Iron Man 2 The Iron Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread

[JeetKuneDo]

^ 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.

I agree it was very good. But I've seen a lot of movies that are very good. Was Avatar $2,731,051,588 good? That's just baffling.

But like I said, I don't get the others that are making a lot of money lately either. Sure they are good...but nothing special. I'll put things like American Idol in this conversation too. I just don't see how "good" turns into "massive insane public adoration". These things remind me of a herd of cattle...once a few start running, the rest join in because they think "it's the thing to do". This goes all the way back to things like E.T. I saw that and thought "Really?". I can see all these major "event" movies in the last few years being talked about in 20 years just as much as we talk about E.T. today ....not at all. The stampede is exciting while it is going on, but once it's over you realize it wasn't that great.

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.

Don't forget to point out how pleased Marvel will be that IM2 made more of its money early in the run when they got more of the profit....thus meaning that IM2 made them more profit than IM1. We've got to look out for those poor studios here. Aren't you pleased for them?

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 assumed that since Rhodey had the pass-code that means Tony had trusted him with the suit before. Rhodey did express interest in it during IM1 after all.

And no flaw in IM2 can compare to the laugh-out-loud scene in TDK when Gordon is explaining in detail to the Mayor how they can't figure out the Joker's identity....while he sits there in front of them still wearing his makeup! (most unintentionally funny scene in a movie in the last decade)

Gordon: "Nothing...no matches on prints...DNA..dental...clothing is custom, no labels...nothing in his pockets but knives and lint....no name...no other alias."

This would have worked better:

Cop1: "I hear that makeup is hard to remove Gordon"
Gordon: "Yeah...we'd better just leave it alone"
Cop2: "Hey...it's kinda coming off on it's own...shouldn't we at least try?"
Gordon: "No...that would ruin his cool look....it would be a shame to do that."
Cop1: "Is that why we checked all his clothes for labels but didn't put him into that goofy orange jump suit like we normally do?"
Gordon: "Yes...it's very important in this movie that he look as cool as possible"

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.

True, but SM2 features the greatest action scene in any super hero movie to date, so that's a given for all of them.

I don't think action is the reason people like the IM movies since the first one didn't have great action either. It's all about the best leading man in SH movie history (apologies to Chris Reeve).

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?

Glad to see acknowledgment of how little action really matters in making a great movie.

Since you are using box office number to gauge how good movies are against IM2, X2 being better is not possible.

X2 grossed $214,949,694 domestic (apparently domestic is the only one that matters)...that's almost 100 million less than IM2. Fox spent 110 million making it, so it returned 104 million profit...less than IM2's 111 million profit.

So that means, using what you have been using here, that Fox was more disappointed in the performance of X2 and that it was an inferior movie to IM2. (Live by the sword, die by the sword )

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Don't forget to point out how pleased Marvel will be that IM2 made more of its money early in the run when they got more of the profit....thus meaning that IM2 made them more profit than IM1. We've got to look out for those poor studios here. Aren't you pleased for them?

Of course they will be happy with this aspect, but at the same, the opening weekend was expected to be bigger, many web-site's reported that IM2 was tracking better than TDK the week before it opened.

I assumed that since Rhodey had the pass-code that means Tony had trusted him with the suit before. Rhodey did express interest in it during IM1 after all.

Rhodey expressed interest in the suit AFTER Tony had left, the fact that you have to 'assume' Tony gave him flight time is a bad aspect of the story-telling in the movie for me.

And no flaw in IM2 can compare to the laugh-out-loud scene in TDK when Gordon is explaining in detail to the Mayor how they can't figure out the Joker's identity....while he sits there in front of them still wearing his makeup! (most unintentionally funny scene in a movie in the last decade)

Gordon: "Nothing...no matches on prints...DNA..dental...clothing is custom, no labels...nothing in his pockets but knives and lint....no name...no other alias."

