Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47
  1. #1
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default Iron Man 1 is the best MCU movie. (Film Making Point of View Only)

    I say this from a film making point of view only. The only one weakness I would give this movie is maybe the plot was too predictable between Tony and Obadiah, but when you look at directing, cast, cinematography, VFX, sound, score, Character-Driven purpose arc. I think Iron Man 1 is the best MCU movie just from a art pov.

    It also has a 3rd arc that is mostly neat, without any of the bombastic cgi galore that came with the sequels or we got to see with Avengers. I used to think it was Winter Solider that was their best film, but winter solider was already a bit disney-doned , the cinematography of the movie sucks and the last arc with the helicarriers was over the top but I think winter solider will still be a top 3 because it is not as corny as the other MCU movies.

    However Iron Man 1 is a true Jon Favreau work. It's a movie that has more in common with Star Wars Mandalorian than other MCU movies. This is a movie that was very well made and planned out and if I was a film maker, I would want to have done this movie than any other MCU movie.

    I will leave with one of the best scenes of the film. This movie meant business not the comedy cartoon looking stuff we have now. This is actually what a gritty high stake scene can be without blood or gore.



    Jon Favreau does not get credit enough and its a darm shame that people got too carried away with the cinematic universe thing and have glossed over this film to favours other nonsensical films like Infinity Wars that does not even have 1/10th of the film making chops of Iron Man 1
    Last edited by Castle; 12-21-2020 at 02:50 PM.

  2. #2
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,472

    Default

    Much as I like Iron Man 1, it's third act leaves much to be desired, especially the final battle, which does not flow from the themes of the film. By handicapping Tony so much that he's forced to ask Pepper to use the deus ex machina to win, it robs the fight of all meaning. It should have been a fight between the better suit and the better man, with Tony using all the testing and practice he'd done over the movie to get the upper hand despite the Iron Monger armor being more powerful than the Iron Man armor, while Stane with his obsession with big weapons ignores the human element. Instead there's only one moment like that with the 'icing' issue, and the rest of the fight is about running out of power and getting Pepper in position to kill Stane. Instead of it being about the man inside the suit being more important than the suit, it's just about what's the most convenient way to kill the bad guy. So it's thematically very unsatisfying. Later films in the MCU, like Iron Man 3 and Spider-Man Homecoming, got this right in a way Iron Man 1 just didn't.

    Where I give the film the most credit is that before it came out I didn't think an Iron Man movie could work at all. Even as a teenager I thought the suit would be stupid and the premise wouldn't translate to film, so I was blown away by the fact that it proved it could be done and was a mostly very good, grounded flick until that final battle.
    Last edited by sunofdarkchild; 12-21-2020 at 03:29 PM.

  3. #3
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    Much as I like Iron Man 1, it's third act leaves much to be desired, especially the final battle, which does not flow from the themes of the film. By handicapping Tony so much that he's forced to ask Pepper to use the deus ex machina to win, it robs the fight of all meaning. It should have been a fight between the better suit and the better man, with Tony using all the testing and practice he'd done over the movie to get the upper hand despite the Iron Monger armor being more powerful than the Iron Man armor, while Stane with his obsession with big weapons ignores the human element. Instead there's only one moment like that with the 'icing' issue, and the rest of the fight is about running out of power and getting Pepper in position to kill Stane. Instead of it being about the man inside the suit being more important than the suit, it's just about what's the most convenient way to kill the bad guy. So it's thematically very unsatisfying. Later films in the MCU, like Iron Man 3 and Spider-Man Homecoming, got this right in a way Iron Man 1 just didn't.

    Where I give the film the most credit is that before it came out I didn't think an Iron Man movie could work at all. Even as a teenager I thought the suit would be stupid and the premise wouldn't translate to film, so I was blown away by the fact that it proved it could be done and was a mostly very good, grounded flick until that final battle.
    Superhero movies 3rd acts have been falling apart since X-Men last stand and Sandman and Venom teaming up to fight spiderman in spiderman 3 , does iron man 1 have the greatest third arc of a comic film? No for me, since third arc comic films can be iffy.

    I don't think tony asking Pepper for help made him weak, it made him flawed and made Pepper more valuable than just a love interest. As I said, this to me was more about film making experience of the movie and I feel it is the most well made MCU movie. Obviously fans can argue forever where the story should and could have gone.

