No iron man 3 for jon favreau

[Doc Samson]

It's pretty sad that many are jumping off the Avengers bandwagon. Marvel is doing something fresh and unprecedented with a story arc that spans 6 movies (IM/IM2, Hulk, Thor, Cap, Avengers), yet people aren't happy with that. This is one of the great things about comic books and they are trying to translate it to the screen instead of a limited closed universe. It's a big risk, but that's whats so exciting about it and why there was a buzz at Comic Con. All of the movies in this story arc have been good, yet people are trying to find reason to hate on this experiment for some odd reason. Blaming Marvel as if it's Fox (who is mediocre in every way) or doing anything wrong in regards to it's movies. I listed the names of the big stars Marvel brought in, but apparently this isn't enough to quash these ridiculous 'cheap' claims. Some of the same people posting on this thread are those who were hating on Iron Man 2 throughout it's box office thread and blatantly wanted it to fail---so I really am not suprised. If Thor and Cap bomb at the box office (which isn't going to happen), it has nothing to do with Avengers. The Avengers will make money on the back of Robert Downey Jr. and the excitement this movie has been building for alot of people.

As for IM2, Black Widow and Nick Fury are Iron Man characters as much as they are Avengers characters. Nobody cried about Coulsen, so why Black Widow or Fury? He was as useless in IM1 as they supposedly were in IM2. Fury was barely even in the movie for starters. Two scenes, one of which was almost entirely regarding the plot of Iron Man 2 (paladium poisoning/Howard).

Finally, we don't have any proof that Favreau was upset about anything. It's possible that he just wanted to branch out and do different projects. Not getting too attached to one franchise. Chris Nolan is going to do the same thing after this next Batman movie. Favreau probally wants to be more like a Spielberg rather than a George Lucas, who is famous for one franchise. It's the same with James Cameron who moved on from Terminator, which he created.

The way you defend Marvel is just as ignorant as the people "blaming" Marvel, in your words. I'm not bashing anybody, I'm giving my honest opinion on the situation.

As far as Fury & Widow are concerned, who's to say that the whole palladium poisoning wasn't thrown in there just to justify their presence? Furthermore, Stark basically figured it out on his own, so what was the point of them? There was none, other than T&A in Scarlett's case, and bad comic relief on SLJ's part, that offered no comedy or relief, and a nod and a wink to the fans. Widow was in the movie more than Whiplash, and yet, she wasn't necessary to the proceedings, other than a fight at the end of the film. We just have different opinions, I told you this yesterday. This is just how I feel about it, that's it. Your opinion is no more right or wrong than mine.

And you shouldn't assume Thor/Cap will be huge successes either. Stranger things have happened, and the point I've been trying to make is that while we can debate about how much time the Avengers stuff took in IM2, there's no dispute that those subplots were much more a part of IM2 than IM1 or TIH. Thor's hammer at the end of the movie served the exact same purpose without having anything to do with the central film, and it took about 60 seconds. Instead of asking how much time the Avengers stuff took, ask yourself how much it added to the movie.

[Ironfan72]

I was shocked to hear Jon was off Iron Man 3, he seemed like he planned on directing three films, while I enjoyed IM2, I can see why people didn't enjoy the way it could have been, changing writers did not help, seemed to lack real direction.
Jon has been complaining since the first film that he had no idea how to translate Mandarin to the big screen, and now that he had to bring the character to life, he is no longer attached, seems strange that he is no longer on board now.
I have also heard that the studio interferred in the production so maybe it was just a matter of time, perhaps Marvel and Disney decided that the franchise needed new blood, especially with both Thor and Captain America coming out and Avengers, perhaps they felt after IM2 did not get the reveiws they wanted maybe Jon was not what they wanted to helm their lead franchise, all speculation of course.
As a die-hard fan, I am forever grateful to Jon for bringing Iron Man to the big screen and not only that but made two awesome pictures, and he did it with passion and stayed true to the character, and I thank him. :im:

[ElMariachi]

The way you defend Marvel is just as ignorant as the people "blaming" Marvel, in your words. I'm not bashing anybody, I'm giving my honest opinion on the situation.


I am defending them because I feel they are being wrongfully attacked without any evidence. It's all knee jerk reactions from people who don't know the full story. There isn't always a good guy and a bad guy in every situation.


As far as Fury & Widow are concerned, who's to say that the whole palladium poisoning wasn't thrown in there just to justify their presence? Furthermore, Stark basically figured it out on his own, so what was the point of them? There was none, other than T&A in Scarlett's case, and bad comic relief on SLJ's part, that offered no comedy or relief, and a nod and a wink to the fans. Widow was in the movie more than Whiplash, and yet, she wasn't necessary to the proceedings, other than a fight at the end of the film. We just have different opinions, I told you this yesterday. This is just how I feel about it, that's it. Your opinion is no more right or wrong than mine.


Why are you guys so hung up on this one aspect of the story? The point of Nick Fury was to straight talk a Tony Stark who walked over everybody(Pepper, Rhodey, Agent Coulsen, the government, etc.). He was the only character that could support Tony in regards to technology, information, and connections to his past. Black Widow was just a sexier version of Agent Coulsen and another connection to SHIELD. She is the one character that could have been axed, but she wasn't distracting enough to bother me like it has you. I also thought that SLJ was funny in this movie and the audiences seemed to agree. As a matter of fact, people laughed at lines in this movie more than any other superhero movie I can think of.

I never said your opinion was wrong but you are seeing things that don't exist. Blowing other things out of proportion. Minor plot details that would have been ignored in any other movie.




And you shouldn't assume Thor/Cap will be huge successes either. Stranger things have happened, and the point I've been trying to make is that while we can debate about how much time the Avengers stuff took in IM2, there's no dispute that those subplots were much more a part of IM2 than IM1 or TIH. Thor's hammer at the end of the movie served the exact same purpose without having anything to do with the central film, and it took about 60 seconds. Instead of asking how much time the Avengers stuff took, ask yourself how much it added to the movie.


They will make money, along with Green Lantern. Perhaps not as much as Iron Man, but I have a hard time believing they will flop like Jonah Hex.

There was no Avengers subplot to Iron Man 2. This is what I was talking about with you guys bringing up stuff that doesn't exist. The only Avengers talk in the movie occured at the end of the movie after the plot concluded. I think the Stark/Fury scene there added alot to the movie because it was funny and expanded the Avengers plot with no harm to IM2s plot.

[craigdbfan]

Where were all the references that were forced into this movie though? They just don't exist on a level large enough to affect the plot like you are making it out to be. These references are Easter Eggs and merely nods to the fans following the development of these movies.

As for Batman, it can be argued that the main character was overshadowed in TDK by the Joker and Harvey Dent. There was so much going on in the plot of TDK that Bruce Wayne didn't grow as a character as he did in BB. The development of Stark/Bruce is identical in IM/IM2 & BB/TDK in my opinion.

The inclusion of Black Widow for one, who was planned from the beginning to be a big part of the entire Avengers line up.

Her character was completely shoved in and provided nothing to the overall Iron Man story, again it was used to keep propping up the entire Avengers deal.

Warmachine was the only cameo appearance that had a right to be in the film.

They just can't do it in a way that backs up their argument.

-Stark mentions 'little superhero boy band'
-Fury/Coulsen mentions Southwest region, which is an Easter Egg.
-Stark uses Cap Shield to level out particle accelerator, Easter Egg.
-Fury talks about the Avengers after conclusion of IM2 plot.
-Scenes of Hulk destruction on t.v's behind Fury. Easter Egg. I didn't even notice this until I read about it after seeing the movie.
-Thors hammer in New Mexico post-credits.

Oh but they do.

All these things add up. I'd like to see if TDK would still be as lauded if it were to have references to Superman, Green Lantern, and the Flash. Even Nolan would probably churn out something "ok" with demands like that.

People would be up in arms if this were to happen. Again I'm someone who prefers for these characters to get all the focus in terms of story/character development in their respective movie.

I can't believe that people are against this. :dry:

Insinuated? Like what?

The unjust policies of the entire military industrial complex. Instead we see him parading around as a nuclear deterrent, that was not what was implied at all throughout the first film.

In fact they made a complete turnaround and held the status quo that Tony Stark wanted to destroy in the end of the first film. A really wonderful setup that was thrown away and reverted him back to a uncaring business tycoon who sets up a theme park around himself.

Tony DID have an arc in IM2. If anything, Bruce either didn't have an arc at all in TDK or it was such an arc that it ended up being a 360...which is essentially the same thing anyway.

He had a truncated and neutered version of an arc. Bruce did have an arc in TDK it was that he wasn't up to snuff to handle the various problems of Gotham without pinning all the collateral damage on himself. That is a great arc and different from the principle theme in Begins.

In the first Iron Man film we had a similar if not better setup for Tony Stark to have a great second film in which he could have attacked the entire system that he was a part up to free the innocent in war torn countries that his weapons partly caused.

Some of this is kind of addressed in IM2 (for example showing the US governments desire for the Iron Man tech and Hammer industries showing his competitors).

In the end the US does get the tech, the war in those countries is still being waged on by other shady military weapon corporations despite Hammer being arrested.

So what did Iron Man accomplish in the second film? I guess he took care of the man who's fathers tech was taken and used without any sort of credit to create the suit he uses.

What a great message.

Just seems like they could have done a lot more if they weren't tied down to this entire "Avengers" initiative is all.

I'm not against the Avengers film but rather the way Marvel is going about doing this.

[Octoberist]

I feel like neither party is neither innocent or guilty.

I can say that I'm sure that there was a drift between Marvel and Favs. It was kinda evident during the filming of Iron Man 2. Again, no proof but just a vibe. What Jon Favs has to say was more of 'spin' on the story, which happens all the time to cool the public off. Happens all the time.
I'm sure Marvel and Jon are okay, but I doubt he'll do anything else with them beyond The Avengers. Even that, it's probably just a name thing.
You have to keep in mind that Marvel is a newer studio and they will make mistakes along the way. It's how it is. With the recastings and cast salaries, you would be ignorant not to notice it.

That said, it doesn't mean their intentions are bad or bad people in general, but they're just novices. They like to play hardball, from the looks of it.

[Doc Samson]

I am defending them because I feel they are being wrongfully attacked without any evidence. It's all knee jerk reactions from people who don't know the full story. There isn't always a good guy and a bad guy in every situation.

Once again, these people you speak of doesn't include me. I don't have any allegiance to DC, Marvel, Fox or anybody else. I just want quality movies with characters I've loved since my childhood. If Marvel did pressure Favreau to include anything he didn't want to, then yes, Marvel would be at fault, because this whole universe is their idea.

Why are you guys so hung up on this one aspect of the story? The point of Nick Fury was to straight talk a Tony Stark who walked over everybody(Pepper, Rhodey, Agent Coulsen, the government, etc.). He was the only character that could support Tony in regards to technology, information, and connections to his past. Black Widow was just a sexier version of Agent Coulsen and another connection to SHIELD. She is the one character that could have been axed, but she wasn't distracting enough to bother me like it has you. I also thought that SLJ was funny in this movie and the audiences seemed to agree. As a matter of fact, people laughed at lines in this movie more than any other superhero movie I can think of.

Nick Fury isn't needed to straight talk Stark, that's what Potts & Rhodey are there for. As soon as he shows up, the movie got goofy and cheesy, it doesn't matter if he was there for 2 seconds or 2 hours. As soon as IM is in the donut, it was damn near a nuking the fridge moment. Everything from that point forward concerning Stark was farfetched, boring, or corny. The comedy felt forced and was unfunny. The tone of the movie up to that point was different, and more in line with IM1. That's my opinion, sorry for having one. I like SM3, most people hate it, doesn't bother me one bit.

I never said your opinion was wrong but you are seeing things that don't exist. Blowing other things out of proportion. Minor plot details that would have been ignored in any other movie.

