Iron Man 2 It Should Have Been More Global.

[TheVileOne]

The global whining was nonsense. What was so much more global about the first movie compared to this one?

This movie had sequences with a villain building his gear in Russia. The hero doing his thing in Malibu and Monaco. The big climax he jets from SoCal to NYC. So there were sequences storyline wise that were set all over the world on multiple continents. So what's all the whining about?

Part of the first movie is in Vegas, Malibu, and the Middle East, so what's the big hella difference?

 

[Catman]

What was so much more global about the first movie compared to this one?

Tony Stark (the member) explained it pretty well.

 

[Octoberist]

i haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, but perhaps when some people meant is that the movie takes place all around the world but in secluded areas for the finale?

'm just guessing. I'm assuming it's kinda like X1, X2 and even X3, and how, if you really watch the movies, they all take place in secluded areas in the grand finale.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Not it's not. If the terrorists are hurting innocent and preaching hatred that's not politically incorrect. Enforcing the image simply on Arab Muslims and Islamic societies is wrong. Fighting them just for wish fulfillment is arguable. But terrorism should always be deemed wrong.

It is a touchy subject.

You portray them too badly then you have Muslim extremists burning effegies in the streets.

And look what happened to South Park? Made a joke about Muslims and they all went ****ing mental. And apparently the car bomb in Times Square was directly linked to it.

 

[Catman]

i haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, but perhaps when some people meant is that the movie takes place all around the world but in secluded areas for the finale?

What people mean is that Iron Man 2 has no stand-out locations. Iron Man, however, did. Having a good amount of the movie take place in Afghanistan was unique for the superhero genre.

 

[TNC9852002]

WTF?

I'm tired of these typical post-midnight show viewing threads. They're just so poorly constructed...Not global enough??

PASS

 

[Catman]

An apartment in Russia is definitely cooler than a cave in Afghanistan.

 

[Dark Raven]

I think it should've been more global. Jet setting has always been part of the Iron Man lifestyle. Sure, he was in Monaco, but it should've shown a lot more of the scenery. I wish Tony also journeyed to Russia. That would've been cool. It should've been more like these Bond movies where Bond travels to different countries. A small scene supposedly in Russia with Vanko is hardly enough. It would've been great to see Iron Man flying into Red Square or past the Kremlin, or Black Widow having a few scenes there. They missed some good opportunities.

Part of what was special about Iron Man #1 were the scenes in Afghanistan, or the rescue of the prisoners in Gulmera.

I hope Iron Man 3 features scenes in China if he faces off against the Mandarin.

 

[Octoberist]

The movie is set in New York, LA, France, and Russia. Is the complaints that we don't didn't see a whole lot from each city or country?

 

[LostSon88]

The global whining was nonsense. What was so much more global about the first movie compared to this one?

This movie had sequences with a villain building his gear in Russia. The hero doing his thing in Malibu and Monaco. The big climax he jets from SoCal to NYC. So there were sequences storyline wise that were set all over the world on multiple continents. So what's all the whining about?

Part of the first movie is in Vegas, Malibu, and the Middle East, so what's the big hella difference?

You're not from SoCal are you? Cuz...that's not how you use 'hella'.

 

[Octoberist]

Hella is sooooo 2004!

 

[gridlockd]

I think the OP is hella right.

I did admire the balls of the first movie actually going to the middle east and fighting terrorism. I apprectiate that mix of wild fantasy and somber reality. That's what Marvel comics are about.

The original comic book character, Captain America, was created for one reason; to sell war bonds. His books were sold as America entered the war. When we were fighting Nazis, so was Captain America. It's timely and relevant. That made it pretty cool.

Iron Man was doing what the average audience member wished they could do; taking out terriorists, the right way. No dead troops, no bombing innocent civilians. Just American ingenutity getting the job done.

This element is pretty much gone in the second. Iron Man made the world safe, apparently in between the first and second movie. We missed it. I thought they had a chance to bring in some political relevancy with Rourke's backstory in Russia, but that was just his excuse for revenge.

Most comic movies, you just watch the hero and the origin of some bad guy and they fight in the end. Iron Man had that too, but the first one had something more. Something a little more real. The second one, sadly, is a little more typical. It's just the Jeff Bridges robot fight at the end without any of Stark deciding to "protect the people he put in harms way". Stark had less arch. (rhymes!) and the film, overall, just felt like it had less to say.

I didn't dislike it, but I was dissappointed.

 

[LostSon88]

Hella is sooooo 2004!

I'm from NorCal, its not some kind of fad...its part of our 'language' up here.