Poll
62%
38%
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.
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.
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.