PDA

View Full Version : Iron Man question.



Krypto
10-01-2008, 03:43 AM
I liked Iron Man when I saw it in theaters. Didn't think it was great, but I liked it well enough. The finale was the main problem I had.

So I just went ahead and picked the DVD up yesterday and watched the film, which I liked a lot more this time around. I still feel the finale is quite weak, but the rest is very good. But I have a question. During the sequence when he goes back to Afghanistan to save the small village, he shoots five or six guys with guns out of his chest or shoulders (don't remember which). Now, does anyone know if these were actual guns using bullets that almost certainly killed these men or were they some kind of sleeping dart or something similar? If it's the latter, no problem, but if it's the former, then I have some major problems with this film and it'll certainly knock it down a peg or two in my eyes. Any ideas?

Also, I didn't see a Iron Man discussion thread, so I hope this is okay.

wofford29
10-01-2008, 03:47 AM
You have a problem if Iron Man killed those men? But not all the others he killed in the movie?

Krypto
10-01-2008, 03:58 AM
I don't remember him killing anyone other than these men in the film, at least not after he became Iron Man back in his normal life in the city. During his escape, no doubt some were injured or possibly killed, but that was before he technically became Iron Man and he was at a somewhat disadvantage in his first time in the suit and the suit wasn't as armored or complete as later version. Just shooting down several men in cold blood without a second thought is not terribly heroic, even if they were threatening civilians.

vader70450
10-01-2008, 04:22 AM
he shot those terrorist bastards...end of story.....wish that sequence was longer...awesome movie...you want boy scouts and bull chit go watch Superman Begins

UTtoyfan
10-01-2008, 05:29 AM
Yeah, like vader70450 mentioned, they can't all be Superman, you know? :monkey3:cool:

newcollector
10-01-2008, 05:37 AM
i hope he would take out a terrorist if he had a gun pressed against my head....jesus they are bad guys killing women and children they deserve what they got

wofford29
10-01-2008, 05:37 AM
I don't remember him killing anyone other than these men in the film, at least not after he became Iron Man back in his normal life in the city. During his escape, no doubt some were injured or possibly killed, but that was before he technically became Iron Man and he was at a somewhat disadvantage in his first time in the suit and the suit wasn't as armored or complete as later version. Just shooting down several men in cold blood without a second thought is not terribly heroic, even if they were threatening civilians.

**Spoilers**

He definitely killed people when he was escaping and definitely shot those dudes with bullets. He then ripped the guy out of the wall and tossed him to the people and left him to be beaten to death more than likely. He followed that up by shooting a missle and blowing up the guy in the tank who shot at him, who more than likely died, and then he kills Jeff Bridges at the end of the movie. I don't think Iron Man is worried about killing.

uscmhicks
10-01-2008, 05:41 AM
iron man killed those douches ! :rock:rock:rock
No one messes with iron man !! :lol:lol

CelticPredator
10-01-2008, 05:59 AM
Iron Man is a freakin BAMF. I was amazed he killed those dudes. Best scene in the movie.

Yodee
10-01-2008, 06:06 AM
Iron man kills terrorists....so whats your point?

Krypto
10-01-2008, 06:07 AM
he shot those terrorist bastards...end of story.....wish that sequence was longer...awesome movie...you want boy scouts and bull chit go watch Superman Begins

This is a very immature response.

Anyway, I guess I just hadn't noticed the first time I saw the film. I watched a few sections again and he definitely does kill quite a few people in the film. I'm not comfortable with superheroes killing people in movies or comics for that matter. Especially in what is otherwise a pretty lighthearted film. Now I'm definitely not sure about this one. The film tries to have its cake and eat it too by being cutesy with the building of the suit that seems to only aid Tony Stark in taking human lives. The movie is entirely conflicting in both its style and message. Having Tony Stark run over to Afghanistan and wipe up a terrorist threat in an afternoon is both disrespectful to the hard being done over there and is one-step shy of being Rambo-like in its ineptitude and pure stupidity. Whether he's killing the "bad" guys or not, he's still taking a human life, and as such is no better than the men he just murdered.


Yeah, like vader70450 mentioned, they can't all be Superman, you know?

Ain't that the true. Or even Batman for that matter.

spartan
10-01-2008, 06:09 AM
I don't remember him killing anyone other than these men in the film, at least not after he became Iron Man back in his normal life in the city. During his escape, no doubt some were injured or possibly killed, but that was before he technically became Iron Man and he was at a somewhat disadvantage in his first time in the suit and the suit wasn't as armored or complete as later version. Just shooting down several men in cold blood without a second thought is not terribly heroic, even if they were threatening civilians.

Those men lost every right they had the minute they pointed their guns to women and children.
The other option would be for him to surrender to them, they would kill him, and then they would resume killing the civilians.



Now, having said that... Hollywood doesn't really like to portray "terrorists" as nothing but one dimensional "bad guys". You'll never really get to see why they were doing what they were doing, or the fact that they too had families and children. It doesn't excuse them for the pain they inflict on others, but it surely makes it harder to just "shoot them", even if its done in a cool way and for justified reasons.
Take the latest Rambo for example. The first half of the movie was there to basically make every bit of blood that is spilled in the second half justified. In order for people to accept the violence and the "revenge", they showed the bad guys killing innocent civilians on a bet, they painted them as rapists, as child molesters, and baby killers. And the script didn't really give us a reason as to why these people were committing these atrocities, they were simply "the bad guys".
Now Hollywood has found another way of putting it, which was summed up by Michael Kane in Batman : "some people just want to see the world burn".
Now that is very convenient cause it makes it ok for american heroes to go there and kill them all.

Krypto
10-01-2008, 06:14 AM
Those men lost every right they had the minute they pointed their guns to women and children.
The other option would be for him to surrender to them, they would kill him, and then they would resume killing the civilians.

Or he could have simply equipped his shoulder guns with some kind of sleeping dart that would knock them out for several hours while the locals imprisoned them.


Now, having said that... Hollywood doesn't really like to portray "terrorists" as nothing but one dimensional "bad guys". You'll never really get to see why they were doing what they were doing, or the fact that they too had families and children. It doesn't excuse them for the pain they inflict on others, but it surely makes it harder to just "shoot them", even if its done in a cool way and for justified reasons.
Take the latest Rambo for example. The first half of the movie was there to basically make every bit of blood that is spilled in the second half justified. In order for people to accept the violence and the "revenge", they showed the bad guys killing innocent civilians on a bet, they painted them as rapists, as child molesters, and baby killers. And the script didn't really give us a reason as to why these people were committing these atrocities, they were simply "the bad guys".
Now Hollywood has found another way of putting it, which was summed up by Michael Kane in Batman : "some people just want to see the world burn".
Now that is very convenient cause it makes it ok for american heroes to go there and kill them all.

Yet Batman did not kill Joker. He saw fit to be the bigger more responsible man, to not start down that downward spiral that leads to mayhem and murder. That's what makes him a hero.

BTW - Rambo was entirely offensive in every possible way to me as a movie fan and as a human being. What a disgusting film.

DinoLast
10-01-2008, 06:19 AM
If you don't like Superheros killing people maybe you should get into this instead
http://www.fanboy.com/images/marvel-babies.jpg

The Tuggernaut
10-01-2008, 06:21 AM
Yet Batman did not kill Joker.

The old Batman did. The 89' Batman.
I'm not sure if he killd the Joker, but he let him fall to his death.
That's what a true hero would do, since the Joker is an evil bastard. :monkey3

The Tuggernaut
10-01-2008, 06:22 AM
If you don't like Superheros killing people maybe you should get into this instead
http://www.fanboy.com/images/marvel-babies.jpg

:lol:rotfl:lol

Krypto
10-01-2008, 06:23 AM
If you don't like Superheros killing people maybe you should get into this instead
http://www.fanboy.com/images/marvel-babies.jpg

How is this a legitimate response? If you don't have anything constructive to add to a discussion, it's probably best not to post. ;)

Also, last time I checked, superheroes weren't supposed to leave a body count of 20-30 in their wake while being "heroic". Does Iron Man kill people in the comics? I can't remember reading any Iron Man comics, so I'm not sure.

Krypto
10-01-2008, 06:25 AM
The old Batman did. The 89' Batman.
I'm not sure if he killd the Joker, but he let him fall to his death.
That's what a true hero would do, since the Joker is an evil bastard. :monkey3

Spartan and I were referring to The Dark Knight, not Burton's film. Believe me, that's opening up another can of worms right there that I'd rather not get into. Especially regarding Batman Returns where Batman incinerates a man and plants explosives on another one, only to smirk while the man blows up behind him as he casually walks away. ;)

The Tuggernaut
10-01-2008, 06:26 AM
How is this a legitimate response? If you don't have anything constructive to add to a discussion, it's probably best not to post. ;)

Also, last time I checked, superheroes weren't supposed to leave a body count of 20-30 in their wake while being "heroic". Does Iron Man kill people in the comics? I can't remember reading any Iron Man comics, so I'm not sure.

Would you rather the Superheroes kill the bad guys?
Or make them go to sleep, so they can wake up again and start
killing people again?

... That's what I thought. :D

The Tuggernaut
10-01-2008, 06:27 AM
Spartan and I were referring to The Dark Knight, not Burton's film. Believe me, that's opening up another can of worms right there that I'd rather not get into. Especially regarding Batman Returns where Batman incinerates a man and plants explosives on another one, only to smirk while the man blows up behind him as he casually walks away. ;)

Just thought I'd mention it.:monkey3

Krypto
10-01-2008, 06:28 AM
Would you rather the Superheroes kill the bad guys?
Or make them go to sleep, so they can wake up again and start
killing people again?