I'm not blowing anything up, it's right there. If the plot details are so minor WHY ARE THEY NECESSARY? They aren't, point blank. Nobody needed to see Nick Fury or Black Widow in the actual movie plot, at all. They could have moved all that crap to the end of the movie along with Thor's hammer, and given extra time to a criminally underused villain, the 5-second action scenes, or handling the palladium poisoning better.

They will make money, along with Green Lantern. Perhaps not as much as Iron Man, but I have a hard time believing they will flop like Jonah Hex.

Making money and meeting expectations are two different things. TIH made money, but didn't deliver as expected, there's no foregone conclusion to this until the numbers are in.

There was no Avengers subplot to Iron Man 2. This is what I was talking about with you guys bringing up stuff that doesn't exist. The only Avengers talk in the movie occured at the end of the movie after the plot concluded. I think the Stark/Fury scene there added alot to the movie because it was funny and expanded the Avengers plot with no harm to IM2s plot.

You just said there was no Avengers subplot to IM2, then in the same paragraph you say Fury's scene expanded the Avengers plot :huh:

[craigdbfan]

El Marachi is getting way to defensive. No one is attacking anything but rather expressing opinions on the matter. Also I don't know where the no "evidence" part is coming in as everybody on both sides has presented facts. Whether or not they are to your liking is another story.

I also resent that he is assuming that people on here don't know the entire dealings with Marvel and Jon. Sure we aren't on the set or working at Marvel but some of us do try following as much information that gets out on the "behind the scenes" work to make these films happen.

[Octoberist]

Even though I lean more DC, even I admit that their track record in film has been sluggish and disappointing. Green Lantern is a film that I look forward to, but even then, the trailer was...meh, while I thought Thor's was more effective.

My point is that nobody's perfect and I'll admit the faults of things that don't live up to their potential, with constructive angle of course. But man, Blind fanboyism (or Geek Denial) gets the best out of people sometimes.

[Doc Samson]

El Marachi is getting way to defensive. No one is attacking anything but rather expressing opinions on the matter. Also I don't know where the no "evidence" part is coming in as everybody on both sides has presented facts. Whether or not they are to your liking is another story.

I also resent that he is assuming that people on here don't know the entire dealings with Marvel and Jon. Sure we aren't on the set or working at Marvel but some of us do try following as much information that gets out on the "behind the scenes" work to make these films happen.

Exactly, I don't know where it's coming from. We discussed things yesterday and it was cool, now it's back to square one. I never said I hated IM2 either, I like it, I just feel with some omissions it could have been on par or better than the first. And chief amongst those omissions would be Fury/Widow, at least in terms of the central movie.

Even though I lean more DC, even I admit that their track record in film has been sluggish and disappointing. Green Lantern is a film that I look forward to, but even then, the trailer was...meh, while I thought Thor's was more effective.

My point is that nobody's perfect and I'll admit the faults of things that don't live up to their potential, with constructive angle of course. But man, Blind fanboyism (or Geek Denial) gets the best out of people sometimes.

QFT!

[Octoberist]

Exactly, I don't know where it's coming from. We discussed things yesterday and it was cool, now it's back to square one. I never said I hated IM2 either, I like it, I just feel with some omissions it could have been on par or better than the first. And chief amongst those omissions would be Fury/Widow, at least in terms of the central movie.



QFT!

geeks are a fickle and sensitive bunch. Very reactionary sometimes.

[craigdbfan]

Even though I lean more DC, even I admit that their track record in film has been sluggish and disappointing. Green Lantern is a film that I look forward to, but even then, the trailer was...meh, while I thought Thor's was more effective.

My point is that nobody's perfect and I'll admit the faults of things that don't live up to their potential, with constructive angle of course. But man, Blind fanboyism (or Geek Denial) gets the best out of people sometimes.

Yup.

I've loved various characters from both Marvel and DC so I'll never be able to align myself completely with one brand as that would be stupid and insincere on my part.

In a certain way this allows me to criticize or praise both brands when they actually do make mistakes or inroads with a series/character that I like.

When Fox/Marvel did something stupid; Wolverine Origins, I call it out. Same goes for WB/DC with Catwoman and the Neon/Rave Batman years (yikes). Sony/Marvel/Raimi with Spider-Man 3 etc.

None of these companies or directors are perfect that much is sure, but being able to stand in some sort of objectivity and pointing out obvious problems should be something more people should practice. My mantra no reason for anybody else to follow it.

[ElMariachi]

The inclusion of Black Widow for one, who was planned from the beginning to be a big part of the entire Avengers line up.

Her character was completely shoved in and provided nothing to the overall Iron Man story, again it was used to keep propping up the entire Avengers deal.

Warmachine was the only cameo appearance that had a right to be in the film.


What does Black Widow have to do with the Avengers? She was an agent of SHIELD, which was apart of the first movie.




All these things add up. I'd like to see if TDK would still be as lauded if it were to have references to Superman, Green Lantern, and the Flash. Even Nolan would probably churn out something "ok" with demands like that.

People would be up in arms if this were to happen. Again I'm someone who prefers for these characters to get all the focus in terms of story/character development in their respective movie.


There is a huge difference between Iron Man and Nolan's Batman though. Iron Man as a franchise was intended as a lead up to The Avengers from it's inception. The references to other characters are flawless because they fit in the context of the story.

Nolan's films never intended to be apart of a bigger DC universe. The Dark Knight was barely a superhero movie for starters and more closely related to a crime drama. It would of course make zero sense to bring up Superman because the realism of the story/setting.

[Doc Samson]

geeks are a fickle and sensitive bunch. Very reactionary sometimes.

I guess. I'm definitely a comic geek, but I try not to fly off the handle when someone disagrees with me. Then again, I might just be battle hardened from those pesky Dark Knight Threads :cwink:


Yup.

I've loved various characters from both Marvel and DC so I'll never be able to align myself completely with one brand as that would be stupid and insincere on my part.

In a certain way this allows me to criticize or praise both brands when they actually do make mistakes or inroads with a series/character that I like.

When Fox/Marvel did something stupid; Wolverine Origins, I call it out. Same goes for WB/DC with Catwoman and the Neon/Rave Batman years (yikes). Sony/Marvel/Raimi with Spider-Man 3 etc.

None of these companies or directors are perfect that much is sure, but being able to stand in some sort of objectivity and pointing out obvious problems should be something more people should practice. My mantra no reason for anybody else to follow it.

Absolutely. I see this time and again, and usually, it rears its head in the form of needless bashing of TDK, just because it's perhaps more critically acclaimed than someone else's favorite superhero movie. It's analogous to sports fans really. I think ElMariachi suspects me of the same thing, but if he took the time to ask, he would realize I've defended IM2 on a number of fronts when it came out. That being said, I'm going to call it how I see it too

[Spider-Vader]

I hope Favs can still be Happy in the movie. I'm sure Marvel will find a good replacement, I find it odd how he goes from one Disney movie to another though. :/

[I SEE SPIDEY]

One thing I'll agree with is that the Marvel v DC stuff should stop. I hate when people bring it up. All I care about is if the film is good, I couldn't care less if it was based on a Marvel or DC character. Despite what some think, my problems with Iron Man 2 have nothing to do with anyother comicbook flick, I just simply didn't like it for reasons I've already brought up.

And those problems are my own. If you like Iron Man 2, thats your business but I have a right to state my negative opinion about it or anyother film, provided I'm not trolling. Nobody is going to convince me that Iron Man 2 was a good flick...sorry.

[Iron_Stark]

The inclusion of WAR MACHINE for one, who was planned from the beginning to just show people that Tony can work well with others in the Avengers line up.

HIS character was completely shoved in and provided nothing to the overall Iron Man story, again it was used to keep propping up the entire Avengers deal.

There fixed for you.


Warmachine was the only cameo appearance that had a right to be in the film.


Nonsense, War Machine had no damn business in the movie, especially if it meant taking away from the villains.

There was no need for him except because of the excessive fanboy whining to put him in the movie.

Besides if you know anything about Iron Man's history (which I doubt you do) Fury and Widow appeared in the comics YEARS before Rhodey and DECADES before War Machine.

It's funny how people want to blame those two for taking away from the villains, yet I don't remember ILM spending an ass load of money on their shots, or Legacy Studios making them two suits or the promotion promoting them right next to Iron Man like a co-star. It was all War Machine.

ILM spent the important shots on War Machine that could've gone to Whiplash, Legacy Studios spent time and money rebuilding the Mark II "autopsy" suit which should've gone to a Whiplash Mark II suit, and the promotion should've gone to Mickey Rourke. Good grief look at the damn movie poster, no Whiplash.

[Marvin]

good news, it would suck if they brought back someone that obviously doesn't care about the material anymore.

but honestly about half way through im2, almost no one really cared anymore it's run it course and you could throw as many robots at RDJ and his sthitck all day while he stands and finds new ways to shoot them down...
It's time for some new blood.

I say jones.
fav's just doesn't doesn't know what to do if he doesn't have good script handed to him. I still have yawns over that monaco scene.

[craigdbfan]

There fixed for you.



Nonsense, War Machine had no damn business in the movie, especially if it meant taking away from the villains.

There was no need for him except because of the excessive fanboy whining to put him in the movie.

Besides if you know anything about Iron Man's history (which I doubt you do) Fury and Widow appeared in the comics YEARS before Rhodey and DECADES before War Machine.

Jeez could you be anymore hostile?

Yes, you're right I'm not incredibly familiar with Iron Man in terms of comics and all their intricacies. But I did know that SHIELD has been around longer than Rhodes. Now you are just insulting me for no reason. The Avengers have been around since the 60's while Rhodes was an 80's add on, yeah thanks for preaching to the choir. Nowhere in my post do I say "OMG WARMACHINE IS DAW AWESOME, HE BE COOLER DAN DAH AVENGERS YAH!?".

But thats not what we are talking about now are we? We are talking about the film series which had already established Rhodey as a prominent character in the first film so including War Machine and Rhodey in the second film was an obvious move.

I can't believe you are calling him shoved in when Fury and Black Widow are the ones that felt like extra baggage in IM2.

[ElMariachi]

El Marachi is getting way to defensive. No one is attacking anything but rather expressing opinions on the matter. Also I don't know where the no "evidence" part is coming in as everybody on both sides has presented facts. Whether or not they are to your liking is another story.

I also resent that he is assuming that people on here don't know the entire dealings with Marvel and Jon. Sure we aren't on the set or working at Marvel but some of us do try following as much information that gets out on the "behind the scenes" work to make these films happen.

I am not that defensive but I do get tired of people boldly saying things that aren't true. They claim this was an informercial for Avengers and can't back it up with any evidence in the movie. What facts have been presented? One scene and a few random mentions that had absolutely no effect on the plot.

And you don't know the dealings and issues on set or the company has. I have been following too, but the reports are conflicting and impossible to judge anything from. Alot of these reports tend to be b.s. in the end.

[Doc Samson]

I hear you on most of this except,

You are blowing things up because you continue to talk about Avengers. What you are referring to is SHIELD, which was introduced in the last movie.

Shield is introduced in a different context here. It's not like it's just Shield for the sake of shield, and it's not like they're using the original Nick Fury who's a very crucial part of Ironman lore.

They're using the version from the Ultimates, which, ultimately, is another version of the Avengers. And when he shows up, he's talking about the Avengers, it's his whole purpose, which is my problem. If you want to do Nick Fury, do it, but do it right, and with justice, not just to tie movies together for the eventual Avengers film, and that's all this is. Make him really integral to the plot in someway, do something important with him, outside of the setup.

[Octoberist]

It feels like Nick Fury was a plot device to move the Avengers subplot forward.

[Iron_Stark]

Jeez could you be anymore hostile?

Yes, you're right I'm not incredibly familiar with Iron Man in terms of comics and all their intricacies. But I did know that SHIELD has been around longer than Rhodes. Now you are just insulting me for no reason. The Avengers have been around since the 60's while Rhodes was an 80's add on, yeah thanks for preaching to the choir. Nowhere in my post do I say "OMG WARMACHINE IS DAW AWESOME, HE BE COOLER DAN DAH AVENGERS YAH!?".

