Why ‘Iron Man 2′ Is A Weak Link In ‘The Avengers’ Chain

Published 4 years ago by , Updated July 16th, 2014 at 11:10 am,

Iron Man 2 Still War Machine Mark V 570x320 Why Iron Man 2 Is A Weak Link In The Avengers Chain

If you are a regular Screen Rant reader, you no doubt know that I am not yet on this Avengers bandwagon. Don’t get me wrong – I WANT this to be the epic, game-changing comic book movie event that most of you are hoping for… I’m just not yet certain that it’s going to be.

And if Iron Man 2 was anything to judge by, I have logical reason to worry.

Iron Man 2 is officially a box office success, taking the number one spot two weeks in a row and raking in another pile of profit for Marvel Studios. Things are proceeding toward the epic Avengers movie event as planned, I would think. Critically, Iron Man 2 seems to be 75% fan-approved, with our own Vic Holtreman giving it a ‘flawed but fun’ review.

But I’m not drinking this glass of Kool-Aid. Not this time. To me,  Iron Man 2 is a super hero movie where nothing super heroic happens – a movie that totally mishandles its main character in favor of secondary goals like setting up the Avengers movie.

Let me be clear upfront: I “get” the story of Iron Man 2: Tony Stark has revealed to the world that he is a superhero and is addicted to the power and fame that revelation brings him, even though the demands of being Iron Man are literally killing him. With villains circling and death on the horizon, Tony must once again find the will and way to salvation.

Now, there is a time-honored rule of good writing: “Show, don’t tell.” Think for a second about what we are told in Iron Man 2 versus what we’re actually shown, and then tell me that this movie got things right.

Here’s what we’re told at the start of Iron Man 2:

  • The demands of constantly being Iron Man are draining Tony’s life-sustaining power cores faster and faster. It’s basically a death sentence every time he puts on the suit and plays hero.
  • Tony has tried and tried to find a new upgrade for his outdated power core – but darn it, he just can’t do it!
  • The stresses of being a public superhero are wearing Tony down emotionally as well as physically (as evidenced by Robert Downey Jr.’s long stares).

iron man trailer2b Why Iron Man 2 Is A Weak Link In The Avengers Chain

That’s a great premise for a superhero movie – a story about a hero with no secret identity (no refuge), trying to balance a celebrity ego with the great responsibilities that come with great power icon wink Why Iron Man 2 Is A Weak Link In The Avengers Chain . Best of all, with an actor like Robert Downey Jr. (who certainly proved it in the first film), none of these heavy themes have to feel too heavy, or too serious (read: too Dark Knight). Should be awesome! Right?

But here’s what we were ultimately shown in Iron Man 2:

  • How Tony Stark spends his downtime.
  • What a bunch of the supporting players are up to.
  • Eventually how Tony stops playing around and solves his problem.

Before you tear into me, please just think about it. What did you see? Tony opening the Stark Expo; Tony screwing with Congress; Tony getting boxing lessons; Tony at the Monaco races; Tony bumming around the Stark Industries offices; Tony getting drunk at a party; Tony staring off at nothing (the “heavy” moments); Tony eating donuts, while in a giant donut; etc…

Now I already know what some of you are going to try to say: “Dude, that’s the point! It’s about how Tony Stark starts to unravel from the demands of being Iron Man, the pressures of fame, and how he has to mature as a hero!” And that’s a fine story to tell, I don’t disagree – but unless you show the audience what it is, exactly, that’s causing the hero to unravel – the actual trials and tribulations he’s going through -  the story kind of misses its own mark, no?

Continue what Iron Man 2 should’ve been…

« 1 2»

TAGS: iron man 2, the avengers

152 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. I know I have not read all of the Iron Man comics so I don’t know exact details of the complete story. But as a movie expert in how well movies of the comic book orgin or video game orgin, about how succesful the story must be in these movies, I can understand how alot of fans can get upset over crap movies like the first Hulk and Daredevil and also the FF movies. Which is why the two most recent Batman movies were the best to date. The first Iron Man movie was great for the some of the orgin of Iron Man and Tony Stark but I think with this kind of super hero movie you can skip some story lines for some good fun or action. The super hero movies like Batman can relate to real life issue and have the ideal of being real. The fact reminds how serious can u get with these movies, how much story do we really need with these movies, I mean come on, Batman nothing but story and when the action came great too, but with Iron Man and FF, and the Hulk were looking for more fun and action because we know this is just for fun unlike Batman were we can feel the realness and relate to actuall life and can really believe that somebody could be Batman unlike Iron Man or Hulk. So I thought both Iron Man movies were made perfect, and so what with the cameos’ of Sheild Iron Man is the starting point for The Avengers the movie still gave us entertaiment for Iron Man and the future Avengers movies

    • So…just to clarify….

      Man dressed in bat suit with expensive tech = realistic?

      Man dressed in high tech armor = unrealistic?

      hmmmmmmm….

