thenolan
Sophomore
@thenolan
Posts: 778
Likes: 162
|
Post by thenolan on Oct 4, 2019 7:54:10 GMT
Spiderman 2002. the story is less predictable. Also Spiderman 2002, the characters dynamic is a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by thenewnexus on Oct 4, 2019 10:17:08 GMT
Spider-Man hands down they actually put effort in it and it payed off I would have liked Iron Man more if a better actor played Tony Stark and it was less campy So basically if you do not like a movie that means there was no effort put into it whatsoever by the filmmakers? Last I checked there quite a lot of effort put into the first Iron Man - nobody had made a movie on the character before and it was not a hot property to adapt, not only that but it was meant to start a cinematic universe of films and to say it wasn't successful in that regard would be pretty ridiculous given that 11 years later look where we're at now. Okay, I'll bite - who would you have wanted as Tony Stark? You keep saying Robert Downey, Jr. was so miscast but you've yet to actually list someone you think would have been a better fit. Do not say 'a more serious actor' that is not good enough. Also without RDJ's portrayal the movie wouldn't have been the hit that was it and made the character an A list superhero, food for thought, so name somebody that would've done just as good if not better in that regard. Both movies have their campy and serious moments, of the two Iron Man is probably the more serious though as its dealing with a less fantastical type of storyline. For the past 11 years they have used the same formula with only Winter Solider being something different. No Effort was put in Iron Man or most of the other movies Instead RDJ Ben Affleck,Jon Hamm,Casey Affleck,Josh Hartnett and Wes Bentley could have been better. I bet even Tom cruise proabbly would have given a better performance Thats were you are wrong Spider-man is the more serious movie,RDJ can't stop making jokes as Stark
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 4, 2019 16:44:48 GMT
So basically if you do not like a movie that means there was no effort put into it whatsoever by the filmmakers? Last I checked there quite a lot of effort put into the first Iron Man - nobody had made a movie on the character before and it was not a hot property to adapt, not only that but it was meant to start a cinematic universe of films and to say it wasn't successful in that regard would be pretty ridiculous given that 11 years later look where we're at now. Okay, I'll bite - who would you have wanted as Tony Stark? You keep saying Robert Downey, Jr. was so miscast but you've yet to actually list someone you think would have been a better fit. Do not say 'a more serious actor' that is not good enough. Also without RDJ's portrayal the movie wouldn't have been the hit that was it and made the character an A list superhero, food for thought, so name somebody that would've done just as good if not better in that regard. Both movies have their campy and serious moments, of the two Iron Man is probably the more serious though as its dealing with a less fantastical type of storyline. For the past 11 years they have used the same formula with only Winter Solider being something different. No Effort was put in Iron Man or most of the other movies Instead RDJ Ben Affleck,Jon Hamm,Casey Affleck,Josh Hartnett and Wes Bentley could have been better. I bet even Tom cruise proabbly would have given a better performance Thats were you are wrong Spider-man is the more serious movie,RDJ can't stop making jokes as Stark Describe this 'formula' and tell us how Winter Soldier was 'something different'. So again...Because you do not like a movie it automatically means zero effort was put into by the filmmakers? That is a pretty narrow minded and ignorant perspective on film. All movies, especially the mega mainstream blockbusters, have a ton of effort put into them by people working endlessly into the night and do not see rest till most people get up to start their day. In the case of the first Iron Man to say that there was no effort put into it or most other MCU movies is just BS, have you by any chance read about the productions to them or seen any behind the scenes documentaries? The first Iron Man they were trying their damn hardest to make a mega hit out of a B list superhero starring an unproven box office draw at the time in Robert Downey, Jr. while also plant the seeds for what would be a shared universe on film, the script was constantly being worked on, people took pay cuts, and the effects artists took much time in perfecting the CG work. I say this as a film fanatic and also as a filmmaker you can hate the movie but do not say that the film in question had zero effort put into it, that is like the most ignorant thing any film fan can ever say. Ever. None of the actors you listed would have been better than Downey, Jr. Do you know anything about Tony Stark? Stan Lee created him to be a smooth talking, in-your-face, billionaire playboy industrialist who adores the fact that he is both the smartest guy in the room, the most good looking, and the most wealthiest but has a good heart behind all the camera flashes and liquor. In fact when creating him Stan Lee was challenged to see if he could turn an otherwise unlikeable character into a likeable one. I like Ben Affleck but Downey, Jr. is the much better actor of the two, I think Affleck would've over-selled the cockiness of Iron Man and play little on the likability factor. Jon Hamm is a great actor but wouldn't probably have worked with the comedic aspects of the character as based on the characterization they had for the film. I like Hamm, I really do, but he's not the best with comedy he's better as the straight jacket not the fairly eccentric type. Tony Stark also isn't meant to be super young and hot so neither Josh Hartnett, Casey Affleck, or Wes Bentley would've worked. Tom Cruise wasn't exactly everybody's favorite actor in 2008 and he was deemed far too expensive by Marvel to afford to play Tony, it didn't look like Cruise and his people would've been good to work with on a creative level which would've likely resulted in totally hijacking the production and essentially turning Iron Man into the type of character Cruise fancied, which is a variation of Ethan Hunt from Mission: Impossible. The first Iron Man dealt with war in the middle east, and had scenes of terrorist attacks and harming human life(Remember the scene where the kid is crying for his father who is about get executed?) and the theme of profiteering on war. Spider-Man, while great, is much more theatrical and 'comic book-y'(Lots of 'big movie' moments sprinkled throughout for the purpose of being dynamic), there are a lot of silly lines of dialog which might've worked fine for a 1960's comic book but not so for a contemporary movie, the dialog in Iron Man is more contemporary and believable in character interaction.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Oct 5, 2019 18:30:04 GMT
Spiderman 2002. the story is less predictable. Also Spiderman 2002, the characters dynamic is a lot better. Is it? I prefer Spider-Man but was so unpredictable about it? He gets bit by a spider, Uncle Ben dies, he becomes Spider-Man, Osborne does a scientific experiment, becomes Green Goblin, gets revenge, has a run in with Spider-Man, kidnaps Mary Jane, there's a fight, Green Goblin dies. It's what you'd expect.
|
|