|
jivjov posted:I would argue that his first steps of joining the Avengers doesn't have enough of a presence in this film to warrant mention in a single-sentence summary. That's more a sequel-hook that pays off in Avengers. That's now what you implied earlier; jivjov posted:I still don't understand the "stopped to advertise Avengers" complaints. That's kinda the point of the MCU. It's a shared universe. If the defining 'point' of these movies, above all else, is that they're elements of a shared universe then surely the scenes featuring that in Iron Man 2 are not just noteworthy enough to be excused for their impact on the individual film, but a defining part of it. Surely?
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
The thing about antagonists is they're the driving engines of the movie, really. The protagonist has a life he likes, the antagonist interrupts the flow of things, causing despair and reflection in the protagonist, who corrects his mistakes and proceeds to then overcome the antagonist, thus returning his life to a similar, but not exactly the same, ebb. Neither Ivan Vanko or Hammer in Iron Man 2 do either of the things. Visually they're made out to be nothing in the eyes of the audience, because Tony Stark summarily takes them out in a matter of minutes (the courtroom scene, Monaco, and at the end of the film) with no real danger to himself. There's a lot of stuff smashing and burning in the Monaco scene, and for a few moments when Tony's outside of the suit, Vanko actually seems scary. But the moment Tony puts on his metal skin, the fight's over within a minute. Compare this to Stane and the Iron Monger suit in the first one. After Stane, who has an interesting twist in that he's the primary reason Tony's life before is the way it is while also being behind the interruption that makes the movie exist - he is funneling a genius into ego gratification so that he never gets the itch to take his proper place in the company - puts on the armor, he's able to manhandle Tony, even inside the Iron Man suit. Tony has to think his way out of the fight, depend on other people, check his ego (the big arc reactor is a giant visual representation of Tony's self image) and take the despair and reflection he had at his low point ("Proof that Tony Stark Has A Heart") to take out this antagonist and return to a more normal life again. In place of this, Iron Man 2 chooses to meander down several avenues that are solved arbitrarily. Tony's being poisoned by his arc reactor! No problem, he just fixes it. His dad might have been a capitalist rear end in a top hat! No, wait, he wasn't, in fact he invented an element and left it as a hosed up puzzle for his son to discover in the floor plan of his World's Fair thing just in case, you know, he needed it at some point (what the gently caress, seriously). Also he loved you, Tony. He's not going to be part of the Avengers! He's still told no at the end of the movie. He's under house arrest - until he's not and just drives to his office! He pisses off everyone he loves! I don't even remember the scene where that gets fixed. They just sort of forgive him, I guess? There's just no driving force - no momentum - in Iron Man 2. The pace and structure of the movie is "some stuff happens, y'know, whatever".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I would argue that his first steps of joining the Avengers doesn't have enough of a presence in this film to warrant mention in a single-sentence summary. That's more a sequel-hook that pays off in Avengers. Earlier you said it was a pretty important part of the film. Edit: Beaten
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Neowyrm posted:It got decent reviews, and a lot of people loved it, and it had Robert Downey Jr. in it. None of these are in dispute. Nor have they ever been. To clarify, I think it's great that you like Iron Man 2. I didn't. My loss. I think it's an interesting film to talk about, I'm bummed that the people who like it don't seem to think so. Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 08:16 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:Earlier you said it was a pretty important part of the film. If you give me a second sentence, I'll hit on all that stuff too. I don't have much space to work with. If you want me to prioritize, yes, I'll put the Avengers tie-ins below the standalone parts of the film.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
jivjov posted:If you give me a second sentence, I'll hit on all that stuff too. I don't have much space to work with. If you want me to prioritize, yes, I'll put the Avengers tie-ins below the standalone parts of the film. Why?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Except for the whole Iron Man centric story arc. I'm starting to think you haven't actually watched Iron Man 2 recently and are just parroting back complaints like an echo chamber. That story arc is there, it's just not compelling or interesting in any way. I watched Iron Man 2 recently enough to be able to remember it quite well, thank you, and I have no real desire to watch it again.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Why? Because while I like the Avengers tie-in stuff quite a bit, I do prefer the Iron Man 2-ness stuff on the whole. Justin Hammer is one of my personal favorite characters to ever grace the screen.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Because while I like the Avengers tie-in stuff quite a bit, I do prefer the Iron Man 2-ness stuff on the whole. Justin Hammer is one of my personal favorite characters to ever grace the screen. I don't think declaring the 'Avengers tie-in stuff' the entire point of the MCU works if you then sub-divide each film down into 'Avengers tie-in stuff' and 'the actual films'. At that point, the Avengers tie-in stuff are essentially the ads that stop the movie that you claimed they weren't. No?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
