2008. A very different time. A time where movie tickets were much cheaper than what they were now, YouTube was still very young and there weren't multiple spoiler trailers before actually seeing the movie.
It was also the advent of Marvel Studios wanting to tell the stories of their characters and wanting to capitalise on the popularity of Superhero movie franchises since the success of the X-Men, Batman & Spider-Man series, respectively, had reaped the rewards from the Box Office. (although, I'm still iffy on Spider-Man 3. Especially that "Spider-swagger" scene....eugh!)
Before the 1st Cinematic release of Iron Man, the character was pretty much a B-List superhero that was not held in the same regard as that of Spider-Man, Batman or Superman.
What I think made this movie work so well is the charismatic performance of Robert Downey Jnr as the titular character and his alter-ego, Tony Stark. A Billionaire weapons industrialist. It should be noted that RDJ had overcome a lot in the years leading up to the debut MCU movie when he got himself clean and sober from his drug addiction, in which, there's a scene in which he's eating a Cheeseburger from Burger King, and it was a burger that made him quit drugs because he came to the realisation that if he couldn't enjoy a burger whilst under the influence then what was the point.
Downey is what I like to think of as a man that has achieved redemption when no one would hire him for any movie after being black-listed until Mel Gibson hired for the singing detective, which then opened the doors for him to be accepted for more work to when he was cast as Iron Man. He had said that he had always wanted to do a Marvel movie after being impressed with movies like Spider-Man and wanted to do it whilst he was still able to as he was 42 years young at the time of doing the first movie.
It is often said, that there's a blurred line between the actor and the character. I think that is thought because Robert gives such an honest charismatic performance that's almost like he's just being himself on set.
Because Charisma is not something you can teach. You can nurture it. But you're either born with it or you're not. And Downey was certainly born with it. He carries himself as Stark with a lot of charm. There are times where the character raises an eyebrow, but he does it in such a way where it's charming that you don't mind it.
Visually, I think the film makers made the movie at the right time because visual effects had advanced more than enough to make a convincing Iron Man movie that would not be perceived as looking fake. Industrial Light & Magic were chosen well to do the majority of the Visual effects. And given their resume of doing visual effects well from Terminator 2 to the Jurassic Park Trilogy, you knew you were going to get your money's worth and then some.
Also, there's this misconception that CG is classed as a special effect. First off, a special effect is something that is done practically on-set. Whether it be a miniature or an explosion.
A VISUAL EFFECT is something that is done in Post-Production where the CG characters/Vehicles/Creatures are added into the movie. So if you look at Jurassic Park for example; the final battle between the T-Rex and the Velocirpators is an example of Post-Production Visual Effects due to the fact they were full-motion dinosaurs that practical animatronics would not be able to perform due to the unrestricted movement they would be using, whereas an animatronic would be set up on a rig being controlled off-set by remote control. That said; there is an advantage with a practical animatronic as the actor's performance would be more reactive and genuine as they're reacting to what's in front of them as opposed to using their imagination to something that's not even there. There are pros and cons to both sides. But they both balance out in regards to what you're looking for from the performance of the movie.
Same thing with Green Screen work. This much I know from doing my own work for various videos for movie reviews and other Vlogs.
There had been plans to make the movie back in the 1990s at 20th Century Fox that would have seen Tom Cruise as Iron Man. Hey, I got love for Tom Cruise. Fantastic, gifted, charismatic actor. But he's not Tony Stark.
There are only certain people that are made for the roles that they were cast in.
Johnny Depp was born to play Captain Jack Sparrow because his performance was so natural, Steve Austin was the best man to bring the character of Stone Cold Steve Austin to life. David Hasselhoff was Thee man to be Michael Knight, Michael J.Fox is the only who can play Marty McFly and Robert Downey Jnr was the only man that could do justice to the role of Iron Man in a live action setting - he was born to be Iron Man.
The supporting cast are impressive to this introduction to the MCU. Gwyneth Paltrow is the best Pepper Potts with her reserved, no nonsense attitude towards Tony. Her and RDJ have decent chemistry and you can feel tension between them as if they were a real couple.
