The Many Problems Of Iron Man 3

Metal Arcade: Jason Bakker writes:

Iron Man 3 has a laundry list of plot holes, and director Shane Black made some very questionable choices. Here, we discuss some of the film's largest issues.

Warning: this article discusses major spoilers for Iron Man 3.

Iron Man 3 has been out for a little while now, and I just got around to viewing it yesterday. I had been highly anticipating the film, as it looked amazing from the trailers and I felt it had a good chance at erasing my memories of the sub-par Iron Man 2. Would it be as good as The Avengers? I certainly had hope. Unfortunately, I walked out of the theater a bit disappointed. While Iron Man 3 is by no means a bad movie (review here), it definitely falls short of greatness. The film has a laundry list of plot holes, and director Shane Black made some very questionable choices. Here, I will discuss some of the film's largest issues, in my own humble opinion. Once again, this article is filled with spoilers, so continue at your own risk if you haven't seen the film yet.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
RetrospectRealm1261d ago

In all honesty, IM3 has nowhere near as many plot holes as The Dark Knight Rises did. Just forget about it, it was a great movie.

MetalArcade1261d ago

I agree that TDKR has plenty of plot holes, but that film was much more solid and didn't have the problems with thematic focus that IM3 did. IM3 had some funny parts and some good action, but taken as a whole, it just wasn't very good.

RetrospectRealm1261d ago

I find your views much personally based. This is obviously one of those movies where you either love it, or hate it. It only has 2 ways to go.

Root1261d ago

The problem was though that the Dark Knight rises are easily forgettable because it's a darker and more realistic take on Batman while Iron Man 3 has things wrong with it which comic book fans were obviously going to point out and they were what makes the films so great

Root1261d ago

My problems were...


The extremis plot line was ruined...breathing fire, come on

Pepper got the extremis and it looked silly

Stark got his chest reactor removed

Made it look like he was done being Iron man completely

The Mandarin...OBVIOUSLY, something fans have been waiting for, for years now since the first Iron man came out

So many things could of been done to make this great but I felt they shoehorned a lot of stuff in. I mean it's making a crap load of money, there obviously will be a Iron Man 4 with RDJ so I don't see why they treated it as the last "OMG lets hurry and put as many references as we can it" film

Did Shane Black and Drew Pearce even read the bloody comics when writting this.

Genki1260d ago (Edited 1260d ago )

I'm stunned by how poorly thought out this is. IM3 was far from perfect, but these aren’t even nitpicks, let alone legitimate problems. It seems like you can't get past your own preconceived notions, as well as misunderstanding key aspects of the film.

1. SHIELD involvement. Again, I'm stunned that throughout the film, such a minute detail was nagging you the entire time. A Nick Fury CAMEO would have made this right? Please.

2. The twist. Looks like you didn’t understand it. This was explained throughout the film in detail. Killian's plan was to manufacture a perpetual conflict of the world vs. the terrorists. Kingsley's character facilitated this by being the face of the organization; he was a figurehead. Otherwise, Killian IS the Mandarin of this continuity; he said as much himself. Aside from that, Killian's character was much more cunning, intelligent, and dangerous than the Mandarin in the comics. Look to the film history as well; no previous villain was anywhere near as threatening. Make no mistake about it, you got the Mandarin, you just didn't get the Mandarin that YOU wanted to see. Again, sounds like you either didn't understand or are too stubborn to even attempt to do so.

3. The armors. It was well established throughout the film that the Extremis soldiers were a far more powerful threat than anything else Tony had encountered in the past. This much alone is a central element in the comic arc. Savin melted a WATER TOWER leg simply by waving his arm across it; couple this with the fact that this variant of Extremis was both volatile and reacted differently to different hosts(Killian being the most formidable, obviously), it's entirely feasible that the Extremis soldiers could hold their own against his armors. Again, THIS WAS A KEY POINT of the comic arc...and the result? Tony created more well equipped armors, which we will surely see in follow-on films.

4. The threat. Had to smh at this. Less volatile folks do this sort of thing on a daily basis. What makes you think that someone who has been through what Tony's been through, let alone suffering from PTSD, WOULDN'T do something like this? It was a dick move. It was irresponsible, it was brainless, but guess what? People do far, FAR worse all the time.

