Iron Man 3 vs. Man of Steel

46 comments

20 comments

Ironman had a rushed plot but i really liked the character development, man of steel also had some pacing isues however it let its character breathe i dont know which one i want to pick

Iron Man 3 was far better and much more enjoyable. It actually told a story. MOS plays out like extended cut scenes from a bad video game. It's so shallow and actually grows boring before the third act ends.

Think i have to go with ironman 3 after having a few days to think about MoS

Man of Steel tackles Iron Man 3 into a building, leaving a destructive path behind and then throwing it into a oil tanker.

an*

an* oil tanker (my bad)

Iron Man 3 is better, its close but better because of the comedy and the pacing is better, its just a more controlled movie, where as MoS loses itself in the last third into michael bay level explosions.

Iron Man 3 was better written, better acted, better paced and just a lot more fun to watch. No contest.

Iron Man 3? Really?! Villains breathing fire?! I'm done *drops mic*

Shit this one is tough. I personally loved both of them. For now I'll say Man of Steel. I really liked the origin story.

This is too easy. Iron Man 3 was crap. Man of Steel had some of the best action ever.

Iron Man 3. Man of Steel left me wanting more.....

Antje Traue was (is) a badass and it's nice that Superman finally found a pair of nuts (small ones), but IM3 got this, cunty Pepper Potts, emo little panic attacks and all. Second half of Man of Steel was good though.

Man of Steel was good because it is serious. This version of Superman I prefer.

Man of Steel is an epic; Iron Man 3 is a comedy. It's pretty hard to compare the two genres. Also, the performances are great in each. The story and character development are pretty well handled in each. However, for my money, Man of Steel is a superior film in pretty much every other way: the gorgeous cinematography, mind-blowing action set pieces, Hans Zimmer's solid score, etc. Best movie of the summer so far!

It may be difficult to compare the two genres but solid story structure, and character development is comparable, and man of steel is as solid as o bowl of jello. you can see what they are going for and idividually most of the scenes in man of steel are pretty good but they don't have good connectors and the character development is not allowed to naturally progress. In the movie it is, character does something has reaction next scene their is no sense that these people genuinly developed. People often defend this movie from critisism by saying that we complained that their wasn't enough action in Returns and now complain about too much action. I don't mind alot of action what I do mind is lack of developement and when they could have cut 5 min of action in the final battle (or not even the battle, they could have easily just cut the Jenny Olsen, Perry White fluff) and used those 5 min to further solidify the development then i feel they were focused too much on the action, and the film suffered for it.

I'm amused when people compare these two films and say MOS is more like a videogame when there is a scene in IM3 when it is revelaed Tony Stark is remote controlling Iron Man while watching a screen in his little boat.

Iron Man 3 was fun but actually delivered a sound and a unique adventure. The word I read most when describing MOS is "joyless" and I'd have to agree. Goyer delivered such a bad script that no amount of CGI brawling could erase the bad writing of MOS.

Putting aside the usual superhero tropes of action/effects/exploring the character/s for a moment, I would have to say Iron Man 3 wins this. Iron Man 3, much like the first film, explored themes such as terrorism, corporate espionage, war profiteering and the use of cultural/political scapegoats (the latter of which gave us the highly controversial twist which honestly didn't bother me too much at the time (I thought it was pretty funny and fairly relevant to contemporary discussions about cultural/political issues in the US and Middle East) and now looking back I have even more respect for). For me the most interesting part of Man of Steel were the "Alien Contact" plotlines in the second act, an area which David Goyer himself admitted to put a lot of focus on. It kind of reminded me of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" in many respects, but unfortunately like many of the other themes and plotlines in MoS, was never fully explored in any detail. Not to say that Iron Man 3 was an in-depth look at the aforementioned themes or anything, but it knew what it wanted to be and stuck to its guns. MoS seems too busy trying to emulate The Dark Knight, whilst making passing references to TDtESS, and adding in boring, overlong Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich-esque action sequences, and all the while never really giving any of its characters room to develop of become sympathetic, with debatable exceptions in Henry Cavill and Kevin Costner. As far as the meat of the film is concerned, Iron Man 3 had better performances with more interesting character development, more humour to contrast with its heavier moments (even if they weren't fully explored or resolved i.e. the PTSD sequences), and considerably more enjoyable, more creative action set-pieces (also at least I could see what was going on, partly due to a reluctance to use shaky cam and a relatively bright colour palette, unlike MoS). MoS has it's positive elements (the aforementioned performances and alien contact theme, production design and soundtrack), but Iron Man 3 still wins without question.

