IRON MAN 3 Reviews: An Ironclad Hit That Will Melt Even The Hardest Of Hearts

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by nickmarshallvfx: I feel for the first time that Marvel are losing the average audience now and only really keeping the loyal comic book fans. I see this continuing from here, in fact im surprised it's lasted even this long...

Practically every comic book fan out there usually complains about the opposite, and the trend seems to detach more and more frequently from the comic canons whenever needed, something they were more reticent to do when they weren't producing themselves.

Box Office results also disagree.

I don't know what or where you got that notion from, storyline wise there are no prereqs whatsoever to enjoy the movies (I haven't read a marvel comic in years, and never read IM at all and had no issues), and attendance wise they are doing stellarly well across a fairly wide variety of audience segments.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies...id=ironman3.htm

It's currently in the top 10 for every single applicable category (totals not counted since it's not EOL yet).
2nd place for fastest to 150M after a 3rd place for fastest to 100 is also, usually, a good sign of staying power and of a movie that will keep making money.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
  05 May 2013
Quote: Not talking about the overall designs being chubby, but the practical vs. the CG being chubby.


I thought most of the practical suit was replaced in post, and Downey and Cheadle has stopped wearing it through most of the shoot anyway.


So I think the chubby feel is more about the framing of the shots, when you see less of his waist and legs. The armor is quite barrel chested and if that's the only thing in the frame it would look bigger...

And the floating heads are silly indeed

Originally Posted by hypercube: I think overall they handled it much better in this movie through whatever means, and especially the scenes where he is hopping in and out of suits or in partial armor I didn't find myself thinking about that at all.


Most of those scenes were shot while Downey was injured, so it's usually either his stunt double with a CG head, or a completely CG digital double. So the proportions aren't his from the start, that probably helps
FXGuide promised an article on the VFX, hopefully Weta and Trixter will send them some of the nice stuff they've presented at FMX.
__________________
Tamas Varga
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by Artbot: I'm not sure why, but when I see a listing of superlative reviews on RT like this, I just know the movie is going to have big flaws or plotholes that will be very divisive to the audience.


And.... you are totally right.

- like my previous complain, action movies are killing my ears. It could be the cinema fault, or could it be sfx to dialog volume ratio? (If cinema dial it down, it hard to hear the dialogue?)

[ SPOILER - Click to reveal ]
Spoiler:


Regarding the rest of the iron mans. afaik, the movie give it as 'boulders on the lid' as a reason.

1) They are in a terrorist attack. It should be cleared asap.
2) The Iron Mans are powerful, there are a lot of them. can they blow the lid off from inside?

Have you watch Batman where he fight and fight and fight and suddenly he is tired and Alfred walk in and says "Don't worry Master Wayne' I'll protect you" and turn into hulk and deliver the final blow, and you are wondering, am I watching Batman the Movie or Alfred the Movie? That is the ending to me, which is as lame as Avengers sceptre - unguarded - one - floor - down ending. And also:

1) If a missile can kill killian. shouldn't an exploding iron man with a missile included should kill him already?

2) If there are iron mans with missile flying around the battlefield? Why didn't Stark uses that to help him in a battle? By telling Jarvis to shoot a missile from any of those iron mans at Killian?

and i don't get about the meeting with the soldier wife. isn't the original meeting woman already walks away from the shop when she brushed off with Stark? why the wife still keep the file? how convenient is she with the file? I don't quite understand the scene.

so on and so forth. some are already mentioned by others. The only good thing about the movie is the kid.

 
  05 May 2013
Saw it, laughed, enjoyed the vfx, was fully entertained, was aware this is not a "Schindler's list" movie (and he doesn't claim to be)...Consequently, loved it and won't nit-pick.
__________________
FX & Design
www.navié.com | YouTube | Facebook
 
  05 May 2013
Third movies in heavily marketed franchise films usually do well. I dont think it should come as any surprise. If they put coca cola in the front aisles it tends to sell more. There's a lot of effort to put Iron Man 3 in the front aisle (in fact, that was one of the things Soderbergh talked about in his speech that was posted a few days ago-that the studios promote even more heavily with each sequel even though people already know about Iron Man from the previous films and they shouldnt have to advertise so hard).


But I thought comic book fans were the ones most upset about the film, not general audiences. Iron Man 1 was probably the only situation where Marvel had the most control (before RDJ's clout was such that it drove the film).
I expect Disney to be more inclined to make POTC clones with its Marvel movies than try to do faithful comic book movies as time goes by.
 
  05 May 2013
I might get some flak because of this, but having read lots of summaries I'm not sure the comics are always such a good source that the movie writers absolutely have to stick to them in every point. In fact I'd risk that in many cases the comic storylines get incredibly convoluted and sometimes completely stupid....

Everyone eventually dies and then gets resurrected, the identity behind the mask changes, everyone turns out to be someone's relative or kid or parent, and all the possible relationships and conflicts between characters are explored, and so on. Then there are the 'crossovers' making it feel like the world is filled with superheroes and supervillains... It's all a consequence of these characters being 20-40-60 years old and the writers simply running out of ideas and possibilities.