... That's what I thought. :D

I'd rather they be intelligent moral and responsible individuals and not take human lives in the process of fulfilling their destiny as heroes.

spartan
10-01-2008, 06:30 AM
Or he could have simply equipped his shoulder guns with some kind of sleeping dart that would knock them out for several hours while the locals imprisoned them.


While the locals imprisoned them??
These people have the guns, they have a small military on stand by, and you think the locals would have the power to imprison them?
And as for the sleeping darts, that wouldn't really be practical, he would have to find flesh as a target every time. And they are there to serve in a variety of situations anyway, not just against humans, perhaps he had them there to shoot missiles that might be fired against him. In this instance he discovered another use...

The Tuggernaut
10-01-2008, 06:31 AM
I'd rather they be intelligent moral and responsible individuals and not take human lives in the process of fulfilling their destiny as heroes.


Yes, but that's probably the only way.
Killing the bad guys.

Are you saying you wouldn't kill Bin Laden if you saw him?

DinoLast
10-01-2008, 06:37 AM
I'd rather they be intelligent moral and responsible individuals and not take human lives in the process of fulfilling their destiny as heroes.

So you would like them to be all the same. One dimensional.

Krypto
10-01-2008, 06:38 AM
Yes, but that's probably the only way.
Killing the bad guys.

Are you saying you wouldn't kill Bin Laden if you saw him?

No, I wouldn't. There's more important things in solving a conflict than simply pulling a trigger. That's the coward's way out of the situation and by doing so, I would be no better than him.


While the locals imprisoned them??
These people have the guns, they have a small military on stand by, and you think the locals would have the power to imprison them?
And as for the sleeping darts, that wouldn't really be practical, he would have to find flesh as a target every time. And they are there to serve in a variety of situations anyway, not just against humans, perhaps he had them there to shoot missiles that might be fired against him. In this instance he discovered another use...

And I guarantee they'll be twice as many more men back within a day or two to take the place of the men Tony killed to cause more damage and likely kill the villagers. Violence only begets more violence. Simply killing them is not the way to solve the problem, it only creates more of the same.

Tony made a suit that can fly and go super-sonic, yet he can't find room in there for some high-powered sleeping darts that could knock someone out for possible 24 hours? ;)

Krypto
10-01-2008, 06:40 AM
So you would like them to be all the same. One dimensional.

Explain to me how being moral and upright is one-dimensional. You could make the claim that it's bland or boring if you're into hyper-violence, but it's definitely not one-dimensional. If handled properly, it would be the exact opposite and only bring up more moral complications that our hero would have to overcome in order to be the bigger person.

The Tuggernaut
10-01-2008, 06:43 AM
No, I wouldn't. There's more important things in solving a conflict than simply pulling a trigger. That's the coward's way out of the situation and by doing so, I would be no better than him.

Not necessarily. I wouldn't say coward, I would say... easy.
And it WOULD make you better than him... he's dead.:)

DinoLast
10-01-2008, 06:43 AM
Krypto, I see you have James Bond as your Avatar. Have you checked out his body count from the Bond Movies? Especially Roger moor look at the way he killed people as bond.

The Tuggernaut
10-01-2008, 06:45 AM
Krypto, I see you have James Bond as your Avatar. Have you checked out his body count from the Bond Movies? Especially Roger moor look at the way he killed people as bond.

http://maochan.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/oh-snap.jpg

Krypto
10-01-2008, 06:49 AM
Krypto, I see you have James Bond as your Avatar. Have you checked out his body count from the Bond Movies? Especially Roger moor look at the way he killed people as bond.

Different kind of hero (different time for that matter) and he's definitely not super-powered or aided by gadget-ladened armor. Bond is an assassin. Plain and simple. Although many of the films do not play up this angle, in certain films, he definitely comes across as a complex individual who walks that narrow road of moral uncertainty. Nevertheless, Moore played it for laughs and the films followed suit for the most part. There was violence and Bond did kill people. Of that there's no denying, but he never did it under the guise of being an upright superhero.


Not necessarily. I wouldn't say coward, I would say... easy.
And it WOULD make you better than him... he's dead.:)

I certainly hope you're joking.

The Tuggernaut
10-01-2008, 06:51 AM
Different kind of hero (different time for that matter) and he's definitely not super-powered or aided by gadget-ladened armor. Bond is an assassin. Plain and simple. Although many of the films do not play up this angle, in certain films, he definitely comes across as a complex individual who walks that narrow road of moral uncertainty. Nevertheless, Moore played it for laughs and the films followed suit for the most part. There was violence and Bond did kill people. Of that there's no denying, but he never did it under the guise of being an upright superhero.



I certainly hope you're joking.

Of course I am.

BUT, in some cases... violence is necessary.

spartan
10-01-2008, 06:54 AM
No, I wouldn't. There's more important things in solving a conflict than simply pulling a trigger. That's the coward's way out of the situation and by doing so, I would be no better than him.



And I guarantee they'll be twice as many more men back within a day or two to take the place of the men Tony killed to cause more damage and likely kill the villagers. Violence only begets more violence. Simply killing them is not the way to solve the problem, it only creates more of the same.

Tony made a suit that can fly and go super-sonic, yet he can't find room in there for some high-powered sleeping darts that could knock someone out for possible 24 hours? ;)

ok so he puts them to sleep and then what?

like you said they are going to come back anyway, but at least now they know they have some strong opposition. now they have it at the back of their head that they could die... that may not put off the commanders, but it will certainly make the small time criminals shaky.

some people only understand you when you speak their language...

and like someone else pointed out, heroes are not prefect people, they make mistakes and they cross over to being criminals very often. i have always found the classic scene of the hero not being able to pull the trigger on the bad guy very patronising. those are not heroes. they are images of idealism. an idealist hero is of no use to me because he is detached from the weaknesses of the real human condition.

Krypto
10-01-2008, 07:11 AM
ok so he puts them to sleep and then what?

like you said they are going to come back anyway, but at least now they know they have some strong opposition. now they have it at the back of their head that they could die... that may not put off the commanders, but it will certainly make the small time criminals shaky.

What does Stark Industries do? Weapon manufacturing, right? Why not arm the civilians and villagers and have them fight for their land and lives, instead of simply killing any and all terrorists that come in your way. It's not much better, but it's better than the "fire first, ask questions later" attitude that Stark has. The more logical and intelligent thing to do would be to simply disarm the terrorists. He has this amazing suit. He can fly and lift extremely heavy objects without breaking a sweat. He can do all of these things, so the easiest thing would be to simply disarm the people doing the killing. I guess in a roundabout way, Stark unknowingly does this by making his company halt production of weapons, giving Stain nowhere to sell his companies goods. But in that context, he simply replaces all of the weapons he built for the military that would aide and protect them and simply puts it in a suit that he uses as a one-man army. His object seems to be to be the hero and makeup for the things his company as done over the years, but the message is lost since his ultimate weapon (the suit) does the exact same thing that all of his weapons did, only here he has direct control over it and has to suffer the moral complications that would arise from such a conflict. Unfortunately, there isn't a conflict and the movie side-steps this important issue in favor of a banal Hollywood finale.


some people only understand you when you speak their language...

Speaking their language drops you to their level.


and like someone else pointed out, heroes are not prefect people, they make mistakes and they cross over to being criminals very often. i have always found the classic scene of the hero not being able to pull the trigger on the bad guy very patronising. those are not heroes. they are images of idealism. an idealist hero is of no use to me because he is detached from the weaknesses of the real human condition.

That's a very cynical outlook on life. I'm glad the majority of heroes don't share that same point of view. We need them to be idealists and optimists. We need them to serve as a role model for young minds. They are an important part of our society and turning them into murderers is not something I'm comfortable with at all.

A hero not pulling the trigger on a criminal is of use to you. And it's not detached from the weakness of the human condition. Quite the opposite in fact. By showing his or her willingness to point the gun, the weakness of the human condition is evident. The only thing left is to pull the trigger and that thing in the back of your mind that tells you that this is deeply wrong is what makes you the hero. We all have that. Some choose to use it and some don't. I don't need to explain to you which is which in this instance.

Krypto
10-01-2008, 07:13 AM
Of course I am.

BUT, in some cases... violence is necessary.

Violence is necessary. Stopping an armed criminal, you have to subdue them somehow. But murder is on an entirely different playing field. Superheroes aren't the law. They are outside of the law and at some point, in order to be a superhero, they must transfer that authority over to the law once the crime as been stopped.

The Tuggernaut
10-01-2008, 07:17 AM
Violence is necessary. Stopping an armed criminal, you have to subdue them somehow. But murder is on an entirely different playing field. Superheroes aren't the law. They are outside of the law and at some point, in order to be a superhero, they must transfer that authority over to the law once the crime as been stopped.

It's not entirely different if you need self defense.
You might accidently kill the person.

spartan
10-01-2008, 08:35 AM
What does Stark Industries do? Weapon manufacturing, right? Why not arm the civilians and villagers and have them fight for their land and lives, instead of simply killing any and all terrorists that come in your way.

I guess what you are saying is that he should give the people the weapons to do the killing themselves, to liberate themselves and to "earn" their democracy and liberty. I agree with that view. However, not all people have the guts and heart to do what needs to be done, even if their freedom and life is at stake. You could say "well tough, then they dont deserve to be free of those bastards", which to a certain degree is true. But isn't that what heroes have done throughout human history? Aren't heroes the guys that do the "dirty deed" for us all? so we don't have to sleep with a murderer's guilt every night?....
and any how, that part of the movie was simply commentary on american foreigh policy.


the message is lost since his ultimate weapon (the suit) does the exact same thing that all of his weapons did, only here he has direct control over it and has to suffer the moral complications that would arise from such a conflict.

