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
I swear, I don't know any of you anymore.
You're all lucky that Rob is a man of tolerance and class.
One Strip! One Strip!The supposed flaws of Iron Man 3 are far more subjective than The Dark World's. With The Dark World, there are very easy-to-pinpoint flaws with the film (boring villain, too much time spent on the human characters, half-baked romance, generic plot, ect.). Conversely, the two biggest things people complain about in Iron Man 3 are the infamous Mandarin twist and the fact that it doesn't take itself very seriously, which are things many people actually enjoyed about it. In fact, I saw a reviewer who said that he could see Ragnarok being similarly divisive for that very reason.
Basically, it's generally agreed The Dark World is a weak film, while Iron Man 3 is a Base Breaker that inspires a lot of debate about whether or not it's good.
edited 19th Oct '17 2:28:20 PM by comicwriter
I admit, I liked a lot of the comedy of three, but the Mandarin twist pissed me off (mostly because it felt like a waste of Ben Kingsley). I mean, I get why they did it (because Yellow Peril is a stupid trope), but it felt like too much.
...I just don't have any problems with The Dark World. I liked it from beginning to end. There's clearly only one explanation:
All of you are insane, and need to be more like me.
Total logic.
One Strip! One Strip!For me it's the mandarin twist (well, actually, the twist itself is fine, but the actual villain is boring and underwhelming) and the fact that after Tony's PTSD gets solved the whole film stops being remotely interesting and the third act just falls completely flat.
"Evil version of hero" makes sense for first-film villains, though. Otherwise you need to have two superpower-origin-stories in one film which not only takes up a lot of screentime but is incredibly contrieved. Making them connected reduces the amount of exposition you need, and it feels less coincidental.
Like, look at Raimi's first Spider-Man film. What are the odds that a kid would get mutant spider powers at the exact same time a different guy in the same area is getting completely unrelated enhanced physical capabilities to become the Green Goblin? Or the third one where, in Spider-Man's stomping grounds, there is not only a dude getting sand-based powers from a freak accident but also a fucking alien lifeform crashing down via meteor at the same time?
edited 19th Oct '17 3:37:54 PM by Anomalocaris20
You cannot firmly grasp the true form of Squidward's technique!Oh I don't disagree. It's the same reason why while I hate the tendency of Fantastic Four adaptations to always make Doom get his powers from the same accident, I can see why they do it.
It's just that like with other things (like the complaints about too many origin stories), Evil Counterparts aren't bad on their own, but when you have a whole universe of films where this keeps happening, I get why that'd seem grating and formulaic.
I actually really liked Iron Man 3 and its Mandarin. As noted, the film is a highly subjective Base Breaker, while Thor: The Dark World is near-unanimously agreed to be garbage.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I generally think Iron Man 3 is among the least good MCU villains because it's got a bare bones plot that fails to follow up on its own development, two dimensional villains with flat characterizations, wasting characters that could've been better adapted (Maya, for one, who also counts as a villain that is unceremoniously dropped out of the story for cheap drama), poorly handled melodrama that is instantly fixed when the hero no longer has need to be dramatic, overemphasis in the middle on a side character that doesn't actually contribute much to the actual plot, and generally not. And the parts that are legitimately well conceived (the Mandarin twist, for one) aren't well followed up on because the movie ultimately isn't interested in doing anything with them.
So, almost the exact same reasons I consider Thor 2 to be one of the least good MCU movies. They're cut from the same cloth.
But Iron Man 3, at least, has the excuse of the writers/etc overcompensating for the problems of the previous film (though imo they ended up with a movie that has much of the same problems but for entirely opposite reasons). Thor 2 had what it had all on its own (if anything, imo it fixed some of the problems of the first movie, only to replace them with worse ones).
edited 19th Oct '17 4:51:54 PM by KnownUnknown
How so?
Oh God! Natural light!I thought Thor: The Dark World was fine. Not particularly substantive, but funny. I like Darcy and Jane; TDW actually has one of the most gender-balanced casts in the MCU. And the humans weren’t useless.
IMO, it’s like a decent local pizzeria: way better than chain pizza, but not a place you rave about. It’s competent and acceptable.
I've never actually disliked an MCU film, though I admit that Dark World is one of their weaker entries. I dunno, I just really fucking love Loki's scenes relating to Frigga in it and the final battle with Malakieth is pretty awesome. Even if the movie has probably one of the worst leaps in logic I've ever seen in regards to technology (this machine can detect portals, so logically we can jury-rig it to create portals, right? That's how science works?).
