5/7/08 12:29 pm - Ironman, the rebuttal
This entry seems to be long awaited, although it's only been 2 days. It seems that I am the only contrarian here. I have indeed attracted a plethora of responses saying how wrong I am. Fortunately for all of you, I am going to stand up against your combined intellectual might in movie selection and taste.
The claim that he is relatable simply because he used to have a meaningless life but somehow reformed into a redeeming superhero is somewhat shallow. I find several problem with it. First, the transformation is not convincing. The few lines of dialogue between him and the poor bloke who helped him escape was not entirely indicative the shift in character that he must have to undergo in order to facilitate this life-changing decision. As far as I can see all that he got from the POW camp was a few beatings, and they couldn't even do too much to him because they had to be careful not to disconnect his heart. I mean, his torturers didn't even bother making him the cockmeat sandwich. Now that would make any man rethink his life. Secondly, just because some shallow asshole thinks he's reformed does not make him less of a douche. If Paris Hilton says that she were to change her clothing to biodegradable materials from second hand stores, would that make you like her? One prime example, is how Avril Levigne is no longer a wannabe punk-ass rebel, but still nobody likes her. At the end of the movie when he just goes out to tell everyone he's ironman shows little regards he has towards the people around him, namely pepper. This "reformed" Ironhead left his assistant alone and completely forgets about her, and yet expects her to do him later. I understand people want to think that he has grown that respect-for-fellow-human-being sense through the fighting and the imprisonment, but he just fails. To say he is not lucky is like saying the war in Iraq is not about oil, just too obvious to work. I have to disagree with the being the lonely guy on top thing. You see, Superman as nerdy news guy, relatable, Spiderman is a nerdy loser, that's relatable as well, the hulk has anger issues and unhappy childhood, that's relatable, batman got scarred in the bat cave and has his parents shot dead in front of him, less relatable but still reasonable. V's experience is less common, but the movie spent quite some time exploring his past, in fact the entire movie is about his past, so that one can go too. Now Ironman, just because he inherited a bunch of money doesn't mean that he has to be a brat with an empty life. I mean, how is that different from Paris Hilton, Kelly Osborne, George W Bush, or Ashley Simpson? Just because it does happen doesn't mean we can relate to it. The hulk is so much more than just a regular superhero movie, I don't see how you can compare it to Ironman. I enjoyed the hulk very much as well, I agree with Eugene on that movie completely.
On a side note, I have to say that the romance scenes in this movie are not awkward, which is very rare in superhero movies. Pepper is a good character, I was worried the actress might mess it up, but she didn't. I was actually hoping for some Sky Captain-esq comments from her, but that's missing, which is alright, it works in this film.
You see, when you are a manufacturing giant employing hundreds of thousands of people, you cannot just change your operations overnight. If you could then tomorrow you might expect General Motors to stop making cars and start making organic vegetables. It just doesn't work. In order to start a new production line, new products needs to be developed, tested, redeveloped, and tested again, and then the tools for production has to be made, factories built, people trained, before the very first unit can be delivered to the distribution chain, which would be entirely uncertain compared to the solid government contracts they're used to having. While it might work, it is certain to entail hundreds of millions of lost production hours and opportunity costs and investments which may or may not be paid back. So who is going to compensate for all the workers who wont get paid? Who is going to pay for the Medicare of the factory janitor when entire plants shut down? I am inclined to think that it will not be Ironhead. Now, if you were a reckless Ironhead, this might sound entirely reasonable, but if you're somebody with common sense and a fortune to wager on, then, perhaps, the reasonable thing to do is to remove the Ironhead and continue on your merry way to make money. This way everybody gets healthcare, everybody gets paid, no one is laid off, and things goes along their happy axis. I agree with you that it is his company and his to do as he pleases, but if he just follows his whims without regards to corporate citizenship, pretty soon he start sounding like the Walmart regional manager who move the stores a few blocks away so he can get lower taxes and encourage his employee to go on welfare so he doesn't have to pay so much. I also believe that the capable and the competent should be rewarded financially, however, their rewards should be based on merit, as in how much the society benefit from their excellence, rather than how many government contracts they can squeeze out of taxpayer's money. While our world is clearly moving in the direction favoring the biggest brain, the biggest gun, and the biggest slavetraders and the worst backstabbers, I happen to believe that a human society cannot survive without compassion and considerations for your fellow human beings. This is why we like superheroes so much, is it not? On to the villain. I do agree he is a good villain, but not a great villain. I do enjoy seeing the relationship between him and Tony slowly shift from friends to adversaries, it is one of the best developed human sequences in the movie, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with his motivations, methods, or acting. It's perfectly understandable that he wanted to take control of the company away from somebody who is unpredictable, and frankly, an embarrassment to the company.
