Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

That tiny little arc-reactor, that damage to his body, that was as much a part of him being Iron Man as his motivations to escape his prison. Yet, it was simply just thrown-in like some sort of additional info, which seemed to bother me. I would have liked to see more development that just "op, i'm gonna get fixed too!"

Is this an honest "why would you do this?" question or do I simply care more than most?

EDIT: This is a question of why if was barely covered in the film, not why it happened.

share|improve this question
Possible Duplicate:… – TylerShads Jun 21 '13 at 14:23
@TylerShads Rather "related" than "duplicate" I'd say. – Napoleon Wilson Jun 21 '13 at 14:30
Not a duplicate, asking about the director's choice of minimal air-time for this subject, not why it happened, I realize now my question was worded poorly. Thanks though! – Katie Paige Jun 21 '13 at 18:26

The idea is that Iron Man 3 closes a major chapter, or set of chapters, of Tony Starks life. This chapter started when he was first taken hostage and the shrapnel was embedded in his body.

One of the themes of this movie is dependence. Tony has been dependent on the suit, on the reactor in his chest, for a long time. After all of the events in IM1, 2, Avengers, and IM3, Tony has finally learned that he's no longer dependent on the suits. To show this to Pepper he destroyed all of the suits he created. He also finally had the peace of mind to remove the shrapnel, the one thing that made him dependent on the core in his chest.

share|improve this answer
Exactly, "that was as much a part of him being Iron Man as his motivations to escape his prison." - And that's why he finally removed it. – Napoleon Wilson Jun 21 '13 at 14:32
I understand why it was included and I wanted it to be, I failed a bit on the wording of the question. I was more asking if this was such a pivotal moment for Tony Stark, why did the film make it seem like an add-on ending? I thought it should have been given more air-time then it did. – Katie Paige Jun 21 '13 at 18:25
I like the phrase "dependent on the suit", not only physically (to keep him alive) but mentally reliant on them... at the end of the third film he's neither. – Liath Aug 22 '13 at 10:20

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.