S.H.I.E.L.D. Absence in ‘Iron Man 3′ Will Be Explained; Extremis Will Return

Published 1 year ago by , Updated May 27th, 2013 at 1:48 am,

SHIELD in Iron Man 3  S.H.I.E.L.D. Absence in Iron Man 3 Will Be Explained; Extremis Will Return

If you’ve read our Iron Man 3 review or listend to the IM3 episode of our SR Underground podcast, you know that – while it was a fun opening to summer 2013 – Tony Stark’s third solo film was not without its share of problems.

One of the biggest criticisms shared by hardcore fanboys and casual moviegoers alike was the absence of any characters from the Avengers shared universe in Iron Man 3. While most people accepted that Tony Stark wouldn’t be able (or willing) to call on his powerful allies for help against the Mandarin, it was much harder to accept that S.H.I.E.L.D. wasn’t at all involved in combating the villain’s super-powered campaign of terrorism against America.

agents of shield stark cameo coulson hill S.H.I.E.L.D. Absence in Iron Man 3 Will Be Explained; Extremis Will Return

“Should we help Stark out with this Mandarin problem?”
“Nah, he’s got it covered.”

It was a point of definite nagging question why a global peacekeeping force that specializes in metahuman activity wouldn’t be on hand to investigate something like Extremis, which had former U.S. military personnel exploding in populated areas, or committing small acts of aggression like kidnapping the U.S. president. S.H.I.E.L.D. was all over every aspect of Marvel Phase 1 (Iron Man and Hulk’s respective debuts; Thor and Cap’s arrival in modern day) – so what, did they take a vacation after the Chitauri attack on NYC in Avengers?

Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige is out doing further promotion, assuring fans that even though Iron Man 3‘s standalone story left a lot of the shared universe unmentioned, future Marvel projects will fill in the blanks. Feige recently took to Twitter to engage with fans, touching upon S.H.I.E.L.D.’s absence in IM3, amongst other things:

-

 

-

Iron Man 3 Interviews The Mandarin Movie Comic Book Differences S.H.I.E.L.D. Absence in Iron Man 3 Will Be Explained; Extremis Will Return

It’s hard to tell from that tweet whether there was a plan from the start for this ‘revelation’ about S.H.I.E.L.D.’s absence, or whether Feige and Co. are now doing damage control to appease the many fans who were none too pleased about the narrative island IM3 seemed to be living on. Given the amount of misleading info that Feige himself dropped while promoting the film (things like Ben Kingsley’s ‘chilling’ performance as The Mandarin), it may not be all that wise to tow the old “In Marvel We Trust” company line.

Even now, the filmmaking architects could very well be scrambling to retrofit other projects like the S.H.I.E.L.D.-centric Captain America: The Winter Soldier, or the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. TV show with Iron Man 3 tie-ins, which would make the agency’s absence seem totally logical (in hindsight, of course). But no matter what “fix” they put in place, as far as IM3 goes (you know, as a “standalone” piece) the misstep is still a glaring one. Because really, there’s no explanation for why Tony or Pepper didn’t even think to mention S.H.I.E.L.D…

-

Return of Extremis

Iron Man 3 Extremis Soldier 570x302 S.H.I.E.L.D. Absence in Iron Man 3 Will Be Explained; Extremis Will Return

Moving on, though: Hardcore fans were also less than enthused by Iron Man 3‘s  use of the Extremis virus (in the comics, it’s more impressive than glowing hands and fire-breathing).  Our Iron Man 3 spoilers discussion has revealed that fans’ speculation regarding Extremis didn’t end with the movie: they believe that the technology could end up playing a much bigger role in the Marvel Movie Universe – and one fan went so far as to ask Feige about it directly. His response?

-

-

The entire idea of taking a normal human being (like Pepper Potts) and transforming them into something greater than human has been a motif of these Marvel movies from day 1 (Super Soldier Serum research that created Captain America, Hulk and Abomination, for example), and Extremis is the natural evolution of that process (human augmentation mixed with technology). There are any number of heroes and villains in the Marvel Universe whose origin could be explained in that matter – hopefully Feige and company have better things in mind than what we saw in Iron Man 3.

Iron Man 3 Pepper Extremis S.H.I.E.L.D. Absence in Iron Man 3 Will Be Explained; Extremis Will Return

Despite my own (clear) bias towards the film, even I am open to the idea that Iron Man 3 could – by the end of Phase 2 or beyond – turn out to be the basis for much more than it initially seemed. Then again: I won’t believe it until I actually see it happen.

______

Iron Man 3 is now playing in theaters, Thor: The Dark World on November 8, 2013, Captain America: The Winter Soldier on April 4, 2014, Guardians of the Galaxy on August 1, 2014, The Avengers 2 on May 1, 2015, Ant-Man on November 6, 2015, and Doctor Strange sometime after that.

Source: Twitter

TAGS: agents of shield, iron man 3

499 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. So coulson will be in lead.

    • I think these geeks are too freaked out. IM3 was fine. It didn’t need S.H.I.E.L.D. I don’t agree with any of the complaints. The New York Incident was mentioned plenty of times, and Rhodes and Stark talked about why some things were absent. They agreed that Mandarin was not a superhero problem, but an American problem. The government didn’t want help from S.H.I.E.L.D. or The Avengers because the they thought they could handle it themselves.

  2. At risk of sounding condescending: I’ve been following this site for several years now, and one of the most interesting things to watch besides the obvious movie news has been the steady improvement of your writing style and the technical quality of your writing, Kofi.

    A hat tip to you, sir. :3

    • That actually made my morning. Thanks!

  3. I hope Aldrich returns as a full on mandarin

    • He is dead now, his ashes are scattered

      • You can’t really believe his dead right. Lets take a look at that for a sec and sorry if I ruin it for someone who has not seen the movie yet. Well Tony Stark had mark 42 attached it self to Aldrich and then Tony gave the order to explode then what happens he still didn’t die. Then we’re left to believe that because pepper through a tiny missle at him then exploded it he died. Their for I IMO believe he is still alive. Now if shield is suppose to explain where they were and how they supposedly knew about the extremis then I believe that it would be cool to think that’s how agent Coulson survived (he had some of the extremis in him). Guess we will have to wait and see

  4. Gotta be damage control. I am really looking forward to this movie, because I love Marvel and Iron Man, but there is just so so much that needed a rewrite from the get-go: multiple Mandarin problems, start to finish, although Kingsley was interesting, Extremis was not the best thing they could have done with the main idea of this flick, and now where is Shield? It’s a wonder with all the gambles and mis-steps that it was not Agents of Panty-Shields! Don’t get me wrong, this flick has alot of very exciting positive points (I have seen multiple trailers, read multiple reviews, but have not seen the flick start to finish yet). I am holding out to buy the DVD when that comes out, and I will be first in line. However, from what experience I have with this film so far, there are also multiple problems). Hopefully marvel will learn from their mistakes, because they are still great movie-makers over-all.

  5. Actually, SHIELD is mentioned in Iron Man 3, by Jarvis, no less, just after the explosion at the theater…

    • Yep. Tony uses SHIELD data as part of his vacuformed crime scene along with other government information.

      • Being mentioned offhandedly is not the same as ahaving a presence in the film. SHIELD nor non of its agents had to show up per se but just as Jarvis makes a one liner about SHIELDS’s files another or a couple of statements discussing SHIELD and its active work here or someplace else could have been stated. If SHIELD thought it was a good a idea to send an agent to debrief Stark after his escape, one would hink they would have a couple of agents working on these attacka actively- considering they were able to have filea and information on the explosions

        • DO you see Shield messing around in every hero’s life when there is a problem in the comics..No you dont. THe universes are different i know but Shield has their own problems too and Superheros can take care of themselves

        • everybody complained about iron man 2 because there was too much shield, now there complaining because IM3 didn’t have enough…make up y’alls minds already!

          • That’s a ridiculous post. Obviously, you have no idea about what everyone was complaining about. And, not everyone was complaining.

    • I was going to make this same comment. Not only was SHIELD mentioned but it was mentioned as having actual detailed crime scene information that Stark was able to pull. I see the problem though. Where were the agents, quinjets and the captain? Maybe Tony was the agent?

      • Exactly

  6. I hope this is sorted out- disappointed with mandarin and the cgi “iron legion”. star trek into darkness was far better. they should have done a mandarin arc with the “spolier” in cap 2

    • Agreed.

  7. So basically they admit they have to fix the flawed writing of Shane Black?

    • Exactly.

    • Could this not have been planned out beforehand? Everything else has tied together very well, in my opinion.

      • But the fact that Fiege must answer questions about it and refer to other films for the answer to this kind of question does not aeem like well thought out plan.
        If thought beforehand this film would offer an explanation then expand on that explanation in future films. By creating a singular cinematic universe does allow for some retrospective damage control but the point is each film to work as a standalone and then compliment the other films- no film should dependotright on another filn especially that of a different francgise to resolve questions or errors a film makes.

        • Well that is where youre wrong. It wouldnt be fixing errors, it would be continuing the “story”, or the “phase”. IMO, cameos do not need to happen in every single MCU movie.

        • Good Point Archer. :)

  8. As far as the future of the Extremis virus goes in the MCU, I think that might be how they will explain the “origins” of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Sort of surprised I havent seen someone say that yet.

    • Ah, I like that idea. Good theory there Bane.

