| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 05/12/2008 : 12:34:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
*And then he gave us one of those pretending to be humble but I'm really amazing looks!
Makes me weak at the knees just imagining it. |
 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 03:08:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, and Iron Man are among he most financially lucrative movies in history and, arguably, among the most popular (depending on your definition of popularity). They are not among the most acclaimed movies in history. No serious scholar, historian, or critic recognizes them as such. They might be this person or that person's favorite movies, but that doesn't mean that any of them have stood up to the test of time.
In any case, I have to admit that I have no idea what exactly you mean when you talk about serious film historians and critics.
There are plenty out there. My personal favorite is Robert Sklar. I own two of his books: Movie-Made America, about the history of American cinema and its effect on American culture, and Film: An International History of the Medium, a coffee table book with amazing photos and sketches that I'm not ashamed to call a masterpiece. Among the 1988 films mentioned in both books are:
Rain Man - Sklar notes that Rain Man was the only Best Picture winner that was also among the top 20 money-earners of the 1980s.
Big - Sklar notes that the 1980s were a time in which female directors, such as Penny Marshall, were given an entry point to make commercially successful films for the teen and preteen market.
Twins - Sklar devotes a page of Movie-Made America to the career of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He notes that Arnold's films only had limited appeal in the U.S. until Twins.
As you can see, historians note the general trend of the culture. If it is written about at all, Iron Man will be discussed as being part of the comic book trend of the 2000s. There is nothing special about it or about any of the above three films on their own.
I realize that this discussion is increasingly getting away from the merits of Iron Man, or any movie for that matter, but your answer just confuses me more. Out of all the film history books out there, is there none that discusses Rain Man, of all movies, and how exactly is it determined if a film is "special" and merits a mention in a book? |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 05/13/2008 03:09:40 |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 04:51:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, and Iron Man are among he most financially lucrative movies in history and, arguably, among the most popular (depending on your definition of popularity). They are not among the most acclaimed movies in history. No serious scholar, historian, or critic recognizes them as such. They might be this person or that person's favorite movies, but that doesn't mean that any of them have stood up to the test of time.
In any case, I have to admit that I have no idea what exactly you mean when you talk about serious film historians and critics.
There are plenty out there. My personal favorite is Robert Sklar. I own two of his books: Movie-Made America, about the history of American cinema and its effect on American culture, and Film: An International History of the Medium, a coffee table book with amazing photos and sketches that I'm not ashamed to call a masterpiece. Among the 1988 films mentioned in both books are:
Rain Man - Sklar notes that Rain Man was the only Best Picture winner that was also among the top 20 money-earners of the 1980s.
Big - Sklar notes that the 1980s were a time in which female directors, such as Penny Marshall, were given an entry point to make commercially successful films for the teen and preteen market.
Twins - Sklar devotes a page of Movie-Made America to the career of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He notes that Arnold's films only had limited appeal in the U.S. until Twins.
As you can see, historians note the general trend of the culture. If it is written about at all, Iron Man will be discussed as being part of the comic book trend of the 2000s. There is nothing special about it or about any of the above three films on their own.
I realize that this discussion is increasingly getting away from the merits of Iron Man, or any movie for that matter, but your answer just confuses me more. Out of all the film history books out there, is there none that discusses Rain Man, of all movies, and how exactly is it determined if a film is "special" and merits a mention in a book?
Film history books generally discuss trends like the ones I've listed in my previous posts. Certain individual films, such as Citizen Kane or Star Wars, are vitally important to an overall understanding of the history of the medium and its impact on the culture that they might be discussed in greater depth. This is extremely rare. It is extremely unlikely that Iron Man will have the power to affect film history in the way Star Wars and Citizen Kane did in their times. |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 14:57:41
|
But how many films in total can be said to have had a genuine lasting effect on the films made over, say, the next ten or so years? Movies that were so successful, they got films greenlighted that would not have otherwise have been considered. It could be a surprising list.
I'd include:
Airport - First of the all-star disaster films.
Animal House - Which broke the taboos of what could and could not be in a comedy.
