Kevin's Watch

Yeah, the ending is pretty open. A return to basics is likely because they're pushing for Iron Man 4 to make more cash out of the popularity, but what I'd actually find interesting following IM3 is for the movie universe's Stark to get into politics.

As for seeing it in 3D - I've never seen a 3D movie yet, and I've made the choice never to bother with any film that's not filmed natively in 3D. IM3 is one of the many films converted to 3D in post-production, meaning 3D isn't part of the intended experience.

Vraith wrote:
I don't think anyone has figured out how to use 3-D yet as a tool of the art.

From the hype I'm hearing about The Great Gatsby, that might be a film worth seeing in 3-D. But so far I much prefer 2-D.

Well, I thoroughly enjoyed it. No complaints. Like others have said, I don't hold comic book movies up to the same kind of standards I might hold for, say, an arthouse or even a comedy. I got everything I wanted out of Iron Man 3.

Saw Iron Man 3.
Enjoyed myself which is not at all surprising.
Like Shane Black's touches on the film.
RDJ remains as Tony Stark as an actor can possibly be.
I'm a lifetime comic book Iron Man fan and am not offended by the movie's take on the Mandarin. No he's not the same character I'm accustomed to and that's kind of a drag in that I would certainly like to see a live action portrayal of Iron Man's most recognizable foe but as Stan Lee once said "the movies are the movies and the comics are the comics" and I'm fine with that.
All in all pretty darn happy with all three Iron Man films to date.

I'm Murrin wrote:As for seeing it in 3D - I've never seen a 3D movie yet, and I've made the choice never to bother with any film that's not filmed natively in 3D. IM3 is one of the many films converted to 3D in post-production, meaning 3D isn't part of the intended experience.

Thats an interesting point - does anyone know which films have been filmed 'natively' in 3D. Iv'e seen a dozen or so in 3D and it'd be intersting to know which ones are which. I'd bet 'Avatar' was a 'native', and Herzog's 'Cave of forgotten dreams'. Maybe also 'Hugo' and 'The Life of Pi'. The rest I couldn't say for.

It usually says on their wikipedia pages.

Ah, here's something I just found on Google:
realorfake3d.com/

Interestingly, there are more real than fake on the list.

Iron Man 3 was great.


'Nuff said.

I wish to see Iron Man, it's got to better than Green Lantern.

Iron Wars would make a great movie. maybe make it a two-parter?

sgt.null wrote:I wish to see Iron Man, it's got to better than Green Lantern.

Iron Wars would make a great movie. maybe make it a two-parter?

There was nothing wrong with Green Lantern that a different actor couldn't have fixed.

Iron Wars would be a wonderful plot but it would probably be done as a two- or three-part animated movie, one of those direct-to-DVD/Blue-Ray releases that populate the kids' section at the movie store.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

sgt.null wrote:I wish to see Iron Man, it's got to better than Green Lantern.

Iron Wars would make a great movie. maybe make it a two-parter?

There was nothing wrong with Green Lantern that a different actor couldn't have fixed.

I disagree. The helicopter/Hot Wheels racetrack scene would have sucked no matter who was in the film.

Menolly wrote:

Vraith wrote:
I don't think anyone has figured out how to use 3-D yet as a tool of the art.

From the hype I'm hearing about The Great Gatsby, that might be a film worth seeing in 3-D. But so far I much prefer 2-D.

Not to respond after TOO long, or go TOO far off-topic, if it has Leonardo in it, nothing but 100% raves from everyone about every other aspect will make me see it.
I can't stand him. For some objective reasons, but also for some irrational responses directly connected to my gag/vomit reflex.

But...semi on topic:
I think the problem with 3d as it is is the tech conflicts with how we see.
The solution is a bug-like depth of field that doesn't exist technically yet in movie form. Many, many more things within our view have to be "in focus" when we look at them.
I mean...hold up your finger in front of a picture...whichever you "look" at is in focus....but in 3d film I've seen, it is partly "real" vision focus, partly "false" vision focus [as 2d is].
The brain can accept it in 2d. if things behind some other thing are out of focus, even if you look at them...it accepts the illusion. Much different in 3d.
If your brain accepts a "Hand" is in focus in front of a face, blurry, till you focus, then it is in focus, the hand is blurry, so is the wall behind the face...but the wall is STILL blurry when you focus on it.
Fine in 2d, the LENS/camera is doing most of it. A simple brain task.
In 3d:
SHOCK!...integration/contingency/consistency failure when you take that last step and the wall is blurry no matter what...and suddenly, the face is, too! And the hand, even if it is right there! cuz the FILM is now focusing on the totally-in-focus-at-every-instant-distance/time of the rattlesnake biting from the corner!

Saw it, thought it was great.
My biggest problem is what drives me crazy in most Superhero movies.
The actors don't want their faces covered.

The best example of this is RoboCop.
RC1 he had a helmet on most of the time.
RC2 helmet was off a lot of the time.
RC3.....most of the movie he had no helmet.

Judge Dredd, which has in my opinion one of the best costumes ever!, Stalone is out of costume and the mask is seldom on.

I could go on and on.....

IM3 followed the same pattern as RoboCop.
IM3...Tony was out of the armor almost all the time!
I thought I was watching a buddy cop movie at the end.
Even when he was in the armor it was in and out, in and out......
Ridiculous.

I had a debate with a buddy at work.
He said that RDJ couldn't be replaced.
I said of course he can!
No one really wants to see Tony they want to see Iron Man.

dANdeLION wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

sgt.null wrote:I wish to see Iron Man, it's got to better than Green Lantern.

There was nothing wrong with Green Lantern that a different actor couldn't have fixed.

I disagree. The helicopter/Hot Wheels racetrack scene would have sucked no matter who was in the film.

Ah. That. I blame the mentally-challenged scriptwriters. The only thing I can say in their defense is that they took that out of things that happened in the comic book. Still...he could have simply encased the helicopter in an energy field then placed it on the ground. That's what I would have done.

The kids saw Iron Man 3 last weekend while out of town so we are going to wait until it comes out in a few months.

High Lord Tolkien wrote:I had a debate with a buddy at work.
He said that RDJ couldn't be replaced.
I said of course he can!
No one really wants to see Tony they want to see Iron Man.

That was what the movie was about, though, wasn't it?

Spoiler

"I am Iron Man". As opposed to: "This suit I made is Iron Man." The suits were, as the movie quite amazingly showed us, dispensible. While showing us that Stark, with or without a suit, is a superhero.

wayfriend wrote:

Spoiler

"I am Iron Man". As opposed to: "This suit I made is Iron Man." The suits were, as the movie quite amazingly showed us, dispensible. While showing us that Stark, with or without a suit, is a superhero.

Hear. Hear.

Besides, I want to see Tony, I think he's hilarious and entertaining. Even in the first two films and the Avengers, Iron Man to me was just Tony in the Suit.