Iron Man 3 - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 437 Old 05-13-2013, 12:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
General Kenobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kalifornistan
Posts: 5,863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by raaj View Post

The circumstances Stark finds himself in this movie sort of excuse the use of the weaker suits. During the surprise attack, he needed a suit that could be summoned remotely to protect Pepper. He had to use the same suit "during" the same attack because he could not go to his basement to be fitted with one of his more resilient suits. Jarvis literally had to fly him out of the attack scene in the same suit to save his life. Given that his mansion was in a pile of mangled rubble, his other suits were unavailable until the rubble gets cleared, so he had to try to recharge the suit he had with him in Tennessee. Perhaps the full-strength suits HAD to be fitted on to his body by the robots in his lab, and we don't know if those suits were capable of remote control. And perhaps, the drone suits were the best option for the final attack, considering the need for elements of surprise and remote control swarm attack tactics.

If we agree with the assumption that the full-strength suit really had to fitted on to his body by assembly robots, it would make sense to use the weaker, destructible suits that could be remotely piloted by Jarvis to come to his aid while battling the Mandarin. Since the Mandarin could create incredible amounts of heat that could melt metals, it would make sense to use a suit that Stark could quickly escape out of, rather than have it damaged and fused at the wrong places while in combat. Maybe the suits can take a tremendous amount of beating, but have a weakness to very high amounts of heat. This was shown to be the case with the Iron Patriot in captivity in the Mandarin's lair, and the ease with which the Mandarin slices through some of the drone suits using heat.

All of these angles appear perfectly reasonable to use the destructible drone suits instead of a single indestructible suit like the one from the first movie or The Avengers. Even in the original movie, we see that Stane in his monster suit literally beat Stark in his Iron Man suit into within inches of his life in the final fight. It was always Stark's quick intellect and genius coupled with the attack/evasive capabilities built into the suit that gets him out of trouble most times - not its "assumed powers of indestructibility".
Well we already know the Mark VII was capable of tracking TS by a simple voice command and attaching to him via LOS laser guidance and that he kept it in Stark tower in NY. We also know the suit could at least tolerate Thor's lightening, 105mm tank round, alien laser or light bolts, lightening whips using the same power source as his suit, and a brief moment of -454.72°F (more or less the temp in space), among other things.

I agree that you make some valid points and there are obvious and plausible conditions that call for the suits he used but the fact is we've seen 3 films with the Iron Man suit taking increasing punishment prior to IM3 where we waited to see a suit ready to go a fe rounds before falling apart but it never happened. TS had those suits before he knew he would be facing a metal melting foe but they were clearly designed to allow him that freedom. That said in the past he's made the suit more and more resistant to punishment based on prior encounters. The discussion is really endless but for me I would have much rather seen the uber suit arrive last minute for a proper bout instead of seeing lava girl/iron lady save the day. Other than that I really liked the film and will see it again before it leaves the theater.

My Rig

Kenobi's 31 Days of Horror:

 

2012

2011

2010

2009

General Kenobi is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 437 Old 05-13-2013, 01:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Just because it's kind of fun to a degree debating this kind of thing, keep in mind that you're basically talking about the Extremis Armor, which is basically connected to Stark's skin in addition to part of it being in his bone if I'm not mistaken, all of which he controls basically in a telepathic/telekinetic way. I'm sure there is someone out there much more versed than I am about the comic lore. I don't believe IM3 is representative of progressing that far but that is where this whole armor thing is going. That being said, I go back to the experimental stages of development, which I would think give sufficient cause to question the durability of his suit. Secondly, if the suit really is more connected to his tissue then from a sensory/neurological standpoint I would also think there is sufficient cause that the sensitivity of his tissue would cause a fail safe so to speak causing the suit to break apart kind of like skis off a ski boot so nothing gets damaged or more damaged. Again, still keeping in mind experimental stages here. This kind of theory alone simply gives me some latitude of plausibility within the movie and makes it all kind of work for me.

