|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Jul 21, 2013 15:30:45 GMT -5
That too Kris. Like I said in my original review, MoS was "Superman Begins" and all the fanbois who got their undies in a knot about Supes breaking his "no kill" rule, well maybe he didn't HAVE that rule yet, and killing Zod was what establishes that rule. And now we have confirmation that it will be addressed.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 21, 2013 15:40:33 GMT -5
Or...movies could stand on their own a bit more and address it better then. I don't feel like I should HAVE to see the sequel to see something from the first film explained. That's just me. They could have gotten to Clark's feeling on what he had to do in MOS. It wasn't even so much the killing as the poor build up to it the poor execution and the poor aftermath. And who are all these folks who said they're sure Supes will be a government stooge?  I must have missed that part! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 15:48:53 GMT -5
ATP's reaction to the announcement  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 15:50:56 GMT -5
Is that for definite? I noticed Goyer said Superman killing Zod will be heavily addressed in the new film. But yeah, I'm just happy Superman is at least getting screen time again. As for the rest, they can go back and comfort themselves with the movies that made them believe a man could fly, according to the polls that includes all of them  Better yet Ill try to have hope for the next reboot being great. Some of us want new stuff. well you said it yourself, it's being directed by a frat boy hack and a written by a writer who's just piggybacking the second coming of God in Chris Nolan. So why bother? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 21, 2013 15:59:50 GMT -5
Better yet Ill try to have hope for the next reboot being great. Some of us want new stuff. well you said it yourself, it's being directed by a frat boy hack and a written by a writer who's just piggybacking the second coming of God in Chris Nolan. So why bother? I said the NEXT reboot Kris! The one after Snyder is done. As for Nolan if DCs new universe was so rosey and everyone was so confident they wouldn't need Nolan. Even you admitted you know why they are still slapping Nolans name on these films. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 16:03:31 GMT -5
You'll be waiting a while! yeah they slapped it on there to reel in his fanbase, who are disturbingly more and more similar to Michael Jackson's fanbase as the days go by |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 21, 2013 16:11:10 GMT -5
You'll be waiting a while! yeah they slapped it on there to reel in his fanbase, who are disturbingly more and more similar to Michael Jackson's fanbase as the days go by It's a pretty big fanbase. I'm sure WB was happy to take their billions of dollars. As for the wait there will be more than enough to occupy my time so I don't think about it. With the way Hollywood reboots now it might not be as long as you think! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 16:14:15 GMT -5
Well I suppose they did pointlessly reboot Spiderman only a decade later |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 21, 2013 16:14:39 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure why you all seem so sure that after the Superman that was presented to us in MoS--a Superman who tears a military drone out of the sky so he can't be spied on--would suddenly in his very next outing be the government stooge presented to us in TDKR. Snyder himself said it's not an adaptation of TDKR. Ain't gonna happen. Supes will be the good guy, after all it's Man of Steel 2 featuring Batman, not a Batman movie featuring Superman. This is a young Superman, and it'll be a young Batman. And they'll have that hand-shake "this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship" moment at the end. Watch the animated series World's Finest to remind yourself that Superman and Batman are usually always at odds. F*cking heck, enjoy the news you crusty codgers. It's a great time to be a Supes fan. You sound like me in the Star Wars threads trying to get people to cheer up. Good luck with that! |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 21, 2013 16:33:23 GMT -5
Well I suppose they did pointlessly reboot Spiderman only a decade later Five years after the last flick. And were getting a new Batman three after the last one. If the reboot takes longer I'll have the right to hurl my bedpan at em at least. |
|
SteveS
New Member
Posts: 1,443
|
Post by SteveS on Jul 21, 2013 16:49:41 GMT -5
