Sandy Petersen Hates Iron Man Part 3…

Updated on January 19, 2009 By Ken Begg 45 Comments

Here we see the result of not falling under a film’s spell.  I find Sandy’s remarks below (and yet to follow) all true to some extent.  However, since the movie was working for me, I wasn’t prone to getting bugged by such points.  And after all, we’re not talking about Lost World: Jurassic Park or The Day After Tomorrow here, during which at least one retarded thing was occurring nearly every single second of screen time.

Anyway:

3) The terrorists let Tony Stark work for months in a cave and never, ever walk into it to see what he is making? 30 seconds of inspection would quickly reveal that nothing in the cave resembled a Jericho missile in any manner.

Well, if I remember correctly, Stark had built a fake missile mock-up.  However, this is a valid complaint to some point.  Oddly, this would have been less of a concern in the original comic book origin back in the ’60s, when Stark was captured not by Islamic terrorists but by Asian Communist guerillas.  Such would have been, by our standards, amazingly ignorant of even rudimentary 20th century technology, and would have had little way to make sense of Stark was constructing with his then amazing transisters and such.

Still, I have to admit, I was a lot more willing to let this go, again because generally the film was really working for me.

4) Why do the terrorists suddenly say he only has 1 day to finish the missile, after waiting for months? Is there some kind of deadline for hiding out in the hills? If Tony said, “no I need 5 more days, then you’ll get it” would that really break the bank? This stinks of a wholly artificial deadline to add wholly artificial tension to the escape scene.

Well, that’s a bit of a cliche to be sure, but really, it seems like of a lukewarm criticism.  At worst it’s sort of lame, I’d think.  This again seems to be a reaction to the fact that the film didn’t work for Sandy in a general sense, so that fairly minor bugaboos loomed larger for him than perhaps their intrinsic worth dictated.

Also, and without rewatching the film, wasn’t there some target the terrorists wanted to hit on a certain day?  I can’t remember, but I thought there was something like that.

Anyway, guys, have at it.

Pin It



Related Posts

  • Sandy Petersen

    I agree that the concept works better for tropical communist guerillas. It might have worked better for Afghans, if the director hadn’t taken pains to point out that many of the “terrorists” were from high-tech places like Hungary. Or if the guy helping Stark wasn’t an Afghan himself.

    I don’t remember a special target the terrorists had to hit – and even if they did, presumably they knew about it in advance, so Tony should have known. The “last-ditch” deadline bugged me more than many it should have, but I admit if i’d liked the film more I would have bleeped by it.

    Oh yeah, and the weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

  • Plissken79

    Well, neither the Taliban or Al Qaeda (who the Ten Rings are clearly based on) ever seem to display extensive knowledge of advanced weapons systems, so the fact that Stark deceived them for some time does not surprise me. This can be considered a flaw, but a minor one at best.

    There was not specific urgent target mentioned by Raza in the film, although later we do see another Jericho (presumably acquired from Obadiah Stane) used against the town of Golmira before Tony Stark shows up. Raza probably just wanted another Jericho so he did not have to buy another one from Stane, who had already underpaid him for the hit on Stark at the beginning of the film.

  • Now can we get him to write a ten reasons he so loved Journey to the Center of the Earth list because I much more want to understand his mindset on that one?

  • Sandy Petersen

    The evil terrorists include Hungarians and presumably other groups. Therefore they are techno-savvy. The bad guy makes a big deal out of wanting his missile, but only has the hero watched via monitor. Even a lazy project manager asks for progress reports. Fanatic terrorist mercenaries are trusting?

    And the deadline bugged me a lot. The bad guy obviously wants a missile. He was willing to give Stark the time and equipment to make one. Then suddenly he changes his mind? By giving him the artificial new deadline, everything he’s done up to now is wasted if Stark fails. It makes no sense.

    But here are the 10 reasons I love JttCotE.

    1) Brendan Frasier is a much more believable scientist than RDJ. He simply drips with brainpower.

