I found it highly entertaining and much better than Iron Man 2.
Robert Downey Jr's one-liners were spot on and there was just the right balance of action and humour. 9/10
Most Marvel heroes just don't work as well on screen as DC and Man of Steel live up to the hype it will them all to shame.
Seriously....aside from 5 out of 7 Batman movies and 2 Superman movies (so far), DC really don't have a good track record when it comes to movie adaptations (see Green Lantern for a prime example...). I'd say Marvel actually has a better cinematic track record, and I say that as a DC comics fan who isn't really into Marvel outside of the movies.
Most Marvel heroes just don't work as well on screen as DC and Man of Steel live up to the hype it will them all to shame.
You've got to be kidding! :eek: What success has there been with DC characters outside of Super man and Batman in the movies? Answer; none.
Then, with Superman, we have (so far) 1 and 2, with 3 and 4 being increasing levels of awful. Superman Returns, was ok, but nothing special. Batman managed two Burton greats, followed by two increasingly worthless sequels. No doubt Nolan's first two are among the best superhero movies ever made. His third is still one of the better ones, but not as good as the fist two.
But compared to the number of Marvel films, DC hasn't come close. Anyone outside of "the big two" have been disasters. Marvel have pulled off so much more. So you don't think Iron Man is up to much. Compare it to Green Lantern, then, rather than just going for a Donner Superman or Nolan Batman.
As for "Man of Steel," we al hope it will be amazing. But until its out, we can't really use it to beat any other movie down. It might be the best superhero movie of all time. But it might also be utter tripe, with all the best bits in the trailer. Only time will answer that one.
Just been to see it and boy was I glad when it was over. Really didn't work for me at all. Some good, funny quips from RDJ as usual, but it took far too long to get going and just had far too many irritating scenes in it.
The destruction of Stark's house was quite impressive, but that was about it for me.
I do get that they were going for a slightly darker tone with it and that's fine, but I personally felt the pacing just wasn't right. I certainly preferred the first two over this.
Most Marvel heroes just don't work as well on screen as DC and Man of Steel live up to the hype it will them all to shame.
You are joking. Marvel has had more success recently with super hero movies.
DC comics less so - outside Superman and Batman. The Green Lantern was dreadful.
The Marvel films work because not only do they have respect for the material - but they have also remembered that the important issue for a film is not just the spectacle - but that one must actually care for he characters - there must be some kind of story.
There is a reason why Avengers Assemble is the third highest grossing film ever.
You've got to be kidding! :eek: What success has there been with DC characters outside of Super man and Batman in the movies? Answer; none.
Maybe DC don't want to saturate the movies with heroes which won't work on the big screen. Marvel have made a lots movies in a short space of time and most them imo were not that good.
They didn't even wait 5 years to reboot Spiderman after Raimi did his final movie.
The problem with Iron Man was always without seeing RDJ's face the hero is basically a robot and so they have to use shots of Start inside the helmet to make up for it.
Then, with Superman, we have (so far) 1 and 2, with 3 and 4 being increasing levels of awful. Superman Returns, was ok, but nothing special. Batman managed two Burton greats, followed by two increasingly worthless sequels. No doubt Nolan's first two are among the best superhero movies ever made. His third is still one of the better ones, but not as good as the fist two.
The original Superman is still better some 30 years later then any of the Marvel origin movies.
The last two Schumacher movies were dreadful and he was the wrong person for the franchise, I presume that is why there no further movies until Nolan's reboot.
Superman Returns was still better than most Marvel efforts.
The only redeeming features is the X-Men franchise which I actually enjoyed.[/QUOTE]
But compared to the number of Marvel films, DC hasn't come close. Anyone outside of "the big two" have been disasters. Marvel have pulled off so much more. So you don't think Iron Man is up to much. Compare it to Green Lantern, then, rather than just going for a Donner Superman or Nolan Batman.
As for "Man of Steel," we al hope it will be amazing. But until its out, we can't really use it to beat any other movie down. It might be the best superhero movie of all time. But it might also be utter tripe, with all the best bits in the trailer. Only time will answer that one.
DC haven't flooder the market with multiple hero movies but Nolan's trilogy is still better than anything which Marvel based movies have released in the 10 years or so. Disney/Marvel is more about bums on seats then quality.
I would rather watch 3 quality movies then 6 averages ones.
Went to see this yesterday. Loved it.
It was the most fun I've had at the cinema in years.