This would have worked better:

Cop1: "I hear that makeup is hard to remove Gordon"
Gordon: "Yeah...we'd better just leave it alone"
Cop2: "Hey...it's kinda coming off on it's own...shouldn't we at least try?"
Gordon: "No...that would ruin his cool look....it would be a shame to do that."
Cop1: "Is that why we checked all his clothes for labels but didn't put him into that goofy orange jump suit like we normally do?"
Gordon: "Yes...it's very important in this movie that he look as cool as possible"

To be honest, of all the flaws in TDK, which there are many, I didnt find this to be one of them, if the guy has no recorded finger prints I doubt they can tell anything by his face.

True, but SM2 features the greatest action scene in any super hero movie to date, so that's a given for all of them.

And it was made 6 years ago, dont you think Marvel should have bettered it by now? Especially with $200 million today being a lot more than it was then.

I don't think action is the reason people like the IM movies since the first one didn't have great action either. It's all about the best leading man in SH movie history (apologies to Chris Reeve).

And this is another complaint of mine, you have a great actor like RDJ, and all you let him do in the movie is spout jokes. And action isnt as important as other aspects, but the action in IM2 was a serious let down.

Glad to see acknowledgment of how little action really matters in making a great movie.

Since you are using box office number to gauge how good movies are against IM2, X2 being better is not possible.

X2 grossed $214,949,694 domestic (apparently domestic is the only one that matters)...that's almost 100 million less than IM2. Fox spent 110 million making it, so it returned 104 million profit...less than IM2's 111 million profit.

So that means, using what you have been using here, that Fox was more disappointed in the performance of X2 and that it was an inferior movie to IM2. (Live by the sword, die by the sword )

This shows how little you have actually been listening to my posts, try reading them instead of being 'suspicious' that I am a Bat-fan (which I have to say is extremely ridiculous in itself, also made me laugh you mentioning BB's DVD sales in regards to IM's, again if you had read what I said it was that BB wouldnt have gotten a sequel if it wasnt for the dvd sales). The amount a movie makes doesnt indicate quality. What I have been saying is that the WOM on IM2 wasnt very good so this suggests people didnt go back for repeat viewings as much as they did with IM1 and didnt tell their friends to go and watch it like they did with IM1, poor WOM indicates people didnt think it was up to par, which many people have expressed. Factor in that IM2 made A LOT more than IM1 on opening weekend and this shows that WOM wasnt very good at all.

X2 made nearly double what X1 did, because many acknowledged and felt it was a big improvement on X1.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

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.

Maybe the fact that they had trained at the mansion all their lives and were Xaviers first students? That one is obvious, and below you answered the others yourself.

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.

Having a pin to go into the lab and using an iron suit like he was an expert arent the same thing.

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.

X2 was more critically acclaimed than IM2, a lot more in fact, and is regularly voted one of the best of the genre, IM2 isnt, enough said. Also, X1 wasnt average, it was the game changer and the reason we have CB movies, and it was also critically acclaimed more than IM2.

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.

And you arent doing anything of the sort are you? You keep trying to convince people who dont like the movie that you are right to like it and they are wrong.

I dont want to turn this into an argument, but you liked IM2, I liked IM2 but found it very flawed, many didnt like it though and that will have been a factor in the dissapointing WOM

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.

Because it made A LOT more on its opening weekend than IM1 did and yet still made less, if this doesnt indicate to you that the WOM wasnt good I dont know what will.

 

[Tony Stark]

I agree it was very good. But I've seen a lot of movies that are very good. Was Avatar $2,731,051,588 good? That's just baffling.

It was 2 billion good because it was something like no one had ever seen before, and probably won't for some time. As far as the plot Avatar was rather immature and simplistic, as most Cameron films are, but for the visual appeal it was a must see.

I personally thought the design of the aliens was rather stupid, and cartoonish. What drew me in was the land scapes and the broad scenery of the planet. That's what made it real for me, not for the story or the look of the aliens.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Maybe the fact that they had trained at the mansion all their lives and were Xaviers first students? That one is obvious, and below you answered the others yourself.

Having a pin to go into the lab and using an iron suit like he was an expert arent the same thing.