    2) I usually dislike sexually-precocious but emotionally-immature characters (like Stark). BUT JttCotE has a 13-year-old boy fill this role, which was refreshing.

    2) The floating magnetic rock sequence was believable and gripping. No fakery at all, compared to Iron Man’s dumb Jericho Missile.

    3) dinosaur skulls make really good boats, which the film realistically demonstrates. Unlike Iron Man’s “bullet-proof” rocket casings.

    4) It would be easy and fun to ride a 3,000 mile geyser to the surface.

    5) I totally believed that a backfist to the leaf would “knock out” a carnivorous plant. Frasier really “jerichoed” that sucker. Ha ha

    6) who doesn’t love giant stone toadstools?

    7) glowing cutsey birds who immediately befriend the first human they’ve ever seen.

    8) no artificial deadlines at all (unlike Iron Man). I mean, it was obvious that the underground world would heating up periodically. Why not at the moment the people were there?

    9) female lead was more attractive than the one in Iron Man. And it was Totally Unexpected when she fell in love with the hero.

    10) Brendan Frasier was a way more impressive actor than the ham in the original 1959 movie. James Mason? Alan Napier? HACKS. I did like Pat Bpone in the original, though.

  • Plissken79

    James Mason a hack?!!! OK Sandy, your credibility just went right out the window with that one.

    You are not going to convince anyone that Journey is a great film and Iron Man a poor one, you Marxist hooligan!

    Besides, just because one is Hungarian does not make them an expert in missile design and construction

  • Sandy Petersen

    I call shenanigans. It was YOU pro-Iron Man guys who invented the hypothesis that the reason the baddies didn’t spot Stark’s antics was because they were technically unsophisticated Afghans. When I point out they aren’t Afghans, you make up a new excuse. I hereby invoke Ken & Andrew’s Rule of Plot Holes.

    James Mason?! What a rube. I remember seeing him ham it up in North by Northwest, Julius Caesar, and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. At least he finally redeemed himself by appearing in Yellowbeard.

  • Sandy Petersen

    Anyway, even a non-expert on missile design should know that a missle doesn’t have arms, legs, and a face-plate.

  • Plissken79

    Um, Sandy, I said most of the members of the Ten Rings, whether from Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Hungary, Bulgaria, wherever, did not appear to have extensive knowledge of missile systems. Some of them were Afghans, some were not, regardless, Stark did make some efforts to cover up what he was really doing.

    You are like that weird guy at the party who thinks Eegah, Hudson Hawk, Friday the 13th Part V and Battlefield Earth were robbed at Oscar time.

    And James Mason (Mandingo aside) was an excellent actor, you should use your definition of hack a bit more carefully

  • Joe11

    I admit this part bothered me (not as much as it bothered Sandy). Raza & a few of his hencemen are techno-savvy, (they rebuilt the Mark I Iron Man suit!), so those other scenes did make them look like lazy fools.

    Stark & Yinseng could’ve hacked into the security cameras & used the “Speed” trick of having the footage reloop of them working on the missle for several hours per day. So, they could use that time to build the Mark 1 suit & then hide the parts somewhere in the cave. The guards wouldn’t know better & during an inspection all they would find is Stark’s fake missle mock-up.

    I got no credibility either since I think Rambo is 1 of the top 10 films of 2008.

  • 1) Brendan Frasier is a much more believable scientist than RDJ. He simply drips with brainpower.

    You are the only person on the planet who has or ever will watch that movie and think Brendan Frasier is credibly playing a genius scientist. The man drips with lunkhead, not brainpower.

  • Theodine

    I think Sandy Peterson is just trying to be funny with his 10 reasons he loves Journey to the Center of the Earth. I was laughing as I read them, though I’ve seen neither movie actually. Would Mr. Peterson care to give his real reasons for liking the movie so much? Or is the Journey to the Center of the Earth thing just a joke, and does he really just want to criticize Iron Man?

