Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Which is the more groundbreaking sci-fi movie for this century's generation.

Transformers by a royal mile.

What do you mean with 'ground breaking' exactly? As they both had great CGI, just Ironman was a far better movie.

Transformers was wayyyyy better as far as CGI, but Iron Man was a vastly superior story AND movie.

Originally posted by Robtard
What do you mean with 'ground breaking' exactly? As they both had great CGI, just Ironman was a far better movie. Basically which did you think was the better movie.

In that case it's like comparing The Godfather to Leonard Part 6. Iron Man is superior to Transformers in every way, in some cases exponentially better.

Originally posted by jaden101
Transformers by a royal mile. Iron man sucked.

Transformers had superior CGI.

Iron Man had superior acting.

Iron Man.

Other than the desert sequence i was unimpressed with the CGI in transformers. Most of this could be because i never knew what the hell was going on. Half the time i didn't know whether i was looking at a leg an arm or a head of a Transformer and when i was able to distinguish what part of the transformer was on screen i didnt know what transformer i was looking at. There were also scenes where the Transformers looked completely unreal. Iron Man always looked impressive and most of his screen time was during daytime.

I do have to acknowledge though, Iron Man only had to focus on one or two CGI subjects where Transformers had a slew of subjects and most of the time, the effects did look great but i was unimpressed with how they used the effects.

I vote Iron Man too.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Iron man sucked.

Ironman would destroy Riggs, Swagger and the Jedi/Sith.

Jedi/Sith snap neck for the win. 131

If you mean the Jedi/Sith get their necks snapped, sure.

Neither was at all 'groundbreaking' but Iron Man was infinitely better than Transformers.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Iron man sucked.

And Star Wars: TPM was totallyz awesomez, yes?

Say what you will about the Phantom Menace, but it helped define CGI for a modern age. Even if you're not a fan of CG, you have to accept the fact that it is a far more influential movie than either Iron Man or Transformers.

Here's the deal- Transformers had way better action and effects, Iron Man had a superior story, script, and acting. Iron Man is a better movie, overall, but not by that much. The disappointing finale and the occasionally annoying one-liners sure dragged the film, but its chief issue is the attempted political critique.

I completely agree that war profiteering sucks and money is much better spent helping humanitarian and scientific causes than developing weapons of death and destruction, but Tony Stark's transformation, which we are supposed to cheer for, is a contradiction of this. He turns into a ruthlessly violent vigilante. Now, I know that this was sugarcoated, but this does not change the he was a killer. The film's depiction of terrorists as simple-minded 'evil' people without any genuine goal or purpose outside of destruction supposedly justifies his actions, but I don't think this necessarily reflects reality- after all, the Iraqi citizens' resistance to a forced U.S democratic regime implies that they prefer to live under a totalitarian, religious one. They don't want an almighty American savior to help them. Tony Stark operated on a fascist ideal of him single-handedly choosing who lives and who dies, only according to his own personal ideal of justice.

I know I'm being way too harsh, considering the movie is just a very fun action film, but I can't help but question the inherent hypocrisy of Tony Stark's transformation. This takes away from the film's ultimate value.

TPM was a money-cow, nothing more.

Iron man was too, but all least it didn't have TONS of annoying-ass family-friendy bullshit.

I better hear some sort of legal explanation for why he'll be allowed to continue punching people over rooftops. S.H.I.E.L.D., anyone?

That said, he doesn't kill at random. Off the top of my head, there are fatalities when he first uses his Mark I suit and blows up the munitions at the camp where he'd been held a prisoner for two or three months, then he kills most of the group attacking that village, blows up a tank that shot him out of the sky, and is directly responsible for the death of Stane, who tried to kill him three times and almost killed Pepper.

Really, he could do worse.

Originally posted by Blinky
TPM was a money-cow, nothing more.

Iron man was too, but all least it didn't have TONS of annoying-ass family-friendy bullshit.

TPM may have been a failure as a film, but it was NOT a money-cow. Trust me, George Lucas does not need money- by making the prequels, he risked his already cemented place in film history, both financially and artistically.