I wasn't saying that The point that I'm trying to make about the corporations is not that they are evil, which they are, it is the media depiction of the corporate elite being larger than life. When somebody who is portrayed as glamorous and fabulous without actually deserving it, it comes down to they are better people because they have more money in their shoes than you in your entire lifetime. What's worse is that the defense industry constantly gets government handouts. So you are pretty much paying for their extravagance. Now this movie, predictably, will side with them rather than the lowly and downtrodden, but guess which group you belong in? Now, what media outlet chooses to sidestep most of the real issues facing the middle east, and instead focus on the rich and fabulous people? You're right, all of them! This is art imitating life. You are all getting Paris Hiltoned, and you 're supporting it like a bunch of Paris Hilton supporters. Seen in this light, I am talking about the message rather than the messenger, the burgerking plug is just a symptom of the overriding philosophy.
This movie shows fighting in Afghanistan, shows people dying in Afghanistan, but it doesn't say anything ABOUT the war in Afghanistan. This is intellectual cowardice, a missed opportunity for this film to be more than what it is because they are so afraid of being Dixie-chicked, if they were trying at all. You may say that they're staying with the comic, but if you're going to use Afghanistan as backdrop for an American superhero while not acknowledging any real issues, then I see a problem with credibility and they might as well use Russia.
I think technology in this movie is cool, and does not have to be entirely realistic. All superhero movies has to have something extraordinary, otherwise it loses its character and becomes just another vigilante story. Batman is the one with the most realistic technologies, but they obviously made stuff up as they went along.
I do not seek to bash technology, I think technology is wonderful. I must say though, that I'm no techno-optimist. You see all the technologies that were once believed to make people's lives exponentially better have and continue to be consistently disappointing. 6 years ago, a very brilliant man, who correctly predicted the arrival of the multiple CPU PC, told me that computers are not smart enough to be stupid. I do not believe the human mind has the capability to create something so complex, nor do I think anybody would go create something like that. The reason is simple, once the emergent system gets complex enough you can no longer test each and every single probability enough to predict what it would do. Imagine if your Wii only operates 60% of the time according to how it feels about the weather, would you still buy it? I am very much prejudiced, and so is everyone else, but that is an entire discussion altogether. I draw the line at robots where tolerance is concerned. Technology is created by humans to shape and better human lives. If the utility value for humans is not there, then the flashy gadgets are useless and won't be created because nobody will invest in creating them. I do not agree that computers can go on becoming infinitely smarter, faster, stronger, and sexier. You see, computers, like everything else, is subjected to the law of diminishing returns. Microsoft spent more than 10 billion dollars on windows vista, it only spent a fraction of that on xp, and a fraction of that on 2000, and a fraction of that on 98. Sooner or later the added utility of a new operating system will no longer be worth the money that will go into it. Same thing with hardware, we've come to the point where the cost of each improvement is getting more and more expensive, and sooner or later it'll become prohibitively high. In an ideal world, maybe the master computer with unlimited system resources that runs on infinite speed will be invented one day, but not on the 3-dimensional spherical planet we live in. I hate to burst your bubble, but with less and less energy and less resources to be mined, the capital needed for investment to improve technology will shrink and disappear.
Perhaps, you are right, that mobile dolls, ahem, unmanned jet planes are better than a manned flight. The shift towards soldier-less fighting is already underway. However, at what point do we stop? When war is dehumanized, both victory and defeat becomes deplorable, and God no longer lends a helping hand. Should people be killed according to some software guy's algorithm?
