Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   May 1, 2013 - 1:36 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

Ok slightly off topic but can anyone else who has seen IM3 answer a question for me, cos this has been bugging me for 6 days since I saw it and I can't work out if I just missed something or if there is a major major major plot hole.

Wait! Spoilers ahead! And blacking out 90% of this post really isnt going to work so if you haven't seen the film and don't want to read some major spoliers, leave now - don't worry, I won't take it personally.

Still with me? Ok here's my problem:

Tony's house is destroyed and his out on a limb with the barely functioning prototype Mark 42 suit which of drained of power (erm... in previous IM flicks Tony's own arc reactor powers the suit). And this is a major element of the story, with the suit not really being combat ready. Several plot points turn on this.

Now heres the thing - to escape from Killian, Tony communicates with Jarvis to get the Mark 42 sent to him - or at least bits of it - and that is a great fun sequence with Tony taking on the baddies with only partial armour. But wait a second.... rewind a moment... Tony communicates with Jarvis. The same Jarvis who recognises what the "house party" protocol is later in the film and sends Tony not one but 41 (!) Iron Man suits to do battle with the Extremis guys. Yep, 41 fully functioning and fully powered suits all keyed to Tony's DNA, all totally intact under his Malibu mansion despite the Mandarin's attack. So why, why, why didn't Tony use one of these suits to take on The Mandarin or escape from Killian, or save Air Force One???

Seriously, did I miss something? Was "house party" conveniently offline until the last 20 minutes of the movie? Or was that just a plot hole as big as a Hulkbuster?

 
 Posted:   May 1, 2013 - 4:01 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

Could be my memory of the film - I enjoyed a lot but didn't pay much attention to the finer points - but wasn't Jarvis himself also off-line?

Also - with regards to the earlier point - it also bothered me that the Arc-Reactor is supposed to power the suit, but I made up my mind that it is not unreasonable to make the jump that in the years intervening, Stark, in his expertise and with advancing technology, had found another way to supply at least some power to them. Not ideal, I know - but hey...

 
 Posted:   May 1, 2013 - 4:32 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

Could be my memory of the film - I enjoyed a lot but didn't pay much attention to the finer points - but wasn't Jarvis himself also off-line?

Also - with regards to the earlier point - it also bothered me that the Arc-Reactor is supposed to power the suit, but I made up my mind that it is not unreasonable to make the jump that in the years intervening, Stark, in his expertise and with advancing technology, had found another way to supply at least some power to them. Not ideal, I know - but hey...


Jarvis was offline for a fair bit but Tony summons the Mark 42 via him so there is no reason heckuldn't have activated the house oarty protocol.

 
 Posted:   May 2, 2013 - 1:00 AM   
 By:   The REAL BJBien   (Member)

OK, just saw the film HOURS ago.

When Tony's borrowed watch rings, it means the suit is FINALLY powered up which means he can summon it himself using his nano tech installed in his body...it has NOTHING TO DO WITH JARVIS.

As for the power and the suit, remember that this suit is # 42 and a prototype and as we see in the film, rather useless. The ark reactor in his chest powered the suits in the first two films for periods of time before eventually draining him of his LIFE supply but this was solved in IRON MAN 2 when the Ark reactor was made stable and as shown in this film, no longer is a source of power for the suits...so much like Rhodes' suit, its just a suit. This is further driven home when Tony calls and the suit is still not powered and he makes mention of knowing how ELECTRICITY works.

As for when JARVIS is online, he makes mention that the cranes arrived and moved MOST OF THE DEBRIS and thus it is at this moment that Tony and Jarvis can open the hatch and activate the remaining 41 suits.

 
 
 Posted:   May 2, 2013 - 9:57 AM   
 By:   Jon C   (Member)

To quote George Lucas, a special effect without a story is a very boring thing. If the movie's a stinker, an extra level of visual depth is (probably) not enough to save it for me

I have a hard time not gagging every time I read that quote.



Back on subject, I detest how film companies are using 3D as a means to get more money.(see post-conversion) Even those shot in 3D do little to add to the experience in my view. To this point I have found nothing I enjoyed in 3D enough to justify the added cost, even Avatar IMAX 3D. If there is a 2D option, I will take it.

 
 Posted:   May 2, 2013 - 10:19 AM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

3D is a gimmick that totally destroys the movie experience for me. It is so artificial looking that it jerks me out of the film. And if ya cannot stay in the moment during a film it is not going to be an enjoyable experience.