  2. My impressions and intuits on the “Iron Man movies.

    In the first movie we see militarily just what Tony can do in the suit. It’s not gratuitous ;) but we certainly get the point, not even U.S. tech. can stand up to him.

    In the second movie we see that like the smartest innovators he doesn’t rest on his Laural’s. He keeps on innovating. Viral advertisements of Stark tech on your home TV start to pay off. Watching the movie, as we’re ran into the Stark Expo we’re reminded that this stuff goes beyond war machines. There he’s set a venue to show and encourage the world to step up to the challenges, unite, and bring a better future, to leave a monumental legacy to the world. Peace, security, answers to the worlds pressing problems.

    Tony has up to the minute intelligence on all competing technologies to his own. Being a weapons master he knows the capabilities of all armed forces the world over. Force balance, strengths et cetera, et cetera. Watching via world networks he has the worlds military technologies on clocks, most likely running in his head, on any power’s, foreign or domestic ability to come into technological proximity. This isn’t unusual I’ve read of similar feats of other gifted individuals. The film doesn’t talk down to the audience but rather the authority figures within the movie. And why not? In the context of the movie Tony has turned everything on its head.

    But one clock is missing. The one keeping track of his fathers one time collaborator on the heart of the new technology. That one person’s son picks up a weapon and goes after him. As Vanko is working on that weapon we’re treated to the successes of owning that radical technology in all associated fields, including influencing world peace. It’s on TV, it hangs on the walls of Vanko’s living room workshop, paper clipping filled, cork B.B. We already know Tony is determined to use interdiction if necessary, we saw that in the first movie, it’s in the clippings. Hey why repeat yourself didn’t you get it the first and second time? Bigger fish to fry. Like hey can he keep up the pace? Jarvis doesn’t think so and pulling the spent replaceable (smoking) elements that clearly is having an effect on his health, is a pretty good indication that like his father’s dreams he and his family legacy are dying. Dying, sort of brings things into focus. Like where’s my heir, Oh wait I never got around to having one. Hey maybe I ought to think about that some?!.. But then, kind of like in real life something comes up. It’s always someone there. To block, countermand , or just get in your F*n way. That’s one of my pet peeves. So Rhodey steals, no, drafts the Stark tech for the U.S. Government and men in black pop into Tony’s life to give him a shot in the arm, or in this case the neck and set our hero on the path to salvation. Just one problem.. We need a new element, a Deux ex machina well, a new element and pow dear old dad had found one and packed it away for a rainy day.

    Now Jarvis said the new element was impossible to synthesize. I clearly heard that! But you know what, the universe cooked up the elements in the stars. But before we talk about that did you notice something?

    Did you notice in “Iron Man 1″ Captain America’s shield was pretty much intact. In “Iron Man II” it looked stripped. Had Tony been stripping it? Maybe for especially tough armor parts? Had Tony built the most powerful Atom smasher using the arc reactor as a power source? What did he put in the desktop atomic accelerator? What particles did he use to excite the target and at what energy level? Did the focused particle beam containing the new element become fused, alloyed with another element stabilizing the new element’s half life? Surely it’s radioactive but what’s the nature of the radiation? Oh snap! This is surely one variant of the much storied Vibranium right?

    **** SPOILER ALERT ****** SPOILER ALERT ****** SPOILER

    From the after credits footage….

    I deduced that Thor is in the crater, because his hammer is beyond the raised earth of the crater and this is true because it’s not on top of burnt ground which is clearly the state of the earth inside the crater. Since his impact most likely made the crater does that mean for a portion of “The Avengers” Thor will be laid up in a hospital? Was he punished by Odin and hurled to Earth or did someone like Loki battle with him? If he’s not in the crater then who or what is or was?

  3. I enjoyed it, but you’re right. There’s not anything super heroic until the end.

  4. We really didnt need to see how he suits up, we’ve seen it done in the first film and twice in the 2nd film. They Probly wanted to cut down on time was all, not that big of a deal and i thought it was a nice touch anyway of Tony takin the risk on using his new power source and his reaction when it lights up. The thing to me about them not showin Tony trying to find a alternate power source throughout the film didnt bother me because we seen how he made his first in the first film of-course, and some people say now they wish they added a scene like that in but then again it could of turned out to be boring aswell. I thought it was better that Tony mentioned how he tried ways to find a alternate power source because again, it cost the studio more money and time. Ironman saved people in peril, like the bou wearing a ironman mask being mistakin by one of the drones and saved at the last minute. Ironman noticing Warmachine & the Drones targeting him and flies off outta the expo so all those people would less likely to get hurt. As for Tony partying and getting drunk in the Ironman suit & eating donuts on top of a building, what would you expect from a dying man who took some girl’s advice at a party and live life to its fullest? While i think it didnt quite stand up next to the first film, i still thought it was great film. And in my opinion i still think Marvel is on the right track of things and know what they’re doin still. The Avengers is 2 years away, so i for one arent gonna dwell on somthing that hasnt came to fruitation yet. Not much has been revealed about Thor or Captain America that comes out next year. All will be revealed in time!

