Jump to content

Iron Man Three a.k.a. Iron Man 3


Peter T Chattaway
 Share

Recommended Posts

Attica wrote:

: 3) Are we really supposed to believe that Tony's suit scans Pepper's eyes before she can use the suit at the start of the film and then near the end any old person can use the Iron Patriot, a suit used by the American military?

FWIW, my wife reminds me that the bad guys had a military contract that included some of the programming for the Iron Patriot's suit, which allowed Tony Stark to hack into the bad guys' network after he used Rhodey's password. Or something like that.

: Then then, they somehow know that it can be controlled by remote control, and do so, even though they have no remote control equipment.

Just wondering, what specifically was the "remote control" bit? Are you thinking of how the President was flown somewhere? That might not have been an active remote control, just a pre-arranged flight plan (like the one that whisked Tony away from California).

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Shane Black on the topic of the Mandarin here:

"What if he’s sort of this all-things-to-all-people uber-terrorist? What if he is the myth, and in the end that is what we’re dealing with, a created myth that [a research group] has perpetuated and cobbled together using elements from popular consciousness. It felt like it said more about the world we live in than just having [iron Man] fight another terrorist, as opposed to putting a spin on it that said something about the way we view terror, perhaps."

Full article: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=78890#VxAI4HT9OPCKrdQM.99

I can't help but be reminded of Batman Begins with the switch from Ken Watanabe to Liam Neeson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Peter said; see comments from my review regarding the relative realism of the terrorists in Iron Man. At all odds, it's a) anticlimactic, c) contemptuous of the source material, and c) leaves the third film without a compellingly iconic villain of even the stature of Iron Man 2's Whiplash. Give me Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell in that film any day over Ben Kingsley and Guy Pearce in this one — and that's not a commentary on the actors generally.

I do think the best performance for an Iron Man villain was Guy Pearce, but Mickey Rourke as Whiplash was definitely the more effective villain for me. Better written character, who I found more interesting, and more intimidating and powerful. The "you breath fire" line coupled with the anticlimax of the Mandarin's identity sucked all interest and threat out of Pearce's character for me.

I found it mildly entertaining, but it couldn't overcome its rough patches. Even the supposedly big finally wasn't all that big to me because by that time, as touched on above, Tony Stark wasn't really Iron Man. He was simply a guy jumping into different suits that were more the computer than him. From a screenplay point of view the protagonist has to be the main person that deals with the problem at hand, but in this film this is regulated too much to those remote control Iron Man suits. They were the calvary that came riding in, to save the hero.

To finish my thoughts. I found it strange that at the end of the film Tony Stark says "I am Iron Man" when he'd just gotten rid of the suits and the power source for them. What does he really mean by that statement?

Great points, Attica. I thought the final line was an excuse to emphasize that Downey Jr. owns the role of Tony Stark, or possibly a Spartacus rip-off, especially after the many suits that could all say "I am Iron Man."

I just realized this. The model number that served as Tony's prototype and as his salvation at the film's end was 42. That's the answer to life, the film, our questions, everything! wink.png

"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few that haven't been mentioned. At least so far as I saw.

1) I gather that we are supposed to believe that the Iron Mans that came to the rescue at the end were trapped under the rubble and unable to get out to help until it was cleared. But that leaves question as to how powerful they were. I find it really hard to believe that they couldn't have made their way out. Why didn't Tony find his way back to his home and simply get them dug out quicker?

"Why didn't Tony find his way back to his home and simply get them dug out quicker?" is essentially the question I've been asking since the day I saw the film. From my review:

…Tony goes for almost half the movie with the armor in a busted-down state (shades of The Dark Knight Rises after all), battling superpowered foes and breaking into fortified terrorist compounds as Tony Stark … and then, at the climax, he suddenly pulls an ace from his sleeve — no, not an ace, a whole royal flush, and then some.