3D was a gimmick during its first attempt a few decades ago. This time around it is still just a gimmick. A bit more slick gimmick. But a gimmick never the less. Hollywood is pushing it for all they are worth (and they are worth a lot!) but I cannot imagine them pulling it off. For one it gives the theaters a chance to charge ridiculous prices to see the damn thing. $10+ bucks is already outrageous to go see a movie. $20 or $25 for 3D? Fuhgetaboutit!

Honestly I don't understand how a family of 5 can go see these movies without getting a loan from the bank!!!!!

 
 Posted:   May 2, 2013 - 12:04 PM   
 By:   GOLDSMITHDAKING   (Member)

Anyone who actually seeks out a movie in 3D and pays to see it instead of the regular 2d version is contributing to the death of cinema.

As others have said, 3D is an absolute rip off.A joke that take advantage of cinemagoers who are too naive to realise that it adds absolutley NOTHING to a film experience except added cost to the price of a ticket.

The sooner this ridiculous fad dies the better.

As it happens i saw Iron man 3 ( in the normal way ) the other day and while it was entertaining, it was ultimatley forgettable and the way it ruins a major villain from the comics was unforgivable.

 
 Posted:   May 2, 2013 - 1:31 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

Anyone who actually seeks out a movie in 3D and pays to see it instead of the regular 2d version is contributing to the death of cinema.

I originally wrote a detailed response to this but ultimately decided it wasn't worth the bother. Sorry but that is just a totally stupid statement.

I fully understand why people dislike 3D and why some people actively choose to go to 2D viewings when they have the choice. And that is absolutely fine. But to suggest that supporters of the format like myself are killing cinema is just a very, very stupid thing to say. So yeah, little-known movie makers like Cameron, Spielberg, Lucas, Scoresese, Jackson, Fincher, Soderberg... you know, guys who just hate the movies .... are really just embracing 3D because they just want to fucking "contribute to the death of cinema". They are probably all paid by TV companies as part of an internecine plot to force people back to watching the small screen. Cameron kicked off the initiative with that huge 3D flop Avatar which nobody went to see.

I bet you think the moon landings were faked as well.

 
 
 Posted:   May 2, 2013 - 3:04 PM   
 By:   Cooper   (Member)

double post

 
 Posted:   May 5, 2013 - 9:19 AM   
 By:   Warunsun   (Member)

I like seeing movies shot in IMAX or at-least significant sequences of them with IMAX. Unfortunately in order to see them in IMAX many times you must see them in 3D as well. Some movies also are faked IMAX so there are several layers of BS possible here.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation was post conversion 3D but damn it looked really good to me. Lots of stereo vision was noticed by me. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was shot with 3D but damn it looked like fake 3D to me. The stereo effects in The Hobbit were super minimal to me. So it is not always a clear thing. I would say most 3D has been a fail in my opinion but I do admit I have probably seen more post conversion films.

Out of all the films I have seen in 3D Creature from the Black Lagoon remains my best memory of one but I do admit that was in 1983. LOL. I seen it in a double feature with Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn.

 
 Posted:   May 5, 2013 - 1:26 PM   
 By:   TM2-Megatron   (Member)

While I did see it in IMAX 3-D in order to see it on the IMAX screen, I'd advise anyone considering going to a normal 3-D screening to save their money. There were only a few sequences during the movie where it was really possible to tell it was 3-D without paying more attention to trying to perceive miniscule degrees of depth between objects than to the plot (which was full of enough holes as is).

I'd hoped, when Marvel was bought up by Disney, that their movies would begin filming in native 3-D, since Disney is such a big pusher of the format, and has produced some excellent live-action 3-D. But I continue to be disappointed by Marvel's choices with regards to 3-D. A movie's budget, as much as they cost, simply isn't big enough to allow for the entire length of the film to be converted with a satisfyingly depth-producing parallax. They need to allocate chunks of the budget to "priority" (mainly the cool/action-y scenes) scenes, leaving the rest of the movie virtually flat.

When will they learn; either shoot in 3-D or just don't bother. Native 3-D is a great format, and used the right way it can be a lot of fun and really add to a film. Post-converted 3-D is just trash.

 
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 1:07 PM   
 By:   GOLDSMITHDAKING   (Member)

Anyone who actually seeks out a movie in 3D and pays to see it instead of the regular 2d version is contributing to the death of cinema.

