Anyone else think the Ironman 2 trailer is crap?

[Trekker4747]

Are you using Rocky II as an example of a superior sequel, or Star Trek II as an example of an inferior sequel? Because, either way, I have to disagree on at least one count. Not that the law of diminishing returns is usually wrong. Most sequels are less than the films that came before.

I call bullshit. There was no "Rocky II" there was only the original and then the "Rocky Balboa" follow-up that came out a couple years ago. There was no other movies in Rocky franchise.

No.

None.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I must break you.

 

[Myasishchev]

Yes it wasn't an impressive trailer, IMHO. I, as the comic book illiterate peon that I am, found it rather poor, but then, what do I know? Transformers was a big hit, I'm out of touch, clearly.

Who the fuck's bright idea was it to use fucking Whiplash, is what I want to know. Whiplash. Christ.

The stupid-looking supervillain with the suit, right?

Just curious: Is there a way to do him where he isn't so silly, or is this 'true to the comics', as it were?

God no. Whiplash/"Blacklash" (yeah, really) sucked in the comics too. He's pretty much the definition of a stock villain, someone you get to give the Iron Man issue some action when the main story is Tony Stark drinking himself into a coma. Alternatively, he's some guy in the background when Justin Hammer or Baron Zemo organizes an army of supervillains. I mean, I don't think Whiplash ever was in the Masters of Evil, but he's pretty much on par with the losers that were members--effective in numbers, eminently disposable, and lame on their own.

Frankly, from the trailer, I think that's probably about as cool as Whiplash could possibly be. Which is to say, well-rendered and probably ably played by Mickey Rourke, but at the end of the day a guy who tries to kill Iron Man with whips.

I read somewhere that they were using some of the Crimson Dynamo's backstory but Whiplash's powers and, ah, accouterments. The Dynamo was the Soviet response to Iron Man. Which has two built-in coolness factors: he's Soviet, and he's metal. This also ties in well with the Black Widow, who is also Russian and a good potential antagonist in her own right. Unfortunately, they believed that the Dynamo would be too similar to Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger from the first film in concept. So they went with... Whiplash.

It kind of shows how Iron Man's rogues gallery was never the strong suit of the series. Essentially, the good Iron Man villains boil down to the Mandarin and alcohol.

Rarely are sequels as good as or better than the originals (See Rocky 2 and Star trek II) but somtimes they are WAY worse and I fear this will be the case with this movie.

Five words: Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey. Also, Wayne's World 2. Although I'm sure someone would argue the counterpoints for either.

 

[Kegg]

I read somewhere that they were using some of the Crimson Dynamo's backstory but Whiplash's powers and, ah, accouterments. The Dynamo was the Soviet response to Iron Man. Which has two built-in coolness factors: he's Soviet, and he's metal.

Yeah, from my skimming of the wikipedia entry a lot of the Iron Man backstory had to do with the Cold War. I guess they figured the Cold War isn't as topical as The Wrestler?

I like the idea of rival national robosuits, though. I'd run with that and suggest robosuits are like the atom bomb, all major nations want in on the action and maybe India Man and Pakistan Man would have epic, scenery-destroying fights that get covered in press conferences and the like. I find the idea amusing, anyway.

Unfortunately, they believed that the Dynamo would be too similar to Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger from the first film in concept. So they went with... Whiplash.

Eh. Honestly? As far as the Iron Man concept goes (in my very limited understanding of it) you can't go wrong with two robosuits pummelling it out. I wasn't that thrilled with the Iron Man/Iron Monger fight, but it's got the right idea.

 

[Harvey]

Are you using Rocky II as an example of a superior sequel, or Star Trek II as an example of an inferior sequel? Because, either way, I have to disagree on at least one count. Not that the law of diminishing returns is usually wrong. Most sequels are less than the films that came before.

I call bullshit. There was no "Rocky II" there was only the original and then the "Rocky Balboa" follow-up that came out a couple years ago. There was no other movies in Rocky franchise.

No.

None.

Works for me. Those are the only two Rocky films that I own and desire to watch ever again.

Well, maybe Rocky IV. Brilliant comedy.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^ That, and the Vince DiCola score.

 

[Galactus]

I can name a villain for Iron Man for up to 6 movies easy. Whiplash would not, I repeat not be on that list. Maybe I am missing something but why are these movies so hard to do

 

[Kelso]

The Iron Man 2 trailer was fine. It was actually exactly what I expected to see... more Tony Stark, more Iron Man, more comic book villains. Didn't you guys see the first one?

 

[Trek4Ever]

The trailer didn't do much for me, from the so-so Whiplash villain to Stark's snarky remarks to the new Rhodey I'd have to say the only interesting plot that caught my eye was the U.S. coveting the Iron Man armor.

For some reason I get the feeling that might be a minor point in the film. Overall this film is screaming at me: "Wait for the DVD" then again I wasn't a big fan of the first film (great first half with a mediocre second part). So why not use the alcohol plot?

 

[RoJoHen]

I think they're probably banking on the fact that most people probably don't know who Whiplash is. I certainly don't. I don't know a damn thing about Ironman.

 

[exodus]

I think they're probably banking on the fact that most people probably don't know who Whiplash is. I certainly don't. I don't know a damn thing about Ironman.

Exactly.
There's a whole mass audience out there that is being introduced to Iron-Man for the first time.

Not everyone reads comics.
...and for those that do, not all of them read Iron-Man.

 

[Othello]

Are you using Rocky II as an example of a superior sequel, or Star Trek II as an example of an inferior sequel? Because, either way, I have to disagree on at least one count. Not that the law of diminishing returns is usually wrong. Most sequels are less than the films that came before.

I'm using Rocky II as an example of a sequel that is at least as good as the original and Star trek II as one that is superior to the original. IE- they are the exceptions to the general rule of sequels being lesser than the original.