But thats not what we are talking about now are we? We are talking about the film series which had already established Rhodey as a prominent character in the first film so including War Machine and Rhodey in the second film was an obvious move.

I can't believe you are calling him shoved in when Fury and Black Widow are the ones that felt like extra baggage in IM2.

Yeah Rhodes and Rhodes by himself should've been left as is. There was no need for them to give him a suit and take away from the villains.

Extra baggage? two characters that are important to the the early Iron Man mythos are extra baggage?

War Machine was the only extra baggage in this movie, like I edited in my previous post, neither of those two took away from Whiplash.

[A Necessary Evil]

So, wait! 5 minutes of 120' automatically considered IM2 a spot for Avengers? :wow: WOW!

Because Avengers are:
1. 3 minutes with Nick Fury and Black Widow at middle;
2. 2 minutes with Fury at end talking about Avengers;
3. After credits scene with Thor.

Stop.

Black Widow's character is well integrated in the plot, Avengers or not. The scene with Fury talking about his dad is "plot-centered". And there isn't other Avengers-talking in the movie.

So what's spot? 5 minutes? Wow :doh:

I love haters.

when did ISS say that?

the facts.

Marvel lowballed with TIH.
Then Rourke, SLJ, RDJ (I think?) and favs, cause IM2 wasn't even supposed to be out this year.
Then the norton thing.
Now this.

[ElMariachi]

Exactly, I don't know where it's coming from. We discussed things yesterday and it was cool, now it's back to square one. I never said I hated IM2 either, I like it, I just feel with some omissions it could have been on par or better than the first. And chief amongst those omissions would be Fury/Widow, at least in terms of the central movie.



QFT!

It's just that people are crushing Iron Man 2 for minor plot details. This is an example of people being impossible to please and going out of their way to find errors. It's like all these people who b---h about Transformers 2. It's a movie based on a toy for christsake, yet the geeks expect Citizen Kane. The expectations are getting out of control in my opinion. This all started in 08' with Iron Man and TDK. Two comic movies lauded by critics and now the benchmark of everything. People need to curb their expecations and just have fun. There is a reason these movies are released in summer and not in December-January.

[Parker Wayne]

After seeing all the articles and information, I'm starting to think this is all overreaction by all of us. It could be possible that Favreau just wanted to go back to kids films and direct The Magic Kingdom. He did love that place since he was a kid.

Maybe it was something Marvel did, and maybe it was also because Favs truly didn't know where to go with IM3. But it feels as though the main catalyst to me is him simply wanting to do Magic Kingdom more.

[Parker Wayne]

After seeing all the articles and information, I'm starting to think this is all overreaction by all of us. It could be possible that Favreau just wanted to go back to kids films and direct The Magic Kingdom. He did love that place since he was a kid.

Maybe it was something Marvel did, and maybe it was also because Favs truly didn't know where to go with IM3. But it feels as though the main catalyst to me is him simply wanting to do Magic Kingdom more.

[ElMariachi]

And those problems are my own. If you like Iron Man 2, thats your business but I have a right to state my negative opinion about it or anyother film, provided I'm not trolling. Nobody is going to convince me that Iron Man 2 was a good flick...sorry.

All you do is b---h about Iron Man 2. You went out of your way to crush it's success in the box office thread.

Nobody said you shouldn't have an opinion, but you are always railing about it leading me to believe you have some bias. I didn't care for Wolverine, but you don't see me hammering it all the time. If anything, I try to find the good in bad movies, not mine the negative aspects from good movies. There are few movies that I have left angry or complaining about. Then again, I am easy to please and not so demanding about every freaking movie.

[Parker Wayne]

And those problems are my own. If you like Iron Man 2, thats your business but I have a right to state my negative opinion about it or anyother film, provided I'm not trolling. Nobody is going to convince me that Iron Man 2 was a good flick...sorry.

I don't get why you keep saying you have a right to state your opinion. No one's telling you that you can't. :huh:

[Iron_Stark]

After seeing all the articles and information, I'm starting to think this is all overreaction by all of us. It could be possible that Favreau just wanted to go back to kids films and direct The Magic Kingdom. He did love that place since he was a kid.

Maybe it was something Marvel did, and maybe it was also because Favs truly didn't know where to go with IM3. But it feels as though the main catalyst to me is him simply wanting to do Magic Kingdom more.

This is the internet, people overreact over the slightest things.

But yeah that's exactly what I got from that interview and the numerous interviews about him not knowing how to handle the Mandarin.

[ElMariachi]

I hear you on most of this except,



Shield is introduced in a different context here. It's not like it's just Shield for the sake of shield, and it's not like they're using the original Nick Fury who's a very crucial part of Ironman lore.

They're using the version from the Ultimates, which, ultimately, is another version of the Avengers. And when he shows up, he's talking about the Avengers, it's his whole purpose, which is my problem. If you want to do Nick Fury, do it, but do it right, and with justice, not just to tie movies together for the eventual Avengers film, and that's all this is. Make him really integral to the plot in someway, do something important with him, outside of the setup.

Sure, he is a different Nick Fury from the original one but I really have no issue with it at this point. SHIELD doesn't equal Avengers. Nick Fury is still representing SHIELD, not the Avengers which at this point in the movies is still in planning stages. As a public figure/superhero, SHIELD would be the agency to deal with Tony Stark as he is outside the military.

Again, I think this whole Fury thing is mountain out of a molehill. His inclusion wasn't the problem in the script as he only took up two scenes.

[ElMariachi]

I hear you on most of this except,



Shield is introduced in a different context here. It's not like it's just Shield for the sake of shield, and it's not like they're using the original Nick Fury who's a very crucial part of Ironman lore.

They're using the version from the Ultimates, which, ultimately, is another version of the Avengers. And when he shows up, he's talking about the Avengers, it's his whole purpose, which is my problem. If you want to do Nick Fury, do it, but do it right, and with justice, not just to tie movies together for the eventual Avengers film, and that's all this is. Make him really integral to the plot in someway, do something important with him, outside of the setup.

Sure, he is a different Nick Fury from the original one but I really have no issue with it at this point. SHIELD doesn't equal Avengers. Nick Fury is still representing SHIELD, not the Avengers which at this point in the movies is still in planning stages. As a public figure/superhero, SHIELD would be the agency to deal with Tony Stark as he is outside the military.

Again, I think this whole Fury thing is mountain out of a molehill. His inclusion wasn't the problem in the script as he only took up two scenes.

[Doc Samson]

It feels like Nick Fury was a plot device to move the Avengers subplot forward.

Precisely my point. If we're to be technical, the Avengers had nothing to do with Nick Fury or SHIELD during their inception. But we're not talking about that Nick Fury, we're talking about the Ultimates Nick Fury, so basically, his sole purpose is to be a plot device and connect the Avengers agenda through each film, making him simultaneously unnecessary to IM2 as a standalone film, yet integral to IM2 as the Avenger's tie-in.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Um my feelings on the Avengers thing is not being blown up. I hated the Avengers stuff and felt that it hurt the film overall, I'm not alone in my thinking either. If anyone loved the Avengers stuff and felt that Iron Man 2 was flawlessly handled, fine but I still felt that the film would have actually been good if the Avengers stuff was cut out and the villain had more to do than build things.

My anger towards Iron Man 2 comes from disappointment. I liked the first film and thought that they were going to up the anti when Iron Man 2 came out. I only wanted a few things.

Interesting drama to go along with the jokes

An interesting villain that was better than Staine (who wasn't awful)

Interesting a good (better than the first film) action scenes that fit nicely into a semi interesting the plot

I felt that I didn't get those things and thus I talk about it. I wasn't asking for a certain plot or villain or the greatest film in the world, I just wanted a good film. The film wasn't good or bad to me based on Boxoffice numbers or anyone elses opinions, it just simply wasn't enjoyable to me. It could have made 1bil and Favs could be coming back to direct and it still wouldn't be a good film to me.

I hope that Favs moves on the other and better things and makes another Elf or Iron Man 1. He has problems as a director but he has great potential on the action movie front.

I wish the future director good luck when dealing with Marvel because they have serious issues.

[I Am The Knight]

Favs did state in the past that he felt these comic book franchises run out of steam after the second one, so there you go.

[I Am The Knight]

Hype lag.

[ElMariachi]

when did ISS say that?

the facts.

Marvel lowballed with TIH.
Then Rourke, SLJ, RDJ (I think?) and favs, cause IM2 wasn't even supposed to be out this year.
Then the norton thing.
Now this.

So what if they lowballed? Stop worrying if millionaires are getting paid enough. Nobody does this with sports but they are fine with giving actors a blank check. Why is this? Making movies is a business and they should be paying people what they are worth. Obviously, these people all took the jobs, therefore they are getting paid what they are worth.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't get why you keep saying you have a right to state your opinion. No one's telling you that you can't. :huh:I get the feeling that some are with their responses.

[Doc Samson]

Sure, he is a different Nick Fury from the original one but I really have no issue with it at this point. SHIELD doesn't equal Avengers. Nick Fury is still representing SHIELD, not the Avengers which at this point in the movies is still in planning stages. As a public figure/superhero, SHIELD would be the agency to deal with Tony Stark as he is outside the military.

Again, I think this whole Fury thing is mountain out of a molehill. His inclusion wasn't the problem in the script as he only took up two scenes.

He did, but Widow sure didn't. And on top of that, some of us, think his inclusion was bad, from a comedic standpoint, plot standpoint, any point. He can't just be representing SHIELD if everytime he shows up he's talking about the Avengers. His whole purpose for being there, for following Stark, for having Widow as his assistant, for helping with the Palladium, is because of the Avengers, so how isn't that his sole purpose?

Take out the Avengers, and both of those characters (at least in this incarnation) wouldn't even exist. Now if they were really using SHIELD for the sake of SHIELD and fell more inline with the classic interpretations, I would have no problem with that. As it is now though, they're nothing more than a plot device

[R_Hythlodeus]

just read the news. terrible. loved both movies. I hope JF changes his mind, I mean "Magic Kingdom"? wtf?

[A Necessary Evil]

So what if they lowballed? Stop worrying if millionaires are getting paid enough. Nobody does this with sports but they are fine with giving actors a blank check. Why is this? Making movies is a business and they should be paying people what they are worth. Obviously, these people all took the jobs, therefore they are getting paid what they are worth.

Okay, so why don't you continue taking bigger paycuts? Are you going to be as enthusiastic about your job?

[ElMariachi]

He did, but Widow sure didn't. And on top of that, some of us, think his inclusion was bad, from a comedic standpoint, plot standpoint, any point. He can't just be representing SHIELD if everytime he shows up he's talking about the Avengers. His whole purpose for being there, for following Stark, for having Widow as his assistant, for helping with the Palladium, is because of the Avengers, so how isn't that his sole purpose?

Take out the Avengers, and both of those characters (at least in this incarnation) wouldn't even exist. Now if they were really using SHIELD for the sake of SHIELD and fell more inline with the classic interpretations, I would have no problem with that. As it is now though, they're nothing more than a plot device

Yeah, I agree with you that Widow could be easily taken out of the movie. But she wasn't bad or distracting (aside from how hot she is). I can't agree with you on Fury though because I think he is an important part of the story and the franchise. His purpose in the movie was director of SHIELD and the government agency that Tony had to deal with. Iron Man is a public figure therefore he must be in contact with some government agency right? He isn't attached to the military anymore and Nick Fury is the contact that makes the most sense. SHIELD was obviously invested in his health as he was an important part of international security, so the palladium plot point makes sense. I don't think the Avengers really has anything at all to do with that.

[ElMariachi]

Okay, so why don't you continue taking bigger paycuts? Are you going to be as enthusiastic about your job?

Who is taking a paycut in these movies?

