Iron Man 3 The IRON MAN 3 News & Speculation Thread - Part 5

[cherokeesam]

Agreed, it only makes sense to introduce her here. Why put a throw away character like Cable or Madame Hydra or those women who I don't know and try and set them up for an Iron Man 4... which might never happen. When you can add a character you'll see in a few more movies in the future?

Cabe. Bethany Cabe. Cable is a guy, and a whole 'nuther story.

You just really need to get over that this cinematic universe isn;t your good ole' comic book world.

Just stop with statements like this. You're making yourself look ignorant, and you sure as hell aren't winning any friends in a forum that is based entirely on the comic book genre. I understand that you don't read comic books, and I don't hold that against you; but you just make yourself look asinine when you try to insult those of us who do on a board entitled "SUPERHERO Hype."

This media only has a limit amount of screen time to get everything told and everyone in their places where as the comics can take weeks and months to fufill a small story. Just because she's being brought in in a way that's out of her character does not mean she is going to be portrated INO. I don't believe that Wasp is a character that more than maybe 15 total people who see the movie, will be upset if they place her in an Iron Man movie to introduce her when the movie that explains her being there is coming up.

In a movie that's still 2 years away, and *four* movie installments away.

Which makes more business sense: introduce a character into a movie (IM3) focusing on a solo character that she has NO association with outside the Avengers comics, two years before her titular movie, *four* movies before it actually comes out.....or introduce her in a movie (Avengers 2) that is actually where her comic book persona is based, *six months* and immediately preceding the movie where she gets a proper introduction....?

Take your time and get back to me with your answer when you've figured it out.

 

[The Infernal]

as for janet. dude grow up, I can enjoy a character, want a character.. and speculate about how she could work... but that doesn't mean I think it's going to actually happen. I'm not "pressing for her to be in this film" just hopeful and speculating.

Again, you're the one getting bent out of shape. A bit pot, kettle, black. You say you're not arguing for her to be in the film then go onto doing so. I never said there was anything wrong with loving a character (I love a great many myself), I was just showing the contradiction in your post.

Anyway, lets leave the conversation here if all you're going to come back with is 'nuh-uh' and some other catty remark.

 

[mkilban2]

Cabe. Bethany Cabe. Cable is a guy, and a whole 'nuther story.

I can't really argue this. I don't know about Cabe so I don't know what she would give to this film, I'd just rather see her potential character turn out to be relevant in future Avenger films, not just another Iron Man that might not happen.

Just stop with statements like this. You're making yourself look ignorant, and you sure as hell aren't winning any friends in a forum that is based entirely on the comic book genre. I understand that you don't read comic books, and I don't hold that against you; but you just make yourself look asinine when you try to insult those of us who do on a board entitled "SUPERHERO Hype."

I'm not trying to make you all look like anything. I'm just trying to bring a general audience perspective in here. Of course the majority of you guys want everything to be done by the book, but that's just impossible. Think of any book based franchise (LoTR, Harry Potter, whatever) you simply can't fit everything in exactly how it's supposed to be. I know it seems like I'm lacking some knowledge on the subject (which I am) but I'm just going off of what I have seen, and would like to see, as well as the small knowledge I have in Marvel (A:EMH, video games, previous movies)

In a movie that's still 2 years away, and *four* movie installments away.

Which makes more business sense: introduce a character into a movie (IM3) focusing on a solo character that she has NO association with outside the Avengers comics, two years before her titular movie, *four* movies before it actually comes out.....or introduce her in a movie (Avengers 2) that is actually where her comic book persona is based, *six months* and immediately preceding the movie where she gets a proper introduction....?

Take your time and get back to me with your answer when you've figured it out.

I think that it makes more business sense to add her as early as possible to keep people wondering. That's almost like saying they should have started the avengers initiative only right after captain america credits since it doesnt make sense to the bring up this future subject to a future movie right away. IF the Jan/Ultron/Hank plot is what Avengers2 will be about consider her being the Avengers Initiative (Nick Fury to Tony) of Phase 2 which then will make perfect sense right? I know it's super out of comic character, but I think we have to think of it in a new light. She can be the same exact comic personality just introduced differently, no INO involved.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Again, you're the one getting bent out of shape. A bit pot, kettle, black. You say you're not arguing for her to be in the film then go onto doing so. I never said there was anything wrong with loving a character (I love a great many myself), I was just showing the contradiction in your post.