    • i agree with you totally! yeah that was prolly the one thing that wasn’t shown was what had been goin on during those 6mths since he told everyone he was Iron Man..but is it necessary?? He was out saving the world-is he Superman??no he’s an arms manufacturer that solves problems in a suit..would it had been cool to see him in the other suits??yeah of course-but really?? just because you bought the “deep sea diver” Iron Man figure-did it really need to be in the film??when it comes down to it, it has to be the story and relation to the story..i think there are just to many nitpickers here..god help if you ask any of them what they would’ve wanted to see in the flick..more chicks, Scarlet Johanson naked,Gwynth Paltrow naked..

  5. I totally agree with outlaw it felt exzctly like a very poorly made “Lead in” filler movie; I for one will NOT be buying this on any sort of ray, blue or otherwise.

    And for the record I am A BIG Marvel fan.

  6. For the record: Captain America and (especially) Thor are hella gay. What’s next, an Ant-Man movie? He was in the Avengers too, wasn’t he? My prediction is Captain America, Thor and the Avengers movie will all make The Fantastic Four franchise look like Oscar winners.

    • OOOOOOOO kay..

      WHat meds are taking that would make you delusional?

      I don’t know which part of your statement was more asinine. The gay part or the part about these movies making FF look like Oscar winners..

      • Thor is just a stupid comic book character. Captain America might be slightly better, but not much. The idea of a REAL Norse God running around with characters like Iron Man is ridiculous. Captain America just has an ugly costume and his trademark weapon is… wait for it… a shield. Wow, that just screams excitement doesn’t it? I can tell you why Captain American will suck for sure, two words: Chris Evans. He is an AWFUL actor and managed to make Jessica Alba look like a master thespian in the FF movies. Nuff’ said.

        • okay you are delusional..You are entitled to your opinion but I’d be will to bet that when these films are released you will be there. Thor has major potential and the idea of gods existing and living amoung men has been around for thousands of years..SO why not a Norse “god of Thunder”? These movies are based…are you ready for it…ON COMICS!! Why is Thor any less credible than a man from another planet who is given god-like powers from the rays of a yellow sun. It’s how they present it and how the story is told that will make Thor work unbelievably well and well Cap is Cap..He was created at a time to personify pride in one’s country and embodies the concepts on which AMerica were founded. He is one of the coolest characters in comic book history because of what he embodies..Courage under fire, death before dishonour, and the individuals inalienable right to be free(freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from tyranny, freedom of free speech, and on and on it goes).. there is nothing lame or gay or stupid about that.

          • I promise you I will not go to see any of those films. I love comics, good ones that is. During the late seventies through late eighties I collected X-Men, Iron Man, Daredevil and all the Conan books. Though I was always a “make mine Marvel” guy, I would also occasionally pick up a Batman title if it had some particularly good art (some of Alan Davis’ work comes to mind). Even at that young age (I was born in 71) I always found Thor to be a silly concept of a superhero, that reeked of the worst parts of Stan Lee’s penchant for cheesy fantasy (Fin Fang Foom anybody?) themes. As for Captain America, I find nothing “heroic” about jingoistic fervor, even though they tried to make Cap in to some kind of tea-bagger type rebel in more recent issues. As you can see by the titles I liked, I was always more attracted to the more sci-fi based or vigilante type heroes. I apologize if I’ve offended your sensibilities; but I was really just being silly by calling Thor and Cap “gay”. Please feel free to insert the word “corn-ball”.

            Incidentally, since you mentioned Super Man in your post. I always thought (and still think) Superman is about the worst comic character ever devised. How am I supposed to believe that a God living among men would leave any room for other superheroes. Especially a hero like Batman who has NO powers at all, just some nifty technology. This was an issue which I thought Watchmen addressed rather succinctly with Dr. Manhattan.

            • Jingoism is hardly a term I would have used to define Captain AMerica although he was a form of propaganda in the 40′s but that is extreme(and I am Canadian born in 1969).Cap is the embodiment of hero whether you wish to agree with me or not.So humans mutated to the level of gods is acceptable (X-Men) but a god of mythology living amoung us is not?

              My sensibilities haven’t been offended in the least..you are entitled to your opinion as am I. ALthough they diverge as much as possible on the issue of these characters. I know what you were implying with “gay” being “lame” so again not offended at all.

              • I’m siding with you on this one greenknight333. Thor and Captain America are some of key characters in Marvel. And FF will never get an Oscar.

                But I will say I’m offended by the short-sighted look on some of these characters and movies to come.

              • Nobody in The X-Men ever approached the power level of Superman, except for Phoenix during the Dark Phoenix storyline. As it turned out Phoenix wasn’t a mutant after all, but an alien life form masquerading as Jean Grey.

