If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Iron Man 3 is bigger and better than The Avengers. 'Nuff said   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 106
    More: Obvious, human beings, Robert Downey Jr., Iron Man, New York Film Festival, Anton Yelchin, Richard Linklater, Jay Baruchel, Noah Baumbach  
•       •       •

6815 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 28 Apr 2013 at 5:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-28 03:29:05 PM
I find that hard to believe, and in fact it would defy the law of movie series which states that in any series the first one is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointing, with each subsequent movie contributing to the decline of the series. Iron Man 2 was good, but it was not anywhere near as good as the first one.
 
2013-04-28 04:13:35 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: I find that hard to believe, and in fact it would defy the law of movie series which states that in any series the first one is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointing, with each subsequent movie contributing to the decline of the series. Iron Man 2 was good, but it was not anywhere near as good as the first one.


ROTJ was not dissapointing.

PM,AOTC,and ROTS were all dissapointing.

Hangover 2 was not 'great', esp. compared to the original (of which it was practically a carbon copy).

Rambo was not better than First Blood. But Rambo III: The Ramboning, certainly was.

Your law of movie series is invalid.
 
2013-04-28 05:47:10 PM

MadSkillz: Adolf Oliver Nipples: I find that hard to believe, and in fact it would defy the law of movie series which states that in any series the first one is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointing, with each subsequent movie contributing to the decline of the series. Iron Man 2 was good, but it was not anywhere near as good as the first one.

ROTJ was not dissapointing.

PM,AOTC,and ROTS were all dissapointing.

Hangover 2 was not 'great', esp. compared to the original (of which it was practically a carbon copy).

Rambo was not better than First Blood. But Rambo III: The Ramboning, certainly was.

Your law of movie series is invalid.


You're nuts. Jedi was a cynical exercise in marketing, and I say that as a Star Wars fan. Trivia question: How many times does the word "Ewok" appear in the movie?

The Hangover was an absolute dog, even though it achieved some sort of weird popularity with the frat-boy crowd. The sequel is hardly worth mentioning, mainly because it was a second copy of a first that should never have been made.

In any event, it's not always applicable, but you can think of cases that it is true right off the top: Superman II, Star Trek II, American Pie II, Spider Man II, The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II.

The reason for this is that the first movie is made with no hope of ever getting another bite at the apple, and then when it takes off they get a bigger budget, better scriptwriters, and the opportunity to use ideas they couldn't in the first movie. By the time the third rolls around they're out of ideas, the series is a cash cow and it's time to cash in, and they don't care anymore because they've already established the franchise so people will come to see it good or bad. It's because of this that you get cynical cashouts like Star Trek III-V, which were dogs.

The Marvel movies suffer less from this because they are parts of a whole and they have a whole established universe to draw from, but they still make dogs like the Hulk movies and Daredevil (though I liked that one).

In a series of three it's rare indeed that the second one isn't the best, and it often holds true in the longer series as well.
 
2013-04-28 06:00:56 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: In a series of three it's rare indeed that the second one isn't the best, and it often holds true in the longer series as well.


Took me about five seconds to think of "Toy Story 2".
 
2013-04-28 06:04:55 PM
Iron Man 3 looks awesome. I'm excited.
 
2013-04-28 06:07:01 PM
iron man 3 opened overseas first?  thats unamerican
 
2013-04-28 06:08:36 PM

Slow To Return: Adolf Oliver Nipples: In a series of three it's rare indeed that the second one isn't the best, and it often holds true in the longer series as well.

Took me about five seconds to think of "Toy Story 2".


Die Hard 2 (worst of the three by miles)
Indiana Jones 2 (worst of the three by miles)
Matrix 2 (worse than the 1st, better than the 3rd)
 
2013-04-28 06:14:14 PM
The movie has opened in 42 markets and it made US$195 million, beating Avengers $185 from 39.  That's 4.64 millions for IM3 and 4.74 for Avengers per market, so on average, Avengers still did a bit more per market. But IM3 broke all-time records opening records in Argentina, HK, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Phillippines, Malaysia and Singapore. It opened bigger than Avengers, but not record breaking in Australia, New Zealand, India, Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, et), Netherlands, Hungary and Romania.

It's funny because Russia, China, Germany and the US are still to open. Interesting how Hollywood has started to buck the trend and open the biggest markets late when it was the opposite, back then. Seems to be the strategy is working. Let's see if word of mouth about the movie keeps the momentum or if the Mandarin is going to take another victim (if you've seen the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about).

The movie itself is pretty to look at with breathtaking action pieces. Plot is rather shallow and it has a twist that will have you facepalming. Pacing is a bit of an issue and it has exactly zero gravitas, everything is played for fun.

