Iron Man

Via Amanda and Tom Lee, I see that we've got an Iron Man film in the works. I'm pretty psyched. Besides the reasons Tom notes, it's worth keeping in mind that from the beginning Iron Man has always been the most national security policy oriented of superheroes.

His initial origin story related to the Vietnam War, it was eventually updated for the Gulf War, and the film preview makes it look like they've updated things yet again for the 21st century's military conflicts. Under the circumstances, I firmly expect to be able to get some additional blog posts out of this film in the future. Still, at this point Ultimates is really the comic book movie that I want to see.

Comments

Too right on the Ultimates.

Which particular arc though, that would be the question.

Posted by JC | September 12, 2007 6:41 PM

Looks like Sam Jackson is playing Nick Fury in the Iron Man movie, so maybe they're heading in that direction.

Posted by craft | September 12, 2007 7:02 PM

Am I the only one who thinks Iron Man looks gay in this shot?

Posted by Alan Vanneman | September 12, 2007 7:06 PM

He is hot as balls!

Posted by aliar | September 12, 2007 7:11 PM

I haven't read Ultimates, but it's interesting to hear you say you'd like to see it as a movie. In the Wikipedia article about the series, artist Bryan Hitch is quoted as saying:

"We just set out with the basic idea: What would we do if we had to make The Avengers as a movie?... You have to approach it as though nothing has happened before and tell the story fresh from the start, find the current day relevance and the best actors."

I imagine someone's already working on a screenplay.

Posted by Tom | September 12, 2007 7:21 PM

Also, Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is kinda perfect.

Posted by Trevor | September 12, 2007 7:42 PM

There's a very fine line to tread with superhero movies so as to not appear ridiculous but still be fun, and this Iron Man movie looks to be on the right side from the trailer.

One thing we haven't seen yet in the movies, really, is *any* kind of crossovers between characters, unless the Elektra movie counts, since it's a spinoff. How cool would it be for Spider-Man to take something by Reed Richards' lab to get his opinion on it in the next S-M movie?

Posted by Adam Villani | September 12, 2007 7:57 PM

Is he a giant robot, or an ordinary-sized robot?

jenny

Posted by jenny | September 12, 2007 8:07 PM

Oh, jenny. It's Iron *Man*, not the Iron Giant, which is a completely different movie.

There already is an Ultimates movie -- animated, direct to DVD. Not to shabby for something of that type.

Posted by Grumpy | September 12, 2007 8:13 PM

Iron Man is an asshole.

Posted by Toadmonster | September 12, 2007 8:52 PM

Iron Man is an asshole.

That's why Robert Downey, Jr. was an inspired choice.

Posted by Gabriel | September 12, 2007 8:56 PM

I'd recommend not thinking too hard about the policy implications of Iron Man, Matt. It'll spoil the fun. One one level, he's a guy in a totally sweet battlesuit firing repulsor beams, yes. But on another level he's the living embodiment of the military industrial complex, and that just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

Posted by lackluster | September 12, 2007 8:58 PM

Robert Downey Jr. is lame. Super lame. I have a bad feeling this is going to turn out the same way Ghost Rider did.

Posted by Steve W. | September 12, 2007 9:10 PM

The current comic book version of the origin places it in Afghanistan, I believe; the recent EXTREMIS trade paperback is well worth reading.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 12, 2007 9:11 PM

I saw the trailer the other night during the Daily Show, and I have to say I thought it looked like it would kick ass! Not to mention the (obvious) use of the Black Sabbath song of the same name.

Posted by garyg | September 12, 2007 9:14 PM

Well, I happened to like "Ghost Rider" - although Nick Cage is always doing his own thing in any role. It was slick - and Eva Mendes butt is worth seeing no matter what else is going on.

Matt's right that Tony Stark was always on the side of "national security" - but there was an arc where he was downright subversive in taking back all his technology from the various other battlesuited factions out there - including US government operatives, such as the guards at The Vault, the prison for supervillains. That damn near got him taken down by the US government.

Then there's the alcoholism issue - which is probably why Robert Downey got picked for the role. Nobody better to play an addict and a playboy.

I haven't been reading "The Ultimates" mostly because I don't like retcons and "reboots" of characters that up until lately have had thirty and forty years worth of literary history. The writers think they're being "limited" by those histories, but in reality they are vast sources of new material that the writers just aren't good enough to plumb. So they decide to dump it and come up with stuff which isn't half as good as the original.