Aside from that, though, TPM's special effects, visuals, and one of the first fully-CG characters with human emotions and mannerisms all had an impact on later film history. The LotR franchise, for example.

Besides, all Star Wars film have annoying family friendly bullshit. The only difference is, you watched the original trilogy in the eyes of a first-time 'recruit'; the prequels were watched with a more cynical and critical eye. Here's the deal: the OT is crammed with cutesy moments. Ewoks, anyone? Even the Jawas from ANH. The only borderline 'adult' films in Star Wars are Rots and ESB, both of which are more complex and moral ambiguous than the rest of the series.

Originally posted by Publius II
I better hear some sort of legal explanation for why he'll be allowed to continue punching people over rooftops. S.H.I.E.L.D., anyone?

Are SHIELD agents regulated by the government or do they get to do whatever the **** they want?

Originally posted by Publius II
That said, he doesn't kill at random. Off the top of my head, there are fatalities when he first uses his Mark I suit and blows up the munitions at the camp where he'd been held a prisoner for two or three months, then he kills most of the group attacking that village, blows up a tank that shot him out of the sky, and is directly responsible for the death of Stane, who tried to kill him three times and almost killed Pepper.

Really, he could do worse.

His actions were largely positive in the film, because the terrorism is one-sided and simply 'evil'. There are no deeper, ideological motivations and no look at the evident support it has from oppressed, 'primitive' cultures. Instead, terrorists are just a-holes who destroy for the sake of destruction.

He kills on a whim, without counseling anybody on the result of his actions. As was depicted in the Dark Knight, unregulated, 'free' vigilantism can potentially have vastly negative ramifications because of the essential fallibility, selfishness, and emotionality of authority figures. What Tony Stark did was fascistic, nothing more, nothing else.

Did I really say ALL that ?

No, but I'm tired and lazy. There, I'll edit it.

You quoted me as Blinky.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Are SHIELD agents regulated by the government or do they get to do whatever the **** they want?Government.

Well, that's sort of how everyone looks at the people who've declared war on them, and it's not like he targeted them at random. Stark acted as any military official would, with the difference being that he technically doesn't have the authority to do so.

And really, when someone's pointing a gun in your face, you don't pause to rationalize for them. Motivations aside, the fact that they voluntarily promote the exploitation and slaughter of innocents removes any chance they have at being viewed in a sympathetic light.

Hence the issues with the law.

I completely disagree. Stark doesn't represent anyone but himself; he's simply aligning himself with one side in the battle. Any lines drawn have existed since before the beginning of the physical conflict in the region.

You're definitely being ridiculously harsh. I'm not condoning what he did, but he's hardly some bloodthirsty bigot; everyone one of his kills was made in a situation that boiled down to either self-defense or saving innocent lives.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ironman would destroy Riggs, Swagger and the Jedi/Sith. Yes, yes and NO.

Not to sound like a dick RJ, but is there any being in Universe that can beat a Jedi?

I'm begining to think you'd go as far as saying a Jedi could force-choke Superman.

Originally posted by Publius II
You quoted me as Blinky.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Originally posted by Publius II
Government.

That's fine. So, they're kind of like a 'special forces' unit?


Originally posted by Publius II
Well, that's sort of how everyone looks at the people who've declared war on them, and it's not like he targeted them at random. Stark acted as any military official would, with the difference being that he technically doesn't have the authority to do so.

Which makes all the difference. He acted on his own whims, rather than the rational ideals of multiple people- a person on his own is prone to mistakes and misjudgment. The difference is, a military in a place like the U.S operates on a democratic level. Their actions are condoned by a group of people who think logically about a situation and its potential effects, which minimize the chances of error and make for a more just situation.

Originally posted by Publius II
And really, when someone's pointing a gun in your face, you don't pause to rationalize for them. Motivations aside, the fact that they voluntarily promote the exploitation and slaughter of innocents removes any chance they have at being viewed in a sympathetic light.

Killing Stane was acceptable. It was self-defense and there was clearly no way to bring him to justice.

