Robert Downey Jr. is not Tony Stark

[billd91]

The Iron Man movies have been significantly influenced by The Ultimates in which Tony Stark is significantly more of a playboy and sarcastic wit. By comparison, the Tony Stark of the traditional narrative line is a little bit more of a stiff and that's not as fun on the screen.

 

[Janx]

Never seen Bill Gates and Tony Stark together but then never seen RDJ and Bill together. MMMM, has Tony and Bruce ever been shown together? Could Tony be Batman and Bruce be Iron Man? Affleck was Superman, Dare Devil and is going to be Batman, maybe he is Tony.

When did Affleck play Superman?

 

[Morrus]

When did Affleck play Superman?

He played George Reeves in Hollywoodland. So he only played him kind of obliquely.

 

[Umbran]

Despite what Stan Lee has said about RDJ's portrayal of Tony Stark, this is something that has a little bit bugged me. I do like RDJ's playing of Stark, but his characterization is not anything like the Tony Stark I know from the comics, (of the 70s, 80s, 90s). Tony in the comics was never witty and clever and snarky. Tony in the comics seems more businesslike, whereas the Tony in the movies seems more a playboy.

Yes, but the Tony Stark of the era you're thinking would make a lousy, boring, whiny movie. He was good as a comics character, but for an action movie? Ugh.

In the comics, Tony uses the armor to help people, to be a hero. In the movies, Tony uses the armor as a big toy.

Am I the only one who's noticed this? Am I the only one who cares?

Ah, you see, that all gets addressed. You need to see both The Avengers and Iron Man 3 to see the story arc of Tony Stark, and then it will likely seem better.

However, I disagree with you about the "big toy" thing. Even in the very first movie, he uses it to put right what he put wrong. In the second movie, well, he's dying, facing his mortality. Then, in the Avengers, he faces his humanity ("Dude, there are gods, and I'm a guy in a tin can!"). He processes this in IM3.

 

[Hand of Evil]

He played George Reeves in Hollywoodland. So he only played him kind of obliquely.

He wore the suit & cape.

 

[Bullgrit]

He processes this in IM3.

Then I guess I need to see IM3. I was disappointed with IM2, and the trailer for IM3 looked to just take things further in the direction that disappointed me, so I skipped it.

Bullgrit

 

[Umbran]

Then I guess I need to see IM3. I was disappointed with IM2, and the trailer for IM3 looked to just take things further in the direction that disappointed me, so I skipped it.

'Cause, as we all know, movie trailers are all about expressing the psychological status of characters?

 

[Super Pony]

Then I guess I need to see IM3. I was disappointed with IM2, and the trailer for IM3 looked to just take things further in the direction that disappointed me, so I skipped it.

IMO, the only conflict worth seeing in IM3 is Tony Stark vs Iron Man. The rest is just screen filler (and the flaunting of thermodynamics is bad enough that "it's a super hero movie dude!" can't even save it). I'd say at least give IM3 a wink once it hits its rotation on cable or Netflix [MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION]. The development of Stark in it will either confirm your intitial take on the movie franchise, or push it in a new (not necessarily better) direction. As always, YMMV.

 

[Umbran]

and the flaunting of thermodynamics is bad enough that "it's a super hero movie dude!" can't even save it[/COLOR]).

If you're not going into a superhero movie ready and willing to have normal world science folded, spindled, mutilated, steeped in solvent and left in a melted puddle in the street, you are in the wrong move.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Then I guess I need to see IM3. I was disappointed with IM2, and the trailer for IM3 looked to just take things further in the direction that disappointed me, so I skipped it.

Bullgrit

I felt that IM3 was better than 2 but not as good as 1.

The strength IMO was that it includes Tony dealing with the after-effects of the Avengers movie.