Um, okay, Iron Man 2 might not have been nearly as good as it could have been, but not because you can't systematically summarize the plot within some arbitrarily breezy guidelines. I can't summarize every detailed story point of The Empire Strikes Back in a convenient catchy slogan, but that doesn't mean the movie was hard to follow. (Meanwhile everyone can certainly summarize The Avengers in one sentence but most people here still whinge about it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I don't think declaring the 'Avengers tie-in stuff' the entire point of the MCU works if you then sub-divide each film down into 'Avengers tie-in stuff' and 'the actual films'. At that point, the Avengers tie-in stuff are essentially the ads that stop the movie that you claimed they weren't. No? Look, I'm just gonna bow out of this discussion, okay? I'm having a hard time articulating my points, and all we're doing (or at least all I'm doing) is struggling not to get overly frustrated.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Um, okay, Iron Man 2 might not have been nearly as good as it could have been, but not because you can't systematically summarize the plot within some arbitrarily breezy guidelines. I can't summarize every detailed story point of The Empire Strikes Back in a convenient catchy slogan, but that doesn't mean the movie was hard to follow. I don't think that was intended as a measure of quality, but rather how confused and mis-managed Iron Man 2's plot is.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Um, okay, Iron Man 2 might not have been nearly as good as it could have been, but not because you can't systematically summarize the plot within some arbitrarily breezy guidelines. I can't summarize every detailed story point of The Empire Strikes Back in a convenient catchy slogan, but that doesn't mean the movie was hard to follow. I think "the Empire Strikes Back" works pretty well.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I don't think that was intended as a measure of quality, but rather how confused and mis-managed Iron Man 2's plot is. Yeah, he said nobody was voicing legitimate criticisms of Iron Man 2 so I voiced mine and let him prove my point for me. How many of you remember Sam Rockwell is in that movie, or what War Machine does up until the very end?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Neowyrm posted:I think "the Empire Strikes Back" works pretty well. Fun fact: Iron Man 2's original, longer title was "This is a movie about SHIELD...and it's got Iron Man, Too!"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Fun fact: Iron Man 2's original, longer title was "This is a movie about SHIELD...and it's got Iron Man, Too!" that wasn't fun at all! PS: I will actively start boycotting marvel films if any one of the movies, at any time, uses the ", too!" numbering method.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Yeah, he said nobody was voicing legitimate criticisms of Iron Man 2 so I voiced mine and let him prove my point for me. How many of you remember Sam Rockwell is in that movie, or what War Machine does up until the very end? Well, "War Machine" as an entity doesn't really exist until the very end, so that's kind of a loaded question. And anybody who remembers Fury more than Rockwell just wasn't paying attention to 80% of the movie. I'm not a huge fan of Iron Man 2, though I also think the "it's just an Avengers infomercial" complaints are generally pretty overblown. The vast majority of the movie is focused on the Stark-Vanko/Hammer conflict and Tony's family history. The Tony/Pepper romance plot is far more pronounced than the SHIELD stuff, as is the tension between Tony and the military as represented by Rhodes. Thor is definitely the best of the standalone movies though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
The Avengers stuff is integrated pretty in a pretty clunky manner, but the complete deflation of Tony's conflict with his father's legacy is the true unforgivable crime of Iron Man 2. The way everything just works out perfectly for him with no repercussions, dear old dad was exactly the libertarian bootstraps paragon he always believed in and Vanko's dad was just a Cold War stereotype stealing good ol' American innovation and ejhafdghshgahjsghvalvra  Good lord, even Superman Returns had Superman suffering kryptonite poisoning and almost dying after literally throwing all his problems into space, Tony got off easy and just had his enemy hand over his cure in exchange for a co-op boss fight.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
Ultimately the problem is that a whole lot of poo poo happens in Iron Man 2 and almost none of it is related.