That being said, the remote suits not being able to get out because the Stark mansion being under rubble is kind of hard for me to buy in to mainly because they're all equipped with repulsor fire and in theory could have blasted it's way out. Personally, it's easier for me to buy into it was Stark's decision not to engage the remotes one, because being the risk taker that he is, he wanted to maximize the "testing" of the MK42 and two, because even with the helicopter attack I believe he knew this wasn't the full extent of what he would be facing. Therefore, I would venture to say that IF there is a future installment, we will see this same technology but more functional, durable and better weaponized because as General Kenobi stated, each movie saw an enhanced version of the suit based on the previous movies battle stress.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #273 of 437 Old 05-13-2013, 01:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Maybe he couldn't fit an entire arc reactor into a glove or a shoe or a cod piece, so the snap-together suits used a different power source (one that had to be recharged).
The more I think about it, the less justification there is for a suit with such design compromises. In fact, the whole thing falls apart. What does Tony gain with this modular design? Portability? He already designed a fully capable version to fit in a suitcase. Summonability? Why not just summon a fully assembled, fully capable suit (as he was obviously capable of doing)? So really, there is no design justification at all for a weaker, less capable suit which seemingly exists only so the filmmakers could show scenes of it arriving in pieces.
Quote:
No, because the writers and everybody else knows that if they depicted “Tony’s character” using a watch battery to power the suit, and made it out of aluminum foil (both of which would be consistent with Tony having to use “technology”), it would be a laughable attempt at ignoring the laws of physics, and no one would buy it.

But that has more to do with Tony's high tech character than anything to do with physics. MacGyver would be using everyday household objects to do what he does.
You think MacGyver could build an Iron Man suit with duct tape, aluminum foil, and a watch battery?? I can just imagine how believable the audience would find that. The Iron Man suit needs to be built with special high tech alloy, advanced electronics, and a some fantastically advanced power source, NOT because of Tony’s “character”, but to give the audience the feeling that there’s a reasonable verisimilitude to the thing. It, is, after all, a technological device, not something like a magic carpet blinked into existence by some cute blonde in a harem outfit.
Quote:
You want the suit that ended up in Tennessee to be the same suit (same capability) as the suit in the first movie.
At least. I want the Iron Man suit to improve over time (it sure as hell did in the previous movies as well as the comic books), not degrade. There’s nothing the least bit “unreasonable” or irrational about such an expectation (in fact, expecting and wanting the opposite is).
Quote:
it is a different suit with a different power source and different capabilities
Yes, with nothing to justify such differences, other than as a storytelling device.
Quote:
You don't have to accept that reality
Which is essentially what I said at the very beginning, so it seems we agree. The only “reality” is the choices made by the writers, choices which were not necessary or (IMO) good.
Quote:
the fact is we've seen 3 films with the Iron Man suit taking increasing punishment prior to IM3 where we waited to see a suit ready to go a fe rounds before falling apart but it never happened. TS had those suits before he knew he would be facing a metal melting foe but they were clearly designed to allow him that freedom. That said in the past he's made the suit more and more resistant to punishment based on prior encounters. The discussion is really endless but for me I would have much rather seen the uber suit arrive last minute for a proper bout instead of seeing lava girl/iron lady save the day.
I agree completely.
RobertR is offline  
post #274 of 437 Old 05-13-2013, 02:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 109
The concept/design of the Extremis Armor (modular design) is to increase responsiveness eventually becoming armor that basically fuses to Stark's skin. That's what he will gain. At face value, sure the suit appeared to "degrade" but I think the overall concept is that this was a test suit. A prototype. The suit IMO wasn't in any way a downgrade (or degraded) because the technology itself was an upgrade to the technology that put the suit on him. And because I consider it to be a "test suit" (based on when he was in his garage and first tried to get it to come to him) I don't consider it a finished product and, this is the key point from my perspective, a sign of the future advancement or "upgrade" to the armor long term (future movie wise).

However, I will add this point, which is I do believe the production team intentionally wanted this movie to be somewhat less about the armor at least in the body of the movie to drive home the "who is really Iron Man?" point. We can debate whether that was wisely used or not but I do believe that's why in large part this conversation is being carried on to begin with.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #275 of 437 Old 05-13-2013, 02:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

The concept/design of the Extremis Armor (modular design) is to increase responsiveness eventually becoming armor that basically fuses to Stark's skin. That's what he will gain.
It sounds like it will eventually be a definite improvement, but what was shown in the movie looked wimpier.
Quote:
I will add this point, which is I do believe the production team intentionally wanted this movie to be somewhat less about the armor at least in the body of the movie to drive home the "who is really Iron Man?" point. We can debate whether that was wisely used or not but I do believe that's why in large part this conversation is being carried on to begin with.
I agree with you. Showing the armor as not working quite so well (and images such as the armor being dragged through the snow) was a conscious decision on the part of the filmmakers to emphasize that it's about Tony, not his armor.
RobertR is offline  
post #276 of 437 Old 05-13-2013, 04:08 PM
Member
 
