Where does Iron Man 2 stand among other superhero sequels?

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

^The thing is Iron Stark, I agree with a lot of your points, but having War Machine in the movie would have been no problem if they had made the movie 15-20 or even more longer, 2 hours simply wasnt enough to do everyone justice, when they announce it was going to be shorter than the first movie, before even seeing the movie I thought this was too short, and I was proven completely right upon seeing it. If TDK can be 2 and a half hours, why cant Iron Man 2 be at least 135 mins?

Who's ever decision it was, and my money is on Marvel rather than Favreau, it was a ridiculous one.

That's the thing Favreau said from the very begining this movie was going to be the same running time as the first one. So guess who should've been cut.

But you're right about Marvel making bad decisons, Favs wanted to wait on putting War Machine in the series, Marvel wanted him there now especially after Howard got fired and then had the script reworked.

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

I agree. I don't War Machine was the problem. The problem was and always has been the script. The script, liked the first one, is average and unlike the first one lacked some emotional punch to it. As I said before, the performances saved this film from being much worse than it could've been.

This film would've been better if it was longer and it some opportunities and characters were better placed in the stories. People complain about this film being an extended Avenger trailer but honestly the only Avengers talk was 2 minutes at the end.

The only problem with the Fury cameo I had was that it was too Deus Ex Machima. They should've just gave him the stuff and be done, but they had to add that stupid temporary cure to it. And for what? You just took some of the urgency and drama out the film. It would've been great seeing Stark atone with his father as he was an inch away from death.

I liked Chris Wallace's idea of Vanko attacking while Tony's drunk. Then Rhody would've looked less like bad friend or an as***le taking the suit becuase Tony obvious couldn't handle him now.

Hammer could've been less campy, but honestly he just needed one scene to truly show how ruthless he was but we never got that. I didn't have much problem with him being comic relief even though its a bit of a waste of Sam Rockwell's talent.

I even didn't have a problem with Black Widow. She had her role in the film and she did it well. People are complaining because she didn't have character development or didn't speak Russian. Well she was undercover and them mentioning that she could speak Russian was good enough for me. If it was just another SHIELD agent people wouldn't have been complaining.

Vanko attacking drunk Tony was my idea.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by Iron_Stark

Vanko attacking drunk Tony was my idea.

oh.

[ghostrider92]

/Iron Man 2/
blade 2
hellboy 2
xmen 2
Iron Man 2
spiderman 2
superman 2 Donner cut
hellboy 2
batman returns
tdk

[ghostrider92]

Originally Posted by epc11223

now i know this is not a spider-man forum, but i really don't get why spider-man 2 gets so much love. i really do find it to be a bit of a carbon copy to superman II where he wants to give up his powers to get the girl. that's essentially the story for spider-man 2. where the dark knight and even iron man 2 are different, at least they attempted to do creative things. even with x2. i'm a huge superman fan so i'm going to be biased about put that as number 1, so don't flame me too bad as i know it's not what most people would agree with and say that i'm crazy, but it's what i grew up with lol.

1. superman II
2. The Dark Knight
3. X2
4. Iron Man 2
5. Transformers 2: ok ok ok, i'm probably going to lose all credibility for this one but i'll explain. i'm a transformers fan and as bad as the film is, it had some cool optimus prime scenes and again, i'd have to go for originality. it wasn't really about giving up powers to get the girl.

i dont know, sorry for all the hate on spider-man, but i just feel that the most recent cartoon, spectacular spider-man was far superior than any of the movies. it had humor, charm, and action. it's what i would like to see in a live action movie for spider-man which i don't think we got in the raimi movies.

let me start by saying your are still creditable transformers 2 could have been a great sequel had it not been for the writers strike . the first was awesome and the third installment will be great .

[Chris Wallace]

"Missed opportunities" seems to be the most commonly used phrase in this thread.

[Parker Wayne]

Well its true. I liked Iron Man 2, but I'd be an idiot not to realize that this film had several missed opportunities.

[Son of Coul]

I just rewatched it again and its still pretty awesome. Most of the complaints just seem silly when you take another look at it. Here and there some stuff could've been patched, but I could say the exact same about the first (or any) movie. Still not quite as good as the first, but also still a solid helluva lotta fun.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by HappyPalooza

I just rewatched it again and its still pretty awesome. Most of the complaints just seem silly when you take another look at it. Here and there some stuff could've been patched, but I could say the exact same about the first (or any) movie. Still not quite as good as the first, but also still a solid helluva lotta fun.

And that's my opinion about the film too in the end. It's not as good the first Iron Man, but its still I film I would watch again.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

Well its true. I liked Iron Man 2, but I'd be an idiot not to realize that this film had several missed opportunities.

We're treating Favreau like the kid who brought home a "C" in a subject that he normally aces. That's what it really comes down to. We expected better. This is like the only 2nd installment of a superhero franchise in the past decade that didn't surpass the original.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

We're treating Favreau like the kid who brought home a "C" in a subject that he normally aces. That's what it really comes down to. We expected better. This is like the only 2nd installment of a superhero franchise in the past decade that didn't surpass the original.

I wouldn't say C. I'd call it a B- or B.

[Chris Wallace]

It's a "C" compared to the first one. But overall you're right. We had A+++++ expectations, thought-especially in the wake of the trailers.