Anyway, lets leave the conversation here if all you're going to come back with is 'nuh-uh' and some other catty remark.

see this is what you're apparently incapable of understanding...

I'm arguing for her to be a part of the Avengers Franchise if anything... not to be in Iron Man 3. I'd be happy for her to appear.. but i'm not saying nor suggesting she has to (if she did, and the story is good would i be happy? sure) But i'm neither pushing for her to be in the film nor am pushing for her not to be.

the only arguing i've done is with people who don't want wasp at all in anything (that's where i'm being defensive)

 

[mkilban2]

lol @ the double arguments going on right now. Me vs. CherokeeSam and Spideyboy_1111 vs The Infernal gotta love The Hype!

 

[UnionJack]

I'm not trying to make you all look like anything. I'm just trying to bring a general audience perspective in here. Of course the majority of you guys want everything to be done by the book, but that's just impossible. Think of any book based franchise (LoTR, Harry Potter, whatever) you simply can't fit everything in exactly how it's supposed to be. I know it seems like I'm lacking some knowledge on the subject (which I am) but I'm just going off of what I have seen, and would like to see, as well as the small knowledge I have in Marvel (A:EMH, video games, previous movies)

Why would Marvel, you know the guys who make and sell the comics, want to do this. Why introduce a character so ... out of character. It will mean nothing to you, the general audience, and seem like a dick move to actual comic fans ... something Fox would do as they care very little for source.

Marvels films do so well as they know what they want and aren't going to sell themselves short as it will look bad for them, as they want to get the general audience into the comics, not only sell cartoons and toys, comics is what made them.

Go read a few comics, hell even wikipedia if you care/want to learn anything. If not its really not best to just spout anything you know nothing of from a few films and cartoons.

 

[The Infernal]

I can't really argue this. I don't know about Cabe so I don't know what she would give to this film, I'd just rather see her potential character turn out to be relevant in future Avenger films, not just another Iron Man that might not happen.

What about a character that's relevant to the story at hand? Forcing a cameo arguably gives up some of that for future movie foreshadowing and takes away from the storytelling of the movie itself. Which I'm pretty I'm just re-iterating some of the criticisms of IM2 here.

I'm not trying to make you all look like anything. I'm just trying to bring a general audience perspective in here. Of course the majority of you guys want everything to be done by the book, but that's just impossible. Think of any book based franchise (LoTR, Harry Potter, whatever) you simply can't fit everything in exactly how it's supposed to be. I know it seems like I'm lacking some knowledge on the subject (which I am) but I'm just going off of what I have seen, and would like to see, as well as the small knowledge I have in Marvel (A:EMH, video games, previous movies)

However, you are not the general audience and that is a wide range of people.

Though my argument for Iron Man 3 being a more self contained story is because from what we've heard on the subject it looks like that will be the case and as I said earlier the feeling that the SHIELD roles were invasive to the storytelling of IM2 was a big criticism which Feige and Marvel will be very much aware of. I wouldn't go expecting new Avenger recruits or Tony to call up Cap and say "hey, how's it hanging" etc.

Not to mention that even though the Marvel comics nowadays actually have a sense of being in the same world as the other heroes, it is still the early days of the MCU and there are still many self contained stories (for the most part) that would clearly benefit from telling them in their own respective part of the MCU without too much worry about setting up the next film. In short they should worry about telling the story at hand before jumping into the next one.

I think that it makes more business sense to add her as early as possible to keep people wondering. That's almost like saying they should have started the avengers initiative only right after captain america credits since it doesnt make sense to the bring up this future subject to a future movie right away. IF the Jan/Ultron/Hank plot is what Avengers2 will be about consider her being the Avengers Initiative (Nick Fury to Tony) of Phase 2 which then will make perfect sense right? I know it's super out of comic character, but I think we have to think of it in a new light. She can be the same exact comic personality just introduced differently, no INO involved.

I'm willing to say it's a safe bet A2 isn't Ultron.

Also, like others have said, Jan isn't a big enough character that you couldn't easily introduce her in A2 and it not be a problem.

see this is what you're apparently incapable of understanding...