  9. Thank goodness. I remember back in phase I that Iron Man 2, Thor and Incredible Hulk took place within like the same 2 or 3 days, so maybe Captain America the Winter Soldier takes place around the same time as Iron Man 3 and that could explain why shield wasn’t around because they were too busy with Winter Soldier, Arnim Zola, Crossbones and Georges St. Piere.

    • Very well could be. Theres plenty of way that would make sense. The absence of shield in IM3 was the least of my problems with the movie…and I liked it alot.

      • Yes but as a stand alone it did not make sense. Although SHIELD was busy with other threats that they did not have other agents at all? I mean in Iron Man 1 how is it that they could afford to keep sending Coulson mutliple times to Stark Inudstries for a debrief when honestly why would they be so interestes in how Stark escaped? What did they expect for Stark to know? Did they find it hars that Stark- considering his reputation- cannot find away to escape? This is something that the film could have answered as they may have been investigating the leader of he Ten Rings- but I digress since that is not the point if the article.

        The point is, that the entire SHIELD organization was too busy? sure there is aliens corpses to study, damage control, Winter Soldeir, etc ? But really, no one to deal with a terrorist employing Extremis ? Some would argue SHIELD did not know that metahumans were involved- refer to my anecdote in the previous paragraph- well it has been stated that SHIELD had information on the “bombings” and knew that veterans were part of it.

        As a standalone the film failed to adequately explain the absense of SIELD- one would wonder what Captain America must have thought about it.

        • SHIELD knew of a random bombing, yes. But with everything else they had going on, like you mentioned, to me, it is believable that they wouldnt have responded quick enough once it was “common knowledge” that it was Extremis and as serious as it turned out to be.

        • I agree with your opinion. I think that Iron Man 3 should have been a lot better.

          • That was to the archer.

      • “The absence of shield in IM3 was the least of my problems with the movie”

        %100 with you on that. So many complained about IM2 setting up SHIELD (and the Avengers) why complain when they are not in IM3? Fiege said long time ago IM3 would be a stand-alone story.

        Continuity: I just figured SHIELD left Tony alone after he hacked the Helicarrier and found their plans for the advanced weapons. In the same way they left Banner alone “but watched from a distance”.

        Also, like I said in the spoiler thread: IM3 was a lot more of a “Stark-Story”. If other people show up and fight his battles, how do you have Stark grow as a character? Pepper did her part in the end and that lead to her epiphany as to why Tony is reluctant to give up the suit.

        • Word.

    • @ Deadpool87
      I agree and think what you said makes the most sense.
      If I had to guess and based off of what Feige says in his tweet the absence of S.H.I.E.L.D can easily be expained if the events of Thor 2, Cap 2, or GotG take place within the same timeframe of IM3.
      Does that leave room for plot holes?
      Probably. But there are very few movies that can’t be ripped apart logically if you spend the time doing so.
      I’m not saying that IM3 doesn’t have it’s flaws or should be forgiven for some of it’s errors. I’m just a little more willing to forgive them if it turns out the ends justify the means just like The Avengers did for Phase 1.

  10. The extremis virus will be the explanation behind quicksilver and scarlet witch powers

  11. The extremis virus will be the explanation behind quicksilver and scarlet witch power

  12. I thought nobody knew Extremis was being used to make the bombs so naturally wouldn’t S.H.E.I.L.D stay out of it due to it just being a terrorist threat? I mean America isn’t the most important country in the world and S.H.I.E.L.D is a global peacekeeping orginisation. Have got other things to do like deal with Hydra and actual world wide problems. When there’s an alien invasion or crazy neo mazi cultists threatong the world call The Avengers or S.H.I.E.LD when it’s a terrorist threat leave it the government.

    • America isn’t the most important country in the world? I strongly disagree. Nevertheless, which country do you think is the most important?

      • None each country is equal so each country should be protected equally.

        • Each country is equal??? Are you high??! So, in your opinion, North Korea is equal to the United States? If you think that, then I think that you are insane.

          • LOL, Justin, why are you trying to compare real life to a movie?

            • Cody, flamingo injected America into the discussion, not me.

          • I think that my post is going to be censored since I verbally destroyed you. So, I’ll post one that might not be censored: From your opening question, you sealed your fate and my victory. Nothing I wrote would lead an objective person to think that I am dumb and/or a racist. It’s obviously that some countries are more important than others on a global scale. That’s just a fact that you’re going to havebtonseal with. Does that mean that America should do whatever it wants and should wage war whenever it wants.

            To write such an absurd comment about how my opinion is the reason that people hate America speaks volumes about your lack of intellect. Another thing that proves my point is for you conflate the issue of which country is more important and the premise that all people are equal. Putting aside the fact that the premise is wrong ( do you think that a pedophile and a teacher should be considered equal?), those are two separate issues.

            And, you don’t know me. So, you have no evidence to surmise that I am a jingoist or a racist. In fact, Im neither. America has a lot of flaws, just like every other country does.

            As for blaming blacks and Jews, that’s the worst part about your post, which is saying something. Whenever I see a story about a black guy being arrested and there are racist comments on the news threads, I usually call people out for that. I also call out people for making offensive comments about Jews, especially when it comes to money. So, you’re extremely wrong to inject such ridiculous stuff into this thread.

            • ^ I forgot the question mark, and I didn’t add the last sentence to my first paragraph: No, it doesn’t.

              Screenrant writers, this sure really needs an edit button.

              • There is no such thing as the most important country in the world. All countries are indeed equally important, even North Korea (their government’s politics is not the matter). There’re still human beings.

                • Nah, dude, you’re just wrong that some countries aren’t more important , to the works, than others. That’s just a fact. If the US, UK, and Germany no longer existed, the world would be a very different place. Sure, we can quibble about which ones are more important, but it’s obvious that some are more important than others. Trying to claim that North Korea is equally as important as America is jut absurd and indefensible. Furthermore, there should just be one Korea. NK is a totatalitarian criminal area that terribly treats many of its citizens. As for your last sentence, that has no relevance to my point. Still, whether you like it or not, we’re not all equal. There are some really bad people in the works, see Ariel Castro, for example.

                  • ^ to the world

                    • I think we may have a misunderstanding here. I mean all countries are equal. You mean some are more important than others. You misinterpreted what I meant. The way you replied though made you come of as an arrogant idiot (no offence. That’s why I thought you were racist because it sounded like you were saying more countries are more equal then others.

                    • Are you replying to me? Cause this is the first time I’ve met you. I was replying to Justin J. Poppiti

                    • It is you who had the misunderstanding in conflating equality and importance, which is funny since you originally wrote important in you first post.

                      I sometimes do come across as arrogant. But, I never come across as an idiot, unless calculus is involved :)

                      As for the racism aspect, that came totally out of left field. And, frankly, you owe me an apology for essentially calling me racist AND an anti-Semite, which is completely false.

                  • I think I’m in agreement in different areas of these arguments. Saying that not everyone is equal is kind of a blanket statement and I would agree but also disagree. If we are talking about someone born with no arms and one born with them we could say they are physically not equal. But what if they both are both with same I.Q.? Better yet. What if they are born as twins and have the same parents? Yes they are individuals but one could argue that they will have an equal chance in the world socio-economically. I think the bigger issue is what you are born with vs. opportunity. Many people of unequal backgrounds may end up with equal opportunities. Does that not make them equal at the point of opportunity? Example: President Obama vs. Mitt Romney in the last election. Romney grew up with a wealthy background and Obama grew up in a poor background. Not equal. However, they both are equal because they have equal rights. Also, when they ran for Pres. they both had an equal opportunity to win. Moving to countries…I would say that U.K., U.S., etc… are not more important to the world but more influential. If those countries went away, there wouldn’t be any other power that could rise up and protect the little guys immediately. But there are other countries that would probably step into that role later (china, France, Japan, Canada, Spain,) I think a teacher and pedaphile are equal in eyes of God and in Justice system. However, their actions lead to their judgement. Now I am not supporting pedaphilia but think of this. Some countries allow adults to be with younger people. (Im not talking little kids) What if that person in another country is a teacher in that country? It makes them equal. Equality is in the eyes of the beholder, and is judged/determined by ones owns morals, laws, and personal experience.

                    • forgot to add that I would assume you are correct if you were to say that some countries are more influential. America could choose to not play Mommy and Daddy and thus not be as influential in the world. They don’t have to cease to exist to not be “important.” But I will say that, yes, many countries have little to no role in the world because they have little influence (military, natural resources) but that doesn’t make them non-important cause they are human beings as another said.

                    • Wow, an actual substantive response to what I wrote. I’m surprised.

                      It’s a blanket sentence, but it’s not true. We’re not all equal. We’re not all the same. And, I don’t see a problem with that. Nevertheless, citizens of each nation should be equal UNDER their respective countries’ laws. So, here in America, if person a (who is rich) commits a homicide, he should not get a lesser sentence than person b (who is poor) who commits the same offense. That’s the sort of equality that nations should strive for.

                      If you’re a fellow American, you should know that Romney didnt truly have the same opportunity as Obama to win. First off, incumbent Presidents, usually, win a second term. Secondly, there are a fair number more of registered Democrats than Repubs. Admittedly, I am being a little difficult since Inknow what you meant by opining that Obams and Romney had the same opportunity to win.

                      Well, the fact that they are more influential plays into my overall argument that those nations are more important. If you HAD to decide which ones are more important, which ones do you think are more important on a global scale? And,!if you’re going to write that all 300 somewhat nations are the same, then don’t waste my time.