Out of respect for the thread, I will leave the prequels comment alone.  Well, if the Donner films don't count then neither any of the Marvel films BEFORE Disney bought them. Superman is still DC Comics regardless of who paid for each production. In 1978, Superman was a DC Comics character. It counts as a DC movie....and it owns anything Marvel has ever done as a movie. While I disagree about Iron Man and Captain America owning Superman Returns, I will admit that those two movies are the two best of the Disney Marvel movies save for Incredible Hulk. Now if you are going into Iron Man 2 and 3 territory, those two movies were actually closer to awful than they were to Superman Returns, especially Iron Man 3. I actually see very little in terms of similarities between the Disney Marvel films and what it seems DC is trying to do now. Granted we are only 1 film into the new DC phase with MOS. But MOS is darker (the movie was dark rather than Superman himself, to be clear), more dramatic, and takes itself seriously....much like the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy. The tone of the Disney Marvel flicks is WAY different. And especially with the Iron Man films, they were trying to drop too many one liners and jokes. Iron Man 3 was literally OVERRUN with one liners and stupid gag jokes, not to mention had a stupid god awful villain(s). If DC is trying to copy anything, it is just maybe the formula of creating a universe in which they all exist, introducing each character in his own movies and gradually bringing them all together for the tentpole team up movie. The reason why they are trying to duplicate that is because of the amount of money Avengers brought in. No one can deny that. The similarities end there though. To me the X-Men films might as well be part of the DC Universe, because I like their more serious, and more intense tone. You brought up the non Disney Marvel films not me. I've always given Marvel STUDIOS the credit for their films. Disneys mostly let them do what they want. And even before that Marvel worked with the other studios who had film rights to their characters. They weren't separate. Like I said WB and DC aren't the same thing. DC has no control over what WB does. STM is a movie about a DC character distributed by WB but WB didn't make it. you're trying to lump WB and DC together in a particular way so that all their good stuff gets credit when its not that simple. We're talking about what WB is doing with DC related movies. Not DC based movies in general. I've also never given DC the blame for WBs mistakes. That wouldn't be fair. Green Lantern was clearly WBs attempt to copy Iron Man. Martin Campbell even made the comparisons. So you can't say they've never tried to copy Marvel in terms of style or tone. heck we even got the Gman and the post credits stinger which several non WB/DC movies did before WB ever did it. Green Lantern was their first attempt at an expanded universe and it failed. They're doing the current films in the Nolan style because everything else failed and Nolans films have been WBs only true mega successes. If SR or GL had been huge hits their film universe may have been in the style of those movies. This isn't a case of WB being creative and being realistic and gritty. It's a case of them going with what's safe. That didn't take any kind of artistic vision or genius on the studios part. Theyre own failures trying to do something closer to what Marvel did pushed them in the direction they're going in now. What else did they have? WBs had 20 years to have a shared universe. They didn't start tripping over themselves to do it until Marvel did. It might be one that but its a huge thing that can't be overstated. Nobody had ever really done what Marvel did on the big screen before. They started into uncharted territory before they had the resources of a big company like WB or Disney behind them. And if Iron Man 3 was so bad Steve what does that make MoS. Superman I and II with a Batman Begins paintjob? With some of the thinnest character, false drama, and hollow stakes I've ever seen. It was like a video game where nothing really mattered by the end. Again, I really don't care who produced the various films. I have classified them as DC, Fox/Sony Marvel, and Disney Marvel because that is my way of identifying them and labeling them into A, B, and C categories, etc. I happen to think the films I listed earlier that fall into the DC category (everything from STM, to Batman 89, the Nolan DK films, and MOS) are better movies than movies that I identify as falling under the Disney Marvel umbrella (Thor, Iron Man, Capt America, Avengers, etc). Keep in mind not all of those movies were produced while being owned by Disney either, but again its the umbrella in which I am identifying them. If Green Lantern and its tone/style was an attempt to copy Iron Man, so be it. Its just one example, and the movie failed anyways. Other recent DC movies like MOS and TDK trilogy did not copy the tone and style of the Disney Marvel films, and were all great movies. Superman Returns didn't try to copy that style either. And Iron Man 3 WAS that bad. Turrible. MOS mops the floor with it. |
