|
Robot Style posted:They actually filmed a scene for Avengers where Captain America goes to a diner and has a conversation with a waitress, and it was cut from the movie. Here's the scenes in case anyone was interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pov4qMSfg9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhV6QZfbcs0&t=39s
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I know this is a comic book thing, but I think the Earth X series had a thing about about 'guilt' was a powerful motivator for several of the MCU characters. So, we've got alleviating guilt (for problems that Stark created to maintain his life of unbelievable privilege) vs a guy consumed with revenge for a life spent on the absolute bottom of the heap. Stark hasn't gone after someone the way Vanko did because he doesn't need to. He was never consigned to a Russian gulag due to the selfishness of another man. Instead, he has lived a life as a rich, venerated man of nearly unlimited personal resources. He has, however, gone after those that have threatened his position with astonishing ruthlessness, including nuking an entire city of aliens. Going after a brainwashed man for an act committed unwillingly a couple of decades beforehand is actually entirely in character for him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
It's worth pointing out that he didn't nuke any city of aliens, he nuked an invasion force of aliens who were actively trying to take over earth at the command of another alien on the orders of a third alien. They're also all zombies as I recall, although that might be the Guardians of the Galaxy stuff. Tony Stark is not a good person, but he at least tries to do the right thing and mostly succeeds about as much as he fails to do so. Which means on average it probably all equals out to neutrality. Also often people trying to ruin his lifestyle also want to kill him or people he cares about, should he just lay down and let his friends die because they associate with him? Vanko wasn't just going after Stark, he was also lashing out at anyone nearby when he went after Stark to make a point. Regardless of how well he programmed those drones they were still causing mass panic and creating a potentially deadly situation for civilians with no relationship to Stark beyond visiting a science expo he's funded based on the fact that he's dying and he wants to leave a good legacy of helping the world into a better future instead of as a dealer of death, which he by and large still is and finds trouble stopping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:10
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Joker, Penguin, Freeze, Riddler, Ra's, Falcone, Dent, Bane and Selina Kyle aren't poor minorities. Bane is literally a latino man who has spent his entire life in prison
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:It's worth pointing out that he didn't nuke any city of aliens, he nuked an invasion force of aliens who were actively trying to take over earth at the command of another alien on the orders of a third alien. They're also all zombies as I recall, although that might be the Guardians of the Galaxy stuff. quote:Tony Stark is not a good person, but he at least tries to do the right thing and mostly succeeds about as much as he fails to do so. Which means on average it probably all equals out to neutrality. Also often people trying to ruin his lifestyle also want to kill him or people he cares about, should he just lay down and let his friends die because they associate with him? quote:Vanko wasn't just going after Stark, he was also lashing out at anyone nearby when he went after Stark to make a point. Regardless of how well he programmed those drones they were still causing mass panic and creating a potentially deadly situation for civilians with no relationship to Stark beyond visiting a science expo he's funded based on the fact that he's dying and he wants to leave a good legacy of helping the world into a better future instead of as a dealer of death, which he by and large still is and finds trouble stopping. In all three cases, he's not truly a villain, but there's enough weird little details that make him a pretty uncomfortable figure. Remember, these are not documentaries. The film makers spent a lot of time and money filming a sequence where Tony Stark flies through a huge carpark while being chased by murderbots, or unnecessarily nuked a flying city.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Fair enough, I still hold the nuke thing is a bit weird to call out considering the nuke was already in flight and it was either let all of new york be blown up or take it through to space on what was probably a suicide mission if he wasn't incredibly lucky, also they were trying to invade earth, just because they failed doesn't mean they weren't doing something villainous and they're on loan from the noted big deal Thanos from what I remember. Everything else is a good point, and Stark being a bit of a controversial hero isn't anything new so I don't really disagree there. Nuking the flying city was also kind of necessary because it was coming down no matter what and letting it come down whole kills far more than breaking it up, I'm pretty sure at least that's the in movie logic. There's so many actual examples of him being a terrible person in the movies that I find it weird people turn heroic moments into more of them is all. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Dec 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:Bane is literally a latino man who has spent his entire life in prison He is a white latino though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Except they'd already figured out how to close the portal. Stark told them to hold off in order to kill a huge number of creatures that he knew nothing about and who's attack had already been defeated. Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:Fair enough, I still hold the nuke thing is a bit weird to call out considering the nuke was already in flight and it was either let all of new york be blown up or take it through to space on what was probably a suicide mission if he wasn't incredibly lucky. This wasn't Tony's choice, it was the screenwriter's. He could have disarmed or dismantled it in no time flat. There's almost no better superhero in all of comics better suited for it, literally and figuratively. But they wanted a scene where he sacrificed himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:This is something that's really hard for me to describe because I think it goes into a lot of various levels. For all the deconstruction in pop culture that the 'heroes' are the real villains of the comic book world, it's sort of interesting how over the last several years we've started to find ways to make heroes out of the once-traditionally 'villain' characters. Or at least make them protagonists/anti-heroes compared to their typical depictions, regardless of their past behaviors. Is it a matter that after years and years of stories and continuity that no matter how much a character like Batman or Superman wants to be an unsullied and morally perfect hero, they're going to fail to be able to live up to ideals set up for them in one way or another and that makes them unheroic. The trend goes back wayyyy longer than the last few years. A bunch of superheroes turned "grim and gritty" in the 80s (and characters like Wolverine and The Punisher who had always been grim turned wayyy grimmer) and in the 90s a bunch of villains like Venom became so popular that they got their own titles and the line between anti-hero and supervillain became so blurred that villains like Deadpool could cross over and become good guys. But even before that there were villains like Catwoman who always operated in a grey area and sometimes worked with the heroes and Marvel had a whole bunch of sympathetic villains as far back as the 60s. The line between hero and villain has been blurred for a long time. But superheroes have always operated in a morally/ethically grey area. They're vigilantes, after all, who operate outside the law. It's just that the earliest comics presented them as morally upright do-gooders who fought against unquestionably evil people and glossed over the annoying moral questions and that pretty much set the tone for the genre for decades. Some of the early comic book superheroes like Stardust the Super Wizard were positively psychotic in the brutal way they punished evil-doers but were still presented as unquestionably good, which looks pretty odd when we look back on it now. The recent trend of turning villains like Harley Quinn into protagonists is just the natural outcome of many decades of comic book evolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Lobok posted:This wasn't Tony's choice, it was the screenwriter's. He could have disarmed or dismantled it in no time flat. There's almost no better superhero in all of comics better suited for it, literally and figuratively. But they wanted a scene where he sacrificed himself. That would've actually made for quite an interesting scene, if whilst it's in flight he tries to disarm/dismantle it and realises he can't for whatever reason, maybe his suit optics/motors got dinged up in the fight and then realizes he has to sacrifice himself. It'd certainly fit more for him to at least try every other option before he kills himself to save people, as I actually find the self-sacrificial thing doesn't work with him as much as it does Thor or Captain America. I mean this is also a bit of an awkward point to bring up because the screenwriter's wrote it as what Tony chose to do, so they could've written something different and didn't and thus it's hard to argue against the potential for that scene, as we will likely never see such potential realized. He did technically make a similar decision earlier with less dire consequences when he manually started pushing the Helicarrier Engines but I don't actually think he thought that would go wrong at all, whereas taking a nuke through a portal into space will always go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Lobok posted:This wasn't Tony's choice, it was the screenwriter's. He could have disarmed or dismantled it in no time flat. There's almost no better superhero in all of comics better suited for it, literally and figuratively. But they wanted a scene where he sacrificed himself. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:Fair enough, I still hold the nuke thing is a bit weird to call out considering the nuke was already in flight and it was either let all of new york be blown up or take it through to space on what was probably a suicide mission if he wasn't incredibly lucky, also they were trying to invade earth, just because they failed doesn't mean they weren't doing something villainous and they're on loan from the noted big deal Thanos from what I remember. Everything else is a good point, and Stark being a bit of a controversial hero isn't anything new so I don't really disagree there. Nuking the flying city was also kind of necessary because it was coming down no matter what and letting it come down whole kills far more than breaking it up, I'm pretty sure at least that's the in movie logic. What do you mean 'coming down not matter what?' If you're referring to the flying city, they'd already figured out how to close the portal. they specifically held off on closing it so Stark could send the nuke through and make sure it hit. They wrote a bomb into the movie, then had Stark, needing to get rid of a bomb, send it into a flying city he knew nothing about after they'd already won. While he's in a flying suit loaded with weapons and the ability to hack pretty much anything. If he had no other choice (which isn't true) it's because they wrote him with no other choice, and didn't even do that. greatn posted:Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb! A scene of Tony Stark flying the nuke to various parts of the city, only to be blocked by ducks, nuns and old people would have been great. Lobok posted:This wasn't Tony's choice, it was the screenwriter's. He could have disarmed or dismantled it in no time flat. There's almost no better superhero in all of comics better suited for it, literally and figuratively. But they wanted a scene where he sacrificed himself. The best part is they needed the bomb to up the stakes or put a clock on the action scene, since by that point the Avengers had effortlessly killed about 700 aliens. Otherwise, the only tension comes from 'well, sure, they've handled 700, but maybe 800 will be too many.