Neal Steffek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

That being said, the remote suits not being able to get out because the Stark mansion being under rubble is kind of hard for me to buy in to mainly because they're all equipped with repulsor fire and in theory could have blasted it's way out. Personally, it's easier for me to buy into it was Stark's decision not to engage the remotes one, because being the risk taker that he is, he wanted to maximize the "testing" of the MK42 and two, because even with the helicopter attack I believe he knew this wasn't the full extent of what he would be facing. Therefore, I would venture to say that IF there is a future installment, we will see this same technology but more functional, durable and better weaponized because as General Kenobi stated, each movie saw an enhanced version of the suit based on the previous movies battle stress.

Anyone who says the armors couldn't get out because of the rubble over the door forgets that one of the suits is the Hulk Buster suit, designed to left very heavy things, perfect for getting out. Just another knock on this stupid film that really insults all who see it.
Neal Steffek is offline  
post #277 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 12:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

So really, there is no design justification at all for a weaker, less capable suit which seemingly exists only so the filmmakers could show scenes of it arriving in pieces.
Finally, your engineer brain goes beyond real-world physics. Yes, it's a movie, and the suit is designed to do what the filmmakers (not Tony Stark - 'cuz he's not real) want it to do, and it has the power source to accomplish what we see it do on screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

The only “reality” is the choices made by the writers, choices which were not necessary or (IMO) good.
No, choices that you didn't like (not to be confused with choices that were not good, since the movie is cracking a billion dollars as I type this).

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #278 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 05:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


No, choices that you didn't like
You're being redundant, since I said "IMO".

Quote:
(not to be confused with choices that were not good, since the movie is cracking a billion dollars as I type this).
So you equate popular with good? You must think The Phantom Menace is an excellent movie, and Britney Spears is a good singer. It's also a logical error to say that paying to see a movie (which includes me) must mean that one is absolutely happy with absolutely every aspect of it. See the last paragraph of post 274 as an example of why this is not so.
RobertR is offline  
post #279 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 06:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

You're being redundant, since I said "IMO".
So you equate popular with good? You must think The Phantom Menace is an excellent movie, and Britney Spears is a good singer.

The Phantom Menace was already a success even before hitting theaters, because it was the first Star Wars movie 16 years after ROTJ, and Star Wars being Star Wars... Whether it was good or not was almost irrelevant. Britney Spears doesn't make particularly "good" music, but she makes slick catchy pop songs, of course she doesn't do it all by herself, since she's surrounded by people who know how to make slick catchy tunes... She does what she does, and it works, so good for her (now don't mention Bieber please! tongue.gif). Back to Iron Man 3, word of mouth is probably not all bad as well... So there *IS* something that is obviously appealing to audiences. Even if popular doesn't always equate good, that doesn't mean it equates bad either. I don't think that people who go see Iron Man 3 expect laws of physics 101 or a conference from Stephen Hawking... They expect an entertaining superhero movie, with a larger than life hero, a damsel in distress, a cool villain with an evil plan, with awesome visual effects and exciting action, which Iron Man 3 precisely is. Nothing more. If that makes them idiots (I *know* you didn't say or imply that...) because Mark 42 is unrealistic well, so be it... smile.gif There were probably more technical errors and mistakes in The Avengers but nobody complained.
Morpheo is online now  
post #280 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 07:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 17,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Britney Spears doesn't make particularly "good" music, but she makes slick catchy pop songs, of course she doesn't do it all by herself, since she's surrounded by people who know how to make slick catchy tunes... She does what she does, and it works, so good for her (now don't mention Bieber please! tongue.gif).

It's more simple than that. Britney was selling sex, slightly sanitized for pubescent tastes, not pop music, not really. She's lost that gorgeous figure and related image now so she's just trading on her earlier fame, wringing as much cash as she still can out of it. Another few years and you'll never hear another word about her.
archiguy is online now  
post #281 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 07:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Steffek View Post

Anyone who says the armors couldn't get out because of the rubble over the door forgets that one of the suits is the Hulk Buster suit, designed to left very heavy things, perfect for getting out. Just another knock on this stupid film that really insults all who see it.