I originally wrote a detailed response to this but ultimately decided it wasn't worth the bother. Sorry but that is just a totally stupid statement.

I fully understand why people dislike 3D and why some people actively choose to go to 2D viewings when they have the choice. And that is absolutely fine. But to suggest that supporters of the format like myself are killing cinema is just a very, very stupid thing to say. So yeah, little-known movie makers like Cameron, Spielberg, Lucas, Scoresese, Jackson, Fincher, Soderberg... you know, guys who just hate the movies .... are really just embracing 3D because they just want to fucking "contribute to the death of cinema". They are probably all paid by TV companies as part of an internecine plot to force people back to watching the small screen. Cameron kicked off the initiative with that huge 3D flop Avatar which nobody went to see.

I bet you think the moon landings were faked as well.


Ok no need to be insulting.I think you misread my statement cos when i mentioned 3D is going to be the death of cinema, i meant as an ART FORM.

Hollywood is trying to force 3D on cinemagoers as a means of charging us more for the ' privilege ' of watching films in this format.It is also leading to a trend of focusing more on ' gee whiz, what kind of 3D effects can we put in this movie ' instead of concentrating on old fashioned concepts as good acting,writing, and cinematography.

Im glad that there are filmakers such as Christopher Nolan who have outright rejected the use of 3D in their films but as long as cinemagoers who dont know better keep paying for this 3D nonsense it is never going to go away.

Oh by the way, i saw Iron Man 3 last week ( In 2D ) and it sucked.

 
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 1:29 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

Ok no need to be insulting.I think you misread my statement cos when i mentioned 3D is going to be the death of cinema, i meant as an ART FORM.

Hollywood is trying to force 3D on cinemagoers as a means of charging us more for the ' privilege ' of watching films in this format.It is also leading to a trend of focusing more on ' gee whiz, what kind of 3D effects can we put in this movie ' instead of concentrating on old fashioned concepts as good acting,writing, and cinematography.

Im glad that there are filmakers such as Christopher Nolan who have outright rejected the use of 3D in their films but as long as cinemagoers who dont know better keep paying for this 3D nonsense it is never going to go away.

Oh by the way, i saw Iron Man 3 last week ( In 2D ) and it sucked.


As a lover of 3D, but also as someone who can see the cracks (see above), I disagree wholeheartedly with most of this post smile

For a starter for 10 (bonus points if you name the show), I pay no more to go to a 3D movie than I do a 2D. And secondly, if people were just thinking about 'gee whiz, what kind of 3D effects can we put in this movie, why are there so many movies - Iron Man 3 included - where the 3D is clearly a secondary thought?

 
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 1:49 PM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

For a starter for 10 (bonus points if you name the show), I pay no more to go to a 3D movie than I do a 2D.

How is that? In my local theaters a 3D show is at least $3 more expensive ($3.50 in one theater), and IMAX 3D is another $2.50 extra on top of that! Where are you going that it's no more for 3D than 2D? Keeping half an eye on all the screeching on the internet about huge grosses and, every year or two, broken records, it can't help but feel that half the reason for slapping these blockbusters half-assedly into 3D is to artificially increase ticket revenues so that people can froth at the mouth about opening weekends and whatnot.

And secondly, if people were just thinking about 'gee whiz, what kind of 3D effects can we put in this movie, why are there so many movies - Iron Man 3 included - where the 3D is clearly a secondary thought?

And that's one reason why I have zero interest in most 3D films, especially fake 3D films. Why in the world would I want to pay extra for a feature that's added as an afterthought? I saw Amazing Spider-Man in 3D, and with the exception of a few seconds of the movie, the 3D barely registered; I took off my glasses several times and could barely tell the image was off. Why would I pay $3 for a few seconds of depth-of-field effects that don't add in any substantial way to my enjoyment of the movie? Clearly a lot of people enjoy something about it -- the IMAX 3D show of Iron Man the other night had a huge line, while the 2D auditorium wasn't even half-full -- but I just don't understand what, since my experience with 3D movies has, with only one or two exceptions, been neutral to unpleasant.

*University Challenge

 
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 2:14 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)



Ok no need to be insulting.I think you misread my statement cos when i mentioned 3D is going to be the death of cinema, i meant as an ART FORM.
.


Ok apologies for getting overly personal but I'm not sure I could misread what you MEANT to say. I read what you actually said and I still think your original post was pretty dumb. Your subsequent clarifcation of what you meant to say hasn't changed my view on that.

