>>83842143
Why was mark 2 do perfect.
>that scene where he first flies.
Iron man 1 went so far towards making the suits bad ass. Too bad they are cardboard now and may as well run on magic.

>>83842436
>Too bad they are cardboard now and may as well run on magic.
Clearly, as Tony kept tweaking the suit, he put more and more into snazzy new toys, and less and less into defense.

>>83842143
Thought that was Dick Rider from the thumbnail.

>>83842460
that's a retarded argument

>>83842436

I think its less that the suits are cardboard and more that Tony reached the limit of how strong he could make his armor materials, but instead of fighting dudes with guns he is fighting aliens and superpeople.

He can still ignore bullets and shrug off tank shells, but he never fights those anymore. Those fights are not worth showing onscreen.

>>83846507
Great rebuttal.

>>83846636
yeah it is. why would new toys mean less defense. how does the alloy used in his armor gradually become weaker and weaker to the point where a slightly enhanced super soldier could fuck it up. the suit took hits from tanks and alien weapons, and then got punched to pieces by some guys on fire and steve and bucky

>>83846598
this

although I did feel like in Iron Man 3 the suits felt really weak in particular, but in the avengers 2 and Civil War it was more that he was fighting other metas

>>83842143
I felt really sad when he died as a kid.

>>83846769
>why does modern technology break so easily compared to older technology
>it's not like more and more bells and whistles can lead to compromises in other areas or anything
>especially when my old phone was already heavy enough to smash a car

This is what you sound like.

>>83847260

Because they're dumb prototypes that are held together with string and glue. And Tony is basically going insane at that point. Not that the move is that great.

>>83847514

That, and his modular armor design was convenient but inherently less stable than the 'solid' armors.

If each part of the armor has to be designed to fly on its own and be worn semi-dependantley, than means they have to be individually light (less armor), contain individual thrusters and power supplies (again, less armor for the weight), and the individual armor pieces can't be joined anywhere near as securing as shown in the 'armor up' sequence of Iron Man 1.

Iron Man 3 armors were good at their gimmick, but that gimmick (being able to summon Iron man armor from anywhere in a crises) resulted in armor simply less durable than a dedicated iron man suit you needed an assembly station to put on.

>>83847514
At what point in Tony's illustrious career did you ever see him skimping out on materials for his latest project? It's not a proper proof of concept if he skimps on the materials, anon. Between his engineering ethos and his ego he's always been about damning the expense. It's not like he personally has to machine all the materials or create the fiddly bits himself, he just has Jarvis or Friday manufacture it. It's all automated and he's super mega rich. He has zero reasons to be stingy with himself. I'd even go so far as to say his OCD won't allow it.

>>83842143
Why did Iron Man have to rob that sentence of a comma?

>>83849283
Because Rhodey was wearing the suit at the time.

Oh shit, that's not funny.

>>83847435
ALLOYS
L
L
O
Y
S

by that logic fighter planes and tanks today should be less resistant than warfare machines in the past

>>83842143
What am i looking at?

>>83851370
We're not talking about the military. We're talking about Tony Stark.

>>83851493
whoever WE are, you are retarded. phones are more fragile because more soft components and are designed to be more cosmetically pleasing. stark didn't improve on anything

>he's using the same materials to build iron man armors, if not better materials due to scientific advancements and all that

>the armor still has the same basic functions, protect tony, fire repulsor, launch missiles

also, comparing the iron man armor to a fighter plane is a better comparison, than to a fucking phone. the armors being fragile is due to lazy writing, and lazy writing only, stop trying to find deeper explanations

>>83847351
It was so sudden, like, what was even the point of his character?

>>83853677
>the armor still has the same basic functions, protect tony, fire repulsor, launch missiles
In the Avengers, it was clear he was shoving a LOT more missiles in there. That most likely takes the place of some of the more shock-absorbing mechanisms we saw in IM1. Without that, it' not like his titanium alloy is completely indestructible.
>also, comparing the iron man armor to a fighter plane is a better comparison, than to a fucking phone.
Stop harping on that, I'm not the other guy, there's just multiple people that disagree with you.

>>83853806
so what, multiple retards somehow make a good point ?

in avengers he was not cardboard man if you remember correctly. this new toys theory is simply idiotic. and if i were to use you argument, then civil war when he doesn't use missiles as much as in the avengers the armor should have been stronger. whats to stop tony from adding more of the metal to make thicker armor plates ? literally nothing.

also, stop samefaging,

>>83842143
>Why did Iron Man have to rob my dog the guy?
What is this fucking word salad

>>83851370
In many ways they're certainly no more resistant than in the past. For example, tanks today rely on reactive armor for protection, which *by weight* offers vastly improved protection over the rolled steel of early war machines - but the *volume* of the newer armors is far greater, and it's actually less effective in certain positions because its properties as armor rely on near-perpendicular strikes - so it's around the edges of the tank, basically, which is why tanks are obsolescent, because helicopters can drop AP rounds on top of them that just shear straight through the relatively weak top armor.

The fact that you can have a tank which weighs the same but offers 30x protection in the same situations as 70 years ago sounds great - except that it's an arms race, and you understand that you need to be continually improving that armor (which has limits in how far it can go) and simultaneously creating new weapons to defeat it, because the enemy will have something similar on their tanks. The whole reason reactive armor was invented was that it would offer an edge over the enemy's tanks - but it brings new design challenges with it, because you can't just build the old tanks with the new material (which is like 50x thicker) and you have to be able to swap out the damaged reactive armor with relative ease (in a field workshop).