Well good! I want a hero to suffer the moral complications that arise from his actions and his use of weapons. He basically stopped the "anonymous" killing, the sale of weapons that ultimately find their way in the hands of the enemy, and took personal responsibility of his own technology. He stopped using it to get riches and put it to use for a what he thought was good cause. You may argue about whether he has the right to interfere or not, about whether the cause was good or not, but you cant knock him for putting himself as the sole entity that is responsible for how his technology is used. His technology was faceless and available for sale to all and everybody that had the money. Now he stopped that, and I think that is a good thing.



Speaking their language drops you to their level.

No. I dont agree with your use of the word "drop". What you are saying is that you should rise above them and stay there no matter what. By speaking their language you are not "dropping" to their level, you are simply speaking to them in terms that they can "understand" and comprehend. You can always come back to your level after you have made yourself clear and understood. But you cant be stubborn about maintaining your "level" when people are dying...
I'll give you an example. A friend of mine had an abusive father. For ages he would find his mum with bruses. And he would say nothing... And all this time he tried to change his dad by talking, by explaining, by encouraging good behaviour. But his dad continued the battering. And he did it when my friend was not present cause he was a coward. But then one day the boy grew up... He finds his mum battered again... But this time, he did no talking. This time he beat his father to the ground, he beat his dad so hard that if i was not there to stop him he would have probably done some serious brain damage. And in the end he told the old man that if he so much as lift a finger on his mum again, he would be beaten just like that, again and again and again.
Well it has been 10 years now, and that old man became the most loving and caring husband the wife could have ever prayed for...
You could say the son "dropped" to his dad's level or you could say that he "spoke" to his dad in the only language the old man understood. Its interesting to hear the old man speak about it nowadays, cause he always says that he acted that way cause there was no one there to stop him. And he is glad it was his son that ended it... They are now best mates...


That's a very cynical outlook on life. I'm glad the majority of heroes don't share that same point of view. We need them to be idealists and optimists. We need them to serve as a role model for young minds. They are an important part of our society and turning them into murderers is not something I'm comfortable with at all.

I'm not comfortable with murderers as heroes neither. I dont like, for example, how Captain America now carries a gun... But I want my heroes to make some of the mistakes that most of us make. I want them to serve the good cause "subconsciously", take every instance as it comes, do the good thing because it feels good and not because they abide by a general moral framework of "ideals" and how they see themselves. I think it would be good for children to see their heroes make mistakes and then apologize for them, that teaches them something. That brings them closer to their heroes, I want that rather than the untouchable heights of a perfect idealist hero...



A hero not pulling the trigger on a criminal is of use to you. And it's not detached from the weakness of the human condition. Quite the opposite in fact. By showing his or her willingness to point the gun, the weakness of the human condition is evident. The only thing left is to pull the trigger and that thing in the back of your mind that tells you that this is deeply wrong is what makes you the hero. We all have that. Some choose to use it and some don't. I don't need to explain to you which is which in this instance.


In the scene that you described, the hero was presented with a choice. Kill the terrorists or let the people die. He didnt have the sleeping darts. To a certain degree he placed himself in that situation by being there in the first place, but the particular choice was brought about by the terrorists. Now, a normal person, as you said, would find killing deeply wrong... but a hero is someone that is prepared to put up with his conscience for the sake of others. The terrorists brought about the oldest trick in the book and this time it didnt work.
Again, this is simply commentary on how american foreign policy is opperating at the moment. There are hostages and civilians being killed and more others threatened with death, and yet the american troops are still there chasing the "bad guys". the movie doesnt necessarily say it was the right choice, that is up to you to decide.

Nacho
10-01-2008, 08:41 AM
Violence is necessary. Stopping an armed criminal, you have to subdue them somehow. But murder is on an entirely different playing field. Superheroes aren't the law. They are outside of the law and at some point, in order to be a superhero, they must transfer that authority over to the law once the crime as been stopped.

In a country run by terrorists there is no law and the only law that is in place
is that of the terrorists, these civillians have no rights, they dont get to vote
they only get told what to do and if they dissagree they get killed.
I do agree that killing is wrong but not in the movies. Every one excluding yourself loves to see thier hero's wack the bad guys and if a few deaths are
involved the better, it brings relife, excitement and closure and most of all its what sells. No one want's to see sleeping darts we just want to see blood because at the end of the day the more action the better.
I would hate to see Iron man making citizens arrests that would just be borring and it would loose customer interest, yes in reality that would be the right thing to do but not in an action movie.
I suggest you stay away from these movie as you will never be satisfied.

Krypto
10-01-2008, 09:19 AM
I guess what you are saying is that he should give the people the weapons to do the killing themselves, to liberate themselves and to "earn" their democracy and liberty. I agree with that view. However, not all people have the guts and heart to do what needs to be done, even if their freedom and life is at stake. You could say "well tough, then they dont deserve to be free of those bastards", which to a certain degree is true. But isn't that what heroes have done throughout human history? Aren't heroes the guys that do the "dirty deed" for us all? so we don't have to sleep with a murderer's guilt every night?....
and any how, that part of the movie was simply commentary on american foreigh policy.

You have a perverse idea of what a hero is. A hero isn't someone who does the "dirty deeds" for us. They help us and save lives and serve as an inspiration in some sense for the rest of us. Not really as a role model in the purest of sense, but as someone to look up to in a way.

That scene in the movie contained no social or political commentary at all. It was a simple and straightforward "blow-em up" scene.


Well good! I want a hero to suffer the moral complications that arise from his actions and his use of weapons. He basically stopped the "anonymous" killing, the sale of weapons that ultimately find their way in the hands of the enemy, and took personal responsibility of his own technology. He stopped using it to get riches and put it to use for a what he thought was good cause. You may argue about whether he has the right to interfere or not, about whether the cause was good or not, but you cant knock him for putting himself as the sole entity that is responsible for how his technology is used. His technology was faceless and available for sale to all and everybody that had the money. Now he stopped that, and I think that is a good thing.

From a certain perspective, it's a good thing I suppose. But in the end, he's just replacing lots of weapons with one big one when all he does is stroll into town like John Wayne and blow the bad guys away.


No. I dont agree with your use of the word "drop". What you are saying is that you should rise above them and stay there no matter what. By speaking their language you are not "dropping" to their level, you are simply speaking to them in terms that they can "understand" and comprehend. You can always come back to your level after you have made yourself clear and understood. But you cant be stubborn about maintaining your "level" when people are dying...

Except the "language" in this case involved guns and murder. Little bit different and much more complicated than you would believe.


I'll give you an example. A friend of mine had an abusive father. For ages he would find his mum with bruses. And he would say nothing... And all this time he tried to change his dad by talking, by explaining, by encouraging good behaviour. But his dad continued the battering. And he did it when my friend was not present cause he was a coward. But then one day the boy grew up... He finds his mum battered again... But this time, he did no talking. This time he beat his father to the ground, he beat his dad so hard that if i was not there to stop him he would have probably done some serious brain damage. And in the end he told the old man that if he so much as lift a finger on his mum again, he would be beaten just like that, again and again and again.
Well it has been 10 years now, and that old man became the most loving and caring husband the wife could have ever prayed for...
You could say the son "dropped" to his dad's level or you could say that he "spoke" to his dad in the only language the old man understood. Its interesting to hear the old man speak about it nowadays, cause he always says that he acted that way cause there was no one there to stop him. And he is glad it was his son that ended it... They are now best mates...

No, he dropped to his level. The proper thing to do would have been to have reported it to the police and press charges. I'm sorry that situation ever occured, but there's a right way to go about it and there's a wrong way. You're friend chose the wrong way unfortunately. But I'm glad things are going well. Sad that the only way the situation was resolved was with fists.


I'm not comfortable with murderers as heroes neither. I dont like, for example, how Captain America now carries a gun... But I want my heroes to make some of the mistakes that most of us make. I want them to serve the good cause "subconsciously", take every instance as it comes, do the good thing because it feels good and not because they abide by a general moral framework of "ideals" and how they see themselves. I think it would be good for children to see their heroes make mistakes and then apologize for them, that teaches them something. That brings them closer to their heroes, I want that rather than the untouchable heights of a perfect idealist hero...

Who's talking about a perfect hero? I'm not. None of them are perfect, even Superman, who makes mistakes quite a bit. Mistakes are fine, as long as the hero recognizes them and remedies them with honesty and virtue.


In the scene that you described, the hero was presented with a choice. Kill the terrorists or let the people die. He didnt have the sleeping darts. To a certain degree he placed himself in that situation by being there in the first place, but the particular choice was brought about by the terrorists. Now, a normal person, as you said, would find killing deeply wrong... but a hero is someone that is prepared to put up with his conscience for the sake of others. The terrorists brought about the oldest trick in the book and this time it didnt work.

A superhero doesn't kill people. He should be above it. He should find the quickest and safest way to end the situation where no one gets hurt, even the criminals.


Again, this is simply commentary on how american foreign policy is opperating at the moment. There are hostages and civilians being killed and more others threatened with death, and yet the american troops are still there chasing the "bad guys". the movie doesnt necessarily say it was the right choice, that is up to you to decide.

You're giving the movie way to much credit.

The Mike
10-01-2008, 11:53 AM
All right. (Cracks knuckles) I'm a huge Iron Man fan, my favorite character, so I'll see if I can add some insight.