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Oh wait there's a flying city in the Avengers 1? I was just talking about Avengers 2 where they have to break up the city before it hits the earth, my bad. I don't actually remember there being much beyond the portal in Avengers 1 but more invading aliens. Having just watched the scene again it's a giant spaceship like the one Ronan flies around in in Guardians of the Galaxy, which suggests to me it's the invader's main ship/base and thus a valid target when they started the invasion in the first place, not a nice one all told but I'm pretty sure the intention is he's taking out the mothership using what just about everyone believes is a suicide attack. But yeah there's a bunch of other ways he could've handled the nuke and the fact he goes for the one that does the most damage to his current enemies could be seen as very telling of who he ultimately is as a person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:That's wrong, Stark is clearly different in each movie. At the very least you should be able to admit that there is a difference between Stark flipping off Congress at the beginning of Iron Man 2 and Stark championing the Sokovia accords at the beginning of CACW. Or the Stark enjoying his celebrity at the beginning of IM2 and the Stark who spends all the time in his basement coming up with an Iron Man suit for every eventuality at the beginning of IM3 Tony lies, and the movies show this quite bluntly. In Iron Man he announces that he's going to stop manufacturing weapons. Pretty soon you see him in his garage, making new and better weapons. The only thing that's changed his that these weapons are only for Tony and Tony's best friend. All he learned from being literally hoist by his own petard is that if he sells weapons, those weapons might be turned against him. So instead, he's going to sell energy, which will only make the world more dependent on him. In Civil War, Tony only supports the Sokovia Accords because he knows they're bullshit. Hell, they're a cover. He already has the tacit approval of the United Nations, the DoD, etc. to operate the Avengers as a corporate paramilitary squad, or the Avengers as an organization would have died with SHIELD. But they can't afford the appearance of just permitting and ignoring his immense gently caress-ups. So he joins the system, confident that he can coopt and manipulate it to his ends, and violate the letter and the spirit of the Accords the moment it suits him. Then he does exactly that. The "tragedy" of his disagreement with Rogers is really just a farce--the different between them is that Captain America is a loving idiot, but he's a principled loving idiot. He's openly in favour of a corporate army waging a private war whenever and wherever it suits him, and he refuses to disguise his actions by making nice with the establishment he doesn't quite seem to realize he's joined. So, back to Vanko. Vanko does not just want to murder Tony Stark because Tony Stark is Howard Stark's son. He wants to expose Tony as the leader of a brutal system of violence and slavery--and as a man who can't be trusted to realize America's Tom Clancy fantasies. Maybe assassinate him in the bargain, too. If Ivan can show up and whip Tony's rear end with Tony's own tech, so can a Chinese or Iranian guy. quote:Tony: Pretty decent tech. Cycles per second were a little low. You could have doubled up your rotations. You focused the repulsor energy through ionised plasma channels. It’s effective. Not very efficient. But it’s a passable knock-off. I don’t get it. A little fine tuning you could have made a solid pay check. You could have sold it to North Korea, China, Iran, or gone onto the black market. You look like you got friends in low places. Tony is confused that Ivan's first impulse isn't to sell weapons technology to North Korea. (Also, selling superweapons to North Korea isn't "black market" by his standards.) Tony Stark is my new favourite supervillain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
No wonder Batfleck was such a psycho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
With just those frw lines, Vanko makes the top three of the Marvel villains. There's something there, we clearly don't get the full stury. Edit: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.overthinkingit.com/2010/05/19/iron-man-2-wagner-fisher-king/amp/ MonsieurChoc fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Dec 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
For a movie about a guy in a power suit who's terminally ill dealing with his cold war doppelganger, super spies and a millitaristic rival, Iron Man 2 is amazingly dull.