Iron Man 2 The Iron Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Ok you keep saying Marvel isn't going to be pleased and it's not going to derail anything, so what the hell is your point of saying IM2 disappointed in every other post?

For the 1000th time, this is the box office thread, I am discussing the box office!

If they felt it disappointed, then they'll rectify their mistakes for part three simple as that. IM2 isn't going to kill the franchise nor has it tainted a goddamn thing.

This has been my point all along, Marvel rushing the movie out meant that the movie wasnt as good as it could've and should've been and this is why it didnt make more than the first movie domestically, this has been my point all along but it somehow gets lost in all the 'its the nolanites!' comments.

I never said it tainted anything, but many thought the movie was dissapointing so it may have tainted the franchise for them.

Inception's only at 160.5 mill, quit acting like it's at 260.5, it'll top off at around 220-230 dom.

I'm not acting like anything, all i'm saying is that people are going to see it again and again and thats why its having good legs. Whatever it ends up making its done well for a sci-fi movie with no built in fan base.

Calm down its nothing personal.

Inception isn't a box office smash at this point. It has only made $251 million worldwide so far. What are you guys talking about even bringing up this movie? Inception doesn't make this much money to begin with had it not been for TDK for starters----it was almost completley sold on the buzz of that movie.

It cant have had that much buzz of TDK as the opening weekend wasnt huge, it has shown great legs since though and thats because people loved it, IM2 hasnt had good legs because it dissapointed many, and who said Inception is a BO smash?

You guys are simply hating at this point. Iron Man 2 felt rushed? Where? When? It was a great movie. The miniscule flaws you see don't make that much of a difference at the box office.

Hating? I found the movie a bit dissapointing as an Iron Man fan, can we not discuss what we didnt like about it just as you discuss what you did?

The whole movie felt rushed, the plot was hardly coherent, and the movie almost totally lacked any emotion or power.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I just saw that IM2 outgrossed IM1 on it's 84th day. (both were weekdays) Cracked me up so I thought I would post it.

I wonder if all the people bringing up Inception so often in a IM2 BO thread see how obvious that makes them look? Probably not. Odd how they picked that one movie out of the bunch.

Is Marvel disappointed in IM2? That seems to be the one thing some here are insisting is true. I dunno, was Warner Brothers disappointed with Batman Begins domestic gross? They spent 150 million making it and only got back 205 million domestic. They must have been twice as "disappointed" as Marvel is since IM2 returned more than twice as much profit to Marvel. That obviously killed the franchise.

You Inception folks better hope it makes way more profit than IM2 so you don't have to admit how "disappointing" it is. They spent 160 million on it so obviously they were "expecting" more profit than IM2 made. Not sure how much that is, but it's some magic number above the 111 million profit IM2 made. So does that mean it has to make over 271 million? Is that the threshold for "studio happiness"? Surely Inception will sail past 400 million since it supposedly has better WoM than any other movie. That's not asking much after what Avatar did. Surely Inception has similar WoM, right?

I'm sure the rules are different for Inception since I see the rules are somehow different for the Spider-Man franchise. The fact that SM2 made less is ok somehow. Not a "disappointment" even though Sony spent more on SM2. (200 million to 139 million....almost the same increase between IM1 and IM2) Also the second Batman movie had a massive drop (I thought it was better myself). ...And the second Superman movie grossed 20% less than the first (again I liked it better). But they don't count. This mysterious rule only applies to the Iron Man franchise somehow. All this is based on those incredibly important "expectations" that someone, somewhere comes up with using the aforementioned "rules" that only apply when they want them to apply.

We are just certain that Marvel is disappointed. Never mind that their movie is one of the very rare movies that break the 300 million domestic mark. (Usually only 2 or 3 movies a year do that) And that their movie is the only one that did it without the 3D boost.

If you want to talk "disappointed" talk about The Incredible Hulk. 150 million budget, 134 million domestic gross. I'll buy that one...ouch. And I'm thinking both Marvel movies and the DC movie next year won't break the 200 million barrier. (I hope they are all breakout hits though) Maybe that will bring people down to earth a little and help them see exactly what 300 million means.

Anyone who saw or went to the comicon panel with Marvel and thinks that IM2 somehow stalled the franchise is smoking crack. RDJ received the loudest applause of anyone at the Avengers promo.

That was odd for a guy that just starred in a movie that "tainted the franchise", wasn't it?

She brings up Inception because people on here keep using all kinds of excuses for why IM2 didnt outgross IM1 domestically, economy being the main one. But Inception puts that theory to **** and shows if you make a genuinly good movie then people will go and see it, bad economy or not. IM2 didnt have good legs because havent been going to see it again like they did with IM1, this is because, in many people's opinions, Marvel rushed the movie out and this had a detrimental effect on its quality, which was good enough in many peoples eyes.

Let's see if Inception manages to overcome the economy. It certainly won't prove it if less people go to see it than saw IM2.

edit: I love you guys. Gotta love a bunch of people that like to talk about friggin' comic book movies.

 

[ElMariachi]

It cant have had that much buzz of TDK as the opening weekend wasnt huge, it has shown great legs since though and thats because people loved it, IM2 hasnt had good legs because it dissapointed many, and who said Inception is a BO smash?

It had buzz and it's opening weekend was good for a movie that wasn't based on anything and had a story that isn't really summer box office material. You don't see that this often unless it's some computer animated kids movie. The movie doesn't hit that many screens and have that sort of buzz to begin with if there isn't the TDK factor. Nolan is a great director, but he is a virtual unknown to the masses had it not been for Batman.

And yes, you people are basically saying that Inception is a box office smash by praising it's box office take. Iron Man 2 has made $616 million dollars at the box office and is being derided. That is a huge number and puts it as the 5th highest grossing live action superhero movie of all time and higher then the original. This high number also shows that the movie was well received in both the U.S./Canada and abroad. You people are trying make the argument the quality of the movie has something to to do with the box office and I think that's completely wrong. You and others on this website are on the TDK mentality where a movie blows past the original by $600 million + dollars and you think this should happen for other films. I said it earlier--TDK was a phenomenon and should never be compared to other superhero movies.

Hating? I found the movie a bit dissapointing as an Iron Man fan, can we not discuss what we didnt like about it just as you discuss what you did?

The whole movie felt rushed, the plot was hardly coherent, and the movie almost totally lacked any emotion or power.

With all due respect, how can you possibly say that the movie felt rushed? The quality of everything in the movie was praiseworthy---whether it's the acting, the CGI, fight scenes, the script (particulary dialouge), and especially the smaller details. The Stark Expo for instance was incredible and the attention to detail greatly impressed me going so far as to make a Carosel of Progress-esque theme song. Has any plot angle/setting (the Stark Expo) been put to screen in a superhero movie that has been more unique, bold, and fun? The fighting and action scenes were also top notch. The brawl on the Monoco racetrack with the racecars speeding by is truly up there with the Spiderman 2 train fight in my opinion. I don't see how you can call any of this rushed or mediocre. The film had a great soundtrack/score to boot. If you want to see a rushed or mediocre film in this genre---look no further then X-Men Orgins:Wolverine. Just look at some of the Who Framed Roger Rabbit-esque CGI work in some scenes regarding Wolvie's claws.


As for the script---no, it's not perfect but its hardly as bad as you say. What wasn't coherent about the plot? I have been hearing this from people (only on here, of course) and I am not understanding the confusion. Tony Stark has conquered the world and now deal with the negative aspects of that. Whether it's the suit killing him, creating enemies who want a piece of him, drawing government attention to himself, basically ruining his company, and alienating all of his closest friends. I don't see what's confusing about any of this.

And in regards to emotion/powerful scenes---there isn't that many because Stark isn't a sympathetic character. He is a egomaniac and a billionaire. Unlike other heroes, Stark fights for himself, his ego, his family legacy, and really his own interests---at least to this point the films. As we saw in the beginning of IM2, he has basically created world peace and this has only inflated his ego to epic proportions. The Stark Expo (as noted by Pepper) increased it tenfold. His ego was basically going to be the downfall of him until he saw the message from his father giving him new inspiration. I thought this was a powerful scene. Granted, there was alot of comedy in the movie----but again, Iron Man is a different sort of movie and hero. You all expected Batman, once again. Iron Man is supposed to be fun and light. He is a cocky hero, not an angry brooding man. Nobody wants to see a depressed billionaire blubbering into his suit that cost him millions to build in a house that probally cost him tens of millions to live in. If there is one hero that I don't want to see too much heart and emotion---it's Iron Man. He is a self-proclaimed futurist and he is always moving onto the next thing. This is true for his business and his personality. I would compare Stark more to James Bond then I would Spiderman or Batman.

 

[souvlaki]

Inception's only at 160.5 mill, quit acting like it's at 260.5, it'll top off at around 220-230 dom.

It'll probably be at $230m after two more weekends. Even without knowing the weekend estimates when you posted this I'm confused how you could possibly see it topping out at $230m.

 

[J.Howlett]

With all due respect, how can you possibly say that the movie felt rushed? The quality of everything in the movie was praiseworthy---whether it's the acting, the CGI, fight scenes, the script (particulary dialouge), and especially the smaller details.

With all due respect, just from a script perspective alone, you can feel how rushed Iron Man 2 was. The whole 2nd act of the film is the prime example of that...

...and the reason Inception is perceived as a hit is because nobody expected this film to do what it's doing....or have any idea what this film was going to do considering it wasn't a sequel, remake, reboot, or based on an existing property...or the fact that WB spent close to 200 million on it without marketing. It was a gamble. Iron Man 2 wasn't. Iron Man 2, had Favreau been given an extra year on it, would've wiped the floor with the first film and it would've easily got to 400 domestically. Easily.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Hating? I found the movie a bit dissapointing as an Iron Man fan, can we not discuss what we didnt like about it just as you discuss what you did?

The whole movie felt rushed, the plot was hardly coherent, and the movie almost totally lacked any emotion or power.

Look at it this way: IM3 is almost a certainty after the Avengers, TIH 2 is not.

Between RDJ and 1/2 Ruffalo (because the other 1/2 is gonna be acted by CGI) who do you think Marvel want to bet their money on? If you want to talk disappointment & precariousness of the future, look no further at the Hulk franchise. Sorry with the Marvel on Marvel "fratricide" but your misguided pessimist view give me no choice.

Yes IM2 was rushed, but that's because the other Marvel movies ain't ready yet with script job assigned since the early 2000's. Thor is supposed to be leading 2010, or heck Cap it is because Thor has to be on by 2009. IM2 buys time for Thor & Cap. So for a rushed film, IM2 did okay and Favreau should be commended.

 

[Iron_Stark]

It'll probably be at $230m after two more weekends. Even without knowing the weekend estimates when you posted this I'm confused how you could possibly see it topping out at $230m.

I saw the early Friday estimates Deadline Hollywood had when they thought Schmucks was going to take the weekend.

Either way, no way does this make past 300 mill.

 

[ElMariachi]

With all due respect, just from a script perspective alone, you can feel how rushed Iron Man 2 was. The whole 2nd act of the film is the prime example of that...

...and the reason Inception is perceived as a hit is because nobody expected this film to do what it's doing....or have any idea what this film was going to do considering it wasn't a sequel, remake, reboot, or based on an existing property...or the fact that WB spent close to 200 million on it without marketing. It was a gamble. Iron Man 2 wasn't. Iron Man 2, had Favreau been given an extra year on it, would've wiped the floor with the first film and it would've easily got to 400 domestically. Easily.

Which scenes or plotpoints of the movie in the 2nd act of the film feel rushed? People continue to say this, but do not point out specific flaws in scenes of the movie. And I will ask again, why is this movie being put on such a high pedestal where minor flaws are exaggerated? How many summer blockbusters or superhero movies to be more specific are held to such standards where the plot is judged as if it should be an Oscar quality film? This was a minor flaw in an otherwise perfect superhero film and it's being exaggerated to throw dirt on this movie. Critics don't get this movie. Nobody did their job in truly critiquing it as a film and what it was about. Not to mention the critiques have been so varied and different from each other that it's not even worth bothering using them as a judge.

And in regards to Inception, don't try to argue that this is some small movie that nobody heard of---expected to make a paltry amount. I saw trailers for that movie for quite some time in the theater and plenty of advertisements for it. Almost all of them noting "The Dark Knight". This movie arugubly had more hype then Iron Man 2 did because of Batman. Not expecting this movie to make money would be like not expecting a James Cameron movie to not make money right after Avatar (or Titanic for that matter).

There is no way you can argue that IM2 makes 400 million domestically if it comes out next year. Thats like $90 million more and because of what? Slight tweaking of the script? C'mon. How smart do you really think the general audience is? You all are looking at box office like fanboys if you think minor changes like that can change box office drastically. Most people thought that movie was good as is. The reason it didn't make more is because of other factors. No 3D, a weak economy, it wasn't kid friendly, Iron Man is still a second tier hero/character in the grand scheme of things, and it had some tough competition in the following weeks. Are you guys forgetting what IM2 went up against in it's following weeks?

Robin Hood--$100 million domestic/$200 foreign
Shrek 4--$235 million domestic/$400 foreign
Prince of Persia--$90 million domestic/$237 foreign
Sex and the City 2--$95 million domestic/$185 foreign
Karate Kid-$172 domestic/$65 foreign
Toy Story 3-$389 domestic/$436 foreign

where is all this extra money to go around to propel Iron Man 2 to such heights? I don't see it. There is only so much money to go around.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I just saw that IM2 outgrossed IM1 on it's 84th day. (both were weekdays) Cracked me up so I thought I would post it.

It hasnt passed it domestically though, and thats were the studio's earn most of their money.

I wonder if all the people bringing up Inception so often in a IM2 BO thread see how obvious that makes them look? Probably not. Odd how they picked that one movie out of the bunch.

Here we go again, go on, accuse me of being a Nolanite when I have been an Iron Man fan since I was a kid/

Is Marvel disappointed in IM2? That seems to be the one thing some here are insisting is true. I dunno, was Warner Brothers disappointed with Batman Begins domestic gross? They spent 150 million making it and only got back 205 million domestic. They must have been twice as "disappointed" as Marvel is since IM2 returned more than twice as much profit to Marvel. That obviously killed the franchise.

