So go away. Or, better yet, go see the movie.
Still there? OK, well, after the picture, there be spoilers.
So, despite a pretty tight script, I have ONE FREAKIN' HUGE QUESTION.As we saw, Tony Stark is captured in Afghanistan, escapes, comes home, announces the Stark Industries ain't making weapons. Stane doesn't like this, and has Tony frozen out by the Stark Board, while selling weapons to terrorist groups. Clear, right?
And after we find out that Stane is a low-life snake (PRO-TIP: don't trust people named Obidiah), it's revealed that Stane was behind the initial attack on Stark, that it was supposed to be an assassination, that he had paid Ten Rings to do it.
OK, wait. Not many people have noticed this, because we knew by this point that Stane stunk. But WHY, exactly, did Stane try to kill Tony Stark earlier??
- Stark was still firmly on board with the "we make weapons to make peace" idea
- Stark was still designing highly profitable weapons systems
- Stark was nowhere near discovering that Stane was selling weapons under the table
- Stark's lifestyle seemed to leave little likelihood that he would become involved in the inner workings of the company
Now, this is hardly a fatal flaw. We can surmise that Stane had finally grown bored with Stark's act; that Stane knew he wasn't going to get any younger, so if he was going to make a move it would have to be now; that Stane knew with a fat lump of cash from the Jericho sale to the US military, he could weather any financial storm from Stark's death.
Still, this is something the movie should have spelled out for us...a single line of dialogue somewhere is all that it would have taken. And maybe it's in a scene somewhere on the cutting room floor.
But because they didn't (or someone fell asleep at the switch), we're left with the puzzling question of why Stane tried to kill Stark when he was still in Stane's camp.
Bonus spoiler: I 75% expected that it would be revealed that Stane was behind the car accident that killed Tony's parents, as a power play to control the company before Tony came of age. I'm glad they didn't do this...there's an unfortunate tendency in comic book movies to make the villain responsible for EVERYTHING that ever went wrong in a hero's life. It's become a cliche, one the movie makers happily avoided (unless that, too, is on the cutting room floor).
6 comments:
Stane and Stark owned the controlling share of the company. Tony mentions that he "doesn't have anyone" so maybe with Tony gone Stane would have gotten his share.
That's my take on it anyway.
stane was embarrassed an annoyed with tony acting up not accepting the award and drinking and being a celebrity
"Still, this is something the movie should have spelled out for us...a single line of dialogue somewhere is all that it would have taken. And maybe it's in a scene somewhere on the cutting room floor."
Don't you remember that montage of magazine shots showing various stages of Stane and Stark's success tracks? Specifically, do you remember the cover showing an ascendant Stark with Stane sort of skulking in the background? Sure, not a likely cover in the real world, but at the same time I thought it was a neat, shorthand way of indicating resentment on the part of Stane. He killed Stark's dad, so it makes sense he'd want the welp out the way, too.
But did you think of the movie snell?
All points are well taken, friends. Still, without any guidance from the film itself, all are equally likely/unlikely. When it comes to character motivation, a movie shouldn't leave us fumbling vaguely in the dark. And I still stay trynig to kill Stark at that point is really really counter-intuitive, as the company is worth a lot more with Stark alive than dead.
But I really liked the movie bunches, alon. It's definitely in the conversation for best superherp movie ever, although it's certainly to early to even attempt that decision...
You all are missing the point....Stane is a Skrull!
Post a Comment