Iron Man

[Paul Bruening]

Wow. The local cinema packed two screens last night for Iron Man. This, in a town that NEVER packs a theater. I wonder what Jon's back door deal looks like.

[Paul Bruening]

$101 million US and $96 million overseas.

[Dan Goulder]

I wonder what Jon's back door deal looks like.

From my understanding, it leads down a path to a swimming pool in the back yard.

[Michael Lehnert]

:lol: :D

 

Actually, I am glad to see a film with Robert Downey Jr and Gwyneth Paltrow being a box office hit (which actually wasn't that certain, with marvel's going it alone plus non-hitting leads) as this might allow greater exposure to these actors that havn't been seen that often on screen over the past years as they would have deserved it.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

It was a pretty amazing Marvel superhero film. Despite it's lack of popularity as a comic book (like Spiderman or X-Men), it seemed like a lot of people really loved it, as I did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPOILER ALERT!

 

I think it needed a better villain. Jeff Bridges was as good as he could be, but the way his character was written it would have been better to reserve his quest for revenge for the sequel or something.

[Michael Lehnert]

It was a pretty amazing Marvel superhero film. Despite it's lack of popularity as a comic book (like Spiderman or X-Men), it seemed like a lot of people really loved it, as I did.

 

 

As someone who is age-wise and cultural-area-wise much closer to Animes (and some Mangas) than DC or Marvel, I must admit that I hadn't heard of Iron Man as a comic book before the film!

 

Actually, being absorbed with non-cine-stuff over the past weeks, I utterly missed the run-up to it and only got aware of the film (shock horror) this past Friday (UK opening) when I encountered a poster in Covent Garden and caught Gwyneth & R.D. Jr on the Jonathan Ross Show on BBC1 in a formidable interview...

 

With "Iron Man" and "Indy IV", I guess this will be my blockbuster theatre month ;) .

 

-ML

[Luke Haywood]

Wow. The local cinema packed two screens last night for Iron Man. This, in a town that NEVER packs a theater. I wonder what Jon's back door deal looks like.

I've been waiting for this day for 40 odd years!

Looks like Marvel decided to ignore all the Hollywood "regulations" and make the film the way they thought it should have been made. 2K super-35 Roolz!

 

The one thing that was a sure sign of success was that both male and female reviewers loved it.

 

I remember 30 years ago when I saw Star Wars for the first time, I was thinking that if people didn't actually KNOW that we don't have huge spaceships like those, they would just assume that those scenes really were shot in outer space! It all looked so incredibly real and the first films still hold up very well today.

 

After that things went into a bit of a decline until Jurassic Park, when, again, I was thinking the same things about the dinosaurs in that film.

 

And that's how I felt about Iron Man, everything looked so plausible. Robert Downey Jr is absolutely perfect to play Tony Stark.

 

Someone on Reduser suggested that Jeff Bridges's Obadiah Stane character bears a remarkable resemblance to Jim Jannard, right down to the cigar! Is that true, or were they just making a joke?

[Max Jacoby]

Someone on Reduser suggested that Jeff Bridges's Obadiah Stane character bears a remarkable resemblance to Jim Jannard, right down to the cigar! Is that true, or were they just making a joke?

Who's Jim Jannard again?

[Michael Lehnert]

Well, Max, if Steve Jobs is Obi-Wan Kenobi, then Jim Jannard is Darth Vader... or so.

[Max Jacoby]

What I found interesting in reading the Iron Man article in AC is that although they shot on Primo Primes, they didn't use Primo Zooms, but instead chose the 17-80mm T2.2 and 24-290mm T2.8 Angénieux Optimos and the 15-40mm T2 Cooke Zoom.

[Michael Lehnert]

As the one who knows "glass" the best here, I would love to here your thoughts on why the production made the choice not to go for PrimoZooms. I doubt it was cost-related as my lens choices often are/have to be :) .

[Max Jacoby]

I guess the simple answer is that they liked the Optimos and the Cooke better. I haven't tested them myself, but from what I hear the Optimos are a tad sharper with better contrast wide-open. The Cooke is a true T2, which is just as fast as primes. If time is of the essence, you can just leave it on the camera and use it as a variable primes, instead of changing lenses. The lens is not superlight, but can still use it for handheld/steadicam.

 

All these zooms have a universal mount so there is no problem changing them to PV mount. The lightweight Optimos (15-40mm and 28-76mm) are also regularly used on Panavision cameras. Up to now Panavision has never had Primo lightweight zooms only adpated stills lenses (17.5-34mm and 27-68mm), but they recently introduced a lightweight Primo zoom that goes from 19-90mm and is a T2.8.

[Guest]

"Film Is Dead" people be damned:

 

Initially the director, Jon Favreau (ZATHURA, SWINGERS), wanted to shoot with the Genesis camera, after having shot a pilot in HD. But after doing tests, the strobing of aerial footage was unacceptable so the decision was made to shoot 35mm film. The exception is 65mm greenscreen footage used to shoot inside the IRON MAN's suit, as it was the best way to avoid lens distortion they got from 35mm.

[Max Jacoby]

I'm surprised that the spherical Primos have more distortion than 65mm lenses. If they'd shot anamorphic I'd have understood, but I always thought that 35mm sperical lenses are pretty good when it comes to lack of distortion. Of course even older 65mm lenses have hardly any distortion at all, because the focal lenghts are longer (a 40mm equals an 18mm in 35).