  • Petoht

    Tsk. Commies aren’t allowed to use sarcasm, Sandy. Stop it.

    Also, Hudson Hawk was funny. There. I said it. My secret’s out. I also liked Krull.

    Please don’t ban me, Ken.

  • “I think Sandy Peterson is just trying to be funny with his 10 reasons he loves Journey to the Center of the Earth.”

    I realize that now. That first one short circuited my brain so badly I couldn’t even get to the next nine.

    Now how about 10 real reasons because I’d love to hear it.

  • BeckoningChasm

    I got the feeling that the “1 more day” deadline was imposed because the leader of the terrorists was getting the feeling Stark was playing for time. So if they killed the guy helping Stark right in front of him after “1 more day” that would provide motivation to hurry it up.

    And even if they had to kill Stark after the deadline, so what? It’s not as if they lacked for weaponry. THey were obviously pretty successful as guerillas to start with. So yeah, losing a potential Jericho would be disappointing, but it would hardly impact their normal operations.

  • Sandy Petersen

    Once more I invoke Ken & Andrew’s Rule of Plot Holes. BeckoningChasm – you are being forced to make up excuses on Raza’s behalf. The movie shouldn’t make you do that.

    re: James Mason. Plissken – please read again the statements I made about him.

    re: JttCotE. Apparently some of y’all take all Ken’s declarations at face value. I will now state outright: Ken’s bourgois hatred for the masses might possibly have caused him to misrepresent my stance for comic effect.

    Theodine – I refuse to directly address someone who keeps mispelling my last name. Wait … I just did that. Argh!

  • Sandy Potorson is right!

  • ZDykstra

    I do agree that this was somewhat disconcerting, however, I kinda read it as them just thinking: “This is pretty much the smartest man alive, it doesn’t look like a rocket but, we don’t really understand how he works and our knowledge of his new missle technology is limited, so we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt… for now.
    You also have to realize they were keeping him alive any in hopes of extorting more money from Stane. Thus having him build a missle was just a plus. And they certainly didn’t expect him to build a suit of mechanical armour.

  • “And they certainly didn’t expect him to build a suit of mechanical armour.”

    And yet that was the same mistake every bad guy on The A-Team made.

  • Grumpy

    FWIW, Lost World was “working for me” the first time I saw it. I wasn’t “prone to getting bugged by such points” until I read the recap here. Now I can’t watch it without getting bugged.

  • BeckoningChasm

    I’m agreeing with Ken…if a movie starts to work for you, you will overlook things it does that are “movie-esque” like a sudden 1-day deadline. I mean, why didn’t Stark and the head terrorist have a five minute discussion in which each stated his viewpoint, both learned from the experience, and they then parted ways, determined to do good in the world? Because you’d have a ten-minute movie that no one would want to see.

    On the other hand, if a movie gets on the wrong foot then there’s little it can do right that will turn you around. At that point, you might as well stop watching because everything is simply going to illustrate the point that this movie is a waste of your time.

  • Theodine

    I just want to apologize to Sandy Petersen for spelling his name wrong. It was not intentional.

  • Sandy Petersen

    Anyway I don’t see why I can’t blame the movie if I don’t fall under its spell. Surely it is the job of the director & actors to trick me into liking it.

    At the very start of the film I was indeed starting to be sucked in. I felt hurled out of my suspension of disbelief by the events that were happening, and I resented it.

    I was angry at Jurassic Park 3 (which I refuse to call Lost World) because the arguments and actions of the “good guys” were so lame. I really wanted to like that movie. Because of my great love for dinosaurs I was able to watch it and have fun, but it was despite the main characters.

    As Ken well knows, it is my dream to one day be eaten by a tyrannosaur.

  • Sandy Petersen

    Why didn’t Stark & the terrorist have an exchange of goals? Pleeze. That’s hardly what I was arguing for.

    I don’t mind irrationality in movie characters. But I want their irrationality to make sense from their own point of view at least.