Plus since Shane Black wrote it, you know it's gonna be a buddy-cop action comedy full of one liners and set during Christmas. (It is.).
 
2013-04-28 06:22:06 PM
Another positive of it opening overseas first is that we get an extended, though lower-quality, preview... If you catch my drift
 
2013-04-28 06:22:57 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: I find that hard to believe, and in fact it would defy the law of movie series which states that in any series the first one is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointing, with each subsequent movie contributing to the decline of the series. Iron Man 2 was good, but it was not anywhere near as good as the first one.


Was not the 3rd Die Hard and the 3rd Lethal Weapon better than the 2nd ones?
 
2013-04-28 06:26:27 PM
Nolans Batmans is a great example, 1 was amazing, 2 was beyond amazing, 3 sucked donkey dung
 
2013-04-28 06:26:36 PM
"'nuff said" is one of my least favorite expressions, right behind "You have too much time on your hands"
 
2013-04-28 06:29:27 PM

Waldo Pepper: Adolf Oliver Nipples: I find that hard to believe, and in fact it would defy the law of movie series which states that in any series the first one is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointing, with each subsequent movie contributing to the decline of the series. Iron Man 2 was good, but it was not anywhere near as good as the first one.

Was not the 3rd Die Hard and the 3rd Lethal Weapon better than the 2nd ones?


a lot of people (not me) do not like Die Hard 3. I happen to think it is awesome. Die Hard 2 doesn't make a whole lot of sense once they make the whole "blanks" revelation.
 
2013-04-28 06:31:14 PM
That film, however, was not released in 3D -- though the extra dimension does account for the massive global interest in Tony Stark's latest adventure.

You mean people in other countries aren't sick to death of that cash-grabbing gimmick yet?


PhDemented: Indiana Jones 2 (worst of the three by miles)


I see what you did there...
 
2013-04-28 06:33:41 PM

Waldo Pepper: Was not the 3rd Die Hard and the 3rd Lethal Weapon better than the 2nd ones?


No, Lethal Weapon 3 was not better than Lethal Weapon 2.
 
2013-04-28 06:34:17 PM
I wasn't all that enamored with IM2 anyway- but its meandering universe building paid off in Avengers. Hopefully now that everyone and their grandma knows what SHIELD is and all that, this movie will be leaner and better.
 
2013-04-28 06:35:16 PM

baorao: a lot of people (not me) do not like Die Hard 3. I happen to think it is awesome. Die Hard 2 doesn't make a whole lot of sense once they make the whole "blanks" revelation.


Neither the scripts for Die Hard II nor Die Hard II started life as Die Hard movies.  III made a hell of a lot more sense in translation, while II suffered from plot holes that nothing could have fixed.
 
2013-04-28 06:36:11 PM
I understand there is a plot twist in the movie that may upset some fanboys.
 
2013-04-28 06:38:32 PM

baorao: Waldo Pepper: Adolf Oliver Nipples: I find that hard to believe, and in fact it would defy the law of movie series which states that in any series the first one is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointing, with each subsequent movie contributing to the decline of the series. Iron Man 2 was good, but it was not anywhere near as good as the first one.

Was not the 3rd Die Hard and the 3rd Lethal Weapon better than the 2nd ones?

a lot of people (not me) do not like Die Hard 3. I happen to think it is awesome. Die Hard 2 doesn't make a whole lot of sense once they make the whole "blanks" revelation.


Yeah, somehow Willis wasn't immediately gunned down from all sides after firing an automatic weapon indoors at a high ranking law enforcement official.
 
2013-04-28 06:38:46 PM

kronicfeld: No, Lethal Weapon 3 was not better than Lethal Weapon 2.


It's just been revoked!!!
 
2013-04-28 06:41:09 PM

chuggernaught: I understand there is a plot twist in the movie that may upset some fanboys.


I'm a huge Iron Man fanboy and I've seen the reports of the tweest. If done as well as reports say, I'll accept it.
 
2013-04-28 06:42:32 PM

Boojum2k: chuggernaught: I understand there is a plot twist in the movie that may upset some fanboys.

I'm a huge Iron Man fanboy and I've seen the reports of the tweest. If done as well as reports say, I'll accept it.


That's where I'm at with it.  I just expect complaints based on the trailers, if you know what I mean.
 
2013-04-28 06:44:35 PM

baorao: Waldo Pepper: Adolf Oliver Nipples: I find that hard to believe, and in fact it would defy the law of movie series which states that in any series the first one is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointing, with each subsequent movie contributing to the decline of the series. Iron Man 2 was good, but it was not anywhere near as good as the first one.

