Yeah, I liked seeing her suit up even if it was brief.She also has/had (I don't know if she still does) her own suit in the comics called Rescue.
What I found interesting in that regard is that the movie made no direct connection between the Mandarin and the terrorist organization in the first film (unless it was as blink-and-you-miss-it as Stan's cameo). The likes of us might be expected to make the connection from the information given, but they could have spelled it out for the audience. However...So, are we to understand that Ten Rings is and always has been a front for A.I.M. operations?
Oh, I noticed. It's one of the things I liked about it. I don't need, nor want, my sequels to look and feel the same, especially if someone else is directing. I would rather have the tones mixed up a little. Not a TOTAL shift, but, mixing up a little, isn't a bad thing for me.
I enjoyed enough, but I wish there would have been greater development of the motivations of the villians.
I enjoyed enough, but I wish there would have been greater development of the motivations of the villians.
I think Killian's motives were rather clear, kill Tony Stark for humiliating him and then sell Extremist based super soldiers to the government to deal with a terrorist threat Killian himself manufactured. Your typical profit and revenge motives many villains have.
Sadler's best roles include TRESPASS and THE MIST.
This. As a moment to motivate one's career in villainy, it made the old story of Superboy blowing out Luthor's hair seem Shakespearian by comparison. (For that matter, did anybody really spend Millennium Eve at a science conference...?)I just don't buy being that humiliated by Tony Stark after you accost a drunken version of him in an elevator on New Year's Eve, and then he doesn't show up that you need this great revenge.
At which point 5 years of speech and physical therapy made him a sexy media sensation. He could have done that any time...Given his crippled and nerdy appearance in '99, I suspect Stark's spurning of him was just the last straw on the camel's back - a lifetime of pain, torment and humiliation (in short, being bullied) finally ignited on that rooftop. Tony was the personification of everyone who had made Killian's life a living hell up to that point, and hence made the natural target for his revenge.
2) Based on the casting, it seems that the filmmakers had money on Romney for the election.
As I reflect on the movie, this is my main problem with it. A good villain can make or break this type of film, and this villain's motivation was too juvenile/clichéd. It was way too generous of Stark to actually take moral responsibility for his and his partner's actions. Being stood up/one-night-standed by a drunk billionaire playboy with a very public reputation for that sort of thing during a New Year's Eve party is no justification for conducting unethical research on other human beings and starting a terrorist organization. If either of them had just made an appointment with Pepper in 2000, a lot of innocent lives could have been spared. They were obviously psychos without any help from Tony.Given his crippled and nerdy appearance in '99, I suspect Stark's spurning of him was just the last straw on the camel's back - a lifetime of pain, torment and humiliation (in short, being bullied) finally ignited on that rooftop. Tony was the personification of everyone who had made Killian's life a living hell up to that point, and hence made the natural target for his revenge.
No blaspheme. Some of us actually prefer IM2. We understand the alchololism metaphore, we understand the bottoming out, we understand the need for a relationship with his father, we understand the role of S.H.I.E.L.D. in the Iron Man mythos. We understand the appeal of Scarlett Johansen in tight Kevlar.I'm going to blaspheme here...I liked IM2 better. The story was a more relevant follow-up on the first film, dealing with the consequences of Tony's actions in that film. Here, the only hook to what had gone on before was the Mandarin, and they didn't even bother to drop a line of dialogue to make the connection with the terrorists in the first film. To the average viewer, this was for all appearances a new villain who came out of nowhere.
I'm going to blaspheme here...I liked IM2 better. The story was a more relevant follow-up on the first film, dealing with the consequences of Tony's actions in that film. Here, the only hook to what had gone on before was the Mandarin, and they didn't even bother to drop a line of dialogue to make the connection with the terrorists in the first film. To the average viewer, this was for all appearances a new villain who came out of nowhere.
My father was a set designer for TV, and he would take me to the Director's Guild screenings, where they don't allow refreshments and everybody stays through the credits.you're a pretty big fan so you'd be aware that at the end of Marvel films there's a scene after the credits. Yet so many people left right as the film ended![]()
Oh, I can explain it....the gimmick is stale. It was novel in the first Iron Man, still had some life in it by the second movie. But by the time Thor rolled around people were getting tired of having to sit all the way through long credit sequences. And why should they when they can just watch it on YouTube. I know I did.
While Green Lantern was a clusterfuck, the one thing they did right was showing their stinger about a quarter of the way into the final credits.....as did Avengers with the Thanos reveal. I figured that even Marvel understood that as time passed, the willingness to sit through the entire credits just to see 30 seconds, would decrease with even the hard core audience.
They need to just go the GL and Avengers route in the future.
So, are we to understand that Ten Rings is and always has been a front for A.I.M. operations?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.