#1 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5181 posts) -

Well, first and foremost lets get this out of the way: Iron Man 3 is probably the best acted Superhero movie ever from a whole cast perspective, setting aside individual performances like Brian Cox in X-2 or Alfred Molina in Spiderman 2; pretty much every actor delivers their performance well and the film is genuinely humorous throughout. However the plot just sucks and the action is too stupid for the actors that they hired and how they used them.

Compare directly with Arkham City and you'll find a "movie" with a better plot, much better bait and switch, much more interesting action sequences, and the courage to deal harshly with major characters. Arkham Asylum doesn't quite work as a movie but City definitely does just from the tight pacing throughout and much less backtracking in major areas. Mark Hamill's performance is superb throughout and Batman's eternal stoicism works quite well to combat his numerous foes in the picture. There's even Jaws elements in Arkham City to seal the deal. I suppose the one caveat here is that a 2:15 animated movie would probably be rejected by mass audiences.

#2 Posted by DarkShaper (1319 posts) -

I loved Arkham City but I found any scene without the Joker to be really bad story wise.

#3 Posted by ssj4raditz (1125 posts) -

Games aren't movies, you silly!

#4 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5181 posts) -

@darkshaper: Well obviously you'd eliminate about half of the villains, Strange/Ra's al Ghul work best, and Joker/Joker takes up most of the plot; talking about condensing it into 2-2.5 hours not keeping it at the present length.

#5 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2203 posts) -

I really disliked that Joker became a huge part of Arkham City yet again after defeating him in Asylum, especially because it was teased you would face Two-Face at the end of Asylum. Instead, Two-Face is in it for a matter of seconds and then it shifts focus to Joker and then starts jumping over to other villains for a chapter then back to Joker. It felt disjointed and like they were trying to do too much where Asylum felt more like a focused narrative and would've made the better movie between the two games.

I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, but I'm glad you're calling the best Superhero movie so far (at least as far as acting).

Speaking of games basically turning into an animated movie, some time ago the developers of Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay took all the cut scenes from that game, took footage of the main in-game sequences from a camera's perspective, and put it all together in a nice format that felt very much like a short movie. I can't find the original online anymore, it was on the Tigon website a long time ago and there is only crappy versions of it on Youtube. It was really amazing though

#6 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5181 posts) -

@somedelicook said:

I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, but I'm glad you're calling the best Superhero movie so far

I definitely didn't say this o.O It's probably top 10 though, in spite of the shitty plot. My top 5 is generic and not worth mentioning, suffice to say the genre has a lot of room for improvement.

#7 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2203 posts) -

@somedelicook said:

I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, but I'm glad you're calling the best Superhero movie so far

I definitely didn't say this o.O It's probably top 10 though, in spite of the shitty plot. My top 5 is generic and not worth mentioning, suffice to say the genre has a lot of room for improvement.

That is why I had the acting part in paranthesis ;)

#8 Posted by LackingSaint (1764 posts) -

Really? I thought Arkham City had a kind of terrible story in comparison to the original.

Characters would show up and disappear on a dime, there was no character development to speak of for anyone (with Batman's greatest inner conflict being "WILL I DIE FROM THIS POISON NO I WON'T"), overall just a total lack of narrative cohesion. Catwoman, Two-Face, Nightwing, Mr Freeze, The Penguin, Solomon Grundy, these are all characters that randomly have "screentime" dedicated to them for basically no reason, and in the case of The Penguin and Mr Freeze, characters that are thrown in simply to give Batman a thing to do. As a video-game story, I thought it changed things up often and kept it interesting. As a story in its own right, it was super scattershot and seemed to not quite be sure what it was trying to say other than "look at all this crazy shit."

And what was up with that Trial? Only Ra'as Al Ghul had ever survived an EXTENDED JUMPING PUZZLE?

#9 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5181 posts) -

@lackingsaint: I'm not saying Arkham City is better than Arkham Asylum as a game (at this point the third Scarecrow sequence by itself is the main tenant to that argument), it's definitely better as a movie though. And then Joker took steroids and turned into a giant white shark creature.

