The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: Death Ray on May 03, 2008, 08:32:31 pm
-
Saw Iron Man yesterday. Time-released capsule review follows.
R.Downey Jr. : born to play Stark. Great banter, hits the smarmy comedy notes like Beethoven. Opening origin: good. Building the next gen suit: better. Lotsa sleek CGI, worth the POA.
Last act: crumby. The villainous plot laid by double-crosser Jeff "Rasputin" Bridges is more of a thumbnail sketch than a scheme. No suspense, nothing really at stake. The final duel between Iron Man and Iron Hulk evokes the ending of RoboCop 2, with less adrenaline.
Stick around for the serwacki that comes after the credits role. Had the crowd hooting.
-
I saw this last night. I was duly impressed with the job Favreau did. Downey Jr's characterization was pitch-perfect. I agree with you that the last bit was a little rushed, but overall one of the top 3 comic movies in my book.
-
Third act was weak but... Downey as Stark, Downey IS Stark carried me through it.
The political statement it was trying to make about weapons in the world was so muddled that I almost wonder if that WAS the statement but... again. Downey living and breathing as Tony fuck*ng Stark got me past it.
Paltrow and Howard as cardboard standees? Sure. But I am a nerd and he WAS Tony Stark.
The fuck*ng ridiculous Burger King product placement took me out of it for a long time, actually, but... c'mon, they named the KITT rip-off "Jarvis" for fuck's sake. For fuck's sake.
I'm waiting for the call from my dad, when he sees this... "not that I'm prejudiced but Nick Fury ain't black"... because my dad is an old-school nerd who stopped keeping up when he had kids to feed.
-
I really liked the article on Slate about how the Iron Man character is basically all about how Awesome capitalism is. I have not seen the film.
-
It's really a lot more about... the comic book fantasy of capitalism as handled by people who learn to use it humanely and, I mean... in the real world, after a generation, anyone like that is shuffled out to make the profit margins fatter.
With great power comes great responsibility but... generally, if you use power responsibly, it gets taken away from you somehow as that messes shit up for everyone else digging on using great power in a grotesquely-irresponsible manner.
-
Nah, comic books are always about good guys vs. bad guys. The fact that we can have good guys and bad guys that belong to every point on the political spectrum (and these days are more and more conflicted about where they fit in and if they even want to) delivers a message that ideology and philosophy does not define morality and the bad guys are usually the ones who are unable of seeing the other guy's point of view.
Except maybe for the Question, but then they even turned him into a damn hippy (which kind of spoiled the character I think but then I'm always cranky about crude aping of eastern mysticism).
-
You gotta understand America, though, Doc.
If we didn't have the crude aping of Eastern mysticism, we'd have...
We wouldn't have much culturally at all.
Mayonaisse and Wal-Mart. That's really all Dominant American Culture would have left.
-
Mayonaisse and Walmart could say a lot about any culture when you think about it. Especially if you approach it as 'So what happened to let these things come into existence?'
-
Iron Man is the Objectivist hero, albeit less so in this movie (possibly because his archenemy, communism, was unavailable for the role at this time). He is a brilliant capitalist whose innovation is indispensable to the company and has led to limitless wealth for him, and he fights the ideology that threatens his business interests, and everything works out well as a result.
Now, I'll note I like Iron Man, but I've got to say that's a lot closer to Atlas Shrugged than any of Ditko's overtly Objectivist heroes.
-
I just watched Iron man a couple of hours and a few of jugs of beer back. I liked it, one of the people I saw it with said it should have had more action but more action would be eaten into Tony Stark time and I couldn't abide that. I'm not sure whether I want there to be a sequel (though they made it clear they intend to make one) as that could just dilute Robery Downey Jnrs awesomeness.
That said post movie discussion involved an avenger's movie starring Toby McGuire, Downey Jnr, Sam Jackson and Edward Norton and that made my geek parts sit up and pay attention. Probably never happen but it would be a beautiful thing if it did.
-
Wait a minute, what's wrong with mayonnaise???
-
There is something fundamentally right on a board where a discussion of condiments automatically trumps a conversation on politics.
-
Also note that if there is something wrong with mayonnaise, the French are to blame.
-
I haven't seen it yet but I want to know if they maintain the story that Iron Man is just an employee of Stark Industries.
And they have to have at least one sequel just so that they can bust out War Machine.
-
Also note that if there is something wrong with mayonnaise, the French are to blame.