Wait. Tony’s been fighting with two hands tied behind his back while lives were on the line, and, suddenly, it’s revealed that, from the start, he could have gone for the cavalry at any time? It’s far from the only plot hole (or even the only time Tony belatedly pulls an ace from his sleeve — literally in one action sequence, at least as regards the sleeve, if not the ace). But it’s the most maddening.

For what it's worth, the other "ace up his sleeve" moment comes, if memory serves, after Tony has just barely survived the attack of the Extremis-powered female agent who tried to arrest him in a bar (using the old exploding gas trick — pretty well debunked by the Mythbusters, but what the heck), and then he's immediately attacked by an Extremis-powered male agent who briefly takes the kid hostage (but the kid escapes using a gizmo Tony gave him as a bully deterrent, though it seems a lot more devastating than anything you'd want to put in the hands of kids for that purpose) — and then the Extremis guy comes after Tony, who suddenly hits him with a repulsor ray from a gadget literally in his sleeve. So he was packing repulsor rays through both fights with the female and male agents, and didn't whip it out until then? Give me a break.

As well. If all of these suits are there, just waiting to be set loose. Then how is it that they couldn't have flown out and wiped out the helicopters that were attacking in the first place?

That's a wrinkle that hadn't occurred to me. Good thought.

You've made it clear. I think it's just that you and I have very, very different vantage points on the series. I thought the first two films were pretty mediocre to begin with (bordering on outright lousy). So all of these complaints about this new film having a clumsy story doesn't quite register with me. It's like hearing someone complain about poor storytelling in the FAST & FURIOUS films.

I think the first two films are flawed, and I've always thought the first one was a bit overrated, but I certainly wouldn't go along with "bordering on outright lousy." At any rate, if you can't at least agree that there was something quite special and far above mediocre about Tony and Pepper's relationship in the first film — something was worth trying to recapture and extend in the sequels (and present, if diminished, in Iron Man 2, but really lacking Iron Man 3, though beautifully honored in that early scene in Avengers) — then yeah, I guess we have "very, very different vantage points."

Obviously this is already the case with respect to Rourke and Rockwell, whose relationship in Iron Man 2 I find almost as entertaining as Tony and Pepper's. Here's how I put it in my review (I'm pretty pleased with the metaphor at the end of the first paragraph):

Good thing Vanko doesn’t have Tony’s resources, or he’d be even more dangerous. Oh wait, I forgot the other antagonist: sleazy industrialist Justin Hammer (a priceless Sam Rockwell), who’s like a cut-rate Bill Gates to Tony’s Steve Jobs. The unctuous Hammer may not have the genius of a Stark or a Vanko, but he’s got the resources Vanko lacks, and he woos the taciturn, dangerous Russian like a bow-tied freshman bent on taking a Goth biker chick to the prom.

Hammer and Vanko’s uneasy dance rivals Tony and Pepper’s banter for Iron Man 2’s funniest couple, which is saying something. The screwball vibe is even more pronounced in the sequel, with wittier dialogue and even more deadpan delivery.

FWIW, with respect to Rourke and Rockwell's relationship, this bit from an earlier comment may be worth repeating:

In the Iron Man films, we are now 3 for 3 with the following trope (spoiler warning). Two villains: a) a visible, exotically non-American villain (who in this case [Iron Man 3] is not quite as exotic as he seems), and b.) an invisible American villain, an entrepreneur who is the real power behind the visible, non-American villain, whom he is in some way using or exploiting. (In Iron Man 2, though, this relationship was much more interesting and ambiguous than in either of the other two. Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell were each using the other in their own ways.)

That's just part of the reason I find the villain factor in Iron Man 2 to be easily the strongest in the trilogy.

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shane Black said:

: It felt like it said more about the world we live in than just having [iron Man] fight another terrorist, as opposed to putting a spin on it that said something about the way we view terror, perhaps.

Uh, what world *does* Shane Black live in? In what possible world could a guy with a Chinese name and a Southern Baptist drawl represent "the way we view terror"?