Was not the 3rd Die Hard and the 3rd Lethal Weapon better than the 2nd ones?

a lot of people (not me) do not like Die Hard 3. I happen to think it is awesome. Die Hard 2 doesn't make a whole lot of sense once they make the whole "blanks" revelation.


I like DH3.  Way better than 2, and kept the spirit of 1.
 
2013-04-28 06:45:23 PM

chuggernaught: Boojum2k: chuggernaught: I understand there is a plot twist in the movie that may upset some fanboys.

I'm a huge Iron Man fanboy and I've seen the reports of the tweest. If done as well as reports say, I'll accept it.

That's where I'm at with it.  I just expect complaints based on the trailers, if you know what I mean.


Have you noticed you don't see Iron Man fighting anyone in the trailer? It certainly implies a huge battle but no direct opponent. This has me very interested.
 
2013-04-28 06:46:01 PM
Trilogy rules aside from what I've heard they had a chance to do something mega awesome but decided to turn Iron Man's arch nemesis into Vince the sham wow guy. So don't expect it to out do Avengers or even Howard the Duck for that matter. Yeah I know comics.... movies..... different.... purist.... snob...... hater....... troll blah blah blah. Did you not wonder why Favreau  didn't direct this one or why RDJ is hinting this might be his last Iron Man film? Because it sucks, I'm sure it will make a pile of cash but anyone with an I.Q. over about 40 who has even glanced at the comics is going to probably hate it.
 
2013-04-28 06:47:19 PM
I hope this movie doesn't take the recent trend of sucking China's balls for cash, because it pisses me off when a movie features scenes in China for no reason because the gov't there threw cash at them.  fark you, China.
 
2013-04-28 06:48:09 PM
Well, the trailers for IM3 makes it look like there's a serious threat in the film, which is a huge step up from The Avengers, where everyone treated the threat as a joke.
 
2013-04-28 06:51:54 PM
Wouldn't be surprised. Avengers was boring as hell - forgettable campfest that I could barely remember 5 minutes after leaving the theater.
 
2013-04-28 06:52:20 PM
Saw sneak preview... it's kinda meh
 
2013-04-28 06:52:21 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: I find that hard to believe, and in fact it would defy the law of movie series which states that in any series the first one is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointing, with each subsequent movie contributing to the decline of the series. Iron Man 2 was good, but it was not anywhere near as good as the first one.


I am really surprised anyone bothered responding to this. Its own internal logic is busted.

So, your theory is:

First movie: Good
Second movie: Great
Third movie, and subsequent: Falling off.

Your proof is:

Iron Man: Great
Iron Man 2: Good
Iron Man 3: Probably not good.

Not to mention the piece is discussing IM3 in relation to Avengers, and not other Iron Man films.

Geez, Adolf. Pull it together, man.
 
2013-04-28 06:55:34 PM

MadSkillz: Rambo was not better than First Blood. But Rambo III: The Ramboning, certainly was.


You mean the one where Rambo goes Afghanistan to help out Osama Bin Laden and his buddies?
 
2013-04-28 06:55:43 PM

fusillade762: That film, however, was not released in 3D -- though the extra dimension does account for the massive global interest in Tony Stark's latest adventure.

You mean people in other countries aren't sick to death of that cash-grabbing gimmick yet?


PhDemented: Indiana Jones 2 (worst of the three by miles)

I see what you did there...


Whew... Almost bit that one.
 
2013-04-28 06:55:56 PM
The weakest iron man for sure but still better than thor

Not a spoiler: the weakest link on this film is tony stark, almost because of too many jokes out of place. Guy pearce did very good, rebecca hall did good, pepper potts is a true character now and if i say more there will be spoilers so lets finish here
 
2013-04-28 07:07:30 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Another positive of it opening overseas first is that we get an extended, though lower-quality, preview... If you catch my drift


With my decidedly slow-assed access it would take at least three or four days to get that "preview"... so if I'm going to take all that time I want it in a quality worthy of keeping. I'll wait.
/yes, my access to previews is sh*t
//Must be nice to be so fast.
 
2013-04-28 07:19:37 PM

mat catastrophe: Adolf Oliver Nipples: I find that hard to believe, and in fact it would defy the law of movie series which states that in any series the first one is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointing, with each subsequent movie contributing to the decline of the series. Iron Man 2 was good, but it was not anywhere near as good as the first one.

I am really surprised anyone bothered responding to this. Its own internal logic is busted.

So, your theory is:

First movie: Good
Second movie: Great
Third movie, and subsequent: Falling off.

Your proof is:

Iron Man: Great
Iron Man 2: Good
Iron Man 3: Probably not good.

Not to mention the piece is discussing IM3 in relation to Avengers, and not other Iron Man films.