Iron Man 3, easy-peasy. I dig Man of Steel. Not all of it, but big parts of it. Cavill is pitch perfect as Clark/Superman and Costner's a perfect Pa. But the action scenes are filmed and edited in a way that takes away from some of the excitement. Still, nice to see Clark punch something and I liked the ballsy ending. The movie's biggest problem, I think, is its hokey self-seriousness. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Zod yelling things was fun and it works with the flashbacks (especially Pa's death scene), but the third act feels TOO serious. This is a Superman movie, right? Flights and tights, right? Lighten up. Metropolis looks like it's been through a Roland Emmerich film by the time the thing's over. I get what they're going for tonally and I get that the hero in Superman is the hero in Perry and Christopher Meloni is the hero in us. "Dark times, even for Superman, but we can all make it." I want to see someone like Brad Bird tackle the character. More Incredibles, less Dark Knight. On the other hand, Iron Man 3 rides out into gangsta territory with how cool it is. Robert's charming, Cheadle gets to be a badass, and there's an edge (an expected one, with Shane Black onboard) to the dialogue and the action that makes this one stand out from every other superhero movie. Complaints about the narrative can go eff themselves. Narrative? HA! Just look, watch, listen, and enjoy. Shane Black did his thing and gave us the coolest comic book movie we're probably going to see for a while. Only thing that's missing is a Michael Kamen score.

IM3 crushes here, it had it's issues, but it was a heck of a lot more fun. I mean MOS wasn't terrible but, yea........

really don't get a the hate man of steel is getting every were i thought it was awesome.Iron man 3 had a better story and villain so i do thinks it's better then man of steel.

Iron Man 3 is a Hollywood blockbuster that goes a bit further. Man of Steel doesn't. I wanted to like Man of Steel, but it was heavily flawed. The story was good, the whole link between Kal El's past and his present was very well-thought out, too bad instead of exploring any of this, the film resorted to a bunch of AWESOME ACTION SCENES that leave the audience completely distant and unconnected with the plot. Character is another thing MoS fails at. The only good ones are Superman, Kevin Costner and maybe Lois Lane. Everyone else is generic and uninteresting, including Zod. I Love how he's supposed to be a character that was good but has turned bad, but we only see him after he's turned bad. This leaves the audience disconnected. There are also a bunch of characters that blend together, Laurence Fishburn, Toby from the West Wing etc., but we're also supposed to care about this random woman who gets stuck under rubble, despite never being made to care about her before or since this incident. ALSO, and this is a big complaint, Superman clearly doesn't give a shit about humans. He just destroys the fuck out of Metropolis (which I told think is called Metropolis), while fighting Zod. He drives Zod threw buildings, into cars, and a bunch of other crap. If Superman gave a fuck about the human race, he wouldn't have done that. In fact, it seems like he's only protecting humans to get a piece of Amy Adams' ass. Can't blame him, I guess, but it's not very compelling. When we're later shown how much he'cares' about a group of tourists in a museum, it doesn't feel genuine, it feels flat-out contradictory. Good things: Man of Steel had a few. Some early scenes of Clark's childhood are okay, including Kevin Costner's character. The way Russel Crowe helps Superman after death was clever, as well as the ending where Clark joins the Daily Planet. I fucking laughed so goddamn hard when Zod knocked Supes into a construction building and it knocks the whole "- Days Since Last Accident" back to one. Despite this, everything else disappointed. Iron Man 3 and Star Trek: Into Darkness are great examples of diamonds in the Hollywood rough. Man of Steel is some slightly shiny coal.

I view the two as this. Iron Man 3 has the better supporting cast, and composition. Man of Steel I felt however, had the better main lead, villain, imagery, and story. I love Iron Man 3, but Man of Steel I felt was the more complete film.

After thinking about it a bit more, my complaints become more relevant and my compliments more minor. This is really as bad as The Amazing Spider-Man. I know Warner Bros is trying to rip off the Dark Knight because that made money, but so did the Avengers, and Iron Man 3. Both light-hearted escapism with a great sense of adventure. Not a sense of unsubtle action mixed with unsubtle drama. Let's put some Michael Bay fights, then corny dialogue, then Michael bay fights, then corny dialogue, rinse and repeat. After this movie, I am dreading Justice League. "Gaze in awe as mopey Superman meets mopey Batman! Marvel (er I mean, DC) at gritty realistic Wonder Woman's flirts with gritty realistic Flash!" Heck, with a studio so focused on movies that they WILL make rather than movies they're making you'd think that they'd see that coming.

