*** Official IRON MAN 2 Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Josh Dial /forum/thread/300193/official-iron-man-2-discussion-thread/30#post_3689087

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I noticed a particularly interesting position and name in the credits. For "Expo Action Sequence Concepts" (or something close to that), I observed that Genndy Tartakovsky provided input. Not surprising given the dozens of ways he had destroyed robots in Samurai Jack and the original Clone Wars cartoons. Very cool touch.

 

[Jim_C]

Does anyone know if they are selling the



"Hope" Iron Man poster from the movie?


I'd love to have it. That scene got a huge laugh from the audience I was in.

 

[Greg.K]

I saw this tonight. I agree with those who don't really see much difference in quality between this one and the first one. There were some cringe-worthy scenes (the party) but overall it was just about what I'd expect from an Iron Man film. I give both movies a B+. My only real problem was that they were able to defeat Whiplash so quickly, it seemed a bit anti-climactic.


Neat cameos (Elon Musk and Larry Ellison - even though the latter one looks to be the result of making the movie a big Oracle commercial).

 

[Jose Martinez]

One gripe I had was how quickly Rhodes learned how to use the armor. Tony had a rough start the first time but Rhodes seemed like he had already trained in it. Did I miss something?

 

[Jeremiah]

^^^^^^^


I thought about that too, but I just figured he learned from IM 1 to IM 2.

 

Was it just me , or was the final confrontation between Iron man and Whiplash a bit....short? I mean it was even shorter and unsatisfying than the one with Iron Monger!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Yes, the power of the film was diluted by the attempt to integrate S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers backstory into the movie. But in my opinion the flaw wasn't fatal. The screenplay was deft at finding ways to use S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Black Widow to further the main plot and themes of the movie. Most importantly, the film didn't commit the gravest sin a superhero film and make the title hero a supporting character in his own film. Iron Man 2 was still very much Tony Stark's movie and Tony Stark's story arc. The idea at the heart of the film -- proliferation of inherently devastating technology that cannot be unmade once the world knows is possible -- is intellectually satisfying and explored in a pretty smart way. By introducing a flaw in the arc reactor technology, it keeps the stakes for Tony Stark dire and personal. And more than any superhero movie before it, it takes the consequences of such an extraordinary induvidual seriously. The idea the a world with an Iron Man or a Superman would be roughly just like ours is unrealistic. From the moment Tony Stark was abducted, the history of this movie's world was destined to depart in a dramatically different direction than our own. In the near term, when a good and moral person has control of the most terrifying weapon of mass destruction ever invented, this world is much nicer and safer than our own. But twenty years down the road, when the other companies and countries start catching up, warfare is going to become much more terrifying.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Omar Brown

Was it just me , or was the final confrontation between Iron man and Whiplash a bit....short? I mean it was even shorter and unsatisfying than the one with Iron Monger!

Yes. The climaxes of both films were underwhelming. In both films the action is almost beside the point. When it's being used to make a point -- Iron Man breaking out of the cave, Iron Man Mark II's first flight, Iron Man in Afghanistan, Iron Man versus Rhodey -- it's inherently more interesting than the obligatory big fight scene that feels otherwise disconnected from the story being told.

 

[LynxFX]

I enjoyed it just as much as the first which I rewatched just before going to see number 2.


Like Omar, I thought the end fight was a bit brisk. I never liked the end battle of the first one either. The red laser "one off" weapon was pretty sweet though as with the followup line "you should lead off with that next time."

Scarlet was absolutely gorgeous in this and I loved her hallway fight sequence. Great stuff and a unique fighting style.


I hate when they have scenes in trailers but not in the final film. The part where Pepper kisses Tony's helmet and throws it out the back of the plane and Tony jumps saying "you complete me." I'm guessing a scene was cut at the beginning with some dialogue between Pepper and Tony and instead they just went with Tony (with mask on) jumping out before arriving at the expo.

Decent start to the summer movie season which doesn't really look that promising to begin with. The new trailer for Inception took that film to the top of my watch list.

 

[Ken Chan]

Just rewatched the first one afterward, which confirmed it was much better. Building the first armor and the escape; designing and testing the real thing, and the whole sequence where he first uses it and evades the fighters were all just great. The final battle was OK.


This sequel was a badly cobbled-together bunch of at-best-OK scenes. Pacing was poor. Hammer was just not credible as a villain: obviously rich, to act as a foil to Stark, but so stupid and incompetent, you wonder how he got that way -- a real estate mogul that decided to switch to weapons when Stark left the industry?


In the final battle, Stark takes off to draw fire, but then hangs around the Expo, putting civilians in harm's way; so that what? -- stuff can "blow up good"? What's the point of the final blinkin' lights, giving the heroes several extra seconds to escape? Just blow up!


I sympathize with the desire to show the actors' faces, but the idea that they'd spend so much time with the helmets up is tactically dangerous. Tony should add a weapon to automatically blind someone with a beam weapon -- no way there could be sensors to drop the helmet down fast enough. And how is Vanko's head not mush after crossing the repulsor streams?


Best thing about the movie is Scarlett's overly-edited action sequence, and the outfit that she did it in. Good casting of Shandling as the fictional prick, and O'Reilly as the real-life prick.


Matrix-level pooch-screwing of the franchise.

