Iron Man 2 The Iron Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread

[ElMariachi]

It's not really leeway though. The best Joker stories don't tell his origin. In his best stories, he's this "entity" that just exists to be the complete opposite of the Bat. That's why there back and forth is always so fascinating.

With Dent in TDK, his obession with justice like Batman's is the reason for his madness. Losing Rachel and not having Gordon or Batman listen to him, understand his philosophy, is why we understand his madness.

I get the Joker/Batman relationship and think it's great---but don't you see how it could be open to criticism? It's simple and always the same, like Spy vs. Spy from Mad Magazine.

As for Dent, I think he went a bit too nuts in too short of a timespan. He was a reasonable, intelligent person. I could understand him being angry with Gordon and the GPD, but not Batman. Him flying off the handle killing mobsters and goons was cool, but it got a bit too unrealistic when he is about to kill a kid. Like I said earlier, don't get me wrong---love the movie and that scene, but we could pick it apart like any other movie.

And I wasn't asking for unreal character development for Iron Man 2. The film starts out strong with pure development of Stark...but Stark doesn't solve his problems or learns anything from them in Iron Man 2. It's handed to him and basically he's cured...gotta go save Pepper. That's it.

Had Tony solved his own problems and come to an understanding with his father on his own, I honestly wouldn't complain about the film.

Well it's a valid criticism, but it really is making a mountain out of a molehill. I brought up Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade before and it's the same thing. Indy got all the info from his dad and it guided him to getting the Grail. Not an issue for me though and I think only you guys are the ones who noticed these things.

The whole problem with Iron Man 2 is the entire second act. The threat of the film don't test Stark...when they know his weakness(Ivan). And when you add how lazy S.H.I.E.L.D. was added to the storyline, you can see how it went from a really strong opening act to a really "what the hell were they thinking" second act to finishing off strong with a great, action packed third act, way better than the first film.

The elements were there. They just don't gel at all because of how Avengers is pushed down our throats. I understand that Avengers is an important component of Tony Stark but why force it down our throats in the middle of the film when just having SLJ show up at the end as he does and then have the reveal of Natasha at the end would've been just as good

I am just not getting this Avengers stuff. Nick Fury is not simply an Avengers tie in, he is apart of Tony Starks story. As a superhero, he is the guy Stark deals with in regards to a national agency. Other then that scene with Fury at the end, there wasn't any real Avengers talk.

My argument against Iron Man 2 is born out of frustration because I think Favreau could've easily delivered the "TDK" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first film set that up beautifully. Marvel's interventions killed what I thought was going to be a truly great sequel.

It's getting old hearing "Marvel did it". It's a copout and none of you really know what went on. Just like this whole Ed Norton stuff. People like to make heroes of the small guy and hate on the big corporation/people with money. You can't say that Marvel told them what to say and how the plot should be.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I am dead serious, X2 had much better critical and fan acclaim than IM2 did, and still does, as it is regularly voted one of, if not the best of the genre, Empire voted it best comic book movie ever, even AFTER TDK came out.

And Watchmen was loved by fans pretty much universally, especially the DC, IM2 isnt.

wtf is an Empire? Some foreign magazine? pfff

And Watchmen was loathe by pretty much everyone else, yeah, I'll take IM2's reception over something that completely bombed at the BO. 55 OW with a 67.7% drop it's second weekend, making it into the top 100 biggest drops in movie history? Yeah, dammit, I sure wish IM2 could've been like the Watchmen.

 

[ElMariachi]

This topic is for a different thread, but I don't think these are quite valid criticisms.

1) Harvey's entire foundations crumbled right in front of him. His belief in a legitimate political system failed. His trust in friends failed. His "you make your own luck" mantra failed. The cost of his fiancee's life as a result of these major turning points made him snap. It's not remotely as simple as "his gf blew up and now he's bad". C'mon.

2) Joker NEVER was one for deep character development. Sorry. We all know his claim to fame, even Nolan from the very beginning made it clear this was pretty much going to be a character who wrecked havoc. The development and sense of purpose is there, but in much more subtle form.

3) Bruce is firmly devoted to his own brand of morals and ethics. He's bound to it. Even many batfans realize that it's a flaw. But it's a flaw that makes the character.

