Iron Man Sequels No iron man 3 for jon favreau

[hatebox]

My guess is that the mass audience didn't really mind about the inclusion of Avengers related material in IM2, but they weren't exactly hyped by the notion either.

 

[dsfjr1190]

I'm not really upset by this news. Iron Man 2 didn't exactly blow me away. It will be nice to see what some new blood can do for the franchise.

 

[Doc Samson]

My guess is that the mass audience didn't really mind about the inclusion of Avengers related material in IM2, but they weren't exactly hyped by the notion either.

This is another one of my issues. No doubt, for us comic fans, the easter eggs and things of that nature are cool. But to the average moviegoer, how can Marvel assume they even care or know?

Who knows how many people actually intend to see every single Marvel flick. Unless the general public sees them all, how are the SHIELD references even gonna make sense? All you guys on here arguing about how little the SHIELD stuff actually affected these movies, I once again ask, how effective was it then? If it's so minuscule that it hardly takes any screen time, and if we can all agree that most in the general populace could care less about any of it, then why even do it?

We, the hardcore fans, are going to see Avengers regardless, so in that sense, they're just preaching to the choir. Presumably, your doing all these tie-ins to appeal to the general public who might not be familiar, but your banking on the fact that number 1, it doesn't just fly over their head and number 2, it works & motivates them to see other movies they might not be interested in. Say what you will, we still don't know the outcome of Thor or Cap, they could potentially fail. And if that happens, by the time Avengers rolls around, there's a good chance that the only people who might be really excited about it wind up being the smallest minority who actually get it, and understand. Namely us...

 

[JAK®]

You're right, Marvel should stop doing things for the fans. Only then, will the complaining stop.

 

[Doc Samson]

I'm not complaining, just posing a legitimate question.

 

[Iron_Stark]

You're right, Marvel should stop doing things for the fans. Only then, will the complaining stop.

They should just making movies all together.

Or have the complainers go in there and show them how it's done. I'm sure they could do a waaaaaay better job.

 

[Timstuff]

My guess is that the mass audience didn't really mind about the inclusion of Avengers related material in IM2, but they weren't exactly hyped by the notion either.

I think most of them were just plain confused by it. My older brother had no idea who Nicky Fury and Black Widow are, and he complained that it felt he was switching between two different movies. I still can't figure out for the life of me why Black Widow needed to be in the movie. Her fight scene was just completely pointless fanservice and the plot point it was related to didn't even need to be in the film.

Also, they could have had Tony Stark could have figured out his father's clues without Nick Fury's help, but then there'd be no reason to have Nick Fury in the film. They did a poor job introducing Fury and an almost as poor job integrating him into the story, and if you haven't studied up on the mythos, you'll be lost. It was a noticeable flaw in the film but Marvel apparently felt that it was a sacrifice worth making just so that they could better market The Avengers. It ended up being cinematic dead weight, and dead weight can really detract from a movie experience. You can't just bring in Samuel L. Jackson randomly appear and say "oh hai I'm solvin all ur problems riet nau k thx bai." The fans end up unsatisfied and the main audience just goes "WTF."

If Marvel's strategy thus far is to just "let go" of people who don't like how they want to do things, I wonder how well that approach will work out when applied to the audience?

 

[jmc]

But have they been complaining about it? Iron Man 2 wasn't unsuccessful at the box office.