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:For a movie about a guy in a power suit who's terminally ill dealing with his cold war doppelganger, super spies and a millitaristic rival, Iron Man 2 is amazingly dull. At least theres not a Darcy. Also, loving the recent discussion in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:For a movie about a guy in a power suit who's terminally ill dealing with his cold war doppelganger, super spies and a millitaristic rival, Iron Man 2 is amazingly dull. I mean, it has Justin Hammer. And he's one of the best villains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Savidudeosoo posted:I mean, it has Justin Hammer. And he's one of the best villains. He really should be. But somehow isn't. In one of the undoubtedly many rewrites that movie went through, or in one of the many cases where they mashed multiple scripts together, he got utterly defanged and is about as big a threat as the child in Iron Man 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:He really should be. But somehow isn't. In one of the undoubtedly many rewrites that movie went through, or in one of the many cases where they mashed multiple scripts together, he got utterly defanged and is about as big a threat as the child in Iron Man 3. Nah he's supposed to be personally fangless. It looks like they're pulling off the old Batman trope where each of Iron Man's enemies represents a twisted/mirrored aspect of his own psyche so I suppose Hammer reflects Tony's "Egotist who thinks he's in control but actually just sets much worse things in motion" aspect. The horrific thing about him is that he's the kind of guy who's happy to unleash people like Vanko on the worlbut never tries to fix his mistakes after it all inevitably goes wrong. Tony makes similarly egotistical shortsighted mistakes but for him they lead into resolutions and character arcs butyou know Hammer is just going to do the same poo poo over and over and never learn. Of course the subsequent MCU films couldn't help but return to the well and have Tony make pretty much the same lovely mistakes again and again which completely dilutes any previous arc he may have gone through but I guess they're hoping you don't see the trees for the forest. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Stark invents repulsor technology and has the vision to transition from lucrative weapons into even more lucrative clean energy. Hammer gets his hands on alien tech and thinks about how to improve his existing weapons business. Tony Stark is the idealized version of the philosophy libertarians see when they look in the mirror. Justin Hammer is what everyone else sees when they look at a libertarian. It's John Galt vs Peter Thiel. Gyges fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Dec 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
This thread made me rewatch Iron Man 2, and I would like to point out how Tony's reaction to the Sokovian Accords is foreshadowed by him giving Rhodes, and by extension the military, the War Machine suit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:That's his PTSD from the time he was briefly in danger as he unnecessarily rendered a species extinct with a nuclear weapon, the very symbol of his father's war profiteering. It's consistent with a completely selfish view of the world that focuses on the impact to oneself and not others. It's as much a character change as the last 10 minutes of American Sniper. At this point I shouldn't even bother, but where are you getting this stuff? That's not what happens in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:At this point I shouldn't even bother, but where are you getting this stuff? That's not what happens in the movie. Seriously, if you have any sentience whatsoever and you commit your entire species into an invasion force, you deserve to be wiped out due to your sheer stupidity. Tony Stark is a hero.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:This thread made me rewatch Iron Man 2, and I would like to point out how Tony's reaction to the Sokovian Accords is foreshadowed by him giving Rhodes, and by extension the military, the War Machine suit. Yep! It really sticks out. The relationship is fine because they're best friends. That's how conflicts are presented in these movies, differences based on whether or not two people are friends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Here's the scenes in case anyone was interested I wish they'd kept this in. Made it less like action figures smashing together, and its nice to see things from a civilian's point of view. Avengers is a bit toothless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
I mean sort of a recurring theme is Tony Stark trying to find people worthy of the power his weapons grant, note that in later movies the War Machine suit actually works completely and has far heaver visible weapons than the Iron Man suit, which suggest Tony Stark trusts Rhodes with more dangerous gear than he trusts himself with.HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yep! It really sticks out. The relationship is fine because they're best friends. That's how conflicts are presented in these movies, differences based on whether or not two people are friends. Also differences based on how deep the friendship goes, because Loki and Thor were raised as brothers and Thor seems to want that sense of brotherhood back, even if it was for the most part false in the last few centuries. Meanwhile Steve is friends with Tony but best friends with Bucky and thus will always choose Bucky over Tony given the choice. Tony meanwhile doesn't necessarily understand the idea of different levels of friendship, and just thinks that everyone who is his friend deserves cool stuff, hence why he develops gear for the other Avengers, as he has no friends or positive relationships outside those he pays or works with as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
They've Tony go through the same arc so many times, it's like a perpetuum mobile. If they could only figure out a way to convert all that walking back into energy, they could build some sort of... arc reactor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yep! It really sticks out. The relationship is fine because they're best friends. That's how conflicts are presented in these movies, differences based on whether or not two people are friends. As I said in the Civil War thread, you will never see an alternate-history movie where Truman fires MacArthur, and MacArthur responds by taking control of the entire USAFFE and wages a private war against Japan. And then MacArthur's army fights the United States, but it's all cleared up when MacArthur writes Truman a personal letter. That's a ludicrous idea, but it's essentially the same story logic we're presented with in Civil War. I wish that I could say I believe that this is merely an unfortunate emergent phenomena--because it's hard for writers/producers to keep poo poo straight across a franchise universe, and because audiences are lazy and childish and enjoy platitudes about the power of friendship or whatever. Both those things might be true. But the truth is much worse. The MCU reflects the ideology of our time and takes it a step further. It says that policy, culture, history isn't made by the people. It's made by ultra-powerful people like Rupert Murdoch, Warren Jeffs, Mark Zuckerberg, Donald Trump, and Tony Stark. Tony and Steve are utter loving douchebags--their personal flaws are on full display. But that's okay, or at least, it's tolerable. Because the alternative is being conquered by the Purple Space Jew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
