Plenty of things about the movie were entertaining, funny and/or cool, but that's not what this article is about. If you're anything like me, you're feeling cheated, confused, and maybe still in a bit of a shock after watching. And no, this isn't just about the Mandarin changes.
Eagerly awaiting a midnight showing at the El Capitan in Hollywood, California, I watched with anticipation as director Shane Black took the stage to introduce the film, first delivering a few quips about the silliness of the Fantastic Four films. Then..."This one is...pretty over the top," he said with a pause. "I hope you like it."
And then it happened. "Wait. Did...Did that just...whaat?"
Rewind six months.
They just announced they aren't going with the classic Mandarin. Fine; great. We're presented with an all new re-imagined version, very cool, very terrifying! The trailer is great, and it looks like they will be exploring the psychological, and political ramifications of the post-Avengers world! Tony is reeling from his near-death experience, the world is awaiting answers and the government is restless. The Mandarin even has an ironic Cap tattoo on the back of his neck! Talk about a great foil for Tony! This stuff practically writes itself. Wait, he...cracks beers and makes poop jokes. Oh...ha...ha.
Not as...interesting? *blank stare* I guess the guys that made the trailers are just really really good at what they do.
Okay, the point here is not to complain that they didn't have the balls to tackle a real Mandarin *cough*. It's to say that there were SOO many missed golden opportunities that they chose to disregard in order to go with this wacky option instead. Yeah, wacky. We'll...we'll go with that. Thank god for the brilliance of RDJ. But I digress...
Plot holes, failed character motivation/development, and just downright bizarre and/or silly pointless choices are all major factors threatening the validity of this film, but
most importantly of all, is that the established tone, world, and therefore continuity of this film separates it completely from the rest of the established MCU so far. If you hated it, it doesn't stop at this movie. In storytelling, this is like playing with fire when you're trying to build a greater cohesive universe. It's no coincidence that multiple critics are calling it a soft reboot because of how way off in left field it is. Remember, they originally were not even going to call this Iron Man 3; Shane Black wanted to call it "The Iron Man". There's your first hint.
So what makes it so different?
Let’s start with the adversity. Over-the-top, crazed, stone-faced dudes with inspiration from G.I. Joe and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance with unlocked minds, which apparently means they get super speed, glowy eyes, spit fire, and apparently can make things mildly uncomfortable if you happened to be sitting in armor when they touch you. (Wait, why are they all bland, feral henchmen of AIM if they got their DNA rewritten and perfected? Wouldn't they be like...somewhat smarter?) Already this is a much more generic and over-the-top reality than what we're used to in the MCU. Think 90's action flicks, but with power-y stuff. LETHAL WEAPON. (What Shane Black is known for.)
It honestly feels like Shane Black decided to simply insert Iron Man characters into an old 90's action thriller comedy script he happened to have lying around. What decade is this?
At the end, Tony realizes his flaw: He's obsessive and isn't paying enough attention to Pepper. Okay, fine. "What about the distractions?" She asks. So he instantly blows up billions of dollars worth of suits, takes his reactor and shrapnel out of himself, and throws it into the ocean, essentially erasing his identity as Iron Man.
Honestly, are we really supposed to be cheering while watching all his suits be blown to smithereens? The reason we're in the theater in the first place is because we want to see Tony Stark be Iron Man and embrace his gifts in a noble way. Maybe that's just me?
It wouldn't be so bad if this was the last Stark movie. But now in Avengers 2 we inevitably have to sit through him going through the same arc of inaction, only to have him build them again anyway, going back on the entire theme of this film. Give us something new. Stark is the futurist, we want progress. And since when would Pepper force him into giving up his aspirations like that? Really, you couldn't reach some kind of healthy compromise here?
Wait...and Pepper now has superpowers while Stark doesn't? Should we be asking if SHE'LL return for Avengers 2? ^Side note: Stark's new suit count=zero. We could have had THIS. He could have even been on a path to become a newly evolved Tony who now feels the weight of responsibility on his shoulders after the events of Avengers. (The "A" on Stark tower?) After all, wasn't he building a suit for every circumstance? Isn't that a step up in growth from the roguish, childish Tony? A step towards the eventual "Civil War" Tony? But I guess it doesn't matter now. Let's continue on before we start crying again.
To add to this tonal continuity issue, so many of the characters are more or less pointless or have terribly weak, if any motivation for behaving like they do. Killian, though, wins it for most muddled motivation: Resorting to evil because Stark didn't pay attention to him. Now he wants a monopoly on terror. So...money is the motivation? Er, world domination? Wait, why though? Why go so far as to capture the President of the United States and string him up on an oil rig to execute him just to prove a point, while also actually not caring about proving a point at all? Did he want to blackmail the government? Was it to teach mean old Tony a lesson because he was obsessed with 12 years ago Pepper? --Who he also chooses to make a superhero for some reason--? (Bad guy fail.)
Why go to the most massive extreme possible just for that?