![]()
![]()
![]()
I thought Thor 2 at least did a decent job of using Earth in comparison to the first movie, with the "hop from realm to realm adventuring and chasing the elves, until having the final battle on Earth" making the planet a more credible World Of Adventure for Thor to be in. It's helped by making the Earth cast more as allies against the elves than the muggle family he has everyday muggle life with.
But it's a small part of the execution of a plot that has little overall going for it, so it doesn't do much but make the fact that Malekith is the most boring antagonist in the entire MCU slightly more exciting than it could have been in the climax.
Man, how're you gonna go and make this guy
◊ boring
Its weird that they went with Malekith at all when they wanted a serious somber villain and story.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI'm still pissed that they completely and utterly wasted Kurse, because playing him straight would totally have worked with what they ended up doing anyway and it would've been a damn cool way to make the plot less boring. After looking him up in preparation for watching it, he was one of the things I was most looking forward to.
It got me noticing how the MCU tends to adapt interesting characters as simple minions or minor villains and then just completely discard them once the plot is done with them. I'm hoping Skurge in this one will be what Kurse should have been, but knowing the MCU he could well just be the same thing again.
edited 19th Oct '17 9:43:38 PM by KnownUnknown
I just want my supervillains to be supervillains, you know? Over the top, but stopping just short of being Power Rangers enemies, meaning don't lapse into a Muppet voice in the third act. Call it the Dafoe Threshold— he and Jeff Bridges did great work up until they put on their respective power suits. Meanwhile, Killian suffered considerably by having a lot more personality when he was a nerd in the flashback, on top of being outshone by his own decoy.
And I'd never call the Trevor Slattery reveal a waste of Ben Kingsley. Best of both worlds for me, though it helps that I was never expecting the character we saw in the trailers to be the real Mandarin.
edited 19th Oct '17 11:05:42 PM by Unsung
I always say that the exact moment where Iron Man 3 started really going downhill was the moment Killian breathed fire, which is the point where Guy Pearce stops acting him as a flat suit with no personality and starts acting him as Snidely Whiplash - thrusting him into being over the top and full villain but somewhere along the line forgetting that they hadn't developed him or what he was doing beyond the bare bones.
It kind of is Mandarin's fault, in a roundabout way: most of the movie is spend setting up Mandarin as the (fake) bad guy, so he gets a lot of personality and gravitas to him, while Killian is off to the side apparently being written as the stiff, emotionless Number Two the audience expects to be taken out by a side character before the end. Then he turns out to be the villain, but they played his previous part to the hilt too well: both Mandarin and Slattery end up being some of the best parts of the movie, while since Killian spent most of it being a creepy side character there's nothing much to him, and there no in-between to really groom him into the big shoes. It just kind of happens.
edited 19th Oct '17 9:58:26 PM by KnownUnknown
ASM 2's biggest mistake was reintroducing Harry Osborn and the Green Goblin and their hatred of Spider-Man and Peter Parker all in one fell swoop, thus short-circuiting all the drama that makes them work and upstaging Electro, who, I'll say it, I actually thought was pretty good. Like a more striking version of the nerd-to-supervillain shift that Killian has, since we're on the subject. ![]()
Took out the part about The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
edited 19th Oct '17 11:16:15 PM by Unsung
Electro had an amazing start as a very human Anti-Villain with relateable and pitiable issues, and then he's off screen for a little while, and when we come back he's gone full supervillain and is ranting about being a god like someone hit his villainy light switch. It would've worked had they given more to him in between, but it's like they wrote the beginning and the end, and decided to skip the middle. Imo, if the movie had him and Harry team up earlier, emphasize their "friendship," and make his complete jump off the slippery slope later over the course of the revenge scheme, that would've streamlined it and worked better.
edited 19th Oct '17 10:05:32 PM by KnownUnknown
Reading the original Extremis comic, it's interesting to see certain ideas used in both the film and comic but very different in tone. Killian breathing fire in the film is unexpected but comical. Savin breathing fire in the comic and roasting multiple security officers is freaking terrifying, in a "ohmygosh is there nothing this guy can't do" way.
edited 19th Oct '17 10:10:26 PM by Tuckerscreator
![]()
That could've been interesting, actually, though I think just scrapping the Osborns entirely and spending that same time on the dichotomy between Max Dillon's old self and his growing instability as Electro would've been easier to salvage.
...On a similar note, I don't think the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang spiritual sequel RDJ and Shane Black wanted to do was the right place to adapt Extremis.
edited 19th Oct '17 10:32:40 PM by Unsung

Plenty of people like Iron Man 3.