[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo

Oh man, IM3 was way better than 2. 2 Stunk. 3 wasn't half as good as 1 though. Honestly Marvel really only has a few "Good" movies. They have quite a few that are "fine" or "competent" but they rarely are movies you need to go back and watch a couple times. IM1 was like that. I saw it twice in the theaters it was so good. I hear Cap2 may be like that as well.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
No way. 2 was better than 3. 3 was actually a little tiresome, especially with the scrappy doo factor of the kid, the annoying would-be PTSD angle, and most of all, the "blow it all up" ending. No, I prefer to pretend 3 didn't happen.
 
Iron Man 2 was a trailer for the Avengers.

It's kind of funny that it took 3 tries to make a movie that had a conflict that would have existed outside of Tony Stark life. The first two have the same problem as the first Fantastic Four movie. Protagonist cleans up after messes he makes, gets praised for it.
How was it his fault Stane was an evil asshole?

No way. 2 was better than 3. 3 was actually a little tiresome, especially with the scrappy doo factor of the kid, the annoying would-be PTSD angle, and most of all, the "blow it all up" ending. No, I prefer to pretend 3 didn't happen.
I don't why there's a scrappy doo factor for the kid, that was a child character done right. Instead of being an annoyingly sweet or innocent kid that would be steorotypical, he was pretty much a younger Tony and wasn't handled with kid gloves either (no pun intended).
 
How was it his fault Stane was an evil asshole?
It was his fault for spending most of his life being a playboy instead of running his fucking company. If he had, he'd have realized Stane's motives much sooner and it's unlikely that he'd have gotten away with selling weapons to terrorists for so long. It's also entirely Tony's fault for holding an experimental weapon demonstration IN THE MIDDLE OF A FUCKING WAR ZONE. He could have found somewhere else to show off the Jericho that didn't endanger his life.



I don't why there's a scrappy doo factor for the kid, that was a child character done right. Instead of being an annoyingly sweet or innocent kid that would be steorotypical, he was pretty much a younger Tony and wasn't handled with kid gloves either (no pun intended).
The kid was fine... basically because Tony wasn't having any of his shit, even if he felt alittle bad for him. Because of that, it didn't fall into the usual child actor trap.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Maybe I'm alone (though I doubt it), but I thought the entire need to have a kid subplot was a bad design/plot choice. The last thing the Avengers need are Marvin and Wendy. Oh gawd, Marvin and Wendy will be in the eventual Justice League movie, won't they?
 
It was his fault for spending most of his life being a playboy instead of running his fucking company. If he had, he'd have realized Stane's motives much sooner and it's unlikely that he'd have gotten away with selling weapons to terrorists for so long.
Stane was still running the company for years before Tony came of age, likely selling weapons to multiple sides the whole time. He didn't make that mess, it would have existed without him being there. It's also questionable if Tony would have picked up on Stane's hidden business dealings much sooner, he's a scientific genius more than a business one. Once Tony switched off the playboy lifestyle after coming back from captivity, Stane still handled him easily in the corporate battelfield, locking Tony out of his own company without Tony even realizing he did it. And then, after Stane was gone, Tony quickly handed off the business side of things to someone else again.

The antagonist in 2 exists, is driven by, and only does what he does because Tony exists. AIM's plot in 3 could have been used in any Marvel movie, it was happening with or without Iron Man's involvement.
I didn't ask about 2. I asked about 1.
 
Sorry I get the movie's memorable villains mixed up. Same issue with 2, even worse. Every conflict in Iron Man one only happens because Tony's involved. Heck the most heroic thing he does in Iron Man 1 is stop terrorists which he only does when discovering that they're using his products. He gets somewhat of a pass for having a self-centered conflict for the first one but he's not a heroic character until the end of Avengers.
 
