The IRON MAN 3 News & Speculation Thread - Part 6

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by ThePowerCosmic

I don't know how you're sure about Radioactive Man. I'd say the chances of him appearing in IM3 are 50/50 like you mentioned in another post, I think.

I'm saying that all we know about the mystery LEGO figure is that it's a pale green bad guy with veins. Radioactive Man is a *possibility,* but by no means the only possible fit for that description. I've already given several logical alternatives --- any Extremis-ized baddie, including Coldblood, Firepower, or Mandarin himself; and even The Leader, who was teased in TIH.

[protocida]

I doubt either Radioactive Man or The Wasp are part of the equation.

[Figs]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I'm saying that all we know about the mystery LEGO figure is that it's a pale green bad guy with veins. Radioactive Man is a *possibility,* but by no means the only possible fit for that description. I've already given several logical alternatives --- any Extremis-ized baddie, including Coldblood, Firepower, or Mandarin himself; and even The Leader, who was teased in TIH.

If, IF, that were to ever happen, I hope they recast for the role. That was hands down one of the most annoying characters in any comic film.

[ThePowerCosmic]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I'm saying that all we know about the mystery LEGO figure is that it's a pale green bad guy with veins. Radioactive Man is a *possibility,* but by no means the only possible fit for that description. I've already given several logical alternatives --- any Extremis-ized baddie, including Coldblood, Firepower, or Mandarin himself; and even The Leader, who was teased in TIH.

Oh, all right. That makes sense.

[The Ironstar]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

"Gunmetal" looks like Stealth armor.

That Deep Space armor makes me think (dread) that Iron Man *will* have a cameo in GOTG now. ("Astronut Tony" is now officially a member of the latest incarnation of the Guardians of the Galaxy in the most recent comics.)

In other news: for those who haven't seen Feige's latest comments about IM3, Avengers 2, and Phase II in general, here's a few excerpts from MTV's interview with him:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/01/24...e-joss-whedon/

I found this paragraph particularly interesting:



I'd say that Tony Stark has become paranoid after the events of the Avengers. There's already hints of that in the dialogue from the trailer ("everybody wants to kill me;" "how am I supposed to protect the one thing I can't live without?"), and it certainly looks like he goes on a building spree, trying to create an armor suit for every conceivable situation he might find himself in. You know, just like the "real" Tony Stark.

I'm wondering if that paranoia will drive him to invest heavily in the Avengers as well, in an all-out recruiting drive to muster all the superheroes he can to bulk up the team for the next global/interplanetary crisis. Which, again, sounds like comic book Tony, at least from the "Initiative" era.

Could be that Stark is the driving force behind Phase II, as Nick Fury was the driving force behind Phase I.

Bah!! I only want to see these people after IM3:

[Repulsor Blast]

Originally Posted by marvel_freshman

Found more promo art...once again teasing that dream Hall of Armor. There's also some mystery figures in the back

im digging the darker grey tones in the mark 42. don't think it will look like that on film, but it helps break the armor up a bit more and is a nice contrast to the abundance of "gold"

[Repulsor Blast]

so any idea what those armors in the background are? pincers for hands is interesting. could be useful in clearing wreckage from the mansion attack i guess lol.

[mkilban2]

they look like wrenches haha

[Repulsor Blast]

iron man pooper scooper platform

[Mr. Dent]

Originally Posted by ThePowerCosmic

I don't know how you're sure about Radioactive Man. I'd say the chances of him appearing in IM3 are 50/50 like you mentioned in another post, I think.

I'd say more like 65/50.

Originally Posted by Figs

I'm real curious about this comment. So we won't realize what certain things mean in IM3 until after we've seen Avengers 2? In regards to setups and little things in Iron Man.

Yea, me too. I'm really happy they're apparently going about this in a more subtle manner than they did in phase 1 with IM2, Thor, and Cap. I don't think there will be a central object like with the Tesseract and we won't be having SHIELD hijack the movies like before, with exception of Cap 2 I guess but it works there.

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

you are ABSOLUTELY incorrect about that.... and for a HUGE action figure collector like myself for a very long time, you sir are completely incorrect.

-IM2 movie figure waves not only included armors that will never be on screen... but also included Crimson Dynamo, and Titanium Man (Titanium Man also had a figure during the IM1 toyline)

-The Avengers Movie line also included Skrulls, and Ultimate versions of Thor and Hawkeye

-The Amazing Spider-Man line included the New Ultimate Spider-Man (Morales)

-The Spider-Man 3 movie line also included Green Goblin and Doc Ock

-The Fantastic Four movie toy lines included Doom Bots and Annihilus

-The Incredible Hulk movie line also included Bi-Beast and IronClad


and to top it all off... the IRON MAN 3 6inch line so far is including all comic armors (ditko ironman, Norman Osborn (iron Patriot), Iron Monger, and Bleeding Edge Armor Iron Man)


.... so yeah, rethink that statement.