Also, the film's representation of terrorists as one-dimensional killers and savages justifies Stark's actions within the context of the movie, but this is simply not how reality works. Terrorists operate out of a distinctive cause that is beneficial to their own individuals. The West's quest for colonization and exploitation of developing country's natural resources is part of what generates so much hatred for it. This is what ultimately leads to internal support of terrorism and hatred of the U.S. The fact that the people of the town that Tony 'liberated' appear to beg for international intervention is a representation of the conservative myth that these kind of people need to be 'saved from themselves'.

It was proven that terrorism is internally supported, and a democratic regime/international intervention is seen in a very negative light and therefore only brews more war and destruction. Maybe I'm being unfair, considering Iron Man is just a fun action film, but I was a bit angered that a movie that attempts to make some sort of political statement does so in such a simplistic and one-dimensional manner.

Originally posted by Publius II
Hence the issues with the law.

I agree that occasionally breaking the law is necessary and not everyone who does it should necessarily be punished, but a man of such influence and power as Tony Stark? The fact that you don't like the law does not give you a right to break it. Rather, you should make an effort towards making it better and more just, view a diplomatic, democratic process that is ultimately condoned by more than a single man's world view.

Originally posted by Publius II
I completely disagree. Stark doesn't represent anyone but himself; he's simply aligning himself with one side in the battle. Any lines drawn have existed since before the beginning of the physical conflict in the region.

But he didn't ask for military support or backing on this. He might have been fighting for a U.S cause, but he wasn't doing it with the proper authorization and agreement. Bottom line is, what he would've done could have led to, in a realistic universe, potentially more conflict, more negative effects, more hatred of the west. A single man cannot decide how things work.

Originally posted by Publius II
You're definitely being ridiculously harsh. I'm not condoning what he did, but he's hardly some bloodthirsty bigot; everyone one of his kills was made in a situation that boiled down to either self-defense or saving innocent lives.

That's true. But regardless of this, the film's portrayal of terrorism was unrealistic and simplistic, the people's support for U.S intervention and anti-terror campaigns being little more than mythical, and Stark's decisions operating only on his own personal logic. Again, the fallibility of humanity ultimately leads to the fact that decisions made by a single individual are far more likely to be flawed and lead to more potential conflict.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Yeah, yeah, yeah...



That's fine. So, they're kind of like a 'special forces' unit?




Which makes all the difference. He acted on his own whims, rather than the rational ideals of multiple people- a person on his own is prone to mistakes and misjudgment. The difference is, a military in a place like the U.S operates on a democratic level. Their actions are condoned by a group of people who think logically about a situation and its potential effects, which minimize the chances of error and make for a more just situation.



Killing Stane was acceptable. It was self-defense and there was clearly no way to bring him to justice.

Also, the film's representation of terrorists as one-dimensional killers and savages justifies Stark's actions within the context of the movie, but this is simply not how reality works. Terrorists operate out of a distinctive cause that is beneficial to their own individuals. The West's quest for colonization and exploitation of developing country's natural resources is part of what generates so much hatred for it. This is what ultimately leads to internal support of terrorism and hatred of the U.S. The fact that the people of the town that Tony 'liberated' appear to beg for international intervention is a representation of the conservative myth that these kind of people need to be 'saved from themselves'.

It was proven that terrorism is internally supported, and a democratic regime/international intervention is seen in a very negative light and therefore only brews more war and destruction. Maybe I'm being unfair, considering Iron Man is just a fun action film, but I was a bit angered that a movie that attempts to make some sort of political statement does so in such a simplistic and one-dimensional manner.



I agree that occasionally breaking the law is necessary and not everyone who does it should necessarily be punished, but a man of such influence and power as Tony Stark? The fact that you don't like the law does not give you a right to break it. Rather, you should make an effort towards making it better and more just, view a diplomatic, democratic process that is ultimately condoned by more than a single man's world view.



But he didn't ask for military support or backing on this. He might have been fighting for a U.S cause, but he wasn't doing it with the proper authorization and agreement. Bottom line is, what he would've done could have led to, in a realistic universe, potentially more conflict, more negative effects, more hatred of the west. A single man cannot decide how things work.