At least to this one point, it appears that you are considering it to be a flaw in the writing based on your Hulk Buster theory. Would you still consider this to be a knock against the movie if it was Stark's decision to not engage his drones?
Closet Geek is offline  
post #282 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

The Phantom Menace was already a success even before hitting theaters, because it was the first Star Wars movie 16 years after ROTJ, and Star Wars being Star Wars... Whether it was good or not was almost irrelevant. Britney Spears doesn't make particularly "good" music, but she makes slick catchy pop songs, of course she doesn't do it all by herself, since she's surrounded by people who know how to make slick catchy tunes... She does what she does, and it works, so good for her (now don't mention Bieber please! tongue.gif). Back to Iron Man 3, word of mouth is probably not all bad as well... So there *IS* something that is obviously appealing to audiences. Even if popular doesn't always equate good, that doesn't mean it equates bad either. I don't think that people who go see Iron Man 3 expect laws of physics 101 or a conference from Stephen Hawking... They expect an entertaining superhero movie, with a larger than life hero, a damsel in distress, a cool villain with an evil plan, with awesome visual effects and exciting action, which Iron Man 3 precisely is. Nothing more. If that makes them idiots (I *know* you didn't say or imply that...) because Mark 42 is unrealistic well, so be it... smile.gif There were probably more technical errors and mistakes in The Avengers but nobody complained.

The reality is there will never be a movie that appeals to all equally. There will never be a flawless movie and there will always be someone who says "I wouldn't have done it that way". Now there are two perspectives of this, which first, I'm sorry but at a billion dollars in earnings, something's gotta be right and/or good about this movie. The "value" of this movie FAR exceeds whatever flaws that may exist in it. A billion dollars in earnings I doubt is causing anyone at Disney/Marvel to be sitting in their office right now feeling like they messed up or questioning if they should make another movie. A billion dollars means the movie is popular, which by extension means it's good to the majority. To be clear, "good" doesn't necessarily mean "complete, flawless or Oscar worthy". A billion dollars of "good" means more people than not walked out saying "Holy crap, that was awesome! You gotta go see it!"

The other perspective is, Phillip Morris made billions "feeding us crap" too. Don't go too far on me with this one, I'm only pointing out the contrast of the means of making a billion dollars from something good and something not so good. How we all view it is relative. IM3 is no Oscar winner, and frankly IMO while he may have gotten to stretch himself as the character a little more I don't even regard it as RDJ's best performance in the role. But that doesn't mean it was bad acting or a bad movie. Likewise, just because armor was strong in one movie and not this movie doesn't make the movie bad, nor IMO does it even make it a flaw that might make the movie bad. And more to the point, even if they don't explain why the armor isn't as strong doesn't make the movie bad, to me it just means I have to use my imagination a little. I'm a child of the 80's so that's easy for me. I go in assuming there is a reason or explanation for everything like that, let my mind wonder and enjoy the ride. It's not like it a case where there was only one repulsor beam in his left hand but to make a scene work they had to put it in his right hand. Or at least, I don't think there was anything like that wink.gif
Closet Geek is offline  
post #283 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 09:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

So you equate popular with good?
Good for the studios, good for the audience. When it comes to something as subjective as art, there is no objective good or bad, just what people like. When talking about the reality the filmmakers created, you referred to something you personally didn't like as being "not good". In the same vein, I referred to movie's remarkable success with the audience as being "good". If you're going to apply objective labels to your subjective preference, then don't try to correct others when they do the same.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #284 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 11:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jwebb1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 8,336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

The Phantom Menace was already a success even before hitting theaters, because it was the first Star Wars movie 16 years after ROTJ, and Star Wars being Star Wars... Whether it was good or not was almost irrelevant. Britney Spears doesn't make particularly "good" music, but she makes slick catchy pop songs, of course she doesn't do it all by herself, since she's surrounded by people who know how to make slick catchy tunes... She does what she does, and it works, so good for her (now don't mention Bieber please! tongue.gif). Back to Iron Man 3, word of mouth is probably not all bad as well... So there *IS* something that is obviously appealing to audiences. Even if popular doesn't always equate good, that doesn't mean it equates bad either. I don't think that people who go see Iron Man 3 expect laws of physics 101 or a conference from Stephen Hawking... They expect an entertaining superhero movie, with a larger than life hero, a damsel in distress, a cool villain with an evil plan, with awesome visual effects and exciting action, which Iron Man 3 precisely is. Nothing more. If that makes them idiots (I *know* you didn't say or imply that...) because Mark 42 is unrealistic well, so be it... smile.gif There were probably more technical errors and mistakes in The Avengers but nobody complained.