#10 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4674 posts) -

Really? I thought Arkham City had a kind of terrible story in comparison to the original.

Characters would show up and disappear on a dime, there was no character development to speak of for anyone (with Batman's greatest inner conflict being "WILL I DIE FROM THIS POISON NO I WON'T"), overall just a total lack of narrative cohesion. Catwoman, Two-Face, Nightwing, Mr Freeze, The Penguin, Solomon Grundy, these are all characters that randomly have "screentime" dedicated to them for basically no reason, and in the case of The Penguin and Mr Freeze, characters that are thrown in simply to give Batman a thing to do. As a video-game story, I thought it changed things up often and kept it interesting. As a story in its own right, it was super scattershot and seemed to not quite be sure what it was trying to say other than "look at all this crazy shit."

And what was up with that Trial? Only Ra'as Al Ghul had ever survived an EXTENDED JUMPING PUZZLE?

I'm backing this up. Everything aboyt Arkham Asylum is just better, it's a much better game.

Online
#11 Edited by rebgav (1429 posts) -
#12 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5181 posts) -

@rebgav: Where'd your 3000 posts go? Mysterious indeed! This thread is not about Arkham Asylum vs Arkham City, please shut the fuck up about that.

#13 Edited by LackingSaint (1764 posts) -

@fredchuckdave said:

@lackingsaint: I'm not saying Arkham City is better than Arkham Asylum as a game (at this point the third Scarecrow sequence by itself is the main tenant to that argument), it's definitely better as a movie though. And then Joker took steroids and turned into a giant white shark creature.

I actually thought Arkham City was, as a game, far superior to Arkham Asylum. Gliding around the city, solving mysteries and stumbling upon clues, I really felt like Batman in a unique way, where Arkham Asylum mostly just felt like a well-made stealth-action game. But as far as the story goes, both of them are just dumb fun, without much substance other than "Check it out, this DC character is here too!" (The Scarecrow segments and Batman hallucinations are the exception to that).

#14 Edited by EuanDewar (4690 posts) -

#15 Posted by Demoskinos (14520 posts) -

The plot of Arkham City is a mess. They entirely subvert Hugo Strange's involvement in the plot with the Joker angle and Ra's appearing out of pretty much nowhere dispatching of him then still having missions leading up to wrapping up the joker plot point felt just so unneeded. It was also lazy and stupid that they killed off the joker.

#16 Edited by rebgav (1429 posts) -

@rebgav: Where'd your 3000 posts go? Mysterious indeed! This thread is not about Arkham Asylum vs Arkham City, please shut the fuck up about that.

No mystery, there's a delete function.

Who mentioned Asylum? Both Arkham games would make for bad movies. City specifically is pretty much just a string of cameos with a goofy time-pressure element and two separate plot threads which both resolve in unsatisfying bait-and-switch endings. They're great games but not remotely interesting as stories alone.

#17 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5181 posts) -

@lackingsaint:

Well it's dumb the same way almost any superhero plot is dumb, but it's not dumber than Iron Man 3's plot which is unilaterally retarded.

@euandewar:

Wolverine, the reboot, or Wolverine the original, or Wolverine the original original, or Wolverine the original original original?

#18 Edited by HaltIamReptar (2029 posts) -

The bait-and-switch of Iron Man 3 was pretty dumb, considering it didn't actually influence the course of events. The commentary it went for was incredibly heavy-handed in that regard. Still a pretty entertaining movie, though.

Could somebody explain this part to me? It seemed that the vice president storyline could have been edited out entirely without any impact whatsoever on anything.

#19 Edited by casper_ (901 posts) -

i haven't played arkham city but i was under the impression that it had kind of a preposterous setup. don't they wall off a huge seciton of gotham and let the prisoners loose inside? i'm not saying it doesn't get good but i don't know man...

that said i'm guessing ironman is equally preposterous in some way or another.

#20 Edited by EXTomar (4451 posts) -

People say that the twist is a "bait and switch" but looking back on it I have to ask "What would have they done instead?" The Mandarin is a problematic character for "modern cinema" (especially if they want to sell in certain international markets) so doing a revamp like this is actually inventive. And besides the "real plot" is straight out of a comic book with absurdly logical comic book logic.