That's true. But regardless of this, the film's portrayal of terrorism was unrealistic and simplistic, the people's support for U.S intervention and anti-terror campaigns being little more than mythical, and Stark's decisions operating only on his own personal logic. Again, the fallibility of humanity ultimately leads to the fact that decisions made by a single individual are far more likely to be flawed and lead to more potential conflict.

Well i'm glad you didn't make the ironman film. It'd be shit.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
That's fine. So, they're kind of like a 'special forces' unit?They're an entire elite division; CIA, except cooler and competent.

Agreed. And this is where his involvement with Nick Fury and co. would actually justify the lack of opposition to his action.

Terrorism helps nobody. While the original intention may well have been "noble," or at least for a perceived greater good of the people, it has degenerated into a violent struggle for political and territorial power. As a fear tactic, it is firmly unmatched, but that is it. The broad principles of a terrorist group cannot be effectively applied to a lasting nation or province; it will either collapse on itself or incite conflict with a larger power and bring about its own demise. See Hamas and the Taliban.

At the risk of channeling DS here, much of the modern presence of American imperialism is very much perceived. I'm in no way justifying all of this country's actions and decisions, but much of the incoming hatred is decidedly irrational.

1.) I don't think terrorists need to be saved. I think the malleable or gullible youth around them need to be prevented from becoming like them, and current practices of many western powers completely ignore that entire facet of the larger issue; they are essentially allowing for the continued creation of these people, doing nothing about the - to speak frankly - renewable resources that young people living in a desperate place represent.

2.) The ordinary folk, the innocent, they do need to be saved. They aren't responsible for their plight, but for the most part they are powerless to do much about it.

I'm taking the movie rather seriously here too, but I don't see Stark as being the "fascist, violent, and ruthless" criminal you're making him out to be.

I was noting his presumed involvement with S.H.I.E.L.D. as technical justification for his ongoing actions.

And what do you do when you run into the people who will do everything they can to not let that happen?

Agreed, although at this point I think it's more than just a U.S. cause; he's fighting for what he's learned to believe in. The weapons that he designed, produced, and indirectly allowed those terrorists to get hold of were being stockpiled and potentially used to kill or exploit defenseless civilians. It was as much about attempting to clean up his mess as it was about political and moral idealism.

I don't see how that would work. The terrorists - who don't actually represent the commoner - would have more reason to hate and fear the west. The people Stark saves from murder, rape, slavery, and conversion to terrorist ideals? I doubt they'd be angry with him at all. Crowd mentality tends to eschew details and judge individuals or groups by what is seen and done; they would likely be completely behind Stark as some sort of guardian who gave them their lives back.

The only resentment I can see lingering would be on account of the fact that it was his weapons that these cells were using to gain power in the region, but I think the negativity there would generally be mitigated somewhat by his later actions.

He isn't making foreign policy or telling people to follow his example, Crimzon. He's making a stand based on what he believes in, on both an emotional and rational level.

At best in your case, he represents a more thoughtful and selective conglomeration of American ideals.

Simplistic? Fair enough. Unrealistic? Hardly. It may not have explored the roots of terrorism and the terrorists' justification for promoting and practicing it, but there was very little that could be declared fabricated about the depiction of their actions.

I don't think I caught this in the movie, but in reality, I would fully be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people would support Stark's way for the most part.

Stark isn't infallible, granted, but he's hardly the average man in power.

Like some have said, neither are groundbreaking, but Iron Man is much better.

Robert Downey Jr. >>> Shia Labeaf

I do like Shia as an actor though, I think he gets a bad rap far too often.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
NO. Iron Man>Jedi/Sith

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yes, yes and NO.

Notice how he didn't include McClane in there. Thats cuz McClane so BADASS

Damned straight.

To be completely honest, I think trying to determine which of these is the better film is like trying to find the cleanest part of a dirty butt. Both of these films relied on computer graphics to disguise the tired, worn-out cliches they tried to pass off as story lines, the piss-poor acting (sorry, Shayla LeBoeuf is NOT Oscar material) and the fact that both were essentially two-hour toy commercials. There's no substitute for good acting and a good script.