Can anyone tell me his motivation, other than just GENERIC EVIL? And why are his henchmen so cliche? (90's Bruce Willis film, anyone?) Why does every character have to be either complete comic relief or complete generic evil, in a previously established universe of basically normal people? It was tough to believe him as an actual person rather than a plastic archetype.
On top of this, the Vice President is evil too, selling out his entire country, killing people in a mass conspiracy and funding evil flame-wielding super-soldiers so that his daughter can grow part of her leg back? Wait, what? And where the crap is SHIELD, or Cap, or anyone while the most powerful man on the planet is abducted and there's a clear global threat/conspiracy? Once again, not buying into the reality here. (Or the necessity of forcing this in) As a general guideline of storytelling, suspension of disbelief should never be abused if you want an audience to care or be invested.
If you're going to set up a universe where a very specific reality can happen, you need to stay consistent. So the President of the MCU is now cemented as an old white guy named Ellis who got kidnapped, while the Vice President is a giant douchebag, AIM is a small group of dudes headed by the now dead Killian, who also is apparently the head master and founder of the Ten Rings organization (which was behind funding the enemies in the first Iron Man and also getting Whiplash to Monoco) for some unknown motive and reason, all while also confirming officially that the MCU must take place in some other alternate world than our own, as it takes place in 2013 and, for instance, Obama is not President. (Why did we need the President in this at all, anyway? Because it makes the "stakes high"? No, tension does that on its own if a script is written well)
Black kept saying that these movies need to be grounded. This was not grounded in anything but a more silly alternate reality that we're supposed to still be fully invested in. If I don't buy into it, I don't care. And I didn't.
The other MCU movies were always somewhat over the top in that they were still able to have fun and not take themselves too seriously, but they always treaded that line of still being completely believable in their reality, therefore we relate. Ask Joss Whedon. Never were movies before this taken to this insanely high level of unrealistic, genre black and white-ness. Instead, Marvel chose to change the tone of what was already established in the last 6 movies, in favor of a sub-par thriller plot line for this one movie. Or is this some kind of reboot, not in the same continuity? If so, I expect that kind of nonsense from FOX or SONY, not from this studio.
In a broader, shared universe, you need to flesh out what is believable and what is not in the world you create and stick with it, or you're asking for failure. So what went wrong then?
Everything considered, this was not a Marvel movie. It was a Shane Black movie masquerading as one. Black was clearly writing what he knew, and apparently no one decided to correct him. Were they scared of stepping on his toes so as not to offend a good friend of RDJ, the face of the franchise? Or did Kevin Feige, the man responsible for keeping the sanctity of it all, just completely drop the ball and actually think this was good. Who knows. There's something more going on here it seems. In any case, I'm getting Lucas/Star Wars prequel flashbacks and it's making my head hurt.
Anyway, I suppose it's possible you could enjoy this film if you are able to look past all these flaws and can watch it out of context from the comics, the other Iron Man movies, and entire Marvel/Avengers franchise. If not...it's painful. Personally, I think the title would have been more accurate as "Iron Man: Shane Black Style!", in which case I suppose I could let go and just enjoy it for the silliness that it was. But for now, sorry, not for the price of marring the MCU.
Needless to say, I walked away from that theater with nothing to think but "What the hell did I just watch?" Unfortunately, we now know nothing is truly safe, not even in the hands of Marvel Studios themselves. It really is a shane--*cough* I mean shame.
Can the Marvel Cinematic Universe recover from this tonal continuity meltdown? I don't know. Have I been idealizing Marvel Studios way too much over these last few years? Apparently...But I'll be gosh gee golly darned if I'm going to accept anything less than what I know Marvel is capable of. Come on, guys.
Well, thanks for sticking with me, dudes! I had to get this off my chest for my own sanity. My intention here was not to sit here and pick apart the whole movie (although admittedly I couldn't help doing some of that), but instead wanted to explain why I think this movie failed in so many ways as both a standalone story and valuable part of the “house of cards” known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. What are your thoughts or arguments?
Thanks and feel free to leave any comments below!
STARJAMMER
**UPDATE:**
Feige recently made the comment, “It’s not about, ‘And this time there will be five more explosions in this section!’ ...We didn’t want to say, ‘Oh now it has to be bigger and he fights 100 people in armored suits.’
Feige. That's EXACTLY what you chose to do.
Abducting the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world and stringing him up on an oil rig to execute, while the Vice President is involved in a mass conspiracy to fund terrorists and sell out his country, while a super soldier creates global terrorism so he can "own the war of terror by installing a puppet President! Mwuuhahahaha!"
Yeah. Sounds real intimate and personal. This is the silliest crap I've ever heard. Is the suspension of disbelief of the MCU the equivalent of a Chuck Norris film suddenly? Give me a break. At least now we know this indeed rests on the decisions on Feige. Doesn't bode well.
We should care less about the depiction of the Mandarin when we have so many other nonsensical, nongrounded ridiculous plots going on here.
Once again I ask for an actual character motive of why Killian is trying to pull off this biggest conspiracy ever in the history of the world. He's apparently just...Evil. Evil and/or butthurt. Great.