I will agree that the production having hitting homeruns in every aspect makes it a lot easier to mask its deficiencies. But this is with any product. Your imperfections are bright as day as a result of not having anything in comparison to hide behind. I don't really think IM2 did that much to excel above its predecessor, and yet IM1 is the one that's almost universally praised. And that's simply because it was the film whose pros severely, severely, outweighed any of its cons. Fans are always willing to accept that so as long as the benefit is greater.

I just think that Harvey was a bit much. I hear what your saying with the reasons why he snapped, but it was too quick of a turn. Killing mobsters I could get down with, threatening Gordon's kids and shooting Batman was a little farfetched. In my opinion, I would have set up Harvey in TDK and used him in the next movie. He was killed off a bit too quick and that has been really my only major complaint with TDK (aside from small stuff like the Bale Bat-voice, too much Chicago, etc.).

Also get you on The Joker, but you know if he wasn't such a famous character he would be open to criticisms of character development. He is basically a slasher villian with acting ability and some philosophical points! The thing about Batman though is that he was overshadowed by Ledger. TDK felt like Heat or something of that nature where the bad guy almost gets as much play as the hero. The thing I loved about Begins is that he had personality and fun relationships with other characters. TDK was a bit too serious (no Joker pun intended) in comparison with BB. Nolan can make anything good though and am interested in who could possibly take up the mantle after he moves on.

 

[ElMariachi]

What I found funny about this thread is that all the people moaning about others trying to turn this into a TDK vs Iron Man 2 thread have actually managed to turn it into one .

Personally I dont think they are comparable, in terms of quality, TDK is the better movie by quite a bit, but IM2 should be more compared with Spiderman 2, but its no were near as good as that either.

Also, I will say that J.Howlett is one of the most level headed and sensible people on this entire forum, and is in no way a TDK fanboy, I have seen him on loads of Marvel threads both before and after TDK came out.

not really trying to turn into into a vs. thread because I love all of these movies. But TDK is the gold standard in regards to comic films and am using it as a reference. I have done the same with SM2. I don't remember much from X2 aside from the Nightcrawler scene, so I can't really reference it.

 

[Iron_Stark]

not really trying to turn into into a vs. thread because I love all of these movies. But TDK is the gold standard in regards to comic films and am using it as a reference. I have done the same with SM2. I don't remember much from X2 aside from the Nightcrawler scene, so I can't really reference it.

Just go back and watch part one, it's basically the same.

Wolverine and his somewhat amazing friends. check
Wolverine vs a woman. check
Cyclops not leading and not doing anything. check
Storm being non existent. check
Jean not really doing anything except for the end. check
Wolverine, Jean and Cyke love triangle. check
Prof. X incapacitated. check
Bobby not freezing his whole body and doing "Iceman" stuff. check

I can keep going, but I'll stop there.

 

[Crook]

I just think that Harvey was a bit much. I hear what your saying with the reasons why he snapped, but it was too quick of a turn. Killing mobsters I could get down with, threatening Gordon's kids and shooting Batman was a little farfetched. In my opinion, I would have set up Harvey in TDK and used him in the next movie. He was killed off a bit too quick and that has been really my only major complaint with TDK (aside from small stuff like the Bale Bat-voice, too much Chicago, etc.).

I can agree with that. Simultaneously though, the fact that Harvey the-good-guy was set up so well that even though his descent and turn spanned only a couple of minutes, it was justified. I could pinpoint specific scenes and dialog as valleys and peaks in the character's development.

Also get you on The Joker, but you know if he wasn't such a famous character he would be open to criticisms of character development. He is basically a slasher villian with acting ability and some philosophical points!

Well I'd have to challenge this with Hannibal, Chigurh, and Landa. All Oscar-winning performances (two of which are recent), and also roles that had little to no development at all. The great performances played a part in the acclaim, sure, but the magnetic nature of these villains is how absolute and relentless they are at their cores. Dare I say it, giving too much depth ironically takes away from what makes them so appealing. At the end of the day these are supporting roles, so they don't necessarily have to go through several arcs that the main character does.

 

[Anita18]

Well, that's all she needed to be. A sexy right-hand of Fury that could lay the smackdown. She was a minor character yet I can recall some of the clowns on IMDB complaining that she didn't have enough depth. For christsake, that would be like requring a backstory on Jabba the Hutt. We just don't need it.

The characters in TDK had motivations, but you could admit that they could be open to criticism. Especially the three that I brought up. Harvey went a bit nuts and turned into a homicidal goon because his girl got blown up. It's a bit unbelieveable, but I didn't mind because it's not supposed to be realistic.

As for Hammer, yeah, he was kind of a goof. I thought he was initally going to be a Stane-like villain. He was played so well that it didn't bother me. The only thing that sort of did was the "ex wife". Don't get me wrong, the bit was funny, but that made Hammer look like a complete joke and he shouldn't be THAT bad.

But what I'm saying is that the characters in TDK at least HAD motivations you could criticize.

Oh, the ex-wife bit was HILARIOUS. Made Hammer look like a total dolt, but it was hilarious.

Well I'd have to challenge this with Hannibal, Chigurh, and Landa. All Oscar-winning performances (two of which are recent), and also roles that had little to no development at all. The great performances played a part in the acclaim, sure, but the magnetic nature of these villains is how absolute and relentless they are at their cores. Dare I say it, giving too much depth ironically takes away from what makes them so appealing. At the end of the day these are supporting roles, so they don't necessarily have to go through several arcs that the main character does.

I think also what made them so compelling was that despite the lack of screentime or what we could pinpoint directly in the plot as "character development," you could get a sense of what made those villain tick. It's no small feat.

 

[ElMariachi]

Just go back and watch part one, it's basically the same.

Wolverine and his somewhat amazing friends. check
Wolverine vs a woman. check
Cyclops not leading and not doing anything. check
Storm being non existent. check
Jean not really doing anything except for the end. check
Wolverine, Jean and Cyke love triangle. check
Prof. X incapacitated. check
Bobby not freezing his whole body and doing "Iceman" stuff. check

I can keep going, but I'll stop there.

It's so true. If anything was raped, it was the X-Men. I liked Ian McKellan as Magneto, but geez. Was it too much to ask for some variety with the villains? I'm glad Mystique lost her powers in the last movie so we don't have to see her again. Knowing that franchise though, Scarlett Witch will be brought in just to give her powers back or something.

 

[ElMariachi]

I can agree with that. Simultaneously though, the fact that Harvey the-good-guy was set up so well that even though his descent and turn spanned only a couple of minutes, it was justified. I could pinpoint specific scenes and dialog as valleys and peaks in the character's development.


Well I'd have to challenge this with Hannibal, Chigurh, and Landa. All Oscar-winning performances (two of which are recent), and also roles that had little to no development at all. The great performances played a part in the acclaim, sure, but the magnetic nature of these villains is how absolute and relentless they are at their cores. Dare I say it, giving too much depth ironically takes away from what makes them so appealing. At the end of the day these are supporting roles, so they don't necessarily have to go through several arcs that the main character does.

That's true I suppose. Hannibal and Chigurh were pretty one dimensional as killing machines and were great. Landa at least had some variety in his story though.

As for Harvey, I know what your saying about his dialouge. Just felt a bit rushed how he became Two Face, rampaged, and then got iced. I really like the idea of him not playing such a major role in the finale of TDK, living, and then being one of the major villains for Batman 3. The idea of Catwoman and the Riddler sort of worries me. Not that I don't think Nolan will make them good, but the Riddler had some of his thunder stolen by the Joker. And Catwoman sucks. Harvey Dent and Riddler/Penguin could have been cool. Speaking of cool, still holding out hope that Nolan goes out of left field and picks Mr. Freeze. Without the silly ice, cold, frost, freeze, chill, etc. jokes that I busted out in that last sentence.

 

[ElMariachi]

But what I'm saying is that the characters in TDK at least HAD motivations you could criticize.

Oh, the ex-wife bit was HILARIOUS. Made Hammer look like a total dolt, but it was hilarious.

.

Hopefully we get to see a real missile in the next Iron Man movie!

Oh, and maybe a return of Whiplash.