                      I don’t have a clue how God views pedophilesI don’t know God. I don’t know if God even exists, even though I think that there is a God. As for the justice system, all defendants are deemed innocent until proven guilty, at least in America.

                      As for your hypothetical, I don’t seem them “equal.” If some dude is a teacher but married to a 16 y/o, I don’t think that he is equal, at least morally, to a similar teacher who isn’t married to a 16 y/o. So, if both needed a kidney, and there was only one left (and there were no other main differences between the two teachers), I would give the kidney to the teacher not married to a 16 y/o.

                    • You are so obnoxious. Please just stop

                    • Nope. I’m just getting warmed up. If you don’t like it, too damn bad.

                    • Ok, well at least try to be entertaining then. And tone down the inflated sense of self-importance, it might help you get more reasoned discussion from others here.

                    • I’m not trying to entertain anyone.

                      Discerning whether what one is writing is important or not seems like a foolish exercise. Just because I am confident in my crafted arguments doesnt mean that I am obnoxious. Furthermore, when someone basically calls me a racist and anti-Semite, which is false, I am going for the jugular.

                    • Well I’m entertained now nonetheless. You keep on keeping on man. All your posts read like Dwight from the office wrote them so that’s fun for me.

                    • I don’t watch the show. But, I know of the character. I am sure that you mean the comparison as an insult.

                      Nevertheless, I, unlike many people on here, am objective, not prone to hyperbole and try to support my opinions with cogent points. I’ll continue to do so.

                    • It’s not an insult. He’s hilarious and my favourite character…. And you’re still doing it!

                    • Interesting cause I feel like Im being Jim! Haha! The yin to the yang. I totally see the Dwight comparison! And, no, Justin no an insult. Dwight is very Black and White, Objective (as you said), pessimistic, and very “Hey this is how it is, and its not gonna change, that’s the real world”

                      Jim is more optimistic, grey area, and likes to challenge Dwight. They are love hate friends. Its a funny on screen relationship

                    • Well, since you out it that way, I guess I am a ridiculously more handsome version of Dwight ;)

                      And, my yang shall prevail !!

                    • Well, since you out it that way, I guess I am a ridiculously more handsome version of Dwight ;)

                      And, my yang shall prevail !!

                    • Hahaha, okay.

                      So, judging by your (incorrect ;)) spelling of favorite, I assume you’re a British bloke. Greeting, from the better side of the Pond

                    • There should have been a paragraph break and Greetings,.

                    • Good points. statistically, incumbent presidents do win but by a very slim percentage. I believe my numbers might be off but, pre-Obama, 24 presidents have run for re-election and only 15 have won re-election. That equates to 60% chance. Yes odds of incumbent winning vs. Romney were in his favor but I wouldn’t call 60% a big edge. That’s a 1 in 3 shot at winning reelection. Plus he had more $ to begin with for campaigning. That is a huge edge. My argument about President would have been better had I compared McCain and Obama. I think the same situation applies with those 2. I could actually say that McCain had the upper hand because he was a war vet and was following a Republican presidency. Obviously that is opinion I don’t have facts/stats to back up that that was more/less beneficial for McCain.

                      I don’t believe all 300 nations are the same. Obviously countries have different cultures, religions, laws, etc. But I will say that I do believe all humans are equal and should be treated as such. I think we both are agreeing that, unfortunately, that is not the case as in countries like North Korea or Iran where those regimes do not offer rights that most U.K. and U.S. (among many others) value. Like rights involving press, speech, religion, women, etc… But don’t you think those people should have those right? I think a better question to your statement that certain countries are more important is “More important to who?” Countries might be more important to some countries because of their influence but to other countries they may not

                      You did state that people are equal under their respective countries and countries should strive for that. However, things are not black and white. Should a rich rapper who steals from a supermarket receive the same treatment as some poor person who steals to provide for their family? I don’t think that is fair. I do not condone stealing but I do believe there are circumstances that provide for different treatment. Your example was that of homicide. Well, your point/argument would imply that someone who kills someone by walking into a school and shooting that person should be treated on the same level as someone who kills an intruder to their home.

                      I think a better suited argument would be philosophically/ideologically we are all born inherently equal, if you remove the physical basis. However, it is where we grow up that puts us at a disadvantage making us un-equal. (Parents, economic background, country, etc.) We could argue that the U.S. is just as guilty as other countries since it was only 50+ years ago we had injustice towards race and gender and religion. But now people do have equality here in America.

                      So, are we all equal? My opinion, yes inherently. Once born? Depends on where you grow up. Under the Constitution? Ideally yes. In the justice system? Yes. Our opportunities to be successful? Yes depending on where you grow up. That’s why it is too difficult to say we are all not equal or all equal. It depends who you talk to. My view of equality is different than yours who’s is different than person x.

                    • If your calculation is correct, I don’t consider a 60 percent chance success rate as insignificant. As for money, Romney, obviously, has a much bigger net worth than Obama. But, I think that they both raised and spent a similar amount of money. And, as an aside, I think that it’s absolutely shameful how much money is spent in American politics. I don’t necessarily think that your argument would have been anymore favorable if you had subbed McCain for Romney. Nominated Palin as his running mate sealed his fate. Plus, after eight years of Bush II, most of my fellow countrymen didnt want another R in the White House. For the record, I voted for Bush II for the second term, McCain then Romney. However, I am not a member of any political party and I have voted for Dems in non Presidential elections.

                      I actually agree with your overarching point about all of us being born inherently equal (Shocking, right? ;) )

                      As for countries importance, I look at it more at a global instead if micro level. I think that it’s obvious are more important to global affairs than others. Note that doesn’t mean that the most important countries should just do what they want and plunder other less important countries. I am not advocating that at all.

                      Of course, I think that every person should have fundamental human rights. Sadly, many people in our world don’t.

                      In regards to your hypothetical (as an attorney, I like to use that word), I think that both of those people should be found guilty since they committed the same crime. However, I wouldn’t necessarily be bothered if the poor guy got a break from the judge by receiving a slightly lighter fine. However, if that same person is a recidivist, then I think that he should receive a severe punishment under the law. As for homicide, I meant non justufible homicide, ie not self defense.

                      I don’t think that America is a guilty as some countries, but there are certainly a lot of warts, slavery and the separate but equal doctrine stand out for me. I’m not a jingoist. There have been a lot of injustices in my country.

                      This has been a good discussion/debate. And, it was conducted in a civil manner. Both of us deserve applause ;)

                    • Romney is much richer than Obama, but Obama actually managed to raise more campaign money than Romney.

                    • I don’t know why you are talking politics on an entertainment site, but the fact that Obama raised more money means nothing. The Dem machine gets fueled by unions and other big corporations. The GOP also gets money from big businesses, but they don’t usually state how evil the big businesses are. Also, we are now seeing that the companies that supported Obama, including the unions, are getting exemptions from Obamacare while the rest of us are stuck with that piece of garbage.

                    • I guess you missed the 3-months-old discussion that started between Justin and some other dude. It’s a bit late for Fanamir to come chiming in, though. Pardon me for asking as I’m not American, but Obamacare is still on? I thought it was voted down by the senate or something.

          • you guys need to calm down. everyone knows Texas is the most important country in the world!

        • good answer!

      • It’s obviously Antigua Y Barbuda.

  13. The problem is Tony’s house is destroyed on live TV, Stark is assumded dead, Air Force One is blown to pieces, the Iron Patriot and President have been taken hostage, Now they want us to believe that The avengers and Shield were all too busy on the days that these attacks were going on. They could off just filmed a scene with Tony sending Shield and the Avengers a message, like he did with Potts, that he was alive and was going to take care of the situation.

  14. ” Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige is out doing further promotion….”

    Actually, Feige is out doing DAMAGE CONTROL for the very mediocre and very flawed IM3.

    He actually has the gall to try to explain why S.H.I.E.L.D. wasn’t in any way involved in the events of IM3 AFTER the fact? Excuses, excuses.

    Come on, Feige. Man up and have a little more respect to those who feed you.

    • Then, explain why in the comics. Iron Man has his own adventures, never mentions SHIELD, and the Avengers never show up in his comic; unless it’s a Marvel Summer Cross-Over event.

      • +11111

      • But this isn’t the “comics” is it? This is a major motion picture franchise, of a “shared universe” – with hundreds of millions of dollars and egos and reputations at stake. And obviously, major mistakes have been made.

        Explain? That ain’t my job. That’s Kevin Feige’s job.

        HE is the one “trying” to explain….

        • You are right, but your argument there voids anyones gripes with not staying true to the comics and taking liberties. The comics were a “shared universe” as well.

          • If you say I’m right, how can you still go on to say “my argument” is void?” It’s not MY argument. It’s a valid argument that fans feel strongly about.

            Do you know what Kevin Feige’s title is? He’s Marvel Studio’s President Of PRODUCTION. That means the MOVIE’s are his concern. Not the books.

            Bottom line: Fiege is the one who is only making this whole absence of SHIELD from IM3 an even bigger deal that it might have to be. He’s the one trying to justify it. Right?

            But why? Mainly, because there ARE fans who are troubled by this flaw. But also, it’s his ass and reputation that’s on the line.

            • “But this isn’t the “comics” is it? This is a major motion picture franchise, of a “shared universe” – with hundreds of millions of dollars and egos and reputations at stake.

