Why do people keep saying they didn't follow up on Tony's alcoholism? Tony plastered himself because he thought he was dying and didn't give a rats arse about anything anymore. He fought War Machine in the Iron Man armor DRUNK at his own birthday party endangering his own guests. Was this a major plot of the movie? No. It was a subplot and a continuation of a conversation on the plane between Tony and Rhodes from the first film. Favs has given an interview or two I believe touching on the Demon in the Bottle storyline from the comics and explaining that he's included elements of it in the films but not used it as an entire plot in the film. One could argue that the main villain in the film was Tony himself. Blinded and arrogant by his new found spotlight as Iron Man, dealing with dying and drowning himself with boos. Valko and Hammer weren't executed well enough I don't think. Hammer as I stated in the original Iron Man 2 discussion thread seemed to be a carbon copy of Tony but flawed. He needed to be less jokey and a little more sinister.
I didn't mean follow up, which is what they did do. I said follow through, which I meant making it the basis for the film, more like the Demon in the Bottle storyline. Wouldn't it have been more compelling if movie Hammer was competent enough an adversary to drive Tony to drinking instead of this blood disease?