Iron Man 2 Discussion Thread

[GrnMarvl14]

I honestly don't know how to start this. In most movies, you can pick up some truly amazing part, or some truly bad part and go from there. With Iron Man 2...I honestly can't find any one bit that was above or below the rest. That's not to say it was just a "meh" movie...it wasn't. It was good. Really good. From beginning to end. Lots of action. Lots of laughs. Great character development (mostly with Stark, but there were plenty of nice bits for Rhodes (with him finally stepping up and not just being Tony's army buddy), Happy Hogan (Favreau FINALLY got to do something in his own movie, without it seeming out-of-place), and even Pepper Potts (showing a lot of strength and intelligence)). Even some nice Fury scenes that really expanded on what we saw in the first film, and showed his ability to just ignore Stark's cockiness and get the best from him. The additions of "Black Widow" (don't believe she ever used that name in the film), Justin Hammer, Ivan Vanko (don't think he ever went by Whiplash), and even Sen. Stern (small bit played by Garry Shandling) all felt good. They didn't feel shoe-horned in, they felt natural (don't want to spoil why Widow fit in as it's not 100% obvious, but Hammer served amazingly well as a sort of evil, manipulative version of Stark, Vanko served as a great look at what Stark's inventions can do in the wrong hands, and Stern was just a great not-quite-nemesis). Even the returned Agent Coulson played his, however small, part well.

The downsides? It feels a lot like the first Iron Man. In fact...I'm fairly certain the general plot was the exact same (Stark's cocky, Stark gets beaten down, Stark needs a suit of armor to save his life, Stark fights armored villain and wins, then gets cheered). This would have been bad if the beats were all the same, but they definitely weren't. And one of my biggest complaints about the first film was that the final fight against Stane felt...wrong. Like it had been tacked on. Here...the final fight feels good. it feels like it belongs. It feels like what the film was naturally leading towards. Another downside would be Vanko's motivation for going after Stark. While revenge for a wrong is always fair motivation, it really felt like the means to an end and not a natural thing. It felt like they needed a reasoning, and went with something obvious. And Hammer could have used some more meat behind him. Some more motivation than just being Stark's competition. It works, just not as well as it could have.

But the great thing about this film is that it doesn't feel like the character's story is winding down. Quite the opposite, it feels like there are a myriad of stories to tell in future films: Stark's drinking took a real role in this film without ever being truly dealt with. Stark's technology being used by other forces opens the door to a whole range of new villains, and eventually the Armor Wars seen in the comics. Rhodes has...well...I won't spoil what Rhodes has, but it opens big doors. Widow showed up and showed up strong, definitely making me want a Black Widow movie. Plus we got to see more than one type of S.H.I.E.L.D., a certain other weapon (stay through the credits), and a nice setup for the Avengers movie.

All in all...I loved it. More than the first film, and the first was, probably, my favorite comic book movie.

But how about everyone else? Anyone else see it? Care to share your thoughts?

 

[boop]

I was quite disappointed by it. While Iron Man was a summer movie with a bit more; sharp wit, engaging story, etc., Iron Man 2 is just a good summer movie. Nothing more.

There is no real sense of imminent danger from the Whiplash character. He spent the majority of his time in front of a computer (which would be okay if his time between being a super-genius and a physical villain was a bit evened out), and ended up looking incredibly, unbelievably weak when thrown into action sequences (how long did that climactic battle between Whiplash and Iron Man/War Machine last? Like a minute and a half? Come on.).

I'm all for going into darker territory, but the Tony-may-just-be-a-serious-alcoholic subplot felt ham-handed, and deserved more attention. It felt like it was thrown in to compensate for the lack of threat from a villain, making the real villain of the film Tony for the entire second act. Which again, I'd dig... if it was handled better.

I hated the Avengers subplot. I love Samuel L. Jackson as much as the next guy, but that was time that could have been used to further develop stories that needed it; Tony/his self-destruction and Whiplash... this film needed another 15-25 minutes for story.

All that being said, I dug the hell out of the first, say, 30 minutes. The film was well-acted all-around (Don Cheadle did a better job in his character than Terrence Howard did), particularly RDJ and Mickey Rourke... but that is no surprise coming from them... and, for the most part, the obligatory action was a lot of fun.

If I had to give it a letter grade; C+.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

There is no real sense of imminent danger from the Whiplash character. He spent the majority of his time in front of a computer (which would be okay if his time between being a super-genius and a physical villain was a bit evened out), and ended up looking incredibly, unbelievably weak when thrown into action sequences (how long did that climactic battle between Whiplash and Iron Man/War Machine last? Like a minute and a half? Come on.).