              Explain? That ain’t my job. That’s Kevin Feige’s job.

              HE is the one “trying” to explain….”

              That is what you were “right” about. But using the argument that the comics and movies are completely separate entities, which they are, voids the complaint about not staying true to the comics. So which side are you on? Should these movies be verbatim to the comics, or should they be their own separate story, able to expand on what already was?

              And Fiege isnt the one making it a bigger deal than it already was. People like you are. He was answering questions on Twitter, not necessarily about that specific topic. Someone asked the question, and he answered.

              His ass on the line? Dude, the Marvel movies he has been a part of have made over 2 BILLION dollars.

              • Relax. You seem to be as just as defensive as Feige appears to be.

                • I am extremely relaxed, actually. All I am doing is coming to the defense of Feige, that is why I sound defensive. You attacked him. And as I could have guessed, you have no rebuttal to what I said above.

                  • I agree with Kryptonic. Feige is doing damage control. Marvel screwed up plain and simple. The movie has so many holes its not even funny.

                    Iron Mans is attacked and presumed dead… Air Force One is shot down and the President of the United States is being held captive. Multiple attacks happening across the world… Totally makes sense SHIELD has no presence what so ever<——- heavy sarcasm if you couldn't tell!

                    Even if you are not a fan of the U.S. if Air Force One was shot down and the President of the United States was taken hostage do you honestly think that one of the most powerful organizations in the world wouldn't be involved??? It doesn't make sense. They are large enough to have at least a small foot print. That is why Feige has to deal with fans that are upset.

                    • Lots of this is opinion. But in fact, no movie is perfect. It could be the best movie ever made, and there will be a group of people that have a million bad things to say about it. With that said, Feige has to do “damage control” after EVERY Marvel movie releases. There are nitpickers everywhere!

                    • How the hell did Shane Black, Feige and Marvel screw up? IM3 and all the other Marvel movies still made a bunch money and that’s not even counting the merchandise sales etc.

                    • IM3 is the weakest out of the series period. I don’t care how much money it made. Its not nearly as good as everyone is making it out to be.

                      I would love to hear the explanation to why Stark was risking his life through out the entire movie when he has an army of suits just waiting to be used???

                    • Brian,

                      Which movie is better is obviously a preference thing. All opinion, so go ahead and disagree.

                      And the attack on Tony’s house had the entire thing crumble on top of where the suits were hidden. It took a minute for all that crap to be cleared out, and to give the suits access to the world. I thought that was very easy to pick up on.

                    • Sorry if I sounded like I was attacking anyone that disagreed with me. That wasn’t my intention. I’m just surprised so many people think it was a great movie. Too many issues if you ask me.

                      I don’t see the ruble being an obstacle for those suits. IMO they could have easily gotten out of that tomb. Another thing that really bothered me was that the suits were being taken out a little too easy at the end. How many did Stark jump into?

                    • ( if you read the last sentence in this post from early today, the answer is very simple.) The problem is Tony’s house is destroyed on live TV, Stark is assumded dead, Air Force One is blown to pieces, the Iron Patriot and President have been taken hostage, Now they want us to believe that The avengers and Shield were all too busy on the days that these attacks were going on. They could off just filmed a scene with Tony sending Shield and the Avengers a message, like he did with Potts, that he was alive and was going to take care of the situation.

                    • @Brian
                      Why would it be such a surprise that many people thought it was great movie?

                    • @ Clark

                      Because of all the holes in the plot. I enjoyed the movie. But I don’t think its as good as every one is making it out to be. It has a 78% rating on rotten tomatoes with the critics. I’m surprised its that high.

                    • “I would love to hear the explanation to why Stark was risking his life through out the entire movie when he has an army of suits just waiting to be used???”

                      Umm… because he loooooves being Iron Man? Living vicariously is nothing like the real thing.

        • The movies are based on the comics. Read Extremis … no mention of SHIELD … no AVENGER helping him. Just him, Pepper, and War Machine.

          Which is weird, cause that’s EXACTLY who was in the movie. OMG! MY LIFE IS RUINED.

          Movie Universe Shared. Comic universe shared. SOMETIMES … THEY CAN HAVE A SOLO ADVENTURE!

        • And as far as the hundreds of millions of dollars being on the line….these movies are making that. IM3 is going to make just as much as The Avengers, even with its flaws.

          • No.

            Not nearly as much as “The Avengers.”

            The only reason IM3 did so well in its initial release is because it was Marvel’s big movie follow up to “Avengers.” That was it’s built in hype.

            But now that the reality that the movie is underwhelming, the box office momentum has dropped off in droves.

            • OK maybe not as much as The Avengers, but more than any other MCU movie.

    • He is out kissing Ass because he knows people are Pi$$ed about how cheap they are with these contract situations Marvel has going on!

      But Mr. head cheese would NOT answer questions about losing his big money makers, He should have been saying that HE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER to keep Marvels Money maker but he dont have big enough BALLS to answer REAL questions that should matter to Marvel.

  15. Can someone explain the status of SHIELD as last seen in the MCU?????

  16. Kofi, nicely written as always.

    I must say that Iron Man 3 while not a terrible film was very underwhelming in certain aspects- I even went in with only minimal expectation. This goes beyond the Mandarin twist and two examples will be SHIELD’s absence and Extremis.

    I did not want a repeat of Iron Man 2 but frankly it was quitr discontenting that Captain America or SHIELD did not take any mention or action against the metahumans terrorist attacks. I imagine they might want a low profile or be busy, but the film itself made no reference or anything. Tony might not want to use SHIELD but they should make all information clear. Iron Man 2 spent so much time spending on throwing tidbits of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Iron Man 3 spent little time establishing information of the rest of the MCU, which is especially disjarring in a post Avengers world.

    The Extremis I cannot comment beyond vague knowlege of the source material- all I know its more conplex and involves a techno-organic virus- however I feel the film did a poor job in implementation of the storyline. If the villain needed Stark to “fix” the Extremis virus why not present this idea from the beginning and offer Stark an externalization of his internal conflict- Is he Iron Man because of the arc and his suit? The writers could have tied that theme strongly with Stark questioning of perfecting Extremis to cure himself or not.

    Some had it that he cures himself in the end with Extremis but the audience does not get a complete conformation of this and we are left to assume. Introduce Extremis early to Tony Stark and have him work on perfecting it in order to perfect himselfwithout realizing the ethical issues at hand and the plot if using Extremis as a weapon. This would have supported the major themes of the story better and would have opened the stage much more clearly for Extremis to return but evolved. In future Marvel films by actually seeing how Stark and other scientist such as maybe Banner and Pym work on Extremis to perfect it.

    Now the execution rest beyond Iron Man 3. Even if Captain America: The Winter Soldeir or the SHIELD TV series explain SHIELD’s absence. I feel that only works in that film and does not substitute a clear error in any standaline story that is Iron Man 3. If Extremis makes a return hopefully the other films can better explain and implement Extremis into the storyline and the evolution or perfecting that resulted fron Tony Stark and other scientist. Maybe Banner will use Extremis to cure himself? Maybe it would explain Pym’s work? Or maybe it will be tied heavily into the on screen origins of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch -as they cannot use their mutant origin story?

    I can see all of those theories working but eapecially the latter as as it would make sense to implement a “fixed” Extremis as the cause of special powered humans who cannot attribute he powera to mutation. Who knows maybe their will be outbreak of the new mutated Extremis virus? There is a particular line in Iron Man 3 in which. killian says that Extremis points the path to wvolution or sonething similar. This may be the ezplanation of the powers of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver.

    Heres hoping that the rest of Phase 2 exceed their predecessors and Iron Man 3!

    • Good catch on the line about “evolution”! Makes me think that this stuff has all been planned out. They already did an entire Phase hinting at other movies and whatnot. Maybe now they are trying to tie them all together without having cameos left and right.

  17. Mr Outlaw; “bias” not “bais.”

    • I cant help but think that you went through looking for errors in the post, only because of the praise Kofi was getting…

      • I could care less.

        • I think you meant, “I couldn’t care less”.

          • Haha, touché.

          • No. “I COULD care less.”

            Meaning, what you said is so insignificant that I could actually care EVEN LESS.

            Comprenez-vous?

            • So why dont you care less then? It doesnt make sense.

              • Sigh….

                • Its okay. That is a very misused phrase.

                  • Lol, I now know that I was using the phrase wrong.

                  • I want a Care Bear…..

                    {–just thought I’d throw that in to be obnoxious–}

                    • Aww, Goldilocks wants a bear… cutesy!

            • So, if you could care even less, that means you do care a little bit about what he says. I think that you should have just written couldn’t care less since almost no one uses can care less in that fashion.

              • Okay. I had to take a nap. Seriously!

                It can be said either way. One can get the gist of the phrase either way. UNLESS YOU REALLY WANT TO GIVE A GUY A HARD TIME!!!

                I could care less!!! I couldn’t care less!!! bla bla bla

                BUT back to the subject at hand. I like Marvel. I like DC. I like DC a lot more. But never the less, I love both.

                I’m not attacking Feige or anyone. It’s just my view that Feige IS doing some fancy foot work he wouldn’t have had to do if IM3 didn’t have as many problems as it does.

                Should CINEMATIC Marvel veer into a different POV from the original comics? There are no shoulds…..