Specifically this guy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_François_Armand_du_Plessis%2C_duc_de_Richelieu)
I've read that he was more famous in his own time for hosting massive orgies at his manor and suchlike. Whether or not these involved mayonnaise, we may never learn.
-
I haven't seen it yet but I want to know if they maintain the story that Iron Man is just an employee of Stark Industries. And they have to have at least one sequel just so that they can bust out War Machine.
Both of these issues are... addressed.
-
I just watched Iron man a couple of hours and a few of jugs of beer back. I liked it, one of the people I saw it with said it should have had more action but more action would be eaten into Tony Stark time and I couldn't abide that.
See, the thing is that Tony's actual super ability isn't that he has power armor, it's that he's an inventor who can make power armor. To me, scenes of him building the Iron Man suit are more essential to the character than scenes of him fighting in it.
-
Last act: crumby. The villainous plot laid by double-crosser Jeff "Rasputin" Bridges is more of a thumbnail sketch than a scheme.
I've got a *****ic suit man! My new suit and shit... man, industry... in the parlance of our times, you know, and uh, uh, the board and investors, that's, that's cool, I'm, I'm saying, we need money, man. I mean uh... hasn't that ever occurred to you, man?
-
I've got a #####ic suit man!
Big f'in deal... Hillary wears a different one of those every day of the week.
Oh, wait... wrong filter.
-
Going back to that Slate article, Jeff Bridges has a line to Stark that goes something like 'You don't think that just because you have an idea you own it do you?' and it occurred to me that if one were inclined to over-analyse (and you best believe I am that one) you could see that as a statement about modern corporations perverting capitalism and demanding protectism and regulation so long as it benefits the corporation but not the consumer (see RIAA et al.). In the context of what other people have said in this thread who know more Iron Man lore than I do it makes thematic sense to me that his modern enemy should be corporations that have betrayed his capitalistic ideals.
-
I really liked the article on Slate about how the Iron Man character is basically all about how Awesome capitalism is. I have not seen the film.
The fuck*ng ridiculous Burger King product placement took me out of it for a long time, actually, but... c'mon, they named the KITT rip-off "Jarvis" for fuck's sake. For fuck's sake.
That fuck*ng Burger King plug also killed a nugget of enjoyment for me, especially since it now seems that the "I want an American cheeseburger" line, which got the audience yukking when I saw it, was simply constructed for the plug. But that too is how American capitalism works. You have to watch a 20 minute Coca Cola advert before the movie rolls, and then the movie itself briefly turns into a commercial for junk food. Putrid.
I also had to snort (and did) when one of the GI Joes in Rhodey's command booth said that they hadn't killed the terrorists because "they use human shields." I offer this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-somalia4mar04,1,479766.story) and this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/03/world/main3898799.shtml) for anyone who still thinks we handle innocent lives like baby doves when we think there might be a terrorist amongst them. How many missile attacks must you launch against a country before you are officially at war with them?
-
I also had to snort (and did) when one of the GI Joes in Rhodey's command booth said that they hadn't killed the terrorists because "they use human shields." I offer this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-somalia4mar04,1,479766.story) and this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/03/world/main3898799.shtml) for anyone who still thinks we handle innocent lives like baby doves when we think there might be a terrorist amongst them. How many missile attacks must you launch against a country before you are officially at war with them?
Unfortunately, if you want to make a movie with Air Force cooperation (which they did in this case) you play by the Air Force's rules. This is also the reason Iron Man was entirely undamaged by a collision that sheared off a fighter jet's wing; the original plan as I understand it was for him to be damaged in the collision, limp back to his house, and crash-land there, creating the "crash through the roof" sequence.
This doesn't mean they're required to paint the Air Force as infallible angels, but I would not be surprised if the USAF asked them to not have Air Force shooting at human shields. From a narrative standpoint as well, it gives an excuse for Iron Man to go in and preserves Rhodey's standing as a fellow heroic figure.
-
This doesn't mean they're required to paint the Air Force as infallible angels, but I would not be surprised if the USAF asked them to not have Air Force shooting at human shields.
I wouldn't expect the Air Force to want to be shown in the movie actually shooting at civilians either. What I find risible is the actual bit of propaganda that the "human shields" line provides, especially when it is disproven on an almost daily basis.
