Avengers 2 News, Rumors, Etc. Pictures until release...

[Mage]

Like would be a strong word for Iron Man 2, for me personally. I mean, it's a fun flick, with good humor and strong action sequences. But as a baddy, Vanko just didn't deliver. The two times he was opposite Tony, he got his ass handed to him pretty fast. Sure, Tony didn't walk away unharmed. But compared to what Stane could do with Iron Monger..... And that took the fun out of it for me.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Iron Man 2 had more problems than that. Originally the villain had a complex backstory that the actor worked on in detail. And the director had this rather serious notion that Tony should face the prospect of his mortality.

But Marvel was like, sure, tell whatever story you like, but be sure you gibve as many easter eggs that point to the Avengers. Any chance you get.

Look, the idea of Tony facing his own mortality is a story that is incompatible with the idea that they are tapping him for the Avengers Initiative. The story is a mess.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Iron Man 2 is a glorified commercial for Avengers. That's it. Jon Favreau and Mickey Rourke have both voiced their displeasure with Marvel when working on that movie. With what Favreau has said his original intentions were and what we see Tony doing in the movie; excessively drinking and acting out. It is my opinion that Favreau wanted to tell an adaptation of the Iron Man comic "Demon in a Bottle".

Where Tony turns to consumption in order to forget his problems as things begin to fall apart for him in life.


We get parts of that in Iron Man 2 but it doesn't thread the needle well at all.

 

[Doctorwhovian]

Apart from Stane I think the Iron man movie villains have been fairly weak. Much has been made about the Mandarin, but I think with Justin Hammer they tried to make him a bit too much like Downey Jr.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I do think Iron Man 2 is not a cohesive story, but it felt like to me that the combination of Demon in a Bottle and Armor Wars is what did it, not the Avengers stuff. The story also wanted to compare two father-son relationships. The Avengers stuff actually facilitated that storyline by revealing to Tony that his father worked with SHIELD. It was really only a couple of scenes anyway. Maybe those couple of scenes could have been scenes that added to Vanko's backstory, but it would only have added a few minutes to the runtime if they wanted to do both.

My point is this: I don't think it was an easy fix to make Iron Man 2 a better movie. And I don't think it was Black Widow and Nick Fury that ruined it.

 

[Anwar]

I second that Stane was the best villain in the Iron Man films, though the Mandarin twist really worked for me as well.

 

[kirk55555]

For Iron Man 2, my only problem was Whiplash. He sucked, both when it comes to writing and acting. Besides that, I liked it. I liked all the SHIELD stuff, and the introduction of the Black Widow. I am really glad we never got too much of drunk Tony. The drunk Tony scene in IM2 is the most problematic, anyway (seriously, can just anyone steal his armor? He doesn't have it tied to his life signs, or even just password protected?). It wasn't bad as a comic storyline, but "Demon in a Bottle" is not a storyline I think ever needs to be done in live action. One thing Marvel has definitely been great at is mixing serious stuff with not serious stuff. Having some involved plot in a movie about Tony Stark's fall into alcoholism would be way too dark, more like a Nolan movie. With a better villain, I think Iron Man 2 would be great, instead of just very good.

Marvel has been having villain problems lately. Thor 2 had a great actor for Maleketh but spent WAY too much time with Natalie Portman and not nearly enough time fleshing out the villain. Guardians of the Galaxy could have used a few more scenes making Ronan a more interesting villain as well. But, when it comes down to it, Marvel movies are, for me, the best superhero movies ever made. Even its weakest, like IM2, are better than most superhero movies, and honestly I think there are a lot of good superhero movies in general. Marvel just happens to be the best in my opinion.

 

[DWF]

For Iron Man 2, my only problem was Whiplash. He sucked, both when it comes to writing and acting. Besides that, I liked it. I liked all the SHIELD stuff, and the introduction of the Black Widow. I am really glad we never got too much of drunk Tony. The drunk Tony scene in IM2 is the most problematic, anyway (seriously, can just anyone steal his armor? He doesn't have it tied to his life signs, or even just password protected?). It wasn't bad as a comic storyline, but "Demon in a Bottle" is not a storyline I think ever needs to be done in live action. One thing Marvel has definitely been great at is mixing serious stuff with not serious stuff. Having some involved plot in a movie about Tony Stark's fall into alcoholism would be way too dark, more like a Nolan movie. With a better villain, I think Iron Man 2 would be great, instead of just very good.

Well, they combined the characters of Whiplash and the Crimson Dydamo which might not have a been a good idea. And as Fury pointed iin the movie Stark allowed Rhodey to take his armor since he didn't try and stop him. And Tony got drunk on his birthday as a suggestion from Natasha, the situation was completely different from the events in Demon In A Bottle.

 

[kirk55555]

Well, they combined the characters of Whiplash and the Crimson Dydamo which might not have a been a good idea. And as Fury pointed iin the movie Stark allowed Rhodey to take his armor since he didn't try and stop him. And Ton'y got drunk on his birthday as a suggestion from Natasha, the situation was completely different from the events in Demon In A Bottle.

