*** Official IRON MAN 2 Discussion Thread - Page 4

Re: Howard -- "There's no way it was simply a matter of salary."

From what I've read elsewhere, he was the first cast on the original film, and ended up being paid more than anyone else.  For some reason Marvel couldn't renegotiate his contract.  So with this one, they tried to bring his salary in line with everyone else and he balked.

Don't know how true any of that is...  But I have to say, I normally don't like changing actors like that, but I didn't miss him at all.

It just goes to show that in addition to his other character flaws, Tony Stark is a racist who can't tell one black man from another.

Actually I think they should have played it up a bit, like the first time Cheadle appears, have Tony ask him if he got a haircut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey 

I enjoyed it but I think the biggest missed opportunity was at the start of the film.  There was lots and lots of talk about how Tony Stark was a one man army, privatized world peace, and the other countries in the world were nervous, including some in the U.S.  Also Jarvis mentioned that his use of the suit was killing him faster.  When was he using the suit?  Clearly Tony had intervened in the Middle East and elsewhere on many occasions after declaring he was Iron Man to stop the bloodshed and many had the impression that the Iron Man suit was a weapon.  The one intervention in the first movie in some town no one had heard of would not have been enough.  If they had just shown these interventions during a long intro credit start of about 10 minutes with the standard news commentary and pundits arguing whether he was a benefactor or potentially dangerous, it would have supported much of what was said later.  Plus we would have had more Iron Man.

I didn't miss not having it, but I agree this would have certainly added to the film. Something like the original Superman II opening credits, which told the story of the first film in montage form, only with new footage of Iron Man's exploits throughout the world. It would have slotted in nicely between the opening scene of Vanko reverse engineering the arc reactor while Tony's press conference from the first film played and and him jumping out of the plane for the expo.

"Actually I think they should have played it up a bit, like the first time Cheadle appears, have Tony ask him if he got a haircut."

They did, a bit.  Cheadle says something like, "It's me, get over it."

Another high point: "The Ironettes" 

http://coedmagazine.com/2010/05/10/introducing-the-insanely-hot-ironette-dancers-13-galleries/

*** Official IRON MAN 2 Review Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Christou 

 

I was disappointed that for an expensive summer spectacular the film had even less action than the first film, it seemed that way to me.

Interesting observation. I thought the sequel had more action than the original and the action set-pieces were longer and more impressive IMHO.

*** Official IRON MAN 2 Review Thread

Well there's only one thing to do Brent...we'll have to get our stop watches out when the film comes out on Blu-ray.

It did seem less action-packed to me, maybe I was expecting more from the sequel. But I enjoyed what was there.

I missed the post-credits clip, the friend I was with couldn't wait to leave, so I'll have to catch that on disc.

*** Official IRON MAN 2 Review Thread

Iron Man 2 has what I would call 2.5 action scenes. There's the relatively brief Monaco scene near the beginning. The fight between Tony and Rhodey-- that would be the half action scene imo. And then the big showdown at the end.

• I would wager that adds up to less than the first films quota.
• I know that it was extremely poor pacing, which is why regardless of how many minutes of "action" the movie has, it will always feel wrong.
• I defy anyone to make a decent argument as to how any of those sequences were better than the Cave Break-out or the Fighter Jet sequences from the first film.

 Quote:

 Zack, I will accept your challenge.

a) The fighter jet sequence was a chase scene, not an action scene

b) The Cave Break scene was a character scene, and the action scenes in IM2 (except for the drunk best friend fight) are not

c) I can only speak to the back to back drone fight at the Expo, my favorite action scene in the film (and probably both films)

1) War Machine

2) Gatling Gun

3) Gatling Gun shooting in every direction

4) Storyboarded by Gennedy Tartakovsky (many storyboards by GT are in the Art Book)

5) War Machine cut a drone in half with his arm guns, and oil spurted all over him...awesome

6) Funny line at the end (regarding Stark's uber-laser

7)

8)

There, a decent argument.

^^ Chuck, and I really don't want this to sound mean, but I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously when you start by precluding that "chase scenes" apparently cannot be action scenes, nor are action scenes allowed to contain "character."

This would mean that something like Terminator 2, for example, contains exactly 0 action scenes.