-
Going back to that Slate article, Jeff Bridges has a line to Stark that goes something like 'You don't think that just because you have an idea you own it do you?' and it occurred to me that if one were inclined to over-analyse (and you best believe I am that one) you could see that as a statement about modern corporations perverting capitalism and demanding protectism and regulation so long as it benefits the corporation but not the consumer (see RIAA et al.). In the context of what other people have said in this thread who know more Iron Man lore than I do it makes thematic sense to me that his modern enemy should be corporations that have betrayed his capitalistic ideals.
There is also a bit of Ayn Rand's "moocher vs producer" philosophy inherent in that line. Except for the fact that he has a sense of humor and is not a *****ic sociopath, Stark is a classic Randian hero.
-
There is also a bit of Ayn Rand's "moocher vs producer" philosophy inherent in that line. Except for the fact that he has a sense of humor and is not a #####ic sociopath, Stark is a classic Randian hero.
Hey...what's with the goddamn pound signs when someone tries to use the word r-o-b-o-t?
-
This is the first test my son. It's a wild ride, so hold onto your #####.
There is also a bit of Ayn Rand's "moocher vs producer" philosophy inherent in that line. Except for the fact that he has a sense of humor and is not a #####ic sociopath, Stark is a classic Randian hero.
This was my thought but I find it particularly interesting because it's being applied as a corporation exploiting individuals so that the corporation (or at least those at the top) can profit at the expense of both the the inventor and society as a whole. Whereas the classic Randian hero would work for his own profit and his enemies would want him to give his gifts to aid everyone equally the bad guys in this film obviously have no interest in sharing what they've taken as they believe it is theirs by right (too much 'they' in that sentence). A weird kind of capitalistic socialism or some doubled back permutation that is quite appropriate to our times of no-bid government contracts and so on.
-
Hey...what's with the goddamn pound signs when someone tries to use the word r-o-b-o-t?
Sigh (http://touamb.com/index.php?topic=1029.msg19459).
-
classic Randian hero
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y181/lprkn/americanpsycho460.jpg)
-
Im going to guess Death Ray aint know me and my history with Ayn Rand. My pets are named Howard Roark and John Galt. Ive never known a Randian hero to use an ax in violence, or act like a sociopath.
You know who was a really mindtrip? That guy who wrote slaughterhouse five and cat's cradle. Man did that guy have some issues.
-
I know your thing with Ayn Rand, which is why I thought the picture was funny. And I did read Atlas Shrugged at one point. Hank Reardon's the man.
-
I'm trying to decide if it's worth it for me to read one of those books when I already know that I hate everything about Ayn Rand's ideas.
-
Oh man. I am so not going to pick on you for that.
I can't tell what you are saying?
I know that she is in opposition to some philosophers who I admire a lot, and I have had people explain what she thinks to me, and it is just Not how I look at the world at all, I am not a fan.
-
Don't worry Inev, I know I'm an anomaly in many ways, but if it comforts you, I've become a professional writer without ever having read any Ayn Rand. I mean I've tried, but, I just can't read that stuff.
-
Hey...what's with the goddamn pound signs when someone tries to use the word r-o-b-o-t?
Pound?!
-
Pedro is listening to Atlas Shrugged right now -- or maybe he just finished? I warned him about discussing it here. I don't know if it will be a deterrent or encouragement, though.
Judy -- don't be alarmed. "Pound" is Americanese for "#."
-
Pedro is listening to Atlas Shrugged right now -- or maybe he just finished? I warned him about discussing it here. I don't know if it will be a deterrent or encouragement, though.
Letting some else read Atlas Shrugged for you is so contrary to its ideas.
-
Letting someone else read Atlas Shrugged for me is the only way to go. I'm going to let A-Cap read it for me, next time he re-reads it. That way we both will be happy.
-
He can read it for the both of us. Except the first couple sentences, which I've read a few times before sighing and putting it away to read something more to my tastes.
-
I dunno.
I think "Iron Man" was about a guy transcending the quasi-intellectual boarding-school posh-tosh ideologies about justifying greed and irresponsibility that smart people with unfair advantages wall themselves off with to let themselves sleep at night and... realizing his responsibility to all of humanity with his skills at hand.
Evil-The-Dude was just the even more extreme example of his past sins that he was able to use as a mirror.
I mean, the edges of the movie were ideologically muddled, sure, but if anything Stark was the good man of charisma that... like... a Weber was lamenting the absence of, in an odd kind of way.