Jeff "The Dude" Bridges was charming to watch as Obadiah Stane, aka The Iron Monger. He is one of the few actors that can have you rooting for him to begin with and then wanting to see him taken down when you see the heel-turn from him. And for him, it's a hard heel-turn (I use wrestling terminology as it's pretty self-explanatory) and just goes full-on sadistic in wanting to have Stark's technology as he's so impressed by the Iron Man suit believing that it should be used as a weapon rather than an instrument of peace.
However....the way that Iron Monger aspect was written was fundamentally weak as it suffers from Spider-Man 3 syndrome as the confrontation between Iron Man & Iron Monger is just shoe-horned in at the last 15-20 minutes which really cheapens the pay-off at the end of the movie.
Now, you could argue that most of the movie was spent establishing Tony as Iron Man so that we could come to know the character and see how he learns to handle his new suit and not have it feel rushed nor contrived. I get that.
But....at the same time it didn't leave much room for Iron Monger to grow in as a villain. Because one the reveal of said heel was unveiled he was only there for a coffee break. And that's something I believe Studios should learn from. If you have a throwaway villain like that, it kinda cheapens the victory for the hero and it just leaves the heel as being forgettable.
Terence Howard, I'm just going to come out with this....Don Cheadle's the better Rhodey. Terence was ok. But compared to the Cheadle (or Ice Tray if you saw him from Fresh Prince) Terence just didn't have the same presence nor charisma as Don. Cheadle made the character extreme likeable and charming. That and hearing that he wanted twice as much as RDJ for the sequel didn't help matters for him.
Paul Bettany as J.A.R.V.I.S. brings a lot of amusing moments to the movie as Stark's AI Butler and the on-board AI in Stark's tech-suit. I like to think of JARVIS if KITT from Knight Rider was in a suit. Although that said a scene involving those two would be intriguing in the future. Hey, Hollywood? There's an idea for you free-of-charge from me - an Iron Man/Knight Rider crossover.
The other good aspect. The audience feels like they are on the journey with Tony as he becomes Iron Man, with evolving and improving his suit's design and capabilities when he's looking at the flaws from the metallic Mark 2 design before applying said improvements to the iconic hot-red and gold Mark 3 design.
It should be noted that Marvel put all their eggs in the basket when making this movie because if it failed, so would they. But the risk paid off and the movie raked in $585.2 million on a budget of $140 million. This then paved the way for a reboot of the Incredible Hulk after the somewhat lukewarm reception the 2003 Ang Lee was greeted with. And then a sequel to Iron Man followed in 2010, closely followed by origin stories for Captain America & Thor which then lead into the first Avengers movie in 2012.
And in the 6 years succeeding that, we had a 3rd Iron Man, which I honestly believe to be the weakest of the trilogy. It didn't have the same pacing nor charm of the original. 2 more Thor movies, 2 Captain America sequels and 2 Guardians of the Galaxy flicks, which I was surprised at how good they were, especially Vol.2 and 2 more Avenger sequels.
And all of this....began with Iron Man. And that is why, it is still my favourite MCU movie. It was a risk-taker, it wanted to break new ground and it had the right leading man, the best director and a soundtrack to match.
Happy 10th Anniversary to the first Iron Man. Here's to another 10 years.....and hopefully Iron Man 4.
Good night, from the Knight.
Oh boy?! I have a few things to say about the final trailer for the 5th Jurassic Park Movie.
Watch the trailer and then read my comments afterwards to get the depth of where I'm going with this.
First off: you have spoiled the entire movie now, Universal. I think this is the final piece of evidence that trailers show way too much of the plot before even seeing the flicks at the Theater now.
What was believed before to be a rescue operation to preserve what was left of the various species of Dinosaurs that inhabit the ruins of Jurassic World and before that, Jurassic Park, on Isla Nublar, has now.....oh gosh! I just realised that they're now re-using plot elements from Jurassic Park: The Lost World in 1997, where the animals would be taken back to the main land and used for profit.
Granted, this time they are being sold-off to the highest bidder to use for whatever nefarious means, but the context is the same - they are not rescuing these animals to preserve their existence, they are rescuing them to save their own wallet.
And I thought it was just the WWE that were guilty of recycling stories...don't lie, you're all thinking it, lol.
