Whiplash wants his Burd: Iron Man 2 Thread - Page 2

Bells · 05-03-2010, 11:03 PM

In this movie he slides nicely between "prick" and "lovable prick", it's a Joy to watch.

Any conversation with Tony is like a male version of Gilmore Girls... SO FAST AND NUTTY

The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk · 05-04-2010, 05:56 AM

Saw it on sunday with a couple of friends. It was very good, Tony Stark is as great as before, War Machine was a beast and the action scenes are all pretty great. The 1 criticism I have is that the final fight with Whiplash was over a bit too quick.

But overall it was good.

Magus · 05-09-2010, 10:52 AM

I think the final fight being over in like two minutes is a problem with the entire movie, which had something like five plot threads going on and three "internal struggles" for Tony. There was simply too much going on in this movie. Plus it was ridiculous at points, always in a hilarious way but any chance at realism was pretty much thrown out the window and then it's hard to consider Tony's struggles with the real amount of drama they should probably call for...

It was a fun movie and I loved watching it but if they were really going for ALL of that they should've went with a 2 and a half hour length at least instead of cutting it back to 2 hours.

EDIT: Oh, and if I have a personal pet peeve it's that they never adequately explain some characters choices, both major decisions and minor character traits. Like Whiplash--why does he blame Tony for stuff when it's fairly clear his family are the thieves and criminals? Why does he choose whips as his weapon? They don't even bother to attempt to explain his love of whips. We know why Batman dressed up like a bat and why the Joker used knives--why does Whiplash love his whips (and his burd) so much?

The Sevenshot Kid · 05-09-2010, 12:40 PM

The scene where Tony was drunk in the suit is probably the most horrifying thing I'll see all year. I have no clue why people in the audience were laughing at it.

Great movie overall.

Bells · 05-09-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus

EDIT: Oh, and if I have a personal pet peeve it's that they never adequately explain some characters choices, both major decisions and minor character traits. Like Whiplash--why does he blame Tony for stuff when it's fairly clear his family are the thieves and criminals? Why does he choose whips as his weapon? They don't even bother to attempt to explain his love of whips. We know why Batman dressed up like a bat and why the Joker used knives--why does Whiplash love his whips (and his burd) so much?

i THINK it was just a lack of resources. Considering his first suit, the main point of it was the weapons. I just assumed that he couldn't figure out a long range weapon system that would be compatible with his setup, and a short range weapon system would be useless against stark. so he went with the Middle ground (Point taken that Stark points out a ton of flaws to his setup just after seeing it).

Later on, when he actually gets his Final Setup, it might just be the "Go with what you already know it works" mentality at work.

I mean, When tony first made his suit, he added a Flamethrower to it. Which is really a VERY impractical piece of weaponry considering that he was going up against a small army of terrorists armed with Assault Rifles and Bazookas.

Marc v4.0 · 05-09-2010, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bells

i THINK it was just a lack of resources. Considering his first suit, the main point of it was the weapons. I just assumed that he couldn't figure out a long range weapon system that would be compatible with his setup, and a short range weapon system would be useless against stark. so he went with the Middle ground (Point taken that Stark points out a ton of flaws to his setup just after seeing it).

Later on, when he actually gets his Final Setup, it might just be the "Go with what you already know it works" mentality at work.

I mean, When tony first made his suit, he added a Flamethrower to it. Which is really a VERY impractical piece of weaponry considering that he was going up against a small army of terrorists armed with Assault Rifles and Bazookas.

A 10 foot gout of flames is still not something you're going to react well to, assault rifles or no. Fire bad.

Viridis · 05-09-2010, 03:07 PM

Saw it yesterday. More movies need drunken powered armor fights.

Azisien · 05-09-2010, 07:32 PM

I wasn't completely satisfied with Iron Man 2. I'd give it an "okay" rating. If this one had been the first movie, I wouldn't look forward to a sequel, but it was still decent.

It just felt muddied. Too many plot lines going on, but none of the plot lines really felt like they had much substance to them. Mash that together with assloads of pretty graphics, and you have yourself Iron Man 2.