Iron Man for me, didn't think much of Transformers, only positive for me is the music score for it, rather listen to my CD of the score than sit through Transformers again.

Originally posted by Publius II
They're an entire elite division; CIA, except cooler and competent.

That's badass. So long as they're a government-regulated agency that doesn't cause mass destruction, I'm cool with it.

Although they should really be called 'elite soldiers' more than 'superheroes' if they're governmental agents, anyhow.

Originally posted by Publius II
Agreed. And this is where his involvement with Nick Fury and co. would actually justify the lack of opposition to his action.

He only met Fury and supposedly begun his association with SHIELD at the end of the film. Until that point, his actions were based on his singular judgment and could have potentially led to a greater eruption of violence.


Originally posted by Publius II
Terrorism helps nobody. While the original intention may well have been "noble," or at least for a perceived greater good of the people, it has degenerated into a violent struggle for political and territorial power. As a fear tactic, it is firmly unmatched, but that is it. The broad principles of a terrorist group cannot be effectively applied to a lasting nation or province; it will either collapse on itself or incite conflict with a larger power and bring about its own demise. See Hamas and the Taliban.

Terror is a tactic. The organizations that operate on terror utilize it as a method of getting to power, and then use it to stay in power.

I don't know much about the Taliban, for let's use the example of Hamas. Granted, they're clearly bloodthirsty and seemingly unreasonable, but what they are fighting for is absolutely understandable- the Jewish people's 'takeover' of Israel, if you will (more than the land given by the U.N) ultimately forced many Palestinians out of their homes, forcing them to live as second class citizens within Israel. On paper, they have the same rights, but the government still encourages segregation and the Arabic villages are given absolutely no welfare (like the more developed Jewish populace does). They have access to inferior education, housing, and a general standard of living.

And so we come to Gaza. Gaza is currently an effective concentration camp. Essentially, thousands of Palestinians were shoved into a very small strip of land, without any sort of genuine benefits and encouragements to begin a functioning society. Gaza has the highest population density in the world, for example. Can there be any surprise that the Palestinians in Gaza hate Israel for placing them in this situation? This gives place for Hamas support and the utilization of terror. Theoretically, Hamas' purpose is extremely beneficial in the interests of the Palestinian people- they're hardly operating out of pure religious fundamentalism or 'evil'.

Originally posted by Publius II
At the risk of channeling DS here, much of the modern presence of American imperialism is very much perceived. I'm in no way justifying all of this country's actions and decisions, but much of the incoming hatred is decidedly irrational.

People don't view reality. They view what they interpret to be reality. On that level, I agree with you. However, there must be something to cause this interpretation. Instead of acting with compassion, a display of reason, and diplomatic ways, the U.S has chosen to take the path of war and destruction. Therefore... can it be any surprise that these people view America as an imperialist conqueror in these situations?

America has no one to blame for the hatred it receives but itself- with its aggression and its arrogance. The same (though to a lesser extent) applies to Israel.


Originally posted by Publius II
1.) I don't think terrorists need to be saved. I think the malleable or gullible youth around them need to be prevented from becoming like them, and current practices of many western powers completely ignore that entire facet of the larger issue; they are essentially allowing for the continued creation of these people, doing nothing about the - to speak frankly - renewable resources that young people living in a desperate place represent.

Oh, I completely agree. This is why waging the war on Gaza to such an extensive level with utilizing negotiations and diplomatic routes to go with it (military action is a supplement and should always be seen as such. It's impossible to achieve a just settlement via purely militaristic action) is silly. It feeds and brews the hatred for Israel, for the situation it places on the Palestinians, thereby strengthening Hamas' cause and lead to a new generation of Israel-haters.

Originally posted by Publius II
2.) The ordinary folk, the innocent, they do need to be saved. They aren't responsible for their plight, but for the most part they are powerless to do much about it.

If that was truly how things worked, I agree. However, reality indicates otherwise. As can be seen in the resistance to democratization in Iraq, the people of the 'primitive' world simply operate on different standards than Western cultures- and they want to maintain those standards. It would appear that the so-called oppressed innocents hardly beg for international intervention.