    Example: while I thought he being a jerk about it, I could understand why Stark would not want to share his mini-fusion-reactor technology, having felt betrayed by misuse of similar things earlier. Even though it means I can’t have a mini-fusion-reactor in my house so I can stop paying my damn Texas-size air conditioning bills. Though I felt it was selfish, it “made sense” within Stark’s world-view. (He is, after all, fundamentally a selfish guy.)

  • BeckoningChasm

    “Anyway I don’t see why I can’t blame the movie if I don’t fall under its spell. Surely it is the job of the director & actors to trick me into liking it. ”

    I’m not saying you can’t dislike the movie. If the things you mention are the things that make you dislike it, yes, that’s the movie’s fault. I’m not trying to imply “ur doin it wrong” or anything like that.

    But all movies have these things. I have yet to see a movie that was perfectly put together, especially in terms of being true-to-life or realistic (though some have come pretty close).

    Take “No Country for Old Men.” I’ll try not to spoil it for those who haven’t seen, but there’s an act of attempted kindness early on that sets the whole chain of events rolling, and I didn’t believe it for a second. I had seen nothing in the main character’s, um, character to make that action seem plausible, especially when it was one of those “Don’t do that!” actions. It just seemed out of the blue because, otherwise, there’d be no movie. And that one won a bunch of Oscars, so clearly lots of people were able to overlook what I could not.

  • Sandy Petersen

    I am well aware that there is no perfect film. Ken has seen my obscene collection of dvds. Er … to clarify, I mean it’s obscene in size, not genre. Why was I able to enjoy DEEP RISING while I carped all through the technically superior IRON MAN, inexorably spoiling it for the rest of my family?

    Well, partly I guess because DEEP RISING had a cool Cthulhu monster at the end, while IRON MAN only had an old bald Jeff Bridges. BUT there was more to it than that I suspect.

  • BeckoningChasm

    Deep Rising is a pretty cool and fun movie, and I think it defies a lot of criticism for one reason: it just starts moving forward and doesn’t stop for breath, or even slow down much. The few attempts at any characterization are thrown out like jokes.

    And it has a cool Cthulhu monster, too!

  • But isn’t it the very nature of art that it speaks differently to different people? What if the director managed to make it work for you, but in the process, diminished the enjoyment of the millions of people who like it as it is? Again, all your criticisms are valid to some degree, but for many of us they seem small beer vs. the depth of satisfaction we drew from the remaining elements. I will say that these flaws are one reason Iron Man is a very good movie, maybe, but not a great film, like Dark Knight.

  • Grumpy

    Re: NCFOM
    “I had seen nothing in the main character’s, um, character to make that action seem plausible…”

    The “act of kindness” was shown in the first 20 minutes, IIRC. That *was* establishing the character.

  • BeckoningChasm

    Grumpy–yes, but WHY did he do it? Why did he go back? All I saw was a guy in a cowboy hat who stumbled on something. He took advantage then he went home. There was no establishing of his character that said, to me at least, “Well, he’ll go back once he thinks about it. He’s just that kind of guy.” Admittedly, it’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I don’t recall any motivation.

  • Sandy Petersen

    I am searching for why I did not like this film. I try to list reasons I didn’t like the movie, but then I am told that those reasons only mattered BECAUSE I didn’t like the movie. It seems like circular reasoning.

  • I think you don’t like the film because you don’t like RDJ in it, and he’s the film’s lynchpin. I’m sure there are many film you like and love that have a like number of the sort of flaws you otherwise posit. I’m not saying those aren’t additional reasons for your disliking the film, but I imagine the first one is the biggie, and the rest follow.

  • BeckoningChasm

    I dunno, Sandy. While I agree that your points are valid ones, it seems to come down to “I can’t overlook that.” Why some films can overcome this for you and Iron Man can’t, I really can’t say. Maybe because it takes itself more seriously than those other films? I’m not able to address your points with any valid arguments.