Where in the first two movies does it show them training for anything? I didn't see anyone get their pilots license. Again where did they show Harry training on the glider? When did Parker find the money to make that suit and become an expert seamstress? Wolverine was shown in the first movie driving an automatic pickup, and then Cyclop's manual car, when did he have time to learn how to drive a stick? I never even saw him get a drivers license to operate any of those vehicles. How did Gordon learn to drive the tumbler so well and operate it's missle launchers? How did Dent get his clothes when he went to the hospital? When you get taken into a hospital with severe burns that Dent had, they rip your clothes off and not have time to unbutton them an hang them neatly.

I could keep going and keep picking apart most every movie, but I don't because I don't want to sound like a prick.

X2 was more critically acclaimed than IM2, a lot more in fact, and is regularly voted one of the best of the genre, IM2 isnt, enough said. Also, X1 wasnt average, it was the game changer and the reason we have CB movies, and it was also critically acclaimed more than IM2.

So now we're talking about critical success? I thought this was a BOX OFFICE THREAD.

And X1s and X2s critical success wasn't that far off from IM2.

Bottom line, Iron Mans two movie are far more successful than all three X-Men movies combined. Now that's "enough said"

And you arent doing anything of the sort are you? You keep trying to convince people who dont like the movie that you are right to like it and they are wrong.

I dont want to turn this into an argument, but you liked IM2, I liked IM2 but found it very flawed, many didnt like it though and that will have been a factor in the dissapointing WOM

Because it made A LOT more on its opening weekend than IM1 did and yet still made less, if this doesnt indicate to you that the WOM wasnt good I dont know what will.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to like it, I could give a damn if they don't like it.

And if it had as bad WOM as you say why didn't it have a huge drop the second weekend? This didn't even crack the top 350 movies with the biggest drop in the second weekend.

 

[ElMariachi]

Not that original actually. Here



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.

Nice Scrooge McDuck find.

Yeah, some of these movies (TDK being the exception there) really aren't all that good, but they sell for some odd reason. Even the Harry Potter movies have become increasingly dull and boring in comparison to the earlier films. It shows me that people don't care about minor plot flaws (such as the ones people argue are in IM2) and only get into hype/CGI/3D.

 

[BestGirl]

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.

I agree completely. I've never had any problems with superheroes getting outside help. That wasn't my issue with IM2.

For the record, the serum didn't cure Tony, it only extended him and gave him more time to find answers.

Here's my problem. Alleviating Tony's symptoms removed a lot of the drama from finding a cure.

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 hadn't remembered the "awkward" comment. That actually almost confirms that there wasn't enough romance and the kiss between them came out of nowhere.

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.

Yeah, it was slightly moving, though it had potential to be more than that. I think there was more said about his dad in the cut footage and that's why that whole relationship feels underdeveloped.

 

[ElMariachi]

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.

are you sure that it made less profit? I have seen some real simple numbers thrown around here in regards to box office take and I think it's a bit more complex then that. We don't have access to the financial records of these movie studios, so I see no point in debating about it. Plus, it hasn't even come out on Bluray or DVD. The first Iron Man movie made huge money there. That brought in $136 million dollars. They made a ton more just on toys and merchandise. I expect it to be the same for this movie, therefore am not worried about making $7 million less than the first film. Especially with how well it did overseas.

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.

Thats the problem with Batman fans though. Alot of them think that Bruce Wayne is a god and should be able to do anything. I liked how he was portrayed in the film. It would have been completely ridiculous having Nolan's Batman be able to create medicines and antidotes considering he has no backround as a pharmacist or doctor.

I did not have any problem whatesoever with Fury/SHIELD helping out Tony. He is an engineering genius, not a doctor or a physicist. The whole angle was interesting to me how they connected the past with the future. Didn't feel rushed to me at all. The science fiction (partially) aspect of Stark buying and building a particle accelerator was really well done and 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.

Is this really such an issue that it ruined that part of the movie for you? Indiana Jones needed help from his Sean Connery in Last Crusade and that wasn't a big deal to me either. This is common in alot of movies. Like I said earlier, how fun is it to watch somebody who can solve any problem and never need help from anybody?

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.

No, I didn't come out of nowhere. Batman kissing Ramirez in TDK would have been "out of nowhere". We already knew of the relationship between Pepper and Tony. She was a nagging b---h to him in the second half of the movie, but that doesn't mean they don't love each other.