Then they blow off criticism by saying, "Well, it's just a comic book, we can do what we want."

Same excuse the porn movie producers make for producing garbage: "It's just porn, who cares?"

An example is the Fantastic Four movie. Christ, was that garbage! They totally destroyed the character of Doctor Doom, probably the number one villain in all literary history. Not to mention the insanity of a blond Jessica Alba as Sue Storm...Cast a Filipino girl (not to mention with not the greatest skill as an actress) as Sue Storm, the quintessential WASP...Brilliant move...

Even though Blade was a minor Marvel character, the Blade movies were brilliantly done because the writer and the director (the same guy in the third one) were dedicated to the concept. The Blade movies were so far and away better than the "Daredevil", "Electra", and "Fantastic Four" movies that there is no comparison. When a movie creates a spinoff TV series, you know there was something to the movie.

The key to making a good comic book movie is to play it straight. Take it seriously. The Superman, Batman and Spiderman movies had their comedic moments, but in general they were played straight. The characters had issues that were dramatically portrayed by at least semi-decent actors working to reasonably well-scripted dialogue. Even Jack Nicholson going over the top in Batman was in essence played straight - relying on Nicholson's incredible intensity to pull it off.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 12, 2007 10:31 PM

Help! My roomate has ruined Iron Man for me with his stubborn reluctance to believe that any captors would just leave him alone with enough time and materials to construct a suit of powered-armor!

Posted by Anthony Damiani | September 12, 2007 10:35 PM

Apparently the current Iron Man is a pretty big fascist these days, making all the other heroes register with the government and arresting Captain America.

Posted by mad6798j | September 12, 2007 11:10 PM

Wasn't Iron Man the first major black superhero?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 12, 2007 11:46 PM

No, actually I wanna say it was the Black Panther followed closely by the Falcon. Both Marvel characters, btw.

Posted by Shawn | September 12, 2007 11:55 PM

What I want to know is do the people making the movie understand that IRON MAN is one of the most nationalistic of all super-heroes. He's Captain American without the flag suit.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 13, 2007 12:08 AM

I'm definately looking forward to this movie. I'm not too worried about the moving having a conservative bias. I don't really know Favreau's or RDJ's politics but I know that RDJ has been in an Elton John video and has taken on roles that hardly seem fit for a conservative. I must agree though that Tony Stark can be an asshole (CIVIL WAR!!!). Also, the movie I would most like to see made is a Green Lantern adaptation. Hal Jordan, in my humble opinion, is one of the most compelling characters in all of comics.

Posted by Scott | September 13, 2007 12:41 AM

Ultimates would be amazing, but I'm really doubtful that they would go with the Thor depiction in Ultimates, and without that character the whole thing just sort of falls apart.

(Not that a "is he or isn't he" Thor movie wouldn't be absolutely fantastic. It's just a good question as to whether the writers would want to go along with it.)

And assuming that this isn't Civil War Stark (hint: it won't be) he's actually not terribly militaristic or jingoistic. The suit technology is not for license to the military.

Posted by Demosthenes | September 13, 2007 1:04 AM

Does he have heavy boots of lead, and fill his victims full of dread?

Posted by Kevin | September 13, 2007 1:25 AM

Ultimates 1 was wonderful, just great.

Ultimates 2 was even better!... so noir and paranoid and intricate!...

... until about issue 8 (I think, when the whole global conspiracy was revealed), after which it was stupid and offensive beyond belief. I've never seen a comic book destroy its promise so thoroughly, and made me wonder what the hell Millar was doing. Was his intention to be so over-the-top in his mindless American vengeance and militarism that it served as an inherent criticism of those same qualities in Bush's America? And even if that was the purpose - it didn't work, it was just aggressively horrible and insulting.

The first comic arc I can say I actually hated, with the white-hot fury of a million exploding suns.

Posted by Triskele | September 13, 2007 2:15 AM

Richard Steven Hack said:

An example is the Fantastic Four movie. Christ, was that garbage! They totally destroyed the character of Doctor Doom, probably the number one villain in all literary history. Not to mention the insanity of a blond Jessica Alba as Sue Storm...Cast a Filipino girl (not to mention with not the greatest skill as an actress) as Sue Storm, the quintessential WASP...Brilliant move...

Jessica Alba isn't a Filipina. I agree that FF was shallow, though. Not quite as squirmingly atrocious as Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, the gold standard of franchise-killing comic-book movies.

