[quote]AlterEgo721 wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
wolbarret, whats up with the chick in your avatar? is she a tranny or something? lol her face is pretty busted
All your questions will be answered here:
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2379266
wow thats a long thread. started some of it. seems interesting…lol…thanx for the link vader[/quote]
17 pages and I can honestly say that NOTHING was answered.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
wolbarret, whats up with the chick in your avatar? is she a tranny or something? lol her face is pretty busted
All your questions will be answered here:
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2379266
wow thats a long thread. started some of it. seems interesting…lol…thanx for the link vader
17 pages and I can honestly say that NOTHING was answered.[/quote]
It was where WolBarret got his ginger avatar from. Try to keep up next time. 
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
Professor X wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
I rarely make it to a theater for a movie. The Dark Knight was an exception since I knew it was going to be amazing and it still far topped my expectations.
The Incredible Hulk is going to be playing at the local cheap theater ($5 tickets) and I am wondering whether it is worth my time.
I like super hero movies but I much prefer some thoughtfulness in the plot; something that will have me thinking during and after the movie. This is especially true if I am going to spend money to go see a movie and probably buy some concessions (at least some water), rather than wait for cable or Netflix which would be cheaper.
I really liked The Dark Knight (4.5/5 stars) but felt Iron Man was kind of meh (3.0/5, fun but not very thoughtful, also had too many goofy moments and not enough character development).
I probably will make time to go spend $10-20 plus gas to see The Dark Knight again. Iron Man is more something I would watch on cable when I am bored.
Where does The Incredible Hulk fall in that spectrum?
“oh man…should I watch Incredible Hulk or watch Sex and the City for the third time…I really do enjoy Cosmos”
Stop being gay and watch Incredible Hulk. I should tribunal you for hesitating to see the Hulk.
Best. Post.
Ironman goofy?
Ironman = cool as shit
They kept playing to the camera in Iron Man. Lame one-liners, and those gags while he was building the prototype suits. I don’t like that sort of thing. It took away from the otherwise serious tone that the movie seemed to be going for.
Also I did not feel the characters were well developed and I never felt much attachment to any of them other than Pepper Potts. The actors were all just kind of there, playing the roles, not really making me feel they WERE the characters or that the characters had much real chemistry together.
Also, unlike The Dark Knight (and to a lesser extent The Incredible Hulk), there was no thought provoking deeper meanings to the movie that I could see. It was just a movie about a guy that winds up fighting crime.
Yes there is some “party boy turns hero” thing going on, but it did not really offer anything more than lip service to that aspect of the story. Also, that in and of itself is not terribly interesting in the same way that The Dark Knight was interesting on a psychological level.[/quote]
Dude, Ironman was about as close to the comics as they could possibly make it. If it seemed playful, that is because Tony Stark was a playboy who literally didn’t give a shit before his life nearly ended. I think they did a GREAT job of showing that. Stark wasn’t a “Batman”. He lost his mother and later his father, but they weren’t killed when he was a kid at gun point. He was a classic spoiled shallow rich kid who just happens to be one of the smartest men on the planet.
It sounds like you were simply unfamiliar with the background that created it. There wasn’t much depth to Stark…because the single greatest event of his life that acted as a turning point didn’t happen until the man was later in life.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
They kept playing to the camera in Iron Man. Lame one-liners, and those gags while he was building the prototype suits. I don’t like that sort of thing. It took away from the otherwise serious tone that the movie seemed to be going for.
Also I did not feel the characters were well developed and I never felt much attachment to any of them other than Pepper Potts. The actors were all just kind of there, playing the roles, not really making me feel they WERE the characters or that the characters had much real chemistry together.
Also, unlike The Dark Knight (and to a lesser extent The Incredible Hulk), there was no thought provoking deeper meanings to the movie that I could see. It was just a movie about a guy that winds up fighting crime.
Yes there is some “party boy turns hero” thing going on, but it did not really offer anything more than lip service to that aspect of the story. Also, that in and of itself is not terribly interesting in the same way that The Dark Knight was interesting on a psychological level.[/quote]
Not every movie has to have deeper meanings in order for it to be entertaining. Sometimes “a guy in a suit winds up fighting crime” is as simple as it needs to be.
On top of that you’re comparing sequels to an introduction movie, let alone an intro to a character that isn’t a popular as Hulk or Batman. Everyone knows who Batman and Hulk are, so they didn’t have to devote any screen time to that; they just dived in with the story.
“Iron Man” had to introduce all the main characters, tell a basic story involving said characters, and make it fun enough to have people interested in a sequel. In that regard, they were successful. In the sequel they will most definitely reveal more about Tony Stark, Pepper, Rhoadie and their relationships.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
Professor X wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
I rarely make it to a theater for a movie. The Dark Knight was an exception since I knew it was going to be amazing and it still far topped my expectations.
The Incredible Hulk is going to be playing at the local cheap theater ($5 tickets) and I am wondering whether it is worth my time.
I like super hero movies but I much prefer some thoughtfulness in the plot; something that will have me thinking during and after the movie. This is especially true if I am going to spend money to go see a movie and probably buy some concessions (at least some water), rather than wait for cable or Netflix which would be cheaper.