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.

It would be completely different to what he did in TDK in Hong Kong. He jumped off one of the worlds tallest buildings and somehow perfectly glided into a desired window in another skyscraper. That is probally impossible to begin with, but he did it with perfection in the movie. If this was real, you would have to assume he had to practice this run numerous times considering the danger. And that's not even bringing up 'Skyhook' or his Enemy At the Gates-esque sniper skills. They didn't show us his trial run or practicing and they didn't need to.

It is the same with Rhodey. They were friends and some time passed between this and the first movie. It's believeable that Stark showed him the suit and maybe even let him test it. It's one thing if Pepper or Happy get in the suit and another having an decorated fighter pilot like Rhodey using it. Did you notice that he had access to Tony's basement/workshop? That showed me that there was trust between Tony and Rhodey.

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.

Well thats your opinion. I thought Iron Man 2 had excellent action scenes and all of them were very well done. Iron Man/War Machine vs. the drones was epic in my opinion.

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.

I will agree that things were played for laughs more in this movie but it didn't detract from my enjoyment. This was simply a James Bond type movie with a charismatic hero, jokes, some action, and sleek storytelling. The 'heart' in the first one was a welcome suprise, but there is only so many "awwww" scenes that should be involved with a character like Stark.

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?

It got better reviews, sure, but the movie has largely been forgotten by the general public. Why? Because it was simply a good story with some quality action scenes. Nothing really stood out in the X-Men series.

I liked Iron Man 2 more then either movie (not saying I don't like both movies) because of the main character. Peter Parker and his story gradually became more annoying as the series went on. Robert Downey Jr. easily makes the movie more watchable, as does the absence of the soap opera drama that you seem to have forgotten in SM2. It is sort of the same thing with the Batman series. I loved Begins because Bruce Wayne was such a likeable character. His relationship with Alfred and Lucius was fresh to me. In TDK, he was overshadowed by the Joker and even by Harvey Dent to a lesser degree. Not saying that IM2 is a greater movie than TDK, but the movie is more appealing in ways because of the main character.

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.

All of those movies are adult oriented and none of them had huge existing fanbases like Harry Potter, Batman, or Twlight. These movies have huge box office openings because of these huge fanbases and the hype that went along with them. Avatar didn't have a fanbase either, but still made $242 million worldwide opening weekend.

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.

yeah, but times are rougher now then two years ago. $7 million dollars isn't alot of money in regards to box office and that could easily have played a role. It's not like the movie took a major dive like some of the franchises I listed earlier. The movies that I brought up in regards to IM2 all made decent money. They took money away, even if some of them were flops. Kids aren't going to see Iron Man 2 if Shrek is out. Women aren't going to see Iron Man 2 if Sex in the City 2 is in theaters.

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

there you go again with this "Dark Knight mentality". You talk about how great Spider-Man 2 was but it made $30 million less domestically. WOM and quality of movie has nothing to do with box office take.

 

[ElMariachi]

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.

Or look at Star Wars for that matter. Since when was Luke Skywalker capable or experienced enough to fly an X-Wing? I don't recall him piloting anything other than a land speeder. At the end of A New Hope, he is basically an ace. This would be like somebody flying a crop duster and then going on to fly the Space Shuttle or an F-22.

These things aren't noticeable unless people are looking to find flaws. You can basically do it for ANY movie.

 

[ElMariachi]

Maybe the fact that they had trained at the mansion all their lives and were Xaviers first students? That one is obvious, and below you answered the others yourself.

it's still silly. Who at the Xaviers mansion would believeably be able to teach kids how to fly what basically was a SR-71 Blackbird.

"Hey, kid! Wanna learn how to fly THIS?!"

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Of course they will be happy with this aspect, but at the same, the opening weekend was expected to be bigger, many web-site's reported that IM2 was tracking better than TDK the week before it opened.

Which indicates the "expectations" were wrong...not the movie. The expectations have been off from the very beginning of this film's run...yet those same expectations continue to be used against it as if they were accurate or something.

And it should be pointed out that opening weekend has nothing to do with the quality of the film. There was clearly a flaw with the expectations for this film. Continuing to use those expectations as the basis for your argument is just building on a flaw.

