do you think IM2 was better or worse than the original?

[spider-neil]

I'll go first.
I thought it was worse but not by much.

mod if you feel this is too similar to existing threads feel free to lock it.

[Darkness Falls]

i thought it was a good sequal to the first movie.... i enjoyed it maybe a little bit more than the first movie.... don't get me wrong i love the first one.....

but to me rourke and rockwell were more interesting villians than bridges

[spider-neil]

I thought the 3rd act was better than the original by a mile.

[Darkness Falls]

yea the 3rd act was great especially the drone attack chase

[Venom]

IM1 is better. It had the tighter story, better character development (seeing Tony Stark turn from an ass to a hero made you root for him alot more), and a more developed villain which led to a better climax.

Also, not enough hero moments in IM2. We got one at the very end (a bit too late) where he saves a kid.

I'll give it to IM2 in terms of action scenes. Though it feels like IM2 has lesser action scenes overall.

I'm still a fan of IM2, for all its flaws.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by Venom

IM1 is better. It had the tighter story, better character development (seeing Tony Stark turn from an ass to a hero made you root for him alot more), and a more developed villain which led to a better climax.

Also, not enough hero moments in IM2. We got one at the very end (a bit too late) where he saves a kid.

I'll give it to IM2 in terms of action scenes. Though it feels like IM2 has lesser action scenes overall.

I'm still a fan of IM2, for all its flaws.

how was OS a better developed villian than vanko? OS descent into villiany was out of left field to say the least.

[Venom]

Better developed because he was more present in the film. Vanko on the other hand, quite disappeared after the race track scene, until the finale.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by Venom

Better developed because he was more present in the film. Vanko on the other hand, quite disappeared after the race track scene, until the finale.

hmmm,

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

I guess. watching the two movies you see vanko make his whiplash mark1, hear about his did getting fired, see him modify the drones, see him make whiplash mark 2,

in essense you saw where he was from and what motivated him. when stane flew off the deep end I was like 'wtf?! where'd THAT come from? but I see your point about him (vanko) disappearing for almost the entire 2nd act.

[Venom]

I think Stane was pretty much off the deep end since the beginning of IM1, since he was the one who ordered Tony's assassination. With that relevation, all his villainy afterward seemed quite logical. I think the only thing lacking about that is we still don't know why he ordered the initial hit on Tony. It was never clearly explained why he wanted to "kill the golden goose".

Ivan's motivation was quite shallow to me. We know the reasons why he wants to kill Stark, but it's a little cliched and 'ordinary' and wasn't enough for me to see why it made him so driven. If the film helped us explore his quest for revenge a little bit, it would have made Ivan more well rounded as a character.

[hatebox]

I'm still mildly shocked that IM2 hasn't followed the superhero film formula of having an obviously better sequel. Said it before and I'll say it again, while IM1 might have been a highly enjoyable movie that had the novelty factor in its favor, the actual raw quality of the film would not have been too hard to improve on. So it's immediately disappointing to me that Favreau apparently hasn't.

[-JKR-]

It's worse. Good film, but not on par with the first film. The script had some flaws, and overall it felt like something was missing.

[Still A ThorFan]

In the novelation the final scene between IronMan and Whiplash seemed dissapointing to me. Whip comes out with a cool new suit and doesn't even battle with IronMan? WM comes out of no where and just drops a bomb and its over? Come on, this is why Thor is going to crush all of these previous Marvel movies.

[Mr. Earle]

I found IM1 very simple in plot and lacking action.
IM2 was better in concept in every respect. Better action, more characters, Tony getting in serious trouble, exploring Tony's self destructive self, more Shield, Warmachine, more locations, etc. The only problem is that this whole concept wasnt executed as well. In other words i see IM1 as a burger, but a great burger, and IM2 as a dish of salmon which was not cooked so well.

Its just that after exiting the theatre, i realise that IM1 didnt have much to offer, while IM2 did, so i fill in the gaps and get the point of IM2 myself. I'd rather have that than movies who play it safe by having a paper thin story.

[Wesley Dodds]

I personally like them both the same for different reasons.
What people who think the first movie is better need to remember is that it had a much easier job than IM2... All the first film really had to do was tell the origin and wrap things up with an exciting little action scene. IM2, on the other hand, had to continue that story, introduce important new characters AND lay the groundwork for the Avengers, all the while having to also tell a satisfying self-contained adventure.

[Mr. Stark]

i really cant decide which i liked more. I mean 2 was great, amazing even, but I feel a little underwhelmed by it. This film might be a victim of its own hype. I mean I've only seen it once, I plan to see it again, hopefully then I'll have a better feeling of how I feel about it

[The Joker]

Overall it was weaker than the original. I preferred the story and the villain more in IM1.

[bapi]

Definitely 'worse'!

[Ghrunter]

Honestly I can't decide, I love the first one but every time I see the second one I love it even more

[Deadpool876]

Right now, I don't care if it's better or worse, but I hope IM2 is much much much better than the other terrible superhero movies this decade.

It is right?

[TheFuture]

Better for me, I found it more engaging where as most of IM1 was just about the suit. There wasn't really a story.

[Abraham]

It was not as good as the first film, still clicking "worse" up there made me feel like I was underselling this film. I'd give this movie a solid 7 or 7.5 while the first film was an 8 for me. See, the difference isn't that massive for me. There were a few mis-steps here, under-developed plot lines, characters, a very weak second act. Just a weaker film over all. To use an example that may only confuse you Iron Man 2 was the Batman Begins to Iron Man's The Dark Knight. heh.

[Ultra Lantern]

I thought Iron Man 2 was better than Iron Man.

[Fudgie]

Worse. So much worse.

[Batman4ever]

I voted worse. It just felt like the film on the whole took a step back.

[Ken-Kaniff]

It was worse, but still good imo. The 1st was great tho.