and that could go either way AFAIC, he's got to fly.

I suspect (Variety writer) David S. Cohen may be pretty annoyed at his editor right now.

It's kind of ironic for an article about trailers that contain material that won't be in the real movie to have a title containing material that doesn't show up in the real article

Director Jon Favreau answers this question on his MySpace page:

William Hurt Says New Hulk Is More Heroic, Reveals Iron Man Crossover Scene
William Hurt is a consummate actor and a closet (until now) comic book geek. Both of which explain his excitement in revealing a bit about one surprise scene he shot for this summer's "The Incredible Hulk."
"I have a scene with Iron Man, with Robert Downey Jr.," the Oscar-winning actor told MTV News Friday at the Sundance Film Festival. "It's a funky scene."
For those who haven't heard the news, superhero house Marvel Comics is aggressively cross-pollinating its superheroes, most likely in preparation for an eventual "Avengers" movie. That means Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury will make a cameo appearance in May 2's "Iron Man," and ol' metalhead himself will drop into "Hulk." Little has been said about the scene -- until now.
"I don't know how it'll work," Hurt admitted, saying it was a thrill to appear as General Thaddeus Ross during Downey's scene. "I know it's weird [to work with a character from another movie], and to know it's a device. We did something; I don't know what that's going to be like [to watch]."
MTV Movie News, January 19

I was looking forward to the TV spot during the Super Bowl, but it kind of underwhelmed me. The last sequence, with Iron Man destroying a tank, looked unnatural and videogame-like.

What Crimson said.

What SDG said.

It was lackluster, but it could've been worse. It could've been Daredevil.

What opus said.

I've been noticing with recent action films that trailers containing "money shots" are showing us very, very unfinished versions of those shots, and when the movie finally arrives, the effects are much better than expected. I'm hoping that's the case here. I really liked the trailer. A perfect teaser.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: I've been noticing with recent action films that trailers containing "money shots" are showing us very, very unfinished versions of those shots, and when the movie finally arrives, the effects are much better than expected.

And not just action films. I'm pretty sure the trailer for Zodiac shows a CGI aerial skyline shot of San Francisco that looks somewhat incomplete compared to the version of that shot which appears in the finished film. (I just watched the "director's cut" of that film, and all the bonus features, a couple weeks ago, so I'm semi-certain about this.)

Here's a fun series of three amazing computer-animated shorts starring Spider-Man, Iron Man, and a cool guest star. Click on "Iron Man's Adventure" and its sequels. There's almost as much fun in these three little shorts as in all of Spider-Man 3!

This is really cool. Any idea where it came from? I've seen an Iron Man cartoon available in the local Blockbuster, and if these are from that then I will rent it immediately.

According to the talkback on the SuperheroHype bulletin board, these are done by the same people and using the same graphics engine as the Marvel Ultimate Alliance video game.

Holy guacamole dip!

Sideshow Collectibles' Lifesize Iron Man Bust



Anybody who wants to buy me a gift and has $700 to blow on it now knows what to get me.

Four new pictures.

Jeez. Jeff Bridges looks like recent photos of Peter Gabriel.

Overstreet wrote:
: Jeez. Jeff Bridges looks like recent photos of Peter Gabriel.

Heh. Yeah, I did a double-take or two on that one. Recognized the face, sort of, but couldn't quite place it... Quite the contrast with the shaggy-haired Dude, eh?

The Mark I, Mark II, and Mark III armors all appear on this latest poster:

Woohoo!! The new trailer, in HD.

That final "money" shot was definitely unfinished for the Super Bowl spot. The trailer they showed last night during Lost had the same shot and it looked much better. More natural and consistent with the overall look of the rest of the film.

I know virtually nothing about Iron Man, but I am really digging Robert Downey Jr. in this film. Every time he is on screen in the trailer, I am interested. I hope the movie lives up to the stuff I've seen so far. I have a lot of confidence in Favreau and company.

Looks GREAT! Wow! Downey is excellent! I love his interactions with the robots, and his running monologue. Very cool.

Someone's impressed:

I saw IRON MAN yesterday. I have never read the comic and know almost nothing about the character. But I had seen some clips of Downey developing the suit and was amused. Well I can report the movie is terrific. It is a thinking person's superhero film with more character development than special effects and action scenes (though there are plenty of those which are nicely balanced so we get involved in the story rather than bored by non-stop effects.). Downey is terrific...funny, smart and charming...and very buff. Paltrow seems right out of 60's superhero comics or Money Penny from early Bond: proper and subservient assistant who is smart below the surface and more than a little enamored of her boss.

