Iron Man Wouldn’t Work Today According To Black Panther Writer

Tools    





mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
Think about where we are now, with this very vapid, unintelligent president and our world is crackling on the edges because of that.
Yeah SURE, Tony Stark is really as bad as the president. REALLY.

I just cringed so hard I'm cooking. Tony Stark is not a nut, he's just a bit of an eccentric type. This writer clearly understood neither Tony Stark nor Iron Man. You can have your bad sides, that's what makes flawed characters so interesting. They are not angels.

Even Charles Ingalls could be a bit of a boob sometimes.



Welcome to the human race...
I specifically said that heroes in other films do 180 turns and it works fine. Tony Stark's just wasn't set up properly, IMO. His motivation for completely switching directions was weak to me.
Why , though? He starts as the billionaire playboy who doesn't take war seriously (as shown through his extravagant behaviour during a missile test) because he's never had to experience it firsthand and just went along with channeling his genius into building weapons because it's what his father did so he just thinks of what he's doing as the family business. it's only once he's forced to face up to the...stark reality of what his life's work has caused (the troops he was hanging out with just got killed, he himself got blasted with life-threatening shrapnel from a Stark missile, terrorists are forcing him to build his brand-new missile for them, etc.) that he starts making the effort to change for the better even after freeing himself. Like I said before, this takes up the first 30-40 minutes of the film and spans weeks (if not months) during the film's timeline (since he's inventing and building an arc reactor and a metal suit from scratch) so the idea that this is in any way too sudden to be believable is absurd.

Yeah SURE, Tony Stark is really as bad as the president. REALLY.

I just cringed so hard I'm cooking. Tony Stark is not a nut, he's just a bit of an eccentric type. This writer clearly understood neither Tony Stark nor Iron Man. You can have your bad sides, that's what makes flawed characters so interesting. They are not angels.

Even Charles Ingalls could be a bit of a boob sometimes.
I do wonder what OP's even trying to accomplish with this thread (the "source" down the bottom even makes me think that it's spam and the inflammatory title makes me think it's clickbait, plus they haven't even popped back in with any further comment as of writing). As for the writer, that video I posted was about reactionary idiots trying to spin Black Panther as endorsing ethnostates and being racist against white people when a more critical view reveals that that is obviously not the case so maybe there are always going to be shallow and uncharitable viewpoints that cannot or will not acknowledge a film's merits. It's like saying Dickens couldn't write A Christmas Carol today because nobody wants to read a book about a boss who doesn't pay his workers.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



“Sugar is the most important thing in my life…”
So, character flaws override being a genius hero?



Tramuzgan's Avatar
Di je Karlo?
What an ass clown. If all you think about when watching a movie is the protag's skin colour and sex, you have no business being a writer.

Maybe he's right about people getting offended over Tony being a bratty douche. I always took that as a part of his charm, but many people would be up in arms about it. And if he thinks the world is a better place for it, he's wrong. No two ways about it.

And finally, if the superhero film industry wants to throw away fun movies like Iron Man in favour of preachy, self-satisfied and boring bull**** like Black Panther and Wonder Woman, then **** the superhero film industry.



Welcome to the human race...
Yeah, there's nothing preachy at all about Iron "the real villains aren't the Middle Eastern terrorists but the corrupt Americans who arm them for profit" Man. Besides, it's funny that a person with Idiocracy in their top 10 is complaining about movies that are preachy/self-satisfied/boring.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
People consent to being disrespected all the time.
But what did he do to disrespect women though? Sleeping with them, is automatically disrespect?



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
I had replay that three times to confirm or deny what I thought I heard in the opening lines!! =/


Tony Stark makes you feel;
He's as cool as ****,
with a heart of steel.

Now I just feel like a horrible person if that is my default.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Of course not. But treating them like disposable pleasure bots is.
But I thought Tony would be the type of guy, if all he wanted is sex to go for women who also wanted to use a man as a disposable pleasure bot, and want the same thing he did.

I don't remember the movie going much into his sex life, but I thought that was the kind of woman he would seek out.



But I thought Tony would be the type of guy, if all he wanted is sex to go for women who also wanted to use a man as a disposable pleasure bot, and want the same thing he did.

I don't remember the movie going much into his sex life, but I thought that was the kind of woman he would seek out.
That just goes right back to reducing respect to consent, which I think reflects a pervasive modern confusion between the legal and the moral (in both directions).

Part of this is inseparable from one's own philosophy of sex. Mine is that meaningless sexual encounters are fundamentally incompatible with respect in any meaningful sense of the word. But even someone who does not think that would have to acknowledge a gulf between asking the question in the abstract, and asking it about reality. Because even if it's theoretically possible for a man to engage in rampant casual sex while still respecting women, it seems pretty clear that this is rarely the case in practice.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay. Well I'm a guy and I'm just going by my take on it. Sometimes for example, a woman in a bar, or even on tinder or something like that will ask me if I want to hook up. In other words she is actually asking if I am interested in a sexual encounter, nothing more. I even ask them and they said that is all they are looking for. So if I want to have a sexual encounter I will look towards those women for it, who also want the same thing from me.

So if I am a able to practice that, I thought a rich guy like Tony Stark would normally as well.



You know we're introuble if even a little bit of sass and old school playboy charm is getting burned at the stake. "I think we're in a better place now".