 

I'd guess there is more to the decision to chose 35mm over the Genesis than strobing aerial footage. I mean how much aerial footage can there be in the film?

[Luke Haywood]

Who's Jim Jannard again?

I think at core we are all Jim Jannard really.

[Luke Haywood]

"Film Is Dead" people be damned:

 

Initially the director, Jon Favreau (ZATHURA, SWINGERS), wanted to shoot with the Genesis camera, after having shot a pilot in HD. But after doing tests, the strobing of aerial footage was unacceptable so the decision was made to shoot 35mm film. The exception is 65mm greenscreen footage used to shoot inside the IRON MAN's suit, as it was the best way to avoid lens distortion they got from 35mm.

 

Film is not dead, it's just pining for the Fijords.

 

Why would there be strobing? If the Genesis is set for 1/48th second shutter, surely it would be similar to shooting film.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Pining for the Fjords! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible!

 

inside I think we are all just jam.

 

 

Seriously, though, I'm not a comic-book guy, at all, but there's something about tony stark, in this film, which just gets me right where it should (might be the alcoholism)

[Niki Mundo]

Ironman was RoboCop2 wihout the kid and the cool suitcase submachine.

[Guest Billy Furnett]

I was too flat out stunned by how actually good Iron Man was above and below the surface to take notice of the cinematography.

 

The solid story combined with the text book example of how to effectively move a story forward is a one-two punch of totally worthwhile old school summer blockbuster.

 

However, because the story is propelled forward with the velocity and grace of a well written script, its really easy to forget you are dealing with Hollywood?s interpretation of a comic, so there?s a jolting instance or two of ?Little TOO convenient!? that might initially set off your cheese alarm, but when you remind yourself of its cut to the chase comic book context, it?s an honest to goodness total false alarm, for once!

 

At first I was distracted by the amount of drinking involved on screen (Not your standard prime time glamour drinking), but overall its entirely possible the drinking is the very thing which draws a subtle yet way over due line between Happy Meal sensibilities and a dose of some of that angst comics seemed to stem from and with as social commentary. It?s refreshing in this regard.

 

** SPOLIER ** Jeff Bridges kind of gets in the way of his own character, like he forgot his was a supporting role, and agreed, not the greatest villain of all time (Likely not the best chemistry based casting choice of all time), but ultimately the movie manages well above not falling victim to only being as good as it?s bad guy, and I wasn?t put off at all, I?ll take Jeff Bridges (at worst) slightly clumsy performance of a not too terribly involved role in favor of someone less interesting to watch mucking it up with a dimension of over the top cornball, any day of the week.

 

Besides plain old good, the sheer novelty of leaving the theater NOT feeling ripped off, talked down to or violated by big Hollywood?s usual hypocritical sub-surface agenda makes it actually worth seeing and later renting. Imagine that America!

 

It?s everything some movies could have been and were hyped to be, but just weren?t.

[Paul Bruening]

I think at core we are all Jim Jannard really.

 

I am Jannardicus!

[Dan Goulder]

Film is not dead, it's just pining for the Fijords.

 

Why would there be strobing? If the Genesis is set for 1/48th second shutter, surely it would be similar to shooting film.

Surely it is not.

[Michael Lehnert]

I think at core we are all Jim Jannard really.

 

*gulp*

 

You mean... like... Agent Smith?!?!?!

 

*GULP*

[Tom Lowe]

I really enjoyed the movie. The ending felt a little rushed and Bridges was just ok, but the rest of it was awesome.

 

Libatique is really moving up to be a top-caliber, go-to cinematographer. It seems like there's nothing he can't shoot.

[Mitch Gross]

We were contacted about using the Phantom 65 for the arial background plates. Not for highspeed but for the physical sze of the camera -- they really didn't want to have to deal with VistaVision or 65mm cameras in a helicopter and their short film loads. But this was before the CineMags were available for the Phantom, so the runtime would have been even worse. I believe in the end the effects house had to haul a VV camera up and land the chopper after five minutes to reload.

 

Anyone notice the camera mounted to one of the robotic arms when Stark was testing the suit in his lab? That was a Phantom V10. The Art Department research what was the most popular high end camera used in engineering and military labs, and the V10 certainly fit the bill. Vision Research supplied them a brand new one as usually these things are pretty beat up since they're generally placed next to things blowing up and such.

[Nate Downes]

We were contacted about using the Phantom 65 for the arial background plates. Not for highspeed but for the physical sze of the camera -- they really didn't want to have to deal with VistaVision or 65mm cameras in a helicopter and their short film loads. But this was before the CineMags were available for the Phantom, so the runtime would have been even worse. I believe in the end the effects house had to haul a VV camera up and land the chopper after five minutes to reload.

 

Anyone notice the camera mounted to one of the robotic arms when Stark was testing the suit in his lab? That was a Phantom V10. The Art Department research what was the most popular high end camera used in engineering and military labs, and the V10 certainly fit the bill. Vision Research supplied them a brand new one as usually these things are pretty beat up since they're generally placed next to things blowing up and such.

I heard it was a 65mm, not a VV, but I don't know for sure.

 

And cool to know about the Phantom screen time, you never see it in front of the camera most times. 8)