Geez, Adolf. Pull it together, man.


I said it would defy that convention. It's right there in black and white.
 
2013-04-28 07:24:33 PM

velvet_fog: Wouldn't be surprised. Avengers was boring as hell - forgettable campfest that I could barely remember 5 minutes after leaving the theater.


THIS!

I still shake my head at the Avengers love. The very best that can be said about the movie is that it didn't suck. It was a whole lot of "meh" with some cool action scenes that you don't think about (because when you do, they start to turn into "meh") and three awesome scenes. Two involving the Hulk, one involving the Black Widow.

So it's not hard to think that Iron Man 3 could be better than the Avengers.
 
2013-04-28 07:47:48 PM
Lots of fan boys giving it a lukewarm review online. They're pissed that the Mandarin ends up being some goof ball.
 
2013-04-28 07:48:29 PM
24.media.tumblr.com

Seriously, wouldn't the world be a better place if we stayed out of threads that were about things we disliked?

/MCU fan, Coulson crossplayer
//haters gunna hate
 
2013-04-28 08:01:10 PM

Sparkimus Prime: Well, the trailers for IM3 makes it look like there's a serious threat in the film, which is a huge step up from The Avengers, where everyone treated the threat as a joke.


They were at comic book levels of cocky, but I don't think that makes the baddies a joke.
 
2013-04-28 08:16:45 PM
people who end a statement with "'nuff said" as if it settles anything should be drawn and quartered
 
2013-04-28 08:22:55 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: I find that hard to believe, and in fact it would defy the law of movie series which states that in any series the first one is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointing, with each subsequent movie contributing to the decline of the series. Iron Man 2 was good, but it was not anywhere near as good as the first one.


Wrong. Case in point? The fifth installment of the rocky series. There isn't anyone around who wouldn't admit to being moved when the don king character said 'only in America'.
 
2013-04-28 08:29:09 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: You're nuts. Jedi was a cynical exercise in marketing, and I say that as a Star Wars fan. Trivia question: How many times does the word "Ewok" appear in the movie?


So Jedi had Ewoks. But the stuff in Jabba's palace was cool and the throne room scenes were bad ass.

Lethal Weapon 2 was better than 1 and Die Hard 2 was a terribly directed mess while Die Hard 3 was decent, mostly because of Sam Jackson.
 
2013-04-28 08:35:50 PM

Sparkimus Prime: Well, the trailers for IM3 makes it look like there's a serious threat in the film, which is a huge step up from The Avengers, where everyone treated the threat as a joke.


The threat in The Avengers was the other Avengers.
 
2013-04-28 08:49:21 PM

Sparkimus Prime: Well, the trailers for IM3 makes it look like there's a serious threat in the film, which is a huge step up from The Avengers, where everyone treated the threat as a joke.


You're going to be disappointed with IM3 then. There's almost no gravity in the movie and it's even more treating everything as a joke than Avengers.
 
2013-04-28 08:52:22 PM
I'm going to wait for Ebert's review.
 
2013-04-28 08:57:18 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: I'm going to wait for Ebert's review.


He took the easy way out.
 
2013-04-28 08:57:25 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: I'm going to wait for Ebert's review.


It's already out -

"It started off as a jaw-dropper, but ultimately left me cold"
 
2013-04-28 08:59:38 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Neither the scripts for Die Hard II nor Die Hard II started life as Die Hard movies. III made a hell of a lot more sense in translation, while II suffered from plot holes that nothing could have fixed.


If memory serves 3 was based on something called "Simon Says."  Of course the first Die Hard was also adapted from a novel (by Roderick Thorpe if IIRC).   Off to the google...

Actually Die Hard was based on a book "Nothing Lasts Forever" which was a sequel to a book made into a movie with Frank Sinatra.

Die Hard 2 was based on a book called "58 Minutes".

Die Hard 3 was a stand alone story called "Simon Says".

Die Hard 4 started life as a script adapted from John Carlin's article "A Farewell to Arms", about a cyber attack, and was originally going to be an unrelated film entitled WW3. It was retooled into a Die Hard after that one failed to get greenlit.

Die Hard 5 was never made (actually I couldn't find any details about the source material).
 
2013-04-28 09:05:08 PM

mjbok: If memory serves 3 was based on something called "Simon Says."  Of course the first Die Hard was also adapted from a novel (by Roderick Thorpe if IIRC).   Off to the google...


Yeah, the first half was, when they were dicking around with the puzzles and shiat, then it went into action movie mode. It was originally going to be a Lethal Weapon movie.
 
2013-04-28 09:14:52 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: It's because of this that you get cynical cashouts like Star Trek III-V, which were dogs.


Hey, Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home was one of the better Star Trek movies.
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report