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

Yes, I thought that's what we were debating. I'm saying that the set up was poor and his motivation weak.

He didn't find out his company was selling weapons to terrorists until later in the film. He gave a press conference saying Stark Industries was going to stop manufacturing weapons long before that.

In there a scene in the film that specifically says that? I think I missed it.

Are thinking of evidence other than seeing his name on captured weapons of war?

I'll make a deal with you; I'm not going to rephrase anything. But, I want you to have a good night and I mean that. I have no bones to pick with you, I'm just saying what I think and feel. If you don't agree or want to make points, I'm as much of an ear as I can be. But back to you having a good night. Have one.

It's just too bad he doesn't feel the US military has the right to act the same way if he's considering not selling weapons to them anymore. And questions the morality of doing so.

What I'm saying is that his experience wouldn't cause him to consider it at all. He's more likely to be convinced more than ever that making weapons to help the US defeat these guys is just, take his father's company more seriously, increase the manufacturing of weapons and sell them to the US government at a discounted rate.

To consider not making weapons at all would make more sense if his experience showed him that America's war on terror was making things worse and innocent civilians were suffering even more because of it.

If the film had told us that 90% of all his weapons ended up in the wrong hands, that would make more sense to me. If the enemy captures no more than a cache of weapons and ammunition (which seems to be the case), that wouldn't be incentive enough for him to consider halting production completely - let alone stop chasing girls.

Tony Stark isn't going to equate selling weapons to the US military with selling drugs. Like I said, he's going to wake up and realize there's more to manufacturing weapons than making a profit. He's going to be committed to helping the US defeat terrorism by continuing the manufacture of weapons and becoming Iron Man - which makes more sense for a superhero who believes in meeting violence with violence.

I don't think I ever made the argument that Tony was right or wrong. But I do think his actions make no sense and are out of character. A person doesn't question the morality of making weapons to defeat terrorism on one hand while making a more advanced weapon to defeat terrorism on the other.

I think you're giving the Marvel franchise more credit for subtlety than it deserves.

This lesson didn't seem to carry over to the later films as he's still flying around in a supersuit and makes Spiderman one as well, with missle capabilities!

Except that nowhere in the film does it imply or question the morality of making the Iron Man suit - or does it?

I might consider that except nowhere in the film does he say or imply this and he's made plenty of clear statements concerning his views otherwise.

Tony Stark's transformation would have been more believable for me if he was the one who invented military weapons. But they were invented before he was born. I can understand him wanting to clear his name as a war profiteering playboy in light of his capture but not questioning the morality of making weapons to fight terrorism.
That's just the result of bad writing, not good character arc. His words and actions aren't consistent. Why, in your opinion, does he want to decrease the military's ability to fight terrorism, but make a special weapon for himself to do it? What does he hope this will accomplish? Why does he think fighting terrorism this way is better? How does he think this will make US soldiers safer? And does it expressly say or imply the answer in the movie?

He definetly needs a good night...among
other things...hint hint.

Very bold of this director to speak out and decide the minds of the masses. I’d say it would work because it’s a good film that fits well with popcorn blockbusters of yesterday...and today. Having said that...would today’s studios allow such a script and character?

I'm referring to him seeing the Stark name on the rocket that put the shrapnel in his chest during the opening sequence.

At 5:25 in, he sees a Stark Industries branded rocket land next to him before it explodes. Immediately after, he is held before a camera while someone reads without subtitles... Which I believe is later translated for the audience to spell things out for us if we haven't caught on by that point. I could be wrong there though as I didn't rewatch past about the thirty-minute mark.

Is it not reasonable to believe that he at least questioned how his weapons were being used in that ambush scene, by those that should not have them?

Additionally:
At 21:00 he sees a cache of Stark Industries weaponry at the camp in which he is held captive.

During the first day of his captivity his fellow prisoner/translator/assistant says, "What you just saw, that is your legacy, Stark. Your life's work in the hands of those murderers! Is that how you want to go out? Is this the last act of defiance, of the great Tony Stark? Or are you going to do something about it?" Then he starts production of his first iron man suit. I took that moment to be his turning point during rewatch.

Again, during dialogue when building the first suit, Stark asks who their captors are. The translator says, "They are your loyal customers."

During his captivity he is confronted by the idea that he has no family when his new friend talks of his home and family, further questioning the value of his playboy, ignorant lifestyle up to that point. "You are the man who has everything; but nothing."

When entering the cave to demand progress, the terrorist leader states, "But today, whoever holds the latest Stark weapons rules these lands."