It should be a hit but 200 million is a long way to go when it is undercut in subsequent weeks by more blockbusters.

David Poland looks at this movie's prospects in the context of others that have opened in the first week of May over the past decade.

From some comments I just sent to a friend, FWIW, with only hints of what I thought of the film:

All of [my thoughts on the film] aside, the movie doesn't play like gangbusters. Far from it. I could feel the audience wanting to like it more than it did. I think they came out generally satisfied -- that's just my sense -- but there were l-o-n-g stretches where not much happens, and the crowd was very quiet. I'm all for story development, but that's not good for an action film.

This comment will probably look foolish after the film grosses $100 million this weekend, but oh well. I see it's already at 89% "fresh" at RT, based on 20 reviews, many from people I respect.

EDIT: Ah, I see Dave Poland has reacted harshly to the film:

This appears to be the Pass movie of the early summer for critics. Is it because of Downey or the middle-aged hero or talk about a huge opening or the use of the Middle East and the half-ass political arguments of the film that play out hypocritically but pay active lip service to liberals… I don’t know.

One of my big beefs is how the movie treats another segment of the popluation, but I'll save that for later.

A day before opening, it's up to 94% "fresh" at RT. 94%!

92% cream...but stilll very promising!

Jeffrey Wells: "This movie doesn't deserve a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 94% from the regulars and an 88% from the elites. It's more a B-plus type of thing. Which is not a put-down."

I seriously was expecting some critic love, but more in the 50% range...I thought the elites would slam this and it would do well with the public...the critic love makes me think it will now fail with the public.

B+ is being generous, but I realize I'm a curmudgeon who doesn't respond well to most superhero movies. This one traffics in sexual and racial stereotypes that wouldn't have bothered me 10 or 15 years ago, but they bug me now -- even though I'm not supposed to think about things like that while watching a "fun" summer movie.

Peter: Your wife saw it, right? Was she at all bothered by the portrayal of women in the first 30 minutes of this film?

Christian wrote:
: Peter: Your wife saw it, right? Was she at all bothered by the portrayal of women in the first 30 minutes of this film?

I asked her not to tell me anything about the film until I see it for myself, but I gather she liked it, overall. I'll ask her about that once I've seen the film.

Don't forget to rate this work by clicking "Rating", above, selecting a rating, and clicking "Rate". When five users have submitted a rating, the group rating will be displayed.

For guidance on selecting or understanding ratings, please click here.

A reasonable expectation when critics jump on board... but wrong in this case. It will be a very solid performer, I think. Those who have been anticipating its release will not be disappointed.

Gotta love nepotism. Halfway through the movie, I found myself pondering the fact that its three biggest names are all the offspring of actors/filmmakers. Robert Downey Jr. is, of course, the son of independent director Robert Downey Sr. And Gwyneth Paltrow -- who, for the first time ever, reminded me of Mia Farrow (herself the daughter of Hollywood actors) -- is the daughter of Blythe Danner (perhaps best-known now as Robert De Niro's wife in Meet the Parents/Fockers) and TV producer-director Bruce Paltrow (whose last feature film, Duets, co-starred Gwyneth and gave her a hit single with Huey Lewis). And Jeff Bridges is the son of Lloyd (and brother of Beau).

I also found myself thinking how director Jon Favreau, who has a bit part as one of Tony Stark's buddies/employees, had played Ben Affleck's friend in another movie based on a Marvel comic, Daredevil ... and how Affleck and Paltrow used to date each other circa their co-starring in Shakespeare in Love, ten whole years ago. (And of course Daredevil brought Affleck together with his now-wife, Jennifer Garner, who played Elektra in that film and its spin-off.)

I'm sure I'll figure out some way to tie Samuel L. Jackson into all this.

Affleck + Jackson = Changing Lanes... don't know if the two were dating at the time

My review.

FWIW, Christian, my review touches on the film's portrayal of Tony's womanizing, although not "stereotypes" per se.

Good review...definitely encouraging. I am thinking about going after work today. I understand why so many super-hero films are origin stories...but it seems to often result in troubled endings as you noted SDG. I agree Batman Begins and X-Men are more successful attempts.