I'm arguing for her to be a part of the Avengers Franchise if anything... not to be in Iron Man 3. I'd be happy for her to appear.. but i'm not saying nor suggesting she has to (if she did, and the story is good would i be happy? sure) But i'm neither pushing for her to be in the film nor am pushing for her not to be.

the only arguing i've done is with people who don't want wasp at all in anything (that's where i'm being defensive)

Fair enough. I'm saying no more on the subject.

lol @ the double arguments going on right now. Me vs. CherokeeSam and Spideyboy_1111 vs The Infernal gotta love The Hype!

Clearly the final will be me vs Cherokeesam for the title belt.

 

[spideymouse]

again.. my cameo comments were based on what others were saying. I obviously thought that's what fiege said... As for the term cameo... it is what it is... i don't care what other sites say... a cameo is a cameo and a casted role is a casted role. The movie industry can tell the truth, flat out lie, or carefully choose certain words.. where they can appear to be saying one thing but due to the way they're wording it.. they might not. Like "cameo" can mean no "hawkeye" like in thor... but that doesn't mean we wont get a "black widow" like in ironman... it happens all the time in the entertainment industry.

So my point was to not believe everything at face value or what it seems... regardless of what you feel is happening in these movies.


as for janet. dude grow up, I can enjoy a character, want a character.. and speculate about how she could work... but that doesn't mean I think it's going to actually happen. I'm not "pressing for her to be in this film" just hopeful and speculating.

If Stephanie Szostak were playing a "casting role" that had the size and significance of Black Widow's in Iron Man 2 or even Christine Everhart's in the first Iron Man, I think they would have announced it. They didn't keep ScarJo's signing (or Emily Blunt's, for that matter) a secret. I think the only reason Szostak's character wasn't announced is that it really isn't significant, kind of like Fan BingBing's in this same movie, or Olivia Munn's and Kate Mara's in IM2.

 

[mkilban2]

So most of you would rather see this as almost a standalone film? I'm just really looking for anything to add more and more to the MCU I guess haha.

Just like each movie in phase 1 added a little bit more to the main dish of Avengers I want to see each movie in phase 2 do the same thing and I believe Jan being subtly added will be that spark to start it all. like " oh crap this woman has something bigger that she knows about, can't wait to find out." just like after Iron Man most people were like " whoa sam jackson means business and theres others heroes! cool!"

 

[ctsketch]

they said wanted this film to be about Iron Man alone from the start.

 

[mkilban2]

Clearly the final will be me vs Cherokeesam for the title belt.

haha that made me laugh .. I concede my defeat!! ..but stand by my opinions

 

[spideymouse]

So most of you would rather see this as almost a standalone film? I'm just really looking for anything to add more and more to the MCU I guess haha.

Just like each movie in phase 1 added a little bit more to the main dish of Avengers I want to see each movie in phase 2 do the same thing and I believe Jan being subtly added will be that spark to start it all. like " oh crap this woman has something bigger that she knows about, can't wait to find out." just like after Iron Man most people were like " whoa sam jackson means business and theres others heroes! cool!"

In my opinion, adding to the standalone aspects of each hero's own worlds is adding more and more to the MCU. You make the universe larger, not smaller, if Thor is dealing with Surtur or some other threat that is independent of Iron Man or Hulk, and vice versa. It's when you try to connect too much to each other that you actually reduce the scope of the world, and end up with something like Anakin building C-3PO.

Regarding "that spark to start it all," it sounds like you're looking for the next Agent Coulson. Some speculate that Maria Hill will serve that purpose, and others wish that Carol Danvers would (but she won't). Whatever happens, don't despair. Despite Feige's denial that there will be any Avengers cameos in IM3, he has said in the same breath that there will be through-lines running through the Phase II movies that will add to the over-arching narrative leading to Avengers 2. Whether that is the presence of AIM, another MacGuffin like the Tesseract, or something else, I wouldn't worry about there not being enough hints to the bigger MCU, especially with Joss Whedon acting as an overseer throughout Phase II.

That all said, I'd love what other people have suggested as an Easter egg: Tony at an event telling the media who he's wearing, "It's a Van Dyne."

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Why would Marvel, you know the guys who make and sell the comics, want to do this. Why introduce a character so ... out of character. It will mean nothing to you, the general audience, and seem like a dick move to actual comic fans ... something Fox would do as they care very little for source.

Marvels films do so well as they know what they want and aren't going to sell themselves short as it will look bad for them, as they want to get the general audience into the comics, not only sell cartoons and toys, comics is what made them.