That's a nice list but none of that counts as willful misdirection in the manner he's speaking and definitely not red herrings. For one thing, we know for a fact the character who eventually becomes Radioactive Man is in the movie. Bi-Beast, IronClad, and Morales, were not in their movies. I don't think Marvel has merchandising rights to FF but even if they do, Annihilus and Doom Bots are the same as the above. Once again, don't think Marvel has/had merchandising rights to Spider-Man in 2007, but even if they did, GG and Ock were villains in the previous movies...and GG did technically appear in SM3.

The Avengers Movie line is a pretty stupid one to bring up since Thor and Hawkeye WERE in the the movie. Just because they're in different costumes doesn't count as misdirection. Skrulls are free game but again, they weren't confirmed in the same manner as RM is.

You can say that Dr. Wu being in the movie is in itself misdirection (although Marvel said he wouldn't become Radioactive Man, which in itself could be misdirection) but use toy lines as precedent for red herrings when this particular character is in a completely different situation. The fact that a RM toy is being made and Marvel wouldn't let the toy maker know the name of the character just adds a bit of credence to the idea that Wu WILL become RM.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

I'd say more like 65/50.


Yea, me too. I'm really happy they're apparently going about this in a more subtle manner than they did in phase 1 with IM2, Thor, and Cap. I don't think there will be a central object like with the Tesseract and we won't be having SHIELD hijack the movies like before, with exception of Cap 2 I guess but it works there.


That's a nice list but none of that counts as willful misdirection in the manner he's speaking and definitely not red herrings. For one thing, we know for a fact the character who eventually becomes Radioactive Man is in the movie. Bi-Beast, IronClad, and Morales, were not in their movies. I don't think Marvel has merchandising rights to FF but even if they do, Annihilus and Doom Bots are the same as the above. Once again, don't think Marvel has/had merchandising rights to Spider-Man in 2007, but even if they did, GG and Ock were villains in the previous movies...and GG did technically appear in SM3.

The Avengers Movie line is a pretty stupid one to bring up since Thor and Hawkeye WERE in the the movie. Just because they're in different costumes doesn't count as misdirection. Skrulls are free game but again, they weren't confirmed in the same manner as RM is.

You can say that Dr. Wu being in the movie is in itself misdirection (although Marvel said he wouldn't become Radioactive Man, which in itself could be misdirection) but use toy lines as precedent for red herrings when this particular character is in a completely different situation. The fact that a RM toy is being made and Marvel wouldn't let the toy maker know the name of the character just adds a bit of credence to the idea that Wu WILL become RM.

Actually.... There's absolutely no concrete proof that he will ever be "radioactive man" or is in fact suppose to be. You're basing rumors as fact in which they are not


Also marvel has very little say in who gets a figure. HASBRO however does.

All marvel really does at getting involved with the figure aspect is filling in hasbro who might be a popular character in upcoming comics....

Marvel doesn't tell them what figures to make

[Mr. Dent]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

Actually.... There's absolutely no concrete proof that he will ever be "radioactive man" or is in fact suppose to be. You're basing rumors as fact in which they are not

No I'm not. You're taking it that way. Everything I posted was obviously speculation. Educated, but speculation none the less. That said, I'm entitled to post it without you attacking me because my opinion differs from your's.

Also marvel has very little say in who gets a figure. HASBRO however does.

All marvel really does at getting involved with the figure aspect is filling in hasbro who might be a popular character in upcoming comics....

Marvel doesn't tell them what figures to make

Which makes your entire argument about misdirection with toys wrong.

Either way, the toy make specifically said Marvel prevented them from giving out the name. And we know this Dr. Wu character is based off of Chen Lu, who becomes RM. Putting that together with the toy news I and others can say RM has a good to decent chance of being in IM3. Attacking people for that with misplaced arguments is unneeded and ridiculous.

[Repulsor Blast]

i can't wait til the movie comes out (i get it earlier here in australia) and i can pop on these boards and say which characters do and do not appear.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

No I'm not. You're taking it that way. Everything I posted was obviously speculation. Educated, but speculation none the less. That said, I'm entitled to post it without you attacking me because my opinion differs from your's.


Which makes your entire argument about misdirection with toys wrong.

Either way, the toy make specifically said Marvel prevented them from giving out the name. And we know this Dr. Wu character is based off of Chen Lu, who becomes RM. Putting that together with the toy news I and others can say RM has a good to decent chance of being in IM3. Attacking people for that with misplaced arguments is unneeded and ridiculous.

Oh lordy ....... My whole point in the discussion was that THE TOYS MEAN NOTHING... You're free to believe what you want but I've stated several reasons why your logic is faulty regardless of if you call it missdirection or not.

Yes. Marvel won't allow them to say a name of a spoiler character.... But there's still zero proof that Dr. Wu is based off of Lu . Just speculation because early reports said his name was Lu and would probably be RM that doesn't mean "he is"......

Im not attacking you, your logic is just faulty.

[spideyboy_1111]

Also... I find it incredibly stupid that a C list villain like RM would be under such serious spoiler protection when firepower and coldblood arnt , nor is kurse and his twin in Thor, nor is Falcon, Crossbones , or the return of Zola in Cap 2......... RM is far from being an integral villain in the MU and zero reason to keep him of all people under wraps.