And we've now seen the reveal of the Indoraptor, which Alteori have nicknamed "Ripper". Considering that this is basically a Velociraptor on steroids, that's quite apropos.
So, the movie has now been completely spoiled by seeing this final trailer.
I refer you to an article I published 3 years ago on this very website of when they were releasing too many trailers and TV spots even then in 2015 - detailing that less is more with regard to advertising your final product.
ITV Studios had the wise approach of releasing as little information as possible when handling the new Thunderbirds Are Go series. And I honestly believe that works better. We have reached a point now in media and society where we are not using our imagination nor having patience to see the final product.
If you see little at a time, ideas begin forming in our heads and we start forming scenarios of what we will likely see so that when it comes time to actually see the feature - it either meets our expectations or far-exceeds them.
That is the problem now - we can't be bothered to wait anymore.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom has 2 more months to wait until it hits Theaters this June 22, and we already know what we're going to see....
Where's the subtlety?
And for the first time on my page, I am pasting a link from my Vidme page
Oh boy! This is gonna be fun.
Just when we thought we were done with this subject, it rears it's head once more.
If Feig had said he hadn't tried hard enough then at least it would have been a humble admission. Even Joel Schummacher admitted he could have done a better job with 1997's Batman & Robin.
The actors are only as good as the director guiding them and if he's directing the best he can, then the movie will suffer and that is what occurred in this instance.
That and I've stated previously, the other reason that this tanked is because this franchise did not need a reboot. If the original had been terrible and the reboot would attempt to improve on it and make it superior then by all means have at it.
But it's like the idea of rebooting Back to the Future. You don't need to do that. Why remake/reboot a flick that is already a masterpiece? Simple. You don't.
Just because you can reboot a franchise - doesn't mean you should.
I could go into a huge summarisation on this, but the picture just speaks volumes.
I don't think any video in the 11 year history of YouTube has one trailer ever recieved this many dislikes.
But take into consideration how near and dear fans hold Ghostbusters; then it's understandable.
Like I say in the video, remaking Ghostbusters is like remaking Jurassic Park or Back to the Future - you just don't go there.
Had the original been terrible, then by all means - have at it, and make it better.
But the 1984 Original is a classic that has held up well in writing, casting and special and visual effects (small note: special effects & visual effects are not the same thing. Just leaving that there).
Hollywood's biggest problem right now is that too many Studios are relying on reboots to make some quick money rather than grounding out an original idea. In other news: the sun is bright, the sky is blue and cats meow.
Yeah, it's not breaking news in regards to that trend, but it's one that sadly does not seem to be drifting away anytime soon.
If you use Knight Rider as an example when it first came around some 34 years ago - it was it's thing own thing that set trends. Not borrowing (or copying from other trends).
Knight Rider spawned inspired shows such as Viper & Street-Hawk.
Now as to whether this Power Rangers reboot will be copying from other trends with regards to the script remains to be seen as at this moment we can only give comments on the tone of the suits which again I will repeat for posterity is that they look like the designers are borrowing from other trends.
Power Rangers need to look like Power Rangers. Not Power Rangers that are trying to desperately look like they fused with Iron Man & MegaMan.
I find it insulting that Hollywood "thinks" that we'll be just happy with a new movie that is playing it safe and reusing concepts that have been done before.
The audience will grow complacent and go elsewhere when it feels it's intelligence is being insulted/patronised.
I like it when movies take a chance and try something new and innovative that says "hey, let's step out of our comfort zone and do something that hasn't been done."
Now whilst I liked the TMNT 2 movie this year with it's fan-service to the 80's series that made my inner 9 years-young do cartwheels in excitement it's not really offering anything new.
10 Million views in two days (at the time of posting this). Now, that Warner Bros have given us something more informative in regards to this long awaited confrontation between these iconic characters on the silver screen; this has made the movie much more enticing.
The theme of a realistic story with the world reacting to Superman unclear of if he is trusted or feared is continued as you could feel the tension as he entered Congress in Washington.
Minor note: I really did not think it was necessary to acknowledge the existance of the WBC with signs displaying "GOD HATES ALIENS" in the movie as I don't think they should have any credence or acknowledgement, but that's just my opinion.
