Iron Man 3 Disappointments of the Trilogy?

[Deserana]

- The villains. Half way through Iron Man 3 I thought "Kingsley is gonna be remembered for this" and he probably will be. But not in the way people thought they would. Bridges and Rourke's were also very poor.

- The reliance on Downey Jr. In IM3 there were moments where I was thinking t was just Downey Jr and not Stark. In the first and to an extent two Stark felt like someone separate but here they just seemed to meld.

- No ACDC in IM3!

- IM2 felt like a big Avengers preview rather than its own continuation of the Stark Story.

 

[Doc Samson]

ahem...

IM - Iron Monger (and his cheesy lines)
IM2 - Whiplash (and his terrible mk. 2 armor and anticlimactic death)
IM3 - The Mandarin (and all that he could have been)

Pretty much this. IM doesn't necessarily have the greatest rogues gallery by any stretch, but there's enough material there for good cinema. And each time, they managed to drop the ball.

I enjoyed Stane as just Stane, but the Monger itself was underwhelming (not to mention I still struggle to understand how Obadiah could just hop into the suit and know how it functions perfectly while it took Stark numerous challenges to operate his own)

Whiplash, IMO would have been better off as just plain old Crimson Dynamo, but once again, Vanko was interesting in his own right.

And the less said about "Mandarin" the better, smh...

 

[Ironfan72]

really don't have many disappointments from the trilogy, would have loved to see more of Iron Mans rogues, ie: Madam Masque, Living Laser, Ghost, Spymaster, Crimson Dynamo & Titanium Man.
Maybe if a 4th film comes to pass some of these villians will be used, but who knows, up to Marvel and RDJ.
Iron man 2 while good, could have been better if not for what I felt was an Avengers set up, just felt like Blackwidow was put in to introduce her for the Avengers, she really did not add much.
Otherwise, I am thrilled with 3 awesome movies.

 

[mkilban2]

... because Iron Man is a B list hero.

I agree with that, I've brought it up a few times before in discussions with people. As far as I know he wasn't very popular til the first solo film blew up, so I fully understand how they've changed his villains, including Mandarin who is a B+ villain at best, to fit into a realistic movie world. I'm happy with what we've gotten in his 3 solo outings for sure.

 

[Ironfan72]

I agree Iron Man has been a "B" level character, till now, he was really only known by the hard core comic fans, but I have always felt he had the potential to be an A level character given the right nudge and 3 awesome sole films and the lead in Avengers has risen the character to that A level, i hear now kids walking through stores talking about Iron Man over Spider man or Batman or see people wearing Iron man t-shirts, he will never be the Batman or Superman level, but as a fan who followed the character from the late 70's on and not getting the recogniztion is pretty sweet.
As for his rogues, there are many who have potential to be awesome, just been bad writers, plus many of his rogues are cold war era villains who have really not been updated, but many would make great movie villains, Madam Masque, Living Laser, Crimson Dynamo, Spymaster & Ghost

 

[The Caped Knight]

Iron Man
* Iron Man vs. Iron Monger

Iron Man 2
* Whiplash
* not enough War Machine
* Iron Man and War Machine vs. Whiplash (too short)

Iron Man 3
* The Mandarin twist
* Not enough IRON MAN or Iron Patriot in the suit
* Extremis Pepper
* The Clean Slate protocol destruction of the suit
* Removal of the arc-reactor
* lack of new weaponry in armors displayed
* Absence of S.H.I.E.L.D.
* Tony resolution in dealing with his self trauma from New York

 

[Incredible Hans]

I agree with that, I've brought it up a few times before in discussions with people. As far as I know he wasn't very popular til the first solo film blew up, so I fully understand how they've changed his villains, including Mandarin who is a B+ villain at best, to fit into a realistic movie world. I'm happy with what we've gotten in his 3 solo outings for sure.

Yeah, when they started the first Iron Man movie, a big newspaper wrote something like Marvel now using their B-heroes because they are running out of ideas for the "good ones"...

But I disagree with the rest. If Iron Man is a B hero and has only a B or C rogues gallery, the biggest mistake you could make is raping the only villain he has who stands out a little bit.