So I wonder, would people really be happier if The Mandarin really was the villain? Nothing says that guy can't return like they do in many comic book stories as a comeback either. :)

#21 Edited by LackingSaint (1764 posts) -

@lackingsaint:

Well it's dumb the same way almost any superhero plot is dumb, but it's not dumber than Iron Man 3's plot which is unilaterally retarded.

I didn't get a sense it was "retarded". It didn't take itself super-seriously, but it had a resonant theme and it used that rather well for its twists and turns.

"We make our own demons." The Mandarin is a demon created to divert the attention of the public. Tony's refusal to accept his anxiety attacks is him creating his own demons. Guy Pearce's encounter with Tony years ago made him into his own villain. And in the end, Tony recognising that by committing himself to building more and more suits, he's just creating another demon for him.

Simply the nature of Tony suffering from PTSD-related anxiety attacks I though was a really smart subversion of how they usually handle that kind of thing, and despite the rich history of the Marvel film universe they never once decided to pull the "continuity" card and pull out a character from the movie universe to play a role. They let it breathe as it's own story and I thought it benefitted from it.

Iron Man 3 is by no means a great film, but I thought it was inoffensive and fun, and all the actors involved clearly had a great time doing it.

#22 Posted by HaltIamReptar (2029 posts) -

@extomar:

Spoil block, man.

Do you think that The Mandarin twist is functionally any different than the theme of the first Iron Man? "The real enemy is the government/big corporations!"

#23 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5181 posts) -

@haltiamreptar:

Note the first Iron Man isn't a particularly great film either, it's good by Superhero movie standards, as is Iron Man 3. Tony Stark is a bit more relatable in that one but the villain being terrible sort of makes up for that.

@lackingsaint:

Theme was weakly developed and utilized, the strength of the film is the acting/humor but the acting does not adequately convey the theme; Tony "spazzing out" never resonates with the audience at all except maybe the first time you see it. Killian sat on a roof and decided fuck those guys and turned into an uber badass with pinache and charm somehow, Guy Pearce is awesome in the movie but it doesn't sell the transformation at all. The Mandarin twist is really funny (and not really that difficult to see) but it kind of only serves to make the plot even more ridiculous.

#24 Edited by HaltIamReptar (2029 posts) -

Tony "spazzing out" never resonates with the audience at all except maybe the first time you see it.

I agree with this. I feel like it's never utilized beyond aiming for yucks. I know what panic attacks are like. You think you're going to die, you're wondering if it's ever going to end, you almost think you should go to the hospital every time. I don't think you ever get that out of the way its portrayed.

#25 Posted by Mrsignerman44 (1100 posts) -

Mmmmm...all of this Iron Man 3 hate. Delectable.

#26 Edited by Andorski (5173 posts) -

The bait-and-switch of Iron Man 3 was pretty dumb, considering it didn't actually influence the course of events. The commentary it went for was incredibly heavy-handed in that regard. Still a pretty entertaining movie, though.

Could somebody explain this part to me? It seemed that the vice president storyline could have been edited out entirely without any impact whatsoever on anything.

The plot needed a reason as to why Rhodie and Stark couldn't just tell the administration that an attack on the president was incoming. Rhodie believes that the entire administration is informed of the threat when he called the VP, which allows the President to go onto Air Force One unaware of Aldrich's plans.

#27 Edited by awesomeusername (4153 posts) -

@fredchuckdave said:

@somedelicook said:

I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, but I'm glad you're calling the best Superhero movie so far

I definitely didn't say this o.O It's probably top 10 though, in spite of the shitty plot. My top 5 is generic and not worth mentioning, suffice to say the genre has a lot of room for improvement.

That is why I had the acting part in paranthesis ;)

But he;s talking about Iron Man 3. I'm confused about who's confused!