I know it wasn't supposed to be related to "Demon in a Bottle", I didn't mean to connect the scene with that. Also, while he may have "let" Rhodey take the suit, it doesn't change the fact that he left a suit in his basement not only unguarded, but completely unlocked. Sure, someone needed the code to enter the basement, but I can't believe that he just left a suit, presumably one he hasn't bothered with for awhile, completely unlocked so anyone could jump in and take it. He didn't plan for rhodey to take it, he just didn't take it back once he was sober, which he probably could have done.

 

[DWF]

Well, they combined the characters of Whiplash and the Crimson Dydamo which might not have a been a good idea. And as Fury pointed iin the movie Stark allowed Rhodey to take his armor since he didn't try and stop him. And Ton'y got drunk on his birthday as a suggestion from Natasha, the situation was completely different from the events in Demon In A Bottle.

I know it wasn't supposed to be related to "Demon in a Bottle", I didn't mean to connect the scene with that. Also, while he may have "let" Rhodey take the suit, it doesn't change the fact that he left a suit in his basement not only unguarded, but completely unlocked. Sure, someone needed the code to enter the basement, but I can't believe that he just left a suit, presumably one he hasn't bothered with for awhile, completely unlocked so anyone could jump in and take it. He didn't plan for rhodey to take it, he just didn't take it back once he was sober, which he probably could have done.

Rhodey had access to the lab so I don't really think it's a big deal. However I wonder how the armor was powered since it was powered by the generator in Stark's chest, so I wonder how Rhodey was able to use it in the first place.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Iron Man 2 is a glorified commercial for Avengers. That's it. Jon Favreau and Mickey Rourke have both voiced their displeasure with Marvel when working on that movie.

From what I've seen and read, Mickey Rourke was extremely put off by the experience.

 

[Mage]

I second that Stane was the best villain in the Iron Man films, though the Mandarin twist really worked for me as well.

Same here, I really liked that.

 

[Doctorwhovian]

Tony's alchoholism has also been revisited many times in the comics since "Demon", such as the original Stane storyline that led to the first time Rhodes took over in the suit and Tony practically a homeless drunk (Which ended similar to the first Iron Man movie with a showdown between Stark in a new armor and "Iron Monger" Stane), the "Crossing" storyline (Which led to his 'death'...ah sort of) "Avengers dissasembled" and most recently, the "Superior" Iron Man series.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, they combined the characters of Whiplash and the Crimson Dydamo which might not have a been a good idea.

I've always made it a habit to either refer to the character as Crimson Dynamo or Vanko. I don't think he was Whiplash in anything more than abilities. But did Whiplash have much of a personality anyway? Aside from the confusion, I don't think it did much harm. They can always go with Titanium Man if they want another Russian Iron Man clone. Plus, Agents of SHIELD went with the other whiplash to make up for it.

And as Fury pointed iin the movie Stark allowed Rhodey to take his armor since he didn't try and stop him.

Yeah, I thought that was the implication everyone got, not just me. I don't think it's easy to steal the armor unless Stark wanted you to steal the armor.

And Ton'y got drunk on his birthday as a suggestion from Natasha, the situation was completely different from the events in Demon In A Bottle.

Eh, even if the events are different, I do think it was a callback to Demon in a Bottle. It's not the idea of Stark getting drunk, it's the idea of Stark being a self-destructive drunk. But they definitely toned it down. Generally, the MCU characters are far less self-destructive than the comic versions.

 

[Set Harth]

I do think Iron Man 2 is not a cohesive story, but it felt like to me that the combination of Demon in a Bottle and Armor Wars is what did it, not the Avengers stuff. The story also wanted to compare two father-son relationships. The Avengers stuff actually facilitated that storyline by revealing to Tony that his father worked with SHIELD. It was really only a couple of scenes anyway. Maybe those couple of scenes could have been scenes that added to Vanko's backstory, but it would only have added a few minutes to the runtime if they wanted to do both.

My point is this: I don't think it was an easy fix to make Iron Man 2 a better movie. And I don't think it was Black Widow and Nick Fury that ruined it.

I agree... I don't think the Avengers stuff occupied much of the overall running time.

 

[Enterprise1701]

Interview between Empire and Robert Downey, Jr., including about his role in Avengers: Age of Ultron.

http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=2014

 

[Turtletrekker]

New Age of Ultron poster!

And a look at the small print officially confirms for the first time appearances from...

Spoiler: Appearing in AoU

...Idris Elba, Hayley Atwell and Anthony Mackie. Elba, of course, confirmed this himself already, much to the studio's dismay. Atwell had been long rumored, but Mackie comes as surprise.

But not...?

Spoiler: But not...?

...Tom Hiddleston? Didn't Elba let say Hiddleston was with him on the Avengers set?

 

[Icemizer]

I thought my photoshop skills were lame, that poster is terrible.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

New Age of Ultron poster!

And a look at the small print officially confirms for the first time appearances from...

Spoiler: Appearing in AoU

...Idris Elba, Hayley Atwell and Anthony Mackie. Elba, of course, confirmed this himself already, much to the studio's dismay. Atwell had been long rumored, but Mackie comes as surprise.

But not...?

Spoiler: But not...?

...Tom Hiddleston? Didn't Elba let say Hiddleston was with him on the Avengers set?

Damn, the credits squeezed in just about everyone. Even though I knew he was appearing, it's good to see Don Cheadle listed.

 

[DWF]

Where's the kitchen sink at?