Rhodey expressed interest in the suit AFTER Tony had left, the fact that you have to 'assume' Tony gave him flight time is a bad aspect of the story-telling in the movie for me.

To be honest, of all the flaws in TDK, which there are many, I didnt find this to be one of them, if the guy has no recorded finger prints I doubt they can tell anything by his face.

So I can't assume Tony let Rhodey fly the armor but you can assume there is a reason to justify this? Wow!

You were bugged by the flaw in IM2 but saw no problem with cops assuming that removing makeup from a prisoner would not help them identify him? They couldn't even spare 10 seconds to wipe a towel across his face to find out for sure...they just assumed it?

Not to mention the fact they were dealing with a guy that had large facial scars...maybe. Any cop on the planet that was not a member of the keystone cops would remove the makeup to examine those scars. (it's called "police work") Once you verify the scars, that gives you information about the prisoner. It stands to reason a person can not move around in this world without being noticed with a face like that. Not to mention possible hospital records for unique scars like that. You have to at least try it....unless you are the dumbest cops in the world...which they kinda were in TDK. (No wonder the Joker was able to do all that stuff at will...the cops and the mob were all idiots)

And it was made 6 years ago, dont you think Marvel should have bettered it by now? Especially with $200 million today being a lot more than it was then.

Well...no one else has either. Expecting a movie to top "best evers" is asking a lot.

And I think I would say $200 million is less today than it was then.

And this is another complaint of mine, you have a great actor like RDJ, and all you let him do in the movie is spout jokes. And action isnt as important as other aspects, but the action in IM2 was a serious let down.

I don't see the connection between RDJ and action to be honest. He's been incredible his entire career and it's always been because of the force of his personality.

The amount a movie makes doesnt indicate quality. What I have been saying is that the WOM on IM2 wasnt very good so this suggests people didnt go back for repeat viewings as much as they did with IM1 and didnt tell their friends to go and watch it like they did with IM1, poor WOM indicates people didnt think it was up to par, which many people have expressed. Factor in that IM2 made A LOT more than IM1 on opening weekend and this shows that WOM wasnt very good at all.

Where does this idea come from that IM2 had bad WoM? People actually liked it very much.

X2 made nearly double what X1 did, because many acknowledged and felt it was a big improvement on X1.

And Spider-Man 2 made much less than Spider-Man 1....even though it was better. You can't say "because" due to the fact that box office behavior does not indicate quality. We see this time and time again. There is almost no connection. Was Transformers 2 over twice as good as Inglorious Basterds, District 9, and Watchmen in 2009? Not hardly. If you have to make a movie that bad to qualify as "successful"...then no thanks.

It was 2 billion good because it was something like no one had ever seen before, and probably won't for some time. As far as the plot Avatar was rather immature and simplistic, as most Cameron films are, but for the visual appeal it was a must see.

I personally thought the design of the aliens was rather stupid, and cartoonish. What drew me in was the land scapes and the broad scenery of the planet. That's what made it real for me, not for the story or the look of the aliens.

I guess I should stress that I liked Avatar quite a bit. I'm almost a Cameron fanboy too. But Avatar is not close to being his best film....and it made over 2 billion at the box office. Still more proof (as if we need it) that box office performance does not tell us anything about how good a movie is. Is Avatar really the 14th best movie of all time? (on the adjusted chart)

So those trying hard in this thread to somehow connect box office and quality are doomed to fail. It just doesn't match up.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Or look at Star Wars for that matter. Since when was Luke Skywalker capable or experienced enough to fly an X-Wing? I don't recall him piloting anything other than a land speeder. At the end of A New Hope, he is basically an ace. This would be like somebody flying a crop duster and then going on to fly the Space Shuttle or an F-22.

These things aren't noticeable unless people are looking to find flaws. You can basically do it for ANY movie.

I've done it for fun myself. You can tear anything apart if you are looking for flaws. I did it to X2 once just to see how bad I could make it look.