As well, TPM appealed to children more so than the adults who grew up on the OT. It also continues to appeal to kids. My own view on Ep I was altered considerably after having kids of my own. While my 10 year old currently finds ESB to be her fave, TPM comes in 2nd. Go figure, right? At least the next SW film is being helmed by an old school fan who appears to have little to no interest in action figure sales.

I recall one of the biggest - and silliest, IMO - complaints regarding Avengers.....the magic comlink ability the team (outside of Banner/Hulk) possessed during the final NYC battle. Granted, we saw Black Widow hold a finger to her ear while communicating w/ Fury in regards to going after Hawkeye after her Hulk assault. I figured that established the Avengers had been provided off-screen with some super duper SHIELD comlink tech (which of course was compatible w/ Stark's suit)

As to music....well, I am a music snob, so I just go with the masses having sh*ty taste. wink.gif

Money does not buy happiness. It can, however, buy you a giant boat that you can pull up alongside happiness. - David Lee Roth

jwebb1970 is offline  
post #285 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 12:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Good for the studios, good for the audience. When it comes to something as subjective as art, there is no objective good or bad, just what people like. When talking about the reality the filmmakers created, you referred to something you personally didn't like as being "not good". In the same vein, I referred to movie's remarkable success with the audience as being "good". If you're going to apply objective labels to your subjective preference, then don't try to correct others when they do the same.

Example...I think the food at Sonic is terrible almost to the point of physical reactions. But that doesn't make it a bad restaurant. Literally, every person I know disagrees with me to varying degrees. I don't try to convince them that the food has a weird taste and they don't try to convince me that it doesn't.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #286 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 12:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post

As well, TPM appealed to children more so than the adults who grew up on the OT. It also continues to appeal to kids. My own view on Ep I was altered considerably after having kids of my own. While my 10 year old currently finds ESB to be her fave, TPM comes in 2nd. Go figure, right? At least the next SW film is being helmed by an old school fan who appears to have little to no interest in action figure sales.

I recall one of the biggest - and silliest, IMO - complaints regarding Avengers.....the magic comlink ability the team (outside of Banner/Hulk) possessed during the final NYC battle. Granted, we saw Black Widow hold a finger to her ear while communicating w/ Fury in regards to going after Hawkeye after her Hulk assault. I figured that established the Avengers had been provided off-screen with some super duper SHIELD comlink tech (which of course was compatible w/ Stark's suit)

As to music....well, I am a music snob, so I just go with the masses having sh*ty taste. wink.gif

For the record...your 10 year old is apparently wise as Yoda.

And could you say that second part again? I had on my Star Trek TNG chest comlink instead of my Avengers earpiece.

And as far as your comment about music, well, frankly I'm offended by that. I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just saying I'm offended. biggrin.gif
jwebb1970 likes this.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #287 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 01:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

good for the audience.
In absolutely every respect for absolutely everyone who bought a ticket? That's quite an assumption.
RobertR is offline  
post #288 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 04:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jwebb1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 8,336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

In absolutely every respect for absolutely everyone who bought a ticket? That's quite an assumption.

Everyone? No. But bringing up The Phantom Menace again.....regardless of what anyone ever stated while posting their gripes on a forum or talk back board, that movie broke $400 million in the US alone in its initial theatrical run - not all at once, but over the summer of 1999. You do not take in that kind of coin in an opening weekend or even an opening month (at least in 1999). You can grade on a curve here being that it is Star Wars, which will bring in cash regardless. But while it had its vocal - and arguably deserved - detractors,TPM was apparently good for enough of the audience to not only pay to see it, but pay to see it multiple times. And buy it multiple times on various home video formats.

Money does not buy happiness. It can, however, buy you a giant boat that you can pull up alongside happiness. - David Lee Roth

jwebb1970 is offline  
post #289 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 04:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jwebb1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 8,336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

For the record...your 10 year old is apparently wise as Yoda.

And could you say that second part again? I had on my Star Trek TNG chest comlink instead of my Avengers earpiece.

And as far as your comment about music, well, frankly I'm offended by that. I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just saying I'm offended. biggrin.gif

1 - I will pass on the compliment to my rather wise daughter.

2- I believe the TNG & Avengers comlink batteries are of the same size/voltage - just good info for the future.