Posted by hangdog | September 13, 2007 4:13 AM

I'm for giving Doctor Doom his own movie!

He's had his own comic book, and several "mini-series" in the past.

"Doom 2099", the book he had back in the '90's, would be perfect for today - it was mostly a paen to resistance against the corporate state. Doom actually invades and takes over the US government, represses the evil corporations - and the people love him! Until the corporations strike back and launch a coup against him, using a brainwashed Captain America as a symbol of American jingoism.

Just once, I'd like to see the villain treated as the main character and allowed to at least fight to a draw.

I remember when G. Gordon Liddy appeared as a villain in several episodes on the old "Miami Vice" series, his contract stated that his character would be allowed to escape at the end of each episode!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 13, 2007 4:13 AM

Don't know where I got the idea she was Filipino - just looks it, I guess. She's actually born of a Mexican-American father and a French/Danish mother.

By the way, I forgot to mention a classic full-page shot in "Doom 2099": After invading Washington, D.C., with a mercenary army, Doom attacks the White House. The final shot shows the President of the United States slumped over his desk in the Oval Office, having shot himself in the head, with Doom standing over him.

The series was noted for quotes from Bakunin, and even Doom quoted Noam Chomsky about the United States government's complete disregard for civil rights.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 13, 2007 4:19 AM

Apparently the current Iron Man is a pretty big fascist these days, making all the other heroes register with the government and arresting Captain America.

Right, and this is why Iron Man sucks; Tony Stark can be a rich drunk and that's all cool but he's also a manipulative, power-hungry thug.

Anyway, the trailer makes it clear that the movie is going to be a big glorification of American military violence. (Also, using the Sabbath song is totally lame).

Posted by Toadmonster | September 13, 2007 4:27 AM

Has he lost his mind?
Can he see or is he blind?
Can he walk at all,
Or if he moves will he fall?
Is he alive or dead?
Has he thoughts within his head?
We'll just pass him there
Why should we even care?

He was turned to steel
In the great magnetic field
Where he traveled time
For the future of mankind

Nobody wants him
He just stares at the world
Planning his vengeance
That he will soon unfold

Now the time is here
For iron man to spread fear
Vengeance from the grave
Kills the people he once saved

Nobody wants him
They just turn their heads
Nobody helps him
Now he has his revenge

Heavy boots of lead
Fills his victims full of dread
Running as fast as they can
Iron man lives again!

Posted by rea | September 13, 2007 7:08 AM

I didn't think much of Ghost Rider, but I did think that the flashback incarnation of the love interest-- not Eva Mendes, but the younger version of her-- was the most beautiful woman I've seen in a long time.

Posted by Freddie | September 13, 2007 7:57 AM

"Am I the only one who thinks Iron Man looks gay in this shot?"

It's well documented that all male superheros are gay. How else do you explain outfits that look as though they just came from a circuit party...

Posted by Rihilism | September 13, 2007 8:57 AM

Is he a giant robot, or an ordinary-sized robot?
jenny

Jenny, he's not your type. Yes, he is about your size -- if you feel that size counts -- but he's not actually a robot. That's a man in a battle suit.

Posted by rm | September 13, 2007 10:08 AM

"I've never seen a comic book destroy its promise so thoroughly, and made me wonder what the hell Millar was doing."

I think he was proving something Jim Shooter (back on Legion of Super-Heroes, yeah!) recently said about today's generation of comic book writers. Shooter's point is that today's comic writers are really glib and able to churn out stuff that's really clever on the surface, but are pretty bad on the basic nuts and bolts of storytelling. Basically, there's a sheen of great dialog and affecting character moments laid over a lot of poor plotting and flawed structure. That's why I think so many stories today have these incredible build-ups, but then fall apart when it's time to follow through.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 13, 2007 10:20 AM

Iron Man's gonna suck because Robert Downey is in it. That unctuous c*nt has NEVER made a film better by being in it. Matter of fact, whenever I see him in a movie--and, per The Tom Cruise effect, he always manages to land plum roles--I always wonder to myself what a REAL actor would have done in the role.

Posted by Jamey | September 13, 2007 11:46 AM

I woulda cast Christian Bale instead of Downey, but he's already Batman ... darn. Looks watchable, and I like the backstory elements they changed while keeping the main story complete. I still wonder where is it going to fall in the continuum from suckitude to excellence, closer to the Punisher movies or closer to the Spider-Man movies? Hmm.