[Saint]

Well, Faverau directed one great movie and one decent sequel, so it's hard to see this as a good thing. Still, a new director might bring something fresh to the table. Although it's unlikely that a new director would take the franchise in a significant new direction, I'd consider this an opportunity to bring some harder sci-fi into the series and tone down the comedy a little.

[Octoberist]

just read the news. terrible. loved both movies. I hope JF changes his mind, I mean "Magic Kingdom"? wtf?

Magic Kingdom, if done right, could be the 21st Century's answer to Roger Rabbit.

[Silvermoth]

You know, it sort of reminds me of the Superman franchise. Not that I think we'll see Iron Man-The Quest for Peace but I mean the whole saga of it all culminating in this. Oh well, it seems to me that both Favreau and Marvel are amicable.

[Parker Wayne]

Let's be honest, lets say both hypothetical problems I presented before (Marvel's executive meddling and Favreau not knowing how to approach The Mandarin) came to fruition for IM3. It probably would be for the better that Favreau left the Franchise.

[jmc]

^ You could make the argument then that without studio meddling there's every possibility that he could have found a way for that character to work if he had been left to do his own thing and develop films 2 and 3 more organically. Who's to say he couldn't have figured out the way to crack the character's code had he been granted more freedom. I know from personal experience having to include stuff is always going to screw with you creatively because that great idea you might of had now has to accommodate other aspects you don't necessarily want.

[kedrell]

I really don't see why the Mandarin's so damn hard anyway.

[Ironfan72]

I really don't see why the Mandarin's so damn hard anyway.

I agree, but Favreau did, mentioning the difficultly of translating him to a movie on numerous occasions, so maybe just maybe he just did not want to take that on in the third film, as many including fans wanted Mandarin for this film, so he was in a no win situtaion, he had no idea how to make Mandarin fit into the Iron Man universe he had created, which I guess I understand, but Mandarin's power's are not magic based but in fact alien technology, so keeping Mandarin in a tech based world was not hard to imagine, whether it be alien tech or tech he made himself, just how do you make a guy with 10 rings of power realistic.

[Supermanreturns]

when did ISS say that?

the facts.

Marvel lowballed with TIH.
Then Rourke, SLJ, RDJ (I think?) and favs, cause IM2 wasn't even supposed to be out this year.
Then the norton thing.
Now this.

Wait.
1.TIH was re-cut by Gale Anne Hurd and David Maisel (that now is not in Marvel anymore), not by Kevin Feige.
2. Marvel is a small studio. It's not bigger like Warner Bros., or Fox or Sony. This is what people must learn. They produce movies with bank loans. If they flop a movie, they're in trouble!
And they can't pay bigger payments to all this star, they seriously can't. This is why Norton was fired. Surely Norton wants more payment and don't want to sign the multi-contract thing.
3. Iron Man 2. This is the only Marvel's fault. Because they make Iron Man 2 after Edgar Wright's Ant-Man was postpone. Like a replacement. But it's true also that Favreau is a comedy director. His "Iron Man" movies are full comedy and lack of action (remember the final fight in both movies?). So I think what he want it's an action comedy. But while Iron Man was good, Iron Man 2 was meh.

[Tony Stark]

I don't know exactly what happened, but it sounds like Favreau wanted to work out something to do two projects that would conflict and Marvel wouldn't move their schedule, so now he's directing a flick for Disney.

[Son of Coul]

As far as Fury & Widow are concerned, who's to say that the whole palladium poisoning wasn't thrown in there just to justify their presence?

People would be up in arms if this were to happen. Again I'm someone who prefers for these characters to get all the focus in terms of story/character development in their respective movie.

I can't believe that people are against this. :dry:

:facepalm:

ok, I'm leaving this thread

[Doc Samson]

:facepalm:

ok, I'm leaving this thread

Sayonara! You can face palm all you want, adding Fury to the whole palladium subplot could have been Favreau's way of trying to make him relevant to the movie beyond Marvel's Avengers agenda. And it still didn't really work.

[craigdbfan]

:facepalm:

ok, I'm leaving this thread

Oh no two opinions that were expressed using explanations and reasoning isn't tolerable somehow. Instead of placing an emoticon and internet storming out of the thread you can retort or not write anything at all.

[Spider-Fan]

I don't think IM3 is def sucking cause he is gone, but I would have preferred he stayed.

[S.A.A.D.]

It's Favreau's fault that he didn't know how to go about the Mandarin because in his Ironman movies he wanted to basically ground them in realism,if he hadn't had done that then I don't think that he would have struggled so much about figuring out how create an appropriate movie version of the Mandarin. He should have no one to blame about that but himself.

[I Am The Knight]

I don't think Favs wanted to make a third one anyway.

[Marvel]

Since Iron Man 2 was one of the top films of the summer and maybe the entire year, I'm glad most of us are ignoring some stuff in some of those articles. Favs staying in the Disney family and still producing Avengers means all this gossip is mostly without merit. Favs has devoted almost 5 years of his life to Iron Man and has to do so under every fanboy scrutiny possible. That doesn't even take in to effect the jealous haters of the world. If he's had enough, that's more then fine. He delivered two great films and moved on.

[Iron_Stark]

Sayonara! You can face palm all you want, adding Fury to the whole palladium subplot could have been Favreau's way of trying to make him relevant to the movie beyond Marvel's Avengers agenda. And it still didn't really work.

Adding Fury in the subplot was hardly the problem. It didn't take away from the main plot or anyone else. No one lost screen time or action scenes because Fury showed up for a few brief seconds.

The real problem was the other subplot with Rhodey/War Machine which took away from Whiplash. There is just no defending that.

Since Iron Man 2 was one of the top films of the summer and maybe the entire year, I'm glad most of us are ignoring some stuff in some of those articles. Favs staying in the Disney family and still producing Avengers means all this gossip is mostly without merit. Favs has devoted almost 5 years of his life to Iron Man and has to do so under every fanboy scrutiny possible. That doesn't even take in to effect the jealous haters of the world. If he's had enough, that's more then fine. He delivered two great films and moved on.

Agreed.

[Parker Wayne]

^ You could make the argument then that without studio meddling there's every possibility that he could have found a way for that character to work if he had been left to do his own thing and develop films 2 and 3 more organically. Who's to say he couldn't have figured out the way to crack the character's code had he been granted more freedom. I know from personal experience having to include stuff is always going to screw with you creatively because that great idea you might of had now has to accommodate other aspects you don't necessarily want.

It is possible.

I'm getting the feeling that Marvel's trying to run their film company like a comics company if you think about it and if all these conflicts Marvel have are true.

[Chris B]

I don't think Nick Fury, Black Widow, or War Machine were responsible for bogging down IM2 myself.

For me, it was the feeling that IM2 lacked the depth the first film had. They just didn't really do any thing to make you invest in Stark's story of dealing with the palladium poisoning.

I think had that whole angle been handled better and had Whiplash been given more to do, I think the film would've easily have been equal to IM1 in terms of quality.

[kedrell]

Well IM1 had a pretty well set out template in Lee's original story. They just followed it and updated here and there. IM2 was kinda flying blind by comparison.

[ElMariachi]

I think the difference between the two movies is that Obadiah Stane was a much more compelling villian. It's not that Rourkes' Whiplash was bad by any means, but his motivations in the movie were not as interesting as Obadiahs. In the end, he was just another bad guy looking for revenge against the hero. It can be argued that Justin Hammer wasn't really a villain in Iron Man 2.

I disagree with those saying the movie on Tony Stark's end wasn't interesting or having depth. I thought he owned every scene he was in and his story arc was interesting.

Things that I personally would have changed would have been....

-No Black Widow. If they were going to stick with her, they should never have revealed her identity at the donut shop. That was truly pointless and overlooked by most in regards to this scene. The Fury/Stark stuff was brilliant and funny in my opinon. She kind of had no point in that scene.

-A longer fight scene on the racetrack. That scene and build-up was incredible, but the fight was a bit underwhelming once Tony got the suit on.

-Longer final fight with Whiplash, whose armor should have been red and more interesting. Also, it should have been IM vs. Whiplash, not a tag team match. Keep the WM/IM team up against the drones. Also, the 'crossing the streams' angle was used twice in the movie and the finishing blow to Whiplash should have been more original. Again, it was a great scene, but just a bit too short and sweet. The actual fight was one of the best superhero fights put to film.

-Axe the airplane scene with Pepper and Tony. This is the one scene that I thought was boring and out of place with the rest of the movie.

-More Rhodey/Stark and Stark/Whiplash scenes and less Whiplash/Hammer.

Aside from this minor grievances, the movie was wonderful. I can't let these minor things really ruin any movie for me. The good parts of IM2 make up for the lesser parts. Pretty much every scene up until after Stark meets Whiplash in jail was perfect. Same goes with every scene after the Stark/Rhodey fight (which was still entertaining IMO).

[raybia]

I don't think Favs wanted to make a third one anyway.

From the looks of IM2 he didn't want to make a 2nd movie.

[raybia]

I don't think Nick Fury, Black Widow, or War Machine were responsible for bogging down IM2 myself.

For me, it was the feeling that IM2 lacked the depth the first film had. They just didn't really do any thing to make you invest in Stark's story of dealing with the palladium poisoning.

I think had that whole angle been handled better and had Whiplash been given more to do, I think the film would've easily have been equal to IM1 in terms of quality.

To me the whole movie just seems kind of off the cuff. Like there wasn't really a final script.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

From the looks of IM2 he didn't want to make a 2nd movie.:funny: Wow is this post great.

To me the whole movie just seems kind of off the cuff. Like there wasn't really a final script.They couldn't have had a final script.

[jmc]

It is possible.

I'm getting the feeling that Marvel's trying to run their film company like a comics company if you think about it and if all these conflicts Marvel have are true.

Which would be the most idiotic way to handle a film company given the size of the respective fan bases in relation to the size of the general audience. If that is their strategy then heaven help them because it will come back to bite them in the arse.

[JAK®]

They're trying to make a shared universe with one movie building on another. It's actually exactly what the fans wanted so I'm not surprised the fans are complaining about it.

[A Necessary Evil]

They're trying to make a shared universe with one movie building on another. It's actually exactly what the fans wanted so I'm not surprised the fans are complaining about it.

I kinda-sorta REALLY wanna make this my sig...jussayin:o

[Parker Wayne]

:funny: Wow is this post great.

They couldn't have had a final script.

Which would be the most idiotic way to handle a film company given the size of the respective fan bases in relation to the size of the general audience. If that is their strategy then heaven help them because it will come back to bite them in the arse.

When you think about it could be true. I don't believe some of these but its interesting to think about:

1. Shared Universe with cameo appearance in solo films bulding up big events.
2. Editor-in-Chief (or producer Kevin Feige) manipulating the film with #1.

I'm sure there are more examples but I'm too tired to say the others.

[jmc]

They're trying to make a shared universe with one movie building on another. It's actually exactly what the fans wanted so I'm not surprised the fans are complaining about it.

Not necessarily what the other 90% of cinema goers want or even care about, that's the issue.

[Iron_Stark]

Not necessarily what the other 90% of cinema goers want or even care about, that's the issue.

There's really no issue except for the few whiners who come on these boards and complain about it.

I don't think Nick Fury, Black Widow, or War Machine were responsible for bogging down IM2 myself.

For me, it was the feeling that IM2 lacked the depth the first film had. They just didn't really do any thing to make you invest in Stark's story of dealing with the palladium poisoning.

I think had that whole angle been handled better and had Whiplash been given more to do, I think the film would've easily have been equal to IM1 in terms of quality.

And that's exactly my point about War Machine not needing to be in the movie. Favreau from the very beginning said the movie wasn't going to be longer than the first, so when Howard was fired and then they rewrote the script to beef up Rhodey's screen time and bring in War Machine, guess who got shafted.

[Timstuff]

Marvel thinks they can run a movie studio the same way that they run their comics. Dumping a director or actor to them is no different than firing a writer or artist from a particular book, because to them it's more important to bombard a book with cross-franchise references and cameos to maintain continuity than it is for the character to look and behave consistently.