 

[Ipodman]

Not to mention the fact they were dealing with a guy that had large facial scars...maybe. Any cop on the planet that was not a member of the keystone cops would remove the makeup to examine those scars. (it's called "police work") Once you verify the scars, that gives you information about the prisoner. It stands to reason a person can not move around in this world without being noticed with a face like that. Not to mention possible hospital records for unique scars like that. You have to at least try it....unless you are the dumbest cops in the world...which they kinda were in TDK. (No wonder the Joker was able to do all that stuff at will...the cops and the mob were all idiots)

I believe that's a reasonable explanation... the Gotham police in some Batman comics were described as corrupted and could not function with much police skills.

Also, maybe TDK's Joker didnt have make-up. The skin tone on his face was that colour since birth. Or maybe he had an accident with chemicals like 89's Joker. When it comes down to it, the origin of the Joker and why his personality is so inhuman will never be known.

 

[hatebox]

Isn't it pretty much an unwritten rule in comic book universes that the cops and authorities are generally useless, hence the need for a superhero?

Though I think to Nolan's credit he went out of his way to convey that in fact with Gotham it's even worse - the cops are uselss because they're corrupt.

 

[J.Howlett]

Marachi,

How can you be pleased with the main character of Iron Man 2 when he doesn't even take his own advice at the beginning of the film...about creating a new legacy to share to the world?

He creates basically a new energy source that would be very beneficial to the world and basically keeps it for himself, for selfish reasons...that's totally contradictory to his speech at the Stark Expo.

Again, another year on the script and production, and I'd bet a million bucks that Favreau would've rectified that problem. It's a glaring problem with the film. The "legacy" storyline is the absolute appropriate storyline as a sequel to Iron Man, considering he'd dying and the fact that he's changed himself after the experiences in the first film.

He was suppose to be a changed man. He was suppose to be better for the world, his company, and humanity. At the end of Iron Man 2, he's back to his old ways. He didn't progress as a character one bit. The film started out that way but didn't go all the way with it.

That's a lot of the problems with Iron Man 2. He doesn't finish the character arc it started in Iron Man 1 and the first half of Iron Man 2. And the reason it's so disappointing is because of what Stark was. He was an arms dealer. That's serious stuff that's played very loosey goosey in this sequel when it shouldn't. Him dying is apart of that but it shouldn't take him that far into ******* territory.

 

[Tony Stark]

I guess I should stress that I liked Avatar quite a bit. I'm almost a Cameron fanboy too. But Avatar is not close to being his best film....and it made over 2 billion at the box office. Still more proof (as if we need it) that box office performance does not tell us anything about how good a movie is. Is Avatar really the 14th best movie of all time? (on the adjusted chart)

So those trying hard in this thread to somehow connect box office and quality are doomed to fail. It just doesn't match up.

I will agree with you on that. I'm not sure what's my favorite of his, but Terminator 1 and 2, and the Abyss would be toward the top of my list.

Alot of people here want to put financial success with quality, and if that were true then Transformers 2 would be one of the best films out there, it's not.

The closest comparison to Avatar I can make, would be Jurrasic Park. Neither of those films are their creators best work, but they are both landmark films from a technological stand point. This is why the original King Kong is such a huge film. It really was the first "blockbuster" in terms of scope with the visual effects and all, for the time it was made. The acting in that movie was B-grade at best.

 

[Tony Stark]

Marachi,

How can you be pleased with the main character of Iron Man 2 when he doesn't even take his own advice at the beginning of the film...about creating a new legacy to share to the world?

He creates basically a new energy source that would be very beneficial to the world and basically keeps it for himself, for selfish reasons...that's totally contradictory to his speech at the Stark Expo.

Again, another year on the script and production, and I'd bet a million bucks that Favreau would've rectified that problem. It's a glaring problem with the film. The "legacy" storyline is the absolute appropriate storyline as a sequel to Iron Man, considering he'd dying and the fact that he's changed himself after the experiences in the first film.

He was suppose to be a changed man. He was suppose to be better for the world, his company, and humanity. At the end of Iron Man 2, he's back to his old ways. He didn't progress as a character one bit. The film started out that way but didn't go all the way with it.