I get the impression this is how the world would react to the event of a being from the stars with abilities far exceeding that of Man realising that if they went rogue they could have a catastrophic effect on the world.
Now to Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman. I like that Bruce is a distinguished but not in the same manner as he is depicted in the Dark Knight Returns, published by Frank Miller in the late 1980's. Here, you can see that he has a mature look but looks young enough to be able to still go and be at the peak of his physical condition.
Also, and I appreciate this is a nitpick, but can Hollywood stop reminding us of Batman's origin? it comes across as insulting when even a child of today knows his beginnings. And in most moving picture adaptation producers force it down our throats. From Nolan's trilogy, Batman the Dark Knight Returns Part 1, the Batman Vs Dracula and now this.
I'm a little annoyed to see Kryptonite rear it's head again this soon. I was glad to see it's absence in Man of Steel as even with Superman Returns 7 years before in 2006 the audience had grown tired of this being Superman's Achilles heel. Granted, the radioactive piece of his homeworld is as synonymous with his story as Batman is with his mission of ridding Gotham of crime, but it's the fact that it was Warner Bros go-to for a plot device in previous movies.
in fact; 4 of the 5 movies had used it within the plot and I think that's why myself and several other fans are not too keen on seeing it's inclusion in this plot.
On a lighter note: I am really digging the Jeremy Irons incarnation of Alfred Pennyworth. Whereas Sir Michael Caine would tell stories with his wonderful performance as Batman's confidant; here, Irons seems to say little but it's to the point. And I think that's necessary sometimes with some characters to just keep it brief but be on-point.
Gal Gaddot looks good in costume as Wonder Woman. Initially I didn't think she'd sell it, but from the looks of things; she has the build to be able to pull off the Amazonian Princess.
I wasn't sure how Snyder would wet our appetites further but with this trailer; he got even us more excited for March 2016.
Day Vs Knight. Man of Steel Vs Dark Knight.
May the best man win.
I felt best to address this situation as early as possible.
I am going to have to upload Reviews from said Season on a case by case basis. Because most of those reviews are on Blip; they did allow for me to have less restrictions in regards to Fair Use/Parody/Satire clause. But youtube is a lot stricter than Blip and because I have worked so hard for years to get this Partnership with a Network I am not going to carlessly throw it away.
That said; most of the reviews when I re-upload them will either require a means of seeing if it's ok to Monetise them or not. If I can't, so be it.
Youtube has gotten a lot savvier and stricter as I've mentioned and it's just smart to approach this cautiously.
I know some of you want to see Tickets from Season 3 to emerge on the new YT Page and I will do my best to bring it there.
Thank you for your time.
Gonna be honest; I have not laughed that hard in years. This 80's satire/parody gets so many things right in 30 minutes that most action features of today fail to do in 3 movies, let alone one.
Like most cheesy action movies of the 1980's it knows it's absurd and terrible and it's in on the joke and that's where it plays to it's strengths.
I will be posting a review in the next few days. This was epic.
Ok, Hollywood; we need to talk.
Another TV spot???
We are not even at the US release date (June 11 in the UK) and we have yet another TV spot. At the rate this is going we will have seen nearly half the movie before we even set foot in the flix and see this sequel 14 years in the making to 2001's Jurassic Park 3. (If that ain't developmental hell, I don't know what is.)
OK. I like the fact that the theme and John Hammond's voice were in the TV spot (except for saying Jurassic World. That was clearly either an impersonation of Richard Attenborough or clever audio-editing) but I have to repeat what I said before; they are showing way too much way too quickly.
Have studios not learned anything from Amazing SpiderMan 2? When you show this amount of material before even going to the movie you are either desperate for the public to see it or you have no faith that the public will see it so you show as much temptation as possible just to woo the audience into seeing it.
And this is not just for Jurassic World. When you have the first 5 minutes of How to Train your Dragon 2 able to be viewed online, that is a worrying tell-tale sign.
You know who did a better job in getting people excited for a return of a popular franchise with very little teasers to get fans excited?
Thunderbirds Are Go.
All we got in December was a teaser of a distress call with the new CG Thunderbird 5 and that was it. Only in late February/early March did we start seeing more material, and they were only either 20 second reveals of each Thunderbird animated or the near 60 seconds of the new Tracy Island and other settings in the world.
