Iron Man 3 was so broken. It really suspended disbelief that the suits would close to hand to hand given that they all have repulsors and other weapons. In addition, I found the Mandarin angle rather juvenile. I rate Iron Man 3 as equivalent to Dark Knight rises where the police officers were fighting hand to hand with assault rifle armed goons. Slapstick.
Good lord. It’s like a bad episode of Big Bang Theory broke out in this thread.
Nerds!
You (literally) asked for it.
Is there any such thing?
I know how polarising BBT is around here!
BAZINGA!
Take it like a man, boy
Iron Man 3 is definitely the Big Bang Theory of superhero movies.
Hmmm, yeah, but … it’s a bit of an anomaly, it didn’t herald a trend or anything. The next great superhero flick was the 80s Batman - just over a decade later, and that still didn’t herald a trend.
I’d say that the first modern-day awesome superhero flick is the first (and second) Raimi Spidey films. I date it thus because that’s when CGI “came of age” in relation to being able to portray superheroic action on-screen. One might say the first X-Men film, a couple of years before, but I don’t think the CGI was quite ready for prime time at that point. By 2002 it was, and the fight between Doc Ock and Spidey in the second film clinched it. Superheroes became a thing that could easily be portrayed on film in their full, action-packed glory.
Another part of the formula for superheroes’ modern-day success (kind of the equivalent in terms of ubiquitousness as cowboy films or war films used to be, and with pretty similar individualistic/heroic memetics) is to have great actors involved. The 1978 Superman definitely pioneered that, X-Men and Raimi Spidey solidified it, but the master-stroke of casting Downey as IM clinched it. But you really need the CGI to make it be a spectacle that the average punter will be willing to come and munch popcorn to.
Now all studios need to get into their thick heads is that you also need a good story (motivations, sense, beginning, middle and end) and an excellent script (flow, pacing, dialogue), and punters be even happier to plonk their asses down. Marvel is getting there, still a bit hit-and-miss, but the extra attention they pay to these aspects (as manifest in, e.g., trusting Whedon to do the Avengers) is what puts them a cut above most other efforts.
There’s a reason why superheroes became a thing way back in the 30s and 40s. That reason is because they’re great fun, and also mythic, inspiring, and a plastic vehicle for whatever subtext you want to stick in there. What we’re seeing now is a slight return, in a wider market, and in a different, much wider canvas/medium, of the same bloom of popularity they saw way back then.
I think that one of the big differences between modern-day super hero movies and the ones from previous decades is how seriously they take themselves.
Now I know that “campy” is a loaded term with lots of different interpretations, but I think we can agree that the 78 Superman movie, it’s sequels, and the Keaton Batman films were meant as light-hearted fantasies compared with the darker, more serious Superman and Batman films of the past few years. There is a massive tonal difference between Gene Hackman’s Lex Luthor and Hiddleston’s Loki, and especially between the Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger Jokers.
The stakes are more serious, more gritty. The characters - fantastic and disbelief-suspending as they are - feel more grounded in reality.
BTW, really enjoyed Captain America. Today I’m taking the one movie I’m most skeptical of for a spin–Thor. If it sucks, I’m coming for ALL OF YOU IN THIS THREAD!
I’ll take “Criminal Misuse of Idris Elba” for $400, Alex.
Nah, he’s great as Heimdal in Thor.
True, he does do a pretty good job of staring straight ahead and orating the handful of lines he has in the three or four minutes he’s in the movie.
I thought he had real presence, enjoyed the scenes he was in, and found myself wanting more. Hard to ask for more than that out of a supporting character.
Come on, anybody could have played Heimdall. They could have put a speaker in a mannequin for what he does in the movie. As for wanting more of him, you could hardly be blamed for that, he’s barely there. I guess he comes off better than Anthony Hopkins, who seems to be barely suppressing yawns between his lines. Hiddleston seems to be the only person actually enjoying himself in the movie.
We get it, Pogue, you don’t like Thor. Well, I do. The actors you find pointless or bland, I enjoy. I think Elba’s Heimdall is an excellent part of the first film.
Well then thanks, I guess, for the unsolicited rebuttal. I guess we’re done here?
Seems that way. When you say a mannequin could sub for Elba, where is there to go?
Dave, what are you doing? You just hand-waved away my statement with an “eh, whatever, not interested” and now you want to re-engage? I would suggest that if you didn’t come to argue, maybe don’t start an argument.
I was just replying to your “I guess we’re done here?” question. There’s no opaque or hidden agenda here.
OK. Good talk. Thor sucks!