As far as specific nitpicking, I found Justin Hammer's actor to be...not fit for the role. I don't know what it was. I didn't really believe he was who he was. He didn't really belong. The drunk fight at Stark manor was a little confusing. Stark is ass drunk, then Rhodie starts a fight and he's suddenly in tip top fighting shape. Write that off as adrenaline? I think? Not how drunk fights usually go. Stark goes to the trouble of building a prism based energy particle accelerator whatchama-thing and, seemingly for no reason at all, doesn't calibrate it to strike his NewElementContainer? Sigh.

On the other hand, hello Black Widow!

Magus · 05-09-2010, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

The scene where Tony was drunk in the suit is probably the most horrifying thing I'll see all year. I have no clue why people in the audience were laughing at it.

Great movie overall.

I think there was supposed to be a balance between "lol Tony Stark is drunk and is going to blow up his house...again! LOLOL" versus "oh my dear god a drunk man is wearing a suit capable of melting people", but the movie was so comical up til then people probably just tilted towards the former option.

Anyway, I'd be fine with the whip being explained as a feasible means of energy transfer if you don't have the possibilities of creating a laser system, BUT that stuff needs to be explained, you can't just leave it to us viewers. We can usually explain it away quite easily but it's just lazy to not do it.

Also, how does Whiplash get his hands on so much palladium? I can't remember the first movie word for word but it seemed implied it was exceedingly rare and expensive and fragile, and yet Whiplash, poor Russian petty criminal, gets some apparently automatically. Maybe his dad had some laying around but once again these things need to be explained to the audience.

synkr0nized · 05-09-2010, 09:46 PM

I didn't like Tony Stark throughout the majority of this movie.
I did in the first one.

To be fair, most of the male characters in 2 were unlikeable, Rhodes aside.

05-03-2010, 11:03 PM	#11
Bells That's so PC of you Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: In a Server-sided Dimension where time is meaningless Posts: 10,490	In this movie he slides nicely between "prick" and "lovable prick", it's a Joy to watch. Any conversation with Tony is like a male version of Gilmore Girls... SO FAST AND NUTTY __________________ *BELLS STORE : Clothes! You wear* them! Free US Shipping Subscription System? WTF?! Zazzle Black!**

05-09-2010, 10:52 AM	#13
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	I think the final fight being over in like two minutes is a problem with the entire movie, which had something like five plot threads going on and three "internal struggles" for Tony. There was simply too much going on in this movie. Plus it was ridiculous at points, always in a hilarious way but any chance at realism was pretty much thrown out the window and then it's hard to consider Tony's struggles with the real amount of drama they should probably call for... It was a fun movie and I loved watching it but if they were really going for ALL of that they should've went with a 2 and a half hour length at least instead of cutting it back to 2 hours. EDIT: Oh, and if I have a personal pet peeve it's that they never adequately explain some characters choices, both major decisions and minor character traits. Like Whiplash--why does he blame Tony for stuff when it's fairly clear his family are the thieves and criminals? Why does he choose whips as his weapon? They don't even bother to attempt to explain his love of whips. We know why Batman dressed up like a bat and why the Joker used knives--why does Whiplash love his whips (and his burd) so much? __________________ The Valiant Review Last edited by Magus; 05-09-2010 at 10:55 AM.

05-09-2010, 07:32 PM	#18
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	I wasn't completely satisfied with Iron Man 2. I'd give it an "okay" rating. If this one had been the first movie, I wouldn't look forward to a sequel, but it was still decent. It just felt muddied. Too many plot lines going on, but none of the plot lines really felt like they had much substance to them. Mash that together with assloads of pretty graphics, and you have yourself Iron Man 2. As far as specific nitpicking, I found Justin Hammer's actor to be...not fit for the role. I don't know what it was. I didn't really believe he was who he was. He didn't really belong. The drunk fight at Stark manor was a little confusing. Stark is ass drunk, then Rhodie starts a fight and he's suddenly in tip top fighting shape. Write that off as adrenaline? I think? Not how drunk fights usually go. Stark goes to the trouble of building a prism based energy particle accelerator whatchama-thing and, seemingly for no reason at all, doesn't calibrate it to strike his NewElementContainer? Sigh. On the other hand, hello Black Widow! Last edited by Azisien; 05-09-2010 at 07:34 PM.

05-09-2010, 09:46 PM	#20
synkr0nized synk-ism Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: throughout the Wired Posts: 6,857	Become the War Machine! I didn't like Tony Stark throughout the majority of this movie. I did in the first one. To be fair, most of the male characters in 2 were unlikeable, Rhodes aside. __________________ Find love.