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

Tools    





That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
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.
I'm always surprised by how disconnected most people actually are from the consequences of their actions. Especially if they grow up believing how normal their world view is. And it is normal, from their perspective.

I think it's a bit misleading to describe Stark's experience as just seeing war up front and personal. He was captured, then held for three months under torture and threat of death. How much more beyond that would you expect for someone to question their moral compass?

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.
Technically, he saw the Stark brand on the very rocket that injured him during the ambush within the opening sequence. I figured based on his press conference statement in which he described seeing his weaponry being used to kill innocent people, he mostly likely spent those three months questioning everything he had taken for granted.



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.
Its played right from the start though that he suspects they've been sold to the enemy, he asks Bridges character whether they have been almost as soon as he gets back.

I have to admit whilst Black Pather was generally enjoyable(Boseman especially is one of Marvel's best recent castings for me) I did find it felt rather dated, whilst the politics are still relevant the way their presented feels very much of the 60's and 70's.



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.
Why do you think Black Panther and Wonder Woman are 'boring bull****'?
My biggest two reasons? The protags feel like they have no struggle to overcome, and the action has no punch to it.



Welcome to the human race...
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.
ynwtf already explained it rather well, but I'll add this - the Stark-brand missile embeds shrapnel in his chest that will ultimately kill him if he doesn't keep a magnet attached to himself at all times, so even after he survives the ordeal this wound serves as a constant reminder of the damage his weapons do.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



People similar to Stark have literally, in real life, changed the course of their lives under similar (and less dramatic) circumstances. Alfred Nobel, now known best for the Nobel Prize, was also the inventor of dynamite. When his brother died a newspaper mistakenly thought he had, and he read his own obituary. Realizing he would be known as someone who had made his name in destruction, he established the Nobel Prizes to change his legacy.

So yeah, I find it totally believable that Stark would undergo a personal transformation after his experiences, especially since he doesn't do a complete 180 and become a pacifist, or anything like that.



I think it's a bit misleading to describe Stark's experience as just seeing war up front and personal. He was captured, then held for three months under torture and threat of death. How much more beyond that would you expect for someone to question their moral compass?
That would only strengthen his belief that these people are dangerous and that they must be defeated or destroyed - which would actually be more of an incentive for his character to help the US military do so.

Stark is smart enough to understand that these guys are going to get the weapons from somewhere. He's not going to think, "Gee, America's enemies are evil. We better reduce the US military, pronto".



ynwtf already explained it rather well, but I'll add this - the Stark-brand missile embeds shrapnel in his chest that will ultimately kill him if he doesn't keep a magnet attached to himself at all times, so even after he survives the ordeal this wound serves as a constant reminder of the damage his weapons do.
And so he creates a superpower-armored suit that shoots missiles. That's logical. Even after this technology falls into the wrong hands, Tony decides to keep playing the superhero. Sounds like the internal logic of the film is weak to non-existent.



Stark is smart enough to understand that these guys are going to get the weapons from somewhere. He's not going to think, "Gee, America's enemies are evil. We better reduce the US military, pronto".
Sure, but where does he end up thinking or doing this? Seems like what he decides is that he can't pretend to be an incidental or unimportant part of the process. He has to be public and accountable for his role.

He doesn't become a pacifist; Stark continues being Iron Man and continues fighting bad guys, so obviously, whatever change we're talking about, it's not one where he loses faith in the ability or necessity of weapons to fight bad guys. The change is on the question of accountability.

Anyway, people are free to legitimately argue about what actions are or aren't in character for Tony Stark, but there's no argument that his character's shift is realistic in the sense of "the kind of thing that could plausibly happen in reality," because as I mentioned just two posts up, it has.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
That would only strengthen his belief that these people are dangerous and that they must be defeated or destroyed - which would actually be more of an incentive for his character to help the US military do so.

Stark is smart enough to understand that these guys are going to get the weapons from somewhere. He's not going to think, "Gee, America's enemies are evil. We better reduce the US military, pronto".
I'm unclear as to what we are debating at this point. I thought it was about setup and motivation of Stark's change of heart presented pretty early in the movie.

To you reply specifically, once he became aware that his company was selling arms to the terrorist agents (or whatever they are referred to in the movie), he sets out to destroy those arms himself. I don't think it was about siding with one country or another entity to decide who is right or wrong. To me, it was a matter of principle that his name has become associated with black market illegal arms deals, terrorism, and the death of the innocent. He fixes that himself by stopping development and then by testing his suit, destroying the illegally bought weapon installations throughout that region. I would think that from his perspective, he believed he was helping the U.S. military by doing (as a civilian) what the military could not do without risk of full scale war.