 

[danoyse]

I'm not calling you anything, I'm just saying The Gospel of Nolan was a flawless perfect movie, that should be worshiped in every thread and we should say a little prayer every night to our lord and savior Christopher Nolan.

OK, now you're just trolling. Take a few days off and learn how to behave.

I'm about to kill this thread unless it goes back to being a box office discussion. Take the critiques of the movie over to the review thread or it's going to close.

 

[lespaul59]

So do you guys think Inception will still be #1 after this weekend? If it is do you think it will be after next weekend? This weekend I'm not sure but I do think it will get passed next weekend. I'm hoping to go see the Other Guys this weekend but I'm not sure it can take the #1 spot.

 

[hatebox]

The Other Guys will almost certainly be no.1.

It'd be nice if Inception got over $20m this weekend but that might be too big an ask. I'm guessing it'll finish around $275m.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

wtf is an Empire? Some foreign magazine? pfff

Its one of the biggest movie magazines in the world, hence why its a 'top critic' on rotten tomatoes.

And Watchmen was loathe by pretty much everyone else, yeah, I'll take IM2's reception over something that completely bombed at the BO. 55 OW with a 67.7% drop it's second weekend, making it into the top 100 biggest drops in movie history? Yeah, dammit, I sure wish IM2 could've been like the Watchmen.

So now you are saying that BO=quality?

Anyway, Watchmen isnt any were near as accessable as Iron Man, it is a dark, violent and depressing world which makes it not very accessable by the GA, were as IM is, despite that, Watchmen has found an audience on DVD. But IM2's DVD sales will probably be a lot more because it caters to all audiences unlike Watchmen.

not really trying to turn into into a vs. thread because I love all of these movies. But TDK is the gold standard in regards to comic films and am using it as a reference. I have done the same with SM2. I don't remember much from X2 aside from the Nightcrawler scene, so I can't really reference it.

TDK is the gold standard, and thats my whole problem with IM2, it should have been the gold standard, at the very least of Marvel movies, but its no were near because it was rushed into production. And I personally believe that had the movie reached its potential, we wouldnt be discussing how Marvel may be dissapointed in the domestic take, I believe it would have made a lot more.

I think what people are forgetting about the X-Men movies as well is that they were made in an era when comic-book movies were very taboo, so, especially with X1, Singer had to cut a lot of the wilder elements out and make something totally serious and not too OTT. Having said that, I still think the first 2 X-Movies were great, the last 2? Not so much.

 

[J.Howlett]

I think what people are forgetting about the X-Men movies as well is that they were made in an era when comic-book movies were very taboo, so, especially with X1, Singer had to cut a lot of the wilder elements out and make something totally serious and not too OTT. Having said that, I still think the first 2 X-Movies were great, the last 2? Not so much.

Not to mention, Fox at the last minute shaved off 25 million from Singer's budget and upped the release date a whole year than when it was suppose to...and yet, he still made that first X-Men film work.

And I agree with you about Watchmen. Loathed it in the theatres. Liked it a little better after the director's cut. Fully support it as a daring and ambition film on the same lines as The Dark Knight after watching the ultimate cut.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Its one of the biggest movie magazines in the world, hence why its a 'top critic' on rotten tomatoes.



So now you are saying that BO=quality?

Anyway, Watchmen isnt any were near as accessable as Iron Man, it is a dark, violent and depressing world which makes it not very accessable by the GA, were as IM is, despite that, Watchmen has found an audience on DVD. But IM2's DVD sales will probably be a lot more because it caters to all audiences unlike Watchmen.


TDK is the gold standard, and thats my whole problem with IM2, it should have been the gold standard, at the very least of Marvel movies, but its no were near because it was rushed into production. And I personally believe that had the movie reached its potential, we wouldnt be discussing how Marvel may be dissapointed in the domestic take, I believe it would have made a lot more.

I think what people are forgetting about the X-Men movies as well is that they were made in an era when comic-book movies were very taboo, so, especially with X1, Singer had to cut a lot of the wilder elements out and make something totally serious and not too OTT. Having said that, I still think the first 2 X-Movies were great, the last 2? Not so much.