5. Pepper. Once again, a plot point that was spelled out for the audience by the villains. There was so much of this in the film which is indeed one of the issues I personally take with the film - excessive exposition. I hate when characters coddle the audience like ignorant children, but articles like these are an example of why it happens…some folks just won't get it no matter what.

Now, in the case of Extremis, Killian said as much to Tony...yet again...Pepper was blackmail to get Stark to help him perfect the virus. This may be debatable, but I do believe that by the time the film rolls around, Extremis was controlled to the point where only a massive overdose would result in combustion, i.e. Jack Taggert at the Chinese theater. For that matter, Hansen's threat even suggested as much before Killian shot her. The only time we saw unpredictable explosions was in the video of the early trials. As far as being hard to control, he was obviously intending to keep her restrained and under surveillance while Tony worked on perfecting the virus, and if nothing else, the guy had an army of equally powerful minions on his side.

These sound more like the poorly constructed musings of a disgruntled comic book geek than legitimate film criticism(which is apparently dying a slow death these days). Heck, I'm a comic book geek myself, but I'm a film fanatic as well, and if there's one thing that everyone should recognize is that they are different mediums and they should be approached as such.

MetalArcade1260d ago

SHIELD looking the other way while the president was about to be lit on fire was a minute detail? Ok buddy. I said that at least SOMEONE from SHIELD should have been there, didn't have to be Fury. Disgruntled comic geek? Never read the Iron Man comics but I respect the origins. The film has problems, you so adamantly trying to refute them makes you look like you're shilling for the film's PR or something. No need to get so angry dude.

Genki1260d ago (Edited 1260d ago )

Calling me a shill doesn't negate my points, but ok. The SHIELD nitpick isn't worth any more time than what I gave it, as that is a trope that countless action yarns succumb to. Is it nonsense in the strictest sense? Of course it is, but if you want to argue such a silly point, where was the military, Captain America, and a whole host of other heroes who would have a vested interest in the POTUS being strung up on an oil rig? If you're going to resort to this type of argument, how far will you take it before it gets ridiculous? Why stop at SHIELD? SHIELD wasn't in the movie because they weren't in the script, to be frank...for the same reason the National Guard never showed up in Spider-Man, and why Superman didn't show up to the party in TDKR. It's called suspension of disbelief, and if you can't come to grips with that much at least, you have no business critiquing films, let alone watching them. You can't call it anything more than a minor niggle because it didn't have any sort of appreciable impact I'm not sure where you read that I was angry, I specifically made it a point to say that the movie does have its share of problems. Comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. Might want to correct that before you go about making criticisms of film, or any other medium, for that matter.

If this is how sensitive you are to someone refuting your points, then don't post a blog up for the public to view. If you really feel so strongly about about these things, make better sense, simple as that. Whatever the case, it's hard to take you seriously when these are your biggest issues with the film in light of the more relevant problems such as the pacing, the bowtie epilogue, the villain's motivations, the collapse of the third act, and any of several other inconsistencies. As I CLEARLY stated more than once, the film is far from perfect, but not for the "reasons" you've listed, that much is certain. Anyway, THIS is why I say you sound like a disgruntled geek, because all you're doing is regurgitating the same tired talking points from comic book geeks around the net, when instead you could have discussed the issues IM3 had in the context of modern film standards. Look around you, do you really think what you've said here is different than what others have said, or in any way profound or enlightening? I certainly hope not. How about you actually debate my rebuttal if you feel so strongly in your convictions. All you cared to comment on was the SHIELD nonsense, which still has me scratching my head.

Oh, but don't mind me; I'm just another Marvel Studios shill. The check is in the mail, if that makes you feel better.

MetalArcade1260d ago

Haha I love how if I post my honest opinions on the film I'm a "disgruntled comic nerd" (who pretty much never read comics) and if try to explain my opinions I'm supposedly sensitive (even though you're the guy writing five page essays in 50% capitol ANGRY ANGRY letters) Don't give yourself too much credit, I have a much thicker skin than that and could really not give a damn about your opinion of my opinion. I'm pretty sure you didn't even read the article as I stated twice that it was not a bad film. It just had problems, but apparently no one can disagree with Genki

Genki1260d ago

Well, tell me why you disagree then instead of dodging every point that's made. I'm not sure how you can conclude that I didn't read your op-ed(it definitely isn't what I'd call an article) when I addressed every point you took issue with. Your lack of both logic and basic comprehension is staggering, so it's quite clear to me now why you wrote what you did in the first place. Carry on.