I agree, in part. Whiplash definitely didn't feel like an imminent danger, but he definitely felt like a looming threat. Which I liked. He seemed to be playing things smart, not just going for revenge but planning out a broader scheme that sort of fell short in the time allotted. And, yeah, he did seem a bit weak in the battle, but in a way, it made sense. It wasn't just Iron Man, and it wasn't the rookie Iron Man from the first film who just barely survived. To me, it made sense that this battle would be a little easier (especially since he'd already faced Vanko).

I'm all for going into darker territory, but the Tony-may-just-be-a-serious-alcoholic subplot felt ham-handed, and deserved more attention. It felt like it was thrown in to compensate for the lack of threat from a villain, making the real villain of the film Tony for the entire second act. Which again, I'd dig... if it was handled better.

I'm seeing the alcoholic thing as a building subplot. It was very much present in the first film, but it wasn't a problem. Now it's started to become a problem, but he still has some control. Though how quickly it was ignored after his little fight with Rhodes was a bit of a problem. But, again, I'm hoping for further development down the line.

I hated the Avengers subplot. I love Samuel L. Jackson as much as the next guy, but that was time that could have been used to further develop stories that needed it; Tony/his self-destruction and Whiplash... this film needed another 15-25 minutes for story.

I actually think it was needed in order to make the Fury scene from the first film pay off. Plus, it's needed as part of the big plan to connect all these individual movies together with the Avengers movie. While more time COULD have been used to develop the villains, I think that could easily have just been added time. 15 extra minutes in a two hour movie's not too big a deal.

And I just have to throw in: One of the characters I left out of my first post that I really loved was Howard Stark. Seeing that relationship between him and Tony (past and present) was very interesting and helped with Tony's character development. It also helped to show a possible source for the alcoholism.

 

[Martonimos]

I'm hoping Black Widow appears in the Avengers movie. So far, that film doesn't seem to have much of a female presence, and Joss Whedon loves having strong female characters in leading roles.

Anyway. I have absolutely no complaints about the movie. I won't say it was better than the first, but it was pretty close at the least. The action was much more interesting this time, as Tony spent a lot more time fighting against people of his power level, and we get a lot more development and interaction with the characters (like GrnMrvl said, Rhodes got an upgrade in this film, as did Fury). Aside from a few minor nitpicks, this film is excellent, and joins its predecessor as one of the greatest comic book movies yet.

 

[Dorothy LaRouge]

That was a kickass movie.

'Nuff said, really.

 

[Barb]

I did not see the first Iron Man movie, but I saw this movie last night and loved it. Maybe I've been reading too many DC comics lately, but Tony Stark came across as a slightly younger, alcoholic version of Bruce Wayne. I don't know if that was intentional on the part of the character's creators or the filmmakers, or if it's my imagination.

Pepper Potts was a strong female character; however, Black Widow was an exucse to get Scarlet Johanssen in black leather. I really didn't see much use for her in the film, to be honest.

I caught two of the supposed nine Easter eggs in the film (there's a list at chud.com), including the one following the credits.

 

[Poltergeist]

I didn't see the first Iron Man, but I saw Iron Man 2 last night.
I quite enjoyed it. Is it the best movie? No. But I was very pleased and thought it was worth the money.

I liked the action of the movie and I found it to be quite entertaining and funny. Also after the credits, that last little scene was pretty entertaining too.

 

[Martonimos]

I did not see the first Iron Man movie, but I saw this movie last night and loved it. Maybe I've been reading too many DC comics lately, but Tony Stark came across as a slightly younger, alcoholic version of Bruce Wayne.

I've always felt that, too. Screw Spider-Man/Superman crossovers; we need an Iron Man/Batman collaboration. Wayne Enterprises and Stark Industries go head-to-head in a bidding war over a powerful new piece of tech, both fearful of what would happen were it to fall in the wrong hands, unaware of the seller's sinister true intentions...

Pepper Potts was a strong female character; however, Black Widow was an exucse to get Scarlet Johanssen in black leather. I really didn't see much use for her in the film, to be honest.

Actually, I felt Widow more or less stole the show in her scene near the end; while the movie still felt like an Iron Man movie (unlike Batman Returns), the sequence where she invades the Hammer building felt like it could have been from a Black Widow movie and have been just as good. We don't get a lot of characterization for her, true, but I think that's mostly because she's a secret agent. I'm hoping to see more of her in future movies, both because she kicks ass, and because we'll be able to see more characterization instead of her being fairly wooden.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I did not see the first Iron Man movie, but I saw this movie last night and loved it. Maybe I've been reading too many DC comics lately, but Tony Stark came across as a slightly younger, alcoholic version of Bruce Wayne. I don't know if that was intentional on the part of the character's creators or the filmmakers, or if it's my imagination.