So I think that it makes sense to streamline and clean up stuff for the movies, of which there is just not going to be as many. Granted, sometimes they will go too far, like dropping Stark's alcoholism for the PG13 rating, but it's not necessarily a bad thing to change things.
__________________
Tamas Varga
 
  05 May 2013
That's the trouble I have with the Spider-man movies--they juggle too many of the various incarnations when the original 1960s run of stories were more basic and cinematic(as Stan Lee intended since he was influenced by movies).

But there's a difference between streamlining it for a movie and throwing the better elements out the window (like turning the Red Skull into an Italian with a big red nose).It would be impossible to please comic book fans, but the best elements of a comic whittled down would make an interesting movie--although an expensive one.
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh: I might get some flak because of this, but having read lots of summaries I'm not sure the comics are always such a good source that the movie writers absolutely have to stick to them in every point.

You won't get flack from me! There's a reason I stopped reading the comics a long time ago, besides the fact that much of the artwork went down hill, or all became too similar. The dialogue was all so cliche after a while. I also felt the writers ran out of places to take some of these characters after 40-50 years, and came up with some of the most off the wall, preposterous storylines. Like the one that Gwen Stacey had an affair with the Green Goblin and bore children by him. What? So absurdly ridiculous! Some writer must have been tripping on some serious acid when he wrote that one!
Still, having said all that, I hate when the films stray too far away from the comics in their interpretation of the characters. I want to see the iconic character I loved in the comics up on the screen in all his/her glory, and not some drug-induced Tim Burtonesque version of Superman, or some other egocentric director's twisted interpretation. Unfortunately, different fans will have different interpretations about what is the iconic version of a particular character. For example, some fans see Sam Jackson as the only guy to play Nick Fury. I just don't see it. I never saw Sam Jackson as Nick Fury, and I am still having some trouble seeing Sam Jackson as anyone but Sam Jackson playing a similar character as he's played in several other films, only he's named NIck Fury in these films. The Hulk is another example. People have liked different interpretations of him in the movies. So, for the filmmakers, it's a bit of a balancing act to bring these characters to the screen in a way that will please as many of the fans as possible. And, they don't always succeed in doing it.
__________________
“I will never be a fan of any kind of political correctness: I think it's instant death to creativity." - Mads Mikkelsen

Last edited by webhead : 05 May 2013 at 05:36 PM.
 
  05 May 2013
Id have to say my favorite VFX shots in the whole movie are of Guy Pierce at the very end with his "damaged" looked. They are fully CG and just amazing to look at. I remember just pausing on them and taking in every little detail.
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO: Practically every comic book fan out there usually complains about the opposite, and the trend seems to detach more and more frequently from the comic canons whenever needed, something they were more reticent to do when they weren't producing themselves.

Box Office results also disagree.

I don't know what or where you got that notion from, storyline wise there are no prereqs whatsoever to enjoy the movies (I haven't read a marvel comic in years, and never read IM at all and had no issues), and attendance wise they are doing stellarly well across a fairly wide variety of audience segments.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies...id=ironman3.htm

It's currently in the top 10 for every single applicable category (totals not counted since it's not EOL yet).
2nd place for fastest to 150M after a 3rd place for fastest to 100 is also, usually, a good sign of staying power and of a movie that will keep making money.


I'm sure this movie will do great at the box office, and clearly is already off to a great start. I'm talking more about the fact that everyone i speak to regarding IM3 isn't really impressed by it and probably won't bother with any more Ironman movies now unless they really up the bar for the next movie. It's only people who seem to be big fans of the marvel universe (again, only in the small bracket of people i have talked to) that really enjoyed this enough to keep going to see these things.

I see it as a bit like Transformers - everyone knows they are sh*t, but they have made huge chucks of cash at the box office so far, it's just a matter of time before people get bored of seeing essentially the same thing.
__________________
__________

Nick Marshall
Head of Environments / Generalists
Double Negative :: Vancouver
www.dneg.com
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by CharlesB: Id have to say my favorite VFX shots in the whole movie are of Guy Pierce at the very end with his "damaged" looked. They are fully CG and just amazing to look at. I remember just pausing on them and taking in every little detail.


I wonder if my cinema has a pause button facility?
__________________
Posted by Proxy
 
  05 May 2013
Kinda spoilerish of course

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/iro...s-to-play-with/
__________________
Tamas Varga
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by grrinc: I wonder if my cinema has a pause button facility?


Of course not. and since dvd is not out yet... if you know what i mean
 
  05 May 2013
Please dont pause while other are watching. It will ruin the pacing of the movie for everyone else .
 
  05 May 2013
The fascinating thing reading that article is how seamless everything was across facilities, not to mention a completely non-ILM Iron Man movie. Obviously there were bigger scenes done by major facilities, but any medium or small houses doing suit shots was unthinkable in Phase 1.

The Extremis stuff looked pretty great across the board, and the tracking/rotomation/digidoubles were so solid.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.