So, what are you suggesting now? That 3D is killing the art of movie making? But wait a second, I'm confused.... aren't you saying that 3D is just a fad? Hmm, well, cinema history is replete with fads and yet, goodness me, it is still rcognised as an art form. And there are thousands more movies made each year in 2D than stereo(either native orconverted). That hasn't changed since the latest resurgence of 3D movies from, say, 2003.

3D hasn't had a negative impact on cinema any more non-stereo movies like Scary Movie 27 has. Or for that matter has Fifty Shags Of Grey contributed to the death of literature.

Im glad that there are filmakers such as Christopher Nolan who have outright rejected the use of 3D in their films but as long as cinemagoers who dont know better keep paying for this 3D nonsense it is never going to go away

Oh yeah? Heard of Man Of Steel have you? Nolan is the producer of that, has a huge amount of clout with WB off the back of the Batman trilogy and one assumes could have dictated how the new Superman movie was going to be shot.... and yet... oh look... it's being released in 3D! And post-conversion as well. So much for your beloved Mr Nolan's supposed integrity to the art of cinema.

Look, I don't disagree with you that studios are not being especially responsible with the use of 3D and so poorly converted movies are damaging the format itself. But even those are not damaging cinema either as a business or as an art form. But to dismiss well-made (in their own right and as examples of good 3D) like Avatar, Hugo or Life of Pi to name but three is just being absurdly closed minded.

. Oh by the way, i saw Iron Man 3 last week ( In 2D ) and it sucked.

Not artistic enough for you, eh? Perhaps I could recommend for your consideration the film Pina by avante-garde director Wim Wenders? Or art-house favorite Werner Herzog's Cave Of Forgotten Dreams? Both high acclaimed films which are certainly capable of holding the "film making as an art form" banner high. And neither feature Tony Stark iin cool armour so they should be right up your two dimennsional street. Oh wait, I've just realised you'd hate them.... they're in 3D. Those pesky serious movie makers trying to kill cinema. The cads.

 
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 2:24 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

For a starter for 10 (bonus points if you name the show), I pay no more to go to a 3D movie than I do a 2D.

How is that? In my local theaters a 3D show is at least $3 more expensive ($3.50 in one theater), and IMAX 3D is another $2.50 extra on top of that! Where are you going that it's no more for 3D than 2D? Keeping half an eye on all the screeching on the internet about huge grosses and, every year or two, broken records, it can't help but feel that half the reason for slapping these blockbusters half-assedly into 3D is to artificially increase ticket revenues so that people can froth at the mouth about opening weekends and whatnot.
.


I don't know about anywhere else in the world but in Essex, UK, the cost of tickets for 2D and 3D are essentially the same and the only difference is if you need to buy glasses. I have loads if 3D glasses (and have just purchased a pair of special clip-ons so I can wear 3D lenses over my specs) so if anyone in the UK needs any let me know.

Have just booked to see the new Trek in 3D and the cost was identical as for the 2D version because I don't need to buy glasses.

 
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 2:26 PM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Have just booked to see the new Trek in 3D and the cost wqs identical as for the 2D version because I don't need to buy glasses.

Ah, in the US the price of the glasses is automatically included in the ticket price, whether you need them or not and they give you a fresh pair every time and ask that you return them after the movie. Your system sounds much more sensible.

 
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 2:44 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

Have just booked to see the new Trek in 3D and the cost wqs identical as for the 2D version because I don't need to buy glasses.

Ah, in the US the price of the glasses is automatically included in the ticket price, whether you need them or not and they give you a fresh pair every time and ask that you return them after the movie. Your system sounds much more sensible.


Wow, that is pretty unfair. Is that in all states? I recall seeing Transformers 3 in LA when I was there in '11 and thinking the it was a rip iff that I had to give the glasses back given that I'd paid for them!

 
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 3:08 PM   
 By:   Warunsun   (Member)

In the US (at least in the theaters I go to) IMAX 3D glasses are reused. They hand them out and expect them back. They clean them and reuse them. Everything IMAX costs more so ticket prices are higher anyway. However, the normal 3D glasses (think they generally call it Real 3D) are brand new and you can take them home or throw them away. They charge you for a new pair in the ticket price so if you bring an old pair you don't save any money.

 
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 3:56 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

For GOLDSMITHDAKING smile

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.