|
SteveS
New Member
Posts: 1,443
|
Post by SteveS on Jul 21, 2013 17:03:11 GMT -5
Don't get me started on Robert Downey Jr. playing Robert Downey Jr. if you catch my drift. This is pretty short sighted if you don't know the character. Yeah Downey puts a lot of himself into the role but much of who Downey is FALLS IN LINE with who Tony Stark is anyway. the biggest thing that Downey added that wasn't as prominent before was his own wiseass sense of humor. Stark was traditionally more straight laced than what Downey does but Downey nails Starks genius, his obsessive nature, and his sometimes carefree playboy attitude. Tony Stark CAN be cocky and overconfident and Downey nails that. Look at how obsessed Stark was during Armor Wars. Downey got to play a bit of that in Iron Man 1 and 3 and did a great job Plus Downeys going to understand Starks demons better than anyone. Downey knows exactly what it was like for the character of Anthony Stark when he let his addictions almost ruin his life and his career. There's a lot under the surface that Downey has to tap into and we saw that briefly in all three iron man films. Tony Stark does tend to have self destructive tendencies. Downeys just never going to get the chance to REALLY go there because this is under the Disney umbrella. Favreau got to hint at it being in the periphery in Iron Man but that's all. Sorry, its just the vibe I get when I watch the guy as Tony Stark. I never once thought, "yeah, he IS Tony Stark" in the same way that I do when I see Reeve as Superman/Clark Kent, Cavill, Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Jackman as Wolverine, or even Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Whenever I see RDJ as Stark I feel like I am watching RDJ be RDJ. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 21, 2013 17:19:46 GMT -5
This is pretty short sighted if you don't know the character. Yeah Downey puts a lot of himself into the role but much of who Downey is FALLS IN LINE with who Tony Stark is anyway. the biggest thing that Downey added that wasn't as prominent before was his own wiseass sense of humor. Stark was traditionally more straight laced than what Downey does but Downey nails Starks genius, his obsessive nature, and his sometimes carefree playboy attitude. Tony Stark CAN be cocky and overconfident and Downey nails that. Look at how obsessed Stark was during Armor Wars. Downey got to play a bit of that in Iron Man 1 and 3 and did a great job Plus Downeys going to understand Starks demons better than anyone. Downey knows exactly what it was like for the character of Anthony Stark when he let his addictions almost ruin his life and his career. There's a lot under the surface that Downey has to tap into and we saw that briefly in all three iron man films. Tony Stark does tend to have self destructive tendencies. Downeys just never going to get the chance to REALLY go there because this is under the Disney umbrella. Favreau got to hint at it being in the periphery in Iron Man but that's all. Sorry, its just the vibe I get when I watch the guy as Tony Stark. I never once thought, "yeah, he IS Tony Stark" in the same way that I do when I see Reeve as Superman/Clark Kent, Cavill, Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Jackman as Wolverine, or even Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Whenever I see RDJ as Stark I feel like I am watching RDJ be RDJ. You don't even know who tony stark is. How would you know if Downey did or didn't become the character. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 21, 2013 17:35:35 GMT -5
Again, I really don't care who produced the various films. I have classified them as DC, Fox/Sony Marvel, and Disney Marvel because that is my way of identifying them and labeling them into A, B, and C categories, etc. I happen to think the films I listed earlier that fall into the DC category (everything from STM, to Batman 89, the Nolan DK films, and MOS) are better movies than movies that I identify as falling under the Disney Marvel umbrella (Thor, Iron Man, Capt America, Avengers, etc). Keep in mind not all of those movies were produced while being owned by Disney either, but again its the umbrella in which I am identifying them. If Green Lantern and its tone/style was an attempt to copy Iron Man, so be it. Its just one example, and the movie failed anyways. Other recent DC movies like MOS and TDK trilogy did not copy the tone and style of the Disney Marvel films, and were all