WB actually was dissapointed with BB to an extent, if it hadnt done so well on DVD, we mightnt have even got TDK. But you cant really compare that to IM2, BB wasnt a sequel, was a re-launch of a franchise after it previously produced possibly the worst movie ever and had no bankable stars in it, hardly the same as a sequel to a much loved movie is it?

You Inception folks better hope it makes way more profit than IM2 so you don't have to admit how "disappointing" it is. They spent 160 million on it so obviously they were "expecting" more profit than IM2 made. Not sure how much that is, but it's some magic number above the 111 million profit IM2 made. So does that mean it has to make over 271 million? Is that the threshold for "studio happiness"? Surely Inception will sail past 400 million since it supposedly has better WoM than any other movie. That's not asking much after what Avatar did. Surely Inception has similar WoM, right?

Inception wont make more than IM2, but Inception wasnt a sequel to a smash hit movie, it was an original piece of fiction.

I'm sure the rules are different for Inception since I see the rules are somehow different for the Spider-Man franchise. The fact that SM2 made less is ok somehow. Not a "disappointment" even though Sony spent more on SM2. (200 million to 139 million....almost the same increase between IM1 and IM2) Also the second Batman movie had a massive drop (I thought it was better myself). ...And the second Superman movie grossed 20% less than the first (again I liked it better). But they don't count. This mysterious rule only applies to the Iron Man franchise somehow. All this is based on those incredibly important "expectations" that someone, somewhere comes up with using the aforementioned "rules" that only apply when they want them to apply.

But the difference is 95% of people thought Spiderman was an improvement over Spidey 1, many were dissapointed by IM2, I was my self in some regards.

We are just certain that Marvel is disappointed. Never mind that their movie is one of the very rare movies that break the 300 million domestic mark. (Usually only 2 or 3 movies a year do that) And that their movie is the only one that did it without the 3D boost.

If you want to talk "disappointed" talk about The Incredible Hulk. 150 million budget, 134 million domestic gross. I'll buy that one...ouch. And I'm thinking both Marvel movies and the DC movie next year won't break the 200 million barrier. (I hope they are all breakout hits though) Maybe that will bring people down to earth a little and help them see exactly what 300 million means.

$300 million is a good return no doubt, but I state this again Marvel didnt put $50 million + into this sequel expecting it not to make more domestically than its predecessor.

That was odd for a guy that just starred in a movie that "tainted the franchise", wasn't it?



Let's see if Inception manages to overcome the economy. It certainly won't prove it if less people go to see it than saw IM2.

edit: I love you guys. Gotta love a bunch of people that like to talk about friggin' comic book movies.

If you ask me Inception has beaten the economy, for an original movie that didnt have an amazing opening weekend, its doing very well.

It had buzz and it's opening weekend was good for a movie that wasn't based on anything and had a story that isn't really summer box office material. You don't see that this often unless it's some computer animated kids movie. The movie doesn't hit that many screens and have that sort of buzz to begin with if there isn't the TDK factor. Nolan is a great director, but he is a virtual unknown to the masses had it not been for Batman.

And yes, you people are basically saying that Inception is a box office smash by praising it's box office take. Iron Man 2 has made $616 million dollars at the box office and is being derided. That is a huge number and puts it as the 5th highest grossing live action superhero movie of all time and higher then the original. This high number also shows that the movie was well received in both the U.S./Canada and abroad. You people are trying make the argument the quality of the movie has something to to do with the box office and I think that's completely wrong. You and others on this website are on the TDK mentality where a movie blows past the original by $600 million + dollars and you think this should happen for other films. I said it earlier--TDK was a phenomenon and should never be compared to other superhero movies.

Not once have I ever mentioned TDK in terms of IM2's box office take, I have compared it to IM1 box office, you know the movie it was a sequel too?

With all due respect, how can you possibly say that the movie felt rushed? The quality of everything in the movie was praiseworthy---whether it's the acting, the CGI, fight scenes, the script (particulary dialouge), and especially the smaller details. The Stark Expo for instance was incredible and the attention to detail greatly impressed me going so far as to make a Carosel of Progress-esque theme song. Has any plot angle/setting (the Stark Expo) been put to screen in a superhero movie that has been more unique, bold, and fun? The fighting and action scenes were also top notch. The brawl on the Monoco racetrack with the racecars speeding by is truly up there with the Spiderman 2 train fight in my opinion. I don't see how you can call any of this rushed or mediocre. The film had a great soundtrack/score to boot. If you want to see a rushed or mediocre film in this genre---look no further then X-Men Orgins:Wolverine. Just look at some of the Who Framed Roger Rabbit-esque CGI work in some scenes regarding Wolvie's claws.

The whole movie was rushed, especially the 2nd half, thinks just got presented in the movie to Tony rather than him working it out himself, Shield or someone else would just give it to him.

Tony kissing Pepper at the end was a total WTF moment as it seemed to come out of no were, and too many things were left unexplained for me like Rhodey knowing not only how to work the suit, but knowing how to get it off without the aid of Starks tech, there were plenty more than this as well.

As for the bolded statement, no, just no, the action in this movie was no were near as good as the action in Spidey 2, let alone the train fight, the action in IM2 was extremely poor IMO.

As for the script---no, it's not perfect but its hardly as bad as you say. What wasn't coherent about the plot? I have been hearing this from people (only on here, of course) and I am not understanding the confusion. Tony Stark has conquered the world and now deal with the negative aspects of that. Whether it's the suit killing him, creating enemies who want a piece of him, drawing government attention to himself, basically ruining his company, and alienating all of his closest friends. I don't see what's confusing about any of this.

And in regards to emotion/powerful scenes---there isn't that many because Stark isn't a sympathetic character. He is a egomaniac and a billionaire. Unlike other heroes, Stark fights for himself, his ego, his family legacy, and really his own interests---at least to this point the films. As we saw in the beginning of IM2, he has basically created world peace and this has only inflated his ego to epic proportions. The Stark Expo (as noted by Pepper) increased it tenfold. His ego was basically going to be the downfall of him until he saw the message from his father giving him new inspiration. I thought this was a powerful scene. Granted, there was alot of comedy in the movie----but again, Iron Man is a different sort of movie and hero. You all expected Batman, once again. Iron Man is supposed to be fun and light. He is a cocky hero, not an angry brooding man. Nobody wants to see a depressed billionaire blubbering into his suit that cost him millions to build in a house that probally cost him tens of millions to live in. If there is one hero that I don't want to see too much heart and emotion---it's Iron Man. He is a self-proclaimed futurist and he is always moving onto the next thing. This is true for his business and his personality. I would compare Stark more to James Bond then I would Spiderman or Batman.

The first movie had plenty of emotional and powerful scene's this movie barely had non, I know what Stark is like, I have read Iron Man comics and used to watch the cartoon as a kid, but this doesnt mean the movie should emotionless, Tony is DYING for crying out loud and not once do we get a sense of urgency or desperation. Sorry but this is poor, the main character is dying and we feel nothing at all because it all just gets turned into jokes and smart remarks, hell, when Pepper found out he had been dying it gets turned into a funny argument. The film is actually shocking at points.

