Iron Man 2 Faverau and RDJ not happy with IM2 (Report)

[I SEE SPIDEY]

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA

It's unbelievable that something could be that...well I don't want an infraction so I'll leave it at that.

 

[topdog1]

Well, it's apparent this blatant lie did it's job. It got people talking and it gives ammunition to those that hate or are jealous of Marvel to back their own feelings. Mission accomplished.

Anyone that's closely followed the production and pre-production knows this is a BS article. Any site reposting it or linking it is doing so for ratings hits only. Favreau clearly stated early in pre-production on Iron Man 2 and he said his schedule won't allow him to do Avengers but he was still staying on to be an executive producer. Why would "Cheap Ole Marvel" want to pay producer fees if they were at odds with anyone? Favreau went over and beyond to promote his film (unlike say Norton). Favreau was as hyped about his film as much as the fans because he knows he delivered excellence.

Ten bucks says that "insider" that started this lie is probably someone from DC/Time Warner trying to trash the success of Marvel movies. We've seen this happen with DC and Marvel many times in the past, it's just going to happen in the movie universe big leagues as well. After all, RDJ has allegedly "dissed" the godlike Nolan twice now. You don't think he's a target for the fanatics now? Let the haters be haters but buying in to the BS only makes them look foolish.

 

[chiefchirpa]

The point is they're doing IM3 after the Avengers (if Disney and Paramount conflict of interest sort out) with less Avengers story interference. I don't know why people are still looking back IM2 with glass half empty view, unless they don't care about IM to begin with and keep coming back here for trolling. IM2 is good enough to pull another sequel. So what if IM2 doesn't make audiences that giddy excited compared to the first movie. Ramp up the quality of the movie and people will show up again & again.

Now IM3 can be as colossal as it can be. It should have 2 superpowered genius going at it. I think that's unprecedented in comic book movies. Most comic book movies only have either brute vs brain as in the case of Superman/Thor, brute vs brute in Hulk, or low powered brain in Batman/Spider-Man. Mandarin vs Iron Man is superpowered brain vs brain. Marvel should bring its A game or else we get another Fantastic Four.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Don't be this naive topdog... there is nothing in that report that isn't 100% plausible. Favreau was always going to involved one way or another. I'm sure he'll have some input in Avengers. Iron Man is the poster boy and they will probably bring him in once a week for suggestions, if not more often. He only said he was not gonna be available after he signed on for Cowboys... yeah it is conceivable that maybe he never wanted to direct Avengers and the article may have misconstrued that, but that Favs quote was only after he was really unavailable. If we learn Favs drops out as a consultant for Avengers, we know this article is 100% true and I wouldn't bet my **** hair that he'll be back for IM3. I can still see RDJ doing it for that final pay check, but the guy is an actor... not a director/producer. He can't work miracles alone.

 

[topdog1]

Don't be this naive topdog... there is nothing in that report that isn't 100% plausible. Favreau was always going to involved one way or another. I'm sure he'll have some input in Avengers. Iron Man is the poster boy and they will probably bring him in once a week for suggestions, if not more often. He only said he was not gonna be available after he signed on for Cowboys... yeah it is conceivable that maybe he never wanted to direct Avengers and the article may have misconstrued that, but that Favs quote was only after he was really unavailable. If we learn Favs drops out as a consultant for Avengers, we know this article is 100% true and I wouldn't bet my **** hair that he'll be back for IM3. I can still see RDJ doing it for that final pay check, but the guy is an actor... not a director/producer. He can't work miracles alone.

We all followed the production and promotion pretty closely. Nothing like what they stated ever showed up.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/10/its-official-ro.html

That's October 2008. Not directing every BEFORE shooting IM2.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/01/iron-man-2.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-high-on-another-kind-of-hit-now-1939537.html

"With his wife serving as executive producer on Iron Man and his long-time friend Jon Favreau as director, it's clear Downey's involvement in the film extends far beyond being its passive star. He discusses casting and character development like a veritable corporate executive"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/10/live-chat-with.html

"The date is daunting. We are making much faster progress than the first time around and have much less to design and fewer casting issues. I am confident that 2010 is achievable if we continue working together as we have for the past few months. It has to be great, though. It has to be great."

Looking back at just a few of those production articles, we now know how much input everyone had and how the film was crafted. If Marvel interfered, they brain-washed two bright minds when they did it. It looked like an intelligent collaboration to me all the way through. NOTHING then or now validates the lies in that one article.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Of course Favs wasn't going to fully commit to Avengers back in 2008 as director... only to sandwich IM2 in between all that. He already thought the two year schedule was pushing it, and he was coming off rocky negotiations to where he almost handed over his walking papers before delivering IM2. To say that money and another measly two year time frame had no bearing in dissuading Favreau into directing Avengers is just ignoring the previous history. And it doesn't discount the idea that Favreau really wanted to direct this had he been given more realistic incentives. No film maker is going to be happy about having to set **** up for future movies they won't even helm or be heavily involved in one way or another, which of course he still might be (latter wise) and this will be all for not if IM3 comes together like we all hope it will.

Now obviously Marvel has granted a level of control to their creative teams.... they wouldn't be bringing in people like Branagh or Johnston if they weren't. The issue people have is that Black Widow was a throw away, Vanko was severely underutilized, and the SHIELD stuff is getting quite annoying. Branagh has gone on record saying it was one of the biggest challenges he's ever had as a director having to incorporate all that into Thor. Now you contrast that with WB's approach. Is GL going to be a JLA setup? Will we get an after credit scene with Clark Kent? No... They want completely stand alone franchises. I'm not saying they are right and Marvel is wrong, but I am saying there is a right way and a wrong way. Going in there and shoving BW and Fury down Favreau's throat is the wrong way of going about it. It is criticized as being one of the weaker elements that drags the entire picture down. This cross pollination has a limit. Hey Marvel... we get it... Avengers is coming out in 2012. How about worrying about it then... not in IM2 or Thor???

 

[Alex Logan]

Ten bucks says that "insider" that started this lie is probably someone from DC/Time Warner trying to trash the success of Marvel movies. We've seen this happen with DC and Marvel many times in the past, it's just going to happen in the movie universe big leagues as well. After all, RDJ has allegedly "dissed" the godlike Nolan twice now. You don't think he's a target for the fanatics now? Let the haters be haters but buying in to the BS only makes them look foolish.

O man... that was a good one. I needed that.

I'm quite sure that the people at DC and Warner Bros. have better things to do then trash the "successs" of Marvel movies. After all I've never read an article where they tried to low ball talent or slamed an actor after a disagreement. In fact, I'm sure that the "trash talkers" at WB are working hard on Batman 3 and Green Lantern. I'm also willing to bet that they will be more "successful" then most of the movies that Marvel has pumped out over the last few years.

If RDJ has been targeted by fans then he has no one to blame but himself. Maybe he should keep his mouth shut and worry about his own films.

You know what's really foolish? Assuming that the people at DC even care enough to start a dumb rumor in the first place.

 

[dark_b]

making a movie 2 years after the original without the script is rushing. its a rush job. this is a fact.

spiderman 2 is IMO a better movie then spiderman 1. but fact is that it was rucshed after the first movie was popular.
i mean WTF guys. its common sense. just because i like SM2 that doesnt change what the movie is. SM2 was made only for the profit when they build an audience with the first movie. SM2 was rushed to get as much profit possible when they had a winner .
to my luck the creative team made a more complex and deeper movie. but the purpose of SM2 was only brute profit .

the same story with X-men 2. just because it sometimes worked that doesnt mean it will work all the time.

yes we will never know for sure what went behind the scenes on. because nooen from the team will infront of the cameras tell the truth. this would be hollywood suicide.

IMO the Avengers movie will be '' Tony Stark & friends''.

 

[Gold Samurai]

You keep stating how there's no proof that they did when its clearly on the screen. You keep asking for evidence to show how the "Avengers" are all over IM2:

Black Widow, the reference to New Mexico, Howard Stark being a founder of SHIELD, Tony Stark being recruited as a consultant for the Avengers...

...how did any of that contribute to the over-arching story of Tony Stark and his personal battle within himself and Ivan Vanko? In addition to his rivalry with Justin Hammer?

You take those elements out of the film, how much of an impact would it have had on the plot? Little to none.

Those Avenger elements (as awesome as they were), frankly contributed almost nothing to the main plot...THAT is why people say the film is just one big Avengers advertisment and probably why RDJ and Faverau had issues with it.

...But whatever, its the writers fault, right?

That really should have been the after credits scene. The moment we get Stark and Fury in the "text book narcissism" scene everything stops

 

[ElMariachi]

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA

You lose. Anybody who respnds with smileys has no argument/point to challenge mine with. Same goes with I SEE SPIDEY with her indirect potshots.

 

[ElMariachi]

Get off your high horse and stop trying to portray the rest of us as some overzealous fanboys with ridiculous expectations.

Marvel meddled in this movie by turning IM2 into a big advertisement for the Avengers. Just as they meddled in "The Incredible Hulk" (THAT IS A FACT.) and just as Avi Arad did in Spider-man 3 by forcing Venom into the storyline.

No, I won't get off my high horse. It's quite obvious that you all did have unrealistic expectations when you are complaining about this of all movies.

And you don't know if they meddled. You are basing this off one blog for goodness sake.

Now they meddled in Incredible Hulk? Good! The movie was excellent. As for Spider Man 3, asking Raimi to put Venom in is not meddling. Spider-Man 3 was one of the most expensive movies in cinema history I believe, the studio SHOULD have a say. This would be like some director assuming he could make the Batman trilogy finale with Madhatter instead of the Riddler. And I am sort of glad they did, if this is even correct, becasue Sandman/Snowboard Goblin would have been terrible. Venom and Spider-Man 3 was only bad because of Raimi. The series showed signs of this as early as Spider-Man 2 with it's over the top romantic angst.

You keep stating how there's no proof that they did when its clearly on the screen. You keep asking for evidence to show how the "Avengers" are all over IM2:

Black Widow, the reference to New Mexico, Howard Stark being a founder of SHIELD, Tony Stark being recruited as a consultant for the Avengers...

...how did any of that contribute to the over-arching story of Tony Stark and his personal battle within himself and Ivan Vanko? In addition to his rivalry with Justin Hammer?

You take those elements out of the film, how much of an impact would it have had on the plot? Little to none.

Those Avenger elements (as awesome as they were), frankly contributed almost nothing to the main plot...THAT is why people say the film is just one big Avengers advertisment and probably why RDJ and Faverau had issues with it.

Black Widow had anything to do with The Avengers now? Funny, I thought was an agent of SHIELD, the same agency that Agent Coulsen worked for. The same agency that was set up in the first film. No complaints about all that though was there?

References to New Mexico? What does that have to do with anything? Nobody aside from the geeks even knew the significance of that. And it was one line, not a plot angle.

Howard Stark was Tony's father. Are you saying he is strictly an Avengers character now? Him being a founder of SHIELD makes sense in this Iron Man movie universe. This had nothing to do with Avengers.

Tony Stark as a consultant was the only scene that could be considered an advertisement for the Avengers (aside from post credit Thor scene). It was at the end of the movie and couldn't possibly affect the plot. It was no worse then Gordon talking about the Joker cards at the end of BB, but of course that wasn't an advertisment for the next Batman movie right?


These things could have been taken out of the story, but it wouldn't have mattered. They were inconsequential aspects to the plot (single sentences, mainly) and didn't really detract from it at all. You are reaching and trying to find things to complain about. You must have had too high of expectations or were looking for an open shot to jab Marvel. Anybody who claims to be a true fan of this series wouldn't be making such ridiculous takes just to pile on a movie that most people liked.

 

[ElMariachi]

Well, it's apparent this blatant lie did it's job. It got people talking and it gives ammunition to those that hate or are jealous of Marvel to back their own feelings. Mission accomplished.

Anyone that's closely followed the production and pre-production knows this is a BS article. Any site reposting it or linking it is doing so for ratings hits only. Favreau clearly stated early in pre-production on Iron Man 2 and he said his schedule won't allow him to do Avengers but he was still staying on to be an executive producer. Why would "Cheap Ole Marvel" want to pay producer fees if they were at odds with anyone? Favreau went over and beyond to promote his film (unlike say Norton). Favreau was as hyped about his film as much as the fans because he knows he delivered excellence.

Ten bucks says that "insider" that started this lie is probably someone from DC/Time Warner trying to trash the success of Marvel movies. We've seen this happen with DC and Marvel many times in the past, it's just going to happen in the movie universe big leagues as well. After all, RDJ has allegedly "dissed" the godlike Nolan twice now. You don't think he's a target for the fanatics now? Let the haters be haters but buying in to the BS only makes them look foolish.

exactly. Why would Marvel pay Favreau an executive producer salary, which is a share of the net profits, if they won't pay him to actually direct the movie? The executive producer gets the highest share of the profits aside from the studio, if I am not mistaken. Favreau could be in for a huge payday here. Not to mention he is basically a boss of the movie and they answer to him.

And I wouldn't think it to be hard for D.C. to pay off somebody to trash this movie and The Avengers. D.C./Batman fanboys are as common as workers during the Great Depression. All they would have to do is offer them a prop from TDK. I don't know, like one of the dog leashes the Chechen used or that champagne glass the Joker pretended to drink out of. Then again, D.C. probally doesn't have to do anything as they get free advertising and people to throw dirt on the competition with the legion of fanboys they have. And whats funny is that they all sound the same. Go on IMDB, IGN, Latino Review, Comic Book Movies, and here to see what I mean. Seriously, the talking points are as common as those used by people affiliated with political parties and protest groups. Don't worry about them though, they just hatin' on The Avengers because the idea is so cool.

 

[Chris B]

I still very much enjoyed IM2, but for me, I'd rate IM1 higher because I think IM2 lacked the depth the first movie had. And I think a lot of that came from a poor handling of the pallidium posioning. Which I think was a good replacement for the alchoholism and was a unique angle in the superhero genre.

Its just that I don't think we saw it take as much of a tole on Stark as we should've and it lacked that sense of urgency. I think he shoud've displayed more physical symptons, one poster's idea of Stark thinking he's finally found a replacement only to fail and breakdown was a good idea and should've been used. Plus, as suggested somehere, if continued use of the armor only speeds up the poisoning, why not show Stark having to constantly suit up to deal with various problems only acccelerating his death?

I think they should've handled Stark dealing with his impending death by consuming tons of alcohol should've been played more seriously. Frankly, I think instead of the house party, they shoud've had Stark have to go save some lives from something, but being totally wasted causes a lot collateral damage still forces Rhodes to take the Mark II and bring in.

The other things are that they should've given Whiplash more to do than just be a glorified mechanic. Plus, I think they could've held off on introducing Black Widow until the Avengers and just have given a bigger role to Coulson.

To sum it up, I still liked the film, but a few things could've been handled better. And regardless of whether this article is true or false, I hope Favreau returns, but not so much for Theroux.

 

[bunk]

I still very much enjoyed IM2, but for me, I'd rate IM1 higher because I think IM2 lacked the depth the first movie had. And I think a lot of that came from a poor handling of the pallidium posioning. Which I think was a good replacement for the alchoholism and was a unique angle in the superhero genre.

Its just that I don't think we saw it take as much of a tole on Stark as we should've and it lacked that sense of urgency. I think he shoud've displayed more physical symptons, one poster's idea of Stark thinking he's finally found a replacement only to fail and breakdown was a good idea and should've been used. Plus, as suggested somehere, if continued use of the armor only speeds up the poisoning, why not show Stark having to constantly suit up to deal with various problems only acccelerating his death?

I think they should've handled Stark dealing with his impending death by consuming tons of alcohol should've been played more seriously. Frankly, I think instead of the house party, they shoud've had Stark have to go save some lives from something, but being totally wasted causes a lot collateral damage still forces Rhodes to take the Mark II and bring in.

The other things are that they should've given Whiplash more to do than just be a glorified mechanic. Plus, I think they could've held off on introducing Black Widow until the Avengers and just have given a bigger role to Coulson.

To sum it up, I still liked the film, but a few things could've been handled better. And regardless of whether this article is true or false, I hope Favreau returns, but not so much for Theroux.

You pretty much read my mind. I don't feel like the party scene really does what it needs to do. I think Tony was certainly in character with how he deals with being poisoned and faces death, but the way it's executed just doesn't really pull you in.

 

[ElMariachi]

I still very much enjoyed IM2, but for me, I'd rate IM1 higher because I think IM2 lacked the depth the first movie had. And I think a lot of that came from a poor handling of the pallidium posioning. Which I think was a good replacement for the alchoholism and was a unique angle in the superhero genre.

Its just that I don't think we saw it take as much of a tole on Stark as we should've and it lacked that sense of urgency. I think he shoud've displayed more physical symptons, one poster's idea of Stark thinking he's finally found a replacement only to fail and breakdown was a good idea and should've been used. Plus, as suggested somehere, if continued use of the armor only speeds up the poisoning, why not show Stark having to constantly suit up to deal with various problems only acccelerating his death?

I think they should've handled Stark dealing with his impending death by consuming tons of alcohol should've been played more seriously. Frankly, I think instead of the house party, they shoud've had Stark have to go save some lives from something, but being totally wasted causes a lot collateral damage still forces Rhodes to take the Mark II and bring in.

The other things are that they should've given Whiplash more to do than just be a glorified mechanic. Plus, I think they could've held off on introducing Black Widow until the Avengers and just have given a bigger role to Coulson.

To sum it up, I still liked the film, but a few things could've been handled better. And regardless of whether this article is true or false, I hope Favreau returns, but not so much for Theroux.

yeah, I think that could have been better if they did it that way. I forget which comic it was, but drunk Iron Man was confronted by some villian and he flew off the handle. He almost killed some innocent bystander with a lightpole or something, but the villian saved the person. Something like that would have been more powerful and they could have used Rhodey in the Mark II to stop.

They played that scene for laughs a bit too much. It wasn't bad and I still liked it, but it could have been better. Maybe in a more public location? I liked the increasing seriousness of the IM/WM fight though and felt it was more real as it went on.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Why shouldn't they be happy with it? This is the most asinine argument (no offense) that people are making on here. I already pointed out that they have practically the same amount of time to work on Iron Man 2 as they did Iron Man 1. This movie was probally much more organized than the first. The only thing they should be disapointed about is bringing on a comedy writer rather than one who is more adept at writing drama. Robert Downey Jr. lobbied to have Theroux as writer of this movie based on Tropic Thunder, which scored him an Oscar nomination. Marvel and Favreau gave him what he wanted, so there is nothing he can be upset about in regards to this movie.

This was not Marvel's fault. And for godsake, the movie wasn't even that bad to be pointing fingers! Sheesh.....all of us liked the movie, but some were slightly disapointed in some regards (minor issues, really). Personally, this is more the fault of fanboy expectations being so high for this movie that it had to be TDK to not disapoint. You hit the nail on the head---they can't have Iron Man 2, Thor, and Cap all in the same year.

As for Black Widow, she wasn't useless. She wasn't intended to be a major, important character in this movie. Just a sexy right hand of both Fury and Stark who could fight. The final Vanko fight didn't suck, it just wasn't long enough. The fight itself was great.

Black Widow literally does nothing. The only true character moment she had was her saying she'd do whatever she wanted if she knew she was dying. She was a distraction. That whole scene where she beats up guards to get to Vanko accomplished what? She could have just did that hacking stuff on the Stark computers. No unnecessary action piece needed, and more money for the actual final fight (which was rushed and needed to be longer). Widow was in this solely so she wouldn't be new in Avengers. Coulson could have filled her role. Fury has little screentime, but he isn't wasted. She has a lot, but is totally wasted.

Again, I don't hate IM2 by any stretch, but I do recognize where it was flawed. IM1 was in production much longer than IM2. IM1 had been in the pipeline over many years, so more time went into actually getting it made. IM2 was rushed into production. 2 year sequel schedule can work, but in IM2's case, the rushed nature is present.

You pretty much read my mind. I don't feel like the party scene really does what it needs to do. I think Tony was certainly in character with how he deals with being poisoned and faces death, but the way it's executed just doesn't really pull you in.

I think that plotline was handled mostly well. The only thing I wish it had more of was the father portion of that plot. I think that needed more time, but that subplot doesn't suck as is. I think Vanko was the biggest plot point that needed more time.

 

[Johnny Drama]

It's unbelievable that something could be that...well I don't want an infraction so I'll leave it at that.

No man. Go with these feelings. Doooo it.

 

[bunk]

Black Widow literally does nothing. The only true character moment she had was her saying she'd do whatever she wanted if she knew she was dying. She was a distraction. That whole scene where she beats up guards to get to Vanko accomplished what? She could have just did that hacking stuff on the Stark computers. No unnecessary action piece needed, and more money for the actual final fight (which was rushed and needed to be longer). Widow was in this solely so she wouldn't be new in Avengers. Coulson could have filled her role. Fury has little screentime, but he isn't wasted. She has a lot, but is totally wasted.

Just a pet peeve of mine: You can't say BW widow "literally" did nothing and then go on to list the things she did.

I think that plotline was handled mostly well. The only thing I wish it had more of was the father portion of that plot. I think that needed more time, but that subplot doesn't suck as is. I think Vanko was the biggest plot point that needed more time.

Those two plot lines are important—and TDK is of course an example of what a great villain can do for a movie—but at the end of the day, Stark is the main character, and his the story of him dealing with his impending death really has to be executed well.

 

[Alex Logan]

And I wouldn't think it to be hard for D.C. to pay off somebody to trash this movie and The Avengers. D.C./Batman fanboys are as common as workers during the Great Depression. All they would have to do is offer them a prop from TDK. I don't know, like one of the dog leashes the Chechen used or that champagne glass the Joker pretended to drink out of. Then again, D.C. probally doesn't have to do anything as they get free advertising and people to throw dirt on the competition with the legion of fanboys they have. And whats funny is that they all sound the same. Go on IMDB, IGN, Latino Review, Comic Book Movies, and here to see what I mean. Seriously, the talking points are as common as those used by people affiliated with political parties and protest groups. Don't worry about them though, they just hatin' on The Avengers because the idea is so cool.

Yep, you're right! It's all a conspiracy by DC and Marvel hating fanboys!



Good gravy man, do you know how desperate and pathetic your argument is getting?

 

[topdog1]

exactly. Why would Marvel pay Favreau an executive producer salary, which is a share of the net profits, if they won't pay him to actually direct the movie? The executive producer gets the highest share of the profits aside from the studio, if I am not mistaken. Favreau could be in for a huge payday here. Not to mention he is basically a boss of the movie and they answer to him.

And I wouldn't think it to be hard for D.C. to pay off somebody to trash this movie and The Avengers. D.C./Batman fanboys are as common as workers during the Great Depression. All they would have to do is offer them a prop from TDK. I don't know, like one of the dog leashes the Chechen used or that champagne glass the Joker pretended to drink out of. Then again, D.C. probally doesn't have to do anything as they get free advertising and people to throw dirt on the competition with the legion of fanboys they have. And whats funny is that they all sound the same. Go on IMDB, IGN, Latino Review, Comic Book Movies, and here to see what I mean. Seriously, the talking points are as common as those used by people affiliated with political parties and protest groups. Don't worry about them though, they just hatin' on The Avengers because the idea is so cool.

I'm not even talking about something as grand as a "pay off." Think about it. Being more of a Marvel Man than anything, if I ran a site or wrote for a site my own natural proclivities would shine through. It happens in real media, why wouldn't it happen with online terds??? If I saw an opportunity to bash something that annoyed me or hold down something I perceive as competition, I'd take a few leaps in logic and "report" an exaggeration at best or most likely a lie. Plausible deniability... "it might be true" would be my defense. That happens all the time.

BTW- I think the Black Widow was handled perfectly. Any more screen time and the film would've been too bogged down. Her storming of Hammer Industries added to what could be considered the best third act in comic adaptation history.

 

[Alex Logan]

I'm not even talking about something as grand as a "pay off." Think about it. Being more of a Marvel Man than anything, if I ran a site or wrote for a site my own natural proclivities would shine through. It happens in real media, why wouldn't it happen with online terds??? If I saw an opportunity to bash something that annoyed me or hold down something I perceive as competition, I'd take a few leaps in logic and "report" an exaggeration at best or most likely a lie. Plausible deniability... "it might be true" would be my defense. That happens all the time.

BTW- I think the Black Widow was handled perfectly. Any more screen time and the film would've been too bogged down. Her storming of Hammer Industries added to what could be considered the best third act in comic adaptation history.

Someone's not biased in anyway way.

 

[topdog1]

Someone's not biased in anyway way.

That's EXACTLY my point. Bias shows up all around the net. You're guilty, I'm guilty but at least I use my head and acknowledge it and can see it when it rears its head. If it takes a flat out confession for you to see it then I suggest you look harder at everything you read.

 

[LostSon88]

No, I won't get off my high horse. It's quite obvious that you all did have unrealistic expectations when you are complaining about this of all movies.

I wanted a clear and concise storyline...unrealistic? I THINK NOT.

And you don't know if they meddled. You are basing this off one blog for goodness sake.

Now they meddled in Incredible Hulk? Good! The movie was excellent.

Oh yes, I don't know they meddled...I mean, never mind the fact that they've done it before with TIH. Yeah, you're right. Only a moron would ever consider that they may have actually done it again.

As for Spider Man 3, asking Raimi to put Venom in is not meddling. Spider-Man 3 was one of the most expensive movies in cinema history I believe, the studio SHOULD have a say.

Not if they trust their director. TDK wasn't exactly done on an independent films budget but there were never any reports of Chris Nolan receiving notes from WB.

This would be like some director assuming he could make the Batman trilogy finale with Madhatter instead of the Riddler.

Yes, because as we all know, Ra's Al Gaul was WBs #1 villain to use for Batman Begins, right? Doesn't matter what villain they use as long as the director is passionate enough for the character, he can make it work.

And I am sort of glad they did, if this is even correct, becasue Sandman/Snowboard Goblin would have been terrible. Venom and Spider-Man 3 was only bad because of Raimi. The series showed signs of this as early as Spider-Man 2 with it's over the top romantic angst.

How exactly did Spider-Man 2 show signs of decline when its rated HIGHER then the first film by so many?

Black Widow had anything to do with The Avengers now? Funny, I thought was an agent of SHIELD, the same agency that Agent Coulsen worked for. The same agency that was set up in the first film. No complaints about all that though was there?

Maybe because his influence was much more subtle in the first one as opposed to IM2 where where SHIELD seemed to take center stage?

References to New Mexico? What does that have to do with anything? Nobody aside from the geeks even knew the significance of that. And it was one line, not a plot angle.

And it contributed what to Tony's story? Exactly.

Howard Stark was Tony's father. Are you saying he is strictly an Avengers character now? Him being a founder of SHIELD makes sense in this Iron Man movie universe. This had nothing to do with Avengers.

Again, him being connected to SHIELD had what to do with Tony's main arc...other than to establish that Howard had worked with SHIELD and Nick Fury in the past.

Tony Stark as a consultant was the only scene that could be considered an advertisement for the Avengers (aside from post credit Thor scene). It was at the end of the movie and couldn't possibly affect the plot. It was no worse then Gordon talking about the Joker cards at the end of BB, but of course that wasn't an advertisment for the next Batman movie right?

Yes, because hinting at the next villain for a sequel is exactly the same as hinting at an upcoming spin-off film.

Again...

These things could have been taken out of the story, but it wouldn't have mattered. They were inconsequential aspects to the plot (single sentences, mainly) and didn't really detract from it at all.

It was all unnecessary fluff that didn't enhance the story or plot. Just a bunch of wink and nods to fanboys. Which I don't mind, but sometimes to much of a good thing, is bad.

What are you NOT understanding?!

You are reaching and trying to find things to complain about. You must have had too high of expectations or were looking for an open shot to jab Marvel. Anybody who claims to be a true fan of this series wouldn't be making such ridiculous takes just to pile on a movie that most people liked.

...Hey genius, in case you missed it. I've stated numerous times that I LIKE Iron Man 2. This isn't some whiny DC fanboy rant...I LIKE IT. But it could've been a much 'tighter' story if they cut the fluff and focused on Tony Stark, Ivan Vanko, Justin Hammer and their story.

That's all i'm saying.

...but you still aren't gonna get it so, rant away.

 

[CaptainClown]

Hater my arse. I rated IM1 a 8/10, which is the highest grade I've ever given any superhero movie. The notion that I'm a biased hater is a crock of BS. IM2 was a 5/10 for me, which isn't the worst movie ever and certainly not a terrible movie. I agree with your point about it not being anywhere near as bad as Spidey 3. IM2 was just very boring to me. That's it.

IM2 had a bad case of Fanism. too much fanboy interference.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I still very much enjoyed IM2, but for me, I'd rate IM1 higher because I think IM2 lacked the depth the first movie had. And I think a lot of that came from a poor handling of the pallidium posioning. Which I think was a good replacement for the alchoholism and was a unique angle in the superhero genre.

Its just that I don't think we saw it take as much of a tole on Stark as we should've and it lacked that sense of urgency. I think he shoud've displayed more physical symptons, one poster's idea of Stark thinking he's finally found a replacement only to fail and breakdown was a good idea and should've been used. Plus, as suggested somehere, if continued use of the armor only speeds up the poisoning, why not show Stark having to constantly suit up to deal with various problems only acccelerating his death?

I think they should've handled Stark dealing with his impending death by consuming tons of alcohol should've been played more seriously. Frankly, I think instead of the house party, they shoud've had Stark have to go save some lives from something, but being totally wasted causes a lot collateral damage still forces Rhodes to take the Mark II and bring in.

The other things are that they should've given Whiplash more to do than just be a glorified mechanic. Plus, I think they could've held off on introducing Black Widow until the Avengers and just have given a bigger role to Coulson.

To sum it up, I still liked the film, but a few things could've been handled better. And regardless of whether this article is true or false, I hope Favreau returns, but not so much for Theroux.

That was my idea, and something like this would have added a lot more emotional weight to the whole arc, it never felt urgent enough, nor did we get any sense of tension that Tony actually may die. The fact that I came up this idea on the spot and writers couldnt is incredibly frustrating to me.

I totally agree with all your other points as well Chris, this movie should have been a lot better.