-
I'm trying to decide if it's worth it for me to read one of those books when I already know that I hate everything about Ayn Rand's ideas.
I think they call that Ignorance and Prejudice, but whatever works for you, dude.
-
Ignorance and Prejudice...isn't that by Jane Austen?
Yeah, I'm thinking if you decide you hate it without reading it, that pretty much puts you in the category with people who decide Harry Potter is satanic without ever opening a copy.
You gotta decide if that's a membership card you want in your wallet, I'm just putting it out there.
-
yeah, they are both right dude.
-
Yeah, read it Inev, it's enlightening.
Mainly for me because I spent the first half of the book going 'huh this lady has some interesting ideas, I kind of like the conflicts here' and the second just getting turned off again. I'm glad I read it because it enabled me to see what I liked about the philosophy and what I didn't. Also I'm sure even A-Cap wouldn't argue with me too much when I say a lot of it is a good guide on how not to write a story. Fifty page monologue people!
-
yeah, but, no. I know what she has to say. I have heard it argued many times. I have read articles about what she had to say. Why do I need to read the whole damn book to disagree? She says that the world is best off when everyone acts in their own self interest, yes?
I would read an essay arguing for her points, maybe a few of them, but the whole book is too much for me.
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
I don't like this at all. Man is, by nature, a political animal, a social animal, and thus a member of society and not solely an individual-- man has never lived as an individual alone, and philosophies based off of this idea are flawed. Rights of individuals are important, because they keep society strong-- but simply claiming that men should pursue their own happiness as the be-all-end-all of moral purpose is too simplistic. There has to be a balance, people. BALANCE. Society requires the efforts of individuals to function well, obviously-- healthy pursuit of self-interest is worthwhile and necessary. But this pursuit alone is not sufficient to sustain human society. We have a responsibility to our communities and the human race as a whole.
Really what I'm basing this off of is what I've read of philosophy (Plato, Locke, Rousseau especially) and adding a little of what I've learned from experience and other stuff (anthropology!) that I've learned. But also the idea of the dual impulses inherent in man, given to us by God, which was explained to me by a Jewish friend has been important to my understanding of human nature. The idea is that there are two impulses. One is the selgiraffe impulse, which is not evil-- it makes us work, it makes us reproduce, and create art, and learn, and build houses, and even eat. This is obviously an important part of human nature and one which leads us to survive and continue the species.
But the species cannot continue without the other impulse, the selfless impulse. The impulse which tells us to do right by our fellow man, and by God. The impulse that makes us feel empathy for others and help them-- not because it makes us happy to see them happy, but because it is the Right thing to do.
The human faculty of happiness is a biologically evolved measuring instrument (a "barometer"[11]) that measures how well one is doing in the pursuit of life. Therefore the standard by which one can judge whether or not some action will lead to greater or lesser happiness is, whether or not it promotes one's life.
This is the flaw in reasoning-- I remember someone on here mentioning that she goes through great gymnastics of reasoning to explain that when one character gives another character a gift, it is because it makes him Happy to see her Happy, and not out of any sense of altruism or selflessness. The issue is, we DO have happiness for a reason-- it tells us that we should keep doing what we're doing (generally). Happiness and other emotions were created by evolutionary pressures which DON'T CARE whether You as an individual live or die-- only whether your genes get passed on. Which is why people sacrifice themselves for family members, children, etc-- it benefits the chances of your genes being carried on.
Maybe I'll read it one day, but I don't have that much interest.
-
For someone who worships individual excellence, Ayn Rand sure is lousy at her chosen vocation. Agree or disagree with her philosophy, there's no denying that she is one crappy novelist.
-
I think they call that Ignorance and Prejudice, but whatever works for you, dude.
I don't see how this is the case at all. What am I saying that is wrong about what she has to say? In what way am I ignorant? Tell me how I am mischaracterizing what she is saying. I am judging her ideas based on... her ideas. I don't have any interest in reading a novel trying to convince me to subscribe to her philosophy-- like I said, an essay, sure, a book explaining her ideas, sure, but a Novel is not the medium.
If anyone wants to read Ayn Rand, without actually plowing through thousands of pages, I recommend The Ayn Rand Reader, its a greenish color paperback with like a readers digest version of her works.
I guess the answer is this, and sure, I will read it. But there is no way I need to read 1000's of pages of Novel to be allowed to have an informed opinion on Objectivism.