P.S. Enjoyed that bit about aqua very much. You can be the barbie girl in the barbie world. I think I'll pass.
The claim that he is relatable simply because he used to have a meaningless life but somehow reformed into a redeeming superhero is somewhat shallow. I find several problem with it. First, the transformation is not convincing. The few lines of dialogue between him and the poor bloke who helped him escape was not entirely indicative the shift in character that he must have to undergo in order to facilitate this life-changing decision. As far as I can see all that he got from the POW camp was a few beatings, and they couldn't even do too much to him because they had to be careful not to disconnect his heart. I mean, his torturers didn't even bother making him the cockmeat sandwich. Now that would make any man rethink his life. Secondly, just because some shallow asshole thinks he's reformed does not make him less of a douche. If Paris Hilton says that she were to change her clothing to biodegradable materials from second hand stores, would that make you like her? One prime example, is how Avril Levigne is no longer a wannabe punk-ass rebel, but still nobody likes her. At the end of the movie when he just goes out to tell everyone he's ironman shows little regards he has towards the people around him, namely pepper. This "reformed" Ironhead left his assistant alone and completely forgets about her, and yet expects her to do him later. I understand people want to think that he has grown that respect-for-fellow-human-being sense through the fighting and the imprisonment, but he just fails. To say he is not lucky is like saying the war in Iraq is not about oil, just too obvious to work. I have to disagree with the being the lonely guy on top thing. You see, Superman as nerdy news guy, relatable, Spiderman is a nerdy loser, that's relatable as well, the hulk has anger issues and unhappy childhood, that's relatable, batman got scarred in the bat cave and has his parents shot dead in front of him, less relatable but still reasonable. V's experience is less common, but the movie spent quite some time exploring his past, in fact the entire movie is about his past, so that one can go too. Now Ironman, just because he inherited a bunch of money doesn't mean that he has to be a brat with an empty life. I mean, how is that different from Paris Hilton, Kelly Osborne, George W Bush, or Ashley Simpson? Just because it does happen doesn't mean we can relate to it. The hulk is so much more than just a regular superhero movie, I don't see how you can compare it to Ironman. I enjoyed the hulk very much as well, I agree with Eugene on that movie completely.
On a side note, I have to say that the romance scenes in this movie are not awkward, which is very rare in superhero movies. Pepper is a good character, I was worried the actress might mess it up, but she didn't. I was actually hoping for some Sky Captain-esq comments from her, but that's missing, which is alright, it works in this film.
You see, when you are a manufacturing giant employing hundreds of thousands of people, you cannot just change your operations overnight. If you could then tomorrow you might expect General Motors to stop making cars and start making organic vegetables. It just doesn't work. In order to start a new production line, new products needs to be developed, tested, redeveloped, and tested again, and then the tools for production has to be made, factories built, people trained, before the very first unit can be delivered to the distribution chain, which would be entirely uncertain compared to the solid government contracts they're used to having. While it might work, it is certain to entail hundreds of millions of lost production hours and opportunity costs and investments which may or may not be paid back. So who is going to compensate for all the workers who wont get paid? Who is going to pay for the Medicare of the factory janitor when entire plants shut down? I am inclined to think that it will not be Ironhead. Now, if you were a reckless Ironhead, this might sound entirely reasonable, but if you're somebody with common sense and a fortune to wager on, then, perhaps, the reasonable thing to do is to remove the Ironhead and continue on your merry way to make money. This way everybody gets healthcare, everybody gets paid, no one is laid off, and things goes along their happy axis. I agree with you that it is his company and his to do as he pleases, but if he just follows his whims without regards to corporate citizenship, pretty soon he start sounding like the Walmart regional manager who move the stores a few blocks away so he can get lower taxes and encourage his employee to go on welfare so he doesn't have to pay so much. I also believe that the capable and the competent should be rewarded financially, however, their rewards should be based on merit, as in how much the society benefit from their excellence, rather than how many government contracts they can squeeze out of taxpayer's money. While our world is clearly moving in the direction favoring the biggest brain, the biggest gun, and the biggest slavetraders and the worst backstabbers, I happen to believe that a human society cannot survive without compassion and considerations for your fellow human beings. This is why we like superheroes so much, is it not? On to the villain. I do agree he is a good villain, but not a great villain. I do enjoy seeing the relationship between him and Tony slowly shift from friends to adversaries, it is one of the best developed human sequences in the movie, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with his motivations, methods, or acting. It's perfectly understandable that he wanted to take control of the company away from somebody who is unpredictable, and frankly, an embarrassment to the company.
