the vynsane asylum

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 8:50 am**

You read my post "backwards," vyn. I was saying there's no longer a need for that loyalty to comic book movies regardless of interest or quality, like there was, say, ten years ago. I think more comics are being adapted than novels now, and Hollywood will probably use up all existing comic books by 2014. I'm not saying anyone saw this out of loyalty to comics, though I suppose there are probably a small handful of Marvel Zombies who dusted the Cheetos crumbs off their best dirty t-shirt and left their parents' basement just because it's Marvel. (No one here, but I do have suspicions about a few folks elsewhere.)

I'm not actually going to avoid Iron Man based on box office numbers. I just had this weird feeling of doing so. I don't give a rat's ass about numbers, except in the "damn, this movie could actually use a sequel, but it'll never happen, so let's get ready for Die Hard 16 instead" sense. I will definitely see Iron Man, but, well, I've gotten into how far it is to the nearest theater, how overpriced it is, and how much the crowd blows. With my limited movie trips, this summer's looking far more interesting to me with Speed Racer, The Dark Knight, Prince Caspian, hell, I'll admit that Indiana Jones is looking better now that they've put out a trailer with what appears to be completed shots rather than a bad rush job. It's doubtful I'll even get to see all four of those on the big screen. Iron Man is probably going to have to wait for DVD, which is probably going to be July anyway, at the rate these things go now. (Speed Racer's doing so badly, I may just be able to pick it up on Tuesday.

)

(By the way, I still haven't seen any Die Hards beyond the second. I hear they're good, but I just a hard time caring.)

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 9:13 am**

mabudon wrote:all's Nark is saying, I think, is that he believes Speed Racer by way of doing piss-poorly at the box-office despite awesome peer reviews deserves his money more

okay, i guess i can see that, but i don't understand the line being arbitrarily drawn between SR and IM - make a concerted effort to see the movie you want to see (and both of us with toddlers, plus the general state of monetary issues, i understand whole-heartedly... i just lucked out that nicole was interested in both and we have a friend/baby-sitter who we barter sittings with as opposed to paying the ridiculous price of $10-15/hour for a teenager to sit around and watch TV when i couldn't even make that in my "hauling heavy crap out of the backs of trucks" days) but to make a distinction like "i'm not going to see iron man because it's doing well and i'm going to see speed racer because it's not" is kinda strange. i guess it's a "rooting for the under-dog" type of thing? i mean, i guess we all do that - i'd rather watch this one than this one, but it just seems odd to me in this instance. and i don't know why it's seemingly bothering me so much, save for the fact that i think you'd have a blast watching IM as well...

period, as it appears it doesn't matter how good a movie is, it is EASY to swiftboat a film out of existence.

i doubt it'll be swiftboated out of existence. i have a feeling positive word of mouth will help in this instance. plus, college kids are going to be out of school soon, and will have a lot of time on their hands and a lot of acid to do. the last race alone will freak them out.

Half of the bad reviews I've seen were full of realy glaring errors (more than once the lack of the MACH 5 bemoaned, when it was in what sems to be the fave race of most viewers, and by far the longest)

like i said, i can't give critics/reviewers much weight. if it's a movie i'm hoping will do well or have already seen and enjoyed and it gets bad reviews, i guess i'd be as upset as you guys for it. as it stands i have no vested interest in either property - never been a big fan of iron man (have four comics from the past 20 odd years of collecting, save for the two i picked up this past week), and wasn't really that into the speed racer cartoon (probably saw all of four episodes ever maybe...), so both were even-keel for me. good reviews, bad reviews. meh. i enjoyed them both a whole heck of a lot.

vyn you all about contrariansim these days huh ??

am i? i didn't even know...

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 9:21 am**

anarky wrote:You read my post "backwards," vyn. I was saying there's no longer a need for that loyalty to comic book movies regardless of interest or quality, like there was, say, ten years ago.

i guess... it didn't read like that... but i see what you're saying.