I meant the cave break thing as a compliment to that scene.  It is an action scene about the character.  Terminator 2...those are ALL of the action scenes, since Cameron does that better than almost everyone.  As you point out.  IM2 doesn't really have those.  It is action for action, which most movies do.

A chase scene is different to me.  I apply different criteria to a chase scene.  But fine, consider the jet scene as an action scene.  You are conflating points.  Even with my a,b, and c, I still believe my 1-8).

My brilliant analysis shows that a particular segment of the Expo sequence is better than the action scenes in 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs 

• I defy anyone to make a decent argument as to how any of those sequences were better than the Cave Break-out or the Fighter Jet sequences from the first film.

Both of those scenes you mention are great, but the final big battle in IM2 tops them by far IMHO.

Just piping in to say that I enjoyed Iron Man 2. It felt like a logical continuation of the first film, and it was fun to watch. To me it wasn't about comparing the films as to which one had more action, but rather continuing the story of Tony Stark and the suit.

"Both of those scenes you mention are great, but the final big battle in IM2 tops them by far IMHO."

Where the final battle in IM2 falls short, for me, is emotional involvement.  Escaping from the cave, the fight in Golmera (Yinsen's home), and the subsequent fighter chase were awesome because I liked the characters and what they were doing.  The action in IM2 was good, but I wasn't as involved by it.

What impressed me was that it took Iron Man and War Machine to take down Whiplash, a third tier villain. How will Iron Man cope when a planet-threatening foe appears, or doesn't that happen much in his comic book series?

Quote:

Originally Posted by darklight

well I might get flamed for this but I really enjoyed the film. thought it was very entertaining. although didnt think too much to Scarlett's acting bit other than excellent! Soundtrack was really good as well.

Even if no one agreed with you, you wouldn't (or shouldn't) get flamed for your opinion around these parts.  What I find interesting is that the prerelease reviews were pretty scathing, but there's a lot of positivity around here, and people I encounter on other forums and in real life loved it.  I don't know what was going on, but the early reviews don't seem to match the public's perception.  I might try to watch the first one again and then go back to the theater a second time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Christou 

What impressed me was that it took Iron Man and War Machine to take down Whiplash, a third tier villain. How will Iron Man cope when a planet-threatening foe appears, or doesn't that happen much in his comic book series?

That's not impressive; that's more evidence that the movie was poorly written. (Unless your impression was: "Wow, this movie is poorly written!")

Iron Man doesn't deal with planet-killers much, but that's probably also true of most titles, really. Most villains run into heroes at the nascent stage of world domination. The exceptions might be with The Fantastic Four and Superman; maybe X-Men.

"Mickey Rourke make a better villain than the one Jeff played in the first movie (which wasn`t bad at all)."

I just rewatched it, and you don't find out that Stane is the ultimate villain until 70 minutes into the movie!

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/101346-what-is-terrence-howard-talking-to-marvel-about

Now this is interesting

Why was that interesting Oscar? [cue Oscar shrugging]

And I thought Jeff Bridges was the better villain because "you don't find out that Stane is the ultimate villain until 70 minutes into the movie!"

Whiplash was a one-note villain, a pissed off Russkie with electric whips. I can't even remember if he survived at the end

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplepage 

Mickey Rourke make a better villain than the one Jeff played in the first movie (which wasn`t bad at all).

He does a good job "menacing with tattoos", but he can't fake-type very well. (And his fingernails are creepy.) 

I thought Rourke was pretty good as Whiplash, but I definitely enjoyed Bridges' performance in the first film more.

*** Official IRON MAN 2 Review Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer! 
 I've saved the best for last, though...Scarlett!

 

I almost couldn't handle her in this film, she was off-the-scales HOT and she had me and every other red-blooded male in the audience gasping and squirming in our seats, hell at one point I was tempted to pour my large soda over my head lol.

No argument there. She is absolutely magnificent!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent M 

Both of those scenes you mention are great, but the final big battle in IM2 tops them by far IMHO.

Personally, I did not much care for the final battle, it was as if Favreau was trying to imitate Michael Bay. It was too dark, there was no sense of danger to anyone or anything. Plus, the final faceoff against Whiplash was so short, it was almost silly. But to each their own I of course.