Go read a few comics, hell even wikipedia if you care/want to learn anything. If not its really not best to just spout anything you know nothing of from a few films and cartoons.

to be fair.. i don't really think Loki's idea is that far out of character... is it her origin in the comics? not exactly... but it doesn't really alter who she is as a character. I could see (early jan) go to great lengths to find hank

 

[fixxxer]

Jan or no Jan... in Feige and Whedon we trust!

 

[mkilban2]

In my opinion, adding to the standalone aspects of each hero's own worlds is adding more and more to the MCU. You make the universe larger, not smaller, if Thor is dealing with Surtur or some other threat that is independent of Iron Man or Hulk, and vice versa. It's when you try to connect too much to each other that you actually reduce the scope of the world, and end up with something like Anakin building C-3PO.

Regarding "that spark to start it all," it sounds like you're looking for the next Agent Coulson. Some speculate that Maria Hill will serve that purpose, and others wish that Carol Danvers would (but she won't). Whatever happens, don't despair. Despite Feige's denial that there will be any Avengers cameos in IM3, he has said in the same breath that there will be through-lines running through the Phase II movies that will add to the over-arching narrative leading to Avengers 2. Whether that is the presence of AIM, another MacGuffin like the Tesseract, or something else, I wouldn't worry about there not being enough hints to the bigger MCU, especially with Joss Whedon acting as an overseer throughout Phase II.

That all said, I'd love what other people have suggested as an Easter egg: Tony at an event telling the media who he's wearing, "It's a Van Dyne."

You really just put it in perspective for me spideymouse. I guess I was really thinking more is more, but maybe less really will be more. I fully understand that these next 4-5 solo movies are going to show that they can't always rely on the Avengers to come together and help at every instance but I guess I've kinda clouded my judgement on that in the whole is it or isn't it Janet thing.

I'm still hoping that it's Janet and I'm hoping her presence has something to do with that factor that will spark the next on-going series of events in Phase 2. But even if it isn't I need to remember that even if she's not there until Avengers2 or not even til Ant-Man, her inclusion isn't needed, and a bit unnecessary (although I personally would enjoy it)

 

[spideyboy_1111]

imo i think the worst thing about IM2 for the Gen Public... was actually Fury rather than Widow... in all honesty if you didn't stick around for the after credit scene (then suddenly someone explained it to you) all you're going to think is "who are these people, what does it mean, this whole film is nothing but an avengers set up" But at least to me, being in the know... it didn't really feel that much like it. but i can get why others thought differently.

I do want a solo film, but i see nothing wrong with tiny references and easter eggs and a cameo as long as they don't detract from a film

everything should flow and feel organic

 

[jaqua99]

Agreed, it only makes sense to introduce her here. Why put a throw away character like Cable or Madame Hydra or those women who I don't know and try and set them up for an Iron Man 4... which might never happen. When you can add a character you'll see in a few more movies in the future?



You just really need to get over that this cinematic universe isn;t your good ole' comic book world. This media only has a limit amount of screen time to get everything told and everyone in their places where as the comics can take weeks and months to fufill a small story. Just because she's being brought in in a way that's out of her character does not mean she is going to be portrated INO. I don't believe that Wasp is a character that more than maybe 15 total people who see the movie, will be upset if they place her in an Iron Man movie to introduce her when the movie that explains her being there is coming up.

I'm sticking by LokiD, he seems to know his stuff and from what he's told me in PMs about certain solid info and other rumored info I'm super confident it's going to be Janet. Plus who is going to go through that much typing and posting to just straight up lie? You guys are taking what he says for granted haha.

right. In a way. Let's do without the rudeness of it though

Cabe. Bethany Cabe. Cable is a guy, and a whole 'nuther story.






Just stop with statements like this. You're making yourself look ignorant, and you sure as hell aren't winning any friends in a forum that is based entirely on the comic book genre. I understand that you don't read comic books, and I don't hold that against you; but you just make yourself look asinine when you try to insult those of us who do on a board entitled "SUPERHERO Hype."



In a movie that's still 2 years away, and *four* movie installments away.

Which makes more business sense: introduce a character into a movie (IM3) focusing on a solo character that she has NO association with outside the Avengers comics, two years before her titular movie, *four* movies before it actually comes out.....or introduce her in a movie (Avengers 2) that is actually where her comic book persona is based, *six months* and immediately preceding the movie where she gets a proper introduction....?