Jeez come on man, it was always going to be successful coz of film one, but that wasn't an excuse to force things in. And yes I do know people who did complain, they had no idea what the hell what some of the stuff was referring to, given how some of the characters were introduced it's easy to see why. Basic rule of film making - you don't pander to the fan base and assume everyone else knows what the hell you're talking about. Latest Harry Potter suffers from the exact same thing, without prior knowledge of both films and worse the books you could easily get lost in some parts. People make out like this is one big series of sequels, it's anything but, this is several different story lines that somehow have to be made to meet in the middle, but they've gotta work individually first and foremost, if they require knowledge of other movies or knowledge of what's coming up ahead or worse, the comic mythologies, in order to be understood then it's poor film making. Prior knowledge of a character or universe or book should never be a requirement before hand, the films need to work in their own right. If characters and events need to be there, then it's up to the writers to ensure they work with the story and not have the story moved to accommodate them. The problem in what Marvel are doing is that they're trying to make a concept work in a medium that it isn't suited for. It works for TV, hell that's more comparable a medium to comics than what films will ever be. Somewhere along the way things are gonna start getting compromised in trying to link things that aren't relevant to the story at hand. IM2 got a free pass in many respects due to film one's success, what if Thor or Cap have equally tacked on plot devices that distract and bog down the film? Given they don't have the luxury of a successful film one it's hard to see them being given the same leniency.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Jeez come on man, it was always going to be successful coz of film one, but that wasn't an excuse to force things in. And yes I do know people who did complain, they had no idea what the hell what some of the stuff was referring to, given how some of the characters were introduced it's easy to see why. Basic rule of film making - you don't pander to the fan base and assume everyone else knows what the hell you're talking about. Latest Harry Potter suffers from the exact same thing, without prior knowledge of both films and worse the books you could easily get lost in some parts. People make out like this is one big series of sequels, it's anything but, this is several different story lines that somehow have to be made to meet in the middle, but they've gotta work individually first and foremost, if they require knowledge of other movies or knowledge of what's coming up ahead or worse, the comic mythologies, in order to be understood then it's poor film making. Prior knowledge of a character or universe or book should never be a requirement before hand, the films need to work in their own right. If characters and events need to be there, then it's up to the writers to ensure they work with the story and not have the story moved to accommodate them. The problem in what Marvel are doing is that they're trying to make a concept work in a medium that it isn't suited for. It works for TV, hell that's more comparable a medium to comics than what films will ever be. Somewhere along the way things are gonna start getting compromised in trying to link things that aren't relevant to the story at hand. IM2 got a free pass in many respects due to film one's success, what if Thor or Cap have equally tacked on plot devices that distract and bog down the film? Given they don't have the luxury of a successful film one it's hard to see them being given the same leniency.

gtfo, you're acting as though they had stuff thrown in there throughout the the entire film. The only thing that was in there that may have confused people was Nick Fury showing up, but it was established that he was head of SHIELD, which was already established throughout the first movie.

Nothing else was forced in this film.

And yes whether you like it or not these are being made as a series of films like the Star Wars saga, and the Harry Potter books/movies. I didn't hear this much *****ing and whining when General Grievous just popped into the Episode III and was already the general of the droid army.

Good grief, now lets complain about a series of books that turned into a series of movies? If you go into a Harry Potter movie and don't know what's going on because you haven't seen the previous ones, well then that's your own damn fault.

 

[hatebox]

I'm not sure the Potter series is comparable - the only decision there is what to leave out from books to film. In Marvel's case there's much more of a 'making it up as they go along' vibe, for better or worse.

I don't begrudge them building this Avengers world and putting it onto a series of films one after the other... I just don't think it's going to be nearly as successful as they want it to be.

 

[cryptic name]

This is another one of my issues. No doubt, for us comic fans, the easter eggs and things of that nature are cool. But to the average moviegoer, how can Marvel assume they even care or know?

Who knows how many people actually intend to see every single Marvel flick. Unless the general public sees them all, how are the SHIELD references even gonna make sense? All you guys on here arguing about how little the SHIELD stuff actually affected these movies, I once again ask, how effective was it then? If it's so minuscule that it hardly takes any screen time, and if we can all agree that most in the general populace could care less about any of it, then why even do it?

We, the hardcore fans, are going to see Avengers regardless, so in that sense, they're just preaching to the choir. Presumably, your doing all these tie-ins to appeal to the general public who might not be familiar, but your banking on the fact that number 1, it doesn't just fly over their head and number 2, it works & motivates them to see other movies they might not be interested in. Say what you will, we still don't know the outcome of Thor or Cap, they could potentially fail. And if that happens, by the time Avengers rolls around, there's a good chance that the only people who might be really excited about it wind up being the smallest minority who actually get it, and understand. Namely us...

it's not just a simple matter of fan service or promoting the next movie. marvel is building something here, that's what's exciting. shield isn't in iron man 2 just to promote the avengers, but so that when they have a greater presence in the avengers or maybe even the bookends of cap, they won't just have come out of nowhere. i've said since iron man 2 came out that a few years from now it will be looked at much differently because we'll see it in context.

 

[kedrell]

^I've wondered that myself(the context thing). I'll be happy if it turns out well.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I'm not sure the Potter series is comparable - the only decision there is what to leave out from books to film. In Marvel's case there's much more of a 'making it up as they go along' vibe, for better or worse.

I don't begrudge them building this Avengers world and putting it onto a series of films one after the other... I just don't think it's going to be nearly as successful as they want it to be.

Of course they're making it as they go, but they're making it their own, just like they author of the Harry Potter books was making it as he/she went along, they didn't get it from another medium or real life events.

And they're not making this Avengers world, it's Marvel Movie Universe. They're not just going to stop with the Avengers, they're going to keep going and going.

 

[jmc]

gtfo, you're acting as though they had stuff thrown in there throughout the the entire film. The only thing that was in there that may have confused people was Nick Fury showing up, but it was established that he was head of SHIELD, which was already established throughout the first movie.

Nothing else was forced in this film.

And yes whether you like it or not these are being made as a series of films like the Star Wars saga, and the Harry Potter books/movies. I didn't hear this much *****ing and whining when General Grievous just popped into the Episode III and was already the general of the droid army.

Good grief, now lets complain about a series of books that turned into a series of movies? If you go into a Harry Potter movie and don't know what's going on because you haven't seen the previous ones, well then that's your own damn fault.

You are purposely missing the point.

 

[Chris B]

And that's exactly my point about War Machine not needing to be in the movie. Favreau from the very beginning said the movie wasn't going to be longer than the first, so when Howard was fired and then they rewrote the script to beef up Rhodey's screen time and bring in War Machine, guess who got shafted.

See, I think they could've easily had it both ways though. I think they could have done something like you've suggested before with Whiplash attacking the drunken Stark at his party and Stark's efforts to fight him only causing more harm than good. Still causing Rhodey to take the Mark II and try to help, which Stark woundn't want.

 

[Timstuff]

If we go into a Marvel movie, the assumption is not that because it has "Marvel" in the credits, that we are expected to have seen all of the other "Marvel" movies. If the only Marvel property you've seen is the first Iron Man movie, then you should not be expected to have seen anything else if you want the story to make sense. Each superhero is a different franchise, whether Marvel wants to admit it or not. That's not to say Nick Fury couldn't have fit into Iron Man 2, but with the script they used he felt very forced in and they did a really crappy job introducing him. It's just like "hey, who's that guy with the patch eye?" If they wanted to do it properly then the plot of the film should have had a better reason for Tony to meet with the head of shield, and it should not have been just so that Fury could provide Tony with plot devices that Tony could have come up with on his own if the film were more competently written.

Marvel's biggest problem right now is that they are treating all their movies like one big series, instead of treating them as multiple series with Avengers is a team up film. Did any of the people who saw the trailer for Thor this month make the connection that this is in the same world as Iron Man? I highly doubt that. It's a movie about Thor coming to the modern world and doing some stuff, and there will be some fighting. That's as much as the audience understands, and yet Marvel seems to think that all of them are just as well versed in comic book lore as all of us geeks. I think that their faith in the audience to study up on these things is a lot higher than it should be, and as JMC said, if you need outside knowledge of a film in order to enjoy it then that is bad film making. It can't be comared to Harry Potter or Star Wars, because if you start at the beginning with those series it will make sense. With Marvel, they are going to be in trouble if when people go to watch Captain America they realize they needed to watch Thor first, because Thor is a different series, wheter Marvel wants it to be percieved that way or not.

 

[Chris B]

I disagree with those saying the movie on Tony Stark's end wasn't interesting or having depth. I thought he owned every scene he was in and his story arc was interesting.

My problem was just that I never felt that his life was truly in danger or saw his impending death really taking a toll on him. I think they should've included some more serious scenes dealing with that in addition to him acting like a jackass in public. Like something that has been suggested before with him thinking he's found a replacement element, only to see that it wont work and he breaks down. For that matter, I would've prefered that serving as the catalyst for him getting drunk instead of the whole party scene.