FWIW, I've also been having trouble buying into the idea that there could have been so many presumed terrorist attacks *within the United States* -- coupled to messages emanating from *within the United States* -- without the American government actually tracking the Mandarin down on its own. I mean, post-Boston (an attack that occurred without a media component!), that hardly seems plausible.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shane Black said:

: It felt like it said more about the world we live in than just having [iron Man] fight another terrorist, as opposed to putting a spin on it that said something about the way we view terror, perhaps.

Uh, what world *does* Shane Black live in? In what possible world could a guy with a Chinese name and a Southern Baptist drawl represent "the way we view terror"?

Um, how about diversity-worshipping, liberal-spin driven world in which we have to pretend that terrorist attacks are just as likely to come from conservative American Christian extremists as radical foreign Muslims?

hides.gif

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, b.) I complained in my review, "For the uninitiated, the effects of the serum seem kind of random and … non-Iron-Man-y, somehow. Maybe it worked in the comics, but it doesn’t feel of a piece with the first two films." This is not a complaint about the larger "world" that now includes Avengers weirdness, but a complaint about the lack of thematic or aesthetic unity with the first two Iron Man fims. Iron Man 2 credibly extended and expanded the narrative and thematic territory mapped out in the original Iron Man. The existence of The Avengers would not have prevented anyone from making a third Iron Man film that continued this trajectory.

But my point is that THE AVENGERS is now part of the IRON MAN series trajectory.

I don't entirely agree with this. The Avengers itself recognized that each property — Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, even Black Widow and Hawkeye — each had their own vibe, their own milieu, their own flavor. Whedon blended those flavors, yet kept them distinct and individual. Tonally, each was allowed to maintain his or her own identity, particularly in solo scenes like their introductions. When they came together, realities collided, and you got lines like "Shakespeare in the Park?", "He's adopted," and "a super soldier…a living legend who kind of lives up to the legend" that you wouldn't get from those characters in any other way. But when they went their separate ways again, their individual realities reasserted itself.

My feeling is that Iron Man 3 should feel of a piece with Iron Man and Iron Man 2. Thematic territory has been opened and partially explored; finish the job. Whiplash and Rockwell did not come out of nowhere. They are organic extensions of the world of Iron Man. Killian and Extremis are not, opening flashback notwithstanding. Iron Man 3 doesn't offer closure on the first two Iron Man films, and the main plot doesn't connect to anything in Avengers either. (Tony's panic attacks do, but they aren't effectively integrated into the film.) The movie as a whole has a random, tacked-on feel, both as a whole and in terms of its parts.

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter T Chattaway said:

:FWIW, my wife reminds me that the bad guys had a military contract that included some of the programming for the Iron Patriot's suit, which allowed Tony Stark to hack into the bad guys' network after he used Rhodey's password. Or something like that.

Yes. The film did touch on something like that, although it was kind of muddy, at least to my memory. So maybe there was some way for them to access the suit. Not sure.

:Just wondering, what specifically was the "remote control" bit? Are you thinking of how the President was flown somewhere? That might not have been an active remote control, just a pre-arranged flight plan (like the one that whisked Tony away from California).

Wasn't the Iron Patriot interacting with people and whatnot somewhere in that scene though?

:and then he's immediately attacked by an Extremis-powered male agent who briefly takes the kid hostage (but the kid escapes using a gizmo Tony gave him as a bully deterrent, though it seems a lot more devastating than anything you'd want to put in the hands of kids for that purpose) — and then the Extremis guy comes after Tony, who suddenly hits him with a repulsor ray from a gadget literally in his sleeve. So he was packing repulsor rays through both fights with the female and male agents, and didn't whip it out until then? Give me a break.

I was thinking about that business with the kid as well. That was originally intended for high school bullies. Who were also kids. Which touches on another problem. They wanted Tony's interaction with that kid to be kind of funny, but he actually ended up acting like a bit too much of a knob.

I also wondered about the repulsor ray thingy. But at the time I thought that it was part of the suit that still somehow functioned.

But no matter, its an other example of his technology showing up and saving the hero, instead of the hero inside the technology being the saviour - Iron Man.