I figure they're gonna option every possible Marvel character they can as a movie so that Stan Lee can have a cameo in each while he's still alive and kicking. What's next?

Posted by Matthew Stinson | September 13, 2007 12:00 PM

I'm far from a RDJr fan, but I did think he actually made Zodiac much better with his performance. He was one of the best parts of that movie.

Also, I liked him in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang--an excellent modern noir that has been almost completely ignored by everyone.

Oh, and I saw the incredibly long ad they did for Ironman during the Daily Show. They basically showed the entire movie, I think. And that movie is going to suck.

Posted by Rob Mac | September 13, 2007 12:07 PM

How come Iron Man villains never just hit him with a flame-thrower? Iron conducts heat and Tony would shrivel like a shrimp on a grill.

Posted by CJColucci | September 13, 2007 1:06 PM

"How come Iron Man villains never just hit him with a flame-thrower? Iron conducts heat and Tony would shrivel like a shrimp on a grill."-Posted by CJColucci

He has incorporated (insert technobabble) in his suit which causes the heat to be (insert technobabble).

Posted by Njorl | September 13, 2007 2:03 PM

Did anyone think the first version of the suit they show him in, when he breaks out of his jail cell or whatever, looked a lot like the original suit from his first comic appearance? That's a pretty cool way of incorporating the actual history of the character into the single story of the movie.

Posted by tps12 | September 13, 2007 2:07 PM

"I figure they're gonna option every possible Marvel character they can as a movie so that Stan Lee can have a cameo in each while he's still alive and kicking. What's next?"

http://www.themovieinsider.com/m3506/thor/

Posted by Njorl | September 13, 2007 2:07 PM

Not quite as squirmingly atrocious as Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, the gold standard of franchise-killing comic-book movies.

Batman Forever wasn't that bad. It was different from either the Michael Keaton movies or the Christopher Bale one (which were also very different from each other), but I still thought it was decent. Regardless, clearly you forgot about Superman 3 and 4.

I woulda cast Christian Bale instead of Downey, but he's already Batman ... darn.

I like what I saw in the preview, but I've always thought Tom Cruise would have made a good Tony Stark. Sure, he's thought of as an offensive nutcase these days, but that would only help.

How come Iron Man villains never just hit him with a flame-thrower? Iron conducts heat and Tony would shrivel like a shrimp on a grill.

For a fan of realistic science in action movies, is this a larger or smaller problem than the fact that his suit needs no apparent power source?

Posted by Cyrus | September 13, 2007 2:31 PM

"For a fan of realistic science in action movies, is this a larger or smaller problem than the fact that his suit needs no apparent power source?"

Ah, for the days when super-hero comics could answer questions like that without resorting to pretentious, sci-fi technobable. I don't know about the new school, anime/manga/Battletech influence armor, but the old school red-and-golds used to have two power pods on the hips that were solar-charged. How did they work? Who cares? It's a comic book about a guy beating the snot out of people named The Unicorn and Ultimo.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 13, 2007 3:55 PM

The original Iron Man armor was powered through "high tech transistors".

Posted by mad6798j | September 13, 2007 5:14 PM

Yeah, the shot of the original tin-can suit got my juices flowing.

I think Jim Shooter was way underrated... I guess he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but under his watch the Marvel Universe actually (a) maintained its continuity, (b) published books on schedule, and (c) produced good comics!

Posted by Adam Villani | September 13, 2007 5:18 PM

Also, all this talk of "RDJ" keeps foolling me into thinking richard D. James is involved... he'd make a good villain.

Posted by Adam Villani | September 13, 2007 5:20 PM

Vis-a-vis power sources for the suit, if you've ever read the "Marvel Universe" - basically an encyclopedia of the Marvel Comics universe - they go into considerable engineering detail on what's in the suit.

Most of it is pseudoscience, of course, but some of it draws on actual technology or at least plausible technology. They did the same with a number of other technology devices used in their comics, such as other characters' battlesuits, vehicles, etc. It wasn't all just "sci-fi magic" stuff. They strove for some modicum of realism.

That's one thing I've liked about Marvel - their characters have some depth to them and did so long before DC started developing their characters better.

I mean, "The Punisher" had ten volumes of "The Punisher Armory" which was basically a weapons and equipment catalog, almost all of which is actually available on the open market. Definitely some gun enthusiasts were writing that comic!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 13, 2007 7:39 PM