                In any case, it’s all just a matter of taste. Thor always left a bad taste in my mouth for some reason. Now that I think about it though, there was an X-Men Annual in the mid 80′s that had Loki in it as the villain and I rather enjoyed that. The amazing Art Adams pencils probably didn’t hurt.

            • Warning: I do NOT like the term “tea-bagger” when the folks you apply that to simply want a return to the gov’t actually following the Constitution and not spending money like a drunken sailor who thinks he’s the son of a billionaire.

              Vic

              • Which government are you referring to Vic? Just curious..but if that term offends you I guess I already know which one..

              • I was more referring to the fact that Captain America has been portrayed as pitted against the government and their wanting to register superheroes. He has become (at least in the comics) a sort of anti-establishment figure who fights what he perceives as injustice in our own government (which sounds a lot like the old fight against Commies to me). I personally have no preconceptions about the tea bag movement, except that they seem to be old and wealthy.

                • It’s tea PARTY. Don’t be a douche by using that term when I just mentioned I find it offensive.

                • “I personally have no preconceptions about the tea bag movement, except that they seem to be old and wealthy. ” ~Nico Toscani

                  Would you mind taking a minute to tell me exactly where I can find this wealth you say those of us associated with the Tea party have? I do admit I’m not young but unlike being wealthy we all end up being old at some point assuming you don’t die young.

        • no one likes trivial characters..the reason Marvel characters succeed is that they at their base level are RELATEABLE..teen heroes,30something heroes and other characters from all walks of life are given powers..if you are a kid and you pick up a comic book (to read and not collect like baseball cards) you feel a lil empowered after reading it. it sparks imagination and free will.with Superman it was the sense of Hope..that is why we read comic books- the only thing i would hope for is that they transfer that same feeling to the films..

  7. U thought Thor was lame but u read Conan? I don’t even need to comment on that it speaks for it’s self.

    I’m not really a cap fan I find him boring most of the time rarely interesting he does have his moments though. However ur being way to harsh on the character and Thor is an excellent charecter try ready the comic there is a lot of depth.

    I agree that Chris Evans will ruin Cap and Avengers but he is a terrible actor he’s simply mediocre. Excellent at comedy but unbelievable in a serious role and as I said vefore has no place on screen with the likes of RDJ.

    Calling them gay isn’t corn ball it’s disrespectful and dumb. If u hate the characters talk crap give good reason don’t call them gay it makes no sense and sounds like a teenager expressing hatred.

    • chris evans has gotten better,but its always about the director tho..actors are only as good if not better than their directors..
      let’s just hope that joe johnston has gotten better since “WolfMan” and “Jurassic Park3″

  8. Wow Vic said douch I don’t remember the last time I laughed so hard reading SR. Lol sorry just never expected to say u say that Vic. I’m with u on this one don’t get me wrong I just laugh visualizing u saying douche lol. Go Vic!!

  9. I meant the comics and was refering to the concept like u were toward Thor. Thir is one of the least kiddie comics with in Marvel so to call it that leads me to believe u have never read it.

    Either way I don’t intend to attempt a disscusion with some one who is as imature as u. I’m not offend by the use of the word gay I’m offend by the childish use of it. Using the word gay as u have more often than not is a dead give away of a persons age if not actual than mental age. We shall speak after u hit puberty.

    • He’s now on auto-moderate and offensive comments have been deleted.

      If he cares to leave comments that aren’t offensive and actually add to the conversation, I’ll let them through.

      Vic

  10. Ur lacknof intellegence is amazing. This is Vics site ‘ in case u havnt noticed’ so he can discuss what ever he wants. Sort of comes with being the maker of something ull understand some day. They might teach u that when u hit 8 th grade.

  11. It was less about rushing to vics aide and more about correcting u and rushing in against u.

    Enjoying comics doesn’t factor in to majority it’s simply an art form if it’s immature to enjoy comics than it’s immature to appretiate classical music, enjoy an art gallery or love catcher in the rye. I’m guilty of all. Maturity has nothing to do with ur intrests or level of education. Maturity is the way u present ur self. The way u speak and act. For instance callings things that u don’t like over using a word to get a rise out of someone when u discover they don’t like it or when people don’t like something calling them sissys.

    I couldn’t care less if ur 19 or 52 the point is u act as a child would and that makes u a child in my eyes regarless of age. I’ll leave this alone now because I was raised better than to pick on toddlers. I leave u with a few thoughts. People will react to u based on how u present ur self if u wish some one to discuss or debate something start with present ideas and thought and avoid calling something gay. It’s like saying u hate something with out reason.

    If u want respect show and if u really are over the age of 13 please learn to act it and present ur self that way. In terms u would understand acting the way u have is gay.

  12. Say Nico did you ever try to get your PHD and what school did you attend?

  13. Yeah just as I thought a poozer… :P

  14. No need Vic like he told us in 14 seperate comments he’s not coming back except maybe to tell us one more time and possibly another after that, but then he is done. Unless he comes back to tell us one more time. So don’t worry.

