Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by JacksonArcher, Aug 6, 2010.
According to this article, the character is listed in the credits as "10 Rings Gangster".
The Demon in a Bottle storyline WAS used in both films...I don't think you'd be able to craft an entire two hour blockbuster film around that story arc. I'm quite satisfied with the way it has been used as part of Tony's character.
Johansson is tied to Marvel for multiple films... unless she says something bad about them.
When she signed her contract it was widely reported how bad a deal she got.
I thought IM2 was fantastic, at least as good as IM, and that the amount of Avengers build-up was exactly right: it helped move the story along without dominating things.
And no, it wouldn't work to just assemble the team cold in Avengers. That worked for LXG, but audiences were unfamiliar with those characters, especially those incarnations thereof. But people'd get bored with too many introductions for this one.
I also think the build-up aspects are great fun. It's said to be the first time in film history such a simultaneous, shared continuity is being attempted. For that kind of inherent excitement, I'll gladly watch such Avengers scenes as well-integrated as IM2's.
I was just pointing out why the writers would never put those scenes into the movie. You made the joke and I further explained why it would be a bad idea. I never actually thought that you were that bloodthristy.
I suppose there were a few too many story elements in IM2, but take away the Avengers stuff and you STILL have a movie with two dull and uncompelling villains (Whiplash and Hammer), and a serious lack of exciting and thrilling action (aside from the well-executed raceway battle, none of the other sequences stand out in my memory at all now).
Maybe budget and time issues got in the way a little bit, but ultimately I gotta believe those were two things Favreau had the biggest say in, not Marvel.
in an interview Favreau said something like parts of the story kept on shifting. both due to the avengers film.
somethings marvel wanted in and then he shifted something from the third movie to this one due to concerns about what marvel was going to with the iron man character in the avengers movie.
My problem with IM2 was not enough action. There's the racing fight... and the fight at the end. Some people count drunk Tony slapping around War Machine. And that's it. I loved the Avenger-y stuff in it.
I loved the Avengers stuff as well but I could see how it would annoy a filmmaker trying to tell the story he wanted to tell. There were pacing problems with this film as well that bothered me. I was excited about this movie as anyone else was, it was a big disappointment. I'm looking forward to "The Avengers" but hopefully after that is released and does massive box office numbers that if Favs is able to return he's able to tell the Iron Man 3 story he wants.
Iron Man 2 had an interesting first act, but it had a completely meandering and lifeless second act that really took the film down. Fortunately it was saved (only mildly) by an entertaining third act but after that the damage was already done. I just remember leaving the theater feeling underwhelmed. When you left the theater for the first film, the entire audience was abuzz. Much different reaction for the sequel.
The problems with the film IMO had nothing to do with the Avenger's stuff. The Black Widow was 'meh' as far as pacing goes, but it was not the major problem for film.
That said, I still think it was awesome.
If this article is true, it certainly explains why Favreau, after turning out such a witty, clever and lively movie first time out, produced a messy, confused and meandering one next time around. With all the talk about the Avengers movie, I've been thinking that IM2 really did suffer from trying to hard to set that movie and not just being its own movie. I hope Thor and Captain America avoid these pitfalls.
It makes me glad that Chris Nolan doesn't want to make a shared-universe DC movie.
I don't think Black Widow was meh...she was used a little awkwardly imo...almost like a big fanwank. We kind of know what her main purpose is in the film and as was pointed out in an earlier post she did serve a purpose by being in the film. If I was being critical I would go so far as to say having 'Tasha in the film was unnecessary but she was far from why the movie was disappointing. This being said I loved the sequence where she kick's ass and Happy attempts to flounder about trying to help her. I thought that was an amusing side scene.
^ "a big fanwank"... kind of sums up this whole "shared film universe" thing.
Scarlett was hot but her role served no purpose to the movie.
And then there's the scene with Black Widow beating up a bunch of random security guards.
It's because in this movie universe, shattered falling glass never hurts anyone ever!
Like I said before, Black Widow helped shut off the hijacked War Machine armor. Plus she was great eye candy!
It would have been better had Pepper Potts had done that or something. Maybe Stark is trying to talk her through it or something. It could have strengthened the dynamic and relationship between Stark and Potts in that movie and would have allowed her to do something in the third act besides stand around.
Like I said, the fight at the end. It was the same sequence
Separate names with a comma.