During the sequence when he goes back to Afghanistan to save the small village, he shoots five or six guys with guns out of his chest or shoulders (don't remember which). Now, does anyone know if these were actual guns using bullets that almost certainly killed these men or were they some kind of sleeping dart or something similar? If it's the latter, no problem, but if it's the former, then I have some major problems with this film and it'll certainly knock it down a peg or two in my eyes. Any ideas?

There are Iron Man discussion threads, quite a few in the Marvel section, but this is fine. He did kill those men with bullets.


I don't think Iron Man is worried about killing.

Nope, Iron Man never has had or will have the same strict moral code as Batman or Superman for example where killing isn't an option. He gets the job done no matter what it takes. Its that flawed morality that Marvel breeds their heroes from, DC creates Gods that look down on humanity and save it while Marvel looks to humans who are given extraordinary gifts or talents but are still very human in their thinking and actions. Tony Stark has no issues with killing terrorists and so neither does Iron Man. There isn't a duality like there is with Batman/Bruce Wayne or even Superman/Clark Kent. He is still the same persona inside and out.


Or he could have simply equipped his shoulder guns with some kind of sleeping dart that would knock them out for several hours while the locals imprisoned them.

He could have, but Iron Man fights to save the innocent, he didn't see the terrorists as such and so used deadly force to defuse the situation as quickly as possible, he didn't want to risk missing or hitting one of them and not knocking them out completely which could have lead to them killing a hostage. Its like the police department, a friend of mine is going through the academy and they are told when they shoot they shoot to kill, they are told its their last resort but they are told that when deadly force is needed and evident to use it.


Yet Batman did not kill Joker. He saw fit to be the bigger more responsible man, to not start down that downward spiral that leads to mayhem and murder. That's what makes him a hero.

This is arguable. Its true that in none of his incarnations Batman has ever physically done the killing but he doesn't save which means he is allowing death to occur. In BB he doesn't save Ras, it saves the blood from being on his hands but it still leads to Ras' death which means essentially Batman is being Judge and Jury and allowing the natural momentum of the situation be the Executioner. One could very well argue that the firm knowledge that the man will die and the conscious effort not to intervene is unintentional manslaughter in the eyes of the law. Batman isn't a killer, but he isn't clean of the deaths either. In one sequence he is fighting thugs who are shooting and he grabs the arm and pulls it aside while he continues to shoot, he shoots another thug who dies, this is still by defintion an assisted killing at the very least. I get what you are saying because there is an instilled moral code in Batman and Superman that makes them seem heroic above anyone or anything else but Batman at least usually dances the line which makes him a deeper and more dynamic character IMHO.


I'd rather they be intelligent moral and responsible individuals and not take human lives in the process of fulfilling their destiny as heroes.

Its their humanistic flaws that make them interesting and dynamic. Captain America for example would disarm and disable before killing, while Tony and Wolverine for example wouldn't, this creates tension amongst team members as well as colleagues and each doesn't understand the others points, much like real life. Many would say "Person A" is okay to kill if the situation warrants it, while "Person B" is not even if the situations are identical. Its those judgments and individuality that makes Marvel such a rich character driven company (well....it used to be) some of the best DC stories are when those Gods are dealing with real human emotions, problems and mistakes and there is a reason why. When Superman fails to save someone he internalizes the loss as if he personally killed them by not saving them, its one of his fatal flaws, while Batman choose who to save and not to save based on situation and intention of the person. Same moral code, different sides of the coin.


What does Stark Industries do? Weapon manufacturing, right? Why not arm the civilians and villagers and have them fight for their land and lives, instead of simply killing any and all terrorists that come in your way. It's not much better, but it's better than the "fire first, ask questions later" attitude that Stark has.

Stark while having an enlightening to his duties in life is still a businessman and wouldn't just give away expensive weaponry, one could argue why doesn't Batman just arm the citizens of Gotham with his toys and watch from the sidelines, the other side to that point is if the villagers don't know how to use it then it becomes a point of weakness for these weapons to be taken and still used to kill innocents. Stark wants to shut down the weapons division of Stark Industries by the mid film and use his armor as the last line of defense. Stark Industries like Wayne Enterprises has their hands in many different arenas, the weapons creation division is just the most moneymaking.



The more logical and intelligent thing to do would be to simply disarm the terrorists. He has this amazing suit. He can fly and lift extremely heavy objects without breaking a sweat. He can do all of these things, so the easiest thing would be to simply disarm the people doing the killing.

Terrorist breed fear, its their tool. Disarming them and allowing them to go away or be arrested or even be at the mercy of the villagers still keeps them operating. Much like Batman utilizes fear, Iron Man knew if he showed Deadly Force then the terrorists would understand and think twice about engagement. Its the old make an example ideal. Not the most ethical ideal but effective nonetheless.


I guess in a roundabout way, Stark unknowingly does this by making his company halt production of weapons, giving Stain nowhere to sell his companies goods. But in that context, he simply replaces all of the weapons he built for the military that would aide and protect them and simply puts it in a suit that he uses as a one-man army. His object seems to be to be the hero and makeup for the things his company as done over the years, but the message is lost since his ultimate weapon (the suit) does the exact same thing that all of his weapons did, only here he has direct control over it and has to suffer the moral complications that would arise from such a conflict. Unfortunately, there isn't a conflict and the movie side-steps this important issue in favor of a banal Hollywood finale.

Tony sees the errors in his ways but not to the point of looking solely to being a non lethal fighter. He sees it more that Stane was selling these to both sides and taking whatever money is green. He wants to remove the terrorist from his company's weaponry but he is still producing for the government. Nowhere in the film or in the character's lineage does it say he stops producing completely. He feels Iron Man is a watchdog of sorts, that if the tech gets into the wrong hands he can personally clean it up.

Tony Stark is a flawed human, he has dealt with womanizing, alcoholism etc all while wearing the suit. Its these flaws that separate him from the rest and make him more unique. Tony Stark could care less what people think of him, he does what he feels is right. Putting on the suit doesn't change his perspective like it does for other heroes who feel that their alter-ego should be a beacon of hope or a role model to the masses, he puts on the suit to "go to work" and get the job done. Then gets back to his billionaire lifestyle. While Batman looks at Bruce Wayne as a means to an end, a persona to put on so people do not get wind of his situation and a way to continue operations, in reality Bruce would love to get rid of the Bruce Wayne "character" and be Batman full time. Tony Stark doesn't see that duality, instead he just sees it as an extension of himself, flaws and all.

Krypto
10-01-2008, 12:26 PM
\
Nope, Iron Man never has had or will have the same strict moral code as Batman or Superman for example where killing isn't an option. He gets the job done no matter what it takes. Its that flawed morality that Marvel breeds their heroes from, DC creates Gods that look down on humanity and save it while Marvel looks to humans who are given extraordinary gifts or talents but are still very human in their thinking and actions. Tony Stark has no issues with killing terrorists and so neither does Iron Man. There isn't a duality like there is with Batman/Bruce Wayne or even Superman/Clark Kent. He is still the same persona inside and out.

This is really my problem with Marvel - the characters don't really have any kind of heroic code for the most part. I guess Spider-Man does and maybe Captain America, but I think I saw Captain America decapitate someone his sheild recently. They're not really superheroes, IMO. They're super...people I guess.


He could have, but Iron Man fights to save the innocent, he didn't see the terrorists as such and so used deadly force to defuse the situation as quickly as possible, he didn't want to risk missing or hitting one of them and not knocking them out completely which could have lead to them killing a hostage. Its like the police department, a friend of mine is going through the academy and they are told when they shoot they shoot to kill, they are told its their last resort but they are told that when deadly force is needed and evident to use it.

Since when did the police department adopt the motto "shoot to kill"? Are we Nazi's now? I'm pretty sure they're trained to shoot an extremity like in the shoulder or leg. At least, I really hope so.


This is arguable. Its true that in none of his incarnations Batman has ever physically done the killing but he doesn't save which means he is allowing death to occur. In BB he doesn't save Ras, it saves the blood from being on his hands but it still leads to Ras' death which means essentially Batman is being Judge and Jury and allowing the natural momentum of the situation be the Executioner. One could very well argue that the firm knowledge that the man will die and the conscious effort not to intervene is unintentional manslaughter in the eyes of the law. Batman isn't a killer, but he isn't clean of the deaths either. In one sequence he is fighting thugs who are shooting and he grabs the arm and pulls it aside while he continues to shoot, he shoots another thug who dies, this is still by defintion an assisted killing at the very least. I get what you are saying because there is an instilled moral code in Batman and Superman that makes them seem heroic above anyone or anything else but Batman at least usually dances the line which makes him a deeper and more dynamic character IMHO.

Batman isn't entirely clean, but he doesn't kill and he didn't kill Ra's. He saved Ra's life once and Ra's returned the favor by leaving Bruce for dead in his mansion. It's more about balance than anything. If Ra's truly wanted to escape he could have, but the look on his face, almost at peace with the ending of his life at the hands of his own creation, leads me to believe that he may have been at peace in some sense. Either way, Batman didn't kill him.


Terrorist breed fear, its their tool. Disarming them and allowing them to go away or be arrested or even be at the mercy of the villagers still keeps them operating. Much like Batman utilizes fear, Iron Man knew if he showed Deadly Force then the terrorists would understand and think twice about engagement. Its the old make an example ideal. Not the most ethical ideal but effective nonetheless.

I just have a basic problem of superheroes getting involved in real-life conflicts. I find it disrespectful to what's going on over there. There's a reason DC never had Superman go over to Europe and wipe up the Nazi menace in an afternoon. It was disrespectful to the men and women dying over there.