Does he really have to be told that his weapons are being sold to the "enemy?" Does he have to struggle to realize that his tech, above all else, is sought after by anyone wanting power? 20 minutes in and he's seen the obvious himself. Is Stark not smart enough to piece that together on his own when he first read his name on an insurgent rocket 5 minutes into the movie?

Sure, maybe we, the audience, could use a repetitive nudge, but would Tony, being the genius playboy that he is, need such hand holding?

After that point, the only thing that is "revealed" later in the movie is that Obadiah was the one selling them directly to the enemy, not necessarily that they were being sold. That was established much earlier in the movie. I mean they got them from someone.

Captured or purchased really is irrelevant, IMO, because it is simply the fact that his weapons (his name), however obtained, are doing harm. Though later it is confirmed that everything had been bought from Obadiah, if that really is important to Stark's turn. I feel the turn had already been made long before that though.

The golden standard is Blazing Saddles, which could never be made today.

I have yet to read through this thread but they're right, Iron Man, a movie in which a billionaire war profiteer who makes sexual advances upon his female employee with pro-imperialistic overtones probably wouldn't work in the time of Black Panther, a movie in which a rich pro-imperialist arms dealer is a secondary villain who is dispatched of in the first like 45 minutes of the movie (Iron Man 1 Tony Stark and Ulysses Klaue are like 80% the same character and the MCU never shies away from this, as we know the two have dealt with each other in the past based on Age of Ultron. Current Tony Stark, who has grown and changed to fit the needs of the narrative—character arcs and all that—the beliefs of the filmmakers, and the changing attitudes of contemporary American culture, regrets this). I fail to see this as a bad thing.

Times have changed, our taste in heroes has changed. Iron Man was a good, flawed, but still very good, movie in it's time, but now the filmmaking landscape has changed (for the better imo) and we shouldn't consider these changes as indictments on earlier films but as signs of progress, and we should still be able to examine films in their contexts without being apologists for the flaws that context may have created.

But yeah, Iron Man absolutely would not work in 2018, because it wasn't made for 2018. It was made for, during, and about 2008, and the film wouldn't be what it was had it not been made at that time in that sociopolitical and filmmaking landscape. It's fine, it's not like "PC has gone too far in 2018" it's just progress.

2018 doesn't need 2008's Iron Man, if the MCU rebooted tomorrow with a new Iron Man film, it would be a different story influenced by and as a response to the world as it is in 2018, it would be 2018's Iron Man, as all art is ultimately shaped by the context of its creation and is a response to that context. People decrying this as somehow a bad thing and not just how art exists as a thing made by people that exist in, think about, and interact with the world, don't understand how art gets made (even art that is really just a front for a multimillion dollar profit-seeking venture by a multinational corporation.)

But hey, if you think that audiences are too sensitive these days or that like, "PC culture" has ruined movies by like, asking people to be considerate of others, then like, whatever good for you I guess

Many people may agree with those who think that PC has gone too far; 2017 sold the fewest tickets in the USA since 1992 despite the population growth.

counter-hypothesis: fewer tickets are sold because media is available more cheaply and in higher quality at home than at any other time in the history of film, also many people have faced economic hardship for the past decade and may not be as inclined to spend money on ever-increasing ticket and concession prices. People spend more time consuming media today than at any other time in human history, even if they are consuming it in non-traditional ways.

second counter-hypothesis: the two highest grossing films of the last 365 days both of which are among the twenty highest grossing films ever made heavily feature women and people of color in films with narratives centered specifically around women and people of color. The 2 last marvel films, which are to date the most critically well-received and also among the most beloved by audiences, were directed by people of color and are about the perils of imperialism. The most critically well-received DC film since the Dark Knight is a female-led film which did fantastic at the box office. 4 of the 5 highest grossing films this weekend feature lead characters that are women, people of color, and/or LGBT+. There is an audience for films by and about minorities. The idea that the general public is concerned with political correctness is not borne out by the factual reality of what we are seeing at the box office today. People want diverse movies. That movies are beginning to center experiences beyond that of the previously default cisgender heterosexual white male is not a product of 'PC going too far', but a product of changing audience appetite, and a product of a shifting cultural landscape more ready to hear the experiences of people that have historically been ignored.

It seems like everyone else keeps beating me to answering these posts (and answering them well), but whatever, I guess. Personal accountability this, government oversight that - it's not like his company is the only source of weapons for the military anyway.