                However, everybody must keep in mind that Marvel obviously wants to reach out beyond the die hard comic book people like us – to the mass audience.

                In that respect, inevitably there will be changes and contrasts between the source material ( comics ) and the movies.

                • I gave you a hard time about that phrase because you gave Kofi a hard time about misspelling one word in a well written post. Nitpicking at him like everyone is at IM3.

                  I like Marvel more than DC, even with my name and avatar…though TDK trilogy will go down as the best CBMs ever. That is besides the point…

                  His “foot work” to me, is going to be done after every movie. He is going to answer questions from people and give an explanation. People are going to find flaws in EVERY movie, no matter what those flaws are.

                  And yes, of course Marvel wants to appeal to a larger audience than just comic book fans. That is why liberties are taken, and I am completely fine with that. That is why I dont understand why people complain when these said liberties are taken.

                  IM3 worked just fine as its own movie. And I am sure it will tie in very well to the rest of Phase 2. Patience…..

                  • It’s cool. I can take it. I dish it out often enough myself. But it’s all tongue in cheek.

                    I really like Screen Rant. Occasionally there’s a post that isn’t up to scratch. But for the most part, the articles are very well written. And I happen to think Mr Kofi Outlaw is really, really good. One of the better writers on this site, if not the best. Maybe I was nitpicking but I was just pointing something out. No biggie.

                    I’m glad you are satisfied with IM3. Not EVERYONE is dissing it. It’s actually rather interesting because there are two camps regarding IM3: Those Marvel die hards who are somewhat disappointed with it and those Marvelites, like yourself, who appreciate and defend it. It only makes the conversation that much more interesting.

                    I will take your advice and remain patient because I’m still gonna see THOR The Dark World and Captain America The Winter Soldier. And I’m hoping to see ULTRON and the Vision in a future AVENGERS flick!! lol

                    • I absolutely agree with your 2nd paragraph. The irony is what prompted my comments.

                      I think everyone who is reading this stuff will still see Cap 2 and Thor 2, even if IM3 would have been flat out garbage.

                      As much as I would love to see Ultron and Vision, I dont know if it will happen. Im starting to lean towards the idea that Killian is not dead, and will return in The Avengers 2 as the villain.

                    • I know that hoping to see ULTRON and the VISION in the next couple of AVENGERS flicks is pretty much nil. But that’s why I wrote that.

                      Glad you caught it.

                      Still, a die hard fan like myself can dream….

                • Actually, most grammarians would disagree with you. Nevertheless, we agree about Feige doing some damage control.

                  • I’m glad. Something we can agree on.

                    Still, I couldn’t care less !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    • At least you have a good sense of humor to go along with your misguided opinions of IM3. Haha. Just joking, seriously. That comment had me rolling.

                    • Hahaha, at least you got it right this time.

                  • Grammarians might, but how about Grandpaians?

                    {There….think on that one for awhile, all of you; and in the meantime, “on with the show!”}

    • Typo Fixed. Thanks.

  18. In terms of a MOVIE, I thought IM3 was pretty good. The whole Pepper/Tony angle and Tony showing that he is a hero without the suit was exciting and necessary for the future of the franchise. But in terms of a COMIC MOVIE, not so good. I am still holding faith that the Mandarin twist is a fake, or lie somehow. I was so let down by that. I truly hope Marvel fixes things for the next few movies.

  19. It has way less problems than Star Trek into Darkness had IMO.

    I can’t believe I’m saying this but if Man of Steel doesn’t deliver then Fast and Furious 6 could very well take the crown of best film of the summer… It looks AWESOME

    • Don’t worry. We can’t believe you’re saying that either.

      • HAHAHA Yes!

      • After my friends and I watched Furious Six we agreed that in terms of summer blockbuster enjoyment Furious Six was going to be the best. it all depends in what Man of Steel delivers! Its not say other films will be bad or cannot be as enjoyable but as far as expectation of summer bockbusters go- Furious Six has already got Iron Man 3 beat

        • How did you see fast six already?

          • He’s fast.

            • Yikes….

      • Write for yourself, kyrptonite. I, and many others, were very entertained by Fast Five. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if I am similarly entertained by Fast and the Furious 6. Still, I think that I will enjoy MoS more.

        • But movie of the summer for Fast 6? I dont know about that. My movie of the summer will be Pacific Rim. Hands down.

          • Yeah, it’s possible. I have zero interest in seeing Pacific Rim. And, how can you be so sure that PR is hands down the movie if the summer when you haven’t seen it yet? I thought that IM III had a good chance of being my favorite movie of the summer, but that didn’t happen at all.

            • Because IM3 didnt live up to the hype for me, Im not a HUGE Star Trek fan, I think Man of Steel will be very good, but from what I have seen of Pacific Rim, its already the movie of the summer. I am a fan of seeing giant monsters, robots, or what have you, on the big screen. Cloverfield was awesome, cant wait for the new Godzilla, and you already know my opinion on PR.

              • Just because the trailer was good doesn’t mean that movie is going to be good.

                • You are very right. But was the CinemaCon footage of Pacific Rim that I saw actually a trailer? Either way, youre right. You cannot positively know something until it happens. But I do know that, even if MoS delivers, which I think it will, I would rather see giant monsters and robots wreaking major havoc than a guy in a tight suit flying around. Or a man in a tin can flying around. Or terrible actors (Paul Walker has some DAMN good films, though) driving around in cars. If they are all done well, Pacific Rim will be my favorite.

                  • Wow, you know full well that those two movies are more than how you described them.

                    • If you were referring to MoS and IM3, then, yes, there is more to them than that. Fast 6 really has nothing more than what I said about it. And Pacific Rim is going to be more than just monsters vs. robots. I liked IM3 a whole lot, and I am extremely excited for MoS.

                    • Well, neither you nor I know much about what FF6 has in it since neither of us have seen it yet.

                      As for Fast Five, it had a lot more than what you wrote. I think that it has solid action scenes, good acting by the Rock and the main villain, excellent cinematography and funny dialogue.

                    • I loved Fast Five. It was my favorite of the series, besides maybe the first one (first DVD I bought, I now own HUNDREDS). Sure, the Rock was okay, but you still have Vin Diesel in there, right? And these humorous dialogue is part of the corniness Im talking about. Heck, same goes for IM3. The FF movies are all blockbuster popcorn flicks.

                    • I still don’t think that it was corny. And, Vin did okay since he didn’t have to actually act much.

                    • Justin, “good acting” and “The Rock” in the same sentence troubles me…

                    • Rock did well in FF, but he’s not necessarily a good actor. There’s a difference.

          • I forgot about pacific rim tbh… It’s not a given that it’ll be great though. Although I am looking forward to it

            • Yup, nothing is a given. It is definitely a dark horse pick, but Im sticking with it. Everyone, right now, is caught up on the CBMs. We’ll just have to wait and see..

            • Pacific Rim being by Guillermo Del Toro, there’s a pretty fair chance it’s gonna be a killer. The guy doesn’t have the habit of making bad movies.

      • Yeah, who’re you speaking for then?

        • @kryptonic

          • @ MarkBartlett;

            I saw IM3 on opening day. I was REALLY hoping it would be better than IM2. Unfortunately, Iron Man 1 still remains the best flick.

            In a way, I like to look at “Avengers” as an Iron Man movie. In that respect, it’s the best Iron Man movie of them all.

            But it’s a bummer. I love the IM books. For me, Marvel isn’t conveying the real intensity of the books. I’m not saying they have to be dark and gritty like Nolan’s Batman, but these IM flicks don’t seem to take the character of Stark/IM seriously.

            I like some of the Fast And Furious flicks and they are cool. But I wouldn’t but the Blu Rays.

            Although I know just about everything about Star Trek Into Darkness, I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s as good as I hear it is and has the same qualities that Abram’s first Trek film had, then it’s gonna be the second best movie of the summer:

            THE #1 flick of the year? I’ll just put it this way: MAN OF STEEL WILL DELIVER!

            MOS all the way. And it’s not just a matter of DC or Marvel or whatever. We are ALL finally going to get the Superman movie we have all been waiting for. Finally….

        • I think most people would rather see RDJ, Don Cheadle, Gweneth Paltrow, Ben Kingsley, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall OR Henry Cavill, Russell Crowe, Michael Shannon, Amy Adams..in a movie full of action and excitement, than Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Tyrese, Ludacris, and Michelle Rodriguez. Just sayin..

          • Before seeing the movies, you’re probably right. Bit, I would be surprised if I disliked Fast Six as much as I dislike IM III.

            • But is that because you know going into Fast 6 that it is going to be corny, have a mediocre story. But that it will be an entertaining popcorn flick because of the bad a** cars and females? I think thats why Im so accepting of IM3. I knew going into it that it wasnt going to be perfect, but that there was going to be major action, and a lot of humor. It fulfilled my expectations. If a movie doesn’t meet your expectations, maybe they should have been lower. That would be a personal problem though, not one of the director, actors, or studio.

              • That’s just your opinion that it’s corny and it’s going to have a mediocre story.

                My expectations weren’t sky high due to how bad I thought Iron Man 2 was. Sadly, I think that it was more of an Iron Man movie than Iron Man III was, even though I liked IM III slightly better.

                And, there are numerous criticisms that seem valid. I didn’t like how Downey was rarely in the suit. I didn’t like that whole James Bond copycat mission. I sure as hell didn’t like the Mandarin twist. Maya was completely wasted in the movie, imo. And, no, I am not irked by that mostly due to the fact that she had a much bigger role in the extremist storyline. I also didn’t like the use if Rhodes/Iron Patriot. I think that he should have had a bigger role. I think that it’s nuts that he just flew away with the President instead of getting him to a safe location then flying back to help IM.

                As mentioned in the screenrant underground podcast by Kofi, it was more of an epilogue to phase one instead of the launch of phase II. It also just seemed to have comedic parts and slapstick humor for humor’s sake instead of furthering the story. Basically, I have a lot of concrete problems with the film. Was it terrible? I don’t think so. Did it have some serious flaws? I think so.

                • I own all of the Fast and Furious movies. I love them for what they are. But they are corny, popcorn flicks. Even though it is an opinion, it is an widely accepted opinion.

                  Your third paragraph is the most sensible complaints about the movie I have read on here. I agree with some of it (Maya, Rhodey) but dont agree with all of it (Tony not in the suit).

                  And I agree, it was more of an epilogue to Phase 1 than a prologue to Phase 2. But is that a problem? I wouldnt want Marvel to get stuck in a rut doing the same thing over and over again. Especially when they are giving every character 3, 4, 5 solo movies. Slightly changing up the formula, and not having every movie introduce the next movie in the MCU is a great thing to do, in my opinion.

                  But yes, IM3 isnt perfect, it has flaws, but no, it definitely is not terrible.

                  • Ha, well, that’s nice of you to write that about my criticisms.

                    It is a problem when Feige specifically said that Iron Man III was supposed to be the start to phase II.

                    I think the only person who said that IM III was terrible was Kofi. Did you listen to the podcast? Kofi was practically foaming at the mouth.

                    • I havent listened to the podcast yet. I bookmarked the link to it earlier though so I can go back and do that. I think that once these other movies are released, we will realize that IM3 WAS the start to Phase 2. Feige said that IM3 was a stand alone as well. I think, trying to throw us off. The Extremis Virus is going to be a very important part of Phase 2, in my opinion.

                    • That’s actually a plausible possibility. See, I can be reasonable when reasonableness is warranted ;)

          • I like Michelle Rodriguez in ANYTHING…. she is hotter than any of the women you mentioned from the other films!
            I will watch fast 6 just for her!!!

          • Michelle Rodriguez is hot, but that’s no reason enough to make me watch something as vapid as a Fast & Furious flick.

      • Lmao!!! Kryptonic, that was Funny! :)

        • ^5 Wanderer!

  20. I am afraid we shall all be disappointed in what is to come.

    It seems the answer to the lack of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the other
    members of the Avenger’s corp:
    The death of Agent Coulson and the entire IM3 arc was a dream
    sequence of Tony Stark
    -who suffered severe food poisoning and went into a temporary
    coma from eating a bad batch of Shawarma.

    Of course, all of this and more will be revealed in the first
    episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D..

  21. Once again, can someone explain what was going on with SHIELD last we saw in the MCU??

    • They were recovering from the Chitauri attack in NYC?

      • Sounds like a great part of an explanation to me.

  22. So now a Comic Book Movie geek is a thing? Unless, everyone here only knows Iron Man from the movies. I would HOPE all of you read his comics. Most of his adventures were of the … solo variety. The only time SHIELD or the Avengers would show up, is when it was a Marvel Summer Cross-Over event.

    I’m fine with the non-mention. Pretty sure the Guardian of the Galaxy issue is what SHIELD is concerned with. Felt that way before IM3 and now after it re-affirms my stance.

    • I fund it interesting how you bring up the comics to try to justify your opinion but then you don’t mention thr bastardized ion of the Mandarin, whose depiction in the film is a lot different than the comic book version. Interesting….

      • Cause I never cared about the Mandarin. Iron Man had imo some mediocre villains. Mandarin is one of them. Not to mention myself being asian and I took offense to the character.

        • It’s true that Iron Man’s villains aren’t interesting at all imo, but some people apparently liked him so they wanted to see him done right. He’s still gonna pop up in future movies, but people aren’t ready to get over what happened already.

          • The “twist” is what made me ACTUALLY like the movie. That’s something that’s done A LOT in comics. Sleight of hand gag.

            Plus, I never liked the Mandarin as I have stated. But now? He’s awesome.

            • Oh and plus. If you TRIED to cater to everyone’s wishes. The film would have been IM2 all over again. Lest I remind you the pre-production chaos.

              Marvel wanting Favreau to shoehorn in SHIELD and Avengers references, the fans wanting a longer end fight, and Black Widow being in it for NO REASON.

              • Judging by the criticisms made to IM2 at the time, it seems unlikely it would’ve suddenly become everyone’s wishes for the sequel.

        • Nevertheless, you can’t have it both ways. Don’t bring up how people shouldn’t be mad that SHIELD wasn’t involved in IM III since it doesn’t play a role in the early IM comics but then you have no problem with how IM III took a dump on the comic book version of the Mandarin.

          • I’m saying it’s silly. If you want to complain about the villain. Fine. That’s a more legit argument. Complaining about SHIELD not being in it or no AVENGERS cameo. That’s petty and sounds like whining.

            Complaining about the way they handled The Manderin. FINE! We can talk.

            • There are numerous things about the movie that bothered me more than SHIELD not being in it. Still, the flaw in your argument when using the treatment of SHIELD in the Iron Man comic book still stands. And, it’s merely your opinion that it’s petty and sounds like whining for people to have serious issues about SHIELD not bring in the movie. SHIELD was in the first two and the stakes, in my opinion, were even higher in the third. So, I think that SHIELD should have been in the third one too.

              • But SHIELD was in the first two because of The Avenger Initiative, not the help Tony.

                • That’s not true. SHIELD tries to stop Stone in the first movie.

                  • Been awhile since I have watched the first IM. Thanks for the correction. I really just remember Coulson and Fury being around for their own purposes, not to help. My mistake.

                    But I do still feel like there is a perfectly good explanation to why SHIELD wouldnt have been there. They have already established all of these characters and stories from Phase One. I think they were giving people the benefit of the doubt, thinking the audience would be smart enough to realize that there could be MANY things happening at the same time. It is definitely not out of the realm of possibility that because of the events of The Avengers, and other reasons (Cap storyline, Thor storyline) that SHIELD would be a little busy, and maybe by the time the situations in IM3 were solved, SHIELD was too late.

                    • It has nothing to so with being smart. I am certainly not lacking in that department. Concocting a scenario that explains why SHIELD wasn’t there is not my job or yours. I think that it was lazy writing to not have a concrete reason why SHIELD wasn’t there. I am looking forward to that absence being addressed in a future MCU movie. Still, even IF SHIELD had been in it, I still wouldn’t have really liked the movie.

                    • But with this “shared universe” you cannot hold something like that against an individual movie. Let it play out, we havent been told the entire story yet. SHIELD doesnt deal with EVERY SINGLE THING bad that happens in the world. They have other things to attend to. The audience knows that. Adding in a single line of dialogue explaining that is dumbing down the writing, in my opinion.

                    • I don’t like being told what I can’t do. Obviously, I can hold it against them.

                      As for having better things to do, there were previous terror attacks with the same blueprint, Iron Man was almost killed and the President was captured. What in the hell else did Shield have to do that was more important than stopping the Mandarin? Nevertheless, we’re merely SPECULATING what Shield was up to.

                    • Well yes, you can do anything you want. That doesnt make it sensible, reasonable, right, correct, okay…

                      For almost the entire movie, The Mandarin was just some random terrorist. SHIELD isnt going to butt their nose in every single situation like that in the world. And the only thing that we know for certain that SHIELD was doing, is all of the damage control from The Avengers, which was a heck of a lot. Enough, in my opinion, to keep them from stopping a single terrorist. And when the more important stuff went down, they may not have had time to react to it before Tony/Pepper/Rhody took down Mandarin and the Extremis Soldiers.

                    • It’s sensible and certainly okay to question why SHIELD wasn’t in the third movie when it was in the first two. And, the stakes were much higher in the third than the first two movies.

                      I still think that the absence should have been mentioned instead of waiting to mention it in Captain America II.

                    • “I think that it was lazy writing to not have a concrete reason why SHIELD wasn’t there.”

                      No, it was not. And I think it is lazy viewing to expect being spoonfed any explanation. A little mystery once in a while is far from being a bad thing. At any rate, it has your mind rambling.

                      Consider this: do you think you would’ve found Star Wars Episode IV better on first viewing if everything about the force and Luke’s father was explained right away?

                    • bfg, that’s just your opinion. Shield was in the first two movies. And, the stakes were even higher in the third. So, I think that Shield’s absence should have been mentioned. I think that it’s a glaring omission. But, as I’ve written in previous posts, there were MUCH BIGGER flaws than Shield’s absence. The SW inclusion is invalid and definitely not the same.

                    • I believe I said “I think” which makes it obvious I was stating a personal opinion. I think it’s actually a relief to finally have a solo adventure in which SHIELD don’t stick their nose. But more than that, there’s plenty enough reason for SHIELD to NOT be there.

                      By the way, how exactly is my SW comparison invalid? Same diff to me.

                  • I think that your SW reference is invalid, since I think that those plot points were integral to the trilogy. I like that it wasn’t revealed till later in the trilogy. Shield’s absence was , to me, a minor issue that wasn’t integral to the movie. Also, it was eventually revealed.

