Iron Man 2 Where does Iron Man 2 stand among other superhero sequels?

[GhostPoet]

TDK (I actually like IM2 just as much, but i'm partial to Batman)
IM2
SM2
X2

 

[Mr. Earle]

I am, but utterly confused by your list, and what you just wrote. You are always talking about how much you hate TDK, yet, it's in your "favorite sequel", and "all time favorite" list? Then, you say you don't see what's so special about SM2, and yet again, it's in both of your top lists.

TDK is a really good film and i cant help but rate it very high for its quality even though i have problems with it (realism and all that jazz).

Spiderman 2 is in the sequel list because most superhero movies dont have sequels and from those that do, Spiderman 2 is a really good one. Its also tied with SM1, and X-Men 2 in my all time favourite list. I like them all three about the same so i really dont know which to choose. I never said that SM2 is ****, just that it isnt the masterpiece everyone is saying it is.

Btw Kickass would probably have been on that list too, but i have only seen it once so i dont know exactly where it'd go.

 

[samsnee]

I thought this was hilarious

http://www.collider.com/2010/05/13/...errance-howard-iron-man-2-marquee/#more-26065

 

[Shon]

It is true. TIH was a reboot that was mistaken by many people as a sequel.

Not entirely true, it was a quasi sequel reboot, being both yet neither exclusively.

 

[Shon]

I dont get what's so special about Spiderman 2. Its very well made, but i cant help but roll my eyes at its cheesiness. Parker somehow loses his powers because he is depressed, his myopia is back, he can no longer jump long distances, etc...
Then its Otto talking to his tentacles, Spiderman stopping a train with his webs, the constant tearing of the suit, specifically his mask, etc.

Its a story about SM losing his mojo and rediscovering it near the end. Had it not been for Aunt May's goosebump inducing speech i would have hated this movie with a passion.

In a lot of ways IM2 tells a story about Tony going through a similar ordeal, but the Ironman way. Despite not being so well made as SM2, i prefer IM2 or at least think its equal to it.

SM2 is full of crappy inconsistent story telling as well, the movie does not even make sense in certain points and is frankly lazily made beacause it will "look cool and the average movie goer won't notice or care".

Doc Ock wants Peter Parker (normal human) to pass on a message to Spider-Man so what does he do, throws a freakin car at him from behind. Somehow manages to miss killing him (which by the way he would not have been able to tell Spider-Man where to meet him) so the next thing he does it slam him into a brick wall which anyone could handle, no sweat. Tip of the iceberg with this movie. Same thing with X2, crap lazy film.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Not entirely true, it was a quasi sequel reboot, being both yet neither exclusively.

No, its a reboot. The original script by Zak Penn was a sequel hence some aspects looking like a sequel (like Banner in Brazil), but it was eventually rewritten by Norton himself to be a reboot.

 

[Mr. Earle]

SM2 is full of crappy inconsistent story telling as well, the movie does not even make sense in certain points and is frankly lazily made beacause it will "look cool and the average movie goer won't notice or care".

Doc Ock wants Peter Parker (normal human) to pass on a message to Spider-Man so what does he do, throws a freakin car at him from behind. Somehow manages to miss killing him (which by the way he would not have been able to tell Spider-Man where to meet him) so the next thing he does it slam him into a brick wall which anyone could handle, no sweat. Tip of the iceberg with this movie. Same thing with X2, crap lazy film.

I agree. SM2 had many stupid moments. It also had many cheesy scenes. That's why i dont consider it all that great. Its just as good as SM1 imho.
X2 is a lot better than both i think. Maybe i should have put it higher in my list.

 

[kedrell]

If TIH was a 2nd movie sequel to AngHulk, then it would top my list of most improvment over it's predecessor. But it's not a sequel, so I didn't count it. I put X2 & SM2 at the top of my most improved list because frankly, X1 & SM1 were mediocre at best. Sure, the 1st half of SM1 is probably the best part of the Raimi franchise but as soon as DaFoe shows up at that Macy Gray parade as GG the movie just turns to crap and never recovers. SM2 at least didn't have this inconsistency. None of it is as good as the 1st half of SM1 but overall it's the more even, consistent and better movie. X1 failed on just too many levels which are kind of interspersed thoughout the film with what went right about it so it didn't have that drop off that SM1 had but at the same time, it's never as good as the first half of SM1. Then X2 comes along and fills in some of the holes that X1 had so it's not so pot-holed and feels more even. But if I were talking about TIH improving over AngHulk then I'd say it goes from a movie that's pretty aweful(X3, BR, SM3, XO:W, FF1&2, Batman Forever, DD level aweful but not as mind wrecking as Blade: Trinity, B&R, Superman IV, Catwoman, Elektra, or Steel) to a movie that's just a slight shade above Blade, SM1 or X1.

