Iron Man 3 This movie dismantles the Iron Man character... why?

[Mutant 77]

I liked it, it was a good movie, but I just was HEAVILY disappointed about the way they treated the "IRON MAN" character.

I know they were trying to underline the fact Iron Man is Iron Man because there's Tony Stark behind "him"... his genius and skills... his humanity... okay. That's fine.

BUT:

1- Remote-controlled Iron Man is an offense to the whole Iron Man concept. An insult to us fans. There's no heroism behind a remote-controlled Iron Man. That totally dismantles the Iron Man mythology.

2- Having an epic set-up for a final Iron Man battle, and then Tony wears about 4 armours for VERY FEW seconds without accomplishing anything substantial against the enemies... in the end, Pepper saves the day with her superpowers. Oh Jesus...

3- War Machine is thrown out of the window, he is useless.


I don't care about the Mandarin. I just think the way they treated the Iron Man concept was insulting to say the least. Said that, it was a good movie, but I prefer Iron Man 2 over it.

 

[smallville fan]

In The Avengers, he goes on about how the Arc reactor is a part of him etc then in Iron Man 3 he just tosses it out.

 

[Mutant 77]

Quite frankly, The Avengers is "my" Iron Man third chapter. Iron Man was at his best in that.

 

[ironman_rick]

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[Mutant 77]

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I think it's the sad truth.

 

[Wildcard]

Iron Man 3 isn't perfect, & I think it could have done certain things better, but it definitely doesn't "dismantle" the Iron Man legacy.

As with the comics themselves, there's always a way for things to advance without remaining entirely the same.

Introducing new story points isn't really a slap in the face to fans. It's not like they made Tony into a completely different guy & changed up every single aspect about him. I feel like fans need to be a little more open to variations of the story.

How fun would it be going to see the EXACT same thing over and over? Sorry, but the rinse & repeat technique doesn't rake in money when it comes to Hollywood.

 

[Mutant 77]

Introducing new story points isn't really a slap in the face to fans. It's not like they made Tony into a completely different guy & changed up every single aspect about him. I feel like fans need to be a little more open to variations of the story.

No they did that to Iron Man, not Tony Stark. I'm 100% open to new stories and "rearrangements" of my favourite characters, but they must remain faithful to their roots and primal characteristics anyway.

 

[DrCosmic]

Yeah, Tony outgrew the traditional Iron Man paradigm. That's what happens when you let characters grow. -shrug-

 

[Mutant 77]

Yeah, Tony outgrew the traditional Iron Man paradigm. That's what happens when you let characters grow. -shrug-

No, that's not "character development" at all. I'm very fine with experiencing Tony Stark and his personal journey. But they just overlooked and bypassed what's truly good in the "Iron Man concept" without a valid reason.
That's not called character development.
They just did a Tony Stark-centered movie. And It's not Iron Man, even if Tony is Iron Man.

Are you gonna watch an "Iron Man 4" without the suit involved at all?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Yes. Because Iron Man is not the suit nor the ARC reactor. Iron Man is Tony and his tech genius.

 

[metaphysician]

Also, its not like there haven't been entire years-long periods where Tony Stark remote piloted the Iron Man armor. . .

 

[Mutant 77]

Yes. Because Iron Man is not the suit nor the ARC reactor. Iron Man is Tony and his tech genius.

Good. So I would propose to drop the armour/suit forever and make Tony fight his enemies with his sense of humour and tech skills.

 

[3dman27]

the 90s animated seriesand a book arc called it" neuromanetic telepresence" which was created in the comics after tony was paralyzed by a gunshot wound the movie version was was a means to incorporate it into the movie mythos

 

[Green Goblin]

I have problems with IM3 but this aint one of them.

Tony Stark IS Iron Man! The man makes the suit, not the other way round.

 

[BigSams50]

The only bad thing about this film, (besides the whole mandarin fiasco), is Tony getting rid of his chest arc reactor. I dont get the whole point of that :/

 

[Visualiza]

The only bad thing about this film, (besides the whole mandarin fiasco), is Tony getting rid of his chest arc reactor. I dont get the whole point of that :/

It's supposed to signify a new beginning (as well as bringing closure to his old hangups) to his character arc. I agree though, this is one of the negatives about the film. It wasn't executed nearly as well as it could have been.

 

[The Endless]

I think it's because he perfected Extremis and used it on himself.

 

[BigSams50]

It's supposed to signify a new beginning (as well as bringing closure to his old hangups) to his character arc. I agree though, this is one of the negatives about the film. It wasn't executed nearly as well as it could have been.

I get why they did it, i just dont like that they did. It wont be the same without his chest glowing

 

[MynAmeIsedDie90]

The only bad thing about this film, (besides the whole mandarin fiasco), is Tony getting rid of his chest arc reactor. I dont get the whole point of that :/

One thing I absolutely hated about the movie was when the truck ran over the suit and we find out it was remote controlled the entire time. I don't know why that pissed me off so much.

 

[Visualiza]

I get why they did it, i just dont like that they did. It wont be the same without his chest glowing

True. I'll miss that too.

 

[DrCosmic]

Good. So I would propose to drop the armour/suit forever and make Tony fight his enemies with his sense of humour and tech skills.

The armor/suit *is* him using his tech skills. It's like saying he should use his arm without using his hands.

No, that's not "character development" at all. I'm very fine with experiencing Tony Stark and his personal journey. But they just overlooked and bypassed what's truly good in the "Iron Man concept" without a valid reason.
That's not called character development.
They just did a Tony Stark-centered movie. And It's not Iron Man, even if Tony is Iron Man.

Are you gonna watch an "Iron Man 4" without the suit involved at all?

It sounds like you misunderstood the message of the movie. Tony will still continue to build all sorts of awesome stuff, including suits, which we'll see in Avengers 2 and Iron Man 4 and on and on.

What changed was his need for the suits. He no longer is dependent on them, they are simply another tool in his toolbox. That's character development, clear and true, a character gaining independence from a crutch is the essence of character development. This doesn't mean he won't use that thing, only that he no longer needs it. Also, he may have some experience with Ultron which causes him to eschew remote control. So how is the concept of Iron Man 'dismantled' if it can be so easily restored by removing one thing that IM3 added?

What exactly do you feel was overlooked and bypassed? What parts of Iron Man 3 support the idea that these things were bypassed?

 

[BigSams50]

One thing I absolutely hated about the movie was when the truck ran over the suit and we find out it was remote controlled the entire time. I don't know why that pissed me off so much.

I laughed at that scene at first, i wont lie. I do kin dof hate it though. Makes it seem that Start deosnt even need to be in the suit for them to have Iron Man.

True. I'll miss that too.

It just wont be the same

 

[Mandon Knight]

There is only one decent 'stand alone' Iron Man film and that is the first, 2 and 3 are awful.

 

[Wildcard]

I have problems with IM3 but this aint one of them.

Tony Stark IS Iron Man! The man makes the suit, not the other way round.

^ This right here says it all perfectly.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I loved Iron Man 3, and far from dismantling Iron Man, I thought it made a great statement about the character. They had loads of remote-controlled suits flying around to emphasize that they aren't Iron Man. They put Pepper, Killian, Rhodey, Savin, even the President in Iron Man armor, all to emphasize that they aren't Iron Man. It's Tony Stark that makes Iron Man, not the armor, and so a film that focused on Tony over his armor was a great way of crafting that particular point.