Plus, I really think they should've left out the temporary cure that SHIELD gave him.

 

[Doc Samson]

it's not just a simple matter of fan service or promoting the next movie. marvel is building something here, that's what's exciting. shield isn't in iron man 2 just to promote the avengers, but so that when they have a greater presence in the avengers or maybe even the bookends of cap, they won't just have come out of nowhere. i've said since iron man 2 came out that a few years from now it will be looked at much differently because we'll see it in context.

This is the crux of my viewpoint though, your making the same assumption that Marvel seems to be. If someone sees IM & IM2, but none of the other three movies, then for all intents and purposes, a lot of things will be coming out of nowhere.

Listen I love what they're trying to do, and when it comes at the end of the movie like IM or TIH, it's cool. But IM2 is the first instance where they integrated SHIELD members into the central plot. And people can't say that they're just representing SHIELD because 90% of Fury's interest in Stark derives from the Avengers. If they used the regular Nick Fury, that viewpoint makes more sense to me, but the Ultimates Nick Fury has a totally different role within that universe, and conversely, in this movie universe as well.

 

[ElMariachi]

My problem was just that I never felt that his life was truly in danger or saw his impending death really taking a toll on him. I think they should've included some more serious scenes dealing with that in addition to him acting like a jackass in public. Like something that has been suggested before with him thinking he's found a replacement element, only to see that it wont work and he breaks down. For that matter, I would've prefered that serving as the catalyst for him getting drunk instead of the whole party scene.

Plus, I really think they should've left out the temporary cure that SHIELD gave him.

I think most people have this set view how people should deal with death and sadness. The problem is that this Tony Stark character that Robert Downey Jr. created is different than say, Batman or Spiderman. Instead of pouting ontop of the Chrysler Building or sulking in a penthouse, he seculdes himself in a giant donut. The scenes of him deciding to drive the Formula 1 car, throwing an outrageous party, being a drunk fool, looking like he was going to die when talking to Rhodey in his basement, his reaction to Vanko mentioning the palladium, tearing up his house, handing his company over, and lamenting to Pepper were enough proof that he was concerned about death. The whole Stark Expo and the themes of his family legacy also played into this. Perhaps I am reading too deep into a summer blockbuster movie, but the proof is there. Many people didn't care for the comedy regarding all this, but this is one of the things that set this franchise apart from others. There was no melodrama and I personally liked that. Then again, there were some scenes like this in the first movie which everybody loved.

That being said, they could have handled some scenes better. People want to rag on Marvel, but was it Kevin Feige that told Favreau to play The Clash as backround music when Jarvis is telling Tony that he is going to die? Or have a Another One Bites the Dust/It Takes Two/Daft Punk remix while Tony is fighting his best friend? I had no problem with them at all, but it's things like that which undermine serious scenes. Just imagine if they changed the backround music there to a more serious Debney piece.....how much of a change it would have on the scene.

The temporary cure thing didn't bother me really. The only thing about it was it practically healed the scars instantly and that was a bit silly. That scene should have been redone without Black Widow though.

 

[ElMariachi]

Listen I love what they're trying to do, and when it comes at the end of the movie like IM or TIH, it's cool. But IM2 is the first instance where they integrated SHIELD members into the central plot. And people can't say that they're just representing SHIELD because 90% of Fury's interest in Stark derives from the Avengers. If they used the regular Nick Fury, that viewpoint makes more sense to me, but the Ultimates Nick Fury has a totally different role within that universe, and conversely, in this movie universe as well.

I wouldn't really say that about Fury. His interest is first and foremost the effects of Iron Man on national security. The more off track that he became, the greater the risk it was to his and the worlds interests. When he hooked him up with the cure, it had nothing to do with Avengers. That was just some future project he was being considered for. The Avengers wasn't really even brought up until the end of the movie when they discussed it in Fury's hideout.

 

[Iron_Stark]

You are purposely missing the point.

You're purposely complaining just to complain.

If we go into a Marvel movie, the assumption is not that because it has "Marvel" in the credits, that we are expected to have seen all of the other "Marvel" movies. If the only Marvel property you've seen is the first Iron Man movie, then you should not be expected to have seen anything else if you want the story to make sense. Each superhero is a different franchise, whether Marvel wants to admit it or not. That's not to say Nick Fury couldn't have fit into Iron Man 2, but with the script they used he felt very forced in and they did a really crappy job introducing him. It's just like "hey, who's that guy with the patch eye?" If they wanted to do it properly then the plot of the film should have had a better reason for Tony to meet with the head of shield, and it should not have been just so that Fury could provide Tony with plot devices that Tony could have come up with on his own if the film were more competently written.

Marvel's biggest problem right now is that they are treating all their movies like one big series, instead of treating them as multiple series with Avengers is a team up film. Did any of the people who saw the trailer for Thor this month make the connection that this is in the same world as Iron Man? I highly doubt that. It's a movie about Thor coming to the modern world and doing some stuff, and there will be some fighting. That's as much as the audience understands, and yet Marvel seems to think that all of them are just as well versed in comic book lore as all of us geeks. I think that their faith in the audience to study up on these things is a lot higher than it should be, and as JMC said, if you need outside knowledge of a film in order to enjoy it then that is bad film making. It can't be comared to Harry Potter or Star Wars, because if you start at the beginning with those series it will make sense. With Marvel, they are going to be in trouble if when people go to watch Captain America they realize they needed to watch Thor first, because Thor is a different series, wheter Marvel wants it to be percieved that way or not.

You are not going to need to see IM 1 & 2 in order to understand Thor and Cap. That's ridiculous, you know that.

Do you need to see IM 1 to get part 2? Sure. But that's true with most trilogies out there.

For example did people complain in TDK about Harvey Dent just showing up out of the blue and already being the DA?

 

[Iron_Stark]

I wouldn't really say that about Fury. His interest is first and foremost the effects of Iron Man on national security. The more off track that he became, the greater the risk it was to his and the worlds interests. When he hooked him up with the cure, it had nothing to do with Avengers. That was just some future project he was being considered for. The Avengers wasn't really even brought up until the end of the movie when they discussed it in Fury's hideout.

Obviously we haven't been watching the same movie according to everyone, the Avengers references were said in the opening credits, then at the Expo, Tony told the crowd how he really didn't want to be an Avenger, in the Monaco scene another Avengers reference, Vanko and Hammer were discussing the Avengers, Tony and Pepper talked about the Avengers in the plane, at the party Tony said he was going to be an Avenger while being inebriated, Tony, Fury and Widow talked some more Avengers stuff, then at the Expo again Hammer said something in regards to the Avengers, and finally Gary Shandling called Tony a prick for joining the Avengers or something.

Damn this movie sure was littered with Avengers references.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

This is another one of my issues. No doubt, for us comic fans, the easter eggs and things of that nature are cool. But to the average moviegoer, how can Marvel assume they even care or know?

Who knows how many people actually intend to see every single Marvel flick. Unless the general public sees them all, how are the SHIELD references even gonna make sense? All you guys on here arguing about how little the SHIELD stuff actually affected these movies, I once again ask, how effective was it then? If it's so minuscule that it hardly takes any screen time, and if we can all agree that most in the general populace could care less about any of it, then why even do it?

We, the hardcore fans, are going to see Avengers regardless, so in that sense, they're just preaching to the choir. Presumably, your doing all these tie-ins to appeal to the general public who might not be familiar, but your banking on the fact that number 1, it doesn't just fly over their head and number 2, it works & motivates them to see other movies they might not be interested in. Say what you will, we still don't know the outcome of Thor or Cap, they could potentially fail. And if that happens, by the time Avengers rolls around, there's a good chance that the only people who might be really excited about it wind up being the smallest minority who actually get it, and understand. Namely us...

This is a legitimate question? Because I think you answered it in your post.

It's not about effectiveness (for now). For now its for the fans and (to me) it doesn't take up much screentime.