Batman (1989) - The first superhero film that wasn't dumbed down. And yes I'm including the throughly wretched Superman
Frankenstein - First of the classic Universal horror films.
There's probably some musical that fits this category. One that went with the "bigger is better" theme that just kept growing for decades. Maybe Broadway Melody of 1932, but I'll leave that to historians.
The Ten Commandments (1957) - For the next decade, the big "tentpole" films were Bible-era sagas. Ben Hur. Quo Vadis. The Robe. Greatest Story Ever Told. Samson & Delilah. David and Goliath. Rise & Fall of The Roman Empire. Arguably, Cleopatra.
Star Wars, absolutely I'd put in this category. Citizen Kane, sorry, nope! I love love love the film, but it really didn't influence the making of other films immediately after or for a long time since.
Toy Story - I know a lot of people selecting an animated film would pick Snow White, but outside of Disney, there really wasn't an animation industry. I could accept Little Mermaid or Lion King, because they revitalized the animation industry. (Prior to that, Disney's last full length cartoon was "The Black Cauldron". Miserably bad, deservedly forgotten.) But Toy Story opened a whole different breed of animation, and was by any standards an excellent film.
|
Edited by - RockGolf on 05/13/2008 14:58:58 |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 19:04:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G 0 1 f
But how many films in total can be said to have had a genuine lasting effect on the films made over, say, the next ten or so years? Movies that were so successful, they got films greenlighted that would not have otherwise have been considered. It could be a surprising list.
I'd include:
Airport - First of the all-star disaster films.
Animal House - Which broke the taboos of what could and could not be in a comedy.
Batman (1989) - The first superhero film that wasn't dumbed down. And yes I'm including the throughly wretched Superman
Frankenstein - First of the classic Universal horror films.
There's probably some musical that fits this category. One that went with the "bigger is better" theme that just kept growing for decades. Maybe Broadway Melody of 1932, but I'll leave that to historians.
The Ten Commandments (1957) - For the next decade, the big "tentpole" films were Bible-era sagas. Ben Hur. Quo Vadis. The Robe. Greatest Story Ever Told. Samson & Delilah. David and Goliath. Rise & Fall of The Roman Empire. Arguably, Cleopatra.
Star Wars, absolutely I'd put in this category. Citizen Kane, sorry, nope! I love love love the film, but it really didn't influence the making of other films immediately after or for a long time since.
Toy Story - I know a lot of people selecting an animated film would pick Snow White, but outside of Disney, there really wasn't an animation industry. I could accept Little Mermaid or Lion King, because they revitalized the animation industry. (Prior to that, Disney's last full length cartoon was "The Black Cauldron". Miserably bad, deservedly forgotten.) But Toy Story opened a whole different breed of animation, and was by any standards an excellent film.
don't be dissin' Superman. 
and in the animation category, i'd go with Beauty and the Beast over Toy Story. BatB combined traditional and computer animation and was nominated for best picture. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 21:08:01
|
quote:
Film history books generally discuss trends like the ones I've listed in my previous posts. Certain individual films, such as Citizen Kane or Star Wars, are vitally important to an overall understanding of the history of the medium and its impact on the culture that they might be discussed in greater depth. This is extremely rare. It is extremely unlikely that Iron Man will have the power to affect film history in the way Star Wars and Citizen Kane did in their times.
"Extremely rare" sounds right. That's a mighty high standard to be holding Iron Man to; I like to think a movie can be said to be "special" without having to signal a sea change in international cinema.
Then again, I realize you weren't the one who started making comparisons between Iron Man and the all-time greats. Still, I'd like to say that The Godfather's status as the greatest movie of all time isn't going to stop your kid from going "meh" and changing the channel. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 05/13/2008 21:13:07 |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 22:16:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G 0 1 f
But how many films in total can be said to have had a genuine lasting effect on the films made over, say, the next ten or so years? Citizen Kane, sorry, nope! I love love love the film, but it really didn't influence the making of other films immediately after or for a long time since.
