Iron Man 2 Official Discussion

[sportsandstuff777]

I thought the first one was wayyy better

[Barbecue17]

I'm definitely in the "I like Iron Man 2" camp.

The final Battle against the drones?

Further displays of Tony's recklessness?

Mickey Rourke wanting his bird?

Scarlett Johansson and Gwyneth Paltrow in one movie?

Love it!

[wyldman11]

I never bought this "its ruined because it sets up Avengers" argument for Iron Man 2. Nor do I buy it for Captain America or Thor, where people try to use the same criticism. The only things in here that set up Avengers are Black Widow and Nick Fury. Could you remove them from the plot? Probably. But would the plot get better for it? I'm not so sure. Nick Fury is not in it any time at all, and it's just to set Stark down the path of looking at his dad's work. Black Widow is more of a presence, but she's one that I personally enjoy in the way she works off of Pepper and Tony both. Plus, BW has a long history with the Iron Man character in the comics so it felt appropriate.

What I think really drags the film down are the things that have nothing to do with Avengers at all:


- Natalie Rushman is a totally confusing character. I actually really like Scarjo as Black Widow. Her fight in the Hammer compound was great. She was amazing in Avengers. But I have zero clue what they were trying to do with her here. What exactly was she trying to accomplish in the scene with Stark where she basically baits him into partying it up? What is going on when Pepper confronts her? Where did that come from? What WAS she trying to do? I just don't feel like she makes a lot of sense when she's not being Black Widow.

This is the stuff that bothers people about the setting up Avengers movie. The scene with Fury would have been, fine if that was all there was it was all the extra stuff that felt like it was forced into their by Marvel. For example I didn't mind it in Thor or Captain America because it either did something to move the plot along, not hindering it. It also didn't feel as heavy handed in what was being done.

[JonWes]

But... what are you saying is the Avengers stuff forced in? Black Widow? As I said, she's a well established supporting character in the Iron Man universe. Her presence made sense to introduce whether she was in the Avengers or not. It's more that she was just not well written than her Avengers connection that was a problem for me.

[Scotward]

The first one was better, and I'm not sure I'd say IM2 was a masterpiece like the OP, but I certainly enjoyed the heck out of it. The third act was really the only thing that I was less than thrilled about. Seemed like waaaay to much drone fighting for a very quick and unimpressive final battle with Mickey Rourke. I thought Rourke's character was threatening and ominous in the beginning and was really looking forward to a big final battle.

But the thing that I really love about this movie is the Grand Prix sequence. I had heard of the comic book "briefcase armor" being used and thought, "That's dumb... no way will that work in a movie" and it turned out to be one of my favorite bits from any of the recent superhero films.

[Benedict Judas Hel]

It was okay.

[EldestSon]

Empire Strikes Back is ruined because it sets up Return of the Jedi.

[wyldman11]

But... what are you saying is the Avengers stuff forced in? Black Widow? As I said, she's a well established supporting character in the Iron Man universe. Her presence made sense to introduce whether she was in the Avengers or not. It's more that she was just not well written than her Avengers connection that was a problem for me.

I know she is well established with Iron Man, frequently having a relationship with him even. The problem is many of them see no separation for the way she is written and her Avengers connection. Because she isn't well written she felt like she was shoe horned in.

I have seen many people talk about the first half and the second half of the film basically. My mom who knows very little about the comic versions of the characters said as much, she felt the second part of the movie was changed. Other people I know in the same situation said it felt like they started filming and got told they needed to make it line into the Avengers more. When non comic book fans ask did they only introduce her so they didn't have to deal with it in the Avengers movie (which at this point everyone knew they were building to) there is a problem. She is badly written and like I said which makes her feel like she was forced into an already written story.

I just felt the movie fell apart in the second half. Others saw it as a connection to Marvel pushing this needs to set up the Avengers, which I can see where they connection comes in at. The first movie was fantastic, the second one falls apart. To me the detour the took, took too long and it disrupted the flow of the movie. The movie was going full steam ahead then got sidetracked and never regained it's footing. It just so happens to happen around the time Nick Fury showed up, if there is a correlation or not I don't know. There was good stuff after that point, it just didn't feel like the same movie. It was like the tone, the flow, and even the acting shifted gears at that point.

