Iron Apologetics

The following post contains spoilers for Iron Man 3 and, possibly, the existence of God.

If I believed in a benevolent creator, I could see myself being a huge fan of the guy. Not only would I owe my own existence to him/her/it, but also would I credit him/her/it for the existence of my friends, my family, my planet--basically everything that matters to me. Religion understandably has it’s share of fanatics, but for those who see no reason to believe, we direct our fandom elsewhere...like movies.

I saw Iron Man 3 this weekend. Robert Downey Jr. really owns the role and the inclusion of Guy Pierce as the villain was a great choice. As with most summer blockbusters, it is an explosive spectacle with a passable story as long as you don’t think about it too hard. I, unfortunately, thought about it too hard. I can’t help myself. (If you haven’t seen the movie and like the film of Marvel Studios, go see it. Spoilers begin now.)

Tony Stark spends the lion’s share of the movie out of the armor. This isn’t THAT surprising. Downey Jr’s ability to convey emotion is severely limited when he has a metal hood over his face. And, hey, why cover the cash register? The result of this choice puts the character in harms way pretty much the entire flick. I doubt the audience is worried that the most popular Avenger in the franchise will die, but, in theory, he is almost always killable to any guy with a gun. This leads me to what takes me out of movies most often--characters not acting like real, intelligent people. Tony Stark is always the smartest guy in the room, so if he is forced to MacGyver weapons out of groceries, I assume it’s because he has no other choice. Later in the movie they show that this was never the case--revealing the biggest plot hole of many plot holes. Tony Stark simply calls upon an army of automated Iron Men. Sure, it allows for a big climax, but it also throws into question why Stark never called upon just one or two Iron Men armors much earlier.

Here you may ask: are you going to bring this back to religion or are you turning this into a movie review blog? It’s the former. I’ve found that movie franchises, especially those catering to the demographic I lovingly call geeks, inspire a kind of irrational loyalty at times. I’ve mentioned this plot hole to Marvel fans in the past 48 hours and have been met with rationalizations that are far too charitable to what was actually shown on screen and hostile toward any critical views. Here are some reasons I heard as to why this plot hole is not a plot hole.

1. The armors were trapped under the ruble of Stark’s demolished home.
2. Tony couldn’t summon the armors because he had no way to contact JARVIS.
3. JARVIS couldn’t connect to the home server.
4. Tony was trying to stay under the radar when he was presumed dead.
5. It never occurred to Tony until the moment he used the protocol.

Each of these are grasps at straws to rationalize an emotional belief that the franchise they love is perfect. An critical assessment of these rationalizations shows they break down quite quickly.

1. If the armor was buried, then Tony also couldn’t summon them when he eventually did. If they weren’t buried, then he could summon them anytime.
2. Tony could have asked JARVIS to summon the armor before JARVIS went offline. He could have asked JARVIS when Tony got him online again, which happened long before he finally called on the armor,
3. Tony sent a message to Pepper very shortly after his disappearance showing that either his home server was accessible or that Pepper could have made it accessible.
4. Disregarding the fact the no one should have presumed Tony dead considering Iron Man shot into the sky not far from the attack on his house where news coverage was present, Tony openly admitted who he was to anyone who saw him. Also, he obviously had more desire to have an armor than to stay concealed since he was working on fixing his suit from the moment it was disabled.
5. Tony Stark isn’t an idiot.

Weak reasoning based on assumptions to defend what is an emotional faith in a franchise is essentially secular apologetics. This is just one example. Last year, negative reviews for The Dark Knight Rises prompted death threats from fanatics who hadn’t yet seen the movie. In the tech world, the Apple/Android/Windows faithful refuse to see design flaws in their favorite gadgets; instead, they are "features."

Am I over thinking this? Perhaps. Next week I’ll explore the theological implications of The Fast and the Furious 6.

How Much Must I Boycott?

Remember when everyone made a fuss over Chick-fil-A? When the gay-friendly thing to do was to eat less chicken because the head of the company voiced his opinion on who should marry whom? I was a bit torn on the issue, myself. Boycotting a business based on corporate executive editorializing seems overboard, but when it came out that a fave fast food of mine was contributing funds to anti-gay organizations...I admit, I was bummed. I hated to think that even a nickel of my $5.99 went to marginalizing a community.

I bring this up now because of a recent story that will likely matter even less to you. A comic book I’d be interested in reading has hit enough political controversy that it might not see light and will surely be delayed. The future author of the comic, Orson Scott Card, is a kooky Mormon who doesn’t support gay marriage and thinks global warming is a shame. So, does this alone mean his work should be censored?

Image via Wired.com; Chris Samnee, DC Comics

Seriously, I’m asking you. The Superman title Card will author has lost an illustrator and some distribution due to the controversy. He’s written one of my favorite books, Ender’s Game, which as an upcoming movie that will likely suffer from his views in much the same way. On one hand, I’m happy that there is public consequences for stupid beliefs because it could shame others into not believing them. On the other hand, I’d rather folks dismiss beliefs because they realize they are stupid and not simply because they are unpopular. Then again, it could be said the measure of the stupidity of a belief is a measure of how poorly they reflect the culture...which is it’s own kind of popularity contest.

I think I’ve decided to separate the work from the man. I figure if I stop using and enjoying everything that socially conservative and evangelical people produce or support--my options will become very limited. After all, it’s not like these guys were Nazi’s.

P.S. Ironically, this was written while listening to Wagner.

P.P.S. When the product and the opinions of those in charge are intermingled, I see a greater conflict. The Boy Scouts, who advertise themselves as a ethical guide for young men, should not have policies highlighting bigotry or exclusionism. Likewise, churches, with whatever moral value they may hold, should never let pedophilia slide.

P.P.P.S. Are postscripts just for letters or are blogs okay?

The Faith Trilogy

This was posted way back in '08 by a message board parton known only as "RandomFerret." It's still one of my favorite analogies for the Abrahamic religions.

Think of it like a movie. The Torah is the first one, and the New Testament the sequel. Then the Qu’ran comes out, and it retcons the last one like it never happened. There’s still Jesus, but he’s not the main character anymore, and the messiah hasn’t shown up yet.
Jews like the first movie but ignored the sequels. Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third movie doesn’t count. The Moslems think the third one was the best, and Mormons liked the second one so much, they started writing fanfiction that doesn’t fit with ANY of the series canon.