Marvel's attitude of the talent being expendable is going to unravel what was originally a very promising start for them. Firing Terrance Howard was a yellow alert. Firing Edward Norton was an orange alert. And now, letting John Fav. walk because he wasn't pliable enough is a freaking red alert.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Marvel's attitude of the talent being expendable is going to unravel what was originally a very promising start for them. Firing Terrance Howard was a yellow alert. Firing Edward Norton was an orange alert. And now, letting John Fav. walk because he wasn't pliable enough is a freaking red alert. I find this to be partly true. Now, Don't get me wrong, I thought Don Cheadle as Rhodey/War Machine was awesome, but I thought Terrance Howard did a great job as well. When i heard Edward norton was being recast, I really did get psised, but I do hope mark Ruffalo does a great job, and now, Favreau isn't directing IM3, which is still pissing me off. I have faith that the 3rd will be good without Jon, but I would have felt more secure with him directing a 3rd isntallment.

[JAK®]

Not necessarily what the other 90% of cinema goers want or even care about, that's the issue.
But have they been complaining about it? Iron Man 2 wasn't unsuccessful at the box office.

[hatebox]

My guess is that the mass audience didn't really mind about the inclusion of Avengers related material in IM2, but they weren't exactly hyped by the notion either.

[dsfjr1190]

I'm not really upset by this news. Iron Man 2 didn't exactly blow me away. It will be nice to see what some new blood can do for the franchise.

[Doc Samson]

My guess is that the mass audience didn't really mind about the inclusion of Avengers related material in IM2, but they weren't exactly hyped by the notion either.

This is another one of my issues. No doubt, for us comic fans, the easter eggs and things of that nature are cool. But to the average moviegoer, how can Marvel assume they even care or know?

Who knows how many people actually intend to see every single Marvel flick. Unless the general public sees them all, how are the SHIELD references even gonna make sense? All you guys on here arguing about how little the SHIELD stuff actually affected these movies, I once again ask, how effective was it then? If it's so minuscule that it hardly takes any screen time, and if we can all agree that most in the general populace could care less about any of it, then why even do it?

We, the hardcore fans, are going to see Avengers regardless, so in that sense, they're just preaching to the choir. Presumably, your doing all these tie-ins to appeal to the general public who might not be familiar, but your banking on the fact that number 1, it doesn't just fly over their head and number 2, it works & motivates them to see other movies they might not be interested in. Say what you will, we still don't know the outcome of Thor or Cap, they could potentially fail. And if that happens, by the time Avengers rolls around, there's a good chance that the only people who might be really excited about it wind up being the smallest minority who actually get it, and understand. Namely us...

[JAK®]

You're right, Marvel should stop doing things for the fans. Only then, will the complaining stop.

[Doc Samson]

I'm not complaining, just posing a legitimate question.

[Iron_Stark]

You're right, Marvel should stop doing things for the fans. Only then, will the complaining stop.

They should just making movies all together.

Or have the complainers go in there and show them how it's done. I'm sure they could do a waaaaaay better job.

[Timstuff]

My guess is that the mass audience didn't really mind about the inclusion of Avengers related material in IM2, but they weren't exactly hyped by the notion either.

I think most of them were just plain confused by it. My older brother had no idea who Nicky Fury and Black Widow are, and he complained that it felt he was switching between two different movies. I still can't figure out for the life of me why Black Widow needed to be in the movie. Her fight scene was just completely pointless fanservice and the plot point it was related to didn't even need to be in the film.

Also, they could have had Tony Stark could have figured out his father's clues without Nick Fury's help, but then there'd be no reason to have Nick Fury in the film. They did a poor job introducing Fury and an almost as poor job integrating him into the story, and if you haven't studied up on the mythos, you'll be lost. It was a noticeable flaw in the film but Marvel apparently felt that it was a sacrifice worth making just so that they could better market The Avengers. It ended up being cinematic dead weight, and dead weight can really detract from a movie experience. You can't just bring in Samuel L. Jackson randomly appear and say "oh hai I'm solvin all ur problems riet nau k thx bai." The fans end up unsatisfied and the main audience just goes "WTF."

If Marvel's strategy thus far is to just "let go" of people who don't like how they want to do things, I wonder how well that approach will work out when applied to the audience?

[jmc]

But have they been complaining about it? Iron Man 2 wasn't unsuccessful at the box office.

Jeez come on man, it was always going to be successful coz of film one, but that wasn't an excuse to force things in. And yes I do know people who did complain, they had no idea what the hell what some of the stuff was referring to, given how some of the characters were introduced it's easy to see why. Basic rule of film making - you don't pander to the fan base and assume everyone else knows what the hell you're talking about. Latest Harry Potter suffers from the exact same thing, without prior knowledge of both films and worse the books you could easily get lost in some parts. People make out like this is one big series of sequels, it's anything but, this is several different story lines that somehow have to be made to meet in the middle, but they've gotta work individually first and foremost, if they require knowledge of other movies or knowledge of what's coming up ahead or worse, the comic mythologies, in order to be understood then it's poor film making. Prior knowledge of a character or universe or book should never be a requirement before hand, the films need to work in their own right. If characters and events need to be there, then it's up to the writers to ensure they work with the story and not have the story moved to accommodate them. The problem in what Marvel are doing is that they're trying to make a concept work in a medium that it isn't suited for. It works for TV, hell that's more comparable a medium to comics than what films will ever be. Somewhere along the way things are gonna start getting compromised in trying to link things that aren't relevant to the story at hand. IM2 got a free pass in many respects due to film one's success, what if Thor or Cap have equally tacked on plot devices that distract and bog down the film? Given they don't have the luxury of a successful film one it's hard to see them being given the same leniency.

[Iron_Stark]

Jeez come on man, it was always going to be successful coz of film one, but that wasn't an excuse to force things in. And yes I do know people who did complain, they had no idea what the hell what some of the stuff was referring to, given how some of the characters were introduced it's easy to see why. Basic rule of film making - you don't pander to the fan base and assume everyone else knows what the hell you're talking about. Latest Harry Potter suffers from the exact same thing, without prior knowledge of both films and worse the books you could easily get lost in some parts. People make out like this is one big series of sequels, it's anything but, this is several different story lines that somehow have to be made to meet in the middle, but they've gotta work individually first and foremost, if they require knowledge of other movies or knowledge of what's coming up ahead or worse, the comic mythologies, in order to be understood then it's poor film making. Prior knowledge of a character or universe or book should never be a requirement before hand, the films need to work in their own right. If characters and events need to be there, then it's up to the writers to ensure they work with the story and not have the story moved to accommodate them. The problem in what Marvel are doing is that they're trying to make a concept work in a medium that it isn't suited for. It works for TV, hell that's more comparable a medium to comics than what films will ever be. Somewhere along the way things are gonna start getting compromised in trying to link things that aren't relevant to the story at hand. IM2 got a free pass in many respects due to film one's success, what if Thor or Cap have equally tacked on plot devices that distract and bog down the film? Given they don't have the luxury of a successful film one it's hard to see them being given the same leniency.

gtfo, you're acting as though they had stuff thrown in there throughout the the entire film. The only thing that was in there that may have confused people was Nick Fury showing up, but it was established that he was head of SHIELD, which was already established throughout the first movie.

Nothing else was forced in this film.

And yes whether you like it or not these are being made as a series of films like the Star Wars saga, and the Harry Potter books/movies. I didn't hear this much *****ing and whining when General Grievous just popped into the Episode III and was already the general of the droid army.

Good grief, now lets complain about a series of books that turned into a series of movies? If you go into a Harry Potter movie and don't know what's going on because you haven't seen the previous ones, well then that's your own damn fault.

[hatebox]

I'm not sure the Potter series is comparable - the only decision there is what to leave out from books to film. In Marvel's case there's much more of a 'making it up as they go along' vibe, for better or worse.

I don't begrudge them building this Avengers world and putting it onto a series of films one after the other... I just don't think it's going to be nearly as successful as they want it to be.

[cryptic name]

This is another one of my issues. No doubt, for us comic fans, the easter eggs and things of that nature are cool. But to the average moviegoer, how can Marvel assume they even care or know?

Who knows how many people actually intend to see every single Marvel flick. Unless the general public sees them all, how are the SHIELD references even gonna make sense? All you guys on here arguing about how little the SHIELD stuff actually affected these movies, I once again ask, how effective was it then? If it's so minuscule that it hardly takes any screen time, and if we can all agree that most in the general populace could care less about any of it, then why even do it?

We, the hardcore fans, are going to see Avengers regardless, so in that sense, they're just preaching to the choir. Presumably, your doing all these tie-ins to appeal to the general public who might not be familiar, but your banking on the fact that number 1, it doesn't just fly over their head and number 2, it works & motivates them to see other movies they might not be interested in. Say what you will, we still don't know the outcome of Thor or Cap, they could potentially fail. And if that happens, by the time Avengers rolls around, there's a good chance that the only people who might be really excited about it wind up being the smallest minority who actually get it, and understand. Namely us...

it's not just a simple matter of fan service or promoting the next movie. marvel is building something here, that's what's exciting. shield isn't in iron man 2 just to promote the avengers, but so that when they have a greater presence in the avengers or maybe even the bookends of cap, they won't just have come out of nowhere. i've said since iron man 2 came out that a few years from now it will be looked at much differently because we'll see it in context.

[kedrell]

^I've wondered that myself(the context thing). I'll be happy if it turns out well.

[Iron_Stark]

I'm not sure the Potter series is comparable - the only decision there is what to leave out from books to film. In Marvel's case there's much more of a 'making it up as they go along' vibe, for better or worse.

I don't begrudge them building this Avengers world and putting it onto a series of films one after the other... I just don't think it's going to be nearly as successful as they want it to be.

Of course they're making it as they go, but they're making it their own, just like they author of the Harry Potter books was making it as he/she went along, they didn't get it from another medium or real life events.

And they're not making this Avengers world, it's Marvel Movie Universe. They're not just going to stop with the Avengers, they're going to keep going and going.

[jmc]

gtfo, you're acting as though they had stuff thrown in there throughout the the entire film. The only thing that was in there that may have confused people was Nick Fury showing up, but it was established that he was head of SHIELD, which was already established throughout the first movie.

Nothing else was forced in this film.

And yes whether you like it or not these are being made as a series of films like the Star Wars saga, and the Harry Potter books/movies. I didn't hear this much *****ing and whining when General Grievous just popped into the Episode III and was already the general of the droid army.

Good grief, now lets complain about a series of books that turned into a series of movies? If you go into a Harry Potter movie and don't know what's going on because you haven't seen the previous ones, well then that's your own damn fault.

You are purposely missing the point.

[Chris B]

And that's exactly my point about War Machine not needing to be in the movie. Favreau from the very beginning said the movie wasn't going to be longer than the first, so when Howard was fired and then they rewrote the script to beef up Rhodey's screen time and bring in War Machine, guess who got shafted.

See, I think they could've easily had it both ways though. I think they could have done something like you've suggested before with Whiplash attacking the drunken Stark at his party and Stark's efforts to fight him only causing more harm than good. Still causing Rhodey to take the Mark II and try to help, which Stark woundn't want.

[Timstuff]

If we go into a Marvel movie, the assumption is not that because it has "Marvel" in the credits, that we are expected to have seen all of the other "Marvel" movies. If the only Marvel property you've seen is the first Iron Man movie, then you should not be expected to have seen anything else if you want the story to make sense. Each superhero is a different franchise, whether Marvel wants to admit it or not. That's not to say Nick Fury couldn't have fit into Iron Man 2, but with the script they used he felt very forced in and they did a really crappy job introducing him. It's just like "hey, who's that guy with the patch eye?" If they wanted to do it properly then the plot of the film should have had a better reason for Tony to meet with the head of shield, and it should not have been just so that Fury could provide Tony with plot devices that Tony could have come up with on his own if the film were more competently written.