  15. I agree that IM2 had some story deficiencies. For starters, all the discussion in the movie to Iron Man privatizing world peace and protecting the US should have been demonstrated. The movie could have opened with Iron Man operating in some part of the world, saving hostages from terrorists, etc. Perhaps, in the process, interfering with a US planned rescue mission, going in without authorization and jeopardizing the safety of the hostages. Even though successful, his reckless actions could have led to Stark being called before congress.

    Also, the daddy issues were resolved stupidly. Stark didn’t really know his father and states that his dad didn’t care about him. Then in some video, his dad speaks directly to him and says he loves him. Vanko’s father was supposedly cheated by Howard Stark, but Nick Fury simply states that Vanko was the cheat and that solves that issue.

    Tony’s health issues should have shown up. Perhaps during an action scene his blood toxicity could make him lose consciousness, his suit then flying him home. In any case, the health issue should have felt urgent and the urgency evident in the narrative.

    • Also, Tony escapes the Shield perimeter set up around his house. They should have shown a brief scene of how he accomplished this, perhaps using Jarvis and his various home technology to make his path clear.

      Along a similar vein, they should have shown Vanko watching the live TV report showing that Tony would be racing and then acquiring the orange security jump suit, perhaps by taking out a security guard.

  16. i totally agree i wasn’t really impressed with the movie, loved the action (when it was actually there), but the whole thing was a very chopped up script and bad editing too i believe. it was like scene after scene of ‘oh look it’s tony again or oh whiplash he doesn’t look happy, but bored’. anyway, the movie was ok, but with no real story to follow, what’s the point of showing it in a movie, just write it on napkins and send it to people.

  17. You know what they say leave them wanting more. Guess they succeeded in that aspect too… ;)

  18. This a action movie,a lot has to be left implied in order to keep the movie going. However they did show Tony’s slow death, by having his blood constantly tested, showing the burnt out batteries, and of course giving Pepper a job she wouldn’t have received any other way. Should they have shown tony fighting the good fight,maybe, but would you run the risk of showing something that looks like outtakes from the first movie. Remember, what you are describing he did in the middle east in IM 1. Now, on to the Avengers,am I the only one that thinks this is rushed. Hulk is 0-2 (although I liked the 2nd version), Thor and Capt America both unproven. Marvel how about allowing each franchise time to stand, because Thor and Capt risk being overloaded with Avenger setup.

  19. Take away the goodwill from the first film, and IM2 is a surprisingly bad movie done by some talented people. Mickey Rourke’s character is pointless–it could have had a point, but the plot crapped out on him. He turns out to be a nut whose father was a thief–maybe if Tony’s father would have actually stolen tech from his father there would have been a point.

    Scarlett Johannson was horrendous as Black Widow. Rhodey as a character made no sense: he can’t part of the US military and wear one of Tony’s suits. The Avengers is not some special ops group of the a pseudo-CIA (SHIELD) — that makes them spies, not heroes (and pretty lame).

    The big hole in the script is Tony’s alchoholism. Tony is an alcholic and the film completely ignores this–his problem is not celebrity culture or narcissism, his problem is that he is a drunk. This has to been dealt with in the film, or else he just seems like a clueless jerk. In fact, I don’t understand why the movie SHIELD doesn’t just steal all of Tony’s suits–he is too weak and clueless to stop them in IM2.

    • are you serious??really?? did you watch the movie??
      She rocked as Black Widow!! wtf really??what more did you want with her character?? a golden lasso?? a freakin invisible jet??or wait you wanted her to actually spill blood or fight like it was the UFC..wtf dude..you know seriously pick up the book then see the movie or just stay off this board..harry potter called-he wants his #1 fan back..

  20. I was not impressed with the movie either, but, being a comic fan, I just have to see these movies. I’m curious how they will make Thor come to life, how they will explain the whole Norse god thing. And you know what, you just never know. I’ve seen movies that did not look interesting to me at all, but then it turned out that I was pleasantly surprised. I’ve never really seen Chris Evans in a serious role, so I cannot judge (the “most” serious I’ve seen, was in Cellular – yeah, saw it with a friend). Everyone is entitled to their opinion; however, I’m still willing to give those movies a chance, because the child in me just wants to see these characters in live action. That’s just me though

    • Yeah, a Norse God talking english, I always wondered where the f**k he learned to speak that language!

  21. I too felt like IM2 lost what it gained in the first outing. It feels a lot like as if John Faverau was not let be to do it as he wanted and some executives got involved believing they could somehow make it better not because they have any knowledge or experience but be4cause they are the executives.

  22. I agree with you. I really WANTED to love IM2. It wasn’t awful or anything, but it didn’t achieve the GREATNESS of part 1. It fell somewhere between mediocre and pretty good.