 

[Adder]

Im going to add another one.

Spoiler

How Tony loses the Arc Reactor in his chest.

After the "terrible privliege" speech that he gives to Banner in "The Avengers" to have it so callously removed at the end of IM3, feels like Tony's speech to Banner was virtually meaningless.

Had he lost it because of his using Extremis (as he did in Iron Man: Armored Adventures) then I would have been alright with that. But just having it removed, for the sake of having it removed, seems to take something away from why he had it in the first place, and the valuable lesson it taught him.

that's because Shane Black was not concerned with the impact his script would have on past marvel films and marvel gives it's writers too much power both on film as they often do in comics. add to that how weak Thor looks compared to the extremis soldiers based on how easy they destroy iron mans armors vs thor's struggle to damage iron man.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

that's because Shane Black was not concerned with the impact his script would have on past marvel films and marvel gives it's writers too much power both on film as they often do in comics. add to that how weak Thor looks compared to the extremis soldiers based on how easy they destroy iron mans armors vs thor's struggle to damage iron man.

oh wow. That is a great point.

-_- thats awful dude. Never thought of that.

 

[Adder]

oh wow. That is a great point.

-_- thats awful dude. Never thought of that.

yep, in Avengers IM takes a full lightning blast from Mjolnir, a direct hit from a thrown mjolnir, a backhand bash from mjolnir as well as several Thor punches and at worst comes out needing a new paint job, not to mention the power up the lightning actually gives him.

meanwhile the extremis soldiers and killian are tearing the MOST ADVANCED ARMORS to shreads, pulling their heads off with ease(yep they are STRONGER THAN THOR) and just generally dismantling them like they were made of butter.

when you think about it I think the extremis soldiers could have demolished the Chitauri just as easy as the avengers did, maybe easier.

this is what happens when you get a non comic respecting writer/director to make your movie.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Disappointments with the trilogy, one movie at a time:
Iron Man - none, it was perfection
Iron Man 2 - firstly, comedy over story, script and action. Secondly, Ivan Vanko had confusing motivations, he "won", why did he go after Tony again? He didn't know that Tony solved his problem
Iron Man 3 - creating an iconic villain and throwing all that away

then a complaint with the whole trilogy: the score isn't consistent. The first movie has awesome music and it was memorable. The second movie had kinda similar music, but not as memorable. The third movie threw even that out of the window and the tone didn't feel like Iron Man anymore

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Rhodey always seemed underdeveloped/flat to me. Both his character and what they do with him in the stories.

It was fine in IM1, but I really expected IM2/3 to step it up considering the amount of screen time he eventually got.

The villains also seemed like B-listers.

 

[mkilban2]

Yeah, when they started the first Iron Man movie, a big newspaper wrote something like Marvel now using their B-heroes because they are running out of ideas for the "good ones"...

But I disagree with the rest. If Iron Man is a B hero and has only a B or C rogues gallery, the biggest mistake you could make is raping the only villain he has who stands out a little bit.

I still don't the he was "raped" I thought the comic character was done justice, it was just spread over 2 different people in the movie. But I guess if I were a comic reader and very familiar with the character then my view would be swayed like many seem to be.

 

[C_Carmichael]

I would have liked to have seen more MK 42 suit action. Even if it had been a scene of Tony out on patrol one night, coming across a jewelry store heist in progress, where he lazily dispatches them with some Replusor and witty quips.

While we mostly saw the MK 42 during the film, it just felt so under-utilized.

Also, I had kinda hoped that during the Iron Army scene, the Mark VII would have been in the mix, and Tony suits up in it as sort of a "good luck charm" as it was the suit which brought him through the Battle of New York, but alas, all we see is the previous suits exploded (not a spoiler, since it's in several trailers) and a bunch of gimic suits that we have no attachment to as the viewers. Heck, even in AEMH, Tony had use for previous suits, and even donned the Mark I once while Ultron controlled the rest of his suits.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I would have liked to have seen more MK 42 suit action. Even if it had been a scene of Tony out on patrol one night, coming across a jewelry store heist in progress, where he lazily dispatches them with some Replusor and witty quips.

While we mostly saw the MK 42 during the film, it just felt so under-utilized.

Also, I had kinda hoped that during the Iron Army scene, the Mark VII would have been in the mix, and Tony suits up in it as sort of a "good luck charm" as it was the suit which brought him through the Battle of New York, but alas, all we see is the previous suits exploded (not a spoiler, since it's in several trailers) and a bunch of gimic suits that we have no attachment to as the viewers. Heck, even in AEMH, Tony had use for previous suits, and even donned the Mark I once while Ultron controlled the rest of his suits.

He did run to the Mark VII during his first panic attack. That's something.

Don't actually understand why he would ever use a damaged armor with 35 unused armors in his vault... Especially with ones that go substantially faster/higher/farther. but hey. I'm no expert.

 

[Adder]

He did run to the Mark VII during his first panic attack. That's something.

Don't actually understand why he would ever use a damaged armor with 35 unused armors in his vault... Especially with ones that go substantially faster/higher/farther. but hey. I'm no expert.

because it's a MAJOR PLOT HOLE. the 35 unused armors had no reason to be in the movie when you look at their significance to the story. it's clear those armors were added just to satisfy the need for a big action climax.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

because it's a MAJOR PLOT HOLE. the 35 unused armors had no reason to be in the movie when you look at their significance to the story. it's clear those armors were added just to satisfy the need for a big action climax.

Well there's that. And also the great marketing opportunity. I'd bet good money it was Marvel's idea (and not Shane Black/Drew Pearce). And I actually applaud Marvel for that idea, it brings out a guilty childhood action figure collectors pleasure in me. But it was under-utilized to say the least. Tony mentioned 4 armor nicknames in this movie. FOUR! bleh. And we'll never see them again. phooey.

 

[jmc]

That is a pretty big plot hole now you've pointed it out to me.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

That is a pretty big plot hole now you've pointed it out to me.

well he probably shouldve initiated operation "house party" at about the same time said house was blowing up...

 

[-JKR-]

One big dissapointment: the lackluster part 2.

 

[NosfeRomas]

^This, Iron Man 2 sucked.


I hated the kid in Iron Man 3, why every other american movie has to have a kid who helps the protagonist ? why ? its stupid.

 

[ctsketch]

My disappointment in the trilogy is.....people's reactions to #3 0.o

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Mine are:

3 movies, 3 different scores. I hate it when this happens, nothing better than going to see a sequel and hearing that familiar music again.

The action in the whole of the trilogy was VERY under-whelming, not one action scene from the trilogy could be put in a top 10 action scenes thread. IM3 had the best action of the trilogy though. Yet Iron Man's best action scenes are in The Avengers.

Not enough risks, once the 1st movie worked, they just amplified what was good to a point that was too far. The sequels had far too much humour, and no were near enough emotional moments like in IM1. They just stuck to the same formula for all 3 movies, though this is a complaint for all Marvel Studios movies for me, not just the IM ones. Take some risks Marvel for crying out loud, its not like that hurt the TDK trilogy, in fact it elevated it, and this is coming from a Marvel fanboy!

 

[kedrell]

Pretty much Iron Man 3 in total. What a disaster.

 

[kedrell]

yep, in Avengers IM takes a full lightning blast from Mjolnir, a direct hit from a thrown mjolnir, a backhand bash from mjolnir as well as several Thor punches and at worst comes out needing a new paint job, not to mention the power up the lightning actually gives him.

meanwhile the extremis soldiers and killian are tearing the MOST ADVANCED ARMORS to shreads, pulling their heads off with ease(yep they are STRONGER THAN THOR) and just generally dismantling them like they were made of butter.

when you think about it I think the extremis soldiers could have demolished the Chitauri just as easy as the avengers did, maybe easier.

this is what happens when you get a non comic respecting writer/director to make your movie.

Well, I've heard some Black apologists theorize that all the new armors in the film are all prototypes and done as a rush job due to Tony's PTSD.

Yeah, I'm not exactly buying that either. The only one they actually say is a prototype is the Mark 42. If they expected us to think that about the others then they needed at least to tell us.