Iron Man 2: Where the Government is Stupid [Archive]

Eltargrim

12-17-2009, 10:18 PM

I mean, seriously, when one of your citizens comes up with an effective weapon that greatly expands combat capabilities of those who use it and you don't just grab it, then you're an idiot.

480p trailer (http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/ironman2/ironman2-z7r459g-tlr1_480p.mov)

720p trailer (http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/ironman2/ironman2-z7r459g-tlr1_720p.mov)

1080p trailer (http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/ironman2/ironman2-z7r459g-tlr1_1080p.mov)

Aerozord

12-17-2009, 10:21 PM

well there are other factors, like price. We have alot of nasty weapons we can make, including death lasers, but for less you can just shoot a missle at it. Iron Man has a suit plated in gold after all.

Anyways, this is supposed to have warmachine so yea, this is going on my list of things to see

Eltargrim

12-17-2009, 10:23 PM

It's not even grabbing it so you can implement it, it's grabbing it so that you could make more of it if someone else started making them. I'm mean, I'm all for government backing off and not being douchebags, but I'd rather them be douchebags to the one guy with advanced technology so that we could ALL have advanced technology.

Aerozord

12-17-2009, 10:30 PM

again, the metals of the exoskelaton alone is a freakin forture. Its why Warmachine is more like a walking tank. Not to mention political fallout. Stark got the people on his side and in a democracy, that basically means you win. Whole reason he made the armor is because he was giving this to them, and they kept finding their way into the hands of their enemy.

Magus

12-21-2009, 01:55 AM

Rhodes becoming War Machine might actually be Stark's compromise with the government, like Rhodes is the government liaison or something. Besides which we all know that if the government gets its hands on something like the Iron Man suit it wouldn't benefit any of us and they would just use it as an outright weapon instead of as an inhibition towards other countries or a line of defense. Stark is aware of this.

There were also all those other mech suits trying to kill them, which is either the work of the government or Justin Hammer. If it's Justin Hammer he probably buys the technology to make the power system off of Whiplash or whatever.

In any case Stark's line about privatizing peace actually made me laugh out loud, which rarely happens.

I thought Whiplash making his debut at Stark's drag race (lol) was kind of silly, it reminds me of when Green Goblin shows up at that parade in Spider-Man and kills the company board, that seemed appropriate at the time but nowadays it seems over the top for a guy with dual electric whips to appear at a crowded race and try to kill the world's richest man in broad daylight.

Fifthfiend

12-21-2009, 02:33 PM

Not to mention political fallout. Stark got the people on his side and in a democracy, that basically means you win.

LOL but really what everyone's forgetting is the 'billionaires can do pretty much whatever they want' rule.

Whatever, I'm mostly just annoyed they wussed out on doing the Mandarin.

Melfice

12-21-2009, 03:00 PM

Hmm, the way I see this going down:

Gov'ment wants Iron Man suit. Stark says "LOL, no. Screw you."
Whiplash finds/found the schematics, builds his own.
Shit gets intense for Stark. Stark calls Rhodes: "Yo, Rhodie. You want a suit like mine?" "Fo sho'!" "'S cool. Get the awesome black one, then help me beat up Whiplash." "No prob', homie!"
Whiplash gets whooped and Iron Man and War Machine strike an awesome pose.
Gov'ment imprisons Whiplash. Dude's like: "Wait, you guys wantink Iron Man suit, da?" "Affirmative." "I'm am havink schematics in hideout. We friends?" "*bang!* Not for a 100.000 years, commie bastard!"

And then Iron Man and War Machine fight the government, who used Stark's designs to build their own suits (Mandroids nod?).

Loyal

12-21-2009, 04:55 PM

And Samuel L. Jackson shows up as... his own likeness.

Magus

12-22-2009, 02:01 AM

More like Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury as Samuel L. Jackson, it's how he infiltrates Stark's party, only celebs can get in after all and they happen to be perfect lookalikes.

Mirai Gen

12-22-2009, 02:26 AM

Whatever, I'm mostly just annoyed they wussed out on doing the Mandarin.
Probably saving it for the last movie, I think.