Marvel's biggest problem right now is that they are treating all their movies like one big series, instead of treating them as multiple series with Avengers is a team up film. Did any of the people who saw the trailer for Thor this month make the connection that this is in the same world as Iron Man? I highly doubt that. It's a movie about Thor coming to the modern world and doing some stuff, and there will be some fighting. That's as much as the audience understands, and yet Marvel seems to think that all of them are just as well versed in comic book lore as all of us geeks. I think that their faith in the audience to study up on these things is a lot higher than it should be, and as JMC said, if you need outside knowledge of a film in order to enjoy it then that is bad film making. It can't be comared to Harry Potter or Star Wars, because if you start at the beginning with those series it will make sense. With Marvel, they are going to be in trouble if when people go to watch Captain America they realize they needed to watch Thor first, because Thor is a different series, wheter Marvel wants it to be percieved that way or not.

[Chris B]

I disagree with those saying the movie on Tony Stark's end wasn't interesting or having depth. I thought he owned every scene he was in and his story arc was interesting.

My problem was just that I never felt that his life was truly in danger or saw his impending death really taking a toll on him. I think they should've included some more serious scenes dealing with that in addition to him acting like a jackass in public. Like something that has been suggested before with him thinking he's found a replacement element, only to see that it wont work and he breaks down. For that matter, I would've prefered that serving as the catalyst for him getting drunk instead of the whole party scene.

Plus, I really think they should've left out the temporary cure that SHIELD gave him.

[Doc Samson]

it's not just a simple matter of fan service or promoting the next movie. marvel is building something here, that's what's exciting. shield isn't in iron man 2 just to promote the avengers, but so that when they have a greater presence in the avengers or maybe even the bookends of cap, they won't just have come out of nowhere. i've said since iron man 2 came out that a few years from now it will be looked at much differently because we'll see it in context.

This is the crux of my viewpoint though, your making the same assumption that Marvel seems to be. If someone sees IM & IM2, but none of the other three movies, then for all intents and purposes, a lot of things will be coming out of nowhere.

Listen I love what they're trying to do, and when it comes at the end of the movie like IM or TIH, it's cool. But IM2 is the first instance where they integrated SHIELD members into the central plot. And people can't say that they're just representing SHIELD because 90% of Fury's interest in Stark derives from the Avengers. If they used the regular Nick Fury, that viewpoint makes more sense to me, but the Ultimates Nick Fury has a totally different role within that universe, and conversely, in this movie universe as well.

[ElMariachi]

My problem was just that I never felt that his life was truly in danger or saw his impending death really taking a toll on him. I think they should've included some more serious scenes dealing with that in addition to him acting like a jackass in public. Like something that has been suggested before with him thinking he's found a replacement element, only to see that it wont work and he breaks down. For that matter, I would've prefered that serving as the catalyst for him getting drunk instead of the whole party scene.

Plus, I really think they should've left out the temporary cure that SHIELD gave him.

I think most people have this set view how people should deal with death and sadness. The problem is that this Tony Stark character that Robert Downey Jr. created is different than say, Batman or Spiderman. Instead of pouting ontop of the Chrysler Building or sulking in a penthouse, he seculdes himself in a giant donut. The scenes of him deciding to drive the Formula 1 car, throwing an outrageous party, being a drunk fool, looking like he was going to die when talking to Rhodey in his basement, his reaction to Vanko mentioning the palladium, tearing up his house, handing his company over, and lamenting to Pepper were enough proof that he was concerned about death. The whole Stark Expo and the themes of his family legacy also played into this. Perhaps I am reading too deep into a summer blockbuster movie, but the proof is there. Many people didn't care for the comedy regarding all this, but this is one of the things that set this franchise apart from others. There was no melodrama and I personally liked that. Then again, there were some scenes like this in the first movie which everybody loved.

That being said, they could have handled some scenes better. People want to rag on Marvel, but was it Kevin Feige that told Favreau to play The Clash as backround music when Jarvis is telling Tony that he is going to die? Or have a Another One Bites the Dust/It Takes Two/Daft Punk remix while Tony is fighting his best friend? I had no problem with them at all, but it's things like that which undermine serious scenes. Just imagine if they changed the backround music there to a more serious Debney piece.....how much of a change it would have on the scene.

The temporary cure thing didn't bother me really. The only thing about it was it practically healed the scars instantly and that was a bit silly. That scene should have been redone without Black Widow though.

[ElMariachi]

Listen I love what they're trying to do, and when it comes at the end of the movie like IM or TIH, it's cool. But IM2 is the first instance where they integrated SHIELD members into the central plot. And people can't say that they're just representing SHIELD because 90% of Fury's interest in Stark derives from the Avengers. If they used the regular Nick Fury, that viewpoint makes more sense to me, but the Ultimates Nick Fury has a totally different role within that universe, and conversely, in this movie universe as well.

I wouldn't really say that about Fury. His interest is first and foremost the effects of Iron Man on national security. The more off track that he became, the greater the risk it was to his and the worlds interests. When he hooked him up with the cure, it had nothing to do with Avengers. That was just some future project he was being considered for. The Avengers wasn't really even brought up until the end of the movie when they discussed it in Fury's hideout.

[Iron_Stark]

You are purposely missing the point.

You're purposely complaining just to complain.


If we go into a Marvel movie, the assumption is not that because it has "Marvel" in the credits, that we are expected to have seen all of the other "Marvel" movies. If the only Marvel property you've seen is the first Iron Man movie, then you should not be expected to have seen anything else if you want the story to make sense. Each superhero is a different franchise, whether Marvel wants to admit it or not. That's not to say Nick Fury couldn't have fit into Iron Man 2, but with the script they used he felt very forced in and they did a really crappy job introducing him. It's just like "hey, who's that guy with the patch eye?" If they wanted to do it properly then the plot of the film should have had a better reason for Tony to meet with the head of shield, and it should not have been just so that Fury could provide Tony with plot devices that Tony could have come up with on his own if the film were more competently written.

Marvel's biggest problem right now is that they are treating all their movies like one big series, instead of treating them as multiple series with Avengers is a team up film. Did any of the people who saw the trailer for Thor this month make the connection that this is in the same world as Iron Man? I highly doubt that. It's a movie about Thor coming to the modern world and doing some stuff, and there will be some fighting. That's as much as the audience understands, and yet Marvel seems to think that all of them are just as well versed in comic book lore as all of us geeks. I think that their faith in the audience to study up on these things is a lot higher than it should be, and as JMC said, if you need outside knowledge of a film in order to enjoy it then that is bad film making. It can't be comared to Harry Potter or Star Wars, because if you start at the beginning with those series it will make sense. With Marvel, they are going to be in trouble if when people go to watch Captain America they realize they needed to watch Thor first, because Thor is a different series, wheter Marvel wants it to be percieved that way or not.


You are not going to need to see IM 1 & 2 in order to understand Thor and Cap. That's ridiculous, you know that.

Do you need to see IM 1 to get part 2? Sure. But that's true with most trilogies out there.

For example did people complain in TDK about Harvey Dent just showing up out of the blue and already being the DA?

[Iron_Stark]

I wouldn't really say that about Fury. His interest is first and foremost the effects of Iron Man on national security. The more off track that he became, the greater the risk it was to his and the worlds interests. When he hooked him up with the cure, it had nothing to do with Avengers. That was just some future project he was being considered for. The Avengers wasn't really even brought up until the end of the movie when they discussed it in Fury's hideout.

Obviously we haven't been watching the same movie according to everyone, the Avengers references were said in the opening credits, then at the Expo, Tony told the crowd how he really didn't want to be an Avenger, in the Monaco scene another Avengers reference, Vanko and Hammer were discussing the Avengers, Tony and Pepper talked about the Avengers in the plane, at the party Tony said he was going to be an Avenger while being inebriated, Tony, Fury and Widow talked some more Avengers stuff, then at the Expo again Hammer said something in regards to the Avengers, and finally Gary Shandling called Tony a prick for joining the Avengers or something.

Damn this movie sure was littered with Avengers references.

[Parker Wayne]

This is another one of my issues. No doubt, for us comic fans, the easter eggs and things of that nature are cool. But to the average moviegoer, how can Marvel assume they even care or know?

Who knows how many people actually intend to see every single Marvel flick. Unless the general public sees them all, how are the SHIELD references even gonna make sense? All you guys on here arguing about how little the SHIELD stuff actually affected these movies, I once again ask, how effective was it then? If it's so minuscule that it hardly takes any screen time, and if we can all agree that most in the general populace could care less about any of it, then why even do it?

We, the hardcore fans, are going to see Avengers regardless, so in that sense, they're just preaching to the choir. Presumably, your doing all these tie-ins to appeal to the general public who might not be familiar, but your banking on the fact that number 1, it doesn't just fly over their head and number 2, it works & motivates them to see other movies they might not be interested in. Say what you will, we still don't know the outcome of Thor or Cap, they could potentially fail. And if that happens, by the time Avengers rolls around, there's a good chance that the only people who might be really excited about it wind up being the smallest minority who actually get it, and understand. Namely us...

This is a legitimate question? Because I think you answered it in your post.

It's not about effectiveness (for now). For now its for the fans and (to me) it doesn't take up much screentime.

Jeez come on man, it was always going to be successful coz of film one, but that wasn't an excuse to force things in. And yes I do know people who did complain, they had no idea what the hell what some of the stuff was referring to, given how some of the characters were introduced it's easy to see why. Basic rule of film making - you don't pander to the fan base and assume everyone else knows what the hell you're talking about. Latest Harry Potter suffers from the exact same thing, without prior knowledge of both films and worse the books you could easily get lost in some parts. People make out like this is one big series of sequels, it's anything but, this is several different story lines that somehow have to be made to meet in the middle, but they've gotta work individually first and foremost, if they require knowledge of other movies or knowledge of what's coming up ahead or worse, the comic mythologies, in order to be understood then it's poor film making. Prior knowledge of a character or universe or book should never be a requirement before hand, the films need to work in their own right. If characters and events need to be there, then it's up to the writers to ensure they work with the story and not have the story moved to accommodate them. The problem in what Marvel are doing is that they're trying to make a concept work in a medium that it isn't suited for. It works for TV, hell that's more comparable a medium to comics than what films will ever be. Somewhere along the way things are gonna start getting compromised in trying to link things that aren't relevant to the story at hand. IM2 got a free pass in many respects due to film one's success, what if Thor or Cap have equally tacked on plot devices that distract and bog down the film? Given they don't have the luxury of a successful film one it's hard to see them being given the same leniency.

Okay, first, paragraphs please next time JMC. :hehe:

Okay, the references weren't the problem with Iron Man 2. I feel as though even if the references wasn't there the script would still be weak. Let's face it, the screenwriting both films were awful and standard. It was the directing and acting that set the first film above.

I don't understand what you're talking about anyway with rule one. They did an awful job at introducing the chairacters. They mention Nick Fury by name, nor did they even say Black Widow (Like people are going to remember Romanov). Sam Jackson was always going to be in Iron Man 2, so that was always in the script.

I just think the whole idea that IM2 is an Avengers commercial is completely overexaggerated. I feel as though the references doesn't stop the flow of the film, but the middle part of the film did. That wasn't due to the Avengers commercial, but rather just terrible writing and deleted scenes that I feel had nothing to do with the Avengers or references. It was just filler to forward the film that was poorly handled from the beginning. Doesn't stop me from enjoying the film, but I recognize that this film isn't perfect.

I just don't think they're going to introduce characters and make heroes cameo in other's films. I think this is just panic right now. I don't think Thor or Captain America will have references to the Avengers. If anything it will have small references. Once again, the problems of Iron Man 2 had nothing to do with the Avengers.