Originally posted by Publius II
I'm taking the movie rather seriously here too, but I don't see Stark as being the "fascist, violent, and ruthless" criminal you're making him out to be.

I don't think Stark is an evil man. He intended to do good. However, the way he did that was inherently hypocritical, violent, and, to an extent, fascistic.

Originally posted by Publius II
I was noting his presumed involvement with S.H.I.E.L.D. as technical justification for his ongoing actions.

I don't think there was anything done to support the notion that Stark was operating with a legit governmental force until the end of the film, was there?


Originally posted by Publius II
And what do you do when you run into the people who will do everything they can to not let that happen?

Certain events and regimes call for criminal activity. For example, a totalitarian regime cannot be 'changed' by a man: in fact, these sorts of regimes inherently illegalize the possibility of a diplomatic change. Therefore, the only way to lead to a better existence and let your own moral standards be heard is criminality, which is perfectly acceptable.

I'm sorry, however. Stark was a powerful man living in a democratic country, which means he possessed the power, not to mention the resources, to bring forth legitimate change by gaining the support of multiple people- instead of operating based on his own personal desires, and that alone.

He wanted to stop war? He could have donated money to anti-war parties. He could have ventured into politics. He could have donated money to victims of U.S-generated wars.

There are many more things a man like Stark could do. Instead, he chose to turn himself into a human weapon and do whatever he wanted to do- without any support for any populace, based on singular ideals of justice and potentially biased perception. THIS is wrong.

Originally posted by Publius II
Agreed, although at this point I think it's more than just a U.S. cause; he's fighting for what he's learned to believe in. The weapons that he designed, produced, and indirectly allowed those terrorists to get hold of were being stockpiled and potentially used to kill or exploit defenseless civilians. It was as much about attempting to clean up his mess as it was about political and moral idealism.

Which sucks. He could have helped minimize the damages of his clear warmongering actions in a less violent manner.

Originally posted by Publius II
I don't see how that would work. The terrorists - who don't actually represent the commoner - would have more reason to hate and fear the west. The people Stark saves from murder, rape, slavery, and conversion to terrorist ideals? I doubt they'd be angry with him at all. Crowd mentality tends to eschew details and judge individuals or groups by what is seen and done; they would likely be completely behind Stark as some sort of guardian who gave them their lives back.

That's the sad thing. That's how the United States wants to view itself in the world; a guardian angel of oppressed cultures and what is moral and right. However, the facts indicate that these real so-called 'oppressed' cultures don't desire any sort of saving or international intervention (see Iraq. The people who were supposedly rescued from a totalitarian regime that works on terror, intimidation, and religious extremism want the U.S out). Oh, and moral correctness? Every culture chooses to elect its own standards of good and evil. Therefore, what is considered good in the U.S (democracy, for example) is not necessarily considered good in a place in Afghanistan. The U.S has no right to force its own subjective and strictly cultural standards of good and evil upon other cultures? What gives them the right to dictate what is good for the entire world?

Originally posted by Publius II
The only resentment I can see lingering would be on account of the fact that it was his weapons that these cells were using to gain power in the region, but I think the negativity there would generally be mitigated somewhat by his later actions.

Well, potentially.

Originally posted by Publius II
He isn't making foreign policy or telling people to follow his example, Crimzon. He's making a stand based on what he believes in, on both an emotional and rational level.

That's correct. However, he's still a single man who acts upon his ideals of justice without any external support or recruitment of individuals. Again, the fallibility of humanity and authority figures ultimately leads to the realization that placing the enforcement of a universal 'morality' in the hands of a single men, which is what Stark did, is wrong and inefficient.

Originally posted by Publius II
At best in your case, he represents a more thoughtful and selective conglomeration of American ideals.

Maybe so.

Originally posted by Publius II
Simplistic? Fair enough. Unrealistic? Hardly. It may not have explored the roots of terrorism and the terrorists' justification for promoting and practicing it, but there was very little that could be declared fabricated about the depiction of their actions.