Hahaha..I bet you do. What time are you supposed to be home for book study in A Course in Miracles, guy?



Oh okay. Well I'm a guy and I'm just going by my take on it. Sometimes for example, a woman in a bar, or even on tinder or something like that will ask me if I want to hook up. In other words she is actually asking if I am interested in a sexual encounter, nothing more. I even ask them and they said that is all they are looking for. So if I want to have a sexual encounter I will look towards those women for it, who also want the same thing from me.

So if I am a able to practice that, I thought a rich guy like Tony Stark would normally as well.
I'm not sure we're on the same page here, because this appears to just repeat what the previous post said. In both instances it's being taken as a given that consent is the only consideration and that as long as the woman is fine with it, no "disrespect" is possible. But it is precisely that premise that I'm taking issue with.

It's pretty easy to come up with obvious examples where people are consenting to things and still being disrespected by them. Is someone not really being "disrespected" by their employer unless/until they quit? Is the relationship between a john and a prostitute one of "respect" simply because all involved understand the transaction taking place? Etc.



I had replay that three times to confirm or deny what I thought I heard in the opening lines!! =/


Tony Stark makes you feel;
He's as cool as ****,
with a heart of steel.

Now I just feel like a horrible person if that is my default.
Stan Lee says those misheard lyrics were done on purpose!



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I'm not sure we're on the same page here, because this appears to just repeat what the previous post said. In both instances it's being taken as a given that consent is the only consideration and that as long as the woman is fine with it, no "disrespect" is possible. But it is precisely that premise that I'm taking issue with.

It's pretty easy to come up with obvious examples where people are consenting to things and still being disrespected by them. Is someone not really being "disrespected" by their employer unless/until they quit? Is the relationship between a john and a prostitute one of "respect" simply because all involved understand the transaction taking place? Etc.
Oh okay I can see that. But even if Tony doesn't respect women I think that there is enough of that going on nowadays that it's common enough, to make a superhero movie and give the hero that flaw, and not have it be alienating to today's audience.

I don't think anyone is going to watch a superhero movie today, and be like "A hero that disrespects women when it comes to getting laid, that is so 2000s".



"Today's audience", if we believe these people, are nothing but a bunch of special snowflake brainwashed PC whiners.
Small wonder I can barely be bothered to traipse to a cinema anymore...



Oh okay I can see that. But even if Tony doesn't respect women I think that there is enough of that going on nowadays that it's common enough, to make a superhero movie and give the hero that flaw, and not have it be alienating to today's audience.

I don't think anyone is going to watch a superhero movie today, and be like "A hero that disrespects women when it comes to getting laid, that is so 2000s".
Oh yeah, I agree with that. Sorry, in case it wasn't obvious, I was arguing a narrower point; I don't actually agree with Cole's sentiment about Iron Man. I don't think things have changed anywhere near that much and I think the film would be a hit today, too.

I'm not even sure how to make sense of Cole's critique, since even if you start with the idea that people have some new distaste for that kind of roguish male behavior, that would really only matter if Stark kept exhibiting it. He obviously ends up in a very different place than he started; heck, by the second film he's in a monogamous relationship. So for Cole to think the character wouldn't be liked today is essentially saying people hate this behavior so much that they wouldn't even accept it as the "before" version in the "before and after" of every protagonist's narrative journey, which doesn't even seem close to true.

People are willing to overlook a lot of bad character behavior if they learn their lesson and change for the better. There aren't that many things that alienate audiences inexorably. We're talking, like, domestic abuse, Nazism, and puppy kicking, and not much else.




Why , though? He starts as the billionaire playboy who doesn't take war seriously (as shown through his extravagant behaviour during a missile test) because he's never had to experience it firsthand and just went along with channeling his genius into building weapons because it's what his father did so he just thinks of what he's doing as the family business. it's only once he's forced to face up to the...stark reality of what his life's work has caused (the troops he was hanging out with just got killed, he himself got blasted with life-threatening shrapnel from a Stark missile, terrorists are forcing him to build his brand-new missile for them, etc.) that he starts making the effort to change for the better even after freeing himself. Like I said before, this takes up the first 30-40 minutes of the film and spans weeks (if not months) during the film's timeline (since he's inventing and building an arc reactor and a metal suit from scratch) so the idea that this is in any way too sudden to be believable is absurd.
I think Tony Stark is old enough to understand that weapons captured by the enemy is a bi-product of all wars and that it happens on both sides. He's not going to change his politics (or his lifestyle) just by seeing the war up front and personal any more than any soldier or American civilian who has been in that situation.

Changing his views would have been more believable if he found out that his company was selling weapons to the enemy while a prisoner instead of finding out about it later on.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
What an ass clown. If all you think about when watching a movie is the protag's skin colour and sex, you have no business being a writer.

Maybe he's right about people getting offended over Tony being a bratty douche. I always took that as a part of his charm, but many people would be up in arms about it. And if he thinks the world is a better place for it, he's wrong. No two ways about it.

And finally, if the superhero film industry wants to throw away fun movies like Iron Man in favour of preachy, self-satisfied and boring bull**** like Black Panther and Wonder Woman, then **** the superhero film industry.
Why do you think Black Panther and Wonder Woman are 'boring bull****'?