Where does Iron Man 2 stand among other superhero sequels?

[LightningFlash]

Originally Posted by venomvsspidey

Iron Man is awesome.
Iron Man 2 is awesome.
Spider-man 3 is awesome.
Batman Returns is awesome.

/discussion

*cough*Raimi*and*Burton*are*jokes*cough*

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by DonnyLebeau

Blasphemy!

One of the only successful cartoon to live-action film series of that time period. And just a fun fight flick if you were a kid during that time. The first two films are easily cult classics.

That doesn't mean they're actually good movies though. I grew up a big fan of Ninja Turtles. Had the toys, a bunch of VHS tapes of the cartoon, Ninja Turtle-themed birthday parties, and I loved the live action movies as a kid. But they just aren't very good after all these years.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by LightningFlash

*cough*Raimi*and*Burton*are*jokes*cough*

Burton is a joke right now, but BR is better than IM2. The only thing in IM2 that is actually better is the climax. Penguins with rocket launchers was retarded, but the rest of the movie was very well-done. You had a pretty impressive threading of Batman's personality into the characterizations of the villains. Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck all represent a side of Batman's personality. I love the duality of it. And the acting was top notch. Plus the music was stellar, an improvement on the already amazing B89 score. IM2 has unmemorable music, an unmemorable plot, and unmemorable villains. The climax is very good but everything up until that point is a yawn IMHO. The first Iron Man, however, is very rewatchable for me. The humor is better, the plot is far better, and the characterization of Tony is significantly better.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by hatebox

I thought Blade 2 was generally considered better than the first, and the third was terrible? So right in line with most franchises...

I certainly enjoy Blade 2 more than the original. Loved the Reapers, and Nomac. Great to have Whistler as an ally to Blade all through the movie, too.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Originally Posted by LightningFlash

*cough*Raimi*and*Burton*are*jokes*cough*

*cough*Cool*story*bro*cough*

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by LightningFlash

*cough*Raimi*and*Burton*are*jokes*cough*

You may not have liked BR or SM3, but Burton and RAimi are jokes? Seriously? One made films like Evil Dead, A Simple Plan and The Gift, while the other made the masterpieces Ed Wood, Sweeney Todd and Edward Scissorhands while also having made Big Fish and Beetlejuice.

I mean I like Favreau, but Elf (his best film) is not close to being in the same league. I wouldn't diss two respected auteurs while stroking a director whose best work (hopefully) has not come. I mean, in all respect in relation to opinions, both Raimi and Burton's first two superhero movies are far more ambitious and successful films than any Iron Man movie made to date.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Burton is a joke right now, but BR is better than IM2. The only thing in IM2 that is actually better is the climax. Penguins with rocket launchers was retarded, but the rest of the movie was very well-done. You had a pretty impressive threading of Batman's personality into the characterizations of the villains. Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck all represent a side of Batman's personality. I love the duality of it. And the acting was top notch. Plus the music was stellar, an improvement on the already amazing B89 score. IM2 has unmemorable music, an unmemorable plot, and unmemorable villains. The climax is very good but everything up until that point is a yawn IMHO. The first Iron Man, however, is very rewatchable for me. The humor is better, the plot is far better, and the characterization of Tony is significantly better.

Don't get me started on Batman Returns again. The only memorable thing about BR for me is Catwoman and Danny Elfman (as usual), but I didn't like the film overall.

I do agree that Iron Man 1 is better and more memorable, but Iron Man 2 was a great continuation of the story. I would say its not a good standalone story, but many people liked Iron Man 2 who hadn't even seen Iron Man 1 including many of my friends.

The performances and action pretty much saved this film, but narratively, Justin Theroux did a terrible job with the script. I can already tell that Favreau will do a better job with IM3 because this feels like more like an average 2nd film in a trilogy narratively than anything else.

People keeps saying that the film was a bridge to the Avengers. I disagree. I think its more a bridge to IM3 than the Avengers.

[Octoberist]

Spider-man 3 is only cool if you're too young to realize how bad it is compared to the first two.

[Happy Jack]

Spider-man 3 is only cool if you're too young to realize how bad it is compared to the first two.

Yes.

Originally Posted by The Batman

Its funny. Fillmakers do these things for fans, try to replicate the comics in movies, and then fans complain. Sigh

The last thing I would want a filmmaker to do is to put something in a movie just to please the fans.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

I'm just saying you're in the minority on this, even among those who think IM2 is not as good as the first movie.