          • “Nevertheless, you can’t have it both ways. Don’t bring up how people shouldn’t be mad that SHIELD wasn’t involved in IM III since it doesn’t play a role in the early IM comics but then you have no problem with how IM III took a dump on the comic book version of the Mandarin.”

            Yes, yes you can. You realise in the comics Jarvis is an actual person, right? Not an A.I.? Changes to characters have nothing to do with a quality of a movie. Or do you hate IM1 as well? But this is a comic book movie universe. If you cant apply the same logic as you could to the comics, why are you asking the movies to be more like the comics? You are the one who I think wants it both ways?

            Anyway this is assuming that the rest of Phase Two doesn’t explain any of the “Where is SHEILD?”. If Cap 2 is in the same time period as IM3, with a massive threat taking up SHEILDs time and an explanation as to why there is no involvement in IM3, (there is White House involvement in the IM3, maybe a directive to stay out?), this whole argument is going to be invalid and people will just have to admit the real reason they don’t like IM3 is because of the Mandarin “twist”.

            • I don’t think that you understand the point I made. Read it again.

            • Also, you show your ignorance by Kooning that people don’t like the movie solely due to the mandarin twist.

              • I think that lots of the people who hated the Mandarin twist probably took that as an opportunity to pick apart the rest of the movie. To me, that wasnt a flaw, and neither was the absence of SHIELD. But yes, the movie had flaws (not enough Rhodey, underused Rebecca Hall, etc.)

                • I think that it had a lot more flaws than IM I.

                • Sadly, that’s how people think these days. They scrutinize the things and people they claim to love only to bash them if they find the slightest thing they dislike. Like there ever was anything perfect in this world…

                  • If you truly think that IM III was as good as IM I, then I think that your opinion isn’t credible.

                    • I was replying to Bane.

              • Yikes!! I meant opining. Damn iPhone auto text.

  23. The inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D agents wasn’t necessary. Thor II & Captain America II will answer those questions to why they weren’t there.

  24. When Iron Man 2 came out, this site’s main complaint about it was that if felt like mostly a set-up for Avengers/SHIELD (there was a whole article here talking about that).

    Now the complaint with Iron Man 3 is that they didn’t spend time making connections to the Avengers/SHIELD? So is Iron Man 2 now better in retrospect?

    In the comics, the different Avengers often have their own adventures without having to explain why the other Avengers aren’t there (or other teams like the X-Men or Fantastic Four). It’s often just, “they’re busy.” Which seems like it will be the case. If that bothers comic fans, then I feel bad for these “comic fans” who probably also were bothered why War Machine wasn’t helping the Avengers (again, answer was “he’s busy”).

    As of the movie, there is no active “Avengers” so to speak. Maria Hill notes that they’re scattered and Fury just notes he hopes they’ll assemble again if needed. Hulk is a wild card whom Stark can’t call in (what would Hulk do to an enemy no one can find?). Thor is off world, so he technically isn’t around. So it’s just SHIELD (Cap, Black Widow and Hawkeye). It’s easy to assume they’re probably going through some stuff with the Captain America storyline (which could take place at the same time, like IM2 happened before Incredible Hulk). Or that SHIELD is investigating it in the background, but like the government and Rhodey, just couldn’t find the Mandarin either or Stark (Tony kept himself off grid to be able to do detective work to find the Mandarin). So many possible reasons why SHIELD wasn’t shown to be involved.

    In the old days, Stan Lee would give out No-Prizes to readers who would send him their theories and explanations that would clear up mistakes made by Marvel writers and artists. Why can’t we go back to that spirit and instead of only pointing out plot holes in movies to make ourselves look smart (when all we’re doing is making ourselves and others enjoy these movies LESS), we come up with No-Prize winning explanations to clear up possible plot holes on our own. Exercise your creativity as a fan, and help others enjoy the movie more.

    This is why with these comic movies, it’s becoming less and less fun to read the comments of comic fans and comic sites.

    • Agreed. One moment people didn’t want S.H.I.E.L.D, but now they do. They hated that IM2 was a setup for the Avengers, but they wanted this movie to hint at Guardians Of The Galaxy.

      • Yes but comic books work different then the films. Even inthe comic books they must sometimes explain where the hell is everybody because this is not the 1960s where we just accept things as is.

        Iron Man 2 failed to set up its own story well because it devotes time to building a universe just as Thor did. Iron Man 3 is more enjoyable than its predecessor but it also failed to properly execute some of its story. its not the lack of universe building that lowered the potential of the film. If you spent so much time in the second film and a crossover film building and you neglect to acknwledge that universe even by passing then you are not being true to the work and canon you are building. I am not saying to spend time ujiversal building like Iron Man 2 or Thor but one could continue to expand or acknledge a universe in an organic natural way that does not distract from the main stoyline

    • I wish I could rep this post.

      Agreed 100%.

    • I agree. When it comes to SHIELD though, the problem is that Marvel went from one extreme to the other. In IM2 there was too much SHIELD/Avengers interference and now in IM3 there is too little. In a live-action movie set in a bigger universe, people expect at least some realism, especially after you present to them this group of people like the SHIELD who tend to nationwide, global threats. So audiences are not wrong for wondering why wasn’t SHIELD involved at all with trying to stop the Mandarin. In comic books the writers can get away with not answering these kind of questions but with a live-action movie, people expect some realism. But I’m not totally against what you are saying though; people shouldn’t let these little things take away from their enjoyment of the movie.

      • If only they were just wondering… The thing is, they’re actually BLAMING the movie, Shane Black and/or Marvel for that so-called lack of SHIELD! I for one am glad that SHIELD is finally left out of the picture for a while. It being in every single previous movie was a little irksome.

    • Story of avenger 2

      Iron man fighting with Quicksilver. Quicksilver dodge every attack of Iron man. Then Iron man use stealth mode and become invisible then catch Quicksilver off guard. Scarlet witch fight with Thor , Hawk eye, and black window. In next scene all are to gather on hallicarrier. Creaking joke on each other for 1 hour. Then in next scene all fighting with extrims soldiers. Next scene all eating pizza.

      One week after:-

      Kevin Feige:- we explain in future movies how Quicksilver and scarlet witch get power, how they defeat scarlet witch , why scarlet witch and Quicksilver join avenger?, what happen in outer world when they creaking joke? From where extrims soldiers come and how avenger defeat them? because it is my job to make all of you fool and laugh at you and all of you are so dump.

      And if any one like to fill plot holes of story then why ruin a mega budget movies.
      Fill my storystory which don’t even worth single cent.

      • You sure are dump if you expect Scarlet Witch to fight a black window. XD

    • Finally someone who see’s the light.

      • So dont go see the movies..problem solved.

    • Ooh, me, me, me! So, uh, there’s no SHIELD in Iron Man 3 because they’re… out shooting the series! Do I get a no-prize?

  25. I wish it was vice versa and Marvel owned the X-Men and Fox owned The Avengers and the whole lot…

    I would much rather see well done X Men films than Captain America, Thor, and them.

    • I wish I had a Million dollars. I wish I was a little bit taller. I wish I was a baller. I wish I had a girl from the hood I would call her.

      We all wish for something. We just have to deal with the cards we were dealt.

      Life.

      I’ll be here all week.

      • Nice.

    • I wish Marvel owned all the Marvel characters, so that the X-Men, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider and FF debacles would’ve been averted. Also, we could have Wolverine and Spidey in the Avengers, and Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch could be Magneto’s children.

      • In theory, I would like to see that too. But, I am not sure that’s work in real life. I think that there are only so many CBM movies Disney would want MS to make a year. So, there’d be a longer wait for the movies of certain characters. Plus, even with Disney owning MS, it’d be really expensive to make Spider Man, X Men and FF movies along with all of the well known Marvel characters.

  26. Also, read all of Feige’s statements promoting the IM3 film and the Mandarin. They’re all true (unlike Marion Cotillard’s “I’m not Talia” statements).

    Kingsley did have a “chilling” performance when he was playing Trevor playing the Mandarin (like Downey in Tropic Thunder “playing a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude.”). What made Kingsley’s performance great was that for the first half of the movie, he was scary (like in the scene where he holds a Roxxon accountant hostage), then manages to also act as a comical buffoon, with the same character. That takes skill and deserves the “applause” Feige said the rest of the cast and crew gave him.

    I’m more likely to believe that they’ll explain what SHIELD was doing more to enhance the connectivity of these other movies to Iron Man 3, not to “fix” Iron Man 3, which by the time the other movies and the TV show are out, will be out of theaters and will have probably already made over a billions dollars worldwide. Why would that need to be “fixed”? I think comic fans who were bothered by this “problem” are giving themselves too much credit.

    • Jamie, I think that there were much bigger problems with the movie than the lack of SHIELD.

      • Yet it’s what the main bitching is about.

        • The first half of the article’s title is about SHIELD’s absence. So, to stay on point, it makes sense that many of the comments were about the absence. And, I listed numerous valid complaints about the movie. Defenders of the movie keep on complaining about people complaining about shield’s absence, so that’s what most people are talking about too. Get it, now?

          • Sure, it makes sense that the comments on this post are about SHIELD’s absence. What doesn’t make sense is all the whining about said absence. Also, I was talking in a more general sense than this post alone. Get it, now?

            • The only reason why people keep on talking about it is people like you are resurrecting the issue. I don’t recall many people saying that it ruined (or something like that) IM III. I am on record writing that it was one of my minor quibbles. I know what you were referring to more than my post.