:I think the first two films are flawed, and I've always thought the first one was a bit overrated, but I certainly wouldn't go along with "bordering on outright lousy."

The first films were flawed but fun. For me they were acceptable for this genre where I'm fine with a bit of a B-movieish vibe. Probably even enjoy it.

In the last Batman movie I mostly had fun during the movie, but then afterwards started thinking, but, but, but, when thinking through the plot holes. In this movie the plot holes were so glaringly obvious that I couldn't get past them during the movie. It should have at least given me some suspension of disbelief because I was busy being entertained by the spectacle. But by the end the plotholes stole from the spectacle.

:Um, how about diversity-worshipping, liberal-spin driven world in which we have to pretend that terrorist attacks are just as likely to come from conservative American Christian extremists as radical foreign Muslims?

Ah. But They can say more of these things about the American Conservative Christians, because they aren't really as scared of these folks bombing them for speaking ill. wink.png

Edited by Attica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also. I'm trying to remember. Wasn't the president moving around in that suit after he was rescued?

If so. Then that would mean that the bad guys captured the president and put him into a functioning Iron Man costume, and that he didn't bother to use its strength to break free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it and had a lot of fun. But as I've thought about it, it's become more absurd and nonsensical, for many of the reasons people have already listed. I didn't see anyone else mention this, but did Tony's act of blowing up all of the Iron Man suits feel like an ultimately empty gesture to anyone else? I realize he did it as a gesture to Pepper, but we all know he's going to build more suits in time for The Avengers 2 and I'm not sure we've seen anything to indicate that things are really going to be any different between him and Pepper once the suits are back. After all, Tony basically admits as much after the final confrontation.

Oh, and as for Tony "fighting with two hands tied behind his back", that's something that could've been addressed so easily with a few lines of dialog. At the climax, when all of the suits show up, Rhodes could've turned to Stark and asked him about it, Stark could've replied with some typical Stark swagger, and the whole thing would've been a bit more palatable. That the filmmakers didn't even try to address the rather glaring gap in logic just seems lazy.

"I feel a nostalgia for an age yet to come..."
Opus, Twitter, Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also. I'm trying to remember. Wasn't the president moving around in that suit after he was rescued?

If so. Then that would mean that the bad guys captured the president and put him into a functioning Iron Man costume, and that he didn't bother to use its strength to break free.

Okay, you just officially made my head explode. The suits are keyed to Tony's retinas and only he (or Pepper, or another authorized user) can use them! Except when the bad guys commandeer War Machine. But when the president is put inside War Machine, he can't commandeer it. Oh, and when Tony's suit swallows Killian, he can't commandeer it either. I guess maybe all this could be rationalized, but if the filmmakers don't care, why should anyone else?

I didn't see anyone else mention this, but did Tony's act of blowing up all of the Iron Man suits feel like an ultimately empty gesture to anyone else?
Yes, I complained about this as well in my review. I didn't raise the specific point regarding the obvious future implications (although it's implicitly part of what I'm talking about when I commented "what happens here doesn’t play as a liberating moment":

In the very end comes a moment that’s meant to be redemptive, to suggest that Tony has somehow conquered a problem he had. It doesn’t work. For one thing, the problem itself was never effectively established. For another … well, let’s just say that while there might be something cathartic about an alcoholic smashing bottles of booze, what happens here doesn’t play as a liberating moment. Then … well, I’ve been trying to avoid spoilers, but I guess I’ll just come right out and say it, so skip the rest of this paragraph if you don’t want to know:

Tony built a fireworks-display self-destruct mechanism into every suit of armor he made. Really? Good thing that never malfunctioned.

