?

Log in

Next Entry

I’m writing this journal in order to “review” a flawed analysis of the movie Iron Man 2. Now I’m not going to argue with the reviewer’s opinion on the film overall, but they pointed out a few logical inconsistencies that, really, weren’t illogical.

The “analysis” can be found here: unidentifiedflyingpeaches.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/ferrosapiendeux-detailed-ironman-2-analysis/ and is necessary to understand what exactly I’m arguing against.

I will be addressing the reviewer directly, so don’t feel I’m personally attacking you, unless of course, you are Flowerpowerboi, in which case, take offense, I’d love that. Though I'm pretty sure they'll never actually read it.

 

Firstly, in regards to Anton saying “that should be you”, it was more than likely the legacy that he was referring to, changing the world, being the rich and famous one, as opposed to being Iron Man.

Also, had you been paying attention to the movie, you’d have realised that if Anton hadn’t been deported by Howard Stark for wanting to make money from the new technology instead of changing the world, Ivan wouldn’t have been in Russia, ergo the circumstances would have been different and he might have been the one kidnapped by terrorists, not Tony.

 

I’d hardly call his tattoos an inaccuracy, again with the paying attention; later in the film it is explained that Ivan went to prison for at least 15 years for selling weapons-grade plutonium to Pakistan, a Russian prison. He more than likely associated with the Russian mob either prior to or during his time there, hence the tattoos, each one means something in Russian prison/Mafia circles. This is also explained by Rourke in an interview, he researched thoroughly for the role, going to a Russian prison and with the help of an expert, picking specific tattoos with specific meanings, he was also the one to suggest the pet for Ivan.

 

The focus on Tony dying is more to do with character development than anything else, Tony’s worst enemy is himself, that’s the battle he was fighting and will be fighting in most (if not all) Iron Man related movies. He was lying to people he cared about, pushing them away and rapidly self destructing because he was running out of hope.

Iron Man, and Marvel in general, are more focussed on how the characters develop, rather than just the action, if you’re looking for more “ass kicking”, go watch Batman. Batman may be lacking in character but he's all for punching people in the face for the sake of his dead parents.

Marvel have “realistic” heroes, they’re not perfect, they have their issues, and as such is touched upon lightly by Tony drinking himself into a stupor (more thoroughly explored in “Demon in a Bottle”). It wasn’t so much about the dying, more about how he was reacting to it.

 

It has become apparent that you probably should have watched it more than once to review/analyse it effectively, Tony actually comments on the security, showing they were just as baffled as you were. However, regarding “because terrorists only existed in the first Iron Man movie” I don’t know whether you noticed the whole “Welcome to Stark Expo” thing, but I believe Tony mentioned being the source of “the world’s longest period of world peace”, which is reiterated in the Court scene, also in the newspaper clippings on Ivan’s wall when he is making his own arc reactor.

The point I’m trying to make is Iron Man is a “nuclear deterrent”, which also includes putting a damper on terrorist activity, lulling people into an unintentionally false sense of security where they feel safe enough to not be thorough in their security precautions.

 

Skipping ahead to Vanko’s break out. Again with the paying attention (or lack thereof), when Tony is going to talk to Ivan the first time, did you not see in SUBTITLES on the screen that they “checked his fingerprints and came up with nothing”? No? Really? Hmmm. They didn’t need to take any DNA samples as they’d seen his crime, they had video proof of it; they didn’t need further evidence. The body was probably mangled beyond recognition, so fingerprints were possibly destroyed (they might have been before he was put in the cell), so even though they now had Ivan’s prints on record, they probably had nothing to match it to.

If you were really going to justify any lack of logic here, it would be “why didn’t they notice that the destroyed body severely lacked in METAL TEETH?”

Also, I’d like to point out that when Tony is researching Ivan, he found that the man had actually disappeared off of the grid after going to prison, meaning most records ceased to exist (Tony is the kind of man with the resources and skills to dig up information, not to mention the fact that he found out Ivan’s name, the police did not).

 

This is what really bothers me, I’m not even sure you were watching the same film. Tony didn’t know the element to synthesize, his father did, and he required information Nick Fury had regarding the element before he could synthesize it. He had to work out a puzzle in a set up he didn’t have readily available in his home and didn’t know held the information he needed prior to watching the reels.

Tell me this, would you think to scan a model your dad made 30 years ago and digitally tear it apart until you found the molecular structure of a new element? No, you wouldn’t. Tony didn’t piece this together until he had all of the facts, including his father’s notes.

 

Vanko’s expertise in just about everything, as a physicist he more than likely worked for the Russian government or military or some such prior to going to prison (after all, how else would you obtain weapons-grade plutonium to sell to another country? Dig it up in your back yard? Unlikely).

His father worked with Howard Stark and was likely to have experience in similar or correlating fields to Howard. Anton said at the beginning of the film “All I can leave you is my knowledge”, which probably means he taught Ivan everything he knew. Due to his alcohol abuse and his anger at Stark Industries, he instilled Ivan with his hatred, wanting his son to get the revenge he couldn’t.

As I’ve said, it was likely he was already working for the Russian government (and possibly the Russian mob) before he went to prison. I don’t need to explain this again, but I will add that whilst working with science, the mob and also during his time in prison, its likely Ivan learned things from those he crossed paths with.

 

Any “logical flaws” you’ve pointed out are flaws in your own logic at best, I’m afraid; most everything you’ve pointed out is your own misinterpretation and your inability to actually pay adequate attention to the film you’re reviewing.

And to top it all off, you have realised this is a comic book movie haven’t you? Comic books have their own logic; you might want to look into that someday.

 

How Comic Book Logic applies to this film is also linked with Ivan’s knowledge of just about everything, hell Tony’s knowledge is equally as bizarre as Ivan’s. You can’t honestly think that realism in the aspects of their knowledge would make for a good film, can you? Tony wouldn’t have been able to make his suit if he didn’t have such a vast amount of knowledge, if he was more realistic.

Ivan is the same; he wouldn’t make for a particularly interesting villain if all he did was try to bamboozle Tony with physics.

 

Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, dislike Batman comics, games, TV shows or movies; I love them actually, but Batman isn’t the most in-depth superhero on the planet now is he? His stories are more focussed on the action and the villains than building any actual sense of character in old Brucey. There isn’t really that long a period where revenge for your dead parents can be considered valid, especially when you’ve already seen the murderer dealt with (in the film anyway).

I also do not condone taking Comic Book movies seriously, nor do I feel that anyone has the right to be quite so pants-on-head-retarded when reviewing media. Honestly, if you’re going to review something, the least you can do is pay attention to the damned thing.

Pants-on-head-retardation isn't often a constant, I don't know the reviewer personally so I can't really say whether they are or not. Here's to it hopefully being a one-post kind of thing.

I do, however, promote occasional seriousness within your preferred fandom, as you could one day be faced by a numpty like “Flowerpowerboi” and feel the need (or desire) to respond nerdily.

Also, only seen the film twice.



EDIT
I'd like to thank ratsteeth for being my nerdy consultant throughout this sleepless ramble. ILUMAN D8

Nother edit: Will gladly admit that I did write this at 4 in the morning feeling quite grumpy and irritable, I'm not really sure my intent was to insult or attack actually... oh well...

Latest Month

August 2010
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow