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

[dru-zod2501]

I'd think by now some people have heard of what Jon Favreau said in an interview regarding IM3

"Iron Man 3" will be a sequel or continuation of 'Thor,' 'Hulk,' 'Captain America' and 'Avengers.'"

I said this elsewhere, and I'm saying it again here:
Is this the beginning of the revelation of the inherent flaws in building a movie continuity? if the needs of the characters become slave to the needs of continuity? This was a big problem people had with IM2, that it was less about IM and more about setting up the Avengers ( I didn't see it; I loved the film, but w/e) and now, after all that fan grumbling to me this sounds like they're saying proudly, we're doing the same thing again, ONLY LOUDER!

 

[Chris B]

I just took it as meaning that they want to properly show how the emergence of Thor, Cap, and the Avengers affect IM's world. I doubt those two will be full fledged supporting characters in IM3. Though I bet one or both will have a cameo.

 

[MadVillainy]

Well it kind of has to unless they want to set it before The Avengers. The Avengers is kind of a IM3, Thor 2, Cap 2, TIH 2 the way that it continues the story of those characters

 

[Timstuff]

I don't want IM3 to be loaded with references to Avengers and the other Marvel movies. They were already pushing it with Iron Man 2. Iron Man 3, even though it should maintain continuity with the other Marvel movies, needs to first and foremost be about continuing Iron Man's story. When you bring in outside heroes then the story stops feeling like Iron Man, and turns into "Iron Man and his Super Friends." You should be able to watch all 3 Iron Man movies without having seen any other Marvel Movies and still get a complete experience that feels wholly Iron Man, and I think that's what the audience wants.

 

[RealIrOnMaN]

I don't want IM3 to be loaded with references to Avengers and the other Marvel movies. They were already pushing it with Iron Man 2. Iron Man 3, even though it should maintain continuity with the other Marvel movies, needs to first and foremost be about continuing Iron Man's story.

When you bring in outside heroes then the story stops feeling like Iron Man, and turns into "Iron Man and his Super Friends." You should be able to watch all 3 Iron Man movies without having seen any other Marvel Movies and still get a complete experience that feels wholly Iron Man, and I think that's what the audience wants.

This!

 

[Octoberist]

Years from now, I can see people unknowingly renting Iron Man 1-3 and not Avengers, and getting all confused by the third one.

 

[Doc Samson]

I don't want IM3 to be loaded with references to Avengers and the other Marvel movies. They were already pushing it with Iron Man 2. Iron Man 3, even though it should maintain continuity with the other Marvel movies, needs to first and foremost be about continuing Iron Man's story. When you bring in outside heroes then the story stops feeling like Iron Man, and turns into "Iron Man and his Super Friends." You should be able to watch all 3 Iron Man movies without having seen any other Marvel Movies and still get a complete experience that feels wholly Iron Man, and I think that's what the audience wants.

Seeing as how it's already been started, I don't think the next director really has a choice.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I'm a big fan of trilogies and I think if everything is under Marvel's belt then people ought to give continuity a good strong chance. You won't be seeing this anywhere else, so a cross-franchise continuity ought to be present. Yes, being an Iron Man 3 film, it ought to be centered around Tony Stark (that goes without saying); but a few more Easter Eggs around some of his Avenger-colleagues wouldn't be all that terrible. I expect Samuel L. Jackson to reprise Nick Fury in IM3.

 

[Timstuff]

We haven't even seen if Marvel's shared universe approach is going to pay off, and yet Marvel seems to be banking VERY heavily on it. If it turns out that audiences only wanted more Iron Man movies, then Marvel is going to have one big ass problem on their hands. Marvel just assumes that people will be OK with keeping up with multiple film series in order to fully understand what's going on in the film series they're actually interested in, and I think it could end up backfiring. A lot of these cross-franchise references don't make sense out of context, and that not only weakens the effectiveness of the film, but it also can scare away directors like it apparently did with John Favraeu.

Favraeu wanted to make Iron Man 3, but Marvel wanted to make Avengers 1.5. Favraeu was perfectly willing to co-operate with Marvel's vision of a unified Marvel movie-verse, but I don't know why they didn't reconize that things would get harry when they started mandating things that he had to include. Why did Black Widow have to be in Iron Man 2, or even Nick Fury for that matter? Did they actually belong in the movie and fulfill some function that nothing else could, or was it as many presume and Marvel just wanted to get their foot in the door for future movies with these characters?

 

[Ironfan72]

I guess as a Iron man fan I would want IM3 to be about Iron Man universe, and continue the story of Tony Stark and his friends and enemies. I do agree it seems Marvel used Iron Man 2 as a Avengers set up and not completely about Iron Man. Yes, Black widow and Nick Fury really did not need to be in the film, but Iron Man suffers from being the only franchise Marvel has right now to set up the rest of their films, so Iron Man gets pushed aside to set up Marvels other films, and is the only one audiences have went to see, while Hulk was good it essentially floped at the box office.
Now IM3 comes out after Avengers and should be about Iron man alone, but that said, Marvel seems not to really care about the character if it means pushing Captain America, Thor and Avengers.
Essentially IM3 will be the end of the franchise, while i think they can get maybe 5 films, its best to end it at 3, even though IM2 was a Avengers commercial. So, as a fan it needs to pay off the franchise, while Mandarin is not a must, there are other villains I would love to see, Madam Masque, Ghost, Titanium Man, Crimson Dynamo, Controller, Spymaster, etc, Mandarin is the most likely end all. So time will tell what happens there, but I hope it will be a Iron man exclusive movie, so far Marvel is batting .500 when it comes the Iron Man films, the first one was 100% his film, the second can be said it was not exclusively his story.

 

[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).

 

[TheVileOne]

There should be references and the changes should affect the world of Iron Man.

How often in other comics do we see cameos and the aftermath of other things happening or events happening elsewhere? In X-men Second Coming, the Avengers came in to help the X-men in San Francisco. What the freak is wrong with things like this? None of you complained about Tony Stark's cameo at the end of Incredible Hulk.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I want to continue the world of Iron Man, not the world of iron man and his avengers buddies. Sure, we could have a reference or two here or there, but there's no need to make a avengers commercial. (Something I still don't agree with people saying in IM2). Just like (if) they continue Hulk. No need to have tony, thor, cap, was, etc; and so forth in there.

 

[Timstuff]

There should be references and the changes should affect the world of Iron Man.

How often in other comics do we see cameos and the aftermath of other things happening or events happening elsewhere? In X-men Second Coming, the Avengers came in to help the X-men in San Francisco. What the freak is wrong with things like this? None of you complained about Tony Stark's cameo at the end of Incredible Hulk.

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. They couldn't keep their fingers out of the figurative batter with that movie's editing and the movie was hurt by it, but unfortunately I think that Hulk overall doesn't have a lot of box office appeal.

 

[Son of Coul]

Of course he doesn't really mean it'll be a sequel to the other movies, it's just that the events that transpire in those films will have an impact on the third movie- in that Asgard's magic will have been introduced, Cap can show up to talk over a problem with Tony- junk like that, what they always do in the comics. And that's totally cool with me- as long as it's natural of course.

 

[KillerCarlson]

Ok, look if this is what they are doing they are really stupid. For one thing as everyone on here has said no one will be able to follow this as a trilogy if thats the route they go, and i would certainly hope they change the name to something other than Iron Man 3. That being said, it doesnt make sense to me that they would do that considering they have 3 possible new franchises building with Thor, America, and Avengers...not to mention a possible Hawkeye movie. So why they would walk away from all that cash flow from those big possible new franchises is mind boggling.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't see a problem. The existence of the Avengers inherently changes Iron Man's world. Thus, you can't ignore it. Why try and ignore it? I don't think they'll overload the film and not make it about Iron Man, but at the same time, many new possibilities are opened up with the Avengers being around. The movie shouldn't be chalk full of cameos, but like the comics, now that Captain America exists in the world of Iron Man, you have to explain why Iron Man decides to fight Mandarin alone as opposed to just bringing Cap, Thor, etc. These need explained, and you need a plan. You can't just isolate the Avengers from Iron Man's world after the Avengers form. Like it or not, they become supporting characters in that world, and you have to account for them.

I agree with Marvel on this.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I don't see a problem. The existence of the Avengers inherently changes Iron Man's world. Thus, you can't ignore it. Why try and ignore it? I don't think they'll overload the film and not make it about Iron Man, but at the same time, many new possibilities are opened up with the Avengers being around. The movie shouldn't be chalk full of cameos, but like the comics, now that Captain America exists in the world of Iron Man, you have to explain why Iron Man decides to fight Mandarin alone as opposed to just bringing Cap, Thor, etc. These need explained, and you need a plan. You can't just isolate the Avengers from Iron Man's world after the Avengers form. Like it or not, they become supporting characters in that world, and you have to account for them.

I agree with Marvel on this.

I endorse this post.

 

[docdoc]

Yes you can keep on making 100% pure marvel comic movies, stick to the awesome stories from the comics and make it all happen on screen, but in the end they'r ejust pointless *****, no meaning at all.

Make your own story man, try to make Dark Knight, X2, spider-man 2, they just got lucky with IRON MAN, look at the last 2 movies they've made~~~ anything left to speak?

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Uh...TIH and IM2 were good....so......

Besides, even as marvel making their own movies, they STILL take licenses with them.

 

[BigThor]

Uh...TIH and IM2 were good....so......

Besides, even as marvel making their own movies, they STILL take licenses with them.

Yeah people take things too far, just because TIH wasn't very successful doesn't mean it wasn't a good film. Iron Man 2 was also a good film, just not as good as the first.

 

[WildcatNC]

I think Marvels insistence on this is the main reason for Favreau pulling out of the third movie.


I hope they make an Iron Man movie. Its fine to show his growth in the greater connected universe and such but it should NOT be a direct sequel to Avengers.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Yeah people take things too far, just because TIH wasn't very successful doesn't mean it wasn't a good film. Iron Man 2 was also a good film, just not as good as the first.

 

[KillerCarlson]

I think Marvels insistence on this is the main reason for Favreau pulling out of the third movie.


I hope they make an Iron Man movie. Its fine to show his growth in the greater connected universe and such but it should NOT be a direct sequel to Avengers.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I honestly think it's a mistake. Iron Man 2 was 30% an Avengers trailer/prelude, and it's embarassing.

Yes, it's cool that Nick Fury is in Iron Man and Tony Stark appears in The Incredible Hulk and Hawkeye is in Thor. But when the cameos and the set-ups detract from the actual movie itself, the one you are watching, then it's counter-productive.

Why would I wish to see the Avengers when it'll be just a big trailer for Iron Man 3, Thor 2, etc? I'd rather watch The Dark Knight Rises. Or the new Spider-Man. Atleast then I'll be watching just the damn story I paid to see, and nothing else.