The problem with this sequence from Iron Man is that it's never followed through. If the filmmakers had legitimized the sequence within Stark's mind instead of just having him watch a terrorist message on the evening news and getting angry enough to suit up and go and kill the terrorists, then I might be okay with it. But the sequence plays out like a typical Rambo-style action sequence where just swoops in, kills some bad guys, blows some stuff up, and goes home. Nothings said. No problems are solved. It's done for cheap thrills, nothing more.


Tony sees the errors in his ways but not to the point of looking solely to being a non lethal fighter. He sees it more that Stane was selling these to both sides and taking whatever money is green. He wants to remove the terrorist from his company's weaponry but he is still producing for the government. Nowhere in the film or in the character's lineage does it say he stops producing completely. He feels Iron Man is a watchdog of sorts, that if the tech gets into the wrong hands he can personally clean it up.

None of this is really in the film, especially the latter part of this paragraph.

Also, he says he'll stop producing weapons when he returns during the press conference. ;)

[quoteTony Stark is a flawed human, he has dealt with womanizing, alcoholism etc all while wearing the suit. Its these flaws that separate him from the rest and make him more unique. Tony Stark could care less what people think of him, he does what he feels is right. Putting on the suit doesn't change his perspective like it does for other heroes who feel that their alter-ego should be a beacon of hope or a role model to the masses, he puts on the suit to "go to work" and get the job done. Then gets back to his billionaire lifestyle. While Batman looks at Bruce Wayne as a means to an end, a persona to put on so people do not get wind of his situation and a way to continue operations, in reality Bruce would love to get rid of the Bruce Wayne "character" and be Batman full time. Tony Stark doesn't see that duality, instead he just sees it as an extension of himself, flaws and all.[/QUOTE]

Then that kind of makes him one-dimensional in a sense. If there's no identity issues, no sense of duality, then he's just...a rich guy killing terrorists. There's nothing really internal going on other than the kind of superficial stuff that we normally get out of superhero comics.

CelticPredator
10-01-2008, 04:05 PM
I like Heros that kill those who deserve it. Iron Man kills in the comic too doesnt he? So....whats the big deal? Kids love it when he destroys the 10 Rings guys. They love it when he breaks the guy's neck. Its awesome.


And so is Rambo....hardly offensive. Brings a great point. Scum is there, someone should do SOMETHING about it. Plus the gore was hilariously awesome.

The Mike
10-01-2008, 04:15 PM
This is really my problem with Marvel - the characters don't really have any kind of heroic code for the most part. I guess Spider-Man does and maybe Captain America, but I think I saw Captain America decapitate someone his sheild recently. They're not really superheroes, IMO. They're super...people I guess.

You are imposing your own classification on what is a hero. The term is subjective beyond belief. What is a hero to you might be a villain to someone else. Some supervillains are based on the ideal that the hero was more of a villain than a hero and so they act in accordance because they weren't good enough. The argument that heroic code makes Marvel characters unheroic because they don't match Superman or Batman, etc is a moot point. Its an interpretation, nothing more.



Since when did the police department adopt the motto "shoot to kill"? Are we Nazi's now? I'm pretty sure they're trained to shoot an extremity like in the shoulder or leg. At least, I really hope so.

Re-read my quote. When deadly force is warranted, they use it. They are trained when in a situation where they (one person making that snap judgment) feel it is warranted they take it. I also said that they are told its a last resort, please read through or quote through the whole thing if you are going to counterpoint.



Batman isn't entirely clean, but he doesn't kill and he didn't kill Ra's. He saved Ra's life once and Ra's returned the favor by leaving Bruce for dead in his mansion. It's more about balance than anything. If Ra's truly wanted to escape he could have, but the look on his face, almost at peace with the ending of his life at the hands of his own creation, leads me to believe that he may have been at peace in some sense. Either way, Batman didn't kill him.

He didn't save him. For Superman it would be a good as killing him by his own hand, because his moral code is much higher than Bruce's. For Batman it was a decision to not intervene and whatever will happen, will happen but you can't be naive and say that he didn't know he would die.


I just have a basic problem of superheroes getting involved in real-life conflicts. I find it disrespectful to what's going on over there. There's a reason DC never had Superman go over to Europe and wipe up the Nazi menace in an afternoon. It was disrespectful to the men and women dying over there.

Do you Comic homework. If you look at the films for example, Superman IV is about the nuclear arms race. Look at comics produced in the 40s you'll see plenty of adventures where Batman, Robin and Superman go after Nazis. One of the Superman comics I believe or Batman has the letter on the cover to "Slap a ***". Comics are reflective of the culture going on now and many Comic Book artists and writers have used modern motifs, there are stories dealing with WWII, Vietnam, Korea, 9-11, the new birthing of the Captain America's series before he died had him in Afganistan fighting people there too.


The problem with this sequence from Iron Man is that it's never followed through. If the filmmakers had legitimized the sequence within Stark's mind instead of just having him watch a terrorist message on the evening news and getting angry enough to suit up and go and kill the terrorists, then I might be okay with it. But the sequence plays out like a typical Rambo-style action sequence where just swoops in, kills some bad guys, blows some stuff up, and goes home. Nothings said. No problems are solved. It's done for cheap thrills, nothing more.

The director felt it was given that he made the decision to save the innocent. You are giving it your own spin and perspective that it needed to be rationalized obviously since it wasn't a huge protest item, I would say you are in the minority. You can believe that you make you like the character more but the reality is I love the character and made that conclusion on my own and I'm glad the director didn't deem me daft enough not to make it but its just two different perspectives of the same scene. Doesn't make it wrong just show you didn't fully understand or care for it.



Also, he says he'll stop producing weapons when he returns during the press conference. ;)

He says he'll shut it down but they don't actually say he did. Obi even goes to New York to calm the stockholders. The division that creates Iron Monger is part of the weapons group that are just now focusing on the Arc Reactor tech because he always planned on Iron Monger to be a weapon which is why they refer to him as Iron Soldiers in the Middle East. If Tony really shut it down after the press conference then the whole latter of the film with Iron Monger wouldn't have happened. ;)


Then that kind of makes him one-dimensional in a sense. If there's no identity issues, no sense of duality, then he's just...a rich guy killing terrorists. There's nothing really internal going on other than the kind of superficial stuff that we normally get out of superhero comics.

What exactly are you looking for as dimension? A man who has the power to save, to kill, to be great, who is almost unstoppable yet cannot overcome his own demons? That is Batman in a nutshell my friend. That is also Tony Stark. Batman and Tony Stark have amazing parallels. The only difference is that Batman does it because he needs to feed a lust for vengeange. Tony does it because he likes it and it fuels his hero complex. Different motives, same bag of problems. If you call Iron Man one-dimensional then you have to paint Batman with that same brush. While the film didn't get into it too much, Tony has serious daddy issues because he was such an icon where as Bruce has a perfect memory of his parents that he tries to live up to because they were taken at a young age before they became flawed through the angst of teenage years.

They are more alike then most people would like to admit. Same with Superman/Captain America and a dozen of other archetypes that are repeated. Like I said before DC takes these archetypes and raises them to God status. Marvel takes them and keeps them grounded in reality and humanity. The characters though as the stories progress often mimic one another.

Kabukiman
10-01-2008, 06:34 PM
I have an Iron Man question...

Does the Blu-Ray ever actually load? I'm going on 20 minutes of waiting here... :monkey4

The Mike
10-01-2008, 06:38 PM
:D I haven't put it on yet but all of these loading issues worries me.

UTtoyfan
10-01-2008, 06:54 PM
I have an Iron Man question...

Does the Blu-Ray ever actually load? I'm going on 20 minutes of waiting here... :monkey4

Are you using the PS3 or a Sony player with Profile 2.0? If so, it's loading all that BD-Live content according to Digital Bits.com
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#ironps3

"The big thing so far today, is that a LOT of people are e-mailing to report problems with the playback of Paramount's Iron Man Blu-ray Disc on the Sony PS3 (and other Sony BD players we hear - the reason is the same, so please read on). As a result, we're getting a lot of people saying that the defective disc wasn't recalled after all (as reported last week), and they must have a bad one, etc. Here's the deal: From what we're told, the disc ISN'T defective. What's happening is that the Sony PS3 (and other Sony players) automatically downloads some of the BD-Live content from the studio servers the first time you boot up the disc. And it appears that Paramount initially underestimated the server load - thousands of people got their discs home yesterday, booted up their PS3s and then experienced long, long wait times while the disc loaded, making it look like the disc had frozen up and wouldn't play. But this morning, the problem appears to be resolving, as server loads are easing. (The studio tells me: "capacity was expanded dramatically last night and local servers were established worldwide to accommodate all the fans.") If you're still having troubles with Disc One of the Iron Man BD playing on your PS3, go into your system set-up menu and temporarily set BD-Live to 'prompt' or 'disable'. Then the disc should boot up fine. Wait a few hours (to allow server loads to ease more), and then restore your BD-Live setting. It might take a few minutes, but all the BD-Live content will download and your disc should work just fine after that. If the problem continues over the next few days - which it shouldn't - we'll get a customer service number for you from the studio. You might also want to take the opportunity to update your player firmware, to make sure you're fully compatible - just FYI."

The Tuggernaut
10-01-2008, 07:04 PM
Iron Man is the best:D

spartan
10-01-2008, 07:14 PM
You have a perverse idea of what a hero is. A hero isn't someone who does the "dirty deeds" for us. They help us and save lives and serve as an inspiration in some sense for the rest of us. Not really as a role model in the purest of sense, but as someone to look up to in a way.