Man Of Steel without a doubt for me. IM3 had a great first two acts but went downhill after THAT twist. Although the finale showed promise of a bright future, the ending has left the franchise's future up in the air, which both frightens and saddens me. MOS on the other hand I thoroughly enjoyed throughout. People complain about the ridiculous destruction and supposedly "Dark Knight" style in it being gritty. However I never felt that. The destruction I feel worked, as it demonstrated the Krytonians power and what could happen if both characters co-existed. Also, I never felt it were dark, as so many seem to view it as. Superman has always had dark elements, which were expressed well here, unlike the campy 70's and 80's flicks. On top of that MOS had a great hero (like IM3), amazing visuals (in my opinion, superior to IM3) a great villain (something IM3 lacked) and a compelling story (another thing IM3 promised, but ultimately fell short on). I liked IM3, but I loved MOS.

^^^I agree. MoS was far more enjoyable a film for me in every aspect. Really enjoyed the film

Iron Man 3 was a much better film.

This is very close for me, both have an identical score.......but I didn't like the Stark panic attacks storyline, the rest of it was extremely enjoyable and it's only a minor complaint. Man of Steel edges it though!

Iron Man 3 is such a better film it's not even close. It offered everything in a smart and fun way. MoS was a mess right from the start. No depth and really not much fun at all.

Yeah, Man of Steel was a rather joyless movie, and its plot was too convoluted. Overall, the movie was a rather big disappointment. Iron Man 3, on the other hand, was a pleasant surprise. It's not a great superhero movie, but it certainly delivered the goods more so than Man of Steel.

I didn't think either of these films were bad, but I wasn't impressed a huge amount by them as well. Iron Man 3 gets my pick. Man of Steel's action scenes were a little bit over the top and shouldn't been so much on the grand scale. Iron Man's action parts were more cleverely done, unlike Superman charging aliens and robots all over Metropolis into buildings. The plot was also delivered better in Iron Man 3 and in Man of Steel, the structure and pacing had a couple issues for me. Both films were average in the most, although they did have a few good aspects that I enjoyed. Overall Iron Man 3 is better and had less problems.

These are two of the year's best. I prefer Iron Man 3, but it's pretty close.

Iron Man 3 is the better film. It had good character work, a sweet twist, and while not as exciting action, made me care more.

Man of Steel!

Iron Man 3 is the MUCH better film. No real debate.

I take back what I said. Man of Steel is the better film in my opinion.

After rewatching both this matchup isn't close at all. I don't like Iron Man 3 anymore. Man of Steel is still great.

Man of Steel was too bland. I love the first half of the movie, but after 20 minutes of action, it just becomes excessive. Then they go on for another 40 minutes of action. Iron Man 3 was not a great movie by any means, but I found it more well-rounded. And I had more fun watching Iron Man 3.

For overall Iron Man 3 witches to easly to tropdown

Iron man 3, hands down. I watched both over the weekend so it's easy to make a direct comparison. IM3 had issues in terms of plot, but it was soooo much more fun. It had some clever dialogue and terrific action without the action becoming way excessive (like man of steel). MoS I actually enjoyed for about the first half, maybe two thirds. But the action just became increasingly mindless, stultifying, and over the top. I got so bored I actually left the room towards the end. the movie takes itself was more seriously than any comic book film has a right too. When Lois Lane out of nowhere said some incredibly cornball line about "measuring dicks", (Amy Adams deserves so much better),I had the sense the movie was taking a wrong turn. It is this year's Dark Knight Rises in terms of overblown, portentious blockbusters. IM 3 is far from perfect but at least it is fun and doesn't take itself so seriously. Hell, I enjoyed Lone Ranger far more than Man of Steel.