With all due respect, how can you possibly say that the movie felt rushed? The quality of everything in the movie was praiseworthy---whether it's the acting, the CGI, fight scenes, the script (particulary dialouge), and especially the smaller details.

With all due respect, just from a script perspective alone, you can feel how rushed Iron Man 2 was. The whole 2nd act of the film is the prime example of that...

...and the reason Inception is perceived as a hit is because nobody expected this film to do what it's doing....or have any idea what this film was going to do considering it wasn't a sequel, remake, reboot, or based on an existing property...or the fact that WB spent close to 200 million on it without marketing. It was a gamble. Iron Man 2 wasn't. Iron Man 2, had Favreau been given an extra year on it, would've wiped the floor with the first film and it would've easily got to 400 domestically. Easily.

Couldnt have said it better myself, Favreau is blameless in all of this for me, because I know that if he had been given an extra year we would be sitting here now discussing it alongside the likes of TDK, X2 and Spidey 2, but what we got wasnt.

Which scenes or plotpoints of the movie in the 2nd act of the film feel rushed? People continue to say this, but do not point out specific flaws in scenes of the movie. And I will ask again, why is this movie being put on such a high pedestal where minor flaws are exaggerated? How many summer blockbusters or superhero movies to be more specific are held to such standards where the plot is judged as if it should be an Oscar quality film? This was a minor flaw in an otherwise perfect superhero film and it's being exaggerated to throw dirt on this movie. Critics don't get this movie. Nobody did their job in truly critiquing it as a film and what it was about. Not to mention the critiques have been so varied and different from each other that it's not even worth bothering using them as a judge.

The whole 'new element' thing seemed completely rushed to me, as did his relationship with Pepper.

And in regards to Inception, don't try to argue that this is some small movie that nobody heard of---expected to make a paltry amount. I saw trailers for that movie for quite some time in the theater and plenty of advertisements for it. Almost all of them noting "The Dark Knight". This movie arugubly had more hype then Iron Man 2 did because of Batman. Not expecting this movie to make money would be like not expecting a James Cameron movie to not make money right after Avatar (or Titanic for that matter).

The general audience dont know who Nolan is, so there was no built in fanbase except on the internet, were most of the movies buzz was generated, amoung casual movie fans it wasnt even heard of, hell, last week someone in work said to me whats this Inception film all about and it had been out 2 weeks.

There is no way you can argue that IM2 makes 400 million domestically if it comes out next year. Thats like $90 million more and because of what? Slight tweaking of the script? C'mon. How smart do you really think the general audience is? You all are looking at box office like fanboys if you think minor changes like that can change box office drastically. Most people thought that movie was good as is. The reason it didn't make more is because of other factors. No 3D, a weak economy, it wasn't kid friendly, Iron Man is still a second tier hero/character in the grand scheme of things, and it had some tough competition in the following weeks. Are you guys forgetting what IM2 went up against in it's following weeks?

Robin Hood--$100 million domestic/$200 foreign
Shrek 4--$235 million domestic/$400 foreign
Prince of Persia--$90 million domestic/$237 foreign
Sex and the City 2--$95 million domestic/$185 foreign
Karate Kid-$172 domestic/$65 foreign
Toy Story 3-$389 domestic/$436 foreign

where is all this extra money to go around to propel Iron Man 2 to such heights? I don't see it. There is only so much money to go around.

Sorry, but that competition is pretty paltry, ESPECIALLY when compared to the competition IM1 went up against. The 2 movies in that list that most directly would have effected IM2 barely made $100 domestic (RH and POP), hardly stern competition is it? IM1 went up against freaking Indianna Jones and still made more domestic.

 

[ElMariachi]

Not once have I ever mentioned TDK in terms of IM2's box office take, I have compared it to IM1 box office, you know the movie it was a sequel too?

If you are comparing it with the box office of Iron Man 1, then what is the complaint? Iron Man 2 has made $30 million more in total, proving that the character is growing in popularity overseas. It has only made $7 million less so far domestically and in my opinion, that's not a huge difference in the grand scheme of things considering the economy. Spider-Man 2 made $30 million less domestically than the first and was considered a better film by many people. This cause for concern for Iron Man 2 is a bit silly in my opinion looking at other franchises like Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Star Wars (both trilogies), Jurassic Park, and the first Batman/Superman movies.

The whole movie was rushed, especially the 2nd half, thinks just got presented in the movie to Tony rather than him working it out himself, Shield or someone else would just give it to him.

I don't understand why he should have to work it out completely by himself? This is one of those common complaints (again, only on here) that people had with the plot, yet it occurs in alot of movies. Who solved some of Batman's problems in both movies? Lucius Fox. It would be a boring movie if the main character was so intelligent that he can solve any problem and not need allies.

And for the record, Nick Fury didn't solve his problem. He gave him a medicine that would temporarily alleviate some of the health problems he had. It's like giving a cancer patient medicines that make them feel better or help some of the symptoms---not cure the actual cancer. Tony Stark solved the problems on how to permanantly fix the palladium problem by himself and I think they way they did it was clever.

Tony kissing Pepper at the end was a total WTF moment as it seemed to come out of no were, and too many things were left unexplained for me like Rhodey knowing not only how to work the suit, but knowing how to get it off without the aid of Starks tech, there were plenty more than this as well.

Why? There was a romantic connection throughout the first two movies. I didn't think it really came out of nowhere.

As for Rhodey and the suit (another complaint), it should just be assumed that Stark let him play with the suit between the two movies. They were good friends and not letting an aviator like Rhodey not inspect or test the suit would be a d-bag move as a friend. To bring up TDK again, we never saw Batman jumping off another skyscraper to test out gliding like he performed in Hong Kong. He just did it and we must assume that he practiced it beforehand.

As for the bolded statement, no, just no, the action in this movie was no were near as good as the action in Spidey 2, let alone the train fight, the action in IM2 was extremely poor IMO.

I completely disagree. Spidey 2 was cool because it was straight up comic book action between two superpowered heroes. The Monaco fight had the same epic feel because it was on an active racetrack. The speed and noise of that scene was incredible. The IM/WM drone fight was also top notch and exciting. The only complaint here is that the Whiplash battle could have went on for a few minutes longer. They were amazing while they lasted though.

The first movie had plenty of emotional and powerful scene's this movie barely had non, I know what Stark is like, I have read Iron Man comics and used to watch the cartoon as a kid, but this doesnt mean the movie should emotionless, Tony is DYING for crying out loud and not once do we get a sense of urgency or desperation. Sorry but this is poor, the main character is dying and we feel nothing at all because it all just gets turned into jokes and smart remarks, hell, when Pepper found out he had been dying it gets turned into a funny argument. The film is actually shocking at points.

Where in the first movie was there all these emotional scenes? Some of the Yinsen scenes and one or two with Pepper---but aside from that? I though there were powerful scenes in this movie that you are overlooking. Alot of them were played for laughs, yes, but again--this isn't a drama. I was fine with how the film played out. You saw him hit rock bottom and then build himself back up after watching a dated video of his dead father. I am not understanding how that is without heart.

Couldnt have said it better myself, Favreau is blameless in all of this for me, because I know that if he had been given an extra year we would be sitting here now discussing it alongside the likes of TDK, X2 and Spidey 2, but what we got wasnt.

Oh cmon. This movie isn't ever going to be TDK unless they turn the series into a drama. X2? A good movie, but it wasn't better then IM2. As for Spidey-2, another good movie but way too much drama/angst for my liking. At least when insinuating it's better than IM2. For every touching/good scene in that movie, we had to wait for the annoying MJ/Harry/Aunt May and the pointless skinny neighor with cake nonsense to pass.

The whole 'new element' thing seemed completely rushed to me, as did his relationship with Pepper.

The element creation was clever and very sci-fi to me. The Stark Expo model being the structure of a new element (that Howard didn't have the technology to produce) was brilliant. That whole angle isn't rushed in any way because it was a beautiful scene and was scored perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7bhXAL-xKg

The general audience dont know who Nolan is, so there was no built in fanbase except on the internet, were most of the movies buzz was generated, amoung casual movie fans it wasnt even heard of, hell, last week someone in work said to me whats this Inception film all about and it had been out 2 weeks.

Sure they do. Dark Knight was one of the most popular and beloved movies of our generation. People saw the connection and it helped Inception greatly. If Nolan is an unknown, he doesn't get that budget to make such a cool looking movie (based on his own idea, no less) in the first place in my opinion.

Sorry, but that competition is pretty paltry, ESPECIALLY when compared to the competition IM1 went up against. The 2 movies in that list that most directly would have effected IM2 barely made $100 domestic (RH and POP), hardly stern competition is it? IM1 went up against freaking Indianna Jones and still made more domestic.

How is it paltry? All of these movies made decent enough money as to take money away from IM2. In a bad economy, no less. POP and RH aren't the only movies that are direct competition for starters. The movie only made 7 million less in the U.S. and over 30+ more internationally. Relax. People liked the movie. $616 million is a large number for what was a second tier hero in my opinion. Maybe if you were talking about Harry Potter or Superman, but nobody even knew anything about Iron Man 2-3 years ago.

 

[Crook]

I don't understand why he should have to work it out completely by himself? This is one of those common complaints (again, only on here) that people had with the plot, yet it occurs in alot of movies. Who solved some of Batman's problems in both movies? Lucius Fox.

And that is a legitimately common complain for Nolan's films. The character is renowned for his intelligence. He's barely above-average. A consistent issue in a great majority of films does not make it passable.

It would be a boring movie if the main character was so intelligent that he can solve any problem and not need allies.

Tell that to Guy Ritchie and RDJ.

 

[BestGirl]

I don't understand why he should have to work it out completely by himself? This is one of those common complaints (again, only on here) that people had with the plot, yet it occurs in alot of movies. Who solved some of Batman's problems in both movies? Lucius Fox. It would be a boring movie if the main character was so intelligent that he can solve any problem and not need allies.

And for the record, Nick Fury didn't solve his problem. He gave him a medicine that would temporarily alleviate some of the health problems he had. It's like giving a cancer patient medicines that make them feel better or help some of the symptoms---not cure the actual cancer. Tony Stark solved the problems on how to permanantly fix the palladium problem by himself and I think they way they did it was clever.

I didn't object to SHIELD helping Tony out; I objected to Fury alleviating Tony's symptoms. It really sucked all the drama out of his search for a cure.

Why? There was a romantic connection throughout the first two movies. I didn't think it really came out of nowhere.

It did seem to come out of nowhere because there was very little in the way of romance going on between them during IM2. I wasn't even sure they were in love anymore until the final kiss.

Where in the first movie was there all these emotional scenes? Some of the Yinsen scenes and one or two with Pepper---but aside from that? I though there were powerful scenes in this movie that you are overlooking. Alot of them were played for laughs, yes, but again--this isn't a drama. I was fine with how the film played out. You saw him hit rock bottom and then build himself back up after watching a dated video of his dead father. I am not understanding how that is without heart.

I thought the whole father subplot was rushed too. First Stark says that his dad didn't like him, and then suddenly we see that he did. It was intended to have heart but it didn't move me.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

It hasnt passed it domestically though, and thats were the studio's earn most of their money.

Here is where I get more suspicious of motives. You are very interesting in a factor that effects the profit a studio makes in this case.

Ok...do you acknowledge that studios get a higher cut of the profits in the early weeks of a film's release? (They love "front-loaded") Thus, since IM2 made more out of the gate than IM1 it returned more of a domestic profit with 311, than IM1 did with 318. Are you happy for the studio now? Or will you discount this as it is a positive for IM2?

Combine this with the increased worldwide gross (which the studio does get a piece of) and IM2 has made more profit for Marvel than IM1. How many hundreds of millions in profit does a movie have to make before the studio is not "disappointed"?

Here we go again, go on, accuse me of being a Nolanite when I have been an Iron Man fan since I was a kid/

You don't see how coincidental it is to have Inception brought up in this particular thread so often? This thread? That movie? What are the odds I wonder? Is there some motivation behind that or is it a huge synchronism?

I wasn't actually directing my comment at you...so perhaps you protest too much? (jest messing with ya)

WB actually was dissapointed with BB to an extent, if it hadnt done so well on DVD, we mightnt have even got TDK. But you cant really compare that to IM2, BB wasnt a sequel, was a re-launch of a franchise after it previously produced possibly the worst movie ever and had no bankable stars in it, hardly the same as a sequel to a much loved movie is it?

Ahh...the rules change again. Now DVD sales are counted. (Do DVD sales count for IM2 as well?) These "Iron Man only rules" are tough to pin down. BB was the 5th Batman movie...but we aren't allowed to call it a sequel I see.

Inception wont make more than IM2, but Inception wasnt a sequel to a smash hit movie, it was an original piece of fiction.

..Like Avatar. So that means we'll have to compare those two films. Two original pieces of fiction. Supposedly Inception has this fantastic WoM like Avatar did...I guess we'll find out if that's true.

I also love how 318 million domestic is a "smash hit movie" and 311 million is "disappointing". Man...that line is a drastic one!

But the difference is 95% of people thought Spiderman was an improvement over Spidey 1, many were dissapointed by IM2, I was my self in some regards.

Are we talking BO or quality? If you seek to use IM2's box office against it from a quality standpoint you have to admit SM2 was weaker than SM1. (See how these rules fall apart?) Obviously 95% of people didn't think SM2 was better or it would have made more money...not less. Right?

$300 million is a good return no doubt, but I state this again Marvel didnt put $50 million + into this sequel expecting it not to make more domestically than its predecessor.

Or is it not equally logical to say that IM1 made way more than they expected so they thought it was worth spending more since a 300 milllion return (100+ million in profit) was likely? That's quite a cushion. Sony did the same thing with Spidey 2. Warner Bros did the same thing with Batman 1 and 2. All spent more and all the second movies made less. IM2 actually did the best out of all these. It made almost the same as the first while Spidey 2, Batman 2, and Superman 2 made a lot less.

If you ask me Inception has beaten the economy, for an original movie that didnt have an amazing opening weekend, its doing very well.