I will definitely see Iron Man, but, well, I've gotten into how far it is to the nearest theater, how overpriced it is, and how much the crowd blows.

try to hit matinees or off-peak night shows. we saw IM on opening day at 2pm and it was a rather small crowd. we saw SR last night at 7pm and we were two of six people in the theater. not saying for any movie in particular, just in general. it will alleviate some of the issues, i'm sure. not the distance, but the matinee thing will take care of price and the off-hours thing will take care of the crowds.

With my limited movie trips, this summer's looking far more interesting to me with Speed Racer, The Dark Knight, Prince Caspian, hell, I'll admit that Indiana Jones is looking better now that they've put out a trailer with what appears to be completed shots rather than a bad rush job.

yeah, i'm not that hyped for prince caspian. not sure we'll be seeing that one. i definitely want to see TDK, nicole's on the fence about it as she didn't like BB, but she's a big fan of heath ledger and is interested in seeing him in it. i want to see indy because it's indy. i've been a naysayer for a while about how old he looks, but i never had any doubts that i would want to see it. i just wish they'd done it 10 years ago...

Iron Man is probably going to have to wait for DVD

maybe not...

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 9:25 am**

second use of the word in a week, the first being in vynsane confidential

And as for reviews, hell I know- the film that brought us all together got panned before word of mouth changed the tune

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 9:35 am**

mabudon wrote:second use of the word in a week, the first being in vynsane confidential

not my second use... i think that was rogue deuce... (holy shit, he should totally change his name to that instead. that would be the best internet handle ever. he would TOTALLY win at internet.)

And as for reviews, hell I know- the film that brought us all together got panned before word of mouth changed the tune

heh, exulctly.

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 10:03 pm**

Well I finally saw this today and was less impressed than most (based on the box office returns, anyhow).

POSSIBLE SPOILERS********************************************************************

It was fine & okay for a CG action flick, but there was NOTHING that made me say HOLY FUCK!!! except for him working with his computer, dropping & dragging the suit model onto the 3D rendering tableau. That was cool. Robert Downey Jr was good, but I think he could have reigned it in just slightly - Tony Stark should be more James Bond than the dude who does Girls Gone Wild in my mind. He looked just right though.

The booze issue was never really dealt with, unless that was another unmentioned aspect of him "seeing the light". I don't know the character of Pepper Potts well enough, but I would have expected her to be a bit more playful than square - not a bad acting job per se, just different. Jeff Bridges was excellent, but that's usually the case so no surprise there.

I didn't get to see the very end (past the credits), so I'll have to comb for a synopsis of that part. Of interest, this is nearly exactly how I felt after Spider-Man the first time, so it's likely the movie will grow on me once I get a Blu-Ray to look at.

Posted: **Wed May 14, 2008 2:22 pm**

I stand corrected. Apparently that is Captain America's shield, being used by Tony for reference.

Please note that Darth Vader built Ultron, and they grew up on the same base as Hulk and went to the same kindergarten as Reed Richards. I've always been for the interconnected nature of the Marvel Universe, but this is getting fucking ridiculous.

Posted: **Wed May 14, 2008 2:37 pm**

anarky wrote:I stand corrected. Apparently that is Captain America's shield, being used by Tony for reference

where are you getting that? i haven't had the time to check, but i don't remember anything standing out like that...

Posted: **Wed May 14, 2008 2:44 pm**

Diabolical's post on the previous page has a picture. It really looks like a round piece of equipment to me, reflecting light. JJBeast quoted something at the other site that quoted a Marvel rep as saying it was indeed the shield, because Tony's father had designed it, and Iron Man was using it for reference since he built the suit out of the same metal. (That's quite realistic. I know whenever car manufacturers design a new car, they keep dishwashers on-hand for reference. And Army engineers often get to take their projects home to show the kids.)