But that's the problem. I don't believe an individual can only judged through the superficiality of their actions- this is an absolutist philosophy I simply cannot agree with. They depicted terrorism without showing the depth and the inherent motivations and causes of it, and therefore declared it as evil and immoral.

This is awfully simplistic and fits right into the "good vs. evil" world view that defined the Bush administration's stand on foreign policy, and the right-wing in general.


Originally posted by Publius II
I don't think I caught this in the movie, but in reality, I would fully be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people would support Stark's way for the most part.

Stark is an authority figure that functions based on a morality that is not necessary condoned by anybody else, is prone to fallibility and corruption, etc, etc. There's no reason to think he won't be treated as yet another force of American imperialism.



Originally posted by Publius II
Stark isn't infallible, granted, but he's hardly the average man in power.

He's a womanizer, a borderline alcoholic, a former weapons manufacturer and an impulsive individual (as can be seen in the "I am Iron Man" scene). If anything, he's more prone to corruption than the average man in power.

I respectfully disagree. I believe that a single person should always decided how things should work, yourself. I'm not saying that there should be one person in charge of the whole world, or anything, but that a person can only ever act upon what they believe to be right. If what you believe to be right is that all decisions should be brought about by a democratic group, then you should support that and I trust that if you lived in a fascist state that you would try to change that, because that's what you be right.
If I had a modicum of power, I know that I would try to change the world into a better place. I think that it would be the right thing to do.



And while he was working on these 'better, more democratic' ways, men would have died, women would have been raped and children would have been exposed to violence. Do you think that the people he saved cared about whether he was a 'hypocrite' or a 'fascist'. I think not.
When evil is going on and someone has the power to stop it and yet stands by and does nothing, THAT is wrong. And isn't that really the basis upon which ALL superherodom is founded? Great power and all that.

This isn't some vague support of the war or anything, because a democratic society shouldn't act in this way, it leads to too many difficulties and cases more harm then good most of the time but a lone individual trying to make a difference.

Still working on this though.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
That's badass. So long as they're a government-regulated agency that doesn't cause mass destruction, I'm cool with it.

Although they should really be called 'elite soldiers' more than 'superheroes' if they're governmental agents, anyhow.Well, S.H.I.E.L.D. itself isn't a group of superheroes, but its focus is "superhero/villain" activity.

And to be fair, Iron Man and Captain American are in a class of their own.

You misunderstand. The point I brought up earlier was that there should be people going after Stark for taking international law into his own hands; only his presumed future involvement with the government could protect him from legal prosecution.

Not for long. In fact, never for long, taking a look back at history, and certainly never peaceful or secure.

You're missing the point. While I acknowledge that Hamas may have a rational cause for protesting their plight on the part of their people, their actual strategy is alarmingly stupid. When have terrorist tactics ever benefited either those responsible or those in whose name the strategy was supposedly employed? Are you seriously willing to argue that housing weapons and terrorists in elementary schools and firing upon neighbouring countries from them is an intelligent or productive tactic?

On one hand you preach about the misfortune, poverty, and cruelty the ordinary folk in these places experience, on the other you completely ignore the fact that they know nothing of the outside world aside from what their parents and grandparents have told them and what their regime lets them hear. They are, for all intents and purposes, almost completely ignorant of how the world - America included - works these days. The country is no longer actively and aggressively imperialistic - aside from what is alleged to be the original purpose of the Iraq War - so accusations based on those grounds are no longer valid. It's like hating Britain for, y'know, taking over half the known world.

This is rather ignorant of you. America's enemies, whether their resentment is justified or not, have almost always used propaganda staggering in both scope and content to justify their actions to their people, the ones who bear the brunt of almost any form of retaliation.

The Middle Eastern leaders in power who subscribe to terrorist principles and use terrorist tactics are idiots. They're dooming themselves to a drastically shortened or significantly less comfortable life and screwing over their people in the process.

I'm still talking about the movie here. The people in that village being slaughtered in their own houses, raped, or dragged of to who-knows-where were certainly begging for help.

I don't see how it was hypocritical or remotely fascistic. You're going to need to explain those.

See above.