I don't get how one butt in a seat for Inception should count more than one butt in a seat for other movies. Is this how you are planning to claim the studio is not disappointed with a profit that could turn out to be about the same as IM2?

The general audience dont know who Nolan is, so there was no built in fanbase except on the internet, were most of the movies buzz was generated, amoung casual movie fans it wasnt even heard of, hell, last week someone in work said to me whats this Inception film all about and it had been out 2 weeks.

After being bombarded with Nolan fanboys talking about Inception for the past year and seeing all the ads on TV, I find it a little dishonest to now pretend this was some indie flick.

 

[hatebox]

Inception definitely wasn't an indie flick, not with that kind of budget. But, as I've said before, a big reason Warners put that much money into it was simply to get Nolan back for a third Batman film. That Inception now looks to make a very tidy profit makes it win-win for them. In fact it's on course to do so well internationally that it could compete with IM2's WW box office given it'll finish in at least the high 200s domestically.

I would weigh in on the whole IM2 talk, but what else is there to say? It is disappointing it didn't beat its predecessor's domestic figure, but on the other hand $600m+ is still a hit. Were it not for the Avengers movie I'd imagine Marvel would have a few meetings asking what they could do to make the third movie better received than the second, but now they'll just wait to see how the Avengers plays out, which is looking more and more like Iron Man 3 in spirit anyway.

 

[Iron_Stark]

For the 1000th time, this is the box office thread, I am discussing the box office!

Really?

This has been my point all along, Marvel rushing the movie out meant that the movie wasnt as good as it could've and should've been and this is why it didnt make more than the first movie domestically, this has been my point all along but it somehow gets lost in all the 'its the nolanites!' comments.

I never said it tainted anything, but many thought the movie was dissapointing so it may have tainted the franchise for them.

Hating? I found the movie a bit dissapointing as an Iron Man fan, can we not discuss what we didnt like about it just as you discuss what you did?

The whole movie felt rushed, the plot was hardly coherent, and the movie almost totally lacked any emotion or power.

The whole movie was rushed, especially the 2nd half, thinks just got presented in the movie to Tony rather than him working it out himself, Shield or someone else would just give it to him.

Tony kissing Pepper at the end was a total WTF moment as it seemed to come out of no were, and too many things were left unexplained for me like Rhodey knowing not only how to work the suit, but knowing how to get it off without the aid of Starks tech, there were plenty more than this as well.

As for the bolded statement, no, just no, the action in this movie was no were near as good as the action in Spidey 2, let alone the train fight, the action in IM2 was extremely poor IMO.

Are you still talking box office here or just trying to give us your opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.

Fact is there are more people that liked this movie than the few keyboard warriors that come on here and try to berate this movie just make theirs look better.

 

[Tony Stark]

It'll probably be at $230m after two more weekends. Even without knowing the weekend estimates when you posted this I'm confused how you could possibly see it topping out at $230m.

It will be more than 230, but I don't think it's got enough for 300. It really needed a 30 million dollar weekend for that. We'll know better when the Monday numbers come out. I expect Inception can hold no. 1 for another week as there's no big draw this week, and then when Expendables come out it will drop.

Inception had the same benefit that TDK did in that there was a month gap until there was any real competition. I wondered about this weekend, because DFS, seemed like it could be the smash comedy of the summer that we never really got this year. Also Charlie St. Cloud was an excellent book, but it looks like they screwed up the movie which was sad. I thought that was a good roll for Efron, but I'll have to rent that one out some time to see where they went wrong. That movie should have been one of those three hanky movies like the Color Purple, not sure what went wrong.

Anyway it will have a 4x multiplier. It would need a 4.9 to get to 300 million, I don't think it's quite there.

 

[Evil Twin]

It will be more than 230, but I don't think it's got enough for 300. It really needed a 30 million dollar weekend for that. We'll know better when the Monday numbers come out. I expect Inception can hold no. 1 for another week as there's no big draw this week, and then when Expendables come out it will drop.

Inception had the same benefit that TDK did in that there was a month gap until there was any real competition. I wondered about this weekend, because DFS, seemed like it could be the smash comedy of the summer that we never really got this year.

We can probably make an argument for GROWN UPS being a smash hit comedy. Especially considering the reviews.

INCEPTION is doing very well for itself. Yeah, probably not going to do $300 million, but it looks like it's going to finish around STAR TREK domestically and it's already ahead of STAR TREK internationally. WB really handled it well. Hopefully, along with DISTRICT 9, it means more smart science fiction in the future.

Big winners this year are probably AVATAR, ALICE IN WONDERLAND, and TS3. Then the next tier includes TWILIGHT: ECLIPSE, IM2, INCEPTION, HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, DESPICABLE ME, and THE KARATE KID.Maybe flip IM2 and INCEPTION considering expectations and how well INCEPTION is performing overseas. And then possibly GROWN UPS, SHUTTER ISLAND, DATE NIGHT, VALENTINE'S DAY, BOOK OF ELI, and DEAR JOHN. SHREK 4 is a success, but also signals the end of the franchise. HARRY POTTER will, of course, join the group of winners. Probably TRON LEGACY as well.

Steve Carrell is having a good year.

Big flops have to include PRINCE OF PERSIA, SORCERER'S APPRENTICE, GREEN ZONE, THE WOLFMAN, and JONAH HEX.

 

[ElMariachi]

And that is a legitimately common complain for Nolan's films. The character is renowned for his intelligence. He's barely above-average. A consistent issue in a great majority of films does not make it passable.


Tell that to Guy Ritchie and RDJ.

yeah, I can see why people would complain about that but it really didn't bother me. It would be unrealistic that Bruce Wayne becomes this master detective and that experience overnight!

As for Sherlock, he did solve almost all the problems but Watson did assist in the beatdowns.

 

[ElMariachi]

I didn't object to SHIELD helping Tony out; I objected to Fury alleviating Tony's symptoms. It really sucked all the drama out of his search for a cure.

It wasn't really an issue for me. I think some of you are reaching or going out of your way to find problems if this is really a problem in the movie. Like I was referencing in the previous post, I had no problems with Lucius Fox giving Batman an antidote for the toxin. Neither Batman nor Iron Man are doctors or scientists capable of creating medicines, so I don't think we should expect that in either movies. For the record, the serum didn't cure Tony, it only extended him and gave him more time to find answers. If anything, this whole angle in the story showed Stark's ego. He blew off Vanko in the cell when the subject was brought up and never went to any of his friends for help. It also set up a relationship with Nick Fury that will carry over to The Avengers where his ego is going to need to take a backseat to teamwork.

It did seem to come out of nowhere because there was very little in the way of romance going on between them during IM2. I wasn't even sure they were in love anymore until the final kiss.

I wouldn't say it came out of nowhere. Sure, if you didn't see the first movie I can maybe understand but it's not like he kissed Black Widow (which would have made no sense). You saw alot of signs of the romance in the first movie and in this movie they were almost a bickering couple (well, mainly Pepper). After they kissed Stark asked if it was awkward or something (I forget the actual quote) and that made it fine for me. I do remember it was soon followed by an hilarious quote by Rhodey saying they looked like "two seals fighting over a grape".

I thought the whole father subplot was rushed too. First Stark says that his dad didn't like him, and then suddenly we see that he did. It was intended to have heart but it didn't move me

I also don't see how this was rushed. Stark said that his dad didn't like him, but that was only what he remembered as a child. Howard being somewhat cold doesn't mean he never loved Tony. Alot of fathers are like that and have difficulties expressing this to their children. Can you imagine Tony Stark having kids, being one of those fathers who hugs his kid all the time and telling them he loves them? That video inspires Tony and it was slightly moving. But like I said earlier, I am not going these movies demanding drama and moving, emotional scenes. I made the comparision of Tony Stark and James Bond. How many Bond movies have you watched where you felt a gush of emotion? I can't picture one and thats cool with me.

 

[souvlaki]

It will be more than 230, but I don't think it's got enough for 300. It really needed a 30 million dollar weekend for that. We'll know better when the Monday numbers come out. I expect Inception can hold no. 1 for another week as there's no big draw this week, and then when Expendables come out it will drop.

Inception had the same benefit that TDK did in that there was a month gap until there was any real competition. I wondered about this weekend, because DFS, seemed like it could be the smash comedy of the summer that we never really got this year. Also Charlie St. Cloud was an excellent book, but it looks like they screwed up the movie which was sad. I thought that was a good roll for Efron, but I'll have to rent that one out some time to see where they went wrong. That movie should have been one of those three hanky movies like the Color Purple, not sure what went wrong.

Anyway it will have a 4x multiplier. It would need a 4.9 to get to 300 million, I don't think it's quite there.

You are probably right, but it depends on how it holds up for the rest of it's run. Right now it's about $16m north of Pirates at the same point in it's run so it still has a chance. My guess is it will probably end up somewhere around $280m which is still pretty fantastic considering it's an original story being sold primarily on a director and actor's name. Regardless of anyone's opinion about this film I hope everyone can agree that Inception doing well is good for Hollywood. Hopefully this, along with Avatar and District 9 will open up the doors to higher budget original films.

 

[ElMariachi]

^everybody loved Inception and basically anything that Nolan has done. It's good for movies if this makes money because it shows that the audience is open to original ideas. The only thing that bothers some people are those who constantly and obnoxiously n-thug Nolan, Batman, and Inception. An army of trolls and haters were immediatly created after TDK and it's gotten rather annoying to be quite honest. The same thing was done to Johnny Depp and it got played out real fast.

The only thing I would disagree with you on is Avatar. I thought that movie was massively overrated. It was original/beautiful looking, sure, but it wasn't alot of fun and it should have been. The movie could have been alot greater if Cameron didn't make the movie about his own personal politics and force it upon us---in a completely ridiculous manner no less.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

^everybody loved Inception and basically anything that Nolan has done. It's good for movies if this makes money because it shows that the audience is open to original ideas.

Not that original actually. Here

The only thing I would disagree with you on is Avatar. I thought that movie was massively overrated. It was original/beautiful looking, sure, but it wasn't alot of fun and it should have been. The movie could have been alot greater if Cameron didn't make the movie about his own personal politics and force it upon us---in a completely ridiculous manner no less.

I'm totally mystified at the movies that are making insane money lately. Avatar, TDK, Transformers, Shrek.....really? I mean they are good movies...but not that good. The public has weird taste.

 

[hatebox]

^ I may not like those movies much (TDK aside) but I can hardly be surprised they made a lot of money, they had very populist sensibilities. The whole time I was watching Avatar I smiled at every moment Cameron conspiculously did something that was aimed at giving the movie as wide an appeal as possible. Redlettermedia's review sums it up nicely.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

If you are comparing it with the box office of Iron Man 1, then what is the complaint? Iron Man 2 has made $30 million more in total, proving that the character is growing in popularity overseas. It has only made $7 million less so far domestically and in my opinion, that's not a huge difference in the grand scheme of things considering the economy. Spider-Man 2 made $30 million less domestically than the first and was considered a better film by many people. This cause for concern for Iron Man 2 is a bit silly in my opinion looking at other franchises like Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Star Wars (both trilogies), Jurassic Park, and the first Batman/Superman movies.

The complaint is it has probably made less profit than IM1, I am not complaining about this, I am pointing out that Marvel wont be best pleased about this, overseas doesnt count for much in my eyes (and this is coming from an English person) as studio's only get 15% of foreign gross.

I don't understand why he should have to work it out completely by himself? This is one of those common complaints (again, only on here) that people had with the plot, yet it occurs in alot of movies. Who solved some of Batman's problems in both movies? Lucius Fox. It would be a boring movie if the main character was so intelligent that he can solve any problem and not need allies.

As someone else pointed out, this is one of the biggest complaints of th Batman movies, I was complaining about this aspect of BB before even someone told me that LF didnt do all this in the comics, I am not steeped in Batman history and thought this was a faithful aspect but still didnt like it, just as I didnt like it in IM2. Tony is a genius and yet couldnt figure something out for himself, he needed Shield to give his fathers stuff and he still needed help from his father. Not only did it feel rushed, it felt very deus ex machina.

And for the record, Nick Fury didn't solve his problem. He gave him a medicine that would temporarily alleviate some of the health problems he had. It's like giving a cancer patient medicines that make them feel better or help some of the symptoms---not cure the actual cancer. Tony Stark solved the problems on how to permanantly fix the palladium problem by himself and I think they way they did it was clever.

Without his fathers stuff, Stark wouldnt have solved the problem, so Fury had a MASSIVE hand in helping him, and the little smirk on Fury's face when he gave him it suggested he knew what was in there.

Why? There was a romantic connection throughout the first two movies. I didn't think it really came out of nowhere.

The romantic element was basically forgotten for the whole 2nd half of the movie, hence why the kiss came out of no were for me.

As for Rhodey and the suit (another complaint), it should just be assumed that Stark let him play with the suit between the two movies. They were good friends and not letting an aviator like Rhodey not inspect or test the suit would be a d-bag move as a friend. To bring up TDK again, we never saw Batman jumping off another skyscraper to test out gliding like he performed in Hong Kong. He just did it and we must assume that he practiced it beforehand.

Are you kidding? He jumped off multiple buildings in BB and glided, he had done it loads of times. With Rhodey we didnt even get a hint that he had tried it before, yet he managed to fight Tony to a standstill, now admittedly Tony was drunk, but he would have known the ins and outs of the suit much more than Rhodey. All it needed was a line of dialogue earlier in the movie to suggest he had had training in it.

I completely disagree. Spidey 2 was cool because it was straight up comic book action between two superpowered heroes. The Monaco fight had the same epic feel because it was on an active racetrack. The speed and noise of that scene was incredible. The IM/WM drone fight was also top notch and exciting. The only complaint here is that the Whiplash battle could have went on for a few minutes longer. They were amazing while they lasted though.

Sorry, but for a $200 million dollar movie, the action in IM2 was average, AT BEST, Spiderman 2's fight scenes are easily some of the best, NON of the ones in IM2 compare to it IMO, and I think you'll find more people agree with me about that as well.