I highly doubt I am in the minority. Maybe among fanboys right now (upon IM2's release), but critics mostly respected BR and adored his superhero films as the most artistically interesting and the benchmark for many of them prior to Christopher Nolan. The mainstream? They really don't care about superhero movies unless they're opening that summer or are on DVD that winter (save perhaps for TDK). And for those who care or remember? Batman Returns stays in the mind to this day and is strikingly memorable in the images and emotions it conjured up. The aesthetics (cinematography, art direction, costumes, music, etc.) at the very least are quite memorable as are the performances of Pffeifer, DeVito and to a lesser extent Keaton and Walken.

I really don't think people will remember IM2 that fondly or speak about it that much. It reminds me a lot of Men in Black II. A film that tried to give audiences a lot more of what they liked in the first one, but it had a weak story and really didn't prove why it should exist that well beyond audience goodwill and studio's financial desires for a sequel. And nobody will really remember it by next summer. And I doubt the fan community will really talk about it in five years (as they don't really tlak about Daredevil, Fantastic Four, etc. now).

But this is all guessing.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

Yeah, but as I explained in another thread, there was no point in the film where I though Batman was actually did something heroic. Burton decided to use the film to comment on his ideals of hopelessness than adding any shred of light to the film.

I have no problem with Batman failing, and TDK did it way better than Batman Returns did. While Batman did fail several times during TDK, he was still heroic in doing so and in the end offered a shred of light in the end. It was a weak Batman film, and an okay Burton film.


Iron Man 2 while not as good as the first is defintely not as Bad as FF2 (seriously?), and while not as narratively strong as TDK, Spiderman 2, and X2, the performances, action, and overall fun factor of Iron Man 2 is what puts it over the top and up there with those films.

Plus like I said earlier, Iron Man is a better film Batman Begins, Spiderman, and X-men, so I don't know why people say its not as good as the other sequels because it didn't exceed the Iron Man 1 when Iron Man 1 is considered by some people as good as TDK, Spiderman 2, and X2.

To each their own. I agree that TDK is not as dark or depressing as BR (which is saying something) because he has a minor triumph at the end. Even if he has to lie to the public to beat the Joker and save Harvey, he still half-wins and is heroic. Burton's Batman has no real arc in BR other than realizing that there may not be any heroes and he could just be a nutjob in a suit. A pretty dark revelation on Christmas Eve.

But that was the point. I don't need my Batman to be triumphant and I think the hero basically failing at the end and realizing his own limitations in a sort of existential-crisis sort of way the ballsiest ending to a superhero film to date. And I enjoyed that. TDK is a much better movie (than any superhero or comic based film for that matter), but Burton did something pretty unique and it worked (unlike Ang Lee's own muddled existential-Oedipal superhero movie).


And while I thought IM2 was "only OK," putting on the same level as the Fantastic Four films is low. While it may be as forgettable as those movies, it has a much better director and cast that makes the film far more entertaining. My opinion of course.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

I highly doubt I am in the minority. Maybe among fanboys right now (upon IM2's release), but critics mostly respected BR and adored his superhero films as the most artistically interesting and the benchmark for many of them prior to Christopher Nolan. The mainstream? They really don't care about superhero movies unless they're opening that summer or are on DVD that winter (save perhaps for TDK). And for those who care or remember? Batman Returns stays in the mind to this day and is strikingly memorable in the images and emotions it conjured up. The aesthetics (cinematography, art direction, costumes, music, etc.) at the very least are quite memorable as are the performances of Pffeifer, DeVito and to a lesser extent Keaton and Walken.

I really don't think people will remember IM2 that fondly or speak about it that much. It reminds me a lot of Men in Black II. A film that tried to give audiences a lot more of what they liked in the first one, but it had a weak story and really didn't prove why it should exist that well beyond audience goodwill and studio's financial desires for a sequel. And nobody will really remember it by next summer. And I doubt the fan community will really talk about it in five years (as they don't really tlak about Daredevil, Fantastic Four, etc. now).

But this is all guessing.

I agree. Whether people hate it or love it, BR is memorable. IM2 isn't. It's not bad by any means, it's just a boring movie with good production values and good acting. There have been a lot of movies like it produced over the years. Bottom line is the writing wasn't up to snuff. It wasn't a compelling story for the most part.