You can be a hero in many ways shapes and forms. You can be a local hero by saving a child from drowning, as well as saving the child from bullies. We hailed the 9/11 fire-fighters as heroes, why, cause they got in the burning buildings, risking their lives, to save other lives. When I say "dirty deed" I dont mean just killing. A dirty deed is something that has to be done but we dont have the guts to do... like going into a burning building to save lives. We also have war heroes... soldiers that did "things" that had to be done for the good of the country but not many had the guts to do. These are all heroes. You can't say that they need the strict and strong moral code to go with it to qualify as heroes. You can have all the strong and righteous moral code as you like, its only when someone performs an act that sacrifices themselves for someone else (or a "dirty deed" if you like) that they become heroes.


That scene in the movie contained no social or political commentary at all. It was a simple and straightforward "blow-em up" scene.

Really? You see no parallels at all? Saddam Hussein threatened to kill more and more civilians if the americans didn't leave him alone. And he did kill. Yet the US army went there and got him. Osama has threatened the same. Yet we are still there chasing him. You really don't see the parallels????



No, he dropped to his level. The proper thing to do would have been to have reported it to the police and press charges. I'm sorry that situation ever occured, but there's a right way to go about it and there's a wrong way. You're friend chose the wrong way unfortunately. But I'm glad things are going well. Sad that the only way the situation was resolved was with fists.

You see that's where you get it wrong. You are judging by how things work out in your neighbourhood. In your world, calling the police would be the obvious choice, even if it involves family affairs. But not all worlds operate under the same frame. Different cultures have different limitations. In this instance, calling the police would have done a lot more damage, and trust me I know what I am talking about. That incident happened 10 years ago, the dust has settled, and everybody, and I mean everybody, agrees that what my friend did was what had to be done. Again, its a different world from yours so dont try to comprehend it by your standards.


Who's talking about a perfect hero? I'm not. None of them are perfect, even Superman, who makes mistakes quite a bit. Mistakes are fine, as long as the hero recognizes them and remedies them with honesty and virtue.

Well Tony Stark realized his mistake when he saw his own weapons in the hands of terrorists. He then remedied that mistake with honesty (see speech he gives to the media when he gets back) by stopping the production of weapons, but he also displays virtue by making a suit for himself so he can help those in need of protection, and he puts himself in the line of fire.


A superhero doesn't kill people. He should be above it. He should find the quickest and safest way to end the situation where no one gets hurt, even the criminals.

Really? Lets say you spot a suicide bomber just as he is about to push the button. There are women and children around. Maybe your own mum and dad... your sister and her baby... people you love... and this guy now has his thumb over the trigger and only you can see it to stop it. And lets say you are a cop, and you have a gun with you. You can take a shot at the hand, but he is a little bit too far, so you might miss it, and then have the guy blow up anyway. Or you can take a shot at the head which looks easier, and would definitely stop him by killing him. What you cant do for sure is shout "police, put your hands in the air". What do you do?.... What would a hero do?...

smc100
10-01-2008, 07:53 PM
I just have a basic problem of superheroes getting involved in real-life conflicts. I find it disrespectful to what's going on over there. There's a reason DC never had Superman go over to Europe and wipe up the Nazi menace in an afternoon. It was disrespectful to the men and women dying over there.

I believe they did but they waited until America was in the war.

IrishJedi
10-01-2008, 07:54 PM
This thread = wow. Joker asks,

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/blogs/media/JOKER.jpg

What happened? 'Your balls drop off??

:monkey3

OSCORP
10-01-2008, 08:01 PM
What happened? 'Your balls drop off??

:monkey3


LOL

And i just have to say

SLEEPING DARTS ARE FOR PUSSIES!!

:peace

LOTRFan
10-01-2008, 08:01 PM
:confused: Odd question from a dude with a gun in his avatar? :confused:

:google:google:google:google:google:google

Kabukiman
10-01-2008, 08:47 PM
Are you using the PS3 or a Sony player with Profile 2.0? If so, it's loading all that BD-Live content according to Digital Bits.com
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#ironps3

Yup, PS3. Thanks for the link, I'm glad to finally have *some* sort of explanation. :peace

Krypto
10-02-2008, 03:13 AM
I believe they did but they waited until America was in the war.

The covers featured pro-American propaganda, but the stories inside almost barely had anything to do with the war.

Based on the response to this thread though, I'm going to have to call it a day. Some of you are simply acting like mindless neanderthals that love violence no matter the consequences and Mike seems unable to comprehend someone with an entirely different point of view on his favorite character with regards to how I see certain sequences in the film and how the film never follows through with whatever social commentary or issues it may bring up. Sorry. Just ignore this thread or delete it.

vader70450
10-02-2008, 04:26 AM
bro....the answer is easy....If Super Heroes really existed and did not raise a hand to help stop the terrorist threat....what the ^^^^ good are they??...no matter how they get the job done...justice is served...Movies are fiction but to relate show what's happening in real life...and i hate to tell you this but Cap as you say has the highest hero code...would shove his shield up those terrorist bastards asses!!! and Rambo was good...Stark said it best...*They* say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it... and it's worked out pretty well so far. I present to you the newest in Stark Industries' Freedom line. Find an excuse to let one of these off the chain, and I personally guarantee, the bad guys won't even wanna come out of their caves. Ladies and gentlemen, for your consideration... the Jericho

Synboi
10-02-2008, 05:56 AM
I'm pretty sure he's just a troll...... but I could be wrong.

Hew
10-02-2008, 06:58 AM
The covers featured pro-American propaganda, but the stories inside almost barely had anything to do with the war.

Based on the response to this thread though, I'm going to have to call it a day. Some of you are simply acting like mindless neanderthals that love violence no matter the consequences and Mike seems unable to comprehend someone with an entirely different point of view on his favorite character with regards to how I see certain sequences in the film and how the film never follows through with whatever social commentary or issues it may bring up. Sorry. Just ignore this thread or delete it.

Krypto, you do bring up some good points.

I would have to say your definition of a superhero--a definition that can be gathered from your many, many posts--is very confining.

IMHO

Also, were talking about a few mediums (film and comics).

Iron Man is an action movie, not a drama that brings to light motives/complexities of the Hero persona.

So which it it, what are we discussing, comics or the movie?

The Iron Man comics, which I believe you haven't read do, in fact, bring many of these complexities to light. That is why I think The Mike is a more avid defender on Iron Man (the movie) than most because he sees the whole scope, including the comics.

Nuka Cola Kidd
10-02-2008, 07:54 AM
this thread is a joke...Isnt defeating evil the whole point of a superhero. whether that means killing or not. the only reason why joker didnt die in TDK was because they were going to bring him back in later movies. i personally think they shoulda cut the movie (after ledgers death) to make it so he falls therefore BATMAN would of killed him. If superheros dont kill the villians in the movies i guess you think committing suicide (for the villians) is ok right? ie: doc oc, venom the list goes on...i believe the x men kill people (do you have a problem with those movies too?) i would advise you not to see the up coming wolverine movie...with his claws people will tend to die...they arent for scratching their for stabbin :D so what if he killed terrorist with bullets oh no..so i take it you think Osama deserves a fair and just trial??? haha no he deserves to be shot in between the eyes by the first marine that sees him with freaking 50 cal.

The Mike
10-02-2008, 08:27 AM
Mike seems unable to comprehend someone with an entirely different point of view on his favorite character with regards to how I see certain sequences in the film and how the film never follows through with whatever social commentary or issues it may bring up. Sorry. Just ignore this thread or delete it.

I can comprehend differing points of view and in fact have hijack many threads with different individuals on these boards to have in depth dialogues about this. I was just answering your questions as I saw them, no reason to apologize but the reality is just like in the Superman sequels thread you are looking at this film through your own lens just like you did Superman Returns. There isn't anything wrong with that but the headbanging that was going on in there is because you fail and you did here as well to allow that open dialogue without resorting to attempts to shut the conversation down. If you want to just post commentary with no chance of conversation then state that in the beginning, on a discussion board I was looking to have just that a discussion with someone who didn't understand the character and myself someone who is slightly obsessive with the character.


The Iron Man comics, which I believe you haven't read do, in fact, bring many of these complexities to light. That is why I think The Mike is a more avid defender on Iron Man (the movie) than most because he sees the whole scope, including the comics.

Exactly, I do the same thing with many Comic properties that I follow because I've seen the character play out over decades of storytelling. I can defend the character and heroics of Iron Man because that is what you called into question, Krypto. Now if you want to talk about the shortfalls of the film then that's another thing but you started there and then went into how he isn't heroic changing the breed of the conversation from the go.

Krypto
10-02-2008, 09:02 AM
I can comprehend differing points of view and in fact have hijack many threads with different individuals on these boards to have in depth dialogues about this. I was just answering your questions as I saw them, no reason to apologize but the reality is just like in the Superman sequels thread you are looking at this film through your own lens just like you did Superman Returns. There isn't anything wrong with that but the headbanging that was going on in there is because you fail and you did here as well to allow that open dialogue without resorting to attempts to shut the conversation down. If you want to just post commentary with no chance of conversation then state that in the beginning, on a discussion board I was looking to have just that a discussion with someone who didn't understand the character and myself someone who is slightly obsessive with the character.

Exactly, I do the same thing with many Comic properties that I follow because I've seen the character play out over decades of storytelling. I can defend the character and heroics of Iron Man because that is what you called into question, Krypto. Now if you want to talk about the shortfalls of the film then that's another thing but you started there and then went into how he isn't heroic changing the breed of the conversation from the go.

The two subjects are linked from the first post on. The film, the character, whether he's heroic or not, are not separate entities. Bringing up the comic book is not really necessary since the discussion was obviously initiated because of the film and the problems I saw within the philosophy of the film.