    I cannot remember homecoming and I did not like iron man 3, not only is the movie cartoonish, the movie had no stakes and had too much CGI. RDJ was too much of a star in iron man 3 to make Tony more believable in the role as he should have been compared to the first movie

    Where I give the film the most credit is that before it came out I didn't think an Iron Man movie could work at all. Even as a teenager I thought the suit would be stupid and the premise wouldn't translate to film, so I was blown away by the fact that it proved it could be done and was a mostly very good, grounded flick until that final battle.
    And still my candidate this was their best film. The movie had the most realistic looking Iron suit.

  4. #4
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    From a film-making point of view -- Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Thor Ragnarok -- are all better than Iron Man 1.

    Heck Iron Man 3 is better than Iron Man 1 from a film-making point of view.

    Iron Man 1 is pretty cookie-cutter generic held by RDJ's performance and the VFX, but it's not using that to do anything interesting conceptually, thematically, or narratively with the material.

    A "film-making point of view" means or implies that you achieve a kind of dramatic and technical competence and then use that to create something or communicate something more interesting than the sum of its part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    It also has a 3rd arc that is mostly neat, without any of the bombastic cgi galore that came with the sequels or we got to see with Avengers.
    The 3rd act of IM-1 is set entirely at night to the extent that we can't see the action clearly, and a generic robotman versus robotman fight is conceptually quite dull in terms of spectacle.And a superhero movie must have spectacle. IM-2 is seen as a weak movie (and it is) but I gotta say the climax of IM-2 is far better than IM-1's, since you get to see interesting new elements like Tony and War Machine fighting side-by-side, you have it inside a domed area so you can do it close quarters, you got interesting stuff saved for the climax (the whole twirling lasers thing) and then the final boss drops in at the end.

  5. #5
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    From a film-making point of view -- Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Thor Ragnarok -- are all better than Iron Man 1.

    .
    There is no difference between GOTG and Ragnarok up to dialogue and tone. GOTG was the start of the bad Disney rain of Marvel. Ragnarok was the completion of that rain. Ragnarok is also bland with VFX and cinematography. Hulk looked terrible and some of the costumes should have been better, this is where Black Panther wins. I think GOTG works with introducing characters no one ever heard about with a pure intended agenda from Disney that the movie would be more of a live action cartoon without any credible science fiction commentary, while thor only made that shift for the third film. There is no genuine film making there.

    I think GOTG appeals to a certain type of people, but this movie is a Disney commercial for toys at best and is no match for the seriousness and genuinity of Jon Feaveau's Iron Man.

    I only saw Dr Strange once so I cannot remember much of the movie but I remember the film making style and it screamed Light Nolan Inception. I also remember not liking the third arc because it had something to do with a CGI villain that looked very not-real on screen. I remember it been quite messy.

    Iron Man 1 is pretty cookie-cutter generic held by RDJ's performance and the VFX, but it's not using that to do anything interesting conceptually, thematically, or narratively with the material.
    I already pointed out the one weakness of iron man was the plot was thin or generic if you want to call it that but you can say the same for Avatar. Not the strongest plot but a well made artistic movie. I also disagree that the movie did not have any interesting thematical narrative with the material. I think it was perfect for Iron Man and it a more good alternative to other marvel films like X-men 1 or X-men 2 where some could argue Singer got too preachy pushy themes and social commentary. Tony thoughts on weapons did change through out the movie and his character also developed personally. The performance of RDJ is what makes the film the best, since many times the heart of very artistic movie is the performances of the cast even if the screenplay is not the strongest.

    It's ironic you called Iron Man 1 cookie-cutter but had Disney had Marvel from the start, it would be worse than what you see as cookie-cutter by your standard.

    A "film-making point of view" means or implies that you achieve a kind of dramatic and technical competence and then use that to create something or communicate something more interesting than the sum of its part.
    this is why it is almost impossible to call any MCU movie post 2014 their best film from a film making POV, they are more mass manufactured. Another thing with film making POV means you can blame everything on the director not the studio. A lot of MCU movies are the same. Iron Man 1 remains its own strong entry and proves that Jon Favreau is a good director.