Could be I have never been sold on Johansson. I think she is cute and does have a smoking body, but she tends to lack in regards to facial acting. I think she is decent at acting though, just not as great as many make her out to be. Which I tend to have a theory that a person is easily convinced someone is a better actor then they are when they are attracted to them even in the slightest.

Empire Strikes Back is ruined because it sets up Return of the Jedi.

The original trilogy is ruined because it's set up by the new trilogy. And really I prefer Return of the Jedi over Empire Strikes Back. I never like ESB as much as NW or RotJ, and I still to this day can't really pin point why.

I like the idea of the shared universe. The S.H.I.E.L.D. stuff in the Thor and Captain America felt like it was part of the story, and didn't take anything from the narrative. Iron Man 2 the problem has to do with the stuff related to all that, and feels a bit forced into the story but that is just one explanation as I said above.

[carlo]

Iron Man 2 is awesome. I loved it more than the first, and I really loved the first. I can understand some of the criticisms people have, but what I don't understand is how people who enjoyed the first one think the sequel is bad.

the second movie was not aweful, just for me was so damn slow and too many open spaces, in other words good time to go to the bathroom or buy more snacks. i also did not care for black widow at all. avengers major push for sure


i like don cheadle, but also did not like him in this film to be replaced, also, samuel l jackson has gotten on my nerves for yrs and i dont like him as nick fury at all. i would not mind if He was replaced all of sudden

the first movie Rocked! as other mentioned. he was new, getting to know n perfecting his new toy. the action and flying sequence were just amazing. this movie is on my dvd to buy, pass on pt 2

i just hope pt 3 is good and not boring slow like 2

[Thatman]

Merged the threads.

[Dave-Man]

I liked Iron Man 2. Maybe because I am not an obsessive fan of the Iron Man comics, but I thought as a movie it was good.

[gbagok]

I liked Iron Man 2 as well. I think the only majorly off points for me were when Pepper and Natalie/Natasha were suddenly friendly when the last time we'd seen them together (I think) was when Pepper accused Natalie of trying to do something. When did they make up and how? I can kind of guess what Pepper thought Natalie was after since she didn't know she was actually a spy for SHIELD, but still it was like a scene had been left out.

The other moment that felt off to me was more of a story quibble. It seemed alarmingly wrong to me that Stark's dad, a rich westerner, condemned a Russian scientist to the purgatory of living in communist poverty because he, gasp, wanted to make money off his own idea. I totally missed why Vanko's dad didn't develop the tech for the USSR, but ignoring that it still seemed like incredible hypocrisy for Stark to do that to him since he made his own living selling weapons technology in the first place. Perhaps I just didn't hear a line the right way, it sounded pretty ugly though. Rourke's Vanko wasn't up for talking out the issues though, so I don't think his motivation needed to be so sympathetic. He was just a big bad guy out to hurt the hero, the tragic and morally ambiguous history seemed wasted on a guy like that.

Otherwise I thought SHIELD parts of the movie were highlights. The movie had been kind of off its game between Iron Man's fight with Whiplash and the after part fight, so "please exit the doughnut" was a welcome change of pace for me. It didn't feel so much like setting up the Avengers either (particularly now that the only pay off as far as I have noticed is that Black Widow is familiar to us without getting her own movie before Avengers) and more like indulging in the shared universe as the teases led into Thor and Captain America more than Avengers. I think it's important also that most of what Fury talks about sets up Stark's actions in the second half of Iron Man 2 itself. Stark had hit his low point, he was dying and his friends Pepper and Rhodes were too distracted by their own troubles (new CEO, pressure from the DoD) to notice that his self-destructive behavior had gotten worse because he was crying for help and not just letting his quadrupled-because-of-Iron-Man fame go to his head. Fury puts him on track to find the new element his father had been researching. If there was anything else he said that connects directly to Avengers, it wasn't distracting because I don't remember it and I've seen the movie several times now. I didn't much like the dying subplot in the first place, but on repeat viewings I got why it worked better happening just after he'd come out as Iron Man than to happen later in the series. Still, it was the cliched Big Gloom that a lot of sequels do, and it was a total buzz kill after the fun of the first movie. I really hope that Iron Man 3 won't feel like a similar buzz kill coming out right after Avengers.

[Vanquest]

The masterpiece known as IRON MAN 2 is doing more business:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/top.php

I predicted it long time ago.