It played more like a follow up to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang than Iron Man 2. But that's a good thing.
By far the best of the Marvel movies.
Maybe DC don't want to saturate the movies with heroes which won't work on the big screen. Marvel have made a lots movies in a short space of time and most them imo were not that good.
They didn't even wait 5 years to reboot Spiderman after Raimi did his final movie.
The problem with Iron Man was always without seeing RDJ's face the hero is basically a robot and so they have to use shots of Start inside the helmet to make up for it.
The original Superman is still better some 30 years later then any of the Marvel origin movies.
The last two Schumacher movies were dreadful and he was the wrong person for the franchise, I presume that is why there no further movies until Nolan's reboot.
Superman Returns was still better than most Marvel efforts.
The only redeeming features is the X-Men franchise which I actually enjoyed.
DC haven't flooder the market with multiple hero movies but Nolan's trilogy is still better than anything which Marvel based movies have released in the 10 years or so. Disney/Marvel is more about bums on seats then quality.
I would rather watch 3 quality movies then 6 averages ones.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it really sounds like you've got a bit of a bias against Marvel from reading your posts. While i agree that the Nolan Batman trilogy is better than anything Marvel has done so far (imo of course), to say that Superman Returns is better than films like Iron Man 1, 3 and The Avengers is ludicrous (again, imo). And also to claim that Marvel are more about "bums on seats than quality" is also a statement that i find to be grossly unfair and innaccurate, if anything Marvel tend to be the ones taking the biggest risks with their characters, casting RDJr as Iron Man after his "troubles" was a fairly big risk, not to mention handing over the reigns to The Avengers to Joss Whedon, who lets face it, wasn't exactly a name you'd associate with cinematic sucess before The Avengers' massive box office haul.
The Marvel films tend to go for a more "fun" tone than the DC ones, but does that mean that they aren't still to a high quality? No, of course not, they're just different, and i'm glad that they aren't all dark and brooding, it gives us more variation when it comes to superhero movies.
If every superhero movie was as dark as TDK i think they'd get boring quite quickly, i for one welcome the lightness found in The Avengers and Iron Man 3, i know some people feel that IM3 had too much comedy in it, but since i think the humour is part of what makes RDJr's take on Tony Stark so much fun to watch, i cant complain that they increased the humour, i'm just surprised to see people saying that they thought it was "darker", for me it was easily the lightest of the three
The Spider-Man reboot was more or less a forced decision because Sony didn't want to lose the rights to the character and have them revert back to Marvel, so that's why it was rebooted so quickly after Raimi's Spider-Man 3, if you've got a problem with that then you should blame Sony rather than Marvel.
And for the record, i'm sure that if DC could successfully launch more of their superheroes into movie franchises they wouldn't have a problem at all with "flooding the marketplace". As soon as The Avengers became a hit they immediately started work on plans for a Justice League movie, so i find that argument that they don't want to flood the marketplace to be incredibly flawed.
Saw it today, in 2D. Can't imagine 3D would have added anything. It was very enjoyable, lots of witty dialogue and the action was (mostly) tightly-directed with a couple of genuine jump-out-your-seat moments. So well worth seeing, except...
Maybe DC don't want to saturate the movies with heroes which won't work on the big screen.
But they have tried. They just failed dismally. Catwoman? Green Lantern?
DC have tried, but they've just been met with more commercial failures than Marvel. If Marvel were met with similar flops, then we wouldn't have so many Marvel movies. Plus, they're pushing ahead with a Justice League movie, which hardly sounds like a company that doesn't want to "saturate the movies with heroes which won't work on the big screen."
The original Superman is still better some 30 years later then any of the Marvel origin movies.
Superman: The Movie was a fantastic film and Reeve has still yet to be bettered as the man of steel, but I do believe some people see it through rose-tinted glasses. I still can't stand the whole "turn the Earth backwards and reverse time to save the day," ending. Goodbye any future threat, now that Supes can reverse time whenever he feels like it and bring people back to life.
Don't get me wrong, most of the film is wonderful. But its marred by a really poor ending. For that alone, I can't put it head and shoulders over every other origin movie. I'd personally rate Spider-man and Iron Man as better origin stories. Though I'd rate Batman Begins above all of them.
Superman Returns was still better than most Marvel efforts.
I actually quite liked Superman Returns. But as to your point, I certainly wouldn't rate it that highly.
