Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
Him suddenly deciding to get rid of the shrapnel in the last few minutes of IM 3 is definitely a bad nove narratively, especially since it retroactively makes the entire plot of Iron Man 2 a waste.
Maybe if they had it that he needed Extremis to do it, but since Extremis is barely brought up in the denouement at all - let alone in regards to his surgery - there's not a lot of reason to assume he did.
The lack of given attention to the plot in the second half in IM 3 is the main thing that ruins that movie.
There was no reason for Tony to remove it in IM 1-Avengers. There was no dephful effect to whatever cause for this action to occur until IM 3. His continuous character arc justified it just like it justifies siding with the govemrent finally after 3 movies were he ignored them. If this happened way sooner then he wouldnt have the credibility that he now does for its removal. Ethos... otherwise you are asking for a fully formed character from the get go.
plus do not forget the reactor was still being used as a weakness villains expedited for those 3 movies. removing it during any of them would defeat that plot device purpose.
the removal has been a journey and now it is no longer important. so i think we should move past it like he did because it wont be relevant to everything after AOU
edited 20th Aug '15 11:55:45 AM by xbimpy
You mean besides the fact that the inability to remove the shrapnel and the fact that he had to use something poisonous to keep the magnet going was literally killing him in IM 2 and resulted in all of the behavior, misunderstandings and angst that drove the plot?
If he could've removed the shrapnel at any time the whole thing becomes even more of an Idiot Plot than it was before, because his entire character arc in that movie was pointless.
edited 20th Aug '15 12:01:22 PM by KnownUnknown
@nermeister: I thought of that too, but Iron Man 2 is here to contradict this. He was dying back then and more than willing to put himself in suicidal situations, so why didn't he try this operation back then? Clearly if the operation had been a success he would have still been able to pilot the Iron man safely since Rhodes could with no visible side effects, suggesting the arc reactor was killing Stark only because it was inside his chest.
@Known Unknown: Actually I would have liked it better if he had used Extremis and might have even forgiven the Mandarin twist then. Maybe.
@xbimpy: ... really? There was no reason for him to remove something that forced him to rely on a having a miniature equivalent of a nuclear reactor in his chest to survive? Again, Age of Ultron proved he could be Iron Man without having the damn thing in his chest, so why would he not want to remove something that is essentially a handicap?
edited 20th Aug '15 12:01:50 PM by Theokal3
IM 3 also has an issue with presenting the wrong reasons for why Tony is as flawed as he is, resulting in him making "growth" in the last few minutes that don't actually deal with his issues (leading to Age of Ultron, where he keeps on making the same mistakes). Blowing up the suits, especially, came off as an empty gesture given that simply being Iron Man was never the real reason Tony was making his relationship with Pepper so rocky.
edited 20th Aug '15 12:05:10 PM by KnownUnknown
Removing the reactor has nothing to do with the fact its purpose was to keep him alive. That is what I call an external factor. Character arcs and development are not based on the most obvious visual details but the introspection and internal understandings of our protagonist. Like I said, IM 1-Avengers gave no reason for its removal because said reason is not related to "live healthier". You are looking at the physical negative consequence of the reactor prior to Iron Man 3's ending. I am looking at the emotional development it has on him from Iron Man 1 to Iron Man 3's ending because through this he realizes there is no longer a need for it. And the realization doesn't happen abruptly. That would be cutting corners. You must dramatize it all out
Secondly like I pointed out if you removed it earlier then its contribute to A, B, and C movie conflict and plot would have died. For example Tony wouldnt have been brainwashed if it wasnt for the reactor. We wouldn't have gotten this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBuAx5KVGNQ
. There would be no point for the majority of Iron Man 2. etc
edited 20th Aug '15 12:13:18 PM by xbimpy
A few pages late but I'd put my favorite MCU moments of Phase 2 as (in chronologic order): The Mandarin's "lessons" to America (Iron Man 3), Frigga's funeral (Thor: The Dark World), Cap vs Winter Soldier (Winter Soldier), Arnim Zola's "history was changed" speech (also Winter Soldier), Ronan's Establishing Character Moment (Guardians), Yondu's magic arrow (Guardians), Ultron's introduction (Age of Ultron), The "circle of death" in the Battle of Sokovia (Age of Ultron), Yellowjacket vs Ant-Man (Ant-Man).
Honorable mentions: Any and every time Loki suffered for his atrocities. Loki's death would top that list if he had actually died in the dark world.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."![]()
![]()
I actually agree to an extent, but not with the conclusion - because if Tony actually having the shrapnel in his chest and it being life threatening is "external" and not important to his character arc, then him suddenly deciding to remove isn't particularly important to it either.
With the exception of IM 2 which, again, the whole "removing it on a whim" bit seriously clashes with, Tony rarely treats the shrapnel as anything other than something that makes him who he is. IM 2, also, ends with him finding a way to keep the shrapnel dormant forever with no bad side effects.