And then.....on March 13 (ironically a Friday) the Full feature-length trailer was revealed on YouTube of 60 seconds of the Tracy Brothers and their respective Thunderbirds in action and that was ALL we were given until the Premiere episode on Easter Saturday April 5, 2015.
So....1 teaser. 1 Full-length trailer.
5 20 second reveals of each Thunderbird for Thunderbirds Are Go. Versus, the teaser to a teaser trailer, a teaser trailer, 5 trailers and now 8 TV spots, a featurette and 1 clip for Jurassic World.
I love the Jurassic Park series, but....this is OVER-KILL.
This is what SHOULD have been done in promoting Jurassic Park 4:
That is it.
The point of a trailer is just to give you a glimpse, a taste of what's to come so that then you go into the Theater with a blank slate and have the story and the action revealed to you in the Cinema. Not having several pieces fed to you before seeing the whole thing so by the time you do attend the showing you already know half the plot points and have a good idea of how to summarise the story.
I think Studios need to adopt the strategy of that 'Less is more'. Because if you don't think that your movie is going to be successful then what is the point of even making it?
Not to sound like a broken-record; but when you release this much material before the public even see the movie then you're clearly desperate because you're not confident it will do well.
Thank you for your time.
(c) Warner Bros Pictures/Legendary
So, we got a taster of next summer's showdown between two of the most iconic comic book heroes ever. And the trailer below was just epic
It did what I had expected that it would; it had the world reacting to Superman not knowing what to think of a man from the stars that has the superhuman abilities that he possesses and question why he is here, some to such a point that his very presence is intimidating and unwanted.
And then there's Batman. This is the very aspect of DC's Cinematic Universe that we have been waiting for since the announcement of the follow-up to 2013's Man of Steel.
Ben Affleck's Batman.
What I can tell from the shots of Affleck as Bruce Wayne and him in his Bat-suit is this is a much more jaded and grizzled Dark Knight.
I really dig the suit; it's a nice respectful nod to Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, of which this sequel is loosely based upon. I really enjoy the look of conviction and intensity in his eyes of a man that feels like another man has wandered in uninvited to his territory.
The Bat-voice that he uses is a vast improvement over the gravel Bale-Bat used from 2005-12. I like Christian Bale as a method actor, but that was one of the few aspects that did not win me over as Batman. Yes, he had the methodical and analyticall thinking down to a fine-art as Batman. But it was when he uttered lines such "WHERE ARE THE TRIGGERS, WHERE ARE THEY?" in that ridiculous gravel tone made it extremely difficult for me to take seriously.
This is where actors like Michael Keaton succeed in spades as he always kept his talking to a minimum and he didn't raise his voice. Sure, he altered his tone as the Dark Knight but considering Batman is meant to be this figure that operates from within the shadows and makes a point of being as stealth as realistically possible, it can't really be done with a voice like that.
This is a match/showdown that fans have been waiting to see on screen for decades and people have waited for far too long to let this pass any further.
We know it could have happened with Bale and Routh, but it never came to be.
For me, I have been waiting for this movie ever since I saw DCU's animated movie Batman/Superman: World's Finest in the late 90's that saw Kevin Conroy's Batman & Tim Daly's Superman square off to begin with before ultimately teaming up to defeat the dangerous combo of Mark Hamil's The Joker and Clancy Brown's Lex Luthor.
I'm hoping to have a few questions answered from this movie as we all know for those that have read Dark Knight Returns and seen the direct to home movie that Batman defeats Supes via the aid of Kryptonite. Now, since Kryptonite has yet to appear in this continuity of Superman or if at all, then what advantage does the Dark Knight have knowing he is gone one-on-one with a man that has ability to either put him in Hospital or worse.....end his career and life?
Unless it's Kryptonite or magic (yes, Superman is vulnerable to magic) then the only way Batman would stand to win against the Man of Steel is if he were to throw the fight.
Otherwise it'd be like John Cena Vs David Spade. No contest.
With a year to go before we see two iconic heroes go mono e mono, it will give fans plenty to talk about.
My movie review series