great movies. Superman Returns didn't try to copy that style either. And Iron Man 3 WAS that bad. Turrible. MOS mops the floor with it. I get it. In other words you have a different standard for DC Adaptations than you do for Marvel and their adaptations because its the only way you can justify what you're saying. If DC movies call under the DC umbrella why don't Marvel movies fall under a marvel umbrella? If it doesn't matter to you who produced what why are you breaking marvel adaptations up into Sony Fox and Disney? DCs not a studio. They don't make movies. Plenty of DC movies have been made by RIVAL studios so what you are saying is even more ridiculous. Fox released the 1966 Batman movie for example. MGM Released Swamp Thing. I think Tri Star distributed Supergirl after WB dropped it. Obviously you care who produced what becuse you aren't giving Marvdl films the same pass you're giving DC adaptations. As for Green Lantern the point is you're not given the whole story. The reason WB IS trying it this way is becuse the first time they tried the Marvel studios way they failed miserably. Marvel got it right in the first try. WBs doing what they're doing now becuse its all they got. Not because they wanted to be different from Marvel. If it had worked they'd have gladly copied Marvel. SR was closer to what many marvel films did than MOS. TDK trilogy was also stand alone so it doesn't count in this discussion. It was never intended to build anything beyond a Batman world. As for MOS vs IM 3...IM3 kicked its ass with critics, at the box office, and with a LOT of fans. It's obvious which one mopped the floor with the other. |
|
SteveS
New Member
Posts: 1,443
|
Post by SteveS on Jul 21, 2013 17:44:39 GMT -5
Sorry, its just the vibe I get when I watch the guy as Tony Stark. I never once thought, "yeah, he IS Tony Stark" in the same way that I do when I see Reeve as Superman/Clark Kent, Cavill, Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Jackman as Wolverine, or even Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Whenever I see RDJ as Stark I feel like I am watching RDJ be RDJ. You don't even know who tony stark is. How would you know if Downey did or didn't become the character. Dude, chill the fuck out. Its just the vibe I get when I watch it. If you don't get that vibe, then fine go enjoy it. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 21, 2013 17:46:05 GMT -5
Personally, I didn't have a problem with Supes developing his 'no kill' rule, I just wish it was done better--- (and clearer) in its presentation. The manner in which it was done in Byrne's version I thought was done in a much more powerful way and wish that- if they were going to pick another way to execute (excuse the pun) the same idea, that it be as good as a way it was done before. In any case- at least it's people who genuinely love comics working on the sequel. If it leads to a full-costumed Legion film or appearance, I feel it'll be worth it.... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 21, 2013 17:58:30 GMT -5
You don't even know who tony stark is. How would you know if Downey did or didn't become the character. Dude, chill the fuck out. Its just the vibe I get when I watch it. If you don't get that vibe, then fine go enjoy it. LOL. Steve looking to save face. I'm chilled out just fine. I made a statement you don't like or cant respond to so now you play wounded. If you know just say so. Your argument is half assed and you know it. The vibe? Youre way off so you're trying to make up some excuse for why he didn't fit the part. If you don't have a clue about who Stark is as a character how do you get a vibe? A vibe you didn't like it maybe. I get that. but that doesn't mean Downey wasnt a great Stark in his own way. If he wasnt Tony Stark please describe Tony Stark for us, Dooku. I guess some of us don't know. |
|
SteveS
New Member
Posts: 1,443
|
Post by SteveS on Jul 21, 2013 17:58:50 GMT -5
Again, I really don't care who produced the various films. I have classified them as DC, Fox/Sony Marvel, and Disney Marvel because that is my way of identifying them and labeling them into A, B, and C categories, etc. I happen to think the films I listed earlier that fall into the DC category (everything from STM, to Batman 89, the Nolan DK films, and MOS) are better movies than movies that I identify as falling under the Disney Marvel umbrella (Thor, Iron Man, Capt America, Avengers, etc). Keep in mind not all of those movies were produced while being owned by Disney either, but again its the umbrella in which I am identifying them. If Green Lantern and its tone/style was an attempt to copy Iron Man, so be it. Its just one example, and the movie failed anyways. Other recent DC movies like MOS and TDK trilogy did not