|
Post by charzhino on Aug 20, 2018 14:07:59 GMT
Both good points, Tony is egocentric but I guess that's his character.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 20, 2018 14:18:50 GMT
In the movies, Bruce gives away his estate to house local homeless children. He funds the homeless shelter too until he got conned in Dark knight Rises. He Also refuses to get involved in nuclear energy project in case its hijacked and weaponised. Stark in comparison has no guilt in stocking up in his arsenal of iron men with the Iron Legion protocol, building Hulkbusters and creating Ultron. He has no caution. He isnt shown anywhere to be giving something tangible back.Very true, he isn't shown anywhere to be giving something tangible back, especially if you choose not to remember him giving anything tangible back. The September Foundation grant fully funded every MIT student's work for that year. I suppose you could argue that the grant was intangible but, I would not be here to read that inventive treatise.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Aug 20, 2018 14:20:07 GMT
Both good points, Tony is egocentric but I guess that's his character. I tend to be drawn to that type of "hero." Tony knows he's a dick and trys to correct it. Wolverine is sorta a failed Samurai. A character by all rights should be a feral raving lunatic but battles his past. Cap who knows the 40/50's era's aw shucks ma'am was facade covering problems but strives for that ideal. Black Widow trying to atone for her past. It goes into other things too like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I choose Spike 1000 times out of a 1000. Angel was cursed with his soul and thus his conscience. Spike fought for his.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Aug 20, 2018 14:31:37 GMT
Okay I'll give him the MIT student funded program.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 20, 2018 20:34:55 GMT
Okay I'll give him the MIT student funded program. That's very big of you. Will you also give him the Stark Relief Foundation? It's mostly tangible, as in you can't walk through it although, you may be able to talk your way around it. Mentioned in Age of Ultron, The Stark Foundation was set up to deal with the damage caused in the wake of battles fought by the Avengers. The Foundation provided relief to South Africa after the so-called Duel of Johannesburg where Iron Man fought the Hulk.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 20, 2018 23:34:25 GMT
In the movies, Bruce gives away his estate to house local homeless children. He funds the homeless shelter too until he got conned in Dark knight Rises. He Also refuses to get involved in nuclear energy project in case its hijacked and weaponised. Stark in comparison has no guilt in stocking up in his arsenal of iron men with the Iron Legion protocol, building Hulkbusters and creating Ultron. He has no caution. He isnt shown anywhere to be giving something tangible back. He does but he doesn't, he has the charity set up to receive a portion of his companies profits, this could be something set up by his father for all I know, as I don't recall if they stated Bruce started funding it or if it was always funded by the Waynes, but either way he doesn't care, as is obvious by how he doesn't realise he hasn't been funding the place for years, I mean he doesn't even seem to care to much about his employee's as his company has been losing money for years and he doesn't give a damn, he's got his money and pays no attention to anything other than his own bitter existence for years between TDK & TDKR.
Also whilst he gives them his estate in his will he does so because he's faking his own death, he can steal back his money and what not somehow maybe, but he cant exactly keep his family home if he's going to pretend to be dead now is he? it's a nice but empty gesture because what else was he going to do with it? leave it empty to be used as a crackhouse after a while?
And yeah Tony has no qualms building his stuff but for reasons, he goes OTT on the suits after the Chitauri because he's got PTSD and that's all he knows how to deal, he builds the Hulkbuster if not at the insistence atleast the consent of Bruce in case the Hulk ever goes crazy, the Iron Legion program is used to protect civilians in AOU from being collateral damage during their fights and to help local police at maintaining order.
But Ultron he doesn't even create, but everyone ignores this about the film, Tony says they were no where close to creating Ultron, the mind stone created Ultron using the building blocks Tony & Bruce had been toying with, the fault lay not in Tony doing something but no one knowing what power the mind stone or Loki's staff as they thought of it as at the time was capable of, but the stone created both Ultron & Vision, one formed out of an unfinished construct the other a fully functioning AI, the functioning one turns out to be a hero and pretty much what Tony envisioned for Ultron to be, so to blame him for that is kind of silly, his plan would have worked had the stone not brought to life a half finished project.
But both do good, give to charity and such but are fucking pricks to be quite honest, but imo out of the two Tony's abrasive but Bruce is outright unlikeable in a lot of Batman stories.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Aug 21, 2018 8:10:05 GMT
They were actually addressing this in Iron Man and Iron Man 2. It was a main plot element in fact. It was left unresolved when Iron Man 3 opted to cater to the kindergarten market.
|
|
kanekikun
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@kanekikun
Posts: 236
Likes: 18
|
Post by kanekikun on Aug 21, 2018 11:45:47 GMT
They were actually addressing this in Iron Man and Iron Man 2. It was a main plot element in fact. It was left unresolved when Iron Man 3 opted to cater to the kindergarten market. telling a story about how people are more willing to see a foreigner as an enemy than see their own failing is kindergarten?