I wasn't saying that The point that I'm trying to make about the corporations is not that they are evil, which they are, it is the media depiction of the corporate elite being larger than life. When somebody who is portrayed as glamorous and fabulous without actually deserving it, it comes down to they are better people because they have more money in their shoes than you in your entire lifetime. What's worse is that the defense industry constantly gets government handouts. So you are pretty much paying for their extravagance. Now this movie, predictably, will side with them rather than the lowly and downtrodden, but guess which group you belong in? Now, what media outlet chooses to sidestep most of the real issues facing the middle east, and instead focus on the rich and fabulous people? You're right, all of them! This is art imitating life. You are all getting Paris Hiltoned, and you 're supporting it like a bunch of Paris Hilton supporters. Seen in this light, I am talking about the message rather than the messenger, the burgerking plug is just a symptom of the overriding philosophy.
This movie shows fighting in Afghanistan, shows people dying in Afghanistan, but it doesn't say anything ABOUT the war in Afghanistan. This is intellectual cowardice, a missed opportunity for this film to be more than what it is because they are so afraid of being Dixie-chicked, if they were trying at all. You may say that they're staying with the comic, but if you're going to use Afghanistan as backdrop for an American superhero while not acknowledging any real issues, then I see a problem with credibility and they might as well use Russia.
I think technology in this movie is cool, and does not have to be entirely realistic. All superhero movies has to have something extraordinary, otherwise it loses its character and becomes just another vigilante story. Batman is the one with the most realistic technologies, but they obviously made stuff up as they went along.
I do not seek to bash technology, I think technology is wonderful. I must say though, that I'm no techno-optimist. You see all the technologies that were once believed to make people's lives exponentially better have and continue to be consistently disappointing. 6 years ago, a very brilliant man, who correctly predicted the arrival of the multiple CPU PC, told me that computers are not smart enough to be stupid. I do not believe the human mind has the capability to create something so complex, nor do I think anybody would go create something like that. The reason is simple, once the emergent system gets complex enough you can no longer test each and every single probability enough to predict what it would do. Imagine if your Wii only operates 60% of the time according to how it feels about the weather, would you still buy it? I am very much prejudiced, and so is everyone else, but that is an entire discussion altogether. I draw the line at robots where tolerance is concerned. Technology is created by humans to shape and better human lives. If the utility value for humans is not there, then the flashy gadgets are useless and won't be created because nobody will invest in creating them. I do not agree that computers can go on becoming infinitely smarter, faster, stronger, and sexier. You see, computers, like everything else, is subjected to the law of diminishing returns. Microsoft spent more than 10 billion dollars on windows vista, it only spent a fraction of that on xp, and a fraction of that on 2000, and a fraction of that on 98. Sooner or later the added utility of a new operating system will no longer be worth the money that will go into it. Same thing with hardware, we've come to the point where the cost of each improvement is getting more and more expensive, and sooner or later it'll become prohibitively high. In an ideal world, maybe the master computer with unlimited system resources that runs on infinite speed will be invented one day, but not on the 3-dimensional spherical planet we live in. I hate to burst your bubble, but with less and less energy and less resources to be mined, the capital needed for investment to improve technology will shrink and disappear.
Perhaps, you are right, that mobile dolls, ahem, unmanned jet planes are better than a manned flight. The shift towards soldier-less fighting is already underway. However, at what point do we stop? When war is dehumanized, both victory and defeat becomes deplorable, and God no longer lends a helping hand. Should people be killed according to some software guy's algorithm?
P.S. Enjoyed that bit about aqua very much. You can be the barbie girl in the barbie world. I think I'll pass.