They do this for the fans. Who cares if the audiences doesn't get it because it's not like there was a huge reference to the comics that wasn't explained or didn't move the plot forward. I feel as though once the Avengers comes out, good or bad, it will provide a great and entertaining explanation for the films. Plus, if I really had to gamble on it, I'd bet that once all the films are on DVD/Blu-Ray, it will be in a nice box set.

And about the last Harry Potter: They did the best they could with it imo: the book is a culmination of the first 6 books. I don't think you can go into the last part of any kind of anthology with the notion that you're fully gonna understand it without watch at least some of the other films. I fully believe that with the Avengers you probably wouldn't have to watch any of the other films to enjoy the film.

[Timstuff]

I think part of the problem with Iron Man 2 is that it was not dark enough. It didn't feel like the stakes had been raised enough. Yes, on paper, there was a lot of drama going on, but I rarely felt the impact of it. I never really felt like Tony had hit his all time low, and the movie just plain lacked the emotion of the first one.

[Happy Jack]

I think part of the problem with Iron Man 2 is that it was not dark enough. It didn't feel like the stakes had been raised enough. Yes, on paper, there was a lot of drama going on, but I rarely felt the impact of it. I never really felt like Tony had hit his all time low, and the movie just plain lacked the emotion of the first one.
IM2 was not dark enough that's true, but I don't think it would have been necessary for Tony to have hit rock-bottom, unless Favreau and Marvel were planning to do a trilogy. That structure calls for things to go to hell in part two (think Empire Strikes Back and TDK), which in Stark's case would probably mean hitting the bottle. That story beat will probably be explored later, but we know now it won't be in Favreau's hands. That might actually be a good thing, because although he did a good job balancing humor with characterization I don't know if Favs had what it takes to effectively go that dark. I don't know if Marvel can either.

[kedrell]

DIAB will not work as a movie. As an arc of a TV series? Yeah there's room for it there but in one of these movies I don't see how you can deal with it without

a)Committing what writers call 'the sin of moses', i.e. your hero crosses that fine line, making the audience HATE your hero now to the point where they will not be changing their minds during the rest of this particular movie.....so your movie's screwed,

or

B)Making the subject of Tony's alcoholism either way too depressing in an effort to treat such a serious issue with the respect it needs,

or

C)making it too frivolous in an effort to squeeze it in there but not have it bring down the movie(make the movie boring) and thus a very seriuos problem is treated with 'afterschool special' kid gloves and looses all it's dramatic punch.

[RachelDawes]

IM2 was not dark enough that's true, but I don't think it would have been necessary for Tony to have hit rock-bottom, unless Favreau and Marvel were planning to do a trilogy. That structure calls for things to go to hell in part two (think Empire Strikes Back and TDK), which in Stark's case would probably mean hitting the bottle. That story beat will probably be explored later, but we know now it won't be in Favreau's hands. That might actually be a good thing, because although he did a good job balancing humor with characterization I don't know if Favs had what it takes to effectively go that dark. I don't know if Marvel can either.

Tony's alcoholism wouldnt've needed to be explored for there to have been some drama. The problem with IM2 was that none of the drama inherent in the story panned out at all. Tony's illness had no effect on his ability to use his suit, for example. Imagine how tense the fight between him and Vanko would've been if Tony'd had to struggle to fly and shoot. Then the symptoms of the illness are just removed by Fury, so there's no excitement in Tony's search for the cure. Again, imagine if he'd been slowly weakening until he discovered the cure at the last second. That would've been interesting.

Then there's he conflict with his dad. We learn that Howard hadn't liked Tony, then we suddenly find out from the video that he did. That subplot wasn't well handled.

That's not even mentioning the fact that Vanko, the most threatening villain, virtually disappears for the second act of the movie, only to be replaced by Hammer, a much more comical villain. It's like Theroux wanted to create such a funny, family-friendly film that he forgot to add any intense drama to it.

[Spider-Aziz]

Iron Man 2 served me much more than the first movie did, it entertained me more
I say Favreau made the right choice by not being involved as a director how so many considered IM2 the rust after solid Iron, I hope he still acts as Happy though

[Parker Wayne]

Tony's alcoholism wouldnt've needed to be explored for there to have been some drama. The problem with IM2 was that none of the drama inherent in the story panned out at all. Tony's illness had no effect on his ability to use his suit, for example. Imagine how tense the fight between him and Vanko would've been if Tony'd had to struggle to fly and shoot. Then the symptoms of the illness are just removed by Fury, so there's no excitement in Tony's search for the cure. Again, imagine if he'd been slowly weakening until he discovered the cure at the last second. That would've been interesting.

Then there's he conflict with his dad. We learn that Howard hadn't liked Tony, then we suddenly find out from the video that he did. That subplot wasn't well handled.

That's not even mentioning the fact that Vanko, the most threatening villain, virtually disappears for the second act of the movie, only to be replaced by Hammer, a much more comical villain. It's like Theroux wanted to create such a funny, family-friendly film that he forgot to add any intense drama to it.

This. All this. And this all leads to a badly written script. This had nothing with add characters, but just missing dramatic beats, and missing them badly.

[TheVileOne]

Some of the posts here make me sick and want to vomit:

1. After Iron Man and **** even BEFORE Iron Man we all had the expectation of War Machine being brought in later. The ****ing first movie basically blatantly points and says HEY HERE YOU GO! YOU WILL SEE WAR MACHINE IN THE NEXT MOVIE FOR SURE! Now some of the momentum was admittedly lost because Howard left the production, but I mean, don't go around saying War Machine should never have been in the movie. None of you guys were saying **** like that before the movie came out. So stop saying that **** now because it is ********!

2. The Avengers connection. THIS WAS IN IRON MAN! IT WAS ALL OVER THE PLACE! That's what got us excited about Iron Man, we KNEW they were building up to an Avengers movie. So that was an added bonus to the movie. It's irrational to get ticked off about it because all this is precedence for Iron Man's history. Avengers, Black Widow, War Machine is all a part of it. It makes sense to have references because you know this is one of the cooler aspects about it. Now I think they could've made the ending less awkward with the whole advisor/retainer, not right now thing. Since it sort of conflicts with where Tony Stark is at the end of Incredible Hulk.

3. Stop acting like Favreau is this defenceless little lamb that Marvel screwed over. I think it was time for Favreau to move on. He seems more interested in other projects now and I just don't think he's as creatively stimulated by Iron Man anymore. Sorry but its true. Favreau also publicly has NOT proven that he is the guy to helm Avengers. He EVEN said he's afraid of using material that isn't realistic or tech based. HE SAID ALL OF THAT! He didn't want to do Demon In A Bottle because it would be too much like Leaving Las Vegas. He didn't want Tony to sleep around with other women.

I think Favreau deserves all the credit in the world for getting the ball rolling and starting the franchise. But he just did not seem to have the ambition or desire to see it through to the end as like the captain at the wheel. And that's fine. Because Iron Man 2 did have its issues, so new vision and a fresh look is NOT going to hurt it.

That being said, I would like Favreau to return as Happy if he has time. Since he's not directing that would be a good way to give Happy more of something to do.

[I Am The Knight]

Then there's he conflict with his dad. We learn that Howard hadn't liked Tony, then we suddenly find out from the video that he did. That subplot wasn't well handled.

Agreed. And when the reveal happens, it's a very manufactured Hallmark moment. "My greatest creation, was...YOU!" (TM)

Put that on your Hallmark cards, parents of the world.

[hatebox]

Some of the posts here make me sick and want to vomit:


Ahhh... Superherohyperbole.

[JAK®]

Some of the posts here make me sick and want to vomit:

1. After Iron Man and **** even BEFORE Iron Man we all had the expectation of War Machine being brought in later. The ****ing first movie basically blatantly points and says HEY HERE YOU GO! YOU WILL SEE WAR MACHINE IN THE NEXT MOVIE FOR SURE! Now some of the momentum was admittedly lost because Howard left the production, but I mean, don't go around saying War Machine should never have been in the movie. None of you guys were saying **** like that before the movie came out. So stop saying that **** now because it is ********!

Exactly.

Just about everybody wanted to see War Machine. When the first teaser poster came out people were like "Yay! War Machine!" and I'm pretty sure there were comments like "Screw Whiplash, I want to see War Machine!"

[Iron_Stark]

Some of the posts here make me sick and want to vomit:

1. After Iron Man and **** even BEFORE Iron Man we all had the expectation of War Machine being brought in later. The ****ing first movie basically blatantly points and says HEY HERE YOU GO! YOU WILL SEE WAR MACHINE IN THE NEXT MOVIE FOR SURE! Now some of the momentum was admittedly lost because Howard left the production, but I mean, don't go around saying War Machine should never have been in the movie. None of you guys were saying **** like that before the movie came out. So stop saying that **** now because it is ********!


I never wanted him in the film, I always knew it would be a bad idea. I thought he would take away from Iron Man, I was wrong, he ended up taking away from Whiplash.

Exactly.

Just about everybody wanted to see War Machine. When the first teaser poster came out people were like "Yay! War Machine!" and I'm pretty sure there were comments like "Screw Whiplash, I want to see War Machine!"

Unfortunately that was true. And unfortunately that's what Marvel thought as well, screw Whiplash, lets put the promotion, suits, action sequences, sfx and everything else behind War Machine.

[A Necessary Evil]

Serious Question. I heard faverau say that they would make a 30 minute extended cut to IM2 a while back. Is this still happening or...?

[JAK®]

So I just watched Iron Man 2 for the second time.

All you people that are relieved Favreau is gone are crazy.

[kedrell]

Serious Question. I heard faverau say that they would make a 30 minute extended cut to IM2 a while back. Is this still happening or...?

Hmm, I never heard that. I'm all for it though if it's true. Especially if it gives Roarke more screentime.

[A Necessary Evil]

So I just watched Iron Man 2 for the second time.

All you people that are relieved Favreau is gone are crazy.

this :up:


Hmm, I never heard that. I'm all for it though if it's true.

I mean I read it on the web, so it could be as true as a SM3.1 or Incredible Hulk's 70+ extra minute cut...:o :csad: 1--% agreed with Rourke...I mean I love the movie (saw it 4 times) but I needed more of him.

[Son of Coul]

back with my mind back intact yo
Sayonara! You can face palm all you want, adding Fury to the whole palladium subplot could have been Favreau's way of trying to make him relevant to the movie beyond Marvel's Avengers agenda. And it still didn't really work.
Alright, you can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the argument you were making when I responded- you were suggesting that the entire subplot was added so Fury and Widow had a role, which was just beyond ridiculous to me.
They're trying to make a shared universe with one movie building on another. It's actually exactly what the fans wanted so I'm not surprised the fans are complaining about it.
:up:
Not necessarily what the other 90% of cinema goers want or even care about, that's the issue.
There's no issue there, I know people who don't know jack about the MCU and they weren't jarred or confused at all. I know someone who said her friends were telling her Coulson would become Captain America because he picked up the shield. She didn't like the movie, but it didn't have to do with The Avengers. The only people I've heard complain about it are the fans, while the GA is into it. How backwards is that?
I think most people have this set view how people should deal with death and sadness. The problem is that this Tony Stark character that Robert Downey Jr. created is different than say, Batman or Spiderman. Instead of pouting ontop of the Chrysler Building or sulking in a penthouse, he seculdes himself in a giant donut. The scenes of him deciding to drive the Formula 1 car, throwing an outrageous party, being a drunk fool, looking like he was going to die when talking to Rhodey in his basement, his reaction to Vanko mentioning the palladium, tearing up his house, handing his company over, and lamenting to Pepper were enough proof that he was concerned about death. The whole Stark Expo and the themes of his family legacy also played into this. Perhaps I am reading too deep into a summer blockbuster movie, but the proof is there. Many people didn't care for the comedy regarding all this, but this is one of the things that set this franchise apart from others. There was no melodrama and I personally liked that. Then again, there were some scenes like this in the first movie which everybody loved.
Yes. I love that Stark isn't like the other heroes in that he doesn't just stand around brooding and actually handles it with humor and being overly ostentatious. Shows how messed up he really is, and reminds me of the way in reality some depressed people become comedians or attention-seekers.
Some of the posts here make me sick and want to vomit:

1. After Iron Man and **** even BEFORE Iron Man we all had the expectation of War Machine being brought in later. The ****ing first movie basically blatantly points and says HEY HERE YOU GO! YOU WILL SEE WAR MACHINE IN THE NEXT MOVIE FOR SURE! Now some of the momentum was admittedly lost because Howard left the production, but I mean, don't go around saying War Machine should never have been in the movie. None of you guys were saying **** like that before the movie came out. So stop saying that **** now because it is ********!