So him just deciding to remove it also lacks weight, because the stakes for keeping it there have already disappeared. It's just... something that happens - little narrative purpose. I do remember watching the movie and going "why? What's the point" at that part of the ending. Especially how it's presented, since it's just him going "oh, and I decided I didn't want to have metal in my chest any more, so I got rid of it." Tony acts like it doesn't matter, the plot acts like it doesn't matter, why is it even in there?
The whole thing stinks of the new director wanting to mop up all of what he saw as Tony's issues and definitively "end" Tony's story in the last minutes of the last movie, regardless of how much sense in regards to both Tony's character or the universe as a whole.
edited 20th Aug '15 12:12:43 PM by KnownUnknown
Tony removing the reactor is very important because preciously he acknowledged it was a fundamental part of him. He saw it as a necessity that he couldn't live without even if it was no longer needed. That all has to do with being a metal man. A man in armor. Take away the armor and what you are? That was Tony's character arc. To learn who he is on the inside so that for the end there can be a clear answer. The answer implies he doesn't need any of this metal because Iron Man 3 proved he has the courage strength and intelligence to stand up for himself without the clutch of his Iron Man armors. Notice Ultron program wasn't just Jarvi's replacement. It did not act on behalf of Tony's orders. It was meant to be its own eninity that Tony would have less communication with. Esstionally he couldn't do anything other than be and better the Iron Man armor and now he can do everything without feeling like the armor is necessary for each task. The armor was a cocoon and the butterfly hatched. A butterfly that would not have been apperaerant in Iron Man 1-Avengers though glimpse of change was noticeable.
However, the more he feels insufficient, as Age of Ultron points out, the more he is willing to go the extreme to extend Iron Man all over Earth. He lets robots safe guard us rather than himself
I can give that some leeway though just because the way HYDRA is described makes it sound like the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. I remember there is one episode that pretty specifically states that Strucker is completely ignoring whatever the other HYDRA cells are doing, and in the movie he even mentions that he has no problem sending the other Avengers to take down other cells just so long as they leave him and the Infinity Stone alone.
I don't think it's too big a leap to assume that there were other bigwigs or cells that Ward doesn't know about or keep in contact with.
![]()
![]()
![]()
edited 20th Aug '15 12:29:29 PM by kkhohoho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zhDcuHJBG0
should this have been cut from GOG?
![]()
![]()
![]()
It is not like I don't understand the themes of Iron Man 3. I just think that they could have been handled better and that they should have paid more attention to continuity. They could have solved the problem by starting the movie with Pepper telling Tony that she has read about a new technology which might allow him to remove the arc reactor and him not wanting to hear anything about it. I still wouldn't have liked that they removed it, but at least it wouldn't have felt so tacked on.
While I would have loved to see more interaction between Gamora and Nebula, this scene is pretty useless. Too wordy. If they had rewritten it, it should have been in the movie, but as it is, it's better that they cut it.
edited 20th Aug '15 12:32:34 PM by Swanpride
ok. I understand now. Hydra that we are aware of is currently down for the count. Ward picks up whatever he can find, meanwhile Mitchell Carson was always Hydra. Mitchell Carson worked on his own mission, which was to obtain a replication of Pym Pym Particles. He succeeded. His Hydra agents worked for him. So far there is no sign anyone else was involved. Meanwhile, we have whoever brought back Rumlow... aka Zemo.
I guess Ward would be considered a leader since he is trying to fill in the empty spots
edited 20th Aug '15 12:46:39 PM by xbimpy
I really like the GOTG scene where Star Lord is trying to get the others to go along with his non-plan. I think every one of the Guardians got a moment to shine in that scene.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersAOS is on a slightly lower continuity, though - it's subservient to the films in terms of continuity, but the films aren't obligated to abide by the shows' continuity as much as we might wish that they should (I really want to see AOS characters in the Inhumans movie, or Matt or Power Man and Iron Fist in another film).
Mmmmm nope. AOS is on a lower level of importance, correct, but on the same level of continuity. Continuity just means "this thing happened." It doesn't mean "the movies will acknowledge it happened," it just means that it happened.
And let's look at what happened, shall we? In "SOS Part 2," Ward gets a list of Hydra agents names from some operatives. He says he wants more, that this isn't enough. The Hydra operative says that with Strucker, List, and the rest of the leaders dead, Hydra hasn't been the same. (Note: there are still the names on the list, even if they are not high ranking members.)
And then, when Ant-Man happens a few months later, we see a member of Hydra. Was he a high-ranking member? Well, we know he worked for SHIELD and then turned to toppling foreign governments. Perhaps he always worked for Hydra or perhaps he was recruited after leaving SHIELD. Nevertheless, none of what is revealed invalidates the scene in "SOS Part 2." We don't know where he ranks in Hydra's structure or if it was Ward who recruited him or even if he was one of the names on the list.
So nope. AOS has the same level of continuity as Daredevil and Jessica Jones and The Avengers.
edited 20th Aug '15 1:40:48 PM by alliterator
GOTG had music that wasn't forty-year-old pop songs?
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.I know, sorry, forgot to tag it as Joking Mode.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.

edited 20th Aug '15 11:51:31 AM by nervmeister