Jeez come on man, it was always going to be successful coz of film one, but that wasn't an excuse to force things in. And yes I do know people who did complain, they had no idea what the hell what some of the stuff was referring to, given how some of the characters were introduced it's easy to see why. Basic rule of film making - you don't pander to the fan base and assume everyone else knows what the hell you're talking about. Latest Harry Potter suffers from the exact same thing, without prior knowledge of both films and worse the books you could easily get lost in some parts. People make out like this is one big series of sequels, it's anything but, this is several different story lines that somehow have to be made to meet in the middle, but they've gotta work individually first and foremost, if they require knowledge of other movies or knowledge of what's coming up ahead or worse, the comic mythologies, in order to be understood then it's poor film making. Prior knowledge of a character or universe or book should never be a requirement before hand, the films need to work in their own right. If characters and events need to be there, then it's up to the writers to ensure they work with the story and not have the story moved to accommodate them. The problem in what Marvel are doing is that they're trying to make a concept work in a medium that it isn't suited for. It works for TV, hell that's more comparable a medium to comics than what films will ever be. Somewhere along the way things are gonna start getting compromised in trying to link things that aren't relevant to the story at hand. IM2 got a free pass in many respects due to film one's success, what if Thor or Cap have equally tacked on plot devices that distract and bog down the film? Given they don't have the luxury of a successful film one it's hard to see them being given the same leniency.

Okay, first, paragraphs please next time JMC.

Okay, the references weren't the problem with Iron Man 2. I feel as though even if the references wasn't there the script would still be weak. Let's face it, the screenwriting both films were awful and standard. It was the directing and acting that set the first film above.

I don't understand what you're talking about anyway with rule one. They did an awful job at introducing the chairacters. They mention Nick Fury by name, nor did they even say Black Widow (Like people are going to remember Romanov). Sam Jackson was always going to be in Iron Man 2, so that was always in the script.

I just think the whole idea that IM2 is an Avengers commercial is completely overexaggerated. I feel as though the references doesn't stop the flow of the film, but the middle part of the film did. That wasn't due to the Avengers commercial, but rather just terrible writing and deleted scenes that I feel had nothing to do with the Avengers or references. It was just filler to forward the film that was poorly handled from the beginning. Doesn't stop me from enjoying the film, but I recognize that this film isn't perfect.

I just don't think they're going to introduce characters and make heroes cameo in other's films. I think this is just panic right now. I don't think Thor or Captain America will have references to the Avengers. If anything it will have small references. Once again, the problems of Iron Man 2 had nothing to do with the Avengers.

They do this for the fans. Who cares if the audiences doesn't get it because it's not like there was a huge reference to the comics that wasn't explained or didn't move the plot forward. I feel as though once the Avengers comes out, good or bad, it will provide a great and entertaining explanation for the films. Plus, if I really had to gamble on it, I'd bet that once all the films are on DVD/Blu-Ray, it will be in a nice box set.

And about the last Harry Potter: They did the best they could with it imo: the book is a culmination of the first 6 books. I don't think you can go into the last part of any kind of anthology with the notion that you're fully gonna understand it without watch at least some of the other films. I fully believe that with the Avengers you probably wouldn't have to watch any of the other films to enjoy the film.

 

[Timstuff]

I think part of the problem with Iron Man 2 is that it was not dark enough. It didn't feel like the stakes had been raised enough. Yes, on paper, there was a lot of drama going on, but I rarely felt the impact of it. I never really felt like Tony had hit his all time low, and the movie just plain lacked the emotion of the first one.

 

[Brother Jack]

I think part of the problem with Iron Man 2 is that it was not dark enough. It didn't feel like the stakes had been raised enough. Yes, on paper, there was a lot of drama going on, but I rarely felt the impact of it. I never really felt like Tony had hit his all time low, and the movie just plain lacked the emotion of the first one.

IM2 was not dark enough that's true, but I don't think it would have been necessary for Tony to have hit rock-bottom, unless Favreau and Marvel were planning to do a trilogy. That structure calls for things to go to hell in part two (think Empire Strikes Back and TDK), which in Stark's case would probably mean hitting the bottle. That story beat will probably be explored later, but we know now it won't be in Favreau's hands. That might actually be a good thing, because although he did a good job balancing humor with characterization I don't know if Favs had what it takes to effectively go that dark. I don't know if Marvel can either.