        • Not from me.

    • Agree 100%

  27. You can’t expect the Avengers to be in every movie with each other. Like in the comics, the characters are by themselves alot, handling their own problems

  28. Ok bad writing is whats to blame for ppl being confused, here is a example of what they could of done.

    Jarvis: Would you like me to summon the Avengers team sir?

    Stark: No Jarvis, Cap is off on a secret mission, Thor is attending to matters in Asgard, and who knows where the hulk is, we can handle this without shield for now.

    easy huh? and no damage control needed lol

    • Tony was in a pretty horrific place during IM3. I dont think he would know where any of The Avengers were at that point.

      • He had panic attacks with the mention of the Avengers. Remember the kid said Avengers and he freaks. The kid said I didn’t mention NYC this time.

    • I agree with you, John.

    • Why do you need to hear it being said, if you can already put together what’s going on?

      • … because people nowadays needs to have it spelled out for them. Imagination is gone.

        • Heck, a school suspended a 6 year old for playing with imaginary grenades.

      • That’s a dumb question. Obviously, in real life, we know why the Avengers weren’t unit: it’s not an Avengers movie. But, in the IM III movie universe, a passing reference as to why the other Avengers or Shorld weren’t there would have made sense.

        • Are those comments needed in the comics? Can we not just realize that there is other things happening in the world that others are attending to? Things shouldnt have to be spelled out for you. I personally love it when I actually have to think during a movie. IM3 was the first Marvel movie that really made that happen.

          • Well, you are giving yourself too much credit in the thinking department. As I have already pointed out in a previous post, it’s really easy to concoct a reason why SHIELD wasn’t there. My issue is that I think that it was stupid for its absence to not be me ruined or explained at all in the movie, especially since SHIELD was in the first two movies.

            Btw, my favorite show of all time is Lost. So, obviously, I like thinking tv shows and movies. But, lazily not mentioning SHIELD’s absence seem to trigger a thinking exercise.

            • During the first two movies, SHIELD didnt have other things going on but rounding up The Avengers. In IM3, they were having to deal with rebuilding the helicarrier and dealing with the loss of many agents. As well as possibly dealing with other situations around the world.

              And Lost’s writing was so sloppy, how can that be your favorite show, yet you have the audacity to call out the writing in IM3. It wasnt the best writing, I will give you that, but SHIELDs absence, I dont think, had anything to do with the writing flaws in IM3

              • Again, you’re just assuming that SHIELD had better things to do. That’s just speculation.

                That’s just your opinion that Lost’s writing was so sloppy. I think that it was riveting, and I liked that viewers weren’t spoon fed what’s going on (and what’s going to happen).

                Wow, we’ve been arguing about this, on and off, for hours. We’re either really dedicating, or we, sadly, have little else to do :(

                • But it is not speculation that SHIELD was taking care of damage control from The Avengers. That HAS to happen. And the “spoon fed” thing…that is what I liked about IM3. Totally caught you off guard, and didnt follow in everyone elses footsteps.

                  I think its a combination of both. Lazy, rainy Saturday, combined with the fact that I find nothing more fun than to talk about movies. Ive been reading ScreenRant for a couple years, but just recently had the gumption to start commenting on articles, so I have a lot to say.

                  • Yes, you’re speculating. Besides hellicarier damage and some other things, SHIELD was relatively unscathed. And, FEMA would take care of renovating NYC, not SHIELD.

                    Ha, we got a first timer here.

        • What’s dumb is to expect an explanation to SHIELD’s “absence” in a solo movie.

          • If SHIELD is in the FIRST TWO STANDALONE IM movies, and it’s not in the third one, then it’s absence stands out. That’s it. END OF STORY.

            • Notice how the poster says “Iron Man” and not “Iron Man + SHIELD?” SHIELD’s presence in the previous movies was justified, if not absolutely necessary. That doesn’t mean it has to become a staple of any solo outing if there’s no reason for it and actual reasons against it. You getting angry over it won’t make you more right.

          • SHIELD was in the first two. So, it would have been nice if its absence was mentioned in the third one. If you disagree, get over it.

            • Apparently, it’s not me who has to get over something…

              • I’ve already made strong arguments why I think that Shield should have been in the movie. For you to continue to argue with me about it shows that you are a troll.

  29. I find it pointless to ask questions like “Where is Shield?” because all it does it bother my enjoyment of the story. It’s an standalone Iron Man story, if Shield was in it it wouldn’t be a standalone Iron Man story – that’s enough for me. And suspension of disbelief doesn’t always come easy for me, but I consider this a relatively minor thing to put aside. I don’t see why people let it bother them. Heck, the way Extremis was used in the movie was much more annoying than Shield’s absence.

    And besides, despite it being a terror attack, it was still mostly a number of isolated explosions – domestic terror attacks (or so the US thought). Not exactly Shield stuff, given that they didn’t know about Extremis. You can’t have Shield barging into every country, fighting their battles for them. They were involved with Iron Man/Hulk/etc. because they had their Avengers project and they wanted to keep up with super-powered people.

    • Exactly.

    • AGREED.

    • yup agreed

    • Shield was in the first two Iron Man movies. So, by your “logic”, IM III was the first stand alone IM movie.

      • “It’s an standalone Iron Man story, if Shield was in it it wouldn’t be a standalone Iron Man story”

        But the rest of what he said was spot on. Why let something like that take away from your enjoyment of the movie?

        “And besides, despite it being a terror attack, it was still mostly a number of isolated explosions – domestic terror attacks (or so the US thought). Not exactly Shield stuff, given that they didn’t know about Extremis. You can’t have Shield barging into every country, fighting their battles for them. They were involved with Iron Man/Hulk/etc. because they had their Avengers project and they wanted to keep up with super-powered people.”

        ^^That right there is the meat of the sandwich.

        • Since Shield was in the first one trying to stop Stone, which I reminded you of before, then Shield sure as hell been there when there wee numerous terrorist attacks, Air Force One was blown up and the President was kidnapped.

          • SHIELDs response time would have been so much longer after the events of The Avengers. And those “terrorist attacks” started out as random bombings.

            • That’s not necessarily true. How much time passed between what happened in the Avengers and IM III? I am sure that SHIELD had enough time to regroup.

              • How long would it take to rebuild everything that was destroyed? And to hire and train new agents? We arent told how long is in between those movies, I dont think. But Tony is still dealing with all of those problems from The Avengers, so it wouldnt surprise me if SHIELD was doing the same. And that doesnt change the fact that those terrorist attacks started out as random bombings, not anything that SHIELD would absolutely need to deal with. Once it was known that The Mandarin was who he was, and that the threat was as serious as it was, Tony made pretty quick work of them, I thought. But maybe Im just imagining things.

                • At the very least, once Tony’s house was destroyed, I think Shield should have made an appearance.

                  I don’t think that Tony made quick work of them, especially when it comes to the Mandarin. If it weren’t for Pepper, Tony might have been defeated. Tony could have used more back-up, like the IRON PATRIOT. The fact that he didn’t return PISSES ME OFF a lot more than the lack of shield.

                  • Iron Patriot answers to the military, i.e. the government, so it’s pretty safe to assume that after the Air Force One thing, he was assigned to the President’s protection or another matter of national security, hence couldn’t find the time to help his friend on a personal vendetta.

                    • It wasn’t merely a personal vendetta. Mandarin was committing terrorist attacks on American soil. So, you’re completely and utterly wrong that Iron Patriot didn’t have an interest in helping Tony defeat the Mandarin, who was hell bent on controlling global terror and the fight against global terror.

                    • Like I said, Iron Patriot answers to the government, he doesn’t act on his own free will, so if the government wants him elsewhere (like keeping on protecting the Prez), that’s where he’ll be.

                    • Once again, you’re merely speculating that Iron Patriot was told by the President to not re-engage the enemy. But, if this were real life,is that plausible? I don’t think so. Once the President was in a safe location. I think that the President would have ordered IP to help IM defeat a terrorist. The military has a duty to defend my country from domestic and foreign threats.

          • SHIELD tried to stop Stane (with an “a”) because they were interested in Stark for their Avengers Initiative. Now that the Avengers are a reality, they don’t have to hound him anymore like they did in the first two movies. Plus, besides being busy licking their own wounds and apparently helping Cap with that Winter Soldier thing, they might want to cut Iron Man some slack and stay out of his way considering that he witnessed firsthand 1) their deviousness during the Chitauri invasion and 2) how trigger-happy they are and how easily they almost nuked NYC. For someone so persistently calling on the dumbness and lack of logic of IM3′s screenplay, I thought you would have easily realized that much.

            • All of my comments are being moderated, for some ridiculous reason.

              Anyway, helping him beat a villain isn’t an example of hounding him. As for working with Cap, that’s just speculation, just like the rest of what you wrote. I wanted to see what Marvel’s explanation was, not yours or anyone else’s. Regardless, I’m done with this topic. I’m bored.

              • They didn’t just help him beat a villain. They clearly had an agenda from the first movie on. Regarding SHIELD and Cap, it might have no actual basis but if this is speculation, it isn’t mine: I merely repeated what everybody else is saying. As for Marvel’s explanation, though it’s not necessary, apparently you’ll have it eventually. See you around.

                • Don’t use hyperbole. Not everyone agrees with you.

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!!