    I will give you another pov film notification. The cinematography of Iron Man 1 is the best in any MCU movie. Every MCU movie that has come after has looked weird. Winter Solider and Age of Ultron are suppose to be different genres but those movie look the same, this is not film making but a collection of movies going through a mass post production effects with Kevin Feige at the end to see things off.
    The 3rd act of IM-1 is set entirely at night to the extent that we can't see the action clearly, and a generic robotman versus robotman fight is conceptually quite dull in terms of spectacle.And a superhero movie must have spectacle. IM-2 is seen as a weak movie (and it is) but I gotta say the climax of IM-2 is far better than IM-1's, since you get to see interesting new elements like Tony and War Machine fighting side-by-side, you have it inside a domed area so you can do it close quarters, you got interesting stuff saved for the climax (the whole twirling lasers thing) and then the final boss drops in at the end.
    Iron Man 3 third arc is one of the better ones compared to other MCU movies. You think Iron Man 2 was better? not a chance for me. I remember watching the third arc with negative views, the tone just sucks and Tony and Rhody seem more like they were doing stunts, the climax of iron man 2 look too overdirected. it just screamed fun and explosions galore unlike Iron Man 1, Everything Whiplash is negative on the film. Iron Man 2 is not a good film, Jon clashed with everyone behind the scenes.
    Last edited by Castle; 12-21-2020 at 04:59 PM.

  6. #6
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    GOTG was the start of the bad Disney rain of Marvel.
    If that's what you wish to believe.

    I think GOTG appeals to a certain type of people, but this movie is a Disney commercial for toys at best and is no match for the seriousness and genuinity of Jon Feaveau's Iron Man.
    Yeah, a dude who creates different suits of armor with color variants and attached doo-dads is absolutely not toy-friendly at all.

    I also remember not liking the third arc because it had something to do with a CGI villain that looked very not-real on screen. I remember it been quite messy.
    That's not really the third act of Doctor Strange. I suggest you watch the movie again.

    Tony thoughts on weapons did change through out the movie and his character also developed personally.
    He decided that he was going to stop selling weapons by becoming a weapon himself. That's too wrapped up in genre to be compelling nor is that interesting thematically. In fact, the movie mainly works as a comedy.

    You think Iron Man 2 was better?
    The climactic fight in IM-2 is better than IM-1.

  7. #7
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Captain America Winter Soldier and The Avengers.better made films.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  8. #8
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    If that's what you wish to believe.

    I do believe this. the evidence is clear there. Marvel did play with humour in the earlier films , it was GOTG that capitalized on it to the point where we can say it has become destructive and ruined much of their approach to film making down to the vfx, sound mixing, performances and cinematography. . If GOTG had failed, there would not have been Ragnarok or Antman or Endgame or Love and Thunder and any other marvel films even their hardcore fans say the comedy was too much.
    Yeah, a dude who creates different suits of armor with color variants and attached doo-dads is absolutely not toy-friendly at all.
    The difference is Iron Man 1was not intended to be funny or without needing to apply our heads on why he wanted to use his weapon skills talents for something else. The scene with Iron man saving those people from terrorists was the perfect example of mixing a realistic theme about terrorism with superhero fantasy of an Iron Suit without having to think big about toys, something that was absent in iron man 3. Jon knew how to balance things. the Disney marvel formula has mostly lost that balance and it has ruined their film making style.



    That's not really the third act of Doctor Strange. I suggest you watch the movie again.
    I have seen that sort of film. I will leave the comic bookie story plot to fans. that is just one aspect of the film.
    He decided that he was going to stop selling weapons by becoming a weapon himself. That's too wrapped up in genre to be compelling nor is that interesting thematically. In fact, the movie mainly works as a comedy.
    the sequels failed to capitalise on the first film. In the first film he created a weapon to help.

    The climactic fight in IM-2 is better than IM-1.
    Iron Man 2 only exist to set up Avengers. Usually the easiest bait fall of weak film making , we know this from Amazing Spiderman 2.

  9. #9
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    The difference is Iron Man 1was not intended to be funny
    Aaaaand...you lost me!!

    RDJ's Tony is a jokester who gives nicknames and drops pop culture references like a Dreamworks animation protagonist all his films.

    And now we have people saying IM-1 wasn't intended to be funny.

    Cool, enjoy the version of the movie that you remember, fair enough.

  10. #10

    Default

    Never got the complaints about the third act of IM. We had already seen how much of a dominant force he is in the suit. Handicapping him for the final battle and having Tony rely on his wits made for a more interesting fight. The movie had already established that none of Stane's scientists were as good as Tony so whatever the former came up with was going to be second rate. Having Tony's arc reactor fail made for a much more suspenseful fight.