This is my basic problem - Tony Stark kills people in the movie under the guise of a armored superhero. Yes, he kills bad guys and terrorists, but they're nevertheless human beings. As you stated, police officers are only allowed to use deadly force should such a situation arise. Tony had multiple opportunities to simply injure his foes, yet chose to use deadly force instead. That to me, is unheroic. That to me is not in keeping with what a superhero should be. That to me, sends the wrong message to our young people. The fact that the film makes these events look "cool" and "hip" with hard rock music blazing while Tony flies around blowing up terrorists is somewhat offensive to me and I think makes for a very juvenile and small-minded film.

Now...had the filmmakers decided to take a more serious approach like Nolan and delve into Stark's psyche, uncovering the reasons for his actions and giving him more depth as a human being, getting into his moral code, whatever it may be, and stylistically make the film more meaningful and rich from an emotional perspective, Stark's actions might be justified in some way if Stark were to learn from his mistakes. But the film doesn't do this and instead it comes off as an gadget-laden PG-13 Rambo film.

IrishJedi
10-02-2008, 09:23 AM
Krypto, quit while you're behind, man.

Or you can always take your sanctimonious discussion to a forum for pretentious pacifists. I'm sure there are a gazillion of those on the interwebs. :lol

The Josh
10-02-2008, 11:13 AM
I thought the political threads where mucked up. :lol

CelticPredator
10-02-2008, 11:36 AM
this thread is a joke...Isnt defeating evil the whole point of a superhero. whether that means killing or not. the only reason why joker didnt die in TDK was because they were going to bring him back in later movies. i personally think they shoulda cut the movie (after ledgers death) to make it so he falls therefore BATMAN would of killed him. If superheros dont kill the villians in the movies i guess you think committing suicide (for the villians) is ok right? ie: doc oc, venom the list goes on...i believe the x men kill people (do you have a problem with those movies too?) i would advise you not to see the up coming wolverine movie...with his claws people will tend to die...they arent for scratching their for stabbin :D so what if he killed terrorist with bullets oh no..so i take it you think Osama deserves a fair and just trial??? haha no he deserves to be shot in between the eyes by the first marine that sees him with freaking 50 cal.

Batman doesnt kill people. Iron Man does. Superman doesnt kill people, Wolverine does.

Batman killing the Joker would've ruined the entire point of the movie. So....

The Mike
10-02-2008, 11:37 AM
The fact that Krypto you are saying "to me" is leaving it open for people to interpret it was just your lens. Nolan has his set of problems with the Batman films as well as his successes. Some have a serious problem with the absence of duality in BB and the forced pushing of it in TDK. Its almost as if he has to be reminded to keep the duality while in the comics it is a conclusion that Bruce has without prompt because he knows what it will take to exist.

Bringing up Comics is ABSOLUTELY necessary because its the source material. It allows to show the strengths as well as the weaknesses based on the concept of the character. The character was created in the 1960s and in that interpretation as well he kills to be released and the film stays true to that not being afraid of it because of the ratings system. Since Batman seems to be your foothold in heroism remember that "Pre-Crisis" Batman killed multiple times from snapping necks, to throwing people in acid, to tossing crooks in front of a train. Its a muddled history but its history.

These characters didn't not spring to life from the mind of a screenwriter and looking at the film in a bubble in terms of judging the character and its stature in the superhero world is like judging someone who has been alive for 40 years by two hours of their life in a snapshot. Makes no sense at all.

You can argue that the filmmakers were shortsighted in their portrayal of Tony Stark especially considering how complex the character really is but then again you'd have to explain how and you don't seem to have the source knowledge to do so, this is why you are getting so much opposition because you are judging the character through rose colored blinders instead of arguing just the points of the film. They are not the same and you saying that they are is not only nonsense but also still pushing your thoughts and ideals to be accepted as fact.

Not one time other than saying he was my favorite character did I ever interject my thoughts on the film or thoughts on whether or not Stark was portrayed accurately. Was he done justice? Definitely, are there pitfalls? Of course but to keep the conversation based on facts and points I argued from Comic Book Knowledge, what we saw on films and antedotal information that shows it relevance to argue the point. Never once have I tried to sway anyone and that makes all the difference when arguing points and attempting to have a serious dialogue.

El Skutto
10-02-2008, 12:11 PM
I was under the impression that a hero is someone who does what needs to be done for the greater good, regardless of their own personal beliefs or fears. And yes, that includes killing under certain circumstances. That's why veterans are considered heroes - because they risk and sacrifice their lives in order to save the folks back home, regardless of their own feelings and fears.

As for Batman, I've always wondered how he sleeps at night. I mean, he upheld his strict moral code by never killing the Joker, but how many innocent civilians has the Joker killed since their first encounter? Easily hundreds. If it were me, knowing that my personal beliefs were responsible for the deaths of so many innocents, I'd be hard pressed NOT to kill the guy the next time I saw him. I used Batman as an example, but that argument could apply to any comic book hero who adheres to a no-killing policy.

Sometimes, people just need to be killed in order to be stopped. It really is that simple.

To the TC, I would recommend that you find comics and heroes that appeal to your own personal beliefs, but leave your criticisms of other people's heroes at home. I'd never read a Batman or Superman book, but I don't judge the people who do. I just buy my copy of Judge Dredd and the Punisher and accept that not everyone has the same tastes or morals that I do.

:angelsmil

Nuka Cola Kidd
10-02-2008, 12:15 PM
Batman doesnt kill people. Iron Man does. Superman doesnt kill people, Wolverine does.

Batman killing the Joker would've ruined the entire point of the movie. So....

why? just curious..did the 89 version get ruined? with the joker dying..i dunno what you mean by point of the movie..what point..

IrishJedi
10-02-2008, 12:54 PM
The fact that Krypto you are saying "to me" is leaving it open for people to interpret it was just your lens. Nolan has his set of problems with the Batman films as well as his successes. Some have a serious problem with the absence of duality in BB and the forced pushing of it in TDK. Its almost as if he has to be reminded to keep the duality while in the comics it is a conclusion that Bruce has without prompt because he knows what it will take to exist.

I agree. And he might feel flat silly about taking any of the Batman themes quite that seriously if he's read a certain graphic novel written by a bearded British bard. ;)

Krypto
10-02-2008, 01:50 PM
These characters didn't not spring to life from the mind of a screenwriter and looking at the film in a bubble in terms of judging the character and its stature in the superhero world is like judging someone who has been alive for 40 years by two hours of their life in a snapshot. Makes no sense at all.

The film is the film. While it is based on a comic book, it has to stand on its own as a single story. Bring up the comics all you want, but it makes no difference in a discussion of the film itself.


You can argue that the filmmakers were shortsighted in their portrayal of Tony Stark especially considering how complex the character really is but then again you'd have to explain how and you don't seem to have the source knowledge to do so, this is why you are getting so much opposition because you are judging the character through rose colored blinders instead of arguing just the points of the film. They are not the same and you saying that they are is not only nonsense but also still pushing your thoughts and ideals to be accepted as fact.

I'm discussing the film exclusively. Not the comics or anything else because I haven't read them. It wouldn't be right of me to discuss something that I know little about. But I've seen the film and I've given my thoughts on the film and the character and how contradictory the film is in its message and philosophy. And I've not once tried to say anything I've said is a fact and I'm certainly not pushing it on anyone. If anything, it's the exact opposite. All I've really got are some posts from you about the comic which I've tried in vain to argue and spartan about a friend of his, neither of which really concerning the film that much, and the rest of the people in this thread are more concerned with how "awesome" and "cool" it is that Iron Man blew a bunch of dirty no good terrorists up.



To the TC, I would recommend that you find comics and heroes that appeal to your own personal beliefs, but leave your criticisms of other people's heroes at home. I'd never read a Batman or Superman book, but I don't judge the people who do. I just buy my copy of Judge Dredd and the Punisher and accept that not everyone has the same tastes or morals that I do.

I love the Punisher comics written by Garth Ennis. They're beautifully and painfully funny and dark and violent as all get out, just the way the Punisher should be. And they're exceedingly well written. Which brings me back to my problem with the film. It's just not that good of a film. It's all over the place in its message and philosophy, the score is terrible, and the plotting near the end reminds me more of a Power Rangers episode than a feature film. And the other thing is that Frank Castle is not a superhero. He doesn't have powers or gadgets or armored suits or disguises. He's pure and that's what I like about him. And he does have a moral code that he's very strict about. Certainly it's not politically correct, but he does have beliefs and morals and stands up for them and the comics follow through in that respect with his character and personal philosophy.

Iron Man wears a mask, an armored suit, and has gadgets galore. And yet, he has no real moral code except shoot first and ask questions later, a philosophy that simply doesn't apply in the real world without some repercussions. If the movie had given his tactics a failing point where he would have to answer for what he's done, whether physically or internally, then the film would go a long way in making some sense. But unfortunately, the film stays safely in the Rambo with gadgets vein of silly fake heroics.

And contrary to what Irish said, I'm not a pacifist at all. Of course some of you would actually have to put your thinking caps on and read a post or two to discover that, which I know...takes up a lot of your time, but you may want to consider doing so in the future. ;)

IrishJedi
10-02-2008, 01:59 PM
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t14/trishbk/pretentious.jpg

Krypto
10-02-2008, 02:03 PM
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t14/trishbk/pretentious.jpg

http://www.clanpot.com/cannibas/NSFW/450px-Irony.jpg

IrishJedi
10-02-2008, 02:04 PM
:lol :lol :lol

At least you can be somewhat of a good sport about it and play along.