There are some surface similarities (parents died when he was young, rich industrialist, lot of intellect), but Stark and Wayne are VASTLY different once you get to know a bit about both. Stark's nowhere near as serious as Wayne, is smarter (in general. Stark's, on his own, invented most of his tech, whereas Wayne's had help from the start. Wayne's got him beat in reasoning skills, though), MUCH more of a team player and, ultimately, takes more chances (mostly with bad results). And the comics featuring the characters are also vastly different (Batman's focus much more on BATMAN than Wayne, whereas Iron Man's largely balance out Stark and Iron Man's roles).

Pepper Potts was a strong female character; however, Black Widow was an exucse to get Scarlet Johanssen in black leather. I really didn't see much use for her in the film, to be honest.

She had a believable purpose in Stark's company. I'll agree she wasn't exactly integral to the plot, but they're always trying to get more characters into the movies, and this was a way to do that. She also had one of the most comic-accurate looks out of...all of Marvel's characters. Up there with Iron Man, War Machine, and Spider-Man.

I caught two of the supposed nine Easter eggs in the film (there's a list at chud.com), including the one following the credits.

Ah. I was WONDERING how Vanko got the ticket. Didn't notice the Antarctica map. Was wondering if it was supposed to be Vibranium he was creating (Captain America's shield was made from a steel-Vibranium compound, so it explains why what appeared to be a prototype of the shield was in there). Little upset I didn't notice any Project PEGASUS crates...

 

[Falconwing]

Where to begin.

First off, let me say that this movie lived up to the legacy of the first one. I expected that. And it wasn't a bunch of the same stuff we got last time. Here we got a continuation and it played out well.

1. I liked Stark's obsession with Iron Man. The movie didn't even try to make him look like a righteous hero or anything. But that's not a bad thing since he still came off as a fun character. I also liked his secret pain of his impending death. He hid that behind his mask and didn't even let those closest to him know. Admittedly that's not what I would have done, but when you're a press magnet like Tony is, it's best not tell people you're dying. I guess. All in all, Stark was very much the same arrogant jerk with a heart of gold from the first film. And he privatized world peace. Without caves or boxes of scraps.

2. Rhodes. I like this Rhodes better than the last one. He just comes across better. I like how he also wasn't the stern military type the whole movie. He was concerned for Tony and he had a sense of humor, but also had his duty and when he saw Tony getting out of control, it was time to take matters into his own hands. It was well played in my opinion. I mean, how else would you stop a drunken robot than with an equally strong robot? Also, the War Machine suit was awesome and I liked how initially it was an official Air Force craft.

3. Pepper. Eh, she's a lot like she was in the last movie. Not a lot of development or anything.

4. Ivan Vanko. I like how this was a revenge quest by a guy equally as intelligent as Stark. He plotted and schemed, showed up and had a battle, then worked behind the scenes, caused mayhem, and then had a rematch. Ivan did a lot in this movie and it made up for the fact his actual fights were brief. His unflinching walks were also some of the coolest scenes in the movie.

5. Justin Hammer. I love this guy far better than how he was in the comics. Here is an eccentric young man who is very goofy and then gets serious from out of nowhere. That shocked me. Hammer wasn't kidding. I liked how his character was written to be the kind of guy who secretly idolized Stark. Think about it. Hammer was trying to be everything Stark was. Witty, charming, popular, brilliant. But he always fell short. But he was a lot of fun and a great... eh, pseudo villain I guess. I didn't see him as much of a threat really. but I liked the fact that he managed to plan that prison break so well.

6. SHIELD. Nick Fury is awesome. I'm now done with him. Black Widow was also very cool, having some amazing fight scenes, getting to beat up Happy Hogan, and able to play two different roles. There was a big difference between SHIELD agent and Stark Enterprises legal worker. I hope we see Black Widow in the Avengers movie alongside the one and only Nick Fury. Who would like to ask you to exit the donut.

Now, the movie did have a couple issues. The banter that would pop up constantly can either be funny or dragging. mostly it was funny but there were times where it just didn't need to be there.

The graphics were superb though. The action was intense. the acting was outstanding, and there were jokes that didn't make it a gritty action film. This film had everything in it that made the first film so good.

 

[Rellik]

I only saw it because my friends dragged me to the midnight premier, but I can honestly say I loved every minute of it. There wasn't a single part where I was just watching the screen or something. I was actually enjoying this movie, and will honestly see a third one if it comes out. Mind you, this is a big deal for me. I usually don't really like Marvel superhero movies, and I wasn't exactly a huge fan of the first flick either.