scary ghost dog fucked around with this message at 09:35 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I think the conclusion to the Vanko plot is pretty bad and the movie would be a lot better if Vanko had been right about Howard Stark.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
I still don't get how "Howard Stark turns out to be a prick" would somehow make the movie better. But then I find Iron Man 2 to have the best villains who get to be the least menacing. Honestly the Shield stuff would have been better as a big end-credits too, but I guess they needed something to go from "Rhodey crashes Tony's dangerous party" to "Tony saves himself from dying"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:29
|
|
|
It also really doesn't help how weirdly meek and spiritless the CGI robofights are. There is no threat or punch in this movie, even in the spectacle, and every interesting idea the movie brings up is dropped in favor of a completely empty resolution for all characters involved.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:47
|
|
|
Fishylungs posted:I still don't get how "Howard Stark turns out to be a prick" would somehow make the movie better. Because then there's actually narrative weight and meaning to Tony's changes than him just getting a spiritual pat on the back and deciding to carry on the awesome Stark legacy. The point of Iron Man is Tony clashing with his past, not embracing it and cheering it on.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:The point of Iron Man is Tony clashing with his past, not embracing it and cheering it on. I said I bowed out, so I ask this with as little values judgement as I can...who decides what the "point" of Iron Man is?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:06
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I said I bowed out, so I ask this with as little values judgement as I can...who decides what the "point" of Iron Man is? Anyone who engages with it, and anyone else is free to challenge it. That is very much the crux of discussion and debate. I have no intention of putting a giant, flashing sign stating that my posts are my opinion, but if you'd like to write yourself a note to ensure you don't forget it, help yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:14
|
|
|
Fishylungs posted:I still don't get how "Howard Stark turns out to be a prick" would somehow make the movie better. Well for one thing it would really strengthen Vanko as a villain. As it stands, his motivation is vengeance for crimes committed against his father by Howard Stark, but we learn that those crimes were never committed and it was in fact Vanko's father who was the criminal while Howard was the victim. That can work fine, except Vanko himself is never confronted with the truth before Tony kills him. There is a way to make great drama out of either Tony or Vanko being deceived by their fathers about their legacy, but instead they went with a less effective half-measure.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
ShakeZula posted:Well for one thing it would really strengthen Vanko as a villain. As it stands, his motivation is vengeance for crimes committed against his father by Howard Stark, but we learn that those crimes were never committed and it was in fact Vanko's father who was the criminal while Howard was the victim. That can work fine, except Vanko himself is never confronted with the truth before Tony kills him. There is a way to make great drama out of either Tony or Vanko being deceived by their fathers about their legacy, but instead they went with a less effective half-measure. And it seems as if the executive meddling to cram the Avengers stuff into the film at the last minute may well have caused some of these clumsy elements instead of giving them a chance to devise something more organic and satisfying. Maybe that's not what actually happened, but it probably didn't help!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:37
|
|
|
There's an Overthinking It article about Iron Man 2 which pretty much sums up all the problems I have with it: The first half of the film sets up a pretty drat interesting and ballsy story, heavily implying that Vanko's father was screwed over by Howard Stark, and without Vanko Sr's input, this eventually led to the deficancies in the arc reactor that's causing Tony Stark's poisoning, the idea being that the son pays for the sins of the father. This also makes Vanko's line about "that's a painful way to die" a lot more effective. This is all more or less thrown out the window once Nick Fury shows up (let's not forget that anyone who didn't watch the Iron Man 1 credits won't have any idea who he is), and yeah it's pretty obvious that Marvel executives threw a shitfit. This is why we have an incredibly uninteresting second half in which nope! Turns out that Howard Stark was a Real American Hero and the Vankos are Mean Russians Who Are Just Plain Mean, and it turns out that Tony can cure his poisoning with his father's love, or something. It's one half of a great movie that has an awful second half hammered awkwardly onto it, and it's not all that surprising that Favreau ruled out directing for Marvel again because of it. Iron Man 3 was a massive improvement on this, and I guess Iron Man 2 was kind of the misstep that needed to happen in Marvel's Phase One in order to move forward.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 11:34
|
|
|
Even in Iron Man, there's not a ton of character growth, but it's still there - Stark realizes his weapons are being used to kill innocent people, and decides it's his responsibility to fix that. Iron Man 2 started off by hinting that maybe his decision to become a one-man army wasn't the right one, and as mentioned the whole "sins of the father" thing. But nope, his Dad's a saint, the villian is just a loving rear end in a top hat, and it turns out being a one man army was exactly the right choice! Oh, and on top of which Pepper melts into a puddle of Barbie goo at the end because trying do this "man stuff" like running a company is hard.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
