IM3 a "continuation" of the previous movies good idea or horrible?

[Iron_Stark]

Avengers references were barely in 1% of the movie.

I wish one person that makes these ridiculous exaggerations would list all the scenes with all these Avengers references this movie was supposedly littered with.

[kedrell]

I completely agree. 30%? That's complete BS.

[Son of Coul]

I'm almost ready to sit down and clock the amount of time Avengers references take up in the movie, but people would just flip it around anyway.

One thing that's also always bothered me is people claiming SHIELD was shoehorned into the movie, when they had much more of a reason to appear than in IM1.

[Iron_Stark]

I'll do it for you, two times, once at the donut shop, just a quick line by Tony and then at the very end when the movie was pretty much over.

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by Timstuff

I'm just worries that everything that was wrong with Iron Man 2 is going to be amplified now that Favraeu's out of the way. Favraeu didn't like having these character inclusions imposed on him, and the audience did not like the results of him having to make the movie revolve around promoting the Avengers. Instead of Marvel listening and saying "OK, next time we'll back off. As long as Iron Man 3 does not conflict with our plans for the Avengers movie, you can do whatever you want with it," they went "No, you need to put in even MORE Avengers stuff, because this movie is going to be the bridge between Avengers and Avengers 2! Obviously the reason people didn't like Iron Man 2 as much as the first one is because it needed MORE stuff in it that is not relevant to Iron Man's character!"

How much longer will it be before Marvel ends up using ridiculous characters in these movies that can't even exist without slamming multiple franchises together, like Iron Patriot?



Let's see... He's a Spider-Man villain who stole Tony Stark's armor and decided to paint it like Captain America's costume. He can't even exist unless you make references to three different Marvel franchises. His origin is so convoluted that I could just see Marvel frothing at the mouth at the possibility of using him in their films, because that means you have to watch films from two other franchises just for his existence to make sense. The only thing preventing it is that Marvel does not have direct control over Spider-Man, which I'm sure they regret immensely (at this point though, I'm kind of indifferent since I'm pretty sure that once Raimi left, the franchise was going to get a screwed up reboot whether by Marvel or Sony).

It's so interesting reading some of this old stuff after the fact. I trust that Marvel will be focusing their solo sequels on individual heroes, given all the assurances Kevin Feige has given. I will be interested to see them strike a good balance between solo narrative vs. overarching Avengers-related narrative.

As for the Iron Patriot prophecy, nice job Timstuff!

[TomPiltoff]

Originally Posted by Timstuff

I did. If you hadn't seen Iron Man, then he's just some random dude who shows up at the end of Incredible Hulk. I think that the scene should have been after the end credits, because it already felt disconnected with the rest of the film and didn't really have anything to do with bringing resolution to the story. It was probably at Marvel's behest that it was not saved for the end credits easter egg (which was probably the original intention), because they wanted to put Robert Downy Jr. in the commercials in hopes of piggybacking on Iron Man's success.

The movies came out just over a month apart, I'm sure they didn't recut Hulk in that short span.