Well, in Iron Man he was the refreshing, fun as hell hero. He was every nerd/geek's dream, a genius, a visionaire, smooth, playboy and someone who could dominate every situation like no one else. A deep contrast from the dark brooding hero that was Nolan's Batman, the kinda pathetic/underdog that was Raimi's Parker or wtf they were trying to do with either the Hulk or Superman.

Downey's Tony was the ascencion of the type of heroes from the really popular series, like Buffy and Firefly, to the big screen. Modern, funny, intelligent and relatable even if in a wish-fullfillment kinda of way.

After the 'New' factor dropped out, people are left with the cold reality that this guy is kind of arrogant and selfish, because the late 80s/90s/early 2000s people are self-centered. So they start seeing the flaws past the shinning veneer, which is cool and needed for character development, but also explains why people enjoy Tony less and less, because (i) he is New anymore, (ii) he annoys people because his flaws are something more and more common on our everyday and (iii) Robert Downey Jr. has been overused.

 

I don't know, Marvel seems a bit weak when it comes to the characters themselves. I mean, come on! Making Black Widow play matchmaker in CA2?

I actually think that Marvel saw how successful the DK trilogy was and later MoS and thought they could subtly twist Stark into something resembling that.

I just feel that each hero's movie should havea different tone. E.G.:

Iron Man's movies should be fun, enjoyable and light.

Captain America, Slightly darker (Not much) and a bit more serious.

 

...is there some sort of issue with a character engaging in lighthearted banter with another character?

I've got no idea what you mean with making Stark resemble the Nolan trilogy or Man of Steel, either.

 

Just that it goes against Black Widow's character.

Well, in IM1 Stark was funny, enjoyable and trangely relateable despite his time in captivity. But as the movies went on (except for perhaps Avengers) he's becoming more and more Nolan-esque. You know, gritty, dark, wants to hang up the mantyle etc.

 

Aside from Tony's brief struggle with post New York PTSD/angst, when has Iron Man ever been gritty or dark?

The character is like Deadpool, built to be anti-grit. Sarcastic playboy billionaire jokester who maintains outward lighthearted hokieness through virtually any situation.

 

Here's how I picture the movie going.

 

The DK trilogy was successful alright and it could affect Marvel though I disagree that it did, but MoS? It made $668m worldwide, $291m in just US with a budged of $225m. Compare that to Iron Man ($585m/$318m/$140m), Iron Man 2 ($623m/$312m/$200m) and Iron Man 3 ($1,215m/$409m/$200m). If anything it would have a completely opposite affect on their decision to be more dark and gritty.

In my personal opinion though, Marvel is doing their own thing and it's WB/DC that are affected by their decisions. Remember Green Lantern? That was their attempt to do lighter superhero and it failed spectacularly. That's why they decided that instead of copying Marvel they will do things in direct contrast to them and as much as I dislike MoS, it's actually a smart decision that allows them to market their movies as somehow different. Whether or not it will be a successful strategy depends on a quality of the next two movies (BvS and Suicide Squad).

As for Civil War, I like that the trailer sells it as a Captain America movie instead of Avengers 2.5, even when almost all of them will be in it. Of course that means some of them will be just background characters which may be a little jarring for the fans. And when you add three completely new characters like Black Panther, Spider-Man, Baron Zemo (unless they plan to waste him just as they did Baron von Strucker) and I'm a little worried that some will feel shoehorned into a movie even if the filmmakers had a good reason to include them. After CA:TWS I'm willing to be a little optimistic that everything will work just fine though.

Last thing, I really like how Bleeding Edge armor looks in the movie.

 

Holy shit that trailer looks fantastic.

 

I'm impressed at those IM3 earnings. Is that because it came post-Avengers?

 

Yes, though to be fair I doubt Captain or Thor would earn nearly as much even if their movie was first to be released after The Avengers.

 

EW's Captain America: Civil War cover. It must be Photoshop, but Black Panther looks better than he did in the trailer. Perhaps the one shot we got wasn't the best?

 

Not to mention Man of Steel came out after Iron Man 3. Which makes the idea that it influenced the Iron Man films rather ... baffling.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2P4DkHxXNQ

New trailer, and

Spoiler

SPIDERMAN!

 

BLACK PANTHER!

But yeah seriously, super-excited for this. Can't wait to see him in action.

 

Oops. I forgot this thread existed and posted in the other.


Pretty cool trailer. Puts a couple things in perspective, even if I think they're biting way more than they'll be able to chew with so many characters thrown in. Unless the movie is 3 hours long or something, characters like Black Panther and Spiderman will probably not be done justice in their entrance.

 

I see they're moving more and more towards the traditional spandex costumes.

 

Republic: it's going to be 147 minutes long, so not top far off.

Trailer was pretty awesome. I do wonder how that reveals going to come across in the film proper though; it worked great for a trailer money shot, but might feel a little forced in context? We'll see though. Loved the costume.

 

I honestly thought it was a fake reveal, just put together for the trailer. Tony's line would fit with that, in a tongue in cheek sort of way, and the big shot of them all running at one another shows Cap with his shield, so I figured it was a mockup of sorts that they decided to throw in instead of any actual scene (for whatever reason). They probably wouldn't go as far as to film a whole scene just for a trailer joke, though, so I don't know how that'll play out in the actual movie.