View Single Post
Old 12-04-2012, 01:03 AM   #38
The Iron Price
Jackass18's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Carcosa
Posts: 10,626
Default Re: Everything that is Overrated (Breaking Bad and Marvel Studios)

Originally Posted by Money 23
No it wasn't. The character starts off as a regressed version of the improvement at the end of the first film. Which in itself makes no sense.

The movie isn't fresh in my mind so I can't argue every point. I don't quite remember the beginning, but Tony is obviously a flawed person, so why would it make no sense? At the end of the first movie he says: "I'm just not the hero type. Clearly. With this laundry list of character defects, all the mistakes I've made, largely public."

There is a redundant plot point of Stark's Arc Reactor poisoning him (the same thing the shrapnel nearing his heart does) ... thus contrived.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue here. Was he supposed to completely fix the problem in the first movie without fail?

Stark has a ridiculous fight in an armored suit v.s. his friend. Who happens to be able to steal and use a suit without an prior experience (it took Stark a whole act to master it in the first film and he built the damn thing) ... how he uses the suit I have no idea. It was built for Tony, and can only be powered by the ARC REACTOR in his chest.

Are you sure of any of that? It's shown that they're good friends and that he has access.

Whiplash is under used, the love story is rushed, the whole thing is cheesy and tongue in cheek. We get a pointless Scarlett Johansen character, who brings nothing to the table apart from meaningless action scene and a connection tot he Avengers.

There was too much going on to give more focus to Whiplash. It's not like he was a major villain anyway. I thought he was used well for what he was. Pointless? She added a bit of comedy, and she was there to evaluate Tony.

The film is sloppy. A mess of ideas with no coherent story, other than to promote the Avengers movie. It was a cash grab, residual sequel to an actual quality film.

It seemed plenty coherent to me. I'm not trying to say it's on the same level as the first one, but it's still a good movie.

Hardly, it was average at best. It can't even take itself seriously ... and it acknowledges this premise quite often in the film.

There is ridiculous melodrama in Asgard, and absurdity when they come to New Mexico. "The Rainbow Bridge" ... don't make me

Um, OK. Kind of bland, general, broad, not really saying much critique there.

With it's ridiculous CGI on skinny bobble head Rogers, painfully obvious green screen, goofy looking Red Skull, wooden lead actor (and a protagonist who makes Clark Kent look like an interesting bad boy) ... it even features a horrendous 80's montage used to display the entire WWII combat in less than a few minutes.

I didn't have any problems with the special effects. Evans isn't the greatest actor, but he wasn't supposed to be a charismatic Tony Stark-type anyways. He's kind of bland like Superman depending on the situation.

Hell, the CA movie doesn't even have a resolution. It's just a lead in for the next movie. It's pathetic.

How is that pathetic? It obviously wasn't going to end here and they did a good job of introducing and building his character, which is kind of the point.

It's cheesy in parts because film makers had yet to truly take these characters seriously as real drama pieces, where statements could be made.

I was cringing watching that movie.

Nope, did you miss the parts where I praise Iron Man and Blade?

I certainly didn't miss the part where you were overly critical of Marvel movies while not only excusing but praising a hokey, cringe-inducing Superman movie with shit dialogue. Oh, you have problem how things look in the Marvel movies, but no problems with Superman? They should waited before trying a movie like Superman.

This is the point. Marvel Studios plays it safe. They give mass marketed, cookie cutter product that look to deliver on average to the average movie goer a good time. And for the most part, they do.

They're not playing it safe in all of them. When they try that, you get something like Daredevil, Ghost Rider or a Spiderman 3. You could tell the effort just wasn't there. CA can actually be seen as a fairly good war movie.

Like I said, average movies. They bat for average (even though technically they have more abominations than DC movies) ... DC swings for the fences with their artistic integrity.

A number of them aren't average, but you want to be so damn overly critical for whatever reasons. They're actually well done and planned out movies that for the most part accomplish what they set out to, but for whatever you can't sit back and enjoy them. Even the majority of critics liked them, but you want to compare them to a movie that critics and moviegoers all seem to hate in Green Lantern (I haven't seen it yet, but heard nothing but bad things about it)? Your comments just seem to have DC fanboy all over them.

That's why I respect their films, more. No lead ins for the next film that has already been planned on a planogram in a marketing studio's office. They put everything they have, with unique vision into each film.

Like it's a bad thing that Marvel has this giant plan for a big universe of movies that all fit together (well, not all, but a bunch)? To me, that's ****ing awesome. Wait, isn't DC trying something similar, as well?

You never heard of "re-boot" before Batman Begins.

And, now there's going to be a Batman reboot.

Last edited by Jackass18 : 12-04-2012 at 01:06 AM.
Jackass18 is offline   Reply With Quote