That's a lot of the problems with Iron Man 2. He doesn't finish the character arc it started in Iron Man 1 and the first half of Iron Man 2. And the reason it's so disappointing is because of what Stark was. He was an arms dealer. That's serious stuff that's played very loosey goosey in this sequel when it shouldn't. Him dying is apart of that but it shouldn't take him that far into ******* territory.

Clearly you don't know anything about Iron Man as a character, he has always kept the Iron Man technology to himself for fear of what someone would do with it in the wrong hands.

If you're going to criticize the movie fine, but that theme was played in IM1 and in IM2 so your criticism is fairly hypocritical.

 

[J.Howlett]

No it isn't...considering the speech he made at the Stark Expo. So basically, Tony Stark's a liar? That's what you're saying.

You can't have Tony make a speech to thousands of people talking about "legacy", giving back to the world and then have Tony actually invent something that would technically do what his speech called for and then have him not give back.

Basically, all that supposed growth/reawakening he had during the events of the first film, that made the first film what it was, was Tony Stark lying to the characters in the film and the audience?

By that conclusion, Tony Stark isn't a character we should root for in Iron Man 3 or the Avenger films...because he's basically a jackass.

Which, ironically, is how close RDJ is playing him.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Marachi,

How can you be pleased with the main character of Iron Man 2 when he doesn't even take his own advice at the beginning of the film...about creating a new legacy to share to the world?

He creates basically a new energy source that would be very beneficial to the world and basically keeps it for himself, for selfish reasons...that's totally contradictory to his speech at the Stark Expo.

Again, another year on the script and production, and I'd bet a million bucks that Favreau would've rectified that problem. It's a glaring problem with the film. The "legacy" storyline is the absolute appropriate storyline as a sequel to Iron Man, considering he'd dying and the fact that he's changed himself after the experiences in the first film.

He was suppose to be a changed man. He was suppose to be better for the world, his company, and humanity. At the end of Iron Man 2, he's back to his old ways. He didn't progress as a character one bit. The film started out that way but didn't go all the way with it.

That's a lot of the problems with Iron Man 2. He doesn't finish the character arc it started in Iron Man 1 and the first half of Iron Man 2. And the reason it's so disappointing is because of what Stark was. He was an arms dealer. That's serious stuff that's played very loosey goosey in this sequel when it shouldn't. Him dying is apart of that but it shouldn't take him that far into ******* territory.

WTF are you talking about? He created it to save his life and immediately goes on to fight Vanko and the drones and then the movie's over.

Where the hell was it ever said he was going to keep it for himself and not share?

And what does any of that have to do in this BOX OFFICE THREAD?

 

[Tony Stark]

No it isn't...considering the speech he made at the Stark Expo. So basically, Tony Stark's a liar? That's what you're saying.

You can't have Tony make a speech to thousands of people talking about "legacy", giving back to the world and then have Tony actually invent something that would technically do what his speech called for and then have him not give back.

Basically, all that supposed growth/reawakening he had during the events of the first film, that made the first film what it was, was Tony Stark lying to the characters in the film and the audience?

By that conclusion, Tony Stark isn't a character we should root for in Iron Man 3 or the Avenger films...because he's basically a jackass.

Which, ironically, is how close RDJ is playing him.

Well now you're pretty much trolling for a reaction. It's patently clear from the comics and from the first movie and the second, that he will not give up the Iron Man tech, that's what the armor wars story line was all about.

The so-called "growth, reawakening" he had durring the first film was to build a kick ass weapon unline anything he'd made before and not share the technology with the military which put him at odds with Rhodey and his own company.

Everything else you said is pretty much hyperbole, just to get a rise out of others. Sorry not falling for it.

 

[Iron_Stark]

No it isn't...considering the speech he made at the Stark Expo. So basically, Tony Stark's a liar? That's what you're saying.

You can't have Tony make a speech to thousands of people talking about "legacy", giving back to the world and then have Tony actually invent something that would technically do what his speech called for and then have him not give back.

Basically, all that supposed growth/reawakening he had during the events of the first film, that made the first film what it was, was Tony Stark lying to the characters in the film and the audience?

By that conclusion, Tony Stark isn't a character we should root for in Iron Man 3 or the Avenger films...because he's basically a jackass.