  11. #11
    King of Wakanda Midvillian1322's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    9,448

    Default

    Lol well this thread got silly fast. Ironman 1 is great imo. But its 100% intended to be funny. Tony is dropping almost as many jokes a minute as StarLord. Both character hide behind humor and sarcasm. If IM 1 wasn't funny it wouldn't work. It's the issue some had with Stranges depiction in his solo movie. He was dropping Stark style humor with pop culture references and all. Cumberbatch just doesn't have the personality to pull of that style of humor. The more situational humor that he draws laughs from in Ragnarok/Infinity war is more appropriate. It's all situational or him just being a dick.

  12. #12
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midvillian1322 View Post
    Lol well this thread got silly fast. Ironman 1 is great imo. But its 100% intended to be funny. Tony is dropping almost as many jokes a minute as StarLord. Both character hide behind humor and sarcasm. If IM 1 wasn't funny it wouldn't work. It's the issue some had with Stranges depiction in his solo movie. He was dropping Stark style humor with pop culture references and all. Cumberbatch just doesn't have the personality to pull of that style of humor. The more situational humor that he draws laughs from in Ragnarok/Infinity war is more appropriate. It's all situational or him just being a dick.
    Unfortunately I knew this thread could get derailed fast because I know MCU is not really the franchise for talking about film making experience but i thought i give it a try since once upon a time they had some. Iron Man 1 was clear proof of that.

    Iron Man 1 was never 100% intended to be funny that was Iron Man 3. In a twist of fate Marvel loss of Jon Favreau has become Star Wars gain. He is on the path of going down as the best director Disney may have hired in decades.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Venus View Post
    Never got the complaints about the third act of IM. We had already seen how much of a dominant force he is in the suit. Handicapping him for the final battle and having Tony rely on his wits made for a more interesting fight. The movie had already established that none of Stane's scientists were as good as Tony so whatever the former came up with was going to be second rate. Having Tony's arc reactor fail made for a much more suspenseful fight.
    I have no big complains about the finale. The third act was shot good. this is the best his suit look in any movie.



    Marvel couldn't pull this look in Infinity War/Endgame. The 3D animated vfx of endgame makes Iron Man 1 a better made film.

  13. #13
    Astonishing Member Coal Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Marvel couldn't pull this look in Infinity War/Endgame. The 3D animated vfx of endgame makes Iron Man 1 a better made film.
    Couldn’t or had no intention to? You know the suits in IM1 are CG too, right?

  14. #14
    Silver Sentinel BeastieRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    15,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    Much as I like Iron Man 1, it's third act leaves much to be desired, especially the final battle, which does not flow from the themes of the film. By handicapping Tony so much that he's forced to ask Pepper to use the deus ex machina to win, it robs the fight of all meaning. It should have been a fight between the better suit and the better man, with Tony using all the testing and practice he'd done over the movie to get the upper hand despite the Iron Monger armor being more powerful than the Iron Man armor, while Stane with his obsession with big weapons ignores the human element. Instead there's only one moment like that with the 'icing' issue, and the rest of the fight is about running out of power and getting Pepper in position to kill Stane. Instead of it being about the man inside the suit being more important than the suit, it's just about what's the most convenient way to kill the bad guy. So it's thematically very unsatisfying. Later films in the MCU, like Iron Man 3 and Spider-Man Homecoming, got this right in a way Iron Man 1 just didn't.

    Where I give the film the most credit is that before it came out I didn't think an Iron Man movie could work at all. Even as a teenager I thought the suit would be stupid and the premise wouldn't translate to film, so I was blown away by the fact that it proved it could be done and was a mostly very good, grounded flick until that final battle.
    Tony had to ask for help and let somebody in, literally and figuratively, to win the final battle.

    A theme of the entire movie (asking for help, letting people in) that should be obvious to even the most pretentious film critque. Heck, even critics said it was too heavy handed on the themes.

    It is so black and white and obvious. It's not like a Kubric film where you have to really dig deep to see the theme. It wasn't very subtle. At least to me.
    "Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium

  15. #15
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    9,336

    Default

    To me, its equal to First Avenger. Both of these movies hit all the right beats for origin stories, feature charismatic casts and establish their respective characters. Even though First Avenger is more of a world threat type of movie than Iron Man, the stakes for each character in each movie basically are the same.

    As a solo movie, Black Panther is about the same. But I can't put it there with those other two movies because the character had already appeared in a couple of movies so was kind of established already. Dr. Strange falls just below those other three movies. The Hulk solo movies and the first Thor movie are way lower.

    Black Widow movie seems like it is going to be good, but its got a big uphill climb to stand with FA and IM, because Widow is so established already.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •