Fox really does ruin everything.

[CelticPredator]

Did eveything you just said....

Or did you forget the first scene when he has his new abilities? Or the tank scene? Or pretty much any action scene in the film?

 

[nogap87]

No, it gets a pass because it is something that is in Stark's character to do. He was drunk and acting like a *****e, showing signs of his self destruction.

Iron Man 2 wasn't bad, and Stark pissing in his armor is very within his character. He's a self-destructive *****e at his worst.

And to be honest, the people who have the biggest problems with Iron Man 2 are the Marvel fans themselves. It is Marvel's weakest movie, but still not a bad one to me or the consensus.

Stark's self destructive *****ery would have been fine if A) It didn't waste CGI money and B) He faced serious consequences for his actions.

The consensus may not think it's a bad movie but they also think it's not as good as the first. Avengers needs to be flipping awesome in order to even justify the direction they took Iron Man 2 in (IMO).

 

[Raiden]

Stark's self destructive *****ery would have been fine if A) It didn't waste CGI money and B) He faced serious consequences for his actions.

I don't understand your first point. As for your second, you didn't consider the loss of Mark II to Rhodey, the fallout he had with Pepper, and Fury basically shown up to assign babysitter to him so he won't keep screwing up as consequences? What else do you want to him to do, lose his company or something?

The consensus may not think it's a bad movie but they also think it's not as good as the first. Avengers needs to be flipping awesome in order to even justify the direction they took Iron Man 2 in (IMO).

IM2 was a disappointing movie, but it wasn't as terrible as us fanboys made it out to be. And The Avengers doesn't need to justify anything.

 

[Snikt]

I don't understand your first point. As for your second, you didn't consider the loss of Mark II to Rhodey, the fallout he had with Pepper, and Fury basically shown up to assign babysitter to him so he won't keep screwing up as consequences? What else do you want to him to do, lose his company or something?



IM2 was a disappointing movie, but it wasn't as terrible as us fanboys made it out to be. And The Avengers doesn't need to justify anything.

+1, Iron Man's better than IM 2, but I have definietly watch IM 2 more than the first one.

But on subject t:, my copy of First Class came in, and I love re-watching it. So I'd say Fox is starting to once again realize what it means to make a good movie.

They had two of the most commercially and critically successful films of the summer. I'm not saying they're excused from the other films, but it's a start.

 

[nogap87]

I don't understand your first point. As for your second, you didn't consider the loss of Mark II to Rhodey, the fallout he had with Pepper, and Fury basically shown up to assign babysitter to him so he won't keep screwing up as consequences? What else do you want to him to do, lose his company or something?

Point #1: I'm sure it wasn't cheap to have the sfx department make it look like RDJ was dancing in his suit.

Point #2: Everything worked out in the end. I don't even recall anyone getting hurt at Stark's party or at the expo.

IM2 was a disappointing movie, but it wasn't as terrible as us fanboys made it out to be. And The Avengers doesn't need to justify anything.

A lot of the movie's shortcomings has to do with it plugging the Avengers. If Avengers sucks than IM2 will be even more disappointing.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Stark's self destructive *****ery would have been fine if A) It didn't waste CGI money and B) He faced serious consequences for his actions.

The consensus may not think it's a bad movie but they also think it's not as good as the first. Avengers needs to be flipping awesome in order to even justify the direction they took Iron Man 2 in (IMO).

To be brutally honest, point 1 is nil and really isn't a reason for why Iron Man 2 isn't good.

Point 2 I'm iffy on. It would've been a good turn for the series, but at the same I don't think he did anything bad enough to warrant serious consquences.

And The Avengers doesn't need to justify anything, especially after Captain America and Thor.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

A lot of the movie's shortcomings has to do with it plugging the Avengers. If Avengers sucks than IM2 will be even more disappointing.

Oh, god, not this debate again. I agree that IM2's writing was weak, but that wasn't even the least of IM2's problems. Two minutes at the end for Avengers stuff does not equal plugging in The Avengers. Nick Fury and BW were both relevant to the plot, and the Avengers plug-in wasn't until the very end.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

what did cap do?

Ran up to a car, jump over a high fence, punched through mini-submarine window underwater, jumped across burned down bridge, took down a tank, etc., etc.

 

[CelticPredator]

^ That.

Also, I liked Iron Man 2. It was fun. Made me laugh. Had some cool action.

Not perfect, and I can feel the studio interference throughout..but whatever.

 

[nogap87]

To be brutally honest, point 1 is nil and really isn't a reason for why Iron Man 2 isn't good.

That wasn't brutal at all.

Point 2 I'm iffy on. It would've been a good turn for the series, but at the same I don't think he did anything bad enough to warrant serious consquences.

In the end, everything just worked out too well for everyone. It didn't leave me wanting to see more of Stark like the first Iron Man did.

And The Avengers doesn't need to justify anything, especially after Captain America and Thor.

Meh. Thor provided a great villain but I thought the Cap movie fell flat.

Oh, god, not this debate again. I agree that IM2's writing was weak, but that wasn't even the least of IM2's problems. Two minutes at the end for Avengers stuff does not equal plugging in The Avengers. Nick Fury and BW were both relevant to the plot, and the Avengers plug-in wasn't until the very end.

Fury gave Stark almost everything he needed to get his life back together. It was a relevant plot point but it was kind of lazy and I thought the presence of Fury and BW was taking up time that could have been better spent on War Machine and Whiplash.

 

[cronosred]

Anyone else find it odd this thread went from complaining about Fox to complaining about Marvel?

 

[nogap87]

Fox doesn't quite suck as hard as they did in 2009.

 

[Slushy]

The X-Men movies are not good as they should've been because all the attention goes on Logan! They might as well have titled them:

Wolverine

Wolverine 2: Wolverine United

Wolverine 3: The Last Stand

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Meh. Thor provided a great villain but I thought the Cap movie fell flat.

Fair enough, though I like both for different reasons. With Cap, like The Rocketeer, it felt like a homage at times to 40s actions movies and serials that I really enjoyed when my uncle showed them to me when I was younger.

Fury gave Stark almost everything he needed to get his life back together. It was a relevant plot point but it was kind of lazy and I thought the presence of Fury and BW was taking up time that could have been better spent on War Machine and Whiplash.

I agree with Fury. I felt that was Deus Ex Machima at its finest, but getting rid of Nick Fury and BW wasn't the problem.

The problem was like you stated, but I'd say more Whiplash than War Machine. The problem was putting Whiplash in that bunker for part of the movie in general. The problem was the script, but not because of The Avengers. I blame Marvel for trying to rush this movie to be released though.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Anyone else find it odd this thread went from complaining about Fox to complaining about Marvel?

It's a dated thread and with the success of X-men First Class, no one has anything to complain about with Fox at this point.

 

[TheDragonator]

WB/DC is becoming the new Fox, based off GL and Jonah Hex.

 

[nogap87]

The problem was like you stated, but I'd say more Whiplash than War Machine. The problem was putting Whiplash in that bunker for part of the movie in general. The problem was the script, but not because of The Avengers. I blame Marvel for trying to rush this movie to be released though.

I agree about Whiplash but War Machine was always going to be the major draw of the movie. He looked cool but all he did was kill a bunch of boring robotic drones with mostly conventional gunfire. It was nowhere near as cool as Stark taking on the terrorist in the first IM.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

WB/DC is becoming the new Fox, based off GL and Jonah Hex.

The only non-X-Men film Fox has that tanked was Elektra. X-Men is Fox's Batman, and while they didn't do great business F4 and DD at least made a profit.

Compare that to WB, who basically have only two modes and deal in extremes.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

But X3 was pretty bad, Wolverine was Awful, Daredevil (at least the theatrical edition) was bad, and so are the 2 FF movies.

If Man of Steel fails, then I'll call them the new Fox.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

I'm talking from profit standpoint. Fox's CBMs, with the exception of Elektra, tend to at least make their money back, even if their quality isn't always up to par. Compare with WB, who either make a killing or get killed.

 

[Raiden]

Point #1: I'm sure it wasn't cheap to have the sfx department make it look like RDJ was dancing in his suit.

So? It was to show that Stark was so far gone that he'd be intoxicated while wearing his Iron Man suit, and endangering those who attended the party.

Point #2: Everything worked out in the end. I don't even recall anyone getting hurt at Stark's party or at the expo.

Of course it didn't. Do you want Stark to actually hurting people? Why would audience cheer for a superhero who'd cause physical harms to innocent bystanders? This is still a superhero movie, not a character study on the consequences of an addict.

A lot of the movie's shortcomings has to do with it plugging the Avengers. If Avengers sucks than IM2 will be even more disappointing.

Avengers actually didn't occupy that much screentime in IM2, and both BW and Fury (and Agent Coulson) all moved Stark's plots along. IM2 has its flaws, but The Avengers tie-in isn't the reason. If they had beef up Whiplash's scenes and gave Varko more depth, eliminate or actually made Justin Hammer a legitimate threat, improved the slow middle part, and made the final battle vs Whiplash a real climatic finish, IM2 would've been a much better movie.

 

[Raiden]

Fox doesn't quite suck as hard as they did in 2009.

The only success Fox has had with Marvel's movies were the first two X-Men movies and the recent First Class, and they all had one person involved: Bryan Singer. If you take him out like you do with Chris Nolan from WB's last decade of DC superhero movies, Fox will be left with X3, Wolverine: XMO, Daredevil, Elektra, and Fantastic Four 1 & 2. By comparison, Marvel Studios proved that their success isn't attributed to just one individual, but rather the company itself. Fox deserves accolades for FC, but let's not forget about all the disappointments they littered along the way.

 

[nogap87]

So? It was to show that Stark was so far gone that he'd be intoxicated while wearing his Iron Man suit, and endangering those who attended the party.

But since he didn't injure anyone the whole scene came off as goofy.

Of course it didn't. Do you want Stark to actually hurting people? Why would audience cheer for a superhero who'd cause physical harms to innocent bystanders? This is still a superhero movie, not a character study on the consequences of an addict.

I'm not asking him to slap Pepper during his little dancefest. Honestly, I just want a better reason for Stark to decide to get his life together other than Fury giving him his dad's unfinished crap.

Avengers actually didn't occupy that much screentime in IM2, and both BW and Fury (and Agent Coulson) all moved Stark's plots along. IM2 has its flaws, but The Avengers tie-in isn't the reason. If they had beef up Whiplash's scenes and gave Varko more depth, eliminate or actually made Justin Hammer a legitimate threat, improved the slow middle part, and made the final battle vs Whiplash a real climatic finish, IM2 would've been a much better movie.

All of those things would have helped the movie immensely. But Fury and BW were an Avengers plug and, to me, took away too much screentime from characters that I was more eager to see. It probably would have helped if they weren't the main reason Stark got his act together.

The only success Fox has had with Marvel's movies were the first two X-Men movies and the recent First Class, and they all had one person involved: Bryan Singer. If you take him out like you do with Chris Nolan from WB's last decade of DC superhero movies, Fox will be left with X3, Wolverine: XMO, Daredevil, Elektra, and Fantastic Four 1 & 2. By comparison, Marvel Studios proved that their success isn't attributed to just one individual, but rather the company itself. Fox deserves accolades for FC, but let's not forget about all the disappointments they littered along the way.

I actually liked X3 and find X1, X2, and Bryan Singer highly overrated. I agree everything else besides FC has been crap. I'm just giving Fox a pass because they managed to make a better comic movie than WB and Marvel (this year). I have little hope for Deadpool being awesome.

 

[Raiden]

All of those things would have helped the movie immensely. But Fury and BW were an Avengers plug and, to me, took away too much screentime from characters that I was more eager to see. It probably would have helped if they weren't the main reason Stark got his act together.

Fury was written that way so he could be influential to the plot, instead of just a cameo and an one-minute ad for The Avengers. Since Marvel Studios movies are connected right now, we should expect someone like Fury to make actual appearances and even be part of the plot, otherwise what is the use for MCU?

I actually liked X3 and find X1, X2, and Bryan Singer highly overrated. I agree everything else besides FC has been crap. I'm just giving Fox a pass because they managed to make a better comic movie than WB and Marvel (this year). I have little hope for Deadpool being awesome.

I think you might be the first person I know that likes X3 more than X2 and even X1.

 

[nogap87]

Fury was written that way so he could be influential to the plot, instead of just a cameo and an one-minute ad for The Avengers. Since Marvel Studios movies are connected right now, we should expect someone like Fury to make actual appearances and even be part of the plot, otherwise what is the use for MCU?

I'd rather have a one-minute ad rather than a Deus Ex Machina as Parker Wayne called him.


I think you might be the first person I know that likes X3 more than X2 and even X1.

Yea. Still not sure what all the hate is about (besides the cringe worthy danger room scene).