copy the tone and style of the Disney Marvel films, and were all great movies. Superman Returns didn't try to copy that style either. And Iron Man 3 WAS that bad. Turrible. MOS mops the floor with it. I get it. In other words you have a different standard for DC Adaptations than you do for Marvel and their adaptations because its the only way you can justify what you're saying. If DC movies call under the DC umbrella why don't Marvel movies fall under a marvel umbrella? If it doesn't matter to you who produced what why are you breaking marvel adaptations up into Sony Fox and Disney? DCs not a studio. They don't make movies. Plenty of DC movies have been made by RIVAL studios so what you are saying is even more ridiculous. Fox released the 1966 Batman movie for example. MGM Released Swamp Thing. I think Tri Star distributed Supergirl after WB dropped it. Obviously you care who produced what becuse you aren't giving Marvdl films the same pass you're giving DC adaptations. As for Green Lantern the point is you're not given the whole story. The reason WB IS trying it this way is becuse the first time they tried the Marvel studios way they failed miserably. Marvel got it right in the first try. WBs doing what they're doing now becuse its all they got. Not because they wanted to be different from Marvel. If it had worked they'd have gladly copied Marvel. SR was closer to what many marvel films did than MOS. TDK trilogy was also stand alone so it doesn't count in this discussion. It was never intended to build anything beyond a Batman world. As for MOS vs IM 3...IM3 kicked its ass with critics, at the box office, and with a LOT of fans. It's obvious which one mopped the floor with the other. Why do I separate The Fox/Sony Marvel flicks from the Disney ones? Because for whatever reason, I happen to enjoy most of the Sony/Fox movies a lot more than I have enjoyed the Disney ones generally speaking and that is my way of identifying them. Because I want to try to be an equal opportunity studio classifier, I will go ahead and separate the DC movies into two categories of the good DC flicks (STM, SII, Batman 89, MOS, SR, TDK trilogy, etc) and the shitty DC flicks (Green Lantern, Catwoman, Ghost Rider, etc). That way we have categories for both DC and Marvel. I still stand firm that IM3 was awful and is not in the same league as MOS....period. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 21, 2013 18:02:34 GMT -5
Personally, I didn't have a problem with Supes developing his 'no kill' rule, I just wish it was done better--- (and clearer) in its presentation. The manner in which it was done in Byrne's version I thought was done in a much more powerful way and wish that- if they were going to pick another way to execute (excuse the pun) the same idea, that it be as good as a way it was done before. In any case- at least it's people who genuinely love comics working on the sequel. If it leads to a full-costumed Legion film or appearance, I feel it'll be worth it.... Exactly. Dark Knight did a better job exploring the issue wether Batman ended up killing or not. They didn't just tac it on at the end then expect everyone to pony up for the sequel to have if be explored. If Supermans going to learn something from killing have him express something about it in this flick then pick up from there.. MOS tossed over so much time so lazily so they wouldn't have to address a lot of things. Easy way out. |
|
SteveS
New Member
Posts: 1,443
|
Post by SteveS on Jul 21, 2013 18:06:24 GMT -5
Dude, chill the fuck out. Its just the vibe I get when I watch it. If you don't get that vibe, then fine go enjoy it. LOL. Steve looking to save face. I'm chilled out just fine. You're argument is half assed and you know it. The vibe? Youre way off so you'r trying to make up some excuse for why he didn't fit the part. If you don't have a clue about who Stark is as a character how do you get a vibe? A vibe you didn't like it maybe. I get that. but that doesn't mean Downey wasnt a great Stark in his own way. If he wasnt Tony Stark please describe Tony Stark for us, Dooku. I guess some of us don't know. Oh so I guess just because I am not a Tony Stark expert, I guess I am not allowed having an opinion. For your information, anytime someone watches a movie, TV show....anything that involves actors acting in roles, you form an opinion of that performance. You don't need to have any expert knowledge beforehand of the background of that character to have an opinion. I have seen Downey plenty of other times in interviews, at awards shows, on TV appearances, in other movies, etc to come to a conclusion that I feel like he is just playing himself or not. That is the way it feels to me when I watch it. If you have a problem with that enough to continually hound me about my own opinion in this thread, then you need to get a life. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 21, 2013 18:21:33 GMT -5