[Mr. Dent]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

Oh lordy ....... My whole point in the discussion was that THE TOYS MEAN NOTHING... You're free to believe what you want but I've stated several reasons why your logic is faulty regardless of if you call it missdirection or not.

Yes. Marvel won't allow them to say a name of a spoiler character.... But there's still zero proof that Dr. Wu is based off of Lu . Just speculation because early reports said his name was Lu and would probably be RM that doesn't mean "he is"......

Im not attacking you, your logic is just faulty.

You fooled me because all I said is that Marvel don't use toys to mislead people and you post a whole list about toys they've used to "mislead" people...a list that was, as you say, logically faulty. If you were trying to make the point that they don't matter then you went about it the wrong way, no offense. I agree, that we shouldn't put that much weight behind a toy listing but it was just a side note in the speculation that RM could be in the movie in the first place. I wasn't putting my entire faith behind it, but if I'm going with the assumption that RM is going to be in the movie I would obviously mention everything we know surrounding the character possibly appearing in the film.

Either way, instead of constructively commenting on the outline I posted you chose to focus on a one line tidbit I mentioned at the end, which is disappointing to me.

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

Also... I find it incredibly stupid that a C list villain like RM would be under such serious spoiler protection when firepower and coldblood arnt , nor is kurse and his twin in Thor, nor is Falcon, Crossbones , or the return of Zola in Cap 2......... RM is far from being an integral villain in the MU and zero reason to keep him of all people under wraps.

This is a good point. But it could be because RM IS technically a bit higher in relevance than them and could have a bigger role in the film than them as well. It could also possibly hint at Ant-Man and A2 stuff as well, obviously.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

You fooled me because all I said is that Marvel don't use toys to mislead people and you post a whole list about toys they've used to "mislead" people...a list that was, as you say, logically faulty. If you were trying to make the point that they don't matter then you went about it the wrong way, no offense. I agree, that we shouldn't put that much weight behind a toy listing but it was just a side note in the speculation that RM could be in the movie in the first place. I wasn't putting my entire faith behind it, but if I'm going with the assumption that RM is going to be in the movie I would obviously mention everything we know surrounding the character possibly appearing in the film.

Either way, instead of constructively commenting on the outline I posted you chose to focus on a one line tidbit I mentioned at the end, which is disappointing to me.

..... You said "marvel doesn't misslead people with toys" as a reasoning of proof of how this mysterious toy is RM and because its RM its in the movie.... -__-

I corrected you. Now lets move along.

[Mr. Dent]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

..... You said "marvel doesn't misslead people with toys" as a reasoning of proof of how this mysterious toy is RM and because its RM its in the movie.... -__-

You're completely taking what I said out of context. cherokeesam used the idea of Marvel misleading people and using red herrings as reasoning for why RM is likely a red herring, and I replied that Marvel does not do that and mentioned the toy line because that would have to be the red herring/misdirection he is referring to. That does not equate to me using it as prime reasoning for RM being in the movie. You did not correct me, I'm guessing you just didn't read the entire conversation and posted that list as a result.

Now lets move along.

I would tend to agree but posting narcissistic things like

I corrected you.

makes it difficult.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

You're completely taking what I said out of context. cherokeesam used the idea of Marvel misleading people and using red herrings as reasoning for why RM is a red herring, and I replied that Marvel does not do that. That does not equate to me using it as prime reasoning for RM being in the movie. You did not correct me, I'm guessing you just didn't read the entire conversation and posted that list as a result.


I would tend to agree but posting narcissistic things like



makes it difficult.

Lol except you attempted to debate me things i was apparently " taking out of context..... "

Like i said lets just move along

[Mr. Dent]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

Lol except you attempted to debate me things i was apparently taking out of context.....

Because I didn't understand where you were coming from until I realized you didn't read the conversation and if you're going to reply to me with a long list of why I am supposedly wrong obviously I would refute it. :/

Like i said lets just move along

Yes, this has dissolved into meaningless argument unfortunately.

[Repulsor Blast]

who wants ac/dc in the super bowl spot and/or next trailer? I know i do!

[craigdbfan]

Not sure if I'm digging War Machine's mohawk/receding hairline thing he's got going on. He's looking kind of sickly.

[Hawkingbird]

Originally Posted by protocida

I doubt either Radioactive Man or The Wasp are part of the equation.

Since she'll be in Phase 3, I doubt Wasp too.

[spideyboy_1111]

i don't know.. i still think while it's the Phase 3 "kick-off" it will also feel like an epilogue. I wouldnt be shocked if Wasp and Hank appear in Avengers 2... with there origin in Ant-Man. It would be a great ride for them to piggy-back off avengers to get more people interested.

[The Infernal]

Personally I'm thinking we won't see Ant-man (or possibly Wasp) in Avengers 2 if Ant-man is meant for phase 3. Maybe we'll see people like Black Panther or Captain Marvel instead.