Sorry, but you are wrong wrong wrong here. KANE exploded -- i.e., BLEW UP REAL GOOD! -- the visual and textual language of American cinema. There are hundreds of films which are directly influenced by KANE. Hmmm. Let me think of just a few: TWELVE ANGRY MEN. FAIL-SAFE. THE USUAL SUSPECTS. I could go on, but I don't have the bandwidth. Wrong call, friend-o. |
Edited by - randall on 05/14/2008 00:24:36 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 02:21:38
|
I thought "Iron Man" was great.
Carry on.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/23/2008 : 01:09:44
|
| I went to see most of this again, as I wanted to see the bit after the credits and I had a long wait between two other films. It was still very enjoyable a second time, which is a good sign. |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 05/24/2008 : 19:56:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I thought "Iron Man" was great.
Carry on.
So did I.
Gwyneth's character made me think of another forgotten childhood character I used to read about... Mrs. Pepperpot.
I digress, as most of you have. |
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire 
"^ Click my name. "
|
Posted - 05/24/2008 : 20:27:15
|
I was very disappointed in this film. I had high hopes seeing how it is on the IMDB top 150 or so, it has an incredibly high rotten tomatoes score.
The film starts with this unnecessary flashback which we have the misfortune of having to watch twice. For someone trying to take Tony Stark alive, they are not careful at all with their gunfire and make it where a doctor has to save his life.
I can not feel any sympathy for Tony, as he is the world's biggest douche. "Look at me! Despite being a mechanical engineering polymath, I have the most charisma over women in the world! I don't know why, since I treat them with 50's ideals, but i do." Not to mention, he is an arms dealer. Douche.
I also have a problem with the way everyone talks to Tony. they aren't talking to a businessman. They are talking to him like he is an entertainer. I understand Tony is supposed to be an acclaimed genius in the spot light, but this is ridiculous. He should be treated more like Steve Jobs and less like Robert Downey Jr at a 13 year-old's birthday party.
A lot of scenes are well done. i like the construction of the suit scenes (other than the slapstick comedy of the propulsion). I hate the flying scenes though. "well, I can barely stabilize, but I'm going to become the first person to independently fly to space. What's this? some unexpected trouble with my suit because it's 3/4 the way threw the film and we still have no villain? No problem! I will pick off the ice to my suit a mere 3 feet from the ground."
The end fight was terrible. Beyond terrible. I felt like I was watching a James Bond film. "Oh no! the villain has superior gadgetry than I do. I'd better use my wits to defeat him. Oh my! he is beating the living crap out of me! Good thing he is spilling his evil plans to me in this lengthy speech and taunting me instead of ripping me apart. I know what I can do! i'll lure him back to a pit of some type of machine. this is his only weakness. Good thing he has now forgotten about the missiles he could launch at me in my now exposed body. good thing he has forgotten that my power is so low I will die in 5 minutes anyway. No, he is impatient. Yay! i win, at the exact second I was going to die."
Overall, i give this film 4 out of 10.
Great CGI, some commentary (albeit rather straddling the fence), and better acting than most blockbusters. Good for a superhero movie, but fair for a regular film. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 18:28:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Stupid
...
For someone trying to take Tony Stark alive, they are not careful at all with their gunfire and make it where a doctor has to save his life.
...
The end fight was terrible. Beyond terrible. I felt like I was watching a James Bond film. "Oh no! the villain has superior gadgetry than I do. I'd better use my wits to defeat him. Oh my! he is beating the living crap out of me! Good thing he is spilling his evil plans to me in this lengthy speech and taunting me instead of ripping me apart. I know what I can do! i'll lure him back to a pit of some type of machine. this is his only weakness. Good thing he has now forgotten about the missiles he could launch at me in my now exposed body. good thing he has forgotten that my power is so low I will die in 5 minutes anyway. No, he is impatient. Yay! i win, at the exact second I was going to die."
...
i've seen IM 2x and perhaps watched way too closely.
the Taliban-like guys were trying to kill an anonymous target, not trying to take Stark alive, and were outraged when they found out who it was they had been (under)paid to kill.
Stane didn't forget about his missiles in the final fight. they didn't work properly b/c Stark screwed up Stane's targeting system.
yeah, i'm a fanboy.
|
Edited by - damalc on 05/29/2008 18:33:21 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Iron Man