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Aug 21, 2018 12:22:51 GMT
They were actually addressing this in Iron Man and Iron Man 2. It was a main plot element in fact. It was left unresolved when Iron Man 3 opted to cater to the kindergarten market. telling a story about how people are more willing to see a foreigner as an enemy than see their own failing is kindergarten? They could have done that and still finish the narrative they started and also not be stupid in every other way.
|
|
kanekikun
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@kanekikun
Posts: 236
Likes: 18
|
Post by kanekikun on Aug 21, 2018 13:27:39 GMT
telling a story about how people are more willing to see a foreigner as an enemy than see their own failing is kindergarten? They could have done that and still finish the narrative they started and also not be stupid in every other way. well, the mopvie wasnt stupid so i dont know what you mean, and the narrative about tony and tech was continued in aou where it meant more.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Aug 21, 2018 13:53:28 GMT
They could have done that and still finish the narrative they started and also not be stupid in every other way. well, the mopvie wasnt stupid so i dont know what you mean, and the narrative about tony and tech was continued in aou where it meant more. Stark’s ownership of the suit at the expense of the US military’s goals of acquiring the suit was a a significant plot which was ignored in Iron Man 3. Rhodey’s acquisition of the suit at the conclusion of Iron Man 2 was a significant change in the status quo that was ignored in Iron Man 3. And your defence of Iron Man 3 being that the enemies were American? Yeah that happened already in both of the previous films. That in itself doesn’t make the film great.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 21, 2018 14:12:57 GMT
well, the mopvie wasnt stupid so i dont know what you mean, and the narrative about tony and tech was continued in aou where it meant more. Stark’s ownership of my the suit at the expense of the US military’s goals of acquiring the suit was a a significant plot which was ignored in Iron Man 3. Rhodey’s acquisition of the suit at the conclusion of Iron Man 2 was a significant change in the status quo that was ignored in Iron Man 3. And your defence of Iron Man 3 being that the enemies were American? Yeah that happened already in both of the previous films. That in itself doesn’t make the film great. No it's a plot that was brought up in IM 2 and completed in IM 2, Tony gave them their own Iron Man operated by the one man he trusted to use it, but he doesn't give them the tech to recreate it, which even his own people in IM1 couldn't do, and they make a point of showing in IM 2 Tony's weapons and designs are light years a head of their best competitors, and it's tech Tony is improving upon constantly where as others cant even properly grasp his basic designs.
They even poke fun at this with the role out of the governments new secret weapon, Iron Patriot, and how everyone laughs at it because it's just War Machine with a paint job and nothing more, and this is years later, compared to Tony who is designing new and more spectacular suits by the day.
After giving over the WM suit what more is there to that story that isn't a retread, make us more suits, no, do it, make me, were the government, and I am both Iron Man & Tony Stark so fuck off, I mean IM 1 he loses his company, so that's not even a new issue to use, and would make IM 3 basically a hodge podge of IM 1 & 2, instead it moved on with Tony's journey as a person and his PTSD, also as an Avenger the whole government being like we need our own Iron Man when he's now officially aligned with a government agency and gave the US military a suit for themselves, what were they meant to do from that to continue this issue? and what were they meant to ignore the near death experience of being a drift in space halfway across the galaxy and the events of Avengers?
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Aug 21, 2018 14:22:09 GMT
Dont forget the ending of IM3 where he "retires" and tells Jarvis to blow up all his suits yet hes back immediately fighting in ultron with no explaanation. Or the new extremiss powers that Pepper gained which were dropped and only served as a deus ex machina moment for the finale against Aldrich Killian (including another fake out death amongst the messy CGI). But the MCU is so innovative
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Aug 21, 2018 14:33:08 GMT
Ultron he doesn't even create, but everyone ignores this about the film, Tony says they were no where close to creating Ultron, the mind stone created Ultron using the building blocks Tony & Bruce had been toying with, the fault lay not in Tony doing something but no one knowing what power the mind stone or Loki's staff as they thought of it as at the time was capable of Dr Banner knew that's why he was very hesitant and against it adamantly at first until Stark pressured him to take the risk because Stark is reckless in every film hes been in and endangers others without learning from his mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Aug 21, 2018 14:36:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 21, 2018 14:39:55 GMT
Ultron he doesn't even create, but everyone ignores this about the film, Tony says they were no where close to creating Ultron, the mind stone created Ultron using the building blocks Tony & Bruce had been toying with, the fault lay not in Tony doing something but no one knowing what power the mind stone or Loki's staff as they thought of it as at the time was capable of Dr Banner knew that's why he was very hesitant and against it adamantly at first until Stark pressured him to take the risk because Stark is reckless in every film hes been in and endangers others without learning from his mistakes. Yes because Banner is a worrier but Tony's plan had the mind stone not prematurely spunked onto an unfished design they knew they hadn't perfected would have worked, because when used in conjuncture with a fully functioning and sane AI like Jarvis it creates Vision.