LOL. Steve looking to save face. I'm chilled out just fine. You're argument is half assed and you know it. The vibe? Youre way off so you'r trying to make up some excuse for why he didn't fit the part. If you don't have a clue about who Stark is as a character how do you get a vibe? A vibe you didn't like it maybe. I get that. but that doesn't mean Downey wasnt a great Stark in his own way. If he wasnt Tony Stark please describe Tony Stark for us, Dooku. I guess some of us don't know. Oh so I guess just because I am not a Tony Stark expert, I guess I am not allowed having an opinion. For your information, anytime someone watches a movie, TV show....anything that involves actors acting in roles, you form an opinion of that performance. You don't need to have any expert knowledge beforehand of the background of that character to have an opinion. I have seen Downey plenty of other times in interviews, at awards shows, on TV appearances, in other movies, etc to come to a conclusion that I feel like he is just playing himself or not. That is the way it feels to me when I watch it. If you have a problem with that enough to continually hound me about my own opinion in this thread, then you need to get a life. Well then tell me who is Tony Stark? And like I asked before how do you know Downey isn't naturally a lot LIKE Tony Stark anyway? You don't. Maybe Downey is often playing himself...but maybe thats becuase he has quite a few things in common with the character. Maybe that's why he was such a good choice and has been so successful in the role. Shocking no? I ain't hounding you. Just pointing out how blind you are to that possibly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 18:29:32 GMT -5
However any of this goes, it's gonna be something we have never seen in live action. Batman and Superman. Together. My God. I can't fucking wait.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 21, 2013 18:43:36 GMT -5
It's new On film anyway. Too bad WB couldn't get up off their ass before but its still new. If WB had a better track record I might care more but there's plenty of other cool shit out that year. I'm not even a huge Star Wars fan but what we might potentially see puts a MUCH bigger smile on my face.
|
|
SteveS
New Member
Posts: 1,443
|
Post by SteveS on Jul 21, 2013 19:35:01 GMT -5
Oh so I guess just because I am not a Tony Stark expert, I guess I am not allowed having an opinion. For your information, anytime someone watches a movie, TV show....anything that involves actors acting in roles, you form an opinion of that performance. You don't need to have any expert knowledge beforehand of the background of that character to have an opinion. I have seen Downey plenty of other times in interviews, at awards shows, on TV appearances, in other movies, etc to come to a conclusion that I feel like he is just playing himself or not. That is the way it feels to me when I watch it. If you have a problem with that enough to continually hound me about my own opinion in this thread, then you need to get a life. Well then tell me who is Tony Stark? And like I asked before how do you know Downey isn't naturally a lot LIKE Tony Stark anyway? You don't. Maybe Downey is often playing himself...but maybe thats becuase he has quite a few things in common with the character. Maybe that's why he was such a good choice and has been so successful in the role. Shocking no? I ain't hounding you. Just pointing out how blind you are to that possibly. For your information, I have a good friend at work who absolutely jizzes all over anything Avengers/Iron Man/Marvel related. When Avengers came out, the next morning after he saw it at the midnight screening he said, "out of a 10, this movie is a 15!" I mean he is a nut for those movies. Even he said one time when we were talking about comic book movies that he actually loves the character of Tony Stark in the Iron Man movies because its just RDJ acting like RDJ, only he thinks he is a bad ass....whereas I am not as impressed by it. I know nothing about the character of Tony Stark in the comics. I only know that to me (and apparently my die hard Marvel fan friend), RDJ acts like himself as Stark. If it just so happens that character of Stark is JUST like Downey in real life, that still doesn't make me like it anymore. I guess I just don't like character because it rubs me the wrong way. Deal with it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 19:47:15 GMT -5
First Iron Man film is superb.
But i'm not a fan of the character in general and I couldn't see myself watching either of the sequels again.
|
|