So let's get this straight.

Nick Fury is about as whitebread as you can get.
Ultimates universe, Nick Fury is modeled after Samuel L Jackson.
In Ultimates like, #4, he says Sameul L Jackson would play himself the best.
So that's what we get.

Huh.

Also movie looks great. I'm glad they're trying to grab onto the fun of the original while simultaneously raising the stakes.

And any question of how it is Tony's keeping the Iron Man suit is pretty much solved by the
'billionaires can do pretty much whatever they want' rule.

synkr0nized

12-22-2009, 12:39 PM

It works for Batman. Why can't Marvel do it, too?

Fifthfiend

12-22-2009, 12:58 PM

Nick Fury is about as whitebread as you can get.
Ultimates universe, Nick Fury is modeled after Samuel L Jackson.
In Ultimates like, #4, he says Sameul L Jackson would play himself the best.
So that's what we get.

Mark Millar is a plague on humanity.

Mirai Gen

12-22-2009, 01:51 PM

He did Civil War right? Yeah, he is.

Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope

12-22-2009, 02:14 PM

Re Civil War: The only reason Civil War happened was to allow Queseda to dissolves Spidey`s marriage. Everything else was just fluff.

Re Trailer: Well, the inner fanboy is screaming in joy while I see the trailer as cool. It is interesting to see how Tony Stark has elevated to superstar status (in movie). At first I was thinking that the energy whips were too much, then I remembered that this was Iron Man.

First Day Viewing for me.

Mirai Gen

12-22-2009, 02:27 PM

Not to turn this into a comic book discussion but my only problem with Civil War is that it was executed badly, and was 100% blatantly obvious after the fact that it was just another EPIC UNIVERSE-CHANGING EVENT right before shifting into the next EPIC UNIVERSE-CHANGING EVENT IE Captain America dying, One More Day, etc etc etc. (Though it's certainly no Countdown.)

Aaaaaaaanyway. Are we going to see them tie the Avengers into this?

Bells

12-22-2009, 02:35 PM

If they pulled their resources together to combine the latest Hulk Movie, with Spiderman and Iron Man, you could probably have one kickass Avengers movie on the line. But that would still require Captain America and Maybe Thor.... and for some reason i think those 2 are harder to make movies for.

Tev

12-22-2009, 02:43 PM

But they are making a Thor movie.....

Kim

12-22-2009, 02:45 PM

If Bruce Campbell isn't Captain America in a movie of that, the movie isn't even worth considering.

Mirai Gen

12-22-2009, 03:09 PM

Aaron Ekhardt would have been perfect if he wasn't already a DC villain.1

1 - Source: Mashirosen

Bells

12-22-2009, 03:23 PM

But they are making a Thor movie.....

Yes, but on the other hand...

http://static.reelmovienews.com/images/gallery/chris-hemsworth.jpg

This is Thor in that movie.

And they start working on Captain American in 2010, but no actor set yet

Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope

12-22-2009, 03:45 PM

Aaron Ekhardt would have been perfect if he wasn't already a DC villain.1

1 - Source: Mashirosen

Didn`t stop James Marsden from appearing in X-Men and Superman

Mirai Gen

12-22-2009, 04:27 PM

He spent the entirety of one movie in "glasses" that covered a third of his face. They got away with it.

EDIT: And nobody cares about Cyclops or Superman Returns anyway.

Aerozord

12-22-2009, 05:21 PM

Dont ask me to source because it was like a year ago. But I heard that they WERE planning an Avengers movie, and that little bit at the end of Iron Man was meant as a hint hint nudge nudge

Premmy

12-22-2009, 06:17 PM

01d55

12-22-2009, 09:53 PM

That and the Super Soldier Serum stuff in Hulk.

anyway, everytime I see more of Iron-man movies I realize my comic nerd status is horribly weak, as I always think "Iron-man has his own villains? I thought he got all his from the Avengers" that's like, the only way I think of Iron-man, as the guy appearing in Spider-man comics from time to time.