DC haven't flooder the market with multiple hero movies but Nolan's trilogy is still better than anything which Marvel based movies have released in the 10 years or so. Disney/Marvel is more about bums on seats then quality
No, but they would have flooded the market with them if they put out any that were successful other than Batman. If Superman Returns had been a success, there would have been sequels. If Green Lantern hadn't been near-universally hated, he would have been getting a sequel. Catwoman? Let's not even go there!
Your assertion that DC characters work better on screen than Marvel ones is not really backed up by their relative successes on screen. Your assertion that the lack of DC films is down to some sort of careful quality control on their part isn't really backed up by the fact that several of their attempted movie franchises have died on their arse.
Yes, there's Nolan's Batmans. Yes, we all love them (well most do, anyway). But you can't really use the massive success of a single character as proof that DC work better on screen than Marvel. At best that just tells us that Batman works really well - when done right, of course (and that means no bat nipples ).
Maybe DC don't want to saturate the movies with heroes which won't work on the big screen. Marvel have made a lots movies in a short space of time and most them imo were not that good.
They didn't even wait 5 years to reboot Spiderman after Raimi did his final movie.
The problem with Iron Man was always without seeing RDJ's face the hero is basically a robot and so they have to use shots of Start inside the helmet to make up for it.
The original Superman is still better some 30 years later then any of the Marvel origin movies.
The last two Schumacher movies were dreadful and he was the wrong person for the franchise, I presume that is why there no further movies until Nolan's reboot.
Superman Returns was still better than most Marvel efforts.
The only redeeming features is the X-Men franchise which I actually enjoyed.
DC haven't flooder the market with multiple hero movies but Nolan's trilogy is still better than anything which Marvel based movies have released in the 10 years or so. Disney/Marvel is more about bums on seats then quality.
I would rather watch 3 quality movies then 6 averages ones.[/QUOTE]
First off, the Spiderman re-boot had nothing to do with Marvel at all. Sony didn't want the rights to revert back to them so rushed out a new Spiderman entirely. I'm not a massive fan of that movie, though I have tried to be.
Not a big fan of the original Superman movie. I tried to watch it last year and kind of lost interest. I'd love to sing praise to Christopher Reeve, but he's not actually in the thing until about an hour in, and I kind of, urm, didn't stick around that long. Sorry!
I do agree that the Schumaker movies are overrated. It bugs me how Nolan haters lush over these films. I love the Nolan movies for how much they focus on Batman. Schumaker just doesn't seem that interested in him, focusing on the villains of the comics more than the hero. Yes, the villains are awesome characters, but the movie should fundamentally be about Batman. His first movie should have been called "the Joker." The second "Penguin and Catwoman with a bit of Christopher Walken thrown in."
And your last statement about Marvel getting bums in seats I couldn't disagree with more!!!
All DC do these days is try to make money. I get the impression genuine care goes into making each Marvel movie. Green Lantern and Catwoman are abominations. And now DC are trying to rush out a Justice League movie without really thinking it through purely to sniff a bit of that Marvel profit, while in the mean time hastily rebooting Superman and planning to reboot Batman!!
The Avengers worked because behind the scenes they wanted to make a good movie. It wasn't about making as much money as possible. Nobody could have ever anticipated how successful that movie would be, and yet it's success is well known. DC's desperation for that shows, as does their continued strive to put profit before quality.
We shall see how the new Superman does.
Schumacher's Bat-films were not overrated, as that would suggest they were rated highly, despite being crap. Whereas they were actually justifiably rated poorly, because they were crap.
There has been more Marvel films because the film rights to X-Men, Spider-Man etc were sold to different companies and this was before Marvel decided to set up Marvel Studios. DC has been owned by Warner Bros for a long time and while they've only really had success with Batman and Superman for live action films, in other areas like television and animation, they've done better than Marvel.
I do hope Man of Steel is a success as it might prompt WB to make solo superheroes that isn't Batman or Superman, Wonder Woman and The Flash are well known characters but have yet to receive films.
Schumacher's Bat-films were not overrated, as that would suggest they were rated highly, despite being crap. Whereas they were actually justifiably rated poorly, because they were crap.