Why? It wasn't suppose to be on the level of TDK,at all. TDK was suppose to be a crime/drama movie with comic book characters in them,while Ironman 2 wasn't,I don't know why anyone would be upset over it when it wasn't trying to follow that route.

 

[souvlaki]

Why? It wasn't suppose to be on the level of TDK,at all. TDK was suppose to be a crime/drama movie with comic book characters in them,while Ironman 2 wasn't,I don't know why anyone would be upset over it when it wasn't trying to follow that route.

I kind of get what they are saying with this. When Batman Begins and Iron Man came out, while they were both different types of superhero films I thought they were both more or less equals. Batman Begins for me was the perfect serious superhero movie, and Iron Man was the perfect fun superhero movie. With Dark Knight stepping it up a notch I really expected Iron Man to do the same. Iron Man 2 should have been the gold standard for that type of superhero film and it wasn't. It wasn't bad just underwhelming after what the first movie had set up. I still maintain that if it had a been a better movie it would have easily out grossed the first film and quite possibly could have been the biggest film of this year, especially considering how much buzz surrounded the first film.

 

[rashad]

The Other Guys will almost certainly be no.1.

It'd be nice if Inception got over $20m this weekend but that might be too big an ask. I'm guessing it'll finish around $275m.

I'm thinking $19m+. But anywhere between $18-20m is a solid hold.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I didn't think Black Widow in particular had any motivations of her own, besides her work for SHIELD. Every character in TDK (even most of the minor ones) had their own motivations and made their own decisions.

I did like the way Stark was painted against Justin Hammer, but Hammer didn't really feel dangerous in the end at all. Vanko played him like a fiddle and just used his money, that was all.

Hammer isn't supposed to feel dangerous. (copying what TDK fans say about the Joker)

The Joker shouldn't have character development. He's an absolute. That's the entire point of him.

Like that.

It's not really leeway though. The best Joker stories don't tell his origin. In his best stories, he's this "entity" that just exists to be the complete opposite of the Bat. That's why there back and forth is always so fascinating.

With Dent in TDK, his obession with justice like Batman's is the reason for his madness. Losing Rachel and not having Gordon or Batman listen to him, understand his philosophy, is why we understand his madness.

And that.

Dent was pretty hilarious in TDK too. I can understand his anger for sure. But then The Joker walks up to him while he is in bed, hands him a gun, and puts it to his own head.

So...Dent decides to flip a coin to see if he should take revenge on the guy that did all this to him. Naturally, Dent ends up joining The Joker's cause. Yeah...that works.

2) Joker NEVER was one for deep character development. Sorry. We all know his claim to fame, even Nolan from the very beginning made it clear this was pretty much going to be a character who wrecked havoc. The development and sense of purpose is there, but in much more subtle form.

And that.

Sorry, but you sound just as ridiculous as these Nolanites you keep accusing. Iron Man 2 simply wasnt as good as it could and should have, it wasnt even as good as IM1 and many movies worse than it, it should have up there with TDK, Watchmen, X2, Spiderman 2 and all the other awesome CB but its not, its unfortunately somewere in the middle and IMO the legs of the BO show this is how many felt.

Awesome. You discount box office as an indicator of quality and use it as an indicator of quality in the same sentence!

Just to show how little I think box office performance indicates quality, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Watchmen is the best CB movie I've ever seen. It does what TDK thought it was doing but does it better. You can spend hours locked into a philosophical discussion after seeing it.

The Iron Man movies are a different style than TDK and Watchmen and are at the top of that particular style, but I'll still put Watchmen above both of them.

Box office and quality are two different things. Again, those who try to use box office performance to prove quality will fail. You can't do it.

And Watchmen was loathe by pretty much everyone else, yeah, I'll take IM2's reception over something that completely bombed at the BO. 55 OW with a 67.7% drop it's second weekend, making it into the top 100 biggest drops in movie history? Yeah, dammit, I sure wish IM2 could've been like the Watchmen.

But...I thought box office proved quality? How can that be?

What you just listed proved the opposite. Transformers and Shrek prove the opposite.

Just go back and watch part one, it's basically the same.