Sorry I get the movie's memorable villains mixed up. Same issue with 2, even worse. Every conflict in Iron Man one only happens because Tony's involved. Heck the most heroic thing he does in Iron Man 1 is stop terrorists which he only does when discovering that they're using his products. He gets somewhat of a pass for having a self-centered conflict for the first one but he's not a heroic character until the end of Avengers.
Nope, like I said, Stane would exist and be a problem regardless of Tony. If Tony had died as a child, Stane would still be selling weapons to terrorists. Howard Stark has more responsibility for that one.

EDIT: Well, that's a nope to every conflict only existing because of Tony. I'd agree he only really becomes a true heroic character in Avengers.
 
Maybe I'm alone (though I doubt it), but I thought the entire need to have a kid subplot was a bad design/plot choice. The last thing the Avengers need are Marvin and Wendy. Oh gawd, Marvin and Wendy will be in the eventual Justice League movie, won't they?
Wait a tick, if you're old enough to remember Marvin and Wendy, you're in Dave and I old territory. Most of this crowd is barely old enough to remember the Wonder Twins.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Did they include the first two seasons in that package? The last appearance of W&M was in '76, and that was a rerun.
I think... one of the alphabet networks (not like there were any other networks back then) got it in syndication or something, and started showing it on saturday mornings. When they got through all the way to the end, they started over again from the beginning (GI Joe used to do the same thing, just looping back to the beginning when they ran out of episodes without any fanfare or notice), and then I was all "who the hell is this dork and his dog? The girl makes me feel funny though."
 
Yeah, I preferred 3 over 2 for a variety of reasons but mainly because it was a much tighter film with a really solid plot. Both were big steps down in quality from the first though.
 

Cajungal

Staff member
I have been curious about "A Monster in Paris" ever since it showed up on Netflix. I wish it had been better.

Pros: Pretty music, cool dance scene the giant flea was cute and charming, and there were some slightly funny moments sometimes. Every time Francouer was on screen I was delighted. I love innocent characters who are enchanted by little things (like the sound a comb makes when you "play" the teeth).

Cons: Everything about the characters and their motives felt really surface. The pacing, the order of some events, and the things they chose to focus on weren't always good for the feel of the movie. The villain jumped from being just kind of arrogant and douchey to frightening and dangerous.

I will be listening to the songs again soon...Probably won't bother to rewatch though.
 
Watched Kickass 2... ICH.... I really liked the first one... the 2nd one? Jesus.

Mediocre at best.

Whoever plays Hit Girl is still awesome though.
 
Saw How to Train Your Dragon 2. Way better than the first one, which was already a fantastic movie. I won't say much about it, but I fully expect to see Toothless/Mega Charizard X mash-ups on Tumblr in the next few days.
 
Aaaa! No spoilers on HtTYD2! I'm really hoping this will be one of the few movies I get to see in the theater now-a-days. I loved the first one, I'm excited for this.
 
I'm liveblogging Godzilla Raids Again on Tumblr. I've not seen this in probably 15+ years, so I wasn't sure if it'd be as awful as I recall.

... it's worse. I don't know which voice-over is worse, the plucky tuna scout pilot or the TECHNOLOGY IS DOOM American narrator.
 

fade

Staff member
Re how to train your dragon: did anyone actually read the books this time, or are we still going with placing random names from the books on all new characters?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Non-stop. Liam Neeson is an air marshal. Ridiculous movie. The final cherry on its movie sin tally was, just because the emergency landing sequence wasn't camera-shakingly exciting enough, an engine has to explode for no discernible reason.
 
Non-stop. Liam Neeson is an air marshal. Ridiculous movie. The final cherry on its movie sin tally was, just because the emergency landing sequence wasn't camera-shakingly exciting enough, an engine has to explode for no discernible reason.
You mean Sky-Taken? I'm pretty sure that movie was called Sky-Taken.
 
22 Jump Street is really great. I did not stop laughing through the entire thing. If I had one complaint, it would have been that the movie took the self-awareness thing too far, but it was too God damn hilarious to matter.
 
Last edited:
Top