#28 Posted by HaltIamReptar (2029 posts) -
#29 Posted by AssInAss (2529 posts) -

I haven't seen Iron Man 3 because I was never a fan of these movies with their lame villians, cheaply shot action always being at night to cut costs, or just having characters I couldn't really care about. I doubt the acting in Iron Man 3 could bring me as close to tears as the exchanges between Michael Caine and Christian Bale in Dark Knight Rises.

http://i.minus.com/ibQuVJtaJTNsJ.gif

#30 Edited by Andorski (5173 posts) -

@assinass said:

I haven't seen Iron Man 3 because I was never a fan of these movies with their lame villians, cheaply shot action always being at night to cut costs, or just having characters I couldn't really care about. I doubt the acting in Iron Man 3 could bring me as close to tears as the exchanges between Michael Caine and Christian Bale in Dark Knight Rises.

I'm a huge Batman fan, but man there was a ton of shit to be seen in DKR. In the .gif you posted, Bruce basically tells Alfred to leave after hearing about Rachel's letter. Then the next scene Bruce is awaken by the door bell and immediately tell Alfred to get the door. I was just like, "WTF? Motherfucker, you just had this emotional breakdown with Alfred and in a couple of hours you act as if everything is back to normal."

#31 Edited by EXTomar (4451 posts) -

I don't necessarily want to pick on Dark Knight Rises but man that movie has issues that get worse and worse the closer you look at the details. I think it suffered from the incessant desire to "ground it in modern USA" which ended up warping the story into a pretzel. I mean "The World's Greatest Detective" couldn't even figure out there was some off about Miranda...

#32 Edited by DarthOrange (3828 posts) -

Look I understand, and ima let you finish, but Iron Man 3 is the greatest superhero movie ever second only maybe to Avengers. *drops mic*

#33 Edited by MikkaQ (10264 posts) -

Arkham City's story is just a copy of Escape From New York but with

Was personality and more Batman.

#34 Edited by Oldirtybearon (4516 posts) -

@extomar said:

People say that the twist is a "bait and switch" but looking back on it I have to ask "What would have they done instead?" The Mandarin is a problematic character for "modern cinema" (especially if they want to sell in certain international markets) so doing a revamp like this is actually inventive. And besides the "real plot" is straight out of a comic book with absurdly logical comic book logic.

So I wonder, would people really be happier if The Mandarin really was the villain? Nothing says that guy can't return like they do in many comic book stories as a comeback either. :)

I don't know man, the Aldrich Killian conspiracy was fuckin' dark. The idea that he's creating Super Osama for the government to chase in order to avoid anyone catching onto his experiments with Extremis (the "bombings" being accidents and not intentional) on psychologically and physically crippled war veterans is just dark as hell. The fact that he's doing all of this in order to create, for lack of a better term, soldiers with infinite respawn in order to fuel the military industrial complex and create a never-ending cash cow of warfare and man, you've got MGS4 only with regenerating health instead of SOP.

Sure he breathed fire and had Fin Fang Foom tattooed on his chest, but I don't think the comic book nature of Iron Man 3 should detract from the villain's plot being really fucking dark.

#35 Posted by Veektarius (4540 posts) -

I think the plot for Iron Man 3 worked fine, but the tone didn't really lead one to give serious consideration to plot. With all the pratfalls and witty repartee, it isn't really encouraging you to think hard about what these veterans went through, and it really downplayed the potential benefits to Extremis, which were major.

In a nutshell, Shane Black should have done a better job adapting to the ways action movies have changed since Lethal Weapon.

#36 Posted by mordukai (7127 posts) -

@fredchuckdave: The plot was that bad huh?! Maybe I should wait for the BD release because if Arkham City had a better plot then Iron Man 3 really has a shitty plot as I found the plot in City rather dismal and kinda all over the place.

@somedelicook: Joker didn't have that much of a huge rule in City compared to Asylum. All he wanted was for Batman to find cure for his illness. As far as Two Face goes then goods that he had such a small rule because his character, and especially his voice acting, was horrid. However, I never really thought much of Two Face as a villain with the exception of A Serious House on A Serious Earth where he really got interesting.