2. The Avengers connection. THIS WAS IN IRON MAN! IT WAS ALL OVER THE PLACE! That's what got us excited about Iron Man, we KNEW they were building up to an Avengers movie. So that was an added bonus to the movie. It's irrational to get ticked off about it because all this is precedence for Iron Man's history. Avengers, Black Widow, War Machine is all a part of it. It makes sense to have references because you know this is one of the cooler aspects about it. Now I think they could've made the ending less awkward with the whole advisor/retainer, not right now thing. Since it sort of conflicts with where Tony Stark is at the end of Incredible Hulk.

3. Stop acting like Favreau is this defenceless little lamb that Marvel screwed over. I think it was time for Favreau to move on. He seems more interested in other projects now and I just don't think he's as creatively stimulated by Iron Man anymore. Sorry but its true. Favreau also publicly has NOT proven that he is the guy to helm Avengers. He EVEN said he's afraid of using material that isn't realistic or tech based. HE SAID ALL OF THAT! He didn't want to do Demon In A Bottle because it would be too much like Leaving Las Vegas. He didn't want Tony to sleep around with other women.

I think Favreau deserves all the credit in the world for getting the ball rolling and starting the franchise. But he just did not seem to have the ambition or desire to see it through to the end as like the captain at the wheel. And that's fine. Because Iron Man 2 did have its issues, so new vision and a fresh look is NOT going to hurt it.

That being said, I would like Favreau to return as Happy if he has time. Since he's not directing that would be a good way to give Happy more of something to do.
Haha, I love this post. I'd actually have to agree for the most part. Optimistic and truthful, in its own fuming way.
So I just watched Iron Man 2 for the second time.

All you people that are relieved Favreau is gone are crazy.
:up:

[Timstuff]

So I just watched Iron Man 2 for the second time.

All you people that are relieved Favreau is gone are crazy.

The people saying that Favreau leaving is a good thing are the same idiots who think that Sam Raimi ruined Spider-Man. The people who are responsible for almost everything that was wrong with the last installment are still in charge, except now they are free to hire someone who's less likely to argue when they want him to do something stupid.

[Iron_Stark]

The people saying that Favreau leaving is a good thing are the same idiots who think that Sam Raimi ruined Spider-Man. The people who are responsible for almost everything that was wrong with the last installment are still in charge, except now they are free to hire someone who's less likely to argue when they want him to do something stupid.

Yep, agreed.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I just think that on the whole... Iron Man 2 has had an aura of disappointment settle over it.

There's just something about the movie as an overall experience (anticipation, marketing, that all important first trailer, the final product, waiting for the home video release) that all seemed incredibly lackluster.

Jon Favreav leaving adds to this sense of disappointment... I know the numbers don't lie (the box office was more than healthy), but I expected so much more from this film.

Iron Man 2... It came and it went. :dry:

So perhaps this is good news.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The people saying that Favreau leaving is a good thing are the same idiots who think that Sam Raimi ruined Spider-Man. The people who are responsible for almost everything that was wrong with the last installment are still in charge, except now they are free to hire someone who's less likely to argue when they want him to do something stupid.You actually kinda have a point. The real problems were the rushed, terrible script and Marvel forcing all of their ideas when they don't belong.

The only reason I think that it's good he left is because I don't want to him waste his time arguing with the Avenger's obsessed studio. Nothing will come of it. They will win the battles and we (those of us who didn't care for IM2) will be left with another halfbaked sequel and he will get all of the blame for it. Let him move on to other projects before this taints him.

[A Necessary Evil]

You actually kinda have a point. The real problems were the rushed, terrible script and Marvel forcing all of their ideas when they don't belong.

The only reason I think that it's good he left is because I don't want to him waste his time arguing with the Avenger's obsessed studio. Nothing will come of it. They will win the battles and we (those of us who didn't care for IM2) will be left with another halfbaked sequel and he will get all of the blame for it. Let him move on to other projects before this taints him.

Well Said :up:

[Parker Wayne]

You actually kinda have a point. The real problems were the rushed, terrible script and Marvel forcing all of their ideas when they don't belong.

The only reason I think that it's good he left is because I don't want to him waste his time arguing with the Avenger's obsessed studio. Nothing will come of it. They will win the battles and we (those of us who didn't care for IM2) will be left with another halfbaked sequel and he will get all of the blame for it. Let him move on to other projects before this taints him.

The funny thing is, I don't really see many fans blaming him for it. A lot of fans either blame it on Marvel or (like me) the terrible script.

[Iron_Stark]

You actually kinda have a point. The real problems were the rushed, terrible script and Marvel forcing all of their ideas when they don't belong.

The only reason I think that it's good he left is because I don't want to him waste his time arguing with the Avenger's obsessed studio. Nothing will come of it. They will win the battles and we (those of us who didn't care for IM2) will be left with another halfbaked sequel and he will get all of the blame for it. Let him move on to other projects before this taints him.

I usually don't say this, but I agree with you on this one.

After Cheadle replaced Howard they rewrote the script to beef up Cheadle's screen time and shoe horn in War Machine which took away from Rourke. Huge mistake.

Hopefully they learn from this, drop War Machine in the third, don't rush or rewrite the script, and give Mandarin plenty of screen time and make him a real threat.

[Son of Coul]

Didn't Theroux say the "beefing up" rumor was all ********?

[TheVileOne]

I'm not relieved Favreau is gone at all. But many of you are clearly in denial about public statements Favreau has made. Favreau did not have the ambition or desire to helm Avengers clearly.

They brought in Theroux so that was their guy.

What did you guys want? Favreau said he didn't want to do Demon in A Bottle. He said he wanted everything tech-based and realistic.

So what did you all want? What was Favreau going to do differently that would've blown you all away?

[Parker Wayne]

I'm not relieved Favreau is gone at all. But many of you are clearly in denial about public statements Favreau has made. Favreau did not have the ambition or desire to helm Avengers clearly.

They brought in Theroux so that was their guy.

What did you guys want? Favreau said he didn't want to do Demon in A Bottle. He said he wanted everything tech-based and realistic.

So what did you all want? What was Favreau going to do differently that would've blown you all away?

Why do you assume people are relieved that Fav's gone? Majority of fans liked Favreau. Did you read the posts?

But thing thing is we have to move on from Favreau.

[TheVileOne]

Why do you assume people are relieved that Fav's gone? Majority of fans liked Favreau. Did you read the posts?

Others have expressed it! I have read the posts and many of them make me sick and angry. I still taste the bile in my craw.

But thing thing is we have to move on from Favreau.

Exactly but i don't think that's the end of the world. I just think Favreau has emotionally and creatively moved on from the series so I don't think its destructive that its leaving. I think he sort of peaked with the franchise with the first movie. It wasn't like X-men where Singer made a much better movie the second time around.

I would like him to stay on in some capacity and still play Happy Hogan. But on the other hand, I'm not sure what was ruined about Iron Man 2 either and what Favreau would've done with Iron Man 3 that would've been so much better.

[Parker Wayne]

Others have expressed it! I have read the posts and many of them make me sick and angry. I still taste the bile in my craw.

I think you can tell by the poll that majority of the people aren't doing backflips and celebrating haha.

Exactly but i don't think that's the end of the world. I just think Favreau has emotionally and creatively moved on from the series so I don't think its destructive that its leaving. I think he sort of peaked with the franchise with the first movie. It wasn't like X-men where Singer made a much better movie the second time around.

I would like him to stay on in some capacity and still play Happy Hogan. But on the other hand, I'm not sure what was ruined about Iron Man 2 either and what Favreau would've done with Iron Man 3 that would've been so much better.

Agreed.

[Superhero 101]

He should definitely be back as Hogan

[TheVileOne]

It shouldn't be too hard. Favreau still acts in supporting roles his friends and producing friends' movies quite frequently like I Love You Man, Couples Retreat, Four Christmases.

[Ponyboy]

It's hard to do a good 3rd film... I wouldn't want to see Favreau leave Iron Man 2 as his legacy... (even though I enjoyed the film)... I think there's more to explore and get deeper into the character.

[KillerCarlson]

Anyone think it's possible that he feels he has a new franchise with cowboys and aliens, so maybe he wants to focus on that?

Also maybe he didnt like where marvel is heading after the Avengers?

I really dont mind him leaving because Iron Man 2 was a let down to me, and i think that marvel forced him to hurry it up and not get it right to some extent which may explain why he is leaving.

[A Necessary Evil]

I wanna see Cowboys and Aliens do well..but nobody takes it seriously. Everytime I see Hallows, the audience just laughs.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

You know what... I watched Iron Man 2 on Blu-ray last night (only my second screening since the cinema)... And i actually got a greater appreciation for it.

I still think it's a very flawed film... but i can now see the good intentions that were there with the project. Still a crappy villian though.

So yeah, I guess I will miss Jon Favreau from the Iron Man franchise.

[Spider-Aziz]

^^I like the villain of IM2

[docdoc]

you know what, first I read this I thought: doesn't really matter to me, IRON MAN 2 looks ****** anyway~ Then after re-watching the last 2 chapters, I kinda feel sorry for this whole thing.

I mean IRON MAN 2 does look bad, but part of the reason is becoz of The Avenagers. The suit was killing Tony Stark that's a good one, governmet ask for the weapons, that as well. It's just he didn't put enough time on the villain and waste it on Avengers. It was lack lack lack but it's not as idotic as Spider-Man 3.

I think if the guy got another shot without any Avengers craps, he'd manage to make a good third one, even better than the first one (shouldn't be hard though)

[fixxxer1022]

i hope RDJ will be back for a 3rd film now that jon has left the project?

[Son of Coul]

He's signed on for it, yeah.

[Spider-Fan]

you know what, first I read this I thought: doesn't really matter to me, IRON MAN 2 looks ****** anyway~ Then after re-watching the last 2 chapters, I kinda feel sorry for this whole thing.

I mean IRON MAN 2 does look bad, but part of the reason is becoz of The Avenagers. The suit was killing Tony Stark that's a good one, governmet ask for the weapons, that as well. It's just he didn't put enough time on the villain and waste it on Avengers. It was lack lack lack but it's not as idotic as Spider-Man 3.

I think if the guy got another shot without any Avengers craps, he'd manage to make a good third one, even better than the first one (shouldn't be hard though)

The Avengers exist in this Marvel world, and Stark is part of it. Their existance must be addressed in any film involving Iron Man now. The Avengers can't be totally seperated from these franchises once they form as a team. That doesn't mean you have to make IM3 ABOUT the Avengers. Focus the film and still make it about Iron Man, but I see no issue with making references to the rest of the team.

[Son of Coul]

^Pretty much yeah

[Ultra Lantern]

Time will tell if Iron Man 3 will be good without Jon Favreau.

[El Payaso]

The Avengers exist in this Marvel world, and Stark is part of it. Their existance must be addressed in any film involving Iron Man now. The Avengers can't be totally seperated from these franchises once they form as a team. That doesn't mean you have to make IM3 ABOUT the Avengers. Focus the film and still make it about Iron Man, but I see no issue with making references to the rest of the team.

Much like docdoc I thought part of the problem with IM2 was presicely addressing to a plot that was not part of the movie itself. Not to mention that the movie had already enough to deal with.

Now, docdoc saw IM2 again. Me? The first sight didn't enthuise me enough for a second view. Not so far at least.