Which, ironically, is how close RDJ is playing him.

Again, at what point in time in the movie did Tony say "I'm not going to share the new element with the people"

iirc, the novel said the new element was Vibranium, well take a wild guess who's weapon is going to be made out of Vibranium if SHIELD or Howard Stark don't crack the code to making the element in their movie. Yeah Tony's such the selfish ingrate.

And if you go to the StarkExpo2010 website you'll see all the inventions Stark Industries is "giving back" to the world. (But I guess since it wasn't in the movie it doesn't count because people need to be spoon fed every little detail)

lol, I swear people just want to b**** and moan about any little thing.

If you want to cry about something, at least find something better to cry about and not ridiculous crap like this.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Well now you're pretty much trolling for a reaction. It's patently clear from the comics and from the first movie and the second, that he will not give up the Iron Man tech, that's what the armor wars story line was all about.

The so-called "growth, reawakening" he had durring the first film was to build a kick ass weapon unline anything he'd made before and not share the technology with the military which put him at odds with Rhodey and his own company.

Everything else you said is pretty much hyperbole, just to get a rise out of others. Sorry not falling for it.

Exactly!

Like in the comics, Stark Industries will be creating things to better people's lives, the armor and anything else that can be used as a weapon is off limits.

I thought it was pretty clear throughout both movies.

 

[Tony Stark]

lol, I swear people just want to b**** and moan about any little thing.

True but Howlett is also the worst kind of TDK fanboy there is out there. Any chance he has to derride the success of a Marvel property, he'll take it.

 

[Iron_Stark]

True but Howlett is also the worst kind of TDK fanboy there is out there. Any chance he has to derride the success of a Marvel property, he'll take it.

lol, he should change his name, unless that's his real name.

And no wonder he threw that little jab at RDJ, yeah too bad every actor out there can't be stand up guys like Bale.

"F-SAKE MAN YOUR AMATEUR!"

 

[ElMariachi]

Marachi,

How can you be pleased with the main character of Iron Man 2 when he doesn't even take his own advice at the beginning of the film...about creating a new legacy to share to the world?

He creates basically a new energy source that would be very beneficial to the world and basically keeps it for himself, for selfish reasons...that's totally contradictory to his speech at the Stark Expo.

Again, another year on the script and production, and I'd bet a million bucks that Favreau would've rectified that problem. It's a glaring problem with the film. The "legacy" storyline is the absolute appropriate storyline as a sequel to Iron Man, considering he'd dying and the fact that he's changed himself after the experiences in the first film.

He was suppose to be a changed man. He was suppose to be better for the world, his company, and humanity. At the end of Iron Man 2, he's back to his old ways. He didn't progress as a character one bit. The film started out that way but didn't go all the way with it.

That's a lot of the problems with Iron Man 2. He doesn't finish the character arc it started in Iron Man 1 and the first half of Iron Man 2. And the reason it's so disappointing is because of what Stark was. He was an arms dealer. That's serious stuff that's played very loosey goosey in this sequel when it shouldn't. Him dying is apart of that but it shouldn't take him that far into ******* territory.

So creating a legacy means giving away his technology to competitors and for free, no less? We don't know anything in regards to the miniture arc reactor and if it was displayed at the Stark Expo to begin with. Or whatever marvels his company came up with and offered for the betterment of humanity. It could have been displayed for all we know (or was planned to before Vanko destroyed everything), but it wasn't elaborated on. This was brand new technology if we are going off of the movie timeline. It would take time to make the technology useful to society as a whole.

And it's tech that had already been used against Tony by the 'military industrial complex' (Stane) and he had legit worries about it's usage. In regards to the Iron Man armor, why should he have to give any information regarding it to the U.S. government? I don't see this as being greedy or going against his principles. Stark had a change of heart in the first movie, but it didn't make him naive and stupid. He is still a businessman and has to look out for his interests.

Also, where or when did he become a changed man? He still is an egotistical character and you saw that in the very last scene in Iron Man. Tony didn't need to tell the world that he was Iron Man, but did so to stroke his own ego. You are under the assumption that all superheroes should be selfless figures and I think that's wrong when discussing this particular hero.