3 - You're welcome. biggrin.gif

Money does not buy happiness. It can, however, buy you a giant boat that you can pull up alongside happiness. - David Lee Roth

jwebb1970 is offline  
post #290 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 06:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

In absolutely every respect for absolutely everyone who bought a ticket?
Absolutely! For every single audience member in all of Christendom that will ever view this film (not just buy a ticket) now and for all of eternity.

(if you're going to ask a stupid question...)

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #291 of 437 Old 05-14-2013, 11:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 602
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Marvel universe....


Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #292 of 437 Old 05-15-2013, 03:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Absolutely! For every single audience member in all of Christendom that will ever view this film (not just buy a ticket) now and for all of eternity.
LOL. Since that's an obvious "no", that means that there could be (and probably are) plenty of people who bought tickets to the movie (even more than once) who found some aspect of the movie that bothered them, just as I did. Therefore, that renders your citation of the movie's boxoffice as "refutation" of my comments on it meaningless.
RobertR is offline  
post #293 of 437 Old 05-15-2013, 06:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Marvel universe....


This is crap! The spacing between the letters on the logo is off. No way I'm watching something so shoddy! Computers in real life don't space letters that way. And the flare thing going thru it? You can keep this garbage! I'll pass!biggrin.gif
Closet Geek is offline  
post #294 of 437 Old 05-15-2013, 08:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jwebb1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 8,336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Some of the nitpicky back & forth regarding a movie about a dude in a flying metal suit is amusing....but also makes me wanna shout....

Money does not buy happiness. It can, however, buy you a giant boat that you can pull up alongside happiness. - David Lee Roth

jwebb1970 is offline  
post #295 of 437 Old 05-15-2013, 08:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post

Some of the nitpicky back & forth regarding a movie about a dude in a flying metal suit is amusing....but also makes me wanna shout....

Yep....laughed at that!
Closet Geek is offline  
post #296 of 437 Old 05-15-2013, 09:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Therefore, that renders your citation of the movie's boxoffice as "refutation" of my comments on it meaningless.
There was no need to refute your original comment, since it wasn't factual to begin with (using your subjective preference to claim some objective quality level). If you can use what you personally didn't like to label the movie as "not good" then the movie's remarkable success with audiences (rarefied billion dollar club) can be used to label the movie as good.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #297 of 437 Old 05-15-2013, 09:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

If you can use what you personally didn't like to label the movie as "not good" then the movie's remarkable success with audiences (rarefied billion dollar club) can be used to label the movie as good.
Your statement is based on an unsupported premise: Not once during our exchange did I label the movie as “not good”. The entire exchange between you and me is based on my observation that the new suit looked weaker than previous iterations, an observation you apparently found highly objectionable. You already admitted that the movie’s boxoffice success does not imply utter satisfaction with every aspect of the movie, which means that anyone else can ALSO have the same (or some other) observation and still label the movie as good (but not necessarily perfect). You're also leaving out the case of people who indeed paid for the movie and didn't think it was good.

Are we in an episode of The Big Bang Theory? smile.gif
RobertR is offline  
post #298 of 437 Old 05-15-2013, 10:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Not once during our exchange did I label the movie as “not good”.
You claimed the choices the filmmakers made were "not good". I pointed out that the choices they made were "good for the studios, good for the audience". You turned those last four words in some absolutist remark (every aspect, every ticket buyer). So my reply was equally absurd. I'm surprised you didn't resort to doing the same with the first four words (every studio, every market).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

You already admitted that the movie’s boxoffice success does not imply utter satisfaction with every aspect of the movie
I never claimed anything about "every aspect of the movie". Those are your words (and italics) that you are trying to put into my mouth.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #299 of 437 Old 05-15-2013, 10:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
DavidML3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Marvel universe....


This is the dumbest thing Ive seen. Coulson is dead. Sam Jackson isnt doing tv shows.
DavidML3 is offline  
post #300 of 437 Old 05-15-2013, 10:21 AM
Member
 
Neal Steffek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Example...I think the food at Sonic is terrible almost to the point of physical reactions. But that doesn't make it a bad restaurant. Literally, every person I know disagrees with me to varying degrees. I don't try to convince them that the food has a weird taste and they don't try to convince me that it doesn't.

Sonic has the worst food by far. They came to the Milwaukee area a few years ago and don't see them sticking around to much longer. Not a single person likes their food and the places are always empty. Doesn't help that they seem to hire meth addicts to work there.
Neal Steffek is offline  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

Tags
Iron Man 3 Three Disc 3d Blu Ray Dvd Digital Copy

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off