As to the motive and specific change of direction, that is more or less subjective. Your thoughts on why he changed, how he changed, and what you believe would be a more realistic course of change could absolutely be right in specific contexts; however, I think enough evidence is presented in the movie to heavily suggest that Tony Stark would most likely have taken the path that he did instead of what you're suggesting he would have done otherwise.
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
It seems a lot of people think that movies couldn't be made nowadays because of audiences being more PC, but is it true?

I have friends who say things like Boston Legal couldn't be aired on TV today, cause humor is aimed at situations involving religion and homosexuality, which you cannot make gags out of nowadays.

Or how Junior (1994), couldn't be made today, cause of all the gender identity situations going on in society.

Or how Traitor (2008), couldn't be made nowadays cause Hollywood wouldn't be able to make a movie about Islamic terrorists today.

But do you think all this is true, or do some people really think today's audience is too sensitive than they actually are?



I think the real question is, are today's audiences de-sensitive-ized. All of this "safe" and smarmy stuff surrounded by nasty, mean spirited humor. Let's take Sixteen Candles for example. Every time Long Duck Dong appears - we hear a gong sound. OK. So people nowadays completely lose thier minds over that. But, here's a news flash. People are different. Some cultures find other cultures funny and associate them with certain stereotypes. Does it mean people are less capable of love?

If a chinese film makes fun of americans by showcasing a US actor as overweight and wearing a hamburger t shirt with a yeehawww one liner every few minutes...guess what? I'd laugh. Hard!

It's called comedy. Lighten up. Busting each other's stones is part of life. I just think there are a lot of uptight and entitled people on the internet spreading this like wild fire, that's what I think.

I do agree that there should be empathy and compassion...my issue is that for every jackass that pipes up about equal rights and social justice...there is a HUGE "A-Hole" sign attached to them. And these people virtually never get on with others because they are too busy trying to change the world to suit their fascist nobility and social point systems. Because they're annnngry...and fed up with the boredom they have to endure every single day when they flock to their news papers on the smart phone.



Welcome to the human race...
And so he creates a superpower-armored suit that shoots missiles. That's logical. Even after this technology falls into the wrong hands, Tony decides to keep playing the superhero. Sounds like the internal logic of the film is weak to non-existent.
He uses that suit against established threats to first escape from imprisonment/death and then destroy stockpiled weapons before ever having to deal with any supervillains - besides, is he just supposed to do nothing if the technology falls into the wrong hands again (which it arguably does in the second film when the villains create their own version from scratch)? He's got to play the superhero as long as there are supervillains to defeat.

I think the real question is, are today's audiences de-sensitive-ized. All of this "safe" and smarmy stuff surrounded by nasty, mean spirited humor. Let's take Sixteen Candles for example. Every time Long Duck Dong appears - we hear a gong sound. OK. So people nowadays completely lose thier minds over that. But, here's a news flash. People are different. Some cultures find other cultures funny and associate them with certain stereotypes. Does it mean people are less capable of love?

If a chinese film makes fun of americans by showcasing a US actor as overweight and wearing a hamburger t shirt with a yeehawww one liner every few minutes...guess what? I'd laugh. Hard!

It's called comedy. Lighten up. Busting each other's stones is part of life. I just think there are a lot of uptight and entitled people on the internet spreading this like wild fire, that's what I think.

I do agree that there should be empathy and compassion...my issue is that for every jackass that pipes up about equal rights and social justice...there is a HUGE "A-Hole" sign attached to them. And these people virtually never get on with others because they are too busy trying to change the world to suit their fascist nobility and social point systems. Because they're annnngry...and fed up with the boredom they have to endure every single day when they flock to their news papers on the smart phone.
"I think that there should be more empathy and compassion, which is why I call people fascists for telling me to be more considerate of other people."



And so he creates a superpower-armored suit that shoots missiles. That's logical. Even after this technology falls into the wrong hands, Tony decides to keep playing the superhero. Sounds like the internal logic of the film is weak to non-existent.
He uses that suit against established threats to first escape from imprisonment/death and then destroy stockpiled weapons before ever having to deal with any supervillains - besides, is he just supposed to do nothing if the technology falls into the wrong hands again (which it arguably does in the second film when the villains create their own version from scratch)? He's got to play the superhero as long as there are supervillains to defeat.

I think the real question is, are today's audiences de-sensitive-ized. All of this "safe" and smarmy stuff surrounded by nasty, mean spirited humor. Let's take Sixteen Candles for example. Every time Long Duck Dong appears - we hear a gong sound. OK. So people nowadays completely lose thier minds over that. But, here's a news flash. People are different. Some cultures find other cultures funny and associate them with certain stereotypes. Does it mean people are less capable of love?

If a chinese film makes fun of americans by showcasing a US actor as overweight and wearing a hamburger t shirt with a yeehawww one liner every few minutes...guess what? I'd laugh. Hard!