I mean Ultron's issue in part is mistaking what he was designed for, he takes the saving the planet too literal like someone on here takes the below our paygrade line in Homecoming, Jarvis however knew what that meant, not just save the physical planet but it's inhabitants.
Blaming Tony for that would be like taking someones unfinished designs for a new engine or formula for fuel and putting it into practise without testing it, then blaming that person for designing a faulty engine or unstable or inefficient fuel, it's a case of no you numpty they never said go ahead and use it or do it, you did it recklessly and it's on you, Tony never put Ultron into practise he and Banner both said they weren't close to finishing the project, so why is it his fault because the mind stone created Ultron from a unfinished and faulty system Tony wasn't planning on using because of it's flaws?
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 21, 2018 14:51:14 GMT
Dont forget the ending of IM3 where he "retires" and tells Jarvis to blow up all his suits yet hes back immediately fighting in ultron with no explaanation. Or the new extremiss powers that Pepper gained which were dropped and only served as a deus ex machina moment for the finale against Aldrich Killian (including another fake out death amongst the messy CGI). But the MCU is so innovative Well yeah they dropped a bunch of stuff from IM3 but a bunch of that was due to more than just not wanting to deal with it, Paltrow and Marvel weren't on the same page for a while, I cant recall if she was just sick of the films, wanted too much money, a larger role or what have you but they couldn't do much without her wanting to come back, the him retiring then returning with no explanation is fair, they should have atleast made some comment about it, they gave a reason though most of us could understand imo, Shield fell, Hydra was revealed and it was all hands on deck, then they do touch on it in CW, that he couldn't give it up because he doesn't want to give it up.
The Pepper extremist thing I agree though was stupid, at least they should have let her keep some powers or something, which would have been fun to see in an AOU Pepper being at the party and ripping off one of the IL robots head's clean off, but again if they were having issues with Paltrow they wouldn't have been able to anyway, but yeah giving her powers for what they used it for was dumb.
But then their not the only franchise who waste things cool ideas by doing nothing with them.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 21, 2018 14:54:47 GMT
There's no indication that he doesn't share some of the technology with local hospitals, but he is a flawed individual as well and arrogant, but that's his character and there's nothing wrong with that. But in Iron Man 2 he already made it clear he wouldn't share his technology with the government because in the wrong hands it can cause trouble. And that speaks to his arrogance, but again, that's the point.
|
|
kanekikun
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@kanekikun
Posts: 236
Likes: 18
|
Post by kanekikun on Aug 21, 2018 15:51:45 GMT
Dont forget the ending of IM3 where he "retires" and tells Jarvis to blow up all his suits yet hes back immediately fighting in ultron with no explaanation. Or the new extremiss powers that Pepper gained which were dropped and only served as a deus ex machina moment for the finale against Aldrich Killian (including another fake out death amongst the messy CGI). But the MCU is so innovative the very last line in im3 was "I am iron man" so he never retired. I don't know why people keep saying he did.
as for pepper, they probably removed theose powers so thered be no chance of her blowing up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 16:25:16 GMT
We see in IW that Tonys suit is now so advanced he can cauterize wounds using nano tech. From IM3 his suit can also perform diagnostics and body health scans. Its basically a portable 100 in 1 hospital. Yet theres no indication in any of the films that he has shared this tech to poorer people. Similar to Wakandans who selfishly held their vibranium tech away from the developed and civilised world, at least they changes when Killmonger pointed out their flaws. Instead of focusing all his time on creating the Iron Legion (which ended up in Ultron) why isnt he more humanitarian in his approach? Aside from the storytelling reasons why he might not share his tech with the masses that have already been addressed, I think there could be a couple of narrative reasons why he wouldn't. Firstly, his tech has the potential to cause more harm than good and this is a running theme throughout the films. Tony is an arrogant, technical genius so you'd think he'd want to share it with absolutely everyone, but time and time again his inventions go wrong or get misused for nefarious purposes. I'd think that somewhere in the back of his head there is a concern that if he did share it with everybody, there would be unforeseen, negative repercussions. Remember, Tony Stark's bravado is mostly a facade and he's actually a neurotic savant and a deeply flawed person. He's a heroic figure, certainly, but one with a lot of underlying self-doubt. He has confidence in his own ability but on an emotional level, he's not prepared to handle being responsible for things that go wrong because of him. I think that fear holds him back from just throwing all his inventions out there. Secondly, I think he might underrate the value of his own inventions because to him they're not impressive. It's like Rick Sanchez from Rick and Morty-- he's got a lot of amazing gadgets collecting dust on the shelf because to him they're trivial and he's since moved on. It's sort of like how a lot of artists can't appreciate their own work and only see the flaws. What would seem miraculous to us is common-place for him and I think it's possible he doesn't recognize the value of his own creations. Anyway, interesting question. Thanks.
|
|