this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
178 points (97.8% liked)
movies
1264 readers
376 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a super hero movie. Tony Stark is an idealized futurist. You're oligarchs in the franchise are Justin Hammer or Obadiah Stane.
That's fair. I am just sharing my perspective. Keep in mind this was in 2008, when it just got released in cinemas and that was my initial gut-feeling reaction. Not sure who the other fellows are, but in my mind the Stark character was clearly an American oligarch.
As I mentioned in my OP, for me positioning Minecraft's popularity as being bad for the movie industry, while at the same time presenting Superman as a contribution to cinema seems a bit inconsistent.
Stane was the main villain of IM1. Hammer was one of the villains of IM2. Stark was an oligarch, but that's part of his character arc. He wasn't a good person in the beginning. That's the point.
As far as Minecraft and other popcorn flicks being bad for the industry, those types of movies have always existed.