 

[The Big Al]

This movie was awesome. I really loved the end (before the credits) when Stern got Stark with the medal. You know the two will be sparring in future movies.

I'd have to say Iron Man is Marvel's strongest movie franchise right now and I'm looking forward to the Avengers.

 

[Miles Prower]

Iron Man 2 was also the advancement in the Story, along with the 2nd Hulk(End Credit Parts) For example...

(After Credits)The General in the 2nd Hulk movie was in a bar, drinking, when a familiar Face showed up. Tony Stark. Tony asked the general if he knew where the hulk was, and the general asked why. Tonys Response...He wanted to ask hulk if he wanted to join something.

After credits in Iron Man 2-Read Spoiler, if you want to...

Spoiler

After the credits in this movie, Agent Collson from the SHIELD Organization arrived in New Mexico. This scene showed a Giant hole that was dug. Anyways, Colson stepped out, looked at the hole for a minute, then pulled out his cell phone.

Colson: "Yes this Is Colson. Sir, we found it."

And after he said that, the movie showed a familiar artifact. What is that artifact you may ask? Well, its none other than Thor's Hammer.

Those two examples are the many reasons why this movie was great, and why it was such an important part in the Avengers role. What next you might ask? Well, now we wait for 'Captian America: The First Avenger' which is rumored to come out Next year.

Anyways, in my opinion..i give it a solid B-

What I would think would be interesting is Seeing Ezekiel Stane in any of the upcoming movies...

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Captain America's coming out in 2012, not next year.

 

[MadNik]

Captain America's coming out in 2012, not next year.

Captain America: The First Avenger is scheduled to be released July 22, 2011, roughly 2 months after Thor.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Captain America: The First Avenger is scheduled to be released July 22, 2011, roughly 2 months after Thor.

Bleh, you're right. So hard to keep them all in order.

 

[Barb]

There are some surface similarities (parents died when he was young, rich industrialist, lot of intellect), but Stark and Wayne are VASTLY different once you get to know a bit about both. Stark's nowhere near as serious as Wayne, is smarter (in general. Stark's, on his own, invented most of his tech, whereas Wayne's had help from the start. Wayne's got him beat in reasoning skills, though), MUCH more of a team player and, ultimately, takes more chances (mostly with bad results).

I get that he's less serious than Wayne; Downey's performance made that clear. And while Stark is an inventor, I give Wayne credit for that 10-plus year sojourn in which he remade himself, body and soul. That should count for something.

[/quote]And the comics featuring the characters are also vastly different (Batman's focus much more on BATMAN than Wayne, whereas Iron Man's largely balance out Stark and Iron Man's roles). [/quote]

I just finished reading Batman: The Killing Joke. I feel like I need to lie down now.

She had a believable purpose in Stark's company. I'll agree she wasn't exactly integral to the plot, but they're always trying to get more characters into the movies, and this was a way to do that.

I found this aspect of IM2 confusing: keeping all the characters straight. Was there any hint of her in the first film?

She also had one of the most comic-accurate looks out of...all of Marvel's characters. Up there with Iron Man, War Machine, and Spider-Man.

Who or what is War Machine?

Ah. I was WONDERING how Vanko got the ticket. Didn't notice the Antarctica map. Was wondering if it was supposed to be Vibranium he was creating (Captain America's shield was made from a steel-Vibranium compound, so it explains why what appeared to be a prototype of the shield was in there). Little upset I didn't notice any Project PEGASUS crates...

I only caught Captain America's shield and the post-credits scene

Spoiler

when they find Mjolnir in the desert

. I'm clueless about the rest, but the Internet is a wonderful font of information.

 

[MadNik]

Another little hidden thing for the fans:
If you looked closely at the credits, the man who gave Whiplash the phony passport and whatnot is credited as "10 Rings Thug", in league with one of Iron Man's well known enemies, Manderin.
One of the many little nods that this film gave to comic fans.

EDIT: Also, jka12002, please don't insult someone simply because they didn't catch the name of a certain character's suit in the movie. Give them a break.

 

[Falconwing]

EDIT: Also, jka12002, please don't insult someone simply because they didn't catch the name of a certain character's suit in the movie. Give them a break.

Yeah, there was only one REALLY quick reference to the actual name of war machine and it was hard to hear since that was when Tony and Rhodes were fighting.

 

[Badal]

Question:
Are Iron man and Hulk related?
since I was watching hulk and they had Stark come in at the end or something.