Well, I finally went to see this last night. I don't know if it's me, the projection quality or the technology used to produce film prints, but I cannot believe how blurry and undefined a lot of scenes in this film were. I mean, close-ups all seemed to be in focus and definition seemed good, but wide and medium shots were just blurry and undefined. You couldn't make out writing on screens and you could make out that buildings in the background, during flying sequences, had windows and not much else. These films are beginning to look so blurry that I'm beginning to think it isn't even worth watching them in the theatre anymore. I might as well wait for the Blu-ray, because they actually seem to look better than the theatrical runs.

I thought the fim was okay; although, for the first 40 minutes or so it was touch and go. During the first 40 minutes I was left hoping that they had plenty more AC/DC tunes to play, because the AC/DC tune near the start was the only thing making the film bearable. The film did pick it up, but I don't think it was quite as good as the first one. I was expecting a lot more from the Whiplash character. In the trailers, he looked like he was going to be one tough badass. In the film, he seemed to get his ass kicked pretty fast, especially in the Monaco fight. That fight left me thinking, "that's all he had?". A few electric bolts and then Stark pulls the guy's battery wit hardly any effort at all.

Then he shows up at the end and gets his ass kicked so fast that it barely even registers as a fight. Bridges played a suit in the first one and his character still put up a better fight than Rourke's Whiplash. Also, it would be nice if filmmakers would actually keep the camera still enough to see what the hell is going on. The fights and action scenes just seemed incoherent. You could hardly tell where anyone was in relation to each other.

While I don't agree with your assessment of the film, I saw it on the biggest screen in Texas (if that claim is still true) a couple of days after it opened and I thought it looked blurry as hell, too.  I figure that close to release, it can't have been a worn print. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin-S 

Well, I finally went to see this last night. I don't know if it's me, the projection quality or the technology used to produce film prints, but I cannot believe how blurry and undefined a lot of scenes in this film were. I mean, close-ups all seemed to be in focus and definition seemed good, but wide and medium shots were just blurry and undefined. You couldn't make out writing on screens and you could make out that buildings in the background, during flying sequences, had windows and not much else. These films are beginning to look so blurry that I'm beginning to think it isn't even worth watching them in the theatre anymore. I might as well wait for the Blu-ray, because they actually seem to look better than the theatrical runs.

 

I thought the fim was okay; although, for the first 40 minutes or so it was touch and go. During the first 40 minutes I was left hoping that they had plenty more AC/DC tunes to play, because the AC/DC tune near the start was the only thing making the film bearable. The film did pick it up, but I don't think it was quite as good as the first one. I was expecting a lot more from the Whiplash character. In the trailers, he looked like he was going to be one tough badass. In the film, he seemed to get his ass kicked pretty fast, especially in the Monaco fight. That fight left me thinking, "that's all he had?". A few electric bolts and then Stark pulls the guy's battery wit hardly any effort at all.

 

Then he shows up at the end and gets his ass kicked so fast that it barely even registers as a fight. Bridges played a suit in the first one and his character still put up a better fight than Rourke's Whiplash. Also, it would be nice if filmmakers would actually keep the camera still enough to see what the hell is going on. The fights and action scenes just seemed incoherent. You could hardly tell where anyone was in relation to each other.

I was thinking many of the same things you were.  I wasn't impressed at all with the photography.  I kept thinking "hey, my system looks better than this.  Why should I bother with the theater?".  I feel as if there's something missing with today's digital techniques.  I miss genuine FILM.

I thought the film wasn't nearly as good as the first one.  The use of the suit in the party scenes cheapened the effect, making it look plastic (which it probably was).  The rival billionaire degenerated into a silly parody, and the main villain turned out not to be that much of a challenge.  I did like the sequence involving the model and the new element, which captured the feeling of brilliant innovation that made the first film so good.

This Friday, I'm taking the family to the cinema (matinee).  Ironman 2 and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time are playing (as well as a couple of other films).  My wife and I are giving our kids the choice of what they want to see, as some want to see Ironman 2 and others want to see Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.  I'm not sure which film I will be attending, but it should be a fun time.

I've been reading the reviews in this thread and the other to determine which film I ought to see. :)