All of Iron Man's villains (except the one from the first movie) are dated. They're either Yellow Perils (Mandarin) or Goddamn Communists (Red Dynamo) or Stane.

Magus

12-23-2009, 01:33 AM

Pretty sure an actor can be in both a DC universe and Marvel movie, there's nothing preventing this in the era of the Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern/Deadpool mash-up. Thus Eckhart is every bit as eligible for a Captain America role as anyone else. It's not like he's very likely to repeat his DC universe role...

Mirai Gen

12-23-2009, 03:08 AM

Pretty sure an actor can be in both a DC universe and Marvel movie, there's nothing preventing this in the era of the Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern/Deadpool mash-up.

I don't know what you're talking about.

G.I.R.

12-23-2009, 09:09 AM

You also see Captain America's shield in Tony Stark's workshop in one of the scenes in Iron Man as well. Oh, and RDJ was in the bonus scene at the end of The Incredible Hulk too. From everything I've heard, they are making an Avengers movie. But I believe it's going to be: Iron Man, Cap and Thor. They aren't bringing in Spider-Man into it. And possibly The Hulk, but there are rumors that he might actually be the villain of the movie.

Green Spanner

12-23-2009, 10:23 AM

All of Iron Man's villains (except the one from the first movie) are dated. They're either Yellow Perils (Mandarin) or Goddamn Communists (Red Dynamo) or Stane.

That's the problem with Iron Man in general: seeing as he started out as a SMASH DEM REDS character, it's always a challenge to keep him from getting dated without retcons or reboots.

Mirai Gen

12-23-2009, 02:01 PM

That's the problem with Iron Man in general: seeing as he started out as a SMASH DEM REDS character, it's always a challenge to keep him from getting dated without retcons or reboots.

To be fair, Captain America started out the same way. We're just nicer to the commies now.

Archbio

12-23-2009, 03:07 PM

Mirai Gen

12-23-2009, 03:09 PM

Yeah, I screwed that joke up - I was more talking about how nobody cares about Nazis whereas 'the commies' we're nicer to.

Archbio

12-23-2009, 03:15 PM

True, the Nazis make naturally better comic book villains.

The Mandarin could work on screen, they just need to tone down his powers. I'm really dreading seeing this film. Whiplash, urgh.

Fifthfiend

12-23-2009, 03:20 PM

Captain America started out as a SMASH DAT HITLER character.

But really, was Iron Man's villain gallery ever not lame? Some of Captain America's Nazi villains are still alive and kicking, so I don't think it's just a time period question!

Re: Iron Man villains,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_Fang_Foom http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/awesome.gif

Bells

12-23-2009, 03:21 PM

Im' pretty sure Whiplash is just a "Gateway" villain for something bigger.

I mean, at the end of the Trailer you see Stark and TheOtherGuyWhoseNameIForgot shooting a bunch of targets that appear to have surround them. They also seem to be in a Urban setting.

As i doubt Stark would simply open fire against the American Army in an american city as a "Climax" for this movie, i'm pretty sure that they will just use Whiplash as an excuse to give Stark's Tech to the real bad guys.

So... yeah, probably a Bunch of Robots by the end of the movie.

Re: Iron Man villains,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_Fang_Foom http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/awesome.gif

But THIS is just delicious.

Fifthfiend

12-23-2009, 03:28 PM

If you can tell me the reason why they can't build an Iron Man movie around a giant dragon in purple underpants you're lying because there ain't one.

Archbio

12-23-2009, 04:21 PM

Fin Fang Foom is timeless. As are his pants.

Aerozord

12-23-2009, 07:19 PM

One day I went on a wiki spree and read up on the Mandirin and came out with the feeling, "how they hell does he lose to Iron Man?" Those rings basically give him total control over energy and matter, he's effectively a god. Shouldn't he be able to make the armor just, go away.

Tev

12-23-2009, 07:38 PM

Shouldn't he be able to make the armor just, go away.See the problem is that evil.....well......evil is dumb.