[Tony Stark]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

I agree. Whether people hate it or love it, BR is memorable. IM2 isn't. It's not bad by any means, it's just a boring movie with good production values and good acting. There have been a lot of movies like it produced over the years. Bottom line is the writing wasn't up to snuff. It wasn't a compelling story for the most part.

How is that possibly definable after a movie has been out for two weeks? I'll admit that it's probably not as compelling as the first movie. To say that it was boring is a gross overstatement.

I also disagree that Batman Returns is memorable, especially compared to the first. For those around in the summer of '89, that was Batman's year, way more than in 2008. You couldn't go a city block without finiding a poster of the bat signal on a poster or a bill board, the stores were chalk full of Batman T-shirts.

For a movie to be memorable you'd think it would have better DVD and VHS sales from back in the day. Batman Returns is the essence of forgettable.

[Son of Coul]

I agree, when considering superhero movies, BR is literally forgotten by me. And it's definitely the least talked about Batman movie irl for me. People talk about the impact of the first, how bad B&R was, and hell even BF is mentioned sometimes because Jim Carrey was oddly in it. But the only time I've ever heard someone bring up BR irl is when it was on tv one day and my dad just offhandedly said "Never really liked this movie." And how you can define how memorable a movie is two weeks after its release is just... well, you can't.

[Spider-Fan]

Before I move on to a post about a topic I am still in, let me comment on some of the above things I read:

Liking BR and SM3 doesn't make anyone dumb. Someone said earlier liking BR invalidated their opinion, and someone said only people who like SM3 are people too young to remember how much better the first 2 are. I like both of these movies, and I find comments like these VERY offensive, and I'm tired of seeing them. I don't go out of my way to insult ANYONE for liking a movie, and to be lumped as an idiot/lesser film goer for my opinion is stupid, and if it happens again, I will report your posts.

Be civil

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

That was the point. She was there to spy, not steal the scenes.

She had a reason. SHIELD needed someone to spy on Stark now that Coulson has compromised his identity. And who could have been better than a super spy hottie that would instantly get Tony's attention and he would give her a job next to him?
She reported back to Fury about everything going on, so they came when Tony lost it, and then she helped him by rebooting WM.

This was what she did, but for someone doing things this minimal and having no real point to the story/themes of the film, she got way too much screentime. She either needed a minor role or character development. Just look at when she goes to Hammer's building. She beats up henchmen that are in NO WAY connected to what is going on at the Stark Expo. She does all this just to break into a computer, and with her tech skills she could have done that at the Expo and saved the film the time of having to get her to Hammer Industries. That whole fight was a distraction from the main story, and led to the Vanko vs Iron Man/War Machine fight being shorter. For a charcter with a minimal role, this is too much.

Why, why, why, why?
Why does a character need to change the protagonist to be in the movie? Did the Chechen or Maroni do that to Batman? She had a role and her role was to spy and help Tony. And she did that. She was part of SHIELD along with Coulson and Fury and SHIELD had a bigger role this time. Dont look at her as "Natasha", but as Shield. It could have been any other agent because the plot required someone to be there and report to Fury so that he could come and save Tony later.

Maroni and Chechen DID change Batman! They are the reason the alliance between Dent/Gordon/Batman was formed in the first place. They were formed to fight the mob alliance, so yes...they did change the protagonist. They gave him a purpose, so their screentime wasn't wasted. They also funded the Joker, which directly effected Batman...he had the resources and weapons to cause Chaos. You keep bringing up Maroni and Chechen to validate Widow doing next to nothing to move the plot/themes forward, and this is a very bad example because they did.

I can't look at her as a random SHIELD agent because the film emphasises her more than a normal agent. Had this character been namge Sarah Jones, I would have the same problems with her. It is not that she is Black Widow. It is that her character as a whole didn't do anything to move the film forward. She was a distraction, not an addition.

Not every character has to tell us about his/her childhood or affect the protagonist.
But she was just there spying while other things were happening. She didnt take the scenes to herself and do nothing with them. She was there in the background with Happy while Tony was talking with Pepper, she was there to help Pepper leave the mansion when Tony was duking it out with Rhodes, she was there when Tony and Pepper were talking in her office, etc.
She never had a scene to herself other than two occasions:
1) "How would you celebrate your last birthday?"
2) Her fight scene.