It's great how Iron Man 3 reverses almost all of that. The villain is someone Tony was an rear end in a top hat to, trying to be a one-man army becomes one of Tony's problems, and Pepper not only gets featured on a business magazine cover she also defeats the villain.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
One of the reasons I haven't watched Avengers is I really didn't like Iron Man 2 and figured it was just "Tony Stark stand up comedy hour" because that is all I remember from the first 2 Iron Man is that everyone thought they were funny. I haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises but I've seen the dark knight (sorry I kept saying I haven't seen the dark knight, I forget they have the same name). I will watch Avengers and see how it is then I will watch the dark knight rises and see how it is. It will probably make me want to watch 1980s Punisher and Batman Returns since those are the best Marvel & Batman movies that I remember.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
If you haven't yet, go watch Punisher: War Zone.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Tony faces both down his mortality and his memories and opinion of his father when a previously unknown man from his past teams up with a rival businessman to ruin the Stark name. I don't mean to pile on, but this is actually a good example of why the movie doesn't work. At no point in the movie - and I rewatched it yesterday while doing some housecleaning - do Hammer or Vanko come close to ruining the Stark name. Hammer talks about doing so, and then spends the rest of the movie failing to release a rival product, which even if successful wouldn't have ruined the Stark name. Similarly, Vanko talks about how once he's made a god bleed, others will take a shot at him,.. and then the only consequence of the Monaco attack is that Hammer continues his already extant attempts to produce a competing product to the Iron Man technology. The Cameo posted:No, wait, he wasn't, in fact he invented an element and left it as a hosed up puzzle for his son to discover in the floor plan of his World's Fair thing just in case, you know, he needed it at some point (what the gently caress, seriously). Howard Stark simply made the natural assumption that someday his son would need to have a miniaturized arc reactor installed inside of him. Hey, Tony, I've got a suggestion for how to keep from getting poisoned: just use a normal battery like we saw in the first movie.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
jivjov posted:No lie, if I could get an Agent Coulson action figure with a decent Clark Gregg face sculpt, I'd be all over that. http://www.sideshowtoy.com/?page_id=4489&sku=901936#HotToysItem 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Holy God the detail is amazing. I thought it was a photoshop adjusted picture of him but that's real? I understand why it might cost 174 for what might have gone into making it (and is someone really going to pay that price?).
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
I love how the suggested companion figure is Thor. It's only right that Son of Coul be displayed with the one who christened him that.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Holy God the detail is amazing. I thought it was a photoshop adjusted picture of him but that's real? I understand why it might cost 174 for what might have gone into making it (and is someone really going to pay that price?). As a collector of those types of figures, $174 is on the low end. I paid $250 for figures made after Joker and Batman from the 89 Burton film. Yes, they look real as well. Definitely worth the cost if you're into collecting.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Between Hammer and Vanko, they could have told a perfectly fine Armor Wars story about Tony dealing with being Oppenheimer, without the dull poisoning subplot. And maybe we could have had an interesting SHIELD subplot like Hammer or Vanko being considered for the Avengers like in The Consultant short film.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
ShakeZula posted:Well for one thing it would really strengthen Vanko as a villain. As it stands, his motivation is vengeance for crimes committed against his father by Howard Stark, but we learn that those crimes were never committed and it was in fact Vanko's father who was the criminal while Howard was the victim. That can work fine, except Vanko himself is never confronted with the truth before Tony kills him. There is a way to make great drama out of either Tony or Vanko being deceived by their fathers about their legacy, but instead they went with a less effective half-measure. It's the second I read this it clicked. Vanko picks a fight with Tony, and instead of murdering the guy Tony reaching out to him would probably be a better ending to the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
Fishylungs posted:It's the second I read this it clicked. Vanko picks a fight with Tony, and instead of murdering the guy Tony reaching out to him would probably be a better ending to the whole thing. Yeah. I don't think it's legitimate to criticize a movie for merely not being what you hoped it would be. But when half-a-dozen of the film's most evident problems could be resolved by this sort of change it's pretty frustrating. And I think it puts some weight to the theory that this was, in fact, how the movie was supposed to go before Marvel interfered.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:05
|
|