    Somethings I think took away from it:
    1) Too much going on. They could probably took out the Black Widow storyline and focused more on the characters.

    2)Felt too plot focused. What made IM2 so great was the characters. Action came second. Seems like they flipped it here, and stories will always suffer in this regard.

    3) Tony just wasn’t likable in IM2. In part 1 he was eccentric, selfish, but also a likable guy when it came down to it. In this one he came off as a doucher for the most part. I get that they had to show his ego inflating, etc, but I think he could have used a character change halfway thru. Maybe Pepper puts him in his place. Rediscover why he became IM in the first place. Instead the big turning point was… discovering a new element.

    Meh.

    But anyway, I’m not too worried. I think Thor and CA are going to own it. This probably will be the weakest link though, as I think TIH beats IM2 out by a slight margin.

    • it was a natural result of his mentality..he had to figure out how to fix his problem and as he had done in the first one his connection was his dad’s idea for the expo-also Nick Fury remember him??gave him his solution..as did VANKO who knew that he had the missing piece of the puzzle especially with the polladium..so once he saw both plans in front of him-he took them and improved them..i know its hard to understand but some people can actually SEE the details within the details..on film though it is difficult, so they used the mechanics of the diagrahm ,then the 4-d computer imaging to explain what was going through his mind..sorry if that was too much for ya-but it made perfect sense to me..what more do you need??him to go to Africa and team up with the Black Panther and buy some Vibranium??get real..

      also he had to play the part he had become to be associated with almost like what Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne did in Dark knight and batman Begins-he had to seem that he was ok and not losing it..

      also how could you say that BLack widow was in it too much or too busy?? c’mon man its supposed to be entertaining and exciting..and adding her allowed the main characters to grow even more..don’t tell me she didn’t kick ass either..

  23. Correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression that everyone is sour over this movie because of a lack of fan service in the action department? Maybe I can illustrate what the situation is that this story is set around. You and your enemy walk into a room armed. He points a gun to your head you point a gun to his head. Do you really think you can twist and turn your way out of such a situation? This is the concept of deterrence. It’s what Russia and the U.S. practiced for over 40 years. I know a bunch of you know this. So how is Iron Man’s story any different? Well enter the Reagan years and make Star Wars a reality. That’s the situation you have with Iron Man. Everyone wants to catch up but no one is there except one. The story of “Iron Man 2″ is an old one. The challenge is take out your nearest equal and everyone that is clearly inferior will have no choice but to fall in line. Deterrence is preserved. But this isn’t quite the whole story of the main story. What Whiplash represents and what point his existence is, is that, Despite deterrence succeeding, other forces are and will come into play. Now we take into account what happened in “Incredible Hulk.” Here’s a new threat to stability and world peace. How will Tony contribute to the solution? Will he be chosen to run interference in the field for S.H.I.E.L.D. to harness the cooperation of the Hulk? Is it possible that Hulk decked Thor at the end of “I.M.2?” Well if it’s destined to happen it would actually be shown at the end of “Thor ” next year but you know what I mean.

    If you want an adult story then you should expect that the characters, including most of the unseen ones will act rationally. It’s only the crazy ones that won’t act rationally, umm like Whiplash. Tony was right in his case if he had sold the technology to everyone he still could have gotten back at Stark. This is because with his core tech in more hands Iron Man would have multiple high level threats to deal with and poison Tony at a faster rate. He could have staggered his cooperation with Hammer until after Tony was dealing with the other nations with his tech and still had a personal showdown with an even weaker Iron Man. Perhaps that’s the story you expected. What Favreau is saying is, no that isn’t the worst threat. The worse threat is the irrational. The one you can’t predict. It’s the most dangerous. Haven’t we seen that in real life many times before? At any rate defeating Whiplash instead of Tony browbeating up the world means two things. First your not upsetting people in other countries that will be playing the movie by making them the bad guys! Ohh you never thought of that did ya!!! All nations are shown equally trying to catch up to Stark tech as a natural national agenda that you would expect from any country. The other thing you show is that the political and national threat isn’t the real problem. The real problem are the crazies represented by Whiplash and future super villains and some forces of nature, like the Hulk. One other thing, just because you might have metrics and rigid expectations on your job, it isn’t necessarily how others work. Tony is being shown in the gym at one point, but does that mean he’s not working? First his physical conditioning is mandatory, he’s involved in conflicts as Iron Man and how do you think he could take all those G-forces if he wasn’t in top condition? Second he’s conducting business with Pepper. Yeah Favreau implies a lot of things without actually showing them to you. But hey I thought you guys were savvy to all this stuff. Can’t anything be implied? We have to show Tony doing reps?

    • First of all (and no offense meant) but I feel like you are stretching WAY far, filling in gaps in this Swiss Cheese of a movie with your own intellectual ponderings. You’re projecting your intelligence onto this movie.