  • Sandy Petersen

    Well, I have 6 more arguments to go up against Iron Man if Ken ever updates his site again.

    My only real complaint about RDJ is that he didn’t seem the scientist type. Most of my other nit-picky complaints are what I perceived as logic holes or incompetent Hollywood plotwriting.

  • Rogue1stclass

    The way that I got it was that the leader of the terrorists knew Tony wasn’t working on the missile, and so set up the deadline to force him to do so. He basically heard the kids playing and told them he was gonna come up there in 30 minutes and their homework better be finished. What he couldn’t have possibly suspected was that Tony was building a supersuit to kill everyone with. Seriously, who suspects that? Even in the Marvel Universe, that’s a bit left field.

  • Plissken79

    So what exactly is the “scientist-type” Sandy? Some creepy fellow in a white coat and square glasses who speaks in a thick German or Russian accent and yells about “progress demanding sacrifices”?

  • Anders S

    I’m a bit surprised that no one has questioned the presence of Hungarian Islamists in the movie. Hungary is a country which has an extremely small Muslim minority. But if I recall correctly, the ideology that the terrorists subscribe to is never stated (maybe they’re militant Tolkien-fans?).
    But since some form of violent adherence to Islam is pretty much implied, the movie comes across as one which might as well have pitted Tony Stark against the Kentucky Jihadist Front.

  • Sandy Petersen

    The movie is very careful to never have any of the terrorists display any religious tendencies in the slightest. When the leader explains his plan later on in the film, it’s not to reclaim Afghanistan for Islam but to conquer central Asia – a conventional imperialist dogma instead of an Islamist terrorist one.

    I’ve worked with a lot of extremely smart people over my lifetime. Some were scientists. Some were not. None behaved the way RDJ does in the film.

  • Plissken79

    Oh come on, Sandy, do you realize how lame of an argument that is? You know “a lot” of very smart people, including some scientists, and none of them have acted like RDJ in Iron Man. That vague ancedote is supposed to convince us? Unless you have known every single very smart person (including every scientist) who ever lived, than you cannot say that RDJ did not resemble a genuis-level scientist.

    I am sure many brilliant scientists do not act like RDJ, but I am equally sure some in the history of mankind have acted that way. Regardless, your life experience is not suitable evidence.

  • Petoht

    Hm. But isn’t Stark more of an engineer than a pure scientist? I’m not trying to insult all the engineers out there, but his character never struck me as a SCIENTIST, like Reed Richards or… Henry Pym.

    He’s more like a super-rich, super-spoiled mechanic with the biggest autoshop in the universe. He knows the science and such behind what he’s doing, but he’s far more hands on, and more interesting in fiddling with bits and pieces as opposed to operating a super collider.

    Also, being stupidly rich and able to indulge in any and every thing he can think of, he’s unlikely to act like what I assume an average scientist would. It’s not like he was pulling double shifts at the Burger Thing to pay for grad school.

  • Sandy Petersen

    Plissken — But your counter-argument is even weaker. Just because I don’t know every single smart person, and some of them MIGHT have acted like RDJ as Tony Stark means I’m wrongheaded? I’ve never seen a scientist who acted like Alfred Molina did in Spiderman Two, but I was convinced by his Doc Ock. I’ve never seen a research doctor who acted like Robin Williams in Awakenings, but I was convinced by his research doctor.

    I’m saying RDJ did not convince me that he was a smart guy, unlike Molina & Williams. Therefore, as my fallback position I wondered whether he acted like any real-life scientists I knew so that I could at least convince myself at some level. the answer was NO. “My life experience” limited as it may be, is all I have to go on.

    I don’t know if Tony Stark was more of an engineer or not. I don’t follow the comics. Should I have to, to enjoy this film? I saw him doing what I thought was scientific type stuff – like miniaturizing a fusino reactor to the size of an apple, and creating a new gold-titanium alloy which is apparently Really Tough.