:duff

Krypto
10-02-2008, 02:08 PM
:lol :lol :lol

At least you can be somewhat of a good sport about it and play along.

:duff

There was a reason I put the wink face at the end. ;)

Although discussions may get heated, I want to keep it as cordial as I can. After all, we're all here because we love genre entertainment and collecting memorabilia from said entertainment. So we all have that in common.

CelticPredator
10-02-2008, 02:15 PM
If Superman killed Lex in Superman Returns, that would've made the movie for me. I'd love to see Superman punch someone's head right off.

IrishJedi
10-02-2008, 02:49 PM
Although discussions may get heated, I want to keep it as cordial as I can. After all, we're all here because we love genre entertainment and collecting memorabilia from said entertainment. So we all have that in common.

Indeed. :lecture

smc100
10-02-2008, 05:05 PM
Just saw this picture of War Machine from Iron Man 2 over on statueforum.
I wonder if he shoots sleeping darts?

vader70450
10-02-2008, 05:27 PM
If Superman killed Lex in Superman Returns, that would've made the movie for me. I'd love to see Superman punch someone's head right off.

THIS GUY RULES!!! I am with ya bro...punch that ^^^^ers head off!

CelticPredator
10-02-2008, 05:56 PM
RIGHT THE ^^^^ OFF!

The Mike
10-02-2008, 06:01 PM
Just saw this picture of War Machine from Iron Man 2 over on statueforum.
I wonder if he shoots sleeping darts?

That photo is a fan made image. There was a Favreau approved War Machine concept for the first that was cut here:

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5292/warmachinehx6.jpg

Although Favreau has said in a recent interview that he is starting the War Machine concept over again.

The Mike
10-02-2008, 06:06 PM
And I've not once tried to say anything I've said is a fact and I'm certainly not pushing it on anyone. If anything, it's the exact opposite. All 've really got are some posts from you about the comic which I've tried in vain to argue and spartan about a friend of his, neither of which really concerning the film that much, and the rest of the people in this thread are more concerned with how "awesome" and "cool" it is that Iron Man blew a bunch of dirty no good terrorists up.


I guess then in reality I cannot have a real dialogue with you about this because you are refusing to introduce or awknowledge facts from the comics. Since I'm well versed in the Comics and different origins and details of his character its difficult to separate them because I know the foundational reasonings. Either way, I appreciate the actual conversation that was allowed to occur in here for the most part. :D

smc100
10-02-2008, 06:56 PM
That photo is a fan made image.
Although Favreau has said in a recent interview that he is starting the War Machine concept over again.


Wow, maybe they should hire that fan. That looked pretty damn cool.

Krypto
10-03-2008, 03:22 AM
I guess then in reality I cannot have a real dialogue with you about this because you are refusing to introduce or awknowledge facts from the comics. Since I'm well versed in the Comics and different origins and details of his character its difficult to separate them because I know the foundational reasonings. Either way, I appreciate the actual conversation that was allowed to occur in here for the most part. :D

It's not that I'm refusing to acknowledge the comics existence, it's just that this is about the film itself, which has to stand on its own outside of the comic book mythology. And since I have no experience with the Iron Man comic, it puts me at a disadvantage as well. So it's basically just you talking to yourself about how good the comic is, which gives me nothing to discuss. ;)

Trust me, I know where you're coming from though. It's hard for me to discuss a Superman film without bringing up the comics in someway. :)

Metalhead
10-03-2008, 03:40 AM
If Superman killed Lex in Superman Returns, that would've made the movie for me. I'd love to see Superman punch someone's head right off.

I would have loved to see Superman punch anybody rather than see him lifting things all day in that movie....

Krypto
10-03-2008, 04:03 AM
Superman can't really punch anyone unless they're Kryptonian or near his level of power. Since there was no super-powered villains in the film, there was no one to punch.

Personally, in a film, I prefer to see him saving lives with his powers rather than entering a slugfest that causes massive damage around the city. Although there are no direct fights in the movie, I found the action sequences to be beautiful and visceral. It's more about the emotions behind the action than the superficiality of the action itself. To me, that just makes it that much more meaningful.

CelticPredator
10-03-2008, 05:49 AM
Superman needs to throw people off buildings. That would be funny!

Reinhardt
10-03-2008, 05:55 AM
Superman can't really punch anyone unless they're Kryptonian or near his level of power. Since there was no super-powered villains in the film, there was no one to punch.

Personally, in a film, I prefer to see him saving lives with his powers rather than entering a slugfest that causes massive damage around the city. Although there are no direct fights in the movie, I found the action sequences to be beautiful and visceral. It's more about the emotions behind the action than the superficiality of the action itself. To me, that just makes it that much more meaningful.

i'm with you entirely on this one. people talk about slugfests and wanting to see Superman beat the crap out of someone and yet everyone loves Richard Donner's Superman. The film is brilliant and yet it has no slugfests whatsoever.

McHavyck
10-03-2008, 07:11 AM
well said, Mike.



All right. (Cracks knuckles) I'm a huge Iron Man fan, my favorite character, so I'll see if I can add some insight.



There are Iron Man discussion threads, quite a few in the Marvel section, but this is fine. He did kill those men with bullets.



Nope, Iron Man never has had or will have the same strict moral code as Batman or Superman for example where killing isn't an option. He gets the job done no matter what it takes. Its that flawed morality that Marvel breeds their heroes from, DC creates Gods that look down on humanity and save it while Marvel looks to humans who are given extraordinary gifts or talents but are still very human in their thinking and actions. Tony Stark has no issues with killing terrorists and so neither does Iron Man. There isn't a duality like there is with Batman/Bruce Wayne or even Superman/Clark Kent. He is still the same persona inside and out.



He could have, but Iron Man fights to save the innocent, he didn't see the terrorists as such and so used deadly force to defuse the situation as quickly as possible, he didn't want to risk missing or hitting one of them and not knocking them out completely which could have lead to them killing a hostage. Its like the police department, a friend of mine is going through the academy and they are told when they shoot they shoot to kill, they are told its their last resort but they are told that when deadly force is needed and evident to use it.



This is arguable. Its true that in none of his incarnations Batman has ever physically done the killing but he doesn't save which means he is allowing death to occur. In BB he doesn't save Ras, it saves the blood from being on his hands but it still leads to Ras' death which means essentially Batman is being Judge and Jury and allowing the natural momentum of the situation be the Executioner. One could very well argue that the firm knowledge that the man will die and the conscious effort not to intervene is unintentional manslaughter in the eyes of the law. Batman isn't a killer, but he isn't clean of the deaths either. In one sequence he is fighting thugs who are shooting and he grabs the arm and pulls it aside while he continues to shoot, he shoots another thug who dies, this is still by defintion an assisted killing at the very least. I get what you are saying because there is an instilled moral code in Batman and Superman that makes them seem heroic above anyone or anything else but Batman at least usually dances the line which makes him a deeper and more dynamic character IMHO.



Its their humanistic flaws that make them interesting and dynamic. Captain America for example would disarm and disable before killing, while Tony and Wolverine for example wouldn't, this creates tension amongst team members as well as colleagues and each doesn't understand the others points, much like real life. Many would say "Person A" is okay to kill if the situation warrants it, while "Person B" is not even if the situations are identical. Its those judgments and individuality that makes Marvel such a rich character driven company (well....it used to be) some of the best DC stories are when those Gods are dealing with real human emotions, problems and mistakes and there is a reason why. When Superman fails to save someone he internalizes the loss as if he personally killed them by not saving them, its one of his fatal flaws, while Batman choose who to save and not to save based on situation and intention of the person. Same moral code, different sides of the coin.



Stark while having an enlightening to his duties in life is still a businessman and wouldn't just give away expensive weaponry, one could argue why doesn't Batman just arm the citizens of Gotham with his toys and watch from the sidelines, the other side to that point is if the villagers don't know how to use it then it becomes a point of weakness for these weapons to be taken and still used to kill innocents. Stark wants to shut down the weapons division of Stark Industries by the mid film and use his armor as the last line of defense. Stark Industries like Wayne Enterprises has their hands in many different arenas, the weapons creation division is just the most moneymaking.




Terrorist breed fear, its their tool. Disarming them and allowing them to go away or be arrested or even be at the mercy of the villagers still keeps them operating. Much like Batman utilizes fear, Iron Man knew if he showed Deadly Force then the terrorists would understand and think twice about engagement. Its the old make an example ideal. Not the most ethical ideal but effective nonetheless.



Tony sees the errors in his ways but not to the point of looking solely to being a non lethal fighter. He sees it more that Stane was selling these to both sides and taking whatever money is green. He wants to remove the terrorist from his company's weaponry but he is still producing for the government. Nowhere in the film or in the character's lineage does it say he stops producing completely. He feels Iron Man is a watchdog of sorts, that if the tech gets into the wrong hands he can personally clean it up.

Tony Stark is a flawed human, he has dealt with womanizing, alcoholism etc all while wearing the suit. Its these flaws that separate him from the rest and make him more unique. Tony Stark could care less what people think of him, he does what he feels is right. Putting on the suit doesn't change his perspective like it does for other heroes who feel that their alter-ego should be a beacon of hope or a role model to the masses, he puts on the suit to "go to work" and get the job done. Then gets back to his billionaire lifestyle. While Batman looks at Bruce Wayne as a means to an end, a persona to put on so people do not get wind of his situation and a way to continue operations, in reality Bruce would love to get rid of the Bruce Wayne "character" and be Batman full time. Tony Stark doesn't see that duality, instead he just sees it as an extension of himself, flaws and all.