Oh, and as for Tony "fighting with two hands tied behind his back", that's something that could've been addressed so easily with a few lines of dialog. At the climax, when all of the suits show up, Rhodes could've turned to Stark and asked him about it, Stark could've replied with some typical Stark snark/swagger, and I think the whole thing would've been a bit more palatable. That the filmmakers didn't even try to address the rather glaring gap in logic just seems lazy.
Yes, Attica said something to this effect:

A simple answer for these problems would be to find out that their was another underground level to Tony's home, where the main computer was busy finishing off work on the suits in order to get them functionable as they were in a worse state than the malfunctioning suit that Tony had. When Tony calls these suits instead of saying "it's time" he could ask "Are they ready". They then could have played on the fact that some of these suits weren't quite ready either and were malfunctioning here and there. It could have been more interesting and maybe a little funny.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also. I'm trying to remember. Wasn't the president moving around in that suit after he was rescued?

If so. Then that would mean that the bad guys captured the president and put him into a functioning Iron Man costume, and that he didn't bother to use its strength to break free.

Okay, you just officially made my head explode. The suits are keyed to Tony's retinas and only he (or Pepper, or another authorized user) can use them! Except when the bad guys commandeer War Machine. But when the president is put inside War Machine, he can't commandeer it. Oh, and when Tony's suit swallows Killian, he can't commandeer it either. I guess maybe all this could be rationalized, but if the filmmakers don't care, why should anyone else?

I thought Killian grabbing and heating up the suit shut it down, and then he somehow reprogrammed it for himself. But that explanation doesn't make sense, because once Rhodes rescued the president, the suit still worked for him. Which brings up one of my first complaints: why couldn't anyone reprogram the cavalry suits and use them against Tony?

"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SDG said:

:Okay, you just officially made my head explode. The suits are keyed to Tony's retinas and only he (or Pepper, or another authorized user) can use them!

Well then. This should give you a group of remote control exploding heads.

When Tony was saved by parts of the Iron Man suit showing up ahead of the others (because the others were locked in the garage) he was able to use the suit before a retina scan, because the helmet was one of the later parts to arrive.

:Oh, and when Tony's suit swallows Killian, he can't commandeer it either. I guess maybe all this could be rationalized, but if the filmmakers don't care, why should anyone else?

That's true about Killian, which I suppose actually explains why they had the whole business of the retina scan idea in the film in the first place and mentioned that those suits were only programed for Tony. It would explain that Killian couldn't use it.

So that makes the retinal scan business not completely sloppy for being in the film in the first place. But surely sloppy in the fact that it was incredibly inconsistent.

Opus said:

:Tony built a fireworks-display self-destruct mechanism into every suit of armor he made. Really? Good thing that never malfunctioned.

And if these suits have a self-destruct mechanism then why didn't Tony command the War Machine suit to self destruct after it had been hijacked? Mind, maybe he couldn't if it now belonged to the military and possibly had also been reprogrammed. But as touched on above if this was relevant then how come the good guys could use it at the end, specifically the military? If they had the capabilities to use it at the end, then they would have been able to tell it to self destruct earlier.

Plus the bad guys wouldn't have known to take away any self destruct programming, because only Tony knew of these capabilities.

My wife and I were out for a drive this evening and I was mentioning that it was strange it is that some of these Hollywood films are made with a 120 million dollar budget or so. But at the start of their production process they don't seem to be willing to buy the writers some more pencils and paper.

Edited by Attica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I think about it some more, I suppose the suit could have known Tony by those thingys in his arm. So that might explain how he could use the suit before he had the helmet for an eye scan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As disappointing as the movie was, these end credits were pretty darn cool:

http://vimeo.com/65621870

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the first two films are flawed, and I've always thought the first one was a bit overrated, but I certainly wouldn't go along with "bordering on outright lousy."

I don't think the IRON MAN films offer much other than opportunities to see Robert Downey Jr. flex his muscles as a master of comic snark.

At any rate, if you can't at least agree that there was something quite special and far above mediocre about Tony and Pepper's relationship in the first film — something was worth trying to recapture and extend in the sequels (and present, if diminished, in Iron Man 2, but really lacking Iron Man 3, though beautifully honored in that early scene in Avengers) — then yeah, I guess we have "very, very different vantage points."
I'll borrow Ken's language from his review of IRON MAN 3: "There is something approaching chemistry between Tony and Pepper." It's better in the first IRON MAN than it is in IRON MAN 3, but it never gets far enough that I appreciate their relationship to the extent that you do. Edited by Ryan H.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It says something that they'd even consider that this might be a good idea.