Yeah, that's a nice review, Steven. I had noted the Bond comparison in mentioning the womanizing aspect of Iron Man to friends earlier, but that's yet another franchise that I have little experience with. It seemed to me that viewers allowed Bond to get away with that because the early films were set in a time where that sort of swaggering sexuality wasn't questioned (whether Bond won over the villain's girl or some other girl) or, later, because viewers had simply accepted that sort of thing as part of the Bond culture.

(Incidentally, I remember something about how the Bond franchise moved away from that for a time in the 1980s and 1990s, as a response, IIRC, to the AIDS epidemic and to STDs.)

I appreciate you noting that the film's final act doesn't work. I had problems with the second act as well; the pacing seemed way too slow. It's the first act that I think is by far the best, but other reviews I've read single out the cave/imprisonment aspect as the film's weak link.

As I've read the "positive" reviews, I've noted many that contain gigantic caveats that the reviewer is willing to overlook. I just checked RT and saw that it made the correct call in assigning Ann Hornaday's review a "splat." She likes Downey and some of the film, but I've seen RT rate this type of review as "fresh" before:

It succeeds only fitfully.

Toggling between Stark's impish goatee and Iron Man's full-metal body condom, and amid so many generic fireballs, kill shots and earsplitting thumps, bumps and crunches, the film finally collapses under its own weight. It's possible to see a decent franchise in "Iron Man" with Downey at its troubled center; the key is getting rid of the scrap metal.

And then there's Tony Scott's review, which I haven't read. It's rated "fresh," but the brief excerpt at RT has a major caveat:

Iron Man is an unusually good superhero picture. Or at least -- since it certainly has its problems -- a superhero movie that's good in unusual ways.

I ended up writing what I thought was a negative review, but my editor, upon reading it, told me, "It sounds like there's more good than bad here." Ah, well. Sometimes the review surprises even the writer. But like Hornaday, I concluded on a note of hope for future installments:

A few lines of dialogue hint at more provocative themes for a potential sequel. What do we do when we discover our purpose in life, and how public should we be about that purpose? Stark, a reformed playboy, tells Pepper, “I shouldn’t be alive—unless it was for a reason. I finally know what I have to do.” The film’s ending declaration leaves us wanting another chapter in the Iron Man saga, despite the drawbacks associated with this first attempt.

Which reminds me of why I wanted to post today in the first place. It does seem to me, reading Steven's review, that people familiar with the franchise are willing to give this film the benefit of the doubt because they know what's coming later. I see hints of that, as noted above, but as someone unfamiliar with the franchise, I don't put Tony's excessive behavior into a context of what might come in some future film. Yes, there's a progression within this film, but I think it's being overstated by fans of the franchise. I think the filmmakers want us to enjoy Tony's bedding of the reporter, and his quips about sleeping with every Maxim (or was it FHM?) cover girl. His moral awakening in terms of war/peace is never matched by an awakening as to his addiction to women/wine/gambling. There are some glimmers that he might yet straighten out, but I didn't credit this film with things that might develop in future films.

EDIT: Oh, interesting. Just read Kenny Turan's negative review, and discovered this:

But though "Iron Man" is diverting enough in the comic-book-movie mode, there is one thing it doesn't have, and that is dramatic unity. Unlike the irreducible element that is its namesake, "Iron Man" the movie is an alloy, a combination of several different and disconnected components that don't manage to unite to make a coherent whole.

Though this feeling is inescapable throughout the film, a key part of the reason isn't clear until the final credits reveal that two different teams of writers (Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby, and Art Marcum and Matt Holloway) worked on the film. And not just worked on it in any conventional way. As an article in Script magazine details, they happily toiled without meeting on separate-but-equal versions of the script that were eventually merged by Marvel and the director.

However, you must admit that the movie also debunks this scene in several ways: [a] the absurd rather than sexy freneticism of the brief bedroom scene, [b] the discomfiture of the morning-after scene, including Pepper's assessment of the reporter, [c] Tony's manifestly low behavior hiding out in the basement workshop, and [d] Tony's panic seeing the reporter on a future occasion. Plus, the chemistry between Tony and Pepper is where the movie's real interest lies.

If we are meant to "enjoy" Tony's bedding of the reporter, I think at least part of what we "enjoy" is the characterization of Tony's shallowness and by extension the debunking of celebrity culture generally. It is meant to be outrageous and a little disgusting; at least it is not wholly glamorized.