#37 Edited by EXTomar (4451 posts) -

@oldirtybearon I mean that the "real plot" is just like a comic book in that a simple goal (more power) is achieved by an intricately planned, over the top absurdly coincidental string of events. There is no doubt that Killian is a dark and disturbed madman but there is a better, safer (for him), and much more plausible way for him to pull off his scheme that didn't involve some of the ludicrous risks and turns. The only place that makes sense is a comic book. :)

Maybe that is at the heart of the problem some have with the movie. This is a modern cinema take on the "crazy comic book villain scheme" where seeing laid out like this in film bothers them because of how it shows in stark relief how crazy most comic book stories are.

#38 Edited by Hunter5024 (5508 posts) -

The plot of Arkham City was nothing special, personally I'd consider it a pretty big let down, for every reason that people have already voiced in this thread and more. Basically the only part I liked was the ending. I'm not one of the people walking around calling Iron Man 3 one of the best superhero movies or anything, but I think it had a much better story than Arkham City.

#39 Posted by Clonedzero (4046 posts) -

Eh, i haven't seen Ironman 3 yet, but Arkham City wasn't really all that impressive story-wise. But I think Arkham Asylum would make a FAR better movie than Arkham City.

I mean hell, the whole time I was playing Arkham City i was constantly thinking "Why the HELL would anyone agree to build a massive prison city inside your own city?" It's SO stupid. I understand it was the slums, but still, even then. Why not build a shanty town fevuela or something in a big open field and put massive fences around that?

#40 Posted by theveej (811 posts) -

I don't think you need to even look at Arkham City, take most of DC's animated movies and they are way, way better comic book movies than Iron Man 3. I really like Arkham City, even better than Asylum, but I am huge comic book fan and all the little call backs in City were amazing. There is so many little touches, even references to recent stories such as Gates of Gotham that made me really enjoy it. I thought the story was a "classic" batman story and much better than the ending of Asylum (which is atrocious and utter shit). Some of the stuff in Asylum were better but the gameplay and story I thought were better in City. And yes, I would take City of Iron Man 3 any day.

I thought Iron Man 3 was the best Iron Man movie and at the same time the most disappointing. Overall I have been disappointed in all 3 Iron Man movies (first one is a good origin story, but nothing special) and the main reason is the action scenes. Only in Avengers did Iron Man actually fight like Iron man. 3 probably had the best action and at least they tried to follow the extremis story line Overall I appreciate the Nolan's movies take on comic book much more than Marvel's. I want to see something new and innovative, I want to see directors take themes from great comic book stories and weave them to an original story. I know its cool to hate on Nolan's movie now, but I really liked them and really appreciated that did their own take on the story. The first phase of Marvel movies were good because they were all origin stories, but I'm not sure how they will proceed from now on (although next Thor movie looks really awesome, but I thought Thor was the best single marvel super hero movie).

I was really disappointed with the Mandarin. don't get me wrong, I loved Ben Kingsly' fake actor routine, but I was hoping to see him go all out acting as an evil Mandarin with crazy powers. It might have been cheesy and over the top for some, but I would have loved that. My biggest problem with the movie was while it took so much good stuff from the Extremis story line, we never got to see Iron Man get his extremis armor which I thought would be the whole point of the movie (and it is implied at the end that he does but its kind of weak). It would have made much more sense for the ending if Tony injected himself with the modified Extremis injection like the comic (which gave him the ability to connect his nerves with his Iron Man suite and control electronics more easily) and then control all of his Iron Man suite and be able to crush the Extremis soldiers with ease due to his advance reaction time. His anxiety attacks being fixed by a little boy telling him to build stuff was really, really weak and a really bad payoff. There was a bit too much comedy (but RDJ is awesome). Also I was very much underwhelmed with the lack of connection to the Marvel Universe. I know they wanted this to be a solo movie and not pay all of the Avengers' actors and actresses but they had made all the movies so connected that it was really weird seeing no mention of SHIELD or anyone else when A) tony's house gets blown up b) he is presumed dead and c) the president of united states is kidnapped.

#41 Edited by Winternet (8002 posts) -

If a game is a better movie than a movie, then the actual movie must suck so, so much.

#42 Posted by MedalOfMode (294 posts) -

I like Iron Man 2-3 but not much as 1. But if we compare with Batman Arkham City, absolutely Batman wins.