You're looking at about half an hour of his life and assuming that all he does is fly around the world and blow terrorists into the stratosphere. The movie ends with him taking all of two trips out the door with his Mark III; I think it's safe to say that with his agenda out in the open, he'll be as much a financial and social proponent of change as a militaristic one.

See above.

And to be fair, the immediate scenarios he flew into wouldn't have been cooled in the least by donating money or speaking to raise awareness. His weapon stockpiles were still sitting there, waiting to be used; he knew where they were, so he took them out. There was no deliberation, none of the cross-checking and arguing and post-mission excuses that any offensive action taken by the government would entail. Those people would have died then and there without him.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
That's the sad thing. That's how the United States wants to view itself in the world; a guardian angel of oppressed cultures and what is moral and right. However, the facts indicate that these real so-called 'oppressed' cultures don't desire any sort of saving or international intervention (see Iraq. The people who were supposedly rescued from a totalitarian regime that works on terror, intimidation, and religious extremism want the U.S out). Oh, and moral correctness? Every culture chooses to elect its own standards of good and evil. Therefore, what is considered good in the U.S (democracy, for example) is not necessarily considered good in a place in Afghanistan. The U.S has no right to force its own subjective and strictly cultural standards of good and evil upon other cultures? What gives them the right to dictate what is good for the entire world?I was still talking about Stark. The people he saved? I doubt they'd be screaming and crying about his promiscuity and such after he saved their lives.

You're looking at this on a much broader scale than it really works on. Stark flew to one country, blew up a couple of his own weapon caches, saved most of a village from marauding looters, and... flew away. He made literally one international mission, and it was a relatively small one at that.

Again, I ask you to explain to me the rationalization behind terrorism. Not activism, terrorism. Morality is subjective. Rationality and logic? Not nearly so.

Now you're just being overly analytical. Again, the movie made it very clear what it was about; a flawed man realizing the mistakes he's made and trying his best to atone for them. Glorifying the other side by attempting to sympathize with them - which is hard enough to do when you aren't making a two-hour superhero flick - would be both awkward and contradictory to the main theme of the movie.

He doesn't represent the United States. Not until he gets involved with the government.

And for the record, most people here don't see America as imperialistic.

... And? He isn't particularly disrespectful, he isn't abusive, he just likes sex.

Not yet.

The entire movie was focused on his attempts at redeeming himself. His only move with the Mark III outside of fighting Obadiah Stane involved destroying several of his weapons caches.

Hardly. He's subject to as much or more scrutiny, he's smarter, and his immediate goals are far more focused than those of any world leader.

Yeah, sorry, I don't have a lot of time now. I'm going away for two days starting tomorrow (my cousin is getting married), so we can decide if you want to keep this going when I get back.

I do have to admit, however, that some of my criticisms were way too harsh and, yes, overly analytical. I guess I'm reading way too much into the film's (possibly non-existent) subtext.

However, I am still adamant that the film's depiction of terrorism was one-dimensional and absolutist; it looked at only the superficiality of their actions without explaining the causes for it or their attempted 'nobility'. Also, Stark dictated that they need to die based on... what? A biased news report of the way terrorism shoves people out of their homes. And no explanation is offered for that, either; the film is happy with saying 'just because'.

Also, in a democracy, single men do not decide how things work. Rather than that, the majority decides what philosophy is most just and ultimately beneficial for them- therefore, we can assume that a democracy is based on the fact that there is no absolutely perfect ideology. A singular man's biased world view, which is hardly truer than any other's, cannot enforce this one without any sort of support or backing, in part due to humanity's inherent fallibility.

Gotta go now. See ya.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I do have to admit, however, that some of my criticisms were way too harsh and, yes, overly analytical. I guess I'm reading way too much into the film's (possibly non-existent) subtext.

Now, there's a thing.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Iron Man>Jedi/Sith Depends.

Movies yeah.

But if he is counting the Expanded Universe, no friggin way.

Ironman. I love both but Transformers had only marginally better CGI, and Ironman was complemented by far better acting.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Iron man sucked.

V3y3QoFnqZc

Originally posted by Toku King
V3y3QoFnqZc

ROFLMAO

'You've been Dr.Coxed'.