Wolverine and his somewhat amazing friends. check
Wolverine vs a woman. check
Cyclops not leading and not doing anything. check
Storm being non existent. check
Jean not really doing anything except for the end. check
Wolverine, Jean and Cyke love triangle. check
Prof. X incapacitated. check
Bobby not freezing his whole body and doing "Iceman" stuff. check

I can keep going, but I'll stop there.

The X-movies were flawed. I loved them, but they did treat the characters not named Wolverine like crap. Singer even took a dump on the Magneto character in X2 ....."I love what you've done with your hair". WTF was that? Since when would Magneto ever say anything that petty?

 

[ElMariachi]

TDK is the gold standard, and thats my whole problem with IM2, it should have been the gold standard, at the very least of Marvel movies, but its no were near because it was rushed into production. And I personally believe that had the movie reached its potential, we wouldnt be discussing how Marvel may be dissapointed in the domestic take, I believe it would have made a lot more.

I think what people are forgetting about the X-Men movies as well is that they were made in an era when comic-book movies were very taboo, so, especially with X1, Singer had to cut a lot of the wilder elements out and make something totally serious and not too OTT. Having said that, I still think the first 2 X-Movies were great, the last 2? Not so much.

Why should it be the "gold standard" of comic book movies. This is what I am talking about with your ridiculous expectations, which basically set the movie up to fail in your opinions.

As for rushing it, the first movie started filming in March of 07' and came out in May of 08'. Iron Man 2 started filming in April of 09' and came out in May of 2010. Theroux was signed on as writer while the first movie was still in theaters and had plenty of time to write a script. Jeff Bridges said the first movie basically had no script and said the movie had a release date before the movie had a script. He compared it to a student film for christsakes. And you are saying Iron Man 2 was rushed? C'mon.

 

[hatebox]

I won't use terms like 'gold standard' because that can mean different things to different people, but the least I expected of IM2 was that it'd be a step-up from its predecessor, that everyone would be talking about it like it was obviously better than IM1, a la TDK, SM2 and X2 agains their respective predecessors. That isn't the case by a long shot for IM2. Again, were it not for the Avengers being released, I'm sure Marvel would have had some serious meetings wondering how they can make IM3 better. But they'll see how the Avengers does now.

 

[lespaul59]

The Other Guys will almost certainly be no.1.

It'd be nice if Inception got over $20m this weekend but that might be too big an ask. I'm guessing it'll finish around $275m.

I had actually been thinking that people wheren't that interrested in the Other Guys but after what little I've read today it seems like people are actually liking the movie. I haven't been following the Other Guys at all and seem to be way out of the loop on this one. And as for the Watchmen I actually like it better than either IM and think it was missunderstood more than anything. Before watching the movie I had never read the comic and really didn't know anything about the Watchmen. So after watch the movie and watching the motion comic I think the previews made it seem more like a regular superhero movie while it might be the exact oposite. I would also argue that X1 isn't as strong of a movie as SP1 or IM1. So I think compairing the improvements of SP and IM2 to X2 is apples to oranges if you get what I'm saying.

 

[ElMariachi]

I won't use terms like 'gold standard' because that can mean different things to different people, but the least I expected of IM2 was that it'd be a step-up from its predecessor, that everyone would be talking about it like it was obviously better than IM1, a la TDK, SM2 and X2 agains their respective predecessors. That isn't the case by a long shot for IM2. Again, were it not for the Avengers being released, I'm sure Marvel would have had some serious meetings wondering how they can make IM3 better. But they'll see how the Avengers does now.

I think it was a step up in some ways. Maybe not critically, but it was alot more ambitious in my opinion. Some of you are forgetting how incredible alot of this movie was. The Stark Expo, Monaco Racetrack, the process of creating a new element, past meets present, government/military intrusion, rival businesses, and the comicbook like battle scenes with the drones. And on top of that, an underlying Avengers story which is prompting D.C. to kick off Justice League. Maybe without Batman/Superman. Sure, this movie wasn't for everybody, but as a fan of the character----I loved it. It was a very bold movie in my opinion and was good as the first.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Why? It wasn't suppose to be on the level of TDK,at all. TDK was suppose to be a crime/drama movie with comic book characters in them,while Ironman 2 wasn't,I don't know why anyone would be upset over it when it wasn't trying to follow that route.