Where in the first movie was there all these emotional scenes? Some of the Yinsen scenes and one or two with Pepper---but aside from that? I though there were powerful scenes in this movie that you are overlooking. Alot of them were played for laughs, yes, but again--this isn't a drama. I was fine with how the film played out. You saw him hit rock bottom and then build himself back up after watching a dated video of his dead father. I am not understanding how that is without heart.

Were in the first movie were all these scene's? Yinsens death, the army finding Tony in the desert with Rhodey hugging Tony like he hadnt seen him in years, Tony arriving home to find Pepper crying with happiness, seeing kids crying at the vision of their father about to be executed in front of their eyes only for Iron Man to rescue them, Pepper quiting on the spot only to do what Tony asked after he explains he knows in his heart what he is doing is right, Tony being at the mercy of Stane and imploring Pepper to blow the roof despite the risk of him dying. All very powerful and emotional moments compared to the one moment in IM2 when we see his fathers video, sorry, but that is a big difference.

Oh cmon. This movie isn't ever going to be TDK unless they turn the series into a drama. X2? A good movie, but it wasn't better then IM2. As for Spidey-2, another good movie but way too much drama/angst for my liking. At least when insinuating it's better than IM2. For every touching/good scene in that movie, we had to wait for the annoying MJ/Harry/Aunt May and the pointless skinny neighor with cake nonsense to pass.

X2 is definately a better movie than IM2, it had MUCH more critical and fan acclaim and still does. At the end of the day I love a good action scene, but drama is what drives the story forward and the drama in X2, Spidey and TDK were leaps and bounds what we got in IM2, I would also say the action in X2 and Spidey 2 was leaps and bounds what we got in IM2. Those 3 movies are regularly voted the best of the genre by various fan-site's and publications, I have never once seen IM2 even come close to being voted the best, does this not tell you something?

The element creation was clever and very sci-fi to me. The Stark Expo model being the structure of a new element (that Howard didn't have the technology to produce) was brilliant. That whole angle isn't rushed in any way because it was a beautiful scene and was scored perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7bhXAL-xKg

I personally found it very rushed, and since there had previously been no drama regarding Tony's fate, I didnt much care either.

Sure they do. Dark Knight was one of the most popular and beloved movies of our generation. People saw the connection and it helped Inception greatly. If Nolan is an unknown, he doesn't get that budget to make such a cool looking movie (based on his own idea, no less) in the first place in my opinion.

The Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens, True Lies and Titanic all are extremely popular movies of multiple generations, yet they still had to quote everyone of them in the advertising for Avatar, and it still didnt have a spectacular opening weekend, WOM is what made Avatar its money, the GA dont take as much notice as a director's previous movie as we do. The amount of times I have said to someone how good Christopher Nolan is and they stare at me blankly is telling.

How is it paltry? All of these movies made decent enough money as to take money away from IM2. In a bad economy, no less. POP and RH aren't the only movies that are direct competition for starters. The movie only made 7 million less in the U.S. and over 30+ more internationally. Relax. People liked the movie. $616 million is a large number for what was a second tier hero in my opinion. Maybe if you were talking about Harry Potter or Superman, but nobody even knew anything about Iron Man 2-3 years ago.

IM1 came out in a recession too you know, and it went up against MUCH bigger competition and still managed to make nearly as much despite not being a sequel. The only movies to directly effect IM2 were RH and POP, neither of which were anything NEAR being smash hits, in fact, you could say both flopped, and you call this good competition?

IM1 went up againt Narnia 2 (over $400 million WW) and Indiana Jones 4 (over $700 million world wide), THATS strong competition.

Really?


Are you still talking box office here or just trying to give us your opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.

Fact is there are more people that liked this movie than the few keyboard warriors that come on here and try to berate this movie just make theirs look better.

If you want to like the movie, fine, I did myself but found it very flawed, many people didnt like the movie though, and I am just talking about on here. I am not trying to pass of my opinion as fact at all, what I AM trying to pass of as fact is that Marvel wont be best pleased with the movies take, how anyone can deny this is beyond me, could it be that bias people on here are so quick to mention? I keep having to mention my feelings on the movie because Ironites in here keep trying to say i'm a Batman fan, which I find just as ridiculous as the people they are accusing.

And more people liking the movie than not isnt a fact at all, there is no way you can gauge that, however, with the domestic numbers being not as good as IM1, this SUGGESTS that people didnt enjoy it as much as the first movie as WOM wasnt good enough to encourage multiple viewings.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Are you kidding? He jumped off multiple buildings in BB and glided, he had done it loads of times. With Rhodey we didnt even get a hint that he had tried it before, yet he managed to fight Tony to a standstill, now admittedly Tony was drunk, but he would have known the ins and outs of the suit much more than Rhodey. All it needed was a line of dialogue earlier in the movie to suggest he had had training in it.

Now you just want to complain just to complain.

Where was the hint that Jean and Storm could fly the jet in X2? All we saw was Cyclops in the first one flying it. Where were there any hints that a bat pod was inside the Tumbler? We never saw anything in the first one, much less Batman knowing how to operate one. Were there any hints that Harry knew how to fly a glider or use his fathers machines? All we saw at the end of part 2 was him finding the stuff and in the beginning of part 3 already being an expert at flying it. Where did Harvey Dent come from and why was he already a DA?? I didn't see an election. And why was he already in love with Rachel? I didn't see any build up to it.

See I can complain just to complain also. And before you retort with "well they owned that stuff and Rhodey didn't" just remember Rhodey had his own pin to come into Tony's lab whenever he wanted.

X2 is definately a better movie than IM2, it had MUCH more critical and fan acclaim and still does. At the end of the day I love a good action scene, but drama is what drives the story forward and the drama in X2, Spidey and TDK were leaps and bounds what we got in IM2, I would also say the action in X2 and Spidey 2 was leaps and bounds what we got in IM2. Those 3 movies are regularly voted the best of the genre by various fan-site's and publications, I have never once seen IM2 even come close to being voted the best, does this not tell you something?

No it's not. X2 just had one good action scene and that was the Nightcrawler scene.

The reason why X2 seems really good is because the first one was just average, take away the first movie and X2 would be almost forgettable.

And it's BO didn't even come close to sniffing IM2s, so the GA obviously liked it and at the end of the day that's all that matters.

If you want to like the movie, fine, I did myself but found it very flawed, many people didnt like the movie though, and I am just talking about on here. I am not trying to pass of my opinion as fact at all, what I AM trying to pass of as fact is that Marvel wont be best pleased with the movies take, how anyone can deny this is beyond me, could it be that bias people on here are so quick to mention? I keep having to mention my feelings on the movie because Ironites in here keep trying to say i'm a Batman fan, which I find just as ridiculous as the people they are accusing.

And more people liking the movie than not isnt a fact at all, there is no way you can gauge that, however, with the domestic numbers being not as good as IM1, this SUGGESTS that people didnt enjoy it as much as the first movie as WOM wasnt good enough to encourage multiple viewings.

Yes you are. You come on here talking about how disappointing Marvel is going to feel, that want to give us your thoughts on the movie.

The only difference between the two is 7 million dollars, and both went north of 300 million! How the hell can you say people didn't enjoy it as much as the first.