It's called comedy. Lighten up. Busting each other's stones is part of life. I just think there are a lot of uptight and entitled people on the internet spreading this like wild fire, that's what I think.

I do agree that there should be empathy and compassion...my issue is that for every jackass that pipes up about equal rights and social justice...there is a HUGE "A-Hole" sign attached to them. And these people virtually never get on with others because they are too busy trying to change the world to suit their fascist nobility and social point systems. Because they're annnngry...and fed up with the boredom they have to endure every single day when they flock to their news papers on the smart phone.
"I think that there should be more empathy and compassion, which is why I call people fascists for telling me to be more considerate of other people."

Misses point and puts words in others mouth. Well played as usual.



Welcome to the human race...
How? At the very least, you need to rephrase that last paragraph so it doesn't read like you're calling every single person who mentions social justice a "jackass" with an "a-hole sign" because that kind of broad assumption really makes your empathy-and-compassion talk ring a little hollow.



[quote=Yoda;1881254]
Stark is smart enough to understand that these guys are going to get the weapons from somewhere. He's not going to think, "Gee, America's enemies are evil. We better reduce the US military, pronto".
Sure, but where does he end up thinking or doing this?
At the press conference as soon as he gets back to the US. He announces that he's completely shutting down the manufacturing of weapons by Stark Industries.

Seems like what he decides is that he can't pretend to be an incidental or unimportant part of the process. He has to be public and accountable for his role.
Accountable for what? He didn't sell the US government any bogus products. His weapons we're captured by the enemy from the US military which is a bi-product of war just like losing soldiers to death and capture is a bi-product of war. He didn't know his weapons were being sold to the enemy under the table until later in the film.

He doesn't become a pacifist; Stark continues being Iron Man and continues fighting bad guys, so obviously, whatever change we're talking about, it's not one where he loses faith in the ability or necessity of weapons to fight bad guys. The change is on the question of accountability.
This is where the internal logic of the film breaks down completely. Shutting down weapons manufacturing to keep them from falling into the wrong hands only to build a secret super-weapon whose technology may also fall into the wrong hands (which happens twice) doesn't really address the problem of accountability which Tony seems to be as prone to as the US military.



At the press conference as soon as he gets back to the US. He announces that he's completely shutting down the manufacturing of weapons by Stark Industries.
Eh...sort of? Here's the full quote (with added emphasis):
I came to realize that I have more to offer this world than just making things that blow up. And that is why, effective immediately, I am shutting down the weapons manufacturing division of Stark International until such a time as I can decide what the future of the company will be.
This ties into the next bit:

Accountable for what? He didn't sell the US government any bogus products. His weapons we're captured by the enemy from the US military which is a bi-product of war just like losing soldiers to death and capture is a bi-product of war. He didn't know his weapons were being sold to the enemy under the table until later in the film.
I think the point is that he suddenly becomes aware of how little he's concerned himself with what happens after he sells them. That he doesn't know where they're ending up is kinda the point, and I think that explains why he says he's suspending production until he can make a decision, as opposed to just saying "we're done."

Also, I think some of these arguments are mutually exclusive: earlier you implied that Stark has no culpability because someone was going to make the weapons, one way or another. I reject this kind of moral calculus (someone is going to deal drugs, but it doesn't mean I bear no responsibility for the harm they cause if I decide it's going to be me). But even accepting it, I don't think it can co-exist with the argument that he's harming the military by refusing to make weapons for them. If his weapons are superior enough that not selling them reduces the military's effectiveness, then it can't be simultaneously true to say that the military is going to be able to get the same thing from someone else. Gotta be one or the other.

This is where the internal logic of the film breaks down completely. Shutting down weapons manufacturing to keep them from falling into the wrong hands only to build a secret super-weapon whose technology may also fall into the wrong hands (which happens twice) doesn't really address the problem of accountability which Tony seems to be as prone to as the US military.
I have a couple of thoughts in response to this:

1) The argument is about whether Stark's actions make any sense and/or are in character, not about whether or not he's necessarily correct. Characters--even heroes--can be wrong. And when you look at his other appearances in the MCU, it seems like this is part of a larger arc: he keeps thinking he can technology his way out of things, until finally he creates Ultron and finally learns the hard lesson that he can't, that every great thing he makes can be used badly. The internal logic of the film is in no way harmed by a protagonist who isn't perfect and takes a few films to learn a particular lesson.

2) When I say Stark is shifting his view of accountability, I don't mean that he decides not to make anything because it could fall into the wrong ideas. I mean he's decided that, whatever he does with weapons or bad guys or whatever, he's decided he should be willing to do it himself, to be responsible for the good and the ill of it, rather than making a bomb and selling it and then pretending he has no culpability for who it gets dropped on. IE: the "they're going to get them somewhere" argument mentioned earlier.