I'm talking about in terms of quality, not the content of the movies, Iron Man isnt Batman so I wouldnt expect IM2 to be like a Batman movie, but IMO, IM2 could have and should have been as GOOD a movie as TDK.

I kind of get what they are saying with this. When Batman Begins and Iron Man came out, while they were both different types of superhero films I thought they were both more or less equals. Batman Begins for me was the perfect serious superhero movie, and Iron Man was the perfect fun superhero movie. With Dark Knight stepping it up a notch I really expected Iron Man to do the same. Iron Man 2 should have been the gold standard for that type of superhero film and it wasn't. It wasn't bad just underwhelming after what the first movie had set up. I still maintain that if it had a been a better movie it would have easily out grossed the first film and quite possibly could have been the biggest film of this year, especially considering how much buzz surrounded the first film.

Spot on, this sums up my feelings perfectly

Awesome. You discount box office as an indicator of quality and use it as an indicator of quality in the same sentence!

Erm, no I didnt, I am talking about legs, many people finding IM2 dissapointing may have been the reason for the poor legs the movie had.

Just to show how little I think box office performance indicates quality, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Watchmen is the best CB movie I've ever seen. It does what TDK thought it was doing but does it better. You can spend hours locked into a philosophical discussion after seeing it.

Personally, I think the DC of Watchmen is just as good as TDK, I think X2, Spiderman 2 and even to an extent Hellboy 2 are all not that far off in terms of quality either.

The Iron Man movies are a different style than TDK and Watchmen and are at the top of that particular style, but I'll still put Watchmen above both of them.

Box office and quality are two different things. Again, those who try to use box office performance to prove quality will fail. You can't do it.

And you never will see me doing it, all I have talked about in regards to IM2 have been the poor legs.

The X-movies were flawed. I loved them, but they did treat the characters not named Wolverine like crap. Singer even took a dump on the Magneto character in X2 ....."I love what you've done with your hair". WTF was that? Since when would Magneto ever say anything that petty?

I thought that scene was great

Why should it be the "gold standard" of comic book movies. This is what I am talking about with your ridiculous expectations, which basically set the movie up to fail in your opinions.

As for rushing it, the first movie started filming in March of 07' and came out in May of 08'. Iron Man 2 started filming in April of 09' and came out in May of 2010. Theroux was signed on as writer while the first movie was still in theaters and had plenty of time to write a script. Jeff Bridges said the first movie basically had no script and said the movie had a release date before the movie had a script. He compared it to a student film for christsakes. And you are saying Iron Man 2 was rushed? C'mon.

Is it ridiculous expectations to expect IM2 to be better than the first movie like all comic book movie sequels have been before it?

Sorry, that isnt ridiculous at all. And Theroux wasnt signed on to write IM2 until after IM1 had been out a little while, neither was Favreau.

I won't use terms like 'gold standard' because that can mean different things to different people, but the least I expected of IM2 was that it'd be a step-up from its predecessor, that everyone would be talking about it like it was obviously better than IM1, a la TDK, SM2 and X2 agains their respective predecessors. That isn't the case by a long shot for IM2. Again, were it not for the Avengers being released, I'm sure Marvel would have had some serious meetings wondering how they can make IM3 better. But they'll see how the Avengers does now.

Spot on again, everyone pretty much expected this, but they dropped the ball.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think what people are forgetting about the X-Men movies as well is that they were made in an era when comic-book movies were very taboo, so, especially with X1, Singer had to cut a lot of the wilder elements out and make something totally serious and not too OTT. Having said that, I still think the first 2 X-Movies were great, the last 2? Not so much.

Not to mention, Fox at the last minute shaved off 25 million from Singer's budget and upped the release date a whole year than when it was suppose to...and yet, he still made that first X-Men film work.

And I agree with you about Watchmen. Loathed it in the theatres. Liked it a little better after the director's cut. Fully support it as a daring and ambition film on the same lines as The Dark Knight after watching the ultimate cut.

Exactly, he had a lot more planned for the movie but couldnt do it because Fox brought the release forward a year. Also, the budget he had for X1 and X2 were pittances compared to what many directors get to work with now.