-
Nobody's arguing your right to not read the book. I'm planning on not reading it, myself. But, you know, I think just the way it sounded when you wrote this:
I'm trying to decide if it's worth it for me to read one of those books when I already know that I hate everything about Ayn Rand's ideas.
Sort of turned people off a little. I'm not a huge fan of objectivism, but rather than say "I'm not going to learn about it because I already know I hate it," it's a little less confrontational to say, "What I know of objectivism doesn't appeal to me, I really prefer [insert philosophy here].
Not that confrontational is bad, necessarily -- if that's what you're going for.
Whatever you're going for, take it to the Atlas Shrugged thread, and leave Iron Man the hell alone from here on out.
I mean it. I will get wicked.
-
So is anyone else worried about what the hell they're going to do with the sequel? Downey carried this one through force of character but without a compelling villain I'm really worried about the next one. Who are they going to use, the Mandarin?
-
JL Says: Take It Outside.
This post moved to the other thread.
-
She just gets wicked.
-
Judy -- don't be alarmed. "Pound" is Americanese for "#."
I prefer "octothorpe."
-
I prefer "octothorpe."
As a telephone engineer, this is the only term that I can approve of.
-
What does it say about me that I studied up Rand to better understand my comic books?
-
What does it say about me that I studied up Rand to better understand my comic books?
It says that you have awesome comic books.
-
I found Iron Man to be thoroughly enjoyable. It is about a guy who builds a ***** suit and is funny. While I would have liked a longer/more involved final act, I really couldn't find a major fault with it. The dialogue was good, the action was fun, and it threw in just enough slapstick to be amusing but not cutesy. The inevitable ally/enemy turn was even handled well. I've liked Jon Favreau since Swingers, and I hope this means he gets more money to do more stuff now.
I groaned about the Burger King placement, too, but damned if a cheeseburger wasn't the first thing I wanted when I came back from being in Europe, too, and I went there of my own volition. I guess if the brand of cheeseburger paid for another few minutes of effects on fight scenes, I can deal with it. I can't really decide if it's better or worse than the Pepsi scene in Back to the Future II.
It wasn't until after the movie that I realized it was PG-13, and I didn't miss any of the R stuff. I kind of liked that. Does this mean I'm old?
-
His wanting a hamburger American-style wasn't the problem.
The problem is... he's Tony Stark. He don't need to settle for fuckin' BK.
The most ghetto Tony Stark would go would be to have him limo pull up to an In 'N' Out and pay everyone in line ahead of him two hundred dollars each for their spot in said line.
If you live in SoCal and you have the time/money/you're in the right neighborhood, you don't settle for The King or The Clown... you go buy off those lovable Jesus freaks who make everything so deliciously goddamned fresh.
He can probably also pay an executive chef in a converted RV to just... meet him at the press conference with a really fuckin' amazing gourmet burger but... the lowest he's going is the Insie-Outsie with bribes to get food immediately.
He's filthy rich and he lives in the LA-area, that's just the truth of the matter if he wants a burger.
-
I didn't really get the In-n-Out burger thing when I had it. I guess because it was explained to me as if it was going to be the best burger I'd ever had.
I'd rather have a Chick-Fil-A sandwich. And they're only 2 dollars! Mmmm.
-
The most ghetto Tony Stark would go would be to have him limo pull up to an In 'N' Out and pay everyone in line ahead of him two hundred dollars each for their spot in said line.
Tony Stark, as a hero of capitalism, knows that the free market guarantees that the best burger is the most profitable. Therefore he eats burgers from the most profitable burger companies.
-
I didn't really get the In-n-Out burger thing when I had it.
What he said. (http://touamb.com/index.php/topic,2276.msg47924.html#msg47924)
-
He would have gone to Father's Office (http://www.fathersoffice.com/) or The Counter (http://www.thecounterburger.com/). That BK plug was the only bum note in an otherwise doubleplusgood superhero flick.
-
I increasingly feel like I don't know where the good food is in Charlotte, but maybe only because there isn't any? or at least, none near me?
In St Louis there are hell of awesome pizza places and hamburger places and such really close to where I live. Plus all the great Italian food on/at the Hill, etc.
In charlotte... well, this one diner like 40 minutes from my house has really good sweet potato fries and chili-dogs and stuff?
-
PRICE'S CHICKEN COOP, YOU FREAK!
Seriously, they've been on Food Network TV shows an' shit.