Nique

01-01-2010, 04:45 PM

Disney's takeover puts the Marvel films in a very good position to maintain internal consistency and possibly become a really great franchise. Before Marvel got smart they gave up all these production and distribution rights which is where we get Spider-Man 2 and 3 and ugh, X-Men United, to say nothing of 'Hulk' and Fantastic 4. I should say that I enjoyed watching these movies upon initial viewing but I think objectivly you have to say that if Marvel can put out something like Iron Man, these other titles could have been SO much better.

So, I mean, Spider-Man might show up again in the new Marvel films if Sony stops making Spider-Man movies. The X-Men series as a whole is alright as is but again, in order for us to get signifigant interaction between characters in potential 'Avengers' or other Marvel Universe movies, the other studios who hold characters like X-Men, or Silver Surfer and Spider-Man are gonna have to stop using them.

I am looking forward to Iron Man 2, esspecilly becuase it sounds like they are developing Tony Stark's character even further instead of simply milking the property into a stupidly actiony blockbuster. I am upset about the casting change. I like Don Chedle but I thought Rhodes was a pretty important character so having a different person who looks nothing like Terrance Howard is pretty disjointing. And it looks sort of bad for the studio to anyone who doesn't know what was going on backstage (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20236884,00.html). Which is pretty fuzzy anyway.

Lumenskir

01-02-2010, 12:35 AM

I am upset about the casting change. I like Don Chedle but I thought Rhodes was a pretty important character so having a different person who looks nothing like Terrance Howard is pretty disjointing.
Two names: Katie Holmes. Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Pretty much the same exact situation, quality-wise.

Magus

01-02-2010, 03:39 AM

Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhal did look a lot alike, though (although Gyllenhal personally to me looked like Katie Holmes +5 or more years, which actually made it make sense within the universe of Batman since the characters were all under intense strain and were getting older and more world-weary). Cheadle and what's his face don't really look alike to me, they have very different facial features. But yeah, I don't really care, it's something I'll just overlook.

EDIT: And Nique, it's entirely possible to just ignore the other studios' versions of those characters in the movies they produce and just go with the ones you think maintain internal consistency. If you don't like what one studio does with the Silver Surfer doesn't mean that within the universe created in the Avengers or whatever has to be affected by that version, they could just have him act like the "real" Silver Surfer.

Nique

01-02-2010, 05:06 AM

Melfice

01-02-2010, 05:39 PM

Actually they can't use the characters at all unless the other studio looses the rights or gives them up. That was sort of the point.

Unless I'm wrong! I'm pretty sure I'm not, but it's been known to happen.

I think that, unless the studios got a permanent right to filmify that character, the rights remain with Marvel to distribute freely, isn't it?
I mean, Sony got the rights for Spider-Man, but do we know for how long?
At least 3 movies, and perhaps the Venom spin-off (what do we know about that anyway? Or is that something I imagined?). Beyond that, what did they negotiate?

MFD

01-02-2010, 05:55 PM

Um, Spider-Man 4 has Ann Hathaway filling Black Cat's, erm... shoes. And possibly the Vulture, but I'm sure Sony is trying to make Raimi use Carnage.

Iron Man 2 gives me Spider-man 2 feelings. Not X-Men: The Last Stand feelings.

Nique

01-02-2010, 06:08 PM

I think that, unless the studios got a permanent right to filmify that character, the rights remain with Marvel to distribute freely, isn't it?

The typical deal is that the studio keeps their rights to the characters for use in film until they stop using the property. I'm sure there's some specific on how long before it is considered 'unused' property.

Consider: The Fantastic Four movie went unmade for a long time becuase a different studio than Fox held the rights. Those rights were about to run out so the other studio (I think it was either Columbia or another company that has since gone out of buisness) made a terrible thrown-togethor Fantastic Four movie that was never released but the company made it to keep Marvel from allowing another studio to take over.