      Second, your point is slightly contradictory. Whiplash represents a random irrational threat for all of a second before he gets swept into the economic/political circle of things (working for Hammer). Then he becomes a data entry clerk – but oh no! He’s a corrupt one!

    • Yes. Got it in one.

  24. Well why not project ones intelligence if the clues are there? If one isn’t suppose to use their imagination some then where’s the art? Do we have to go see a movie like “Naked Lunch,” “Eraserhead,” or “Brazil” and have it show every detail, to fill in all that could possibly be said about the story? No. Their are clues and visual cues in those movies that lead a person off to thoughts that the director didn’t want to have to explore in depth because they had so much to say and a limited number of feet to say it. At 1.6 million a minute “IM2″ cost so much to produce are you saying waste it on boilerplate action movie content because it’s de rigueur? I wonder do comic book movies have to be flat as the pages they came from? And as far as politically correct is concerned, well that’s built into the unconscious of the professional. The better you are at that the more successful you’re going to be. Believe me on this point I’ve seen it in action on too many occasions in my own experience. It’s irritating I know but it’s unfortunately a part of the world. Favreau even clues you into that because Tony isn’t supporting the status quo. Those who are in power demand he bend to the system and he won’t. But notice how in the story he finally does bend. That’s the system talking. It’s saying we’ll let you play out the line to an extent but your going to submit, no matter how powerful you think you are. The convenient excuse is even in there, at the end Tony says well I was dying and now that’s not true and I’m in a relationship now, sort of… Remember? ;) On one level you could even argue that the movie is a lesson plan for those who desire professional careers.

    As far as Whiplash is concerned unless I miss your point in my estimation in the context of the story he thought he had a real chance of killing Tony. He thought that no matter how it turned out it was a win win for him. He either killed Tony and destroyed the Stark legacy or at the very least, if he failed in that he throws greater doubt in the minds of everyone that Iron Man is invincible. Their was no guarantee he would get out of that confrontation able to function or alive either. Severely upset over the whole situation how could he care? As far as the Hammer industries issue, I don’t see he had allot of choice. Work with Justin the idiot or die. So Whiplash cooked up another plan.

    • so far i agree with everything you have said..i don’t exactly know what drug Kofi was on or any of these other hacks were using while watchin this flick..maybe they were expecting the remake of “the crow ” or another “howard the duck”..

      I mean i can understand why they are mad or maybe upset about this film(actually I don’t,I was more mad after Superman Returns),but as a fan of the comic book series, this was probably the best sequel you could of gotten to such a tough character..explaining what characters are thinking is a tough job as a director especially when you have alot of scientific narrative that can be boring..i mean really, if none of that part where he figures out the issue with his core, building all of the equipment in his house etc etc..would the outcome be any more or less believable??or would it have been more believeable like kal-el finding the cicle that Jor-el had left for him to build his fortress of Solitude(oh and that’s so much more believeable by the way-c’mon..)I guess Favreu could’ve used that idea,but that would’ve been an insult to fans of the series..TONY STARK IS A GENIUS BUT ALSO A WORKAHOLIC..that was explained in the first film as well..so naturally the issue with the core had to be solved and dealt with-just like anyone else would and that is why he’s hiuman and not a freakin alien..or would that had made more sense??

      • @ Vkatnyte, Im glad someone else like you has a open-mind about liking Iron man 2 as i do. No offence to Kofi Outlaw, but there will always be people like that who will start controversies/stir things up. Numberous of times i hear people say TDK should serve by example for any superhero flick, id say thats not true and people outta know it otherwise they’re in denial. Like you mentioned before all those months after events of the first film, Tony would be trying to find that alternate power source all those months. Really no need to show more than failed attempt doin that, waste of time and money for them. It was just better in the script for Tony to tell Nick Fury he’s tried everything he could think of, Especially in a scene wheres he’s losing himself more. I thought the action in the film had just as much as the first film, atleast seemed that way to me, cause the sequel was focused on Tony’s dying situation/alcoholism aswell is shedding more light into the Avenger’s intiative agenda, especially when S.H.E.I.L.D will have role in the film like the other upcoming solo films. I remember someone whining about how Whiplash was able to walk fine afterwards after Happy Hogan rammed him with the car and ask why wasnt his legs crushed? Why did the Joker got outta the wrecked semi in TDK? Especially when the whole thing flipped over and landed hard upside down, Nolan’s Batman films are intended to take place in a more realism world so you’d think the Joker wouldnt got out as quick as he did & shooting a gun etc. But like Iron man 2, its just a movie right? Maybe people had too high expectations of Iron man 2, or are too difficult to please these days.

        • Nolan — Batman — Nolan — Batman.. Hmmm.. I feel a little Two-Faced..

          The best thing about the last of all B-movies (to date) was the death-wishing version of Joker.. That could have been better but then it wouldn’t have been PG-13.. finally film-makers giving us a more likely view of what we could only imagine in comics.. yes imagine..