Learning about a character doesn't mean telling us your life story. It means have character revealing moments. There is a big difference between the two meanings. You keep saying I want her to tell us her life story, but that is not what I am saying. I'm saying she needed a character revealing moment.

Examples of character revealing momentsin the IM films:

-Yinsen in the cave sacrifices his life for Tony Stark, and reveals his family died. Those would be the words, but what explains the action? I would argue it was to make up for not being able to save his family, so he tried saving someone he could.

-Fury tells Stark his father was a founder of SHIELD and says he knew him. We know something about him now.

Does Black Widow have moments like this? No. She just stands around, asks if her job in the office is done, and occassionally shoves people. She had just as much screentime as Hammer did, but she doesn't do anything with it.

[Spider-Fan]

Originally Posted by HappyPalooza

I agree, when considering superhero movies, BR is literally forgotten by me. And it's definitely the least talked about Batman movie irl for me. People talk about the impact of the first, how bad B&R was, and hell even BF is mentioned sometimes because Jim Carrey was oddly in it. But the only time I've ever heard someone bring up BR irl is when it was on tv one day and my dad just offhandedly said "Never really liked this movie." And how you can define how memorable a movie is two weeks after its release is just... well, you can't.

While I like BR, I agree it is the least rememorable of the series. I remember back when I was buying the DVDs, BR was the hardest to find because it was the least in demand. I am so glad they made that 8 Disc Box-Set for those 4 films

While I love BR, to the GA, it is the least memorable.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

To say that it was boring is a gross overstatement.

That is my opinion of what I watched in the theater last week. It bored me so it is not an overstatement for me to call the movie boring. It's me telling the truth about my own feelings on the movie. Whether it's remembered by the general public, we'll see.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

To each their own. I agree that TDK is not as dark or depressing as BR (which is saying something) because he has a minor triumph at the end. Even if he has to lie to the public to beat the Joker and save Harvey, he still half-wins and is heroic. Burton's Batman has no real arc in BR other than realizing that there may not be any heroes and he could just be a nutjob in a suit. A pretty dark revelation on Christmas Eve.

But that was the point. I don't need my Batman to be triumphant and I think the hero basically failing at the end and realizing his own limitations in a sort of existential-crisis sort of way the ballsiest ending to a superhero film to date. And I enjoyed that. TDK is a much better movie (than any superhero or comic based film for that matter), but Burton did something pretty unique and it worked (unlike Ang Lee's own muddled existential-Oedipal superhero movie).


And while I thought IM2 was "only OK," putting on the same level as the Fantastic Four films is low. While it may be as forgettable as those movies, it has a much better director and cast that makes the film far more entertaining. My opinion of course.

The problem I had with Batman Returns is that it was like Batman wasn't even trying to be a hero a times. I could accept that he tried and failed, but I just didn't get the feeling that I was looking at a hero, just a nutjob in a suit, like you said.

Despite how dark Batman is and how many things he lost in his life, one thing Batman isn't is hopeless. He offers hope in a town ridden by crime in the worst of situations. I just couldn't like Burton's "art", and I'm a fan of Tim Burton (most of the time). I couldn't stand that he used Batman as a symbol for hopelessness and insanity instead of the ideals Batman actually stands for.



And my opinion on Iron Man 2 being memorable: at this point, despite the fact that I liked the film, i wouldn't put it as memorable. But if IM3 and The Avengers are successful, I can see this film becoming more memorable, but as a standalone film, this film feels like LOTR: The Two Towers.

Like I said previously, It feels like he's setting up for something even bigger, but I don't think its as big a bridge for The Avengers is it is for Iron Man 3.

[danoyse]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

I agree. Whether people hate it or love it, BR is memorable. IM2 isn't. It's not bad by any means, it's just a boring movie with good production values and good acting. There have been a lot of movies like it produced over the years. Bottom line is the writing wasn't up to snuff. It wasn't a compelling story for the most part.

Memorable? I think that's a matter of opinion. I haven't seen Batman Returns since it's opening night in 1992. I hated it then, and have had no desire to watch it since.

IM2 I've seen twice already. No, it didn't rewrite the book on how superhero movies should be made, but it was a lot of fun. I loved it.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by danoyse

Memorable? I think that's a matter of opinion. I haven't seen Batman Returns since it's opening night in 1992. I hated it then, and have had no desire to watch it since.