From reading his post i think he means Burton's films,because i don't think anyone with their faculties intact would call Batman Forever and Batman & Robin overrated films:D
Saw it last night, I preferred it to Avengers which just had too many characters to juggle to make it dramatically satisfying for me. A lot better than the second one but not quite up to the level of first one. Finale was a bit flat I thought and the inclusion of the kid seemed a bit pointless, great end credits sequence. 7.5/10
Yes, really well done. And did everyone stay for the post-credits sequence? I thought it was quite funny, but by the time it appeared we were the only people left in the cinema to see it.
Tony whimpers and Pepper simpers in larky, mostly effecient threequel. (Some) decent action and a good turn from Sir Ben lift this above the smugfest of IM 2. But as colourful and pumped up as it is, there's little new ground being explored, with Stark's personal stuff being mostly salad. And as with other Shane Black scripts (Lethal Weapon, KKBB), an element of narrative messiness emerges as the film progresses. It is good popcorn fodder, but like popcorn has more flavour than substance.
Not that substance was ever the issue, of course. At this stage, Marvel films only need to be roughly the same quality as other Marvel films rather than aim any higher, and a sense of creative complacency lingers throughout. So this gets an unsurprising 7/10 and I'll have forgotten most of it by next week.
DC's desperation for that shows, as does their continued strive to put profit before quality.
We shall see how the new Superman does.
Showing a fair degree of caution is hardly desperate (they've had a JL film on the backburner for ages IIRC). Looking further down the road, they maybe concerned about audiences possibly growing wary now these superhero films are such a common fixture on the schedule - and that's down to Marvel much more than them, of course.
Given how Batman has panned out, DC were never going to bring as key a figure as Superman to the table unless they had something very special to offer. Hopefully this is the case, as the expectation surrounding MoS has, as we know, gone right through the roof. It's probably too big a task for MoS to be a game-changer, but maybe we'll get something that genuinely ups the ante.
Seen it today. I want to sing its praises but I can't help but feel they shot themselves int he foot with
the mandarin twist because after that I kept thinking, whenever Sir Ben was on screen, that he would revert to being The Mandarin again and it was all a plot as Tony had a gun to his head.
I feel like after that it killed the movie for me and drew me right out of it. It just killed the momentum and epicness of Sir Bens role in the movie.
liked how Iron Patriot was subtledly referenced as a villain as he in the comics.
Liked how they introduced A.I.M (which many fans are speculating will feature prominently in the Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D show. And the introduction of the Extremis virus - which could be a way to bring back Agent Coulson??)
I think it wrapped things up nicely for the Iron Man franchise as a trilogy. I'm not sure a fourth is needed.
Tony Stark will be back. Yes for Avengers 2 and then after that, I suspect they may move his character to join the Guardians Of The Galaxy as he is in the comics.
Comments
The plot wobbles alongsst snails pace until the last hour or so.
I think they have taken the character as far as he can go and sincerely there isn't another movie planned until the inevitable reboot.
Most Marvel heroes just don't work as well on screen as DC and Man of Steel live up to the hype it will them all to shame.
Really I think they should stick to comics and games as their movies are all somewhat lacking.
I guess after Thor we have to endure another Captain America dance movie before Avengers 2 :eek:
No guessing needed
Captain America: Winter Soldier
Robert Downey Jr's one-liners were spot on and there was just the right balance of action and humour. 9/10
Seriously....aside from 5 out of 7 Batman movies and 2 Superman movies (so far), DC really don't have a good track record when it comes to movie adaptations (see Green Lantern for a prime example...). I'd say Marvel actually has a better cinematic track record, and I say that as a DC comics fan who isn't really into Marvel outside of the movies.
Oh I'm sorry, is someone forcing you to watch these films? :rolleyes:
You've got to be kidding! :eek: What success has there been with DC characters outside of Super man and Batman in the movies? Answer; none.
Then, with Superman, we have (so far) 1 and 2, with 3 and 4 being increasing levels of awful. Superman Returns, was ok, but nothing special. Batman managed two Burton greats, followed by two increasingly worthless sequels. No doubt Nolan's first two are among the best superhero movies ever made. His third is still one of the better ones, but not as good as the fist two.
But compared to the number of Marvel films, DC hasn't come close. Anyone outside of "the big two" have been disasters. Marvel have pulled off so much more. So you don't think Iron Man is up to much. Compare it to Green Lantern, then, rather than just going for a Donner Superman or Nolan Batman.
As for "Man of Steel," we al hope it will be amazing. But until its out, we can't really use it to beat any other movie down. It might be the best superhero movie of all time. But it might also be utter tripe, with all the best bits in the trailer. Only time will answer that one.