In Civil War at the beginning we learn Stark is working on this extreme memory altering software or whatever that we can assume will be used on him at some point like he wants to or on Bucky since Bucky's now hanging out with Black Panther and obviously doesn't want to be beholden to people speaking whatever other kill phrases are in his head. I'm curious to see how that plays out or if they just forget all of it by the time another movie happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
I thought it was just memory recreation and simulation software, where you could alter the simulation
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:I mean sort of a recurring theme is Tony Stark trying to find people worthy of the power his weapons grant, note that in later movies the War Machine suit actually works completely and has far heaver visible weapons than the Iron Man suit, which suggest Tony Stark trusts Rhodes with more dangerous gear than he trusts himself with. No, War Machine has a bunch of guns and poo poo that look imposing but are inferior to Tony's super tech weapons. It's a melding of Stark and Hammer tech, and inferior. Tony is a hyper tech genius who is so sure of himself he doesn't need anything but what he's built. Meanwhile Rhodey isn't as smart nor does he have full confidence in Tony, so he's got impressive looking but less effective "primitive" weapons. Iron Man is about having the most sleek, elegant design possible. As relatively unimposing as an armored suit that flies with lasers can be. War Machine is about having a bulky, intimidating design. As imposing as possible. Because Tony would like to show off and then glib his way out of a situation while Rhodes wants to scare you into stopping the fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
One thing I find interesting is how the importance of the arc reactor is overlooked entirely. A box the size of a fist can produce nigh limitless power! Infinite clean energy is at his fingertips and he uses it to makes weapons! Why is the entire world not running on arc reactors? Offer the world clean limitless energy and you have done nore for world peace than all nobel prize winners combined. And the US army just wants the god drat suit, and don't care about the larger prize.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
But then the parasites of society would have energy. Can't have that, people need strong work ethics or else they become lazy and undeserving
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
McCloud posted:One thing I find interesting is how the importance of the arc reactor is overlooked entirely. A box the size of a fist can produce nigh limitless power! Infinite clean energy is at his fingertips and he uses it to makes weapons! Why is the entire world not running on arc reactors? Offer the world clean limitless energy and you have done nore for world peace than all nobel prize winners combined. And the US army just wants the god drat suit, and don't care about the larger prize. Iron Man 1 specifically says that Arc Reactors don't scale or some poo poo. The point is that it's horrendously advanced/expensive to run them, they're not actually the future of energy. Of course, in practice, HELL YES they are! Edit: I found the dialog in question: quote:STANE: The arc reactor, that's a publicity stunt! Tony, come on. We built that thing to shut the hippies up! Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Dec 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yep! It really sticks out. The relationship is fine because they're best friends. That's how conflicts are presented in these movies, differences based on whether or not two people are friends. While this is true, the film is not irredeemable. As Halloween Jack notes, Rhodes and Stark are the embodiments of Military and Industry, and the name of their friendship is the Military-Industrial Complex. Literally, their names are War Machine and Iron Monger: "we're iron mongers; we make weapons." (Stark simply changed his identity from 'Iron Monger' to the more sanitary 'Iron Man' for marketing purposes.) So Iron Man 2 ends with the two united as friends by the threat of egalitarian justice/vengeance, posed by Vanko. (The joke is that Tony and Rhodes naturally hate eachother, and shouldn't be friends. Their friendship is a business arrangement.) MCU just gets stupid when this embodiment of Industry the robotic embodiment of New-Agey Westernized Buddhism, which 'malfunctions' because it falls in love. So love cripples the War Machine, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Iron Man 1 specifically says that Arc Reactors don't scale or some poo poo. The point is that it's horrendously advanced/expensive to run them, they're not actually the future of energy. I thought Tony fixed that problem
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Iron Man 1 specifically says that Arc Reactors don't scale or some poo poo. The point is that it's horrendously advanced/expensive to run them, they're not actually the future of energy. Gotta point out yet again that the comic books figured this out years ago by giving all the guys who could easily change the world for the better but don't membership in the Illuminati.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:37
|
|