 

[Mr. Earle]

If you just cut out the playground fighting scene, i'd say that Daredevil is a fine movie.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I haven't seen Daredevil since 2003 in theaters. Damn. I need to see the director's cut.

 

[kedrell]

Not to me, I've seen both the theatrical & Director's cuts and it's still too over the top and eye-roll inducing. It has some rare moments when it does something interesting and well done(Matt being able to see Elektra's face via rain drops for exampleas well as most of how they showed us DD-vision, and any time Foggy's on screen) but that's really only about 10% of the movie. The rest is over-acting, over CGI-ing, and stuff that just makes no damned sense(like Kingpin killing his bodyguards just because he felt like it and then admonishing Bullseye for doing the exact same thing a few scenes later). Ugh!!

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

I haven't seen Daredevil since 2003 in theaters. Damn. I need to see the director's cut.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Not to me, I've seen both the theatrical & Director's cuts and it's still too over the top and eye-roll inducing. It has some rare moments when it does something interesting and well done(Matt being able to see Elektra's face via rain drops for exampleas well as most of how they showed us DD-vision, and any time Foggy's on screen) but that's really only about 10% of the movie. The rest is over-acting, over CGI-ing, and stuff that just makes no damned sense(like Kingpin killing his bodyguards just because he felt like it and then admonishing Bullseye for doing the exact same thing a few scenes later). Ugh!!

There are stupid moments and plot holes in every superhero movie, you just have to stop them from ruining the movie for you. DD isnt perfect but its not worthy of rolling eyes (apart from the playground scene). It had a good plot, a good romance, good fighting scenes and a pretty good cast. It was an almost direct adaption of the comic books.

 

[Son of Coul]

X2, TDK, and IM2 are the best superhero sequels to me. I can't really rank them because they're so different, but those are the top ones. IM2 maybe lower than the other two in terms of building off the last movie. I'm not sure, I still have yet to see it a second time.

SM2 was pretty good, but there is waaaaaaayyy too much melodramatic romance. Molina was awesome as Ock and Parker's personal arc was good and the humor was still charming but they really needed to cut back on the love story. It's very boring and there's just nothing compelling about it. They just keep switching places at the wrong times on whether they love each other or not for trivial things (other than being Spider-Man, obviously). It's not interesting to watch two people whose love is only being pulled away by their own denseness. But it was still pretty good. I preferred the first though.

Every other superhero sequel I can think of ranged from mediocre to awful.

 

[kedrell]

There are stupid moments and plot holes in every superhero movie, you just have to stop them from ruining the movie for you. DD isnt perfect but its not worthy of rolling eyes (apart from the playground scene). It had a good plot, a good romance, good fighting scenes and a pretty good cast. It was an almost direct adaption of the comic books.

I would argue that there are levels to which plot holes and stupid stuff can be tolerated. One thing that always bugs me just about more than anything is when things happen in a movie for no reason what so ever and the movie doesn't even attempt to try to explain them(Kingpin killing the guards is a prime example of this). I would also argue that there is a difference between higher science type stuff not being realistic and basic common sense, everyday life things not being realistic. The former has much less of a burden to carry because most audience members are not scientists. This is why stuff like Tony's new element in IM2 didn't bother me. But we all know that if you jump from a skyscraper and land on a scaffolding 20 stories below that you are going to die. Just like we also know that smuggling giant bombs all over a city that is on high alert because of a terrorist attack....is....ridiculous. They're different burdens. I never once thought that DD's sensory powers were far fetched beyond what I could handle because I knew that's what it was going into the movie. But when he starts jumping 20-30 feet in the air(thus breaking the movie's own self stated rules) then I'm gonna have a problem with that. Movies are allowed to set up their own rules that they can follow. But they need to follow them.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I dont recall him jumping that high but if it was that much then i agree with you. Both he and Batman should have abilities that exceed real life human abilities so that they can do the things they re supposed to do. For example i would have no problem if movie Batman could jump and move like BTAS Batman. I'd rather have an elevated realism like that, rather than total realism where nobody can jump from one rooftop to the other (Nolan's batman).

But yeah, 30 feet is too much.

Btw, who landed on scaffolding?

 

[kedrell]

Daredevil did. He jumps off a skyscraper, falls for a good 10-20 stories, lands on a scaffolding and slides down it like Fred Flintstone on the back of a dinosaur.

And yes, he and Elektra & Bullseye are all playing leap frog on rooftops. And it's all pretty obvious wire work or flat out CGI.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I just watched the fights with Bulleye again on youtube and you re right. There is some really nasty wire fu there.