The destruction of Stark's house was quite impressive, but that was about it for me.
I do get that they were going for a slightly darker tone with it and that's fine, but I personally felt the pacing just wasn't right. I certainly preferred the first two over this.
You are joking. Marvel has had more success recently with super hero movies.
DC comics less so - outside Superman and Batman. The Green Lantern was dreadful.
The Marvel films work because not only do they have respect for the material - but they have also remembered that the important issue for a film is not just the spectacle - but that one must actually care for he characters - there must be some kind of story.
There is a reason why Avengers Assemble is the third highest grossing film ever.
Maybe DC don't want to saturate the movies with heroes which won't work on the big screen. Marvel have made a lots movies in a short space of time and most them imo were not that good.
They didn't even wait 5 years to reboot Spiderman after Raimi did his final movie.
The problem with Iron Man was always without seeing RDJ's face the hero is basically a robot and so they have to use shots of Start inside the helmet to make up for it.
The original Superman is still better some 30 years later then any of the Marvel origin movies.
The last two Schumacher movies were dreadful and he was the wrong person for the franchise, I presume that is why there no further movies until Nolan's reboot.
Superman Returns was still better than most Marvel efforts.
The only redeeming features is the X-Men franchise which I actually enjoyed.[/QUOTE]
DC haven't flooder the market with multiple hero movies but Nolan's trilogy is still better than anything which Marvel based movies have released in the 10 years or so. Disney/Marvel is more about bums on seats then quality.
I would rather watch 3 quality movies then 6 averages ones.
It was the most fun I've had at the cinema in years.
It played more like a follow up to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang than Iron Man 2. But that's a good thing.
By far the best of the Marvel movies.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it really sounds like you've got a bit of a bias against Marvel from reading your posts. While i agree that the Nolan Batman trilogy is better than anything Marvel has done so far (imo of course), to say that Superman Returns is better than films like Iron Man 1, 3 and The Avengers is ludicrous (again, imo). And also to claim that Marvel are more about "bums on seats than quality" is also a statement that i find to be grossly unfair and innaccurate, if anything Marvel tend to be the ones taking the biggest risks with their characters, casting RDJr as Iron Man after his "troubles" was a fairly big risk, not to mention handing over the reigns to The Avengers to Joss Whedon, who lets face it, wasn't exactly a name you'd associate with cinematic sucess before The Avengers' massive box office haul.
The Marvel films tend to go for a more "fun" tone than the DC ones, but does that mean that they aren't still to a high quality? No, of course not, they're just different, and i'm glad that they aren't all dark and brooding, it gives us more variation when it comes to superhero movies.
If every superhero movie was as dark as TDK i think they'd get boring quite quickly, i for one welcome the lightness found in The Avengers and Iron Man 3, i know some people feel that IM3 had too much comedy in it, but since i think the humour is part of what makes RDJr's take on Tony Stark so much fun to watch, i cant complain that they increased the humour, i'm just surprised to see people saying that they thought it was "darker", for me it was easily the lightest of the three
The Spider-Man reboot was more or less a forced decision because Sony didn't want to lose the rights to the character and have them revert back to Marvel, so that's why it was rebooted so quickly after Raimi's Spider-Man 3, if you've got a problem with that then you should blame Sony rather than Marvel.
And for the record, i'm sure that if DC could successfully launch more of their superheroes into movie franchises they wouldn't have a problem at all with "flooding the marketplace". As soon as The Avengers became a hit they immediately started work on plans for a Justice League movie, so i find that argument that they don't want to flood the marketplace to be incredibly flawed.
Why release a Christmas film in April?
But they have tried. They just failed dismally. Catwoman? Green Lantern?
DC have tried, but they've just been met with more commercial failures than Marvel. If Marvel were met with similar flops, then we wouldn't have so many Marvel movies. Plus, they're pushing ahead with a Justice League movie, which hardly sounds like a company that doesn't want to "saturate the movies with heroes which won't work on the big screen."
Superman: The Movie was a fantastic film and Reeve has still yet to be bettered as the man of steel, but I do believe some people see it through rose-tinted glasses. I still can't stand the whole "turn the Earth backwards and reverse time to save the day," ending. Goodbye any future threat, now that Supes can reverse time whenever he feels like it and bring people back to life.