 

[Andrew Pierce]

One gripe I had was how quickly Rhodes learned how to use the armor

Especially since the Tony's armor is not self powered, but rather powered by the reactor in his chest.


I just thought Sam Rockwell was miscast and wasted. Maybe because I'm a huge fan of his, but I didn't find his character mean, or scary or funny or... like anything. Slightly pathetic, maybe. Who wants to watch that? If Stark was the number 1 defense contractor and left the field, how is he the number 2? It's as if the only two basketball teams in the world are the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals.


I did like seeing Tony's alcoholic and self destructive nature come out, lest we forget they are also part of Tony Stark's character. It would have been better if it had been a bit more developed. They could have cut a good chunk of the



ridiculous and scientifically insulting new element from a blueprint, because elements are assembled from blueprints with lasers sequence.


Anyway, I still likes the film. Like Tony Stark, flawed but still charismatic.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Rhodey had completed a full analysis of the Iron Man technology and is an accomplished AF pilot. I assume Tony had, at some point, allowed his best friend a test flight or two. He knows he is dying, and clearly didn't want his death to take IM away. So it would make sense to subtly groom a replacement. And probably upgraded that suit with a reactor to power it. My question is how Rhodey got out of the suit at Edwards AF Base. That would have presented a challenge. I failed to see how Iron Man would be a nuclear deterrent. But I went with it, since it is a comic book film.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer

I failed to see how Iron Man would be a nuclear deterrent. But I went with it, since it is a comic book film.

Consider all of the money the real U.S. government has spent on the Strategic Defense Initiative over the last three decades trying to deisgn missiles smart enough to intercept ICBMs. The Iron Man suit has all of the speed and dexterity of the SDI missiles, but with the advantage of a human brain inside that can creatively target and fire from close proximity range. Short of someone dropping a nuke on or near Tony's home while he's tinkering around in his lab, nuclear weapons are apparently a not issue.


I think the more important thing is that the Iron Man tech is like the nuclear arms race. It's a devastating weapon of mass destruction, but without the inherent check of mutually assured destruction that kept the Cold War cold since WWII. As long as a smart and moral person like Stark or even Rhodey controls the suit, that's a big boon for world peace. But what happens when every major economic power in the world has one? How many cities will be devestated? For instance, how many lives will be lost while South Korea's Iron Man battles North Korea's Iron Man over the streets of Seoul? Let's assume that Stark's most optimistic projections play out and it takes twenty years for his tech to be copied now that Vanko is out of the picture. What happens then? I don't think Stark has an answer yet.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Adam, I warn you...this is my day job . You'd need dozens of suits to perform any sort of adequate missile defense. And he couldn't outrun a F-22 in the first film. A nuclear warhead is traveling much, much, much, much faster than an F-22. And the suit is not a weapon of mass destruction. I'll agree that it would be a devastating conventional weapon, and I absolutely buy the arms race stuff. But it is not a strategic asset. Trust me

 

[EricW]

i didn't hate IM2 as much as others, but it wasn't as good a story as the first. it didn't help that the whole evil benefactor plot has been done to death and it's entire arc was pretty much mapped out and solidified with the shot of Rockwell looking at the tv screen at the Monaco race (that monaco fight was the best action scene in the movie for me, aside from the red laser shot at the end). still, it's fine, use it. it IS a comic book movie. but they didn't add anything to it or make it different.

when i saw the shot of Rourke getting out of the van in the hanger to see Rockwell at an impromptu fancy dinner table, i thought "oh, it's THAT type of movie"

 

[StellarSound]

I haven't seen it yet. But, I'm using my free time to watch it next week!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer

Adam, I warn you...this is my day job . You'd need dozens of suits to perform any sort of adequate missile defense. And he couldn't outrun a F-22 in the first film. A nuclear warhead is traveling much, much, much, much faster than an F-22.

Fair enough, I'll concede this point. But that still falls back to the rules that govern our world's nuclear arsenal: if one country nukes another, the response will be so devastating that to do so would be suicidal. Which takes nuclear war effectively off the table.

And the suit is not a weapon of mass destruction. I'll agree that it would be a devastating conventional weapon, and I absolutely buy the arms race stuff. But it is not a strategic asset. Trust me

But with nuclear war effectively off the table, what's left? Conventional warfare on a technologically advanced scale. And the Iron Man suit is the most devastating conventional weapon on the planet. Given that the best suit (as opposed to the suitcase model) is effectively indestructible, and allowing sufficiently time to reload periodically, Iron Man could level a city through sheer persistence and lack of adequate resistence. Give that fact, it makes sense that he'd be able to end conventional warfare nearly as effectively as the Security Council's nuclear arsenals have ended nuclear warfare.

 

[Steve_Tk]

At the end of the credits.........



Was that thor's hammer they found in New Mexico?

 

[Patrick Sun]

Yup.



Why Terrance Howard didn't reprise his role as Rhodey, IIRC, I thought it was a money thing, and since Marvel Studios has been sort of cheap to pay for "non-vital" roles, they simply recasted the role.

 

[Jose Martinez]

I believe Jon Favreau wasn't too happy with Terence Howard and had to reshoot a lot of his scenes or they ended up on the cutting room floor. I don't think it was about money. I think it had more to do with Howard's ego.