Iron Man 3 Discussion/Photos/ETC.

[Samurai8472]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

i never really got that it was 'an avengers trailer' either. maybe it did seem like it a bit since it had Widow AND War Machine in, but since WM didn't appear in Avengers, it's even less like one now.

For me War Machine was Iron Man 2's own plot/thing

Bringing in Nick Fury and Black Widow was to drum up Avengers talk.

Now if the general audience never watched the end credits of Iron Man 1 with Nick Fury then some of Iron Man 2 wouldn't make sense.


Tony Stark is sitting in the donut

Some guy with an eye patch is asking him to join some sort of "boy band"

[LaxScrutiny]

Set Harth wrote:

---

You're forgetting the penultimate scene in which it's made to look like Fury doesn't want Tony for the Avengers ( even though we all knew how that would turn out ), showing Tony being handed explicit Avengers documentation, complete with a computer screen showing the locations corresponding to individual Avengers on a world map. ( In addition, when Coulson leaves for NM, we're meant to understand that's some kind of S.H.I.E.L.D. thing even before we see the scene after the credits. )

Iron Man has always been connected to SHIELD and this was clear in the first movie. SHIELD is not the Avengers, and it wouldn't have made any sense to introduce SHIELD as an agency that was backing up/covering up for Tony in IM1 and then they cease to be involved in IM2.

All there is in IM2 about the Avengers is the few seconds that you just described. It ignores the entire plot of the movie to describe IM2 as nothing but an Avengers trailer based on those minimal scenes.

Take those scenes out, and the rest of the movie isn't affected one bit. So yes, they are part of the multi-movie tie in, but Avengers references aren't the only substance of the film, they are completely irrelevent to the rest of the film, which is exactly how they should have been.

If you thought the other 123 minutes were completely pointless, or you slept through them, fine. That is a valid reason for you to not like the movie. But the 1 minute of Avengers reference didn't sink the movie or make an Avengers trailer.

If you said this about Captain America, which shared the same Mcguffin as Avengers and said it was basically a prequel, I'd say sure. It was basically a prequel, and the part of the title that said " the first Avenger" should be our first clue. But there were no plot connections like that with IM, it stands on it's own as a movie about Tony Stark.

[Set Harth]

LaxScrutiny wrote:

---

That is a valid reason for you to not like the movie.

"You"? When did I ever say that I didn't like the movie, or that I didn't like the movie due to Avengers content?

LaxScrutiny wrote:

---

All there is in IM2 about the Avengers is the few seconds that you just described.

We're talking about a few scenes, not a few seconds.

LaxScrutiny wrote:

---

But the 1 minute of Avengers reference

Wait, now it's up to a minute?

Since any conceivable length of time can be looked at as an amount of seconds, it seems disingenuous to dismiss a collection of scenes - certainly totaling more than "1 minute" - as a matter of "seconds".

[LaxScrutiny]

Since it's so important to you, the scene with Fury talking to Stark about the Avengers lasts from 1:54:11 to 1:56:01. That's the only reference to the Avengers in the movie. My point is, the movie is not an Avengers trailer. You haven't given anything to show it is.

[DarthPipes]

I'm a little wary about focusing the movie more on Tony Stark if I'm being honest. Downey was great in the role in the first film and in the Avengers but Iron Man 2 relied too much on Tony's wacky antics and failed miserably on a creative level. The villains were nothing short of pathetic, with Rockwell's character only being there to make Tony Stark look good in compariosn. There was also the waste of time "I'm dying" storyline, which was something the ultimately brought nothing to the story. They missed their chance for Demon in a Bottle as well.

[Dream]

DarthPipes wrote:

---

I'm a little wary about focusing the movie more on Tony Stark if I'm being honest. Downey was great in the role in the first film and in the Avengers but Iron Man 2 relied too much on Tony's wacky antics and failed miserably on a creative level.

You don't like Iron Man if you don't want the next movie to actually focus on Tony.

[RoJoHen]

Yeah. Who should the movie focus on if not Tony Stark?

[Samurai8472]

^
The robot arm from the first movie

[Dream]

The villains in Iron Man 2 were indeed pathetic. Tony was never in any more danger than he was in the first 40 minutes of the first movie. Tony building the first suit was pretty much his way of saying screw you to God after being put in a life or death situation. The problem is that he always feels so invincible whenever he is in the suit.

What was great about Avengers was that there was finally another villain that could threaten him on a physical level. Oh yeah, and no stupid getting drunk at parties.

The problem in IM2 wasn't Tony, it was not giving him anything interesting to do during the entire Act 2 of IM2.

[DarthPipes]

Dream wrote:

---

You don't like Iron Man if you don't want the next movie to actually focus on Tony.

I'm not saying that. As pointed out, Tony had nothing to do but basically goof around for most of Iron Man 2. I think they played up Downey doing his shtick too much and it just didn't work.

In Iron Man 2, Tony talks about manufacturing world peace but we never see it. There actually felt like there was less action in Iron Man 2 than in the first movie and I didn't think that was possible.

[Dream]

DarthPipes wrote:

---

In Iron Man 2, Tony talks about manufacturing world peace but we never see it. There actually felt like there was less action in Iron Man 2 than in the first movie and I didn't think that was possible.

Yeah, one of the huge flaws with IM2 was that there were barely any Iron Man action scenes. We got way more and better done Iron Man action scenes in Avengers than we ever got in IM2, even though that movie had an entire team of superheroes!

[SalvorHardin]

New armor revealed at Comic-con

[Donald Draper]

Hmm, interesting. Just looks like a new paint job.

[sojourner]

Looks like a specific use suit.

[DWF]

It certainly looks sleeker than the Mark VI used the Avengers movie.