Nah, it still could - perhaps not by predominantly white creators like it was in 1974, but at its core it's downright progressive compared to something like The Birth of a Nation

I'm no fancy economist or nothing, but I daresay there's more to it than that.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I don't want to get into a big political discussion on a movie forum, but I think that your entire post disproves your own point. Just the fact that you use the term "cisgender heterosexual white male" proves the fact that PC has gone too far.

I mean, those are just words that describe a demographic that has, historically, been catered to by popular media. It's not a value judgment. We are now catering to demographics other than that. I don't see how I'm being PC for describing a demographic by the generally accepted terms used to describe that demographic. But yeah I mean I don't want to argue further either tbh, so like, to each their own. I think the idea that PC is going too far is tremendously silly, but that's just my opinion, believe what you wish.

Im not really sure this could be made today. Sure the message is progressive but the native american jokes would have been borderline (red face?!). As would the gay jokes. And probably the "all black guys have huge dicks" skit. Mel Brooks could get away with all the jewish jokes being jewish. But you dont see jewish jokes much anymore even from jews. But you are right that his portrayal of a black person as well spoken and intelligent and competent, and capable of being in a position of leadership over white people (foreshadowing Obama??) is super progressive and super awesome. But the vehicle of that message I dont think would work in Hollywood today. And I say this as someone who thinks Blazing Saddles is one of the three funniest films ever made and is full out a masterpiece.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

Fair point, those specific examples slipped my mind more than anything else (this despite the fact that I re-watched it two or three months ago). A real mixed bag of a movie, alright.

Yeah, I understand that...I just don't see why you think this. For example:

This is clearly what you believe your reaction would be, but why universalize it?

Put another way: do you think everyone would react this way? Probably not, right? So the question then is why you think this particular character would. The fact that you don't find it personally convincing is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, but it's not, by itself, reason enough to say that the film is objectively inconsistent or lacks logic.

Why doesn't it show him that? At minimum, it shows him how easily they can be hijacked and misused. He's a lot more protected and capable than most of the people the weapons put at risk, so he can reasonably infer from his experience that it's happening in other cases.

Neither would I, but it's a simple analogy to demonstrate how moral culpability works: the fact that someone is going to get something anyway doesn't mean the person who sells it is absolved of responsibility.

Sure, but this isn't really an accurate representation of what's being argued. I didn't say he's "question[ing] the morality of making weapons to defeat terrorism." I said he was questioning the morality of selling weapons to people without concerning himself with where they end up. The issue is one of establishing a clear line of responsibility. See below for more on how this is reinforced later in the film.

You mean the one that's been roughly planned out a decade in advance? I don't think I am. Especially since what I said in the previous paragraph fits perfectly with what happens in Civil War, where Stark comes down on the side of oversight.

Again, the argument being made is not that he's against weapons.

Sure it does, in the very actions you're questioning. You're simultaneously saying that him doing these things doesn't make sense, but then also excluding those things as possible evidence for the film "saying" these things.

And the movie puts a big, glowing exclamation point on the idea in the final line, where he decides to come out and say he's Iron Man. It's pretty elegant, actually; he starts off impersonally stamping his name on bombs and not caring where they go, and he ends giving a name to the weapon he, personally, has become, for everyone to see.

Hey, just FYI, if you remove the =Yoda part from the quote I don't get a notification that you responded. Anyway:

I don't follow this. Doesn't he essentially open the film introducing a new weapon? He's not selling the same bombs they were using in the 1970s, or whatever.

Anyway, none of that is really a response to the Alfred Nobel example. You can hypothetically argue Stark's behavior is out of character somehow, but there's no argument that the behavior is inherently unrealistic. We have actual, strikingly similar examples in reality. We have an actual relative scientific genius creating something used to destroy, who thanks for a brush with death, makes an about-face to change his legacy. This is a thing that actually happens, in reality.

Not only is this not bad writing, but it's generally argued that all good writing involves the protagonist changing their mind about something significant.

So he can personally oversee how the weapons are used.

That they'll be less likely to be abused, and if mistakes are made, a clear line of responsibility will exist.

Geez, so many reasons, potentially. His suit is obviously far more precise than indiscriminate bombs. And people have argued quite a bit in real life about the negative long-term effects of impersonal drone warfare. Keeping a strong human element in choices like this is a crucial part of accurately weighing the life-and-death costs of war. If we don't have to look our choices in the face, so to speak, it becomes much easier to dehumanize the people we'd be harming.

If you're expecting every possible follow-up question--even the ones with fairly obvious answers--to have a sequence in the movie that specifically addresses it, then I think you're holding this film to a different standard than others.

Did it ever work?

__________________
Thanks again, Mr Portridge.