[Upset Spideyfan]

For me its above average but not up there with the best and a step down from the first one.

B- or C+

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by HappyPalooza

I just rewatched it again and its still pretty awesome. Most of the complaints just seem silly when you take another look at it. Here and there some stuff could've been patched, but I could say the exact same about the first (or any) movie. Still not quite as good as the first, but also still a solid helluva lotta fun.

It's a really, really good movie, a whole hell of a lot better than most comic book movies out there, it just isn't in that elite level like the first one.

And it all comes down to giving the villains the shaft.

Look at the great movies out there, Empire Strikes Back, Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, they were great for many reasons, but also as important was because all had great and memorable villains.

Mickey Rourke could have easily been up there with them. He could've easily put a D-List villain up there with the greats. He could've done for Whiplash what Downey Jr. did for Iron Man and put an unknown character as an A-Lister.

But instead they decided having War Machine was just more important.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

We're treating Favreau like the kid who brought home a "C" in a subject that he normally aces. That's what it really comes down to. We expected better. This is like the only 2nd installment of a superhero franchise in the past decade that didn't surpass the original.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I remember the first I saw Iron Man, the second it was over I couldn't help but think how great the sequel would be. Tony's alcoholism being played for laughs was almost as bad as the symbiote in Spider-Man 3.

[Fudgie]

It's one of the weakest sequels.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

We're treating Favreau like the kid who brought home a "C" in a subject that he normally aces. That's what it really comes down to. We expected better. This is like the only 2nd installment of a superhero franchise in the past decade that didn't surpass the original.

For all I know he has come home with only two tests: A and C. Never seen any other Favreau movie. But I don't think his "A" was just a coincidence.

[Fudgie]

He should have stayed for the third one. I don't like when directors jump ship. Bryan Singer I'm looking at you.

[StarLord]

Not sure if this has been posted before but I'm reading it on my Blackberry and thought I'd post it anyway:

Mickey Rourke sheds some light on where Iron Man 2 stumbled, and why it happened...
It seems to be popular to say now that Iron Man 2 was some kind of failure, but we don’t really buy it. Sure, it wasn’t as strong as the first movie, but we still enjoyed large chunks of it, not least the excellent racing track sequence, with Mickey Rourke cracking his whip in spectacular style. Rourke, though, has shed some light on where things didn’t go to plan on Iron Man 2. He’s done so on the promotional tour for his latest movie, Immortals, and it was while chatting to Coming Soon that he made his comments.

Rourke said that “I try to find the moments where [the villain is] not that cliched, evil bad guy and it's a big fight. I had it on Iron Man and they won. It was going to work for Marvel and them breaking [Jon] Favreau's balls and wanting just a one-dimensional villain.”He added that “The performance and all the things that I tried to bring to it end up on the f---ing floor. That can cause you not to care as much. To not to want to put that effort in to try and make it an intelligent bad guy or a bad guy who is justified in what his reasons are."

Certainly his character in Iron Man 2, after showing such promise, diluted by the time the end credits rolled. And if what Rourke is saying is correct, then Marvel seemed to be calling one or two vital shots, rather than director Jon Favreau. Still, we’ve only heard one side of the argument here.

http://moviecarpet.com/2011/10/31/mi...-2-went-wrong/

[redhawk23]

The script for this film is a complete mess. There is no real story reason for many of the character's inclusion in the film. If you listen to the commentaries, Justin Hammer was added to the film for the sole purpose of having Sam Rockwell be in the movie, regardless of how over stuffed the film already was. There were several scenes, including the whole senate hearing where they just filmed and filmed and essentially wrote the scenes in the editing room. Definitely a weak spot in the phase one films.

[redhawk23]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

He should have stayed for the third one. I don't like when directors jump ship. Bryan Singer I'm looking at you.

Meh, If a director is no longer inspired or committed to a property then good riddance.

The problem with X3 isn't that Singer left, its that Brett Ratner was his replacement.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

Meh, If a director is no longer inspired or committed to a property then good riddance.

The problem with X3 isn't that Singer left, its that Brett Ratner was his replacement.

It's not even that. I can't even blame Ratner for X3 because he didn't really have any control. I don't think any director could put out a great movie working under the conditions Fox had for X3. Ratner didn't have much creative control and other directors turned it down because of how Fox was.

[Spider-Aziz]

As far as it's placed among sequels.....

1. The Dark Knight
2. The Avengers (same world, and a sequel to 5 different movies. I'm counting it in)
3. X-Men 2
4. Superman 2
5. Thor (Sequel to Coulsoon's story in IM2)
6. The Dark Knight Rises
7. Spider-Man 3
8. X-Men 3
9. Iron Man 2
10. Spider-Man 2
11. Superman Returns
12. Batman Forever
13. Superman 3
14. Batman & Robin
15. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2

Then comes the rest

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

For all I know he has come home with only two tests: A and C. Never seen any other Favreau movie. But I don't think his "A" was just a coincidence.

Same here. Though I do like it more now than I did 2 years ago.

[Bowie]

I honestly thought that Iron Man 2 was only slightly above average. The great Mickey Rourke was tragically underused in this film.

[kedrell]

Even though it's not as good as the first film, when stacked up against other superhero movie sequels I'd still have to rank it right at the top.