Iron Man 3 Discussion/Photos/ETC.

It's not like we have an entire film to explain it or anything.

 

it just looks like he's wearing one glove and one boot to me...

 

Exactly. The highres screencap we got of the set, with the various sets of armour looked like there were many parts of suits laying around being worked on, the concept art just looks like he slipped on some of them to test and was surprised by the guards.

 

I certainly did enjoy the realistic take on the character in the first two films. But like you said, aliens. There's no going back now, all bets are off.

With that said, I'm sure IM3 is going to play it a more realistically than Avengers did, I'm sure they'll save the "out there" stuff for the likes of "Thor" and the Avengers sequel.

 

^As was said, we have nanotech now. There is no reason to preclude aliens from calling next week. Really, no reason, could be next week, next millenium. Putting both premises together does not equal armour stored in bones.

 

Isn't Extremis considered one of the best storylines in the IM comics? I'm surprised they didn't go with that stroryline for IM2, which ended up just being an Avengers trailer.

 

This gets said far too often and now that I've rewatched IM2 a few times (just got the disk after Avengers) it really seems unjustified.

There is one short visit by Nick Fury mid-film where Tony says "Is this about the A..." and Fury cuts him off and brings it back to the main plot. There is the presence of Black Widow which had nothing to do with the Avengers movie except she was in it too; it's like saying Pepper being in the Avengers made it an Iron Man trailer. Then there was the credits scene. That's it. There was nothing past those few seconds with Fury where they didn't talk about the Avengers, that really tied it to the Avengers; it was all about Tony, his despondency about his failing health, his walls (armour) put up against the people around him who cared, his dealing with living in the shadow of his father, and realizing his dad really did think something of him which turned him around.

The plot was about Tony Stark, and the conflict with Whiplash/Dynamo was a thin layer on top of that. So if you go in thinking that Whiplash is the main story, yeah it seems thin, but if you see it as Tony's story, not Iron Man's, then the movie is actually about something. It really does take the character from one place to somewhere else, a place where he's ready to step up and be an adult, not a child. This has nothing to do with Avengers.

 

^^^
Well said. I've tried spelling it out like that as well, maybe this spelling lesson will sink-in better with more time passed. I was perhaps trying to ice skate uphill against that heavily held opinion in the months following it's initial theatrical release.

 

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.

 

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. )

 

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"

 

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.

 

"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?

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

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".

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

^
The robot arm from the first movie

 

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.

 

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.