Take your time and get back to me with your answer when you've figured it out.

okay, look. The thing is, is that he and I are going by what LokiD has said, and told us via PM. It doesn't matter if it is logical for them do introduce her. Is it illogical? Sure. Do I agree with what you are saying? Honestly, yeah, and it makes sense. But IF IF IF, Jan does appear, then it's irrelevant now isn't it? As silly and wrong as it is for it to happen, it happened. That's that. Assuming she certainly does appear. Now again, he isn't saying it's silly, he is simply standing by what his source told him. He beleive his source is valid, and we won't know for sure until then.

Basically what I am trying to say, is that it doesn't matter if it isn't logical, or if it is simply wrong for them to introduce Janet. If that is what his (lets hypothetically say 100% legitimate) source says, then that is what we are getting. it doesn't matter if it is logical or not, or if you, or even myself think it is pointless and stupid to introduce Janet in IM3, and have ultron be relevant, because the arguement would truely redundant. That is what we are getting. IF his source is correct. He believes LokiD's source is correct, and I do too for our own reasons. And that's that. I understand your POV, I do, and I agree with it. and I believe mk does as well, but that's not really his arguement. I believe what LokiD has personally told me about phase 2, and mk does as well. If he's legit, well then this is what we are getting, and the arguement is irrelevant. If he's not legitimate, then he's not legitimate, and we were wrong in believing him. That's all.

JON HAS SPOKEN

 

[mkilban2]

^^ not sure how to put the actual video in here haha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ-BaDwAMbY

 

[darkslayer101]

it seems new star trek is confirmed to have a superbowl spot in the second half...any word on IM3 or Thor 2?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

honestly... if marvel really wants to build up Janet and Hank. their mini-films would actually be pretty great for that... air a 5-10 min short film featuring them before a couple of films with the previews.

that being said... i can't wait to hear about what short film will be placed with the IM3 Blu-Ray!

 

[Doc Ock]

DC does a awesome job with their animated DCU films, and those have shorts. It would be awesome if every live action Marvel film from now on had shorts too.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

DC does a awesome job with their animated DCU films, and those have shorts. It would be awesome if every live action Marvel film from now on had shorts too.

the blu-rays do, and they really should start putting them in theaters with the films.. rather than making them exclusive like that

 

[marvel_freshman]

The first one is basically the same promo image featured here:

 

[mkilban2]

ahh can't wait til May 3rd! too far away lol

 

[cherokeesam]

right. In a way. Let's do without the rudeness of it though



okay, look. The thing is, is that he and I are going by what LokiD has said, and told us via PM. It doesn't matter if it is logical for them do introduce her. Is it illogical? Sure. Do I agree with what you are saying? Honestly, yeah, and it makes sense. But IF IF IF, Jan does appear, then it's irrelevant now isn't it? As silly and wrong as it is for it to happen, it happened. That's that. Assuming she certainly does appear. Now again, he isn't saying it's silly, he is simply standing by what his source told him. He beleive his source is valid, and we won't know for sure until then.

Basically what I am trying to say, is that it doesn't matter if it isn't logical, or if it is simply wrong for them to introduce Janet. If that is what his (lets hypothetically say 100% legitimate) source says, then that is what we are getting. it doesn't matter if it is logical or not, or if you, or even myself think it is pointless and stupid to introduce Janet in IM3, and have ultron be relevant, because the arguement would truely redundant. That is what we are getting. IF his source is correct. He believes LokiD's source is correct, and I do too for our own reasons. And that's that. I understand your POV, I do, and I agree with it. and I believe mk does as well, but that's not really his arguement. I believe what LokiD has personally told me about phase 2, and mk does as well. If he's legit, well then this is what we are getting, and the arguement is irrelevant. If he's not legitimate, then he's not legitimate, and we were wrong in believing him. That's all.

JON HAS SPOKEN

"If he's legit, well then this is what we are getting, and the arguement is irrelevant. If he's not legitimate, then he's not legitimate, and we were wrong in believing him. That's all...."

...Tell that to Edgar Wright, who's got to start filming an Ant-Man movie this year. If Shane Black jumps the gun and starts casting and writing the principal characters in Wright's film without consulting Ed first, you think Ed's gonna be happy about that....?