Iron man 3, hands down. I watched both over the weekend so it's easy to make a direct comparison. IM3 had issues in terms of plot, but it was soooo much more fun. It had some clever dialogue and terrific action without the action becoming way excessive (like man of steel). MoS I actually enjoyed for about the first half, maybe two thirds. But the action just became increasingly mindless, stultifying, and over the top. I got so bored I actually left the room towards the end. the movie takes itself was more seriously than any comic book film has a right too. When Lois Lane out of nowhere said some incredibly cornball line about "measuring dicks", (Amy Adams deserves so much better),I had the sense the movie was taking a wrong turn. It is this year's Dark Knight Rises in terms of overblown, portentious blockbusters. IM 3 is far from perfect but at least it is fun and doesn't take itself so seriously. Hell, I enjoyed Lone Ranger far more than Man of Steel.

JRM
JRM

Iron Man 3 was just ... better.

Both pretty bad but Iron Man 3 was less of a let down

Iron man 3 was a big let down with no real redeeming qualities for me at least Man of Steel had some potential

Iron Man 3 was a great way to end the trilogy. Man of Steel is best forgotten by all.

Man of Steel for me. While MOS is far from perfect, and I did enjoy IM3 to me it felt more geared toward a general audience ie. kids. The introduction of a child sidekick, the random panic attacks as well, and the Mandarin reveal is where the movie falls flat for me. As well, the villians motivation in IM3 seems a little contrived. Zods motivation is more clear in MOS. MOS takes the material more seriously than IM3 as well. IM3 has far too many gags and slapstick parts which take me out of the action.

Iron Man 3 is about a hundred times better.

Man of Steel for me. It's actually among one of my favorite comic book movies and I thought it was really well done. Iron Man 3 just left me kind of disappointed.

Iron Man 3 is how you do a fresh sequel. MOS is how you crap on a legend.

They were both pretty average. MoS was slightly better.

MoS is pure vomit. Honestly, that film is a near abomination.

man of steel wins here iron man 3 was huge a disappointment to me, the mandarin was ruined in the movie the acting in iron man 3 was okay, man of steel had better acting the fighting in man of steel was better, Michael Shannon was great as general zod, man of steel isn't perfect but i rather watch Mos then iron man 3.

IM3 takes this one without even working up a sweat. Better in every way and then some.

Man of Steel is ass. Iron Man 3 isn't exactly a slam dunk, it's only okay, but I do think it's the best of the Iron Man movies. There are much better Shane Black and Marvel movies out there, but at least it's watchable, unlike Man of Steel.

I second Spoon comment as well.

Neither of them are perfect, but I'll take Man of Steel.

Iron Man 3 is damn good. We all thought Man of Steel was as low as Superman could fall until BvS proved that theory wrong. Still, let's not elevate MOS because BvS is so bad.

The 2013 film battle gonna have to go with IM3

2013 was NOT a good year for superhero movies. Iron Man 3 sucked. It was tonally inconsistent, draggy, idiotic and thankfully ignored by following Marvel movies for obvious reasons. Man Of Steel was just bad. A cash grab, overly serious hackjob that was too concern with ADHD looking fight scenes over an interesting story. Iron Man 3, I guess.

Iron Man 3 is still one of my favorite third installments ever. So damn good and very cool unexpected twists. Man of Steel however is still a hot mess.

Man of steel to be honest.

Iron Man is a great film. Period. Does the number three proud. Man of Steel is best known as raging Zack Diarrhea. Nuff Said.

Man of Iron is far far far superior.

Man of Steel is slightly better but they both have big plot problems

iron man 3 is way better than trashy dceu mess that is man of steel

MOS makes IM3 look like IM1.

Man of Steel comfortably. A highly, highly underrated film with great visuals, a great modern update of superman, some excellent action, a brilliant opening act and some really strong and emotional performances. The only probelm is the last 45 minutes could have been trimmed down by a lot, and it ends up going on and on and on. But still, compared to Iron Man 3, it's not hard. Iron Man 3 had a weak first 30 minutes, got good after the Tony's mansion is blown up, and went downhill again with the Mandarin twist which led to a pretty weak final act

Oh yes, Iron Man 3 is easily twice as good.

MOS is the best CBM of 2013

Iron Man 3, Man of Steel may have Nolan but is is still not as good

Iron Man 3, Man of Steel may have Nolan but is is still not as good

Taking Iron Man 3 here. Flawed and the worst of the trilogy but still enjoyable. Man of Steel tried too hard to be Nolan-esque, admirable but mistaken.

IM3 had the potential to be better than the 1st film but they fumbled Iron Mans classic villian. Had Mandarin been the ACTUAL Mandarin, it could have been soooooo much better imo. It was barely better than the 2nd film, but I enjoyed Man of Steel more