          I put forward two observations:

          There is a lot of pent-up angst about the mis-portrayals of super-heroes in their ultra-grave environs, especially The Batman movies.

          Batman being the most filmed in the last two decades.. there are a lot of disgruntled Batman fans.

          Is it really any wonder then why people can’t seem to refocus on other subjects? Batman is burned into their retinas!

          Of course, I’d expect greater open-mindedness from Kofi.. show everything? Show all the little details? Wasn’t just watching Garry Shandling enough? “it’s how annoying a little prick can be!” if you want a movie to be long and boring that’s exactly what you do.. and how many people would watch that.. hey, let’s watch Batman go through hours planning his raid in Asia, or Morgan Freeman devise his Batmobile!

          • Or sleep through scenes like dinner with Rachel & Harvey lecturing & thinkin what Batman should do, Hang up his cape & cowl later on before he lives on to be the villain or have a successor etc. while Bruce just sits there. Or hear Joker talk about how guns are to easy when killing, that you can’t savor whos really a coward etc when talkin to a cop etc.

  25. I have to say, I was really excited when going to the cinema to watch IM2, but it left me more disappointed than satisfied.

    It has some very promising plots which were developed superficially at best- I would not be this disappointed if I didnt know that they could have made an EPIC sequel, but to waste such potential of a movie just saddens me. Seriously, if I wanted to watch a movie where the script solves grave story-problems like Stark’s power-core dilemma by making up a new element in just about 5 mins screentime, I surely would NOT have stood in line for like 45 minutes to get a freaking ticket.

    The more i talk about this, the more i get irritated. I better leave this be- and I sure as hell am NOT going to buy a DvD or Bluray of this one (got IM1 in my shelve, think I’m gonna watch this one again^^).

    my 2 cents

    • well i hate to tell ya, if you didn’t like this film because as you say it “Seriously, if I wanted to watch a movie where the script solves grave story-problems like Stark’s power-core dilemma by making up a new element in just about 5 mins screentime, I surely would NOT have stood in line for like 45 minutes to get a freaking ticket.”, then you shouldn’t of liked the first one either especially after he made his suit and core from what was left of the Stark missiles and weapons..Also if you read ANY of the over 40 years worth of comic books that contain the character of Iron Man-you’d know that he eventually went to a different core that powered his suits..especially the Triangle version in the film..This series is basically taking a story of acharacter and “ultimizing” it for the screen..If you can remember IM2 is set 6mths after the first film,so naturally because Tony Stark is a natural genius(there are those that are and are not autistic like you may think)he was able to figure out what was in his dad’s head that was in his creative mind..I don’t know but it seems that when you go to a film at a theater no less that you have to have you’re comic nerd buddy with you just to explain simple characterization..As a creator and artist myself,I can understand and relate-maybe that is why you hate the film because you lack imagination and creativity..
      sorry to burst your bubble.

  26. I love Iron-Man 1 and 2!
    I dont like Captain America, and since he is the main guy in the Avengers (I think!?) I guess that movie isnt something I wanna see on the big screen, but maybe rent.

    Oh yeah, Im a fan, but not a huge fan, and Im not an American (thus making it logical I dont like Captain America very much).

    • that is illogical actually..just because you’re not an “american” doesn’t mean you have to not like the character of Captain America…actually if you knew what the character of Captain america represents you might actually like the character more..
      read up on it-cya.

  27. I thought it was good,but it’s kind of a “filler chapter” like you’d get in the comics where not much happens and it’s more about Tony then anything else.

    You do get a couple major bad guys but it’s more about something that’s up with Tony then anything,if you want an example of this go back a few years…ok,a long while ago (91 or 92 actually,I think) and look at when Tony got shot and wound up in a wheelchair,it was about 99% about him and not much else.

    If I had to nitpick it’d be Justin Hammer,that-was-not-Hammer! that was a geek with an attitude~Meh!

  28. I agree I thought IM to was good it wasn’t a work of art but neither was the first one. I even like number two better. I’m a fan of the comics so I enjoyed watching Tony fall apart. The people ripping on the film the most to me seem to not be iron man readers. Tony falls apart fairly often and people complain he wasn’t heroic enough but that was the point of the film. He wasn’t suppose to be heroic he was suppose to be a man falling apart mentally and emtionally. They pulled that off well I thought. Also it was nice to get an Iron Man movie I can watch multiple times with out skipping the end I’ve watched the first film two times all the way through but I can’t tell u how many times I watched the first half. I usually put it on and get up to make dinner or take a shower for the last 30 mins. IM2 is a film I enjoy from begining to end. Was it perfect? No. Best comic film yet? No. Good and enjoyable ? Yes.better than the first one. Yes not by alot but yes.

  29. The way some people are talking here, you’d think everyone was a comic book reader. I agree on showing Stark falling apart, but 2 hours of comedy is too much. Everyone has been reduced to a comedic character in the movie.

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!