Don't get me wrong, most of the film is wonderful. But its marred by a really poor ending. For that alone, I can't put it head and shoulders over every other origin movie. I'd personally rate Spider-man and Iron Man as better origin stories. Though I'd rate Batman Begins above all of them.
I actually quite liked Superman Returns. But as to your point, I certainly wouldn't rate it that highly.
No, but they would have flooded the market with them if they put out any that were successful other than Batman. If Superman Returns had been a success, there would have been sequels. If Green Lantern hadn't been near-universally hated, he would have been getting a sequel. Catwoman? Let's not even go there!
Your assertion that DC characters work better on screen than Marvel ones is not really backed up by their relative successes on screen. Your assertion that the lack of DC films is down to some sort of careful quality control on their part isn't really backed up by the fact that several of their attempted movie franchises have died on their arse.
Yes, there's Nolan's Batmans. Yes, we all love them (well most do, anyway). But you can't really use the massive success of a single character as proof that DC work better on screen than Marvel. At best that just tells us that Batman works really well - when done right, of course (and that means no bat nipples
two words
GREEN LANTERN
that is all;):D
DC haven't flooder the market with multiple hero movies but Nolan's trilogy is still better than anything which Marvel based movies have released in the 10 years or so. Disney/Marvel is more about bums on seats then quality.
I would rather watch 3 quality movies then 6 averages ones.[/QUOTE]
First off, the Spiderman re-boot had nothing to do with Marvel at all. Sony didn't want the rights to revert back to them so rushed out a new Spiderman entirely. I'm not a massive fan of that movie, though I have tried to be.
Not a big fan of the original Superman movie. I tried to watch it last year and kind of lost interest. I'd love to sing praise to Christopher Reeve, but he's not actually in the thing until about an hour in, and I kind of, urm, didn't stick around that long. Sorry!
I do agree that the Schumaker movies are overrated. It bugs me how Nolan haters lush over these films. I love the Nolan movies for how much they focus on Batman. Schumaker just doesn't seem that interested in him, focusing on the villains of the comics more than the hero. Yes, the villains are awesome characters, but the movie should fundamentally be about Batman. His first movie should have been called "the Joker." The second "Penguin and Catwoman with a bit of Christopher Walken thrown in."
And your last statement about Marvel getting bums in seats I couldn't disagree with more!!!
All DC do these days is try to make money. I get the impression genuine care goes into making each Marvel movie. Green Lantern and Catwoman are abominations. And now DC are trying to rush out a Justice League movie without really thinking it through purely to sniff a bit of that Marvel profit, while in the mean time hastily rebooting Superman and planning to reboot Batman!!
The Avengers worked because behind the scenes they wanted to make a good movie. It wasn't about making as much money as possible. Nobody could have ever anticipated how successful that movie would be, and yet it's success is well known. DC's desperation for that shows, as does their continued strive to put profit before quality.
We shall see how the new Superman does.
I do hope Man of Steel is a success as it might prompt WB to make solo superheroes that isn't Batman or Superman, Wonder Woman and The Flash are well known characters but have yet to receive films.
From reading his post i think he means Burton's films,because i don't think anyone with their faculties intact would call Batman Forever and Batman & Robin overrated films:D
Yes, really well done. And did everyone stay for the post-credits sequence? I thought it was quite funny, but by the time it appeared we were the only people left in the cinema to see it.
Not that substance was ever the issue, of course. At this stage, Marvel films only need to be roughly the same quality as other Marvel films rather than aim any higher, and a sense of creative complacency lingers throughout. So this gets an unsurprising 7/10 and I'll have forgotten most of it by next week.
Showing a fair degree of caution is hardly desperate (they've had a JL film on the backburner for ages IIRC). Looking further down the road, they maybe concerned about audiences possibly growing wary now these superhero films are such a common fixture on the schedule - and that's down to Marvel much more than them, of course.
Given how Batman has panned out, DC were never going to bring as key a figure as Superman to the table unless they had something very special to offer. Hopefully this is the case, as the expectation surrounding MoS has, as we know, gone right through the roof. It's probably too big a task for MoS to be a game-changer, but maybe we'll get something that genuinely ups the ante.
Very true. It was almost as bad as Captain America :eek:
I liked it;
Liked how they introduced A.I.M (which many fans are speculating will feature prominently in the Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D show. And the introduction of the Extremis virus - which could be a way to bring back Agent Coulson??)
I think it wrapped things up nicely for the Iron Man franchise as a trilogy. I'm not sure a fourth is needed.