Like i said, there is elevated realism like BTAS Batman, jumping across rooftops, or falling two stories and landing on a car (Begins), and then there's stuff like what you mention or Batman and Rachel falling 50 stories, landing hard on a cab and surviving (TDK).

The first one i like, the second is stupid.

 

[kedrell]

I just watched the fights with Bulleye again on youtube and you re right. There is some really nasty wire fu there.

Like i said, there is elevated realism like BTAS Batman, jumping across rooftops, or falling two stories and landing on a car (Begins), and then there's stuff like what you mention or Batman and Rachel falling 50 stories, landing hard on a cab and surviving (TDK).

The first one i like, the second is stupid.

Well, to me a cartoon show & a live action movie are too different really for comparison. That's why I never had a problem with that stuff in BTAS(well, for the most part) but stuff like that happening in a "takes itself seriously" live action movie just breaks the illusion. Now if they are trying to do a live action cartoon like Scott Pilgrim Vs The World looks to be doing, then I can accept it(though I still have no desire to see that movie).

And yes, the cab breaking their fall scene in TDK bugged the hell out of me. The 2-story drop in BB? Not so much. I can suspend disbelief that a guy in a sturdy protective gear with years of training in how to fall properly could survive a 30 ft fall. But he still better have bruises, and he did.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Well, to me a cartoon show & a live action movie are too different really for comparison. That's why I never had a problem with that stuff in BTAS(well, for the most part) but stuff like that happening in a "takes itself seriously" live action movie just breaks the illusion. Now if they are trying to do a live action cartoon like Scott Pilgrim Vs The World looks to be doing, then I can accept it(though I still have no desire to see that movie).

I am not asking for crazy stuff but Batman should move better, be able to jump from rooftop to rooftop, do backflips and all that jazz. I could see Favreau's Black Widow do all that, so why not Batman? Nolan's Batman moves like he's got cement in his boots.

 

[the dmg]

I am not asking for crazy stuff but Batman should move better, be able to jump from rooftop to rooftop, do backflips and all that jazz. I could see Favreau's Black Widow do all that, so why not Batman? Nolan's Batman moves like he's got cement in his boots.

Some people just take a small suggestion, like jumping from roof to roof (which parcours do with ease), as being "unrealistic."

 

[kedrell]

The way the parkour guys do it is believable enough but the way it was done in DD was just way over the top. The parkour guys don't jump 30 feet in the air.

 

[Shon]

I would argue that there are levels to which plot holes and stupid stuff can be tolerated. One thing that always bugs me just about more than anything is when things happen in a movie for no reason what so ever and the movie doesn't even attempt to try to explain them(Kingpin killing the guards is a prime example of this). I would also argue that there is a difference between higher science type stuff not being realistic and basic common sense, everyday life things not being realistic. The former has much less of a burden to carry because most audience members are not scientists. This is why stuff like Tony's new element in IM2 didn't bother me. But we all know that if you jump from a skyscraper and land on a scaffolding 20 stories below that you are going to die. Just like we also know that smuggling giant bombs all over a city that is on high alert because of a terrorist attack....is....ridiculous. They're different burdens. I never once thought that DD's sensory powers were far fetched beyond what I could handle because I knew that's what it was going into the movie. But when he starts jumping 20-30 feet in the air(thus breaking the movie's own self stated rules) then I'm gonna have a problem with that. Movies are allowed to set up their own rules that they can follow. But they need to follow them.

I agree about movies not living within the rules or boundaries they set hence my hatred for x-men 2 and spider-man 2 which I assume you dislike as well based on your statement above.

Now Daredevil did say his powers gave him added strength and agility in his voice over which explain him making these leaps but it does not explain Bullseye or Elektra making them.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

Daredevil did. He jumps off a skyscraper, falls for a good 10-20 stories, lands on a scaffolding and slides down it like Fred Flintstone on the back of a dinosaur.

And yes, he and Elektra & Bullseye are all playing leap frog on rooftops. And it's all pretty obvious wire work or flat out CGI.

I've always said Mark Steven Johnson was heavily influenced by The Crow in just about every aspect of Daredevil. Running across rooftops could work for Eric Draven because the guy was invincible but not so much for Daredevil who shouldn't be jumping god knows how many stories and surviving. Hell, even when Eric Draven was jumping a couple of stories he wasn't having any kind of smooth landings lol.

 

[Son of Coul]

Daredevil's jumps were the least of that movie's problems. I haven't seen it in a long time but iirc they weren't all that bad. Stuff like dropping a zillion stories onto a car and being okay because of the cape opening in TDK doesn't bother me because you have to have some suspension of disbelief. Realistically, a guy in a metal suit blasting to the ground from thousands of feet in the air and hitting the ground safely without braking or slowing down would crumple him like an accordion no matter what that armor was made of.