Aerozord

01-03-2010, 12:19 AM

sometimes studies do get rights to properties just to dick over others that want to use it. Though judging by fallout I think courts are more in the area of "if you aren't doing anything with it, let them". Though this then becomes the motivation to shell out crap just on the off chance something happens where you can better milk the series

I was under the impression however that its the characters creators that hold the actual rights. Course this is Marvel so you can usually just say Stan Lee and move on. In any case Disney owning Marvel really has little influence on the whole thing. Rights do not transfer over other medias. The buy-out gave them control so now they can just hand over the movie rights (assuming its Marvel that even has them) but otherwise things are as is. Disney is also likely to give up the rights to make some profit. Plus there is a good chance it will boost comic book sales. I bet Watchmen skyrocketed when the movie came out

CABAL49

01-03-2010, 12:58 AM

I don't think Fox had rights to the Avengers, so in all practicality, the Silver Surfer would have to be different.

Mirai Gen

01-03-2010, 01:32 AM

Um, Spider-Man 4 has Ann Hathaway filling Black Cat's, erm... shoes. And possibly the Vulture, but I'm sure Sony is trying to make Raimi use Carnage.
Oh god, are they actually pushing forward with that? Lord save us.

Magus

01-03-2010, 02:39 AM

I thought Spider-Man 4 was finally going to have the Lizard. They've had Dr. Connors do a cameo in every single one of the flicks to remind you that he only has one arm and is totally going to be a villain eventually don't you know.

Although judging by how many villains were in Spider-Man 3 I wouldn't put it past them to put Vulture, Carnage, Lizard, Scorpion, Rhino, Mysterio, Tombstone, and Kingpin all in the same flick.

Mirai Gen

01-03-2010, 03:34 AM

That, yeah.

I don't mind them making a fourth movie but I figured after the awesomeness that was #2 they'd go back to just having one really, really well done villain instead of HEY FANS CHECK THIS SHIT OUT REMEMBER THEM?!

Magus

01-03-2010, 10:07 PM

The Sevenshot Kid

01-03-2010, 10:30 PM

In Spider-Man 3 it wasn't so much Evil Parker as it was John Travolta Parker.

As long as they can keep us caring about what happens to Tony it should be fine. What Marvel needs to get on is the First Avenger: Captain America or whatever its called. I think Eckhardt would be a good choice but how about Ryan Gosling? He's definitely not the typical choice but the guy has chops.

Bells

01-03-2010, 10:34 PM

Considering that so far the Captain America movie comes wit the "Original Avenger" subtitle, i'm pretty sure they will drag Banner and Stark in there to make a connection, as both have tons of resources and skills that can tie in nicely with Captain America and also allow it to be a more "International" movie

The Sevenshot Kid

01-03-2010, 10:42 PM

In movie continuiy it was Howard Stark that made the shield so they can put him in giving it to him. Surprisingly, The Incredible Hulk made a huge reference with the whole super soldier program. We just need the Cap movie to lay the ground work.

Mirai Gen

01-04-2010, 01:58 AM

They should've stuck to two at a maximum, anyway, since that seems to be the amount that can be handled adequately. I thought Spider-Man 3 was great until they stuck Venom in at the end there. They were already juggling three plot points between Sandman, Harry, and Evil Parker, no need to throw a fourth in there.

Yeah, seconded. I can understand that Sandman needed a villain to spurn him into action but Venom was so half-assed and last-minute it made it confusing at best.

Green Spanner

01-04-2010, 06:10 AM

Venom was so half-assed and last-minute it made it confusing at best.

Weren't they initially going to split it into two movies? Can't remember where I read that, but it would have been an improvement.

Seriously, a whole movie of Parker being stalked by a Venom trying to kill him would've been a whole lot more awesome than that mess at the end of 3.

Mirai Gen

01-04-2010, 06:21 AM

Honestly that scene where Brock is all "I AM THE POWERRRRRRR" in the church would have been a great after-credits sequence for the next movie.

Magus

01-04-2010, 11:57 PM

If they'd had a different actor playing Brock, but other than that...

By the way I'm not an expert on Spider-Man canon, does he later find out that there was a third guy who killed his uncle with Sandman and nameless mook?

Premmy

01-05-2010, 12:44 AM