I'm not saying this can't work. I'm just wary of whether it can. It's fine in comics, which are ongoing and intended to cross over. But movies, which are seen as stand-alone affairs, and where each movie seems to take pains to establish the hero is unique in his world, it's risky. It could work. It could just as easily explode in their faces. I'm not sure if the moviegoing public will ever be ready for this sort of large-scale crossover.

Posted: **Wed May 14, 2008 3:02 pm**

anarky wrote:JJBeast quoted something at the other site that quoted a Marvel rep as saying it was indeed the shield, because Tony's father had designed it, and Iron Man was using it for reference since he built the suit out of the same metal.

that's mavel movie EU. pay it no mind. there's no reference whatsoever in the movie like that, and he even says that he makes the armor out of a gold/titanium alloy. there's a relatively important plot-point derived from that.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2008 9:48 pm**

I finally got a chance to see Iron man the other day and thought it was pretty good.
Stark/Iron Man wasn't the boring douche bag he is in the comics, so that was a big plus. Good story, effects, jokes, in jokes, and action.

My only real complaints:
1. The beginning on the desert felt like it took way too damn long. Maybe I was just itching to see the first armor in action, I dunno, but it felt like it was double what it should have been.
2. And Gweneth Paltrow - damn that bitch is awful in almost everything. Why not get some one younger and far better looking for Pepper (like maybe the hot reporter chick)?

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 1:47 pm**

I saw it yesterday. It was good and I enjoyed it, but it wasn't anything too life-changing.

What's Jon Favreau's hard-on for Famous Ray's pizza, though? He makes it a big point to mention it in both Iron Man and Elf.

Posted: **Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:18 pm**

Code: Select all

Them's fightin' words! Robert Downey Jr., the actor who plays Marvel Comics' Iron Man in the movie of the same name, recently ripped on the competition.

Much has been made this summer about Marvel's success at the box office, while rival DC Comics slowly prepared one film every few years. Marvel's managed to get TWO Hulk movies produced, for Pete's sake, even after one flopped. Not to mention THREE X-Men films, a Ghost Rider movie and a Daredevil film. DC has trotted out two Batman movies and a rather lugubrious Superman film (in recent years, mind you; no one can forget the campy Val Kilmer andGeorge Clooney movies). Marvel has unveiled plans for movies based on Captain America, Thor and the Avengers. Time Warner, DC's parent, had to shut down production of a possible Justice League movie.

And now Downey adds insult to injury, saying that Time Warner's current "Dark Knight" is too highbrow. "Didn't get it, still can't tell you what happened in the movie, what happened to the character and in the end they need him to be a bad guy," he's quoted as saying. " I'm like, 'I get it. This is so high brow and so f—king smart, I clearly need a college education to understand this movie.'"

In some ways, it's true. Time Warner seems too reverent of its DC characters - their history, their popularity, their giant symbolic value. You watch the last "Superman" movie and you can imagine legions of writers and movie execs hemming and hawing over whether the guy should smile in just this way or whether his cape is flowing enough in the flight scenes. Marvel's movies largely get down to business: Show the characters and their powers. 

Don't get me wrong. I LIKED the first "new" Batman movie, Katie Holmes's bad acting in the last scene aside. And I believe a film like "Watchmen," which is heavier on larger themes than it is on superpowers, ought to get a lot of attention. But it just goes to show that when it comes to super-hero movies, there seem to be two schools of thought evolving. One has the heroes getting their hands dirty, and the other treats them like mythic characters - Tom Sawyer, Zeus, whatever  - which demands greater attention to back story and history, with a few fights, "ZAPS' and gimmicks thrown in for good measure.

Posted: **Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:33 pm**

That's what I like about Newsbot. She's cutting edge. It's like getting news in realtime.

Posted: **Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:47 pm**

How the hell did Robert Downey Jr. not understand "The Dark Knight"? Is he nine years old?

the vynsane asylum

Iron Man

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Re: IRONMAN awesome trailer

Robert Downey Said What!?!

Re: Robert Downey Said What!?!

Re: Robert Downey Said What!?!