But imagine you didn't start with rolled steel; you started with reactive armor, and now your tank is too bulky to be anything other than an artillery target. Armor can be as good as you could possibly make it, but eventually it will fail: so rather than try and make it impenetrable, you change other aspects of the design. Maybe you make it sleeker by reducing the thickness of the reactive armor, maybe you say rolled steel is more convenient for size and weight on some locations, maybe you stop building tanks and start building helicopters which rely on mobility to avoid incoming fire.

>>83853677
>if not better materials due to scientific advancements and all that

he might just as easily be using lighter or cheaper materials - can't be Iron Man if he bankrupts himself repairing the suit every other day for a year

>phones are more fragile because more soft components and are designed to be more cosmetically pleasing

they are if anything more resilient than ever; compared to pre-smartphones, they're all what would once have been counted as ruggedized, because they've all got the same gorilla-proof glass on the front

cellphones as recently as 10 years ago had external batteries that could simply fall off in your pocket

>comparing the iron man armor to a fighter plane is a better comparison

aircraft tend not to be armored in any significant sense, so it's actually a terrible comparison

armor is heavy and planes need to burn fuel to lift it, so the move globally has been toward smaller aircraft - bombers being the most obvious change, as they're now the same size, for the most part, as fighters - carrying more targeted and more explosive payloads, because it burns through fuel reserves less quickly

which i believe was one of the problems Stark was having with his armor for the first couple of movies

>>83855849
>also, stop samefaging,
I don't think you know what that means.

>>83856855
The Guy is the character's name and OP is referring to him as his dog, dawg.

>>83856897
tanks were always artillery targets
>>83857064
muh gorilla glass easily breaks on most smartphones, even so, older phones broke down in less instanced because of simpler design, but the iron man armor has pretty much the same design, with the added benefit of better materials, which are cheaper with each passing year because of muh supply and demand, it would actually be more complicated to address the changing price but that's prett much the jist of it.

on to the aircraft argument, planes today are much more resistant despite the fact that they're not armored. they have to be in order to withstand the mechanical stress and still function properly. better materials for more resistant shell results in higher resilience

>>83857214
samefag posting 10 replies, claiming there are in fact 10 different posters

Wait is that Elijah Wood

>>83857532
Yes

>>83842143
My dog, The Guy.

>>83857289
>tanks were always artillery targets

I don't think you understand how much thicker modern armor is.

>muh gorilla glass easily breaks on most smartphones

It actually doesn't, certainly compared to the PVC and glass that was previously used. Don't mistake destructibility - which is a property of literally everything - for weakness.

>planes today are much more resistant

This is such a pointlessly vague statement I can't believe you made it. Aircraft today, eh?

Aircraft aren't particularly resilient for against incoming fire for two good reasons: one, because that would make them much, much heavier, and two, because they need to be flexible in their wings and fuselages, because these will move around relative to each other in flight. Stressful maneuvers will tear a wing or an an aileron right off if it's too rigid, so they need to have a degree of elasticity rather than rigidity. For fighter craft this is especially true - they may have smaller contact surfaces and smaller stresses as a result, but they also tend to perform more stressful maneuvers.

> better materials for more resistant shell results in higher resilience

If that were true they'd just make them out of cemented carbide and call it a day. It's not about climbing Mohs' dick, it's about finding a cost-effective material that's good enough to meet the majority of requirements and compromising on the rest.

>>83851421
Spy kids 3d

>>83853712
Maybe Wood cost too much to have on the screen for too long? The movie had a bunch of nobodies from what I remember. And the shitty CG made it seem like a budget film.

>>83857812
>that part where they couldn't be bothered to model anymore cg and played it off with "woah low rez"

>>83857719
Lewd

>>83857812
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_Kids_3-D:_Game_Over#Cast
>Antonio Banderas as Gregorio Cortez
>Mike Judge as Donnagon Giggles
>Cheech Marin as Uncle Felix Gumm
>Sylvester Stallone as Toymaker
>Salma Hayek as Francesca Giggles
>George Clooney as President Devlin
>Danny Trejo as Isador "Machete" Cortez
>Alan Cumming as Fegan Floop
>Steve Buscemi as Romero
>Bill Paxton as Dinky Winks
>Elijah Wood as The Guy
>Selena Gomez as Water Park Girl

As a kid, I never realized Elijah Wood was The Guy. Mostly because I didn't really know who Elijah Wood was.

As for his character's death, I assume it was a MacGuffin situation where finding The Guy ended up not being the actual solution, resulting in the Spy Kids having to ring the Dinkster (among others).

>>83858261
Ah, okay, its starting to come back to me.

>George Clooney
What the fuck. I don't remember him being in this at all.

>>83857064
>bombers are now the same size as fighters

But that's completely false. The B-52, B-1, and B-2 are all gigantic compared to modern fighter planes.

>>83846769
We can't for certain how many "new toys" Tony had in Civil War but we can say for certain that a guy the size of an ant had quite a lot of room between the layers. That armor must have been paper thin.

>>83858460
I'm assuming that, like a good half of the names on this list, it ultimately amounted to a short cameo.

>>83858722
>>83858460
He's the President/head of the spy organization
In 3 he just shows up at the beginning to set things off

>>83842143

I just assume that as 'The Guy' he's a pretty good player.

He just had the worst luck being the first one to walk in, thus dying to that bullshit insta-kill trap of which type that only the most spiteful and enraged of DM's would even consider using.

>>83857330
>samefag posting 10 replies
Yeah, you don't know what samefagging is. I'll give you a hint, it's not having a single conversation with multiple posts, with the same person. Also, there are 24 posters in this thread, not 10.