I said memorable whether people loved or hated it. You hated it and you still remember hating it. That's my point. It was a polarizing movie.

[Infinity9999x]

I don't think IM2 is forgettable at all. But pretty much for one reason: Robert Downey Jr.

Honestly, I'm just really surprised at all the people jumping on this movie, because I really don't see any difference from the first. IM would have been forgettable had RDJ not been cast as Stark as well.

But to each their own. I had a blast watching the movie. It was very fun. I didn't go there expecting to watch a movie with a TDK, Watchmen, or Road to Perdition tone, I expected to watch a fun, entertaining movie driven by the quirky performance of RDJ. And that's what I got.

Also, I'm 21 today

[Mr. Earle]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

This was what she did, but for someone doing things this minimal and having no real point to the story/themes of the film, she got way too much screentime. She either needed a minor role or character development. Just look at when she goes to Hammer's building. She beats up henchmen that are in NO WAY connected to what is going on at the Stark Expo. She does all this just to break into a computer, and with her tech skills she could have done that at the Expo and saved the film the time of having to get her to Hammer Industries. That whole fight was a distraction from the main story, and led to the Vanko vs Iron Man/War Machine fight being shorter. For a charcter with a minimal role, this is too much.

Tony and Jarvis couldnt hack into Vanko's computer, how could Natasha do that from a simple computer set at the expo for simple tasks?

I can't look at her as a random SHIELD agent because the film emphasises her more than a normal agent. Had this character been namge Sarah Jones, I would have the same problems with her. It is not that she is Black Widow. It is that her character as a whole didn't do anything to move the film forward. She was a distraction, not an addition.

Yes, Fury should have used his magic ball to spy on Stark.

I'm saying she needed a character revealing moment.

Does Black Widow have moments like this? No. She just stands around, asks if her job in the office is done, and occassionally shoves people. She had just as much screentime as Hammer did, but she doesn't do anything with it.

I think its part of her character that she doesnt share anything. When Tony asked her what she'd do to celebrate her last birthday she tried to give a diplomatic answer that wouldnt reveal anything about her, when she could just as easily have said "have sex" and made no difference to Tony's knowledge of her character.

Have you seen House? If so, you'd know Dr.Hadley, or "13". She kept her name secret and all her personal details a secret until well into her second season into the show. It was part of the character.

In the end, you could take Natasha's birthday reply as a character revealing moment, but even if it isnt it doesnt matter to me. I am sure that we will see more of her in the future and learn more about her. But even if we dont, part of her character would be her secrecy and reservations about opening up to people.

[danoyse]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

I don't think IM2 is forgettable at all. But pretty much for one reason: Robert Downey Jr.

Honestly, I'm just really surprised at all the people jumping on this movie, because I really don't see any difference from the first. IM would have been forgettable had RDJ not been cast as Stark as well.

But to each their own. I had a blast watching the movie. It was very fun. I didn't go there expecting to watch a movie with a TDK, Watchmen, or Road to Perdition tone, I expected to watch a fun, entertaining movie driven by the quirky performance of RDJ. And that's what I got.

Also, I'm 21 today

Happy Birthday!!

And I totally agree - one of the things I loved about IM2 was that it wasn't some *important* superhero message movie. It was just a fun movie. It was almost a relief to watch after some of the comics movies I've seen in the last few years. I can't wait to see it again.

[Mr. Earle]

@ BR being memorable.

It was a Tim Burton movie about a pocket universe full of burtonesque monsters and some batman characters. Of course its more memorable than some other film. That doesnt make it any good because that would make B&R a masterpiece.

tl;dr BR was a piece of **** because Burton was let loose to film whatever was on his mind. Its a wonder Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp werent in it!


Also, happy birthday Infinity!!!

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by danoyse

Happy Birthday!!

And I totally agree - one of the things I loved about IM2 was that it wasn't some *important* superhero message movie. It was just a fun movie. It was almost a relief to watch after some of the comics movies I've seen in the last few years. I can't wait to see it again.

I loved the tone of the first movie and I appreciate the tone of the second movie, but the story is boring. This has NOTHING to do with whether it has a "serious message." I couldn't care less about that. I do care about whether the story is actually entertaining to me or not. The first one was incredibly entertaining, arguably the best superhero origin story in movie history. This one was just "blah."