    Petoth seems to be saying that someone that rich is SO DIFFERENT from us, that we couldn’t hope to understand how he’d behave. I guess that’s possible – in which case why should I be interested in this guy’s activities at all?

    In general, the arguments I’m hearing now, about Stark’s non-smart-guy creds evoke one of my favorite movies – “Can you prove it didn’t happen?”

  • Petoht

    Don’t drag me into your class war, Sandy! Heh.

    My point wasn’t so much that he was SO RICH that we plebes can’t help to understand him, but that by being SO RICH, he likely followed a different path than your Average Scientist (TM). Perhaps I’m splitting rhetorical hairs.

    Also, I never read the Iron Man comic book either (I read Groo, dammit), but the feeling I got watching was that he was an engineer.

  • Sandy Petersen

    Well maybe a really rich scientist would behave differently than the poverty-stricken ones I hang with, out under the bridge by the oil barrel fires, but even if that is so, I’m going to fall back on my claim that the movie didn’t make any effort to convince me that Tony Stark wasn’t simply behaving aberrantly.

    Anyway why should you, Petoht, have to make up reasons for WHY Stark behaves aberrantly?

  • Petoht

    Creativity exercise?

    I didn’t have any trouble with the way RDJ acted, but I don’t know any scientists. A couple doctors, but no scientists. I didn’t have a moment while watching the movie where I said, “Hey, Harvey the Scientist doesn’t act like that!” so it was easier for me to go along for the ride. The only reason I’m coming up with possible explanations is because you’re asking questions about it. Since I enjoyed the film, I’m willing to spend a minute or two pondering the question. Instead of deciding that Tony Stark acts differently because RDJ was a poor pick, I decided that Stark acted different because the character’s background is wildly different than not just most scientist, but most people in general.

    To continue playing devil’s advocate here, I’ll posit that it was a good thing the film didn’t spend time explaining Stark’s different behavior. Did we really want a scene where someone asks why he doesn’t act like a scientist and he goes off for a couple minutes explaining his motivations? Surely that would be even worse, and exceedingly painful to watch.

  • Plissken79

    Please Sandy, you never answered my central point. The argument that you did not accept RDJ as a scientist because he does not act like a few scientists you have known could be instantly refuted by someone claiming: “I know many scientists, and many of them did act like RDJ in Iron Man!” Vague ancedotal evidence is not enough here. Somone could have easily dismissed Alfred Molina or Robin Williams in Spider-Man 2 or Awakenings because they did not “buy” them as smart or that they did not act like any doctors or scientists they knew.

    So you did not buy RDJ in the part, unlike this Iron Man fan and most others. So what? No matter how great a performance is or how perfectly an actor fits the part, someone is always going to have a problem with it

  • Sandy Petersen

    petoht I don’t think you are making sense, even for the bourgeoisie. Look – let’s say you see a movie in which there is a NY cab driver who refuses to accept tips. Complaints about such a character cannot simply be answered by “I once knew a cabbie who didn’t accept tips.” It’s plainly aberrant.

    Having spent my early life growing up around Geologists, Paleontologists, Biochemists, Physicists and their ilk, I feel that when RDJ behaves totally differently, I feel justified in not accepting his scientist creds. Just as you would feel justified in being suspicous about a librarian who refused to wear pants. Yes, there might be such a librarian, but sure such a deviation from the norm requires some degree of explanation.

    Your argument, petoht, tool of an outdated aristocracy, seems to boil down to “if ANYONE ever acted in then you cannot take exception to the way a film portrays said person.” I think I deserve the right to be able to complain about the behavior of Lady Bacteriologists in movies, even if I’ve never known a Lady Bacteriologist. For that matter, last night I watched “Little Red Riding Hood Vs. The Monsters” and I reserve, nay DEMAND the right to take exception to the way a red-headed ogre was portrayed, despite the fact that I have never known a red-headed ogre.

    And my original point has never been answered satisfactorily, which is that RDJ, while I agree a fine actor in the right part, simply does seem all that smart.