I really liked The Dark Knight (4.5/5 stars) but felt Iron Man was kind of meh (3.0/5, fun but not very thoughtful, also had too many goofy moments and not enough character development).
I probably will make time to go spend $10-20 plus gas to see The Dark Knight again. Iron Man is more something I would watch on cable when I am bored.
Where does The Incredible Hulk fall in that spectrum?
“oh man…should I watch Incredible Hulk or watch Sex and the City for the third time…I really do enjoy Cosmos”
Stop being gay and watch Incredible Hulk. I should tribunal you for hesitating to see the Hulk.
Best. Post.
Ironman goofy?
Ironman = cool as shit
They kept playing to the camera in Iron Man. Lame one-liners, and those gags while he was building the prototype suits. I don’t like that sort of thing. It took away from the otherwise serious tone that the movie seemed to be going for.
Also I did not feel the characters were well developed and I never felt much attachment to any of them other than Pepper Potts. The actors were all just kind of there, playing the roles, not really making me feel they WERE the characters or that the characters had much real chemistry together.
Also, unlike The Dark Knight (and to a lesser extent The Incredible Hulk), there was no thought provoking deeper meanings to the movie that I could see. It was just a movie about a guy that winds up fighting crime.
Yes there is some “party boy turns hero” thing going on, but it did not really offer anything more than lip service to that aspect of the story. Also, that in and of itself is not terribly interesting in the same way that The Dark Knight was interesting on a psychological level.
Dude, Ironman was about as close to the comics as they could possibly make it. If it seemed playful, that is because Tony Stark was a playboy who literally didn’t give a shit before his life nearly ended. I think they did a GREAT job of showing that. Stark wasn’t a “Batman”. He lost his mother and later his father, but they weren’t killed when he was a kid at gun point. He was a classic spoiled shallow rich kid who just happens to be one of the smartest men on the planet.
It sounds like you were simply unfamiliar with the background that created it. There wasn’t much depth to Stark…because the single greatest event of his life that acted as a turning point didn’t happen until the man was later in life.[/quote]
To some extent you probably are right, in that Tony Stark does not have the same level of emotional story to plumb that the Hulk or Batman have. They did not necessarily have a lot to work with, at least in the first movie.
Still I think they did play to the camera and nearly break the fourth wall on occasion with cheesy one-liners and the gags. I get that Tony Stark is a spoiled playboy know-it-all.
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
They kept playing to the camera in Iron Man. Lame one-liners, and those gags while he was building the prototype suits. I don’t like that sort of thing. It took away from the otherwise serious tone that the movie seemed to be going for.
Also I did not feel the characters were well developed and I never felt much attachment to any of them other than Pepper Potts. The actors were all just kind of there, playing the roles, not really making me feel they WERE the characters or that the characters had much real chemistry together.
Also, unlike The Dark Knight (and to a lesser extent The Incredible Hulk), there was no thought provoking deeper meanings to the movie that I could see. It was just a movie about a guy that winds up fighting crime.
Yes there is some “party boy turns hero” thing going on, but it did not really offer anything more than lip service to that aspect of the story. Also, that in and of itself is not terribly interesting in the same way that The Dark Knight was interesting on a psychological level.
Not every movie has to have deeper meanings in order for it to be entertaining. Sometimes “a guy in a suit winds up fighting crime” is as simple as it needs to be.
On top of that you’re comparing sequels to an introduction movie, let alone an intro to a character that isn’t a popular as Hulk or Batman. Everyone knows who Batman and Hulk are, so they didn’t have to devote any screen time to that; they just dived in with the story.
“Iron Man” had to introduce all the main characters, tell a basic story involving said characters, and make it fun enough to have people interested in a sequel. In that regard, they were successful. In the sequel they will most definitely reveal more about Tony Stark, Pepper, Rhoadie and their relationships.
[/quote]
For me, if a movie is just “entertaining” it is not going to get as high a rating or appeal to me as much as a movie that is entertaining AND has a thought provoking story.
Batman Begins spent a great deal of time developing all of the characters and still managed to be a better movie than Iron Man. Though The Dark Knight was a sequel it did not skimp on character development either, and had quite a few introductions to make itself.
Even if there was not a Batman franchise out there, I would still have a sense that Iron Man was made to appeal more to the typical summer blockbuster movie goer, and that there was a more dramatic approach that could have been taken.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
Even if there was not a Batman franchise out there, I would still have a sense that Iron Man was made to appeal more to the typical summer blockbuster movie goer, and that there was a more dramatic approach that could have been taken.
[/quote]
I think Ironman did a great job of being the first this summer to get people back into theater seats. I had basically quit going to movies before Batman Begins. They were ALL unoriginal and just not worth the damn near 10 bucks to go see it one time. Ironman wasn’t like Dark Knight, but I like what it was…just fucking fun to watch and possibly one of the better casting attempts in a movie since King Leonidas in 300…even though dark Knight blew that out of the water.
I can’t complain too much with what they’ve come out with lately. Even Hancock was a decent attempt even though it got overshadowed by all of the others and didn’t match as far as story line and plot.