Edited by Attica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I really just sit through two hours and ten minutes of Tony Stark

not being Iron Man

, and did he really, at the end of the film,

after giving up being Iron Man ala Batman 3 ala Neo at the end of Point Break

say, "I am Iron Man"?

Seriously?

Forreal?

This was my childhood hero. I enjoyed the film because, well, it's Iron Man. But, whatevs. He was barely even

in the armor, and I'm thinking that I could care less about Iron Man if Tony Stark's just got a billion suits on remote control

.

Oh, and PS. If someone were to ask me what the Mandarin's powers were, I'd be like, I dunno. Something about genetics and breathing fire. I'd be all "Duh, look it up on wikipedia like any normal nerd, nerd!"

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, Iron Man 3 already has $664.1 million in the till overseas and is thus already the 2nd-highest-grossing comic-book or superhero movie ever overseas -- behind only The Avengers (2012, $888.4 million) -- and it is also already the #14 film of all time overseas, behind Avatar, Titanic, Harry Potter 7 + 8, The Avengers, Skyfall, Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Transformers 3, The Lord of the Rings 3, Ice Age 3 + 4, The Hobbit 1 and Alice in Wonderland.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine that anyone who actually cares about spoilers hasn't seen the film already -- what with it grossing a billion dollars already and all -- but, just to be safe:

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

Co-writer Drew Pearce discusses the Mandarin:

We actually toyed with a lot of ideas and versions, and I researched every iteration from the comics — not just the ones Shane or I already new from our respective childhoods. But this was honestly the only take on it that we really loved — that felt fresh, and on the themes of the movie. Hiding behind masks, essentially, which is Tony’s big problem. I really believe that where possible, the villain plot should mirror or tap into the same good stuff that the hero’s journey is dealing with. This was the one way we found, through months of discussion that accomplished that ideal whilst also being entertaining and surprising.

Here’s the big thing: going into this movie, Shane said to me that what he wanted from my ideas were “bold strokes”. He said the process of a big studio movie will grind down the sharp edges, so you have to push the big ideas from the get-go. The Mandarin was probably our riskiest — and was never going to please everyone. But it’s an idea I’m very proud of, and I feel we 100% made the right choice.

A lot of people have been wondering what's up with the Ten Rings organization. It was set up as an ongoing threat in the first movie — is it supposed to be something Aldrich Killian created, or something totally separate? Did the Mandarin just borrow some iconography from an existing Ten Rings organization, as part of his habit of lifting symbols from elsewhere?

It definitely exists, both historically and, I suspect, at the time of
Iron Man 3
too. Maybe they’re inactive, maybe they’re plotting their own stuff — but they’re a genuine terrorist threat in the MCU. Hence I can’t imagine they’re particularly pleased about a think tank co-opting their imagery, and mashing them up into this post-modern uber-terrorist…

Now, I prefer to keep a little ambiguity around the concept of a “real” Mandarin, but the movie does clearly state that it’s a centuries-old war mantle that has been used many times before. Maybe it will again. But Killian found it powerful enough to purloin for his creation — and inspiring enough as a concept that it helped shape the Extremis-fueled personality he reinvented himself as. . . .

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine that anyone who actually cares about spoilers hasn't seen the film already -- what with it grossing a billion dollars already and all -- but, just to be safe:

It's been out three weeks. You think anyone who might have waited a whole three weeks before they could find a way to get to the movie must not care about spoilers?

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian wrote:

: It's been out three weeks.

Four weeks, if you count the the global audience.

: You think anyone who might have waited a whole three weeks before they could find a way to get to the movie must not care about spoilers?

Well, if we haven't reached that point yet, then we must be getting there.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess. Maybe it's true of those who are active here on A&F, if not true more broadly.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...