Iron Man 2 Trailer
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 1:01am
Post 1 of 48
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 1:49am
Post 2 of 48
That is so sick, can't wait for this. I was part of the minority who didn't see why the first one was so great, but this one is looking pretty good!
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 2:21am
Post 3 of 48
This trailer is total 'meh' territory for me. Cool stuff, but nothing special. I still expect the movie to be excellent.........but........yeah.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 2:57am
Post 4 of 48
Trailer just needs some music and it'd be fine. There's a tiny bit of music in the beginning and then nothing until the end.
Still, I'm excited to see IRON 2 MAN
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 3:25am
Post 5 of 48
I hear there isn't any music in the trailer because they're still in the process of securing an exclusive soundtrack for Iron 2 Man with Boyz 2 Men.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 5:34am
Post 6 of 48
They honestly could have just shown me the last 5 seconds of this trailer and I would've still been content. War Machine is so ill. And as boring as Black Widow is (I've never been able to stand her character) at least they got Scarlet to play her, which means I'll have eye candy at the very least.
Seeing all of these characters finally on the big screen is great. Really excited for this movie.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 8:59am
Post 7 of 48
All I can say is: this looks really fun. I was happily surprised by how Whiplash turned out. All in all: exited.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 2:05pm
Post 8 of 48
Trailer itself is so-so for me - as CX3 says, I loved the final couple of shots (although the abundance of robots is a little worrying), but the mid-section was slightly aimless. The opening bit was great, though, in the courtroom - classic Stark.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 4:16pm
Post 9 of 48
Have to agree with the "meh" and "so so" receiptions myself. Maybe I've just seen to many of these films lately, but I can't say that I'm excited by that trailer. Obviously, if the film is even half as fun as the first it'll be great. But this trailer just doesn't do much for me.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 4:30pm
Post 10 of 48
One thing that stands out to me as kind of cringe-worthy, although this may just be me, was how silly Mickey Rourke looked swinging the whips in that continuous shot.
It's like they tried to convey a sense of dread and foreboding with the sound effects of increasing lashes and boom noises as the whips hit the ground numerous times, but the shot itself is pretty pedestrian and Rourke's laughing/smile acting in it just doesn't work toward that tone; at least not in the Joker-laughing-it's-so-removed-from-the-real-world kind of way I think they went for.
Instead the clip seems overlong and underwhelming- kind of embarrassing to watch because I know they obviously thought it would seem incredibly cool and scary and it just.......isn't
. Which, you know, just makes it funny.
I was really hoping from the get-go we'd have this funny Gary Shandling exchange in DC turn all dramatic and have Whiplash or someone bust in and the trailer would play-out like a 'scene' trailer ala the Spiderman 2
teaser or as a 'reveal trailer' like my recent favorite: Fast and Furious
I dunno, just wishful thinking I suppose. I just feel like sequels have to be tackled one of those two ways for their initial trailer.
But the Cheadlester as War Machine and Downey once again I am completely on-board for. I tend to think RDJ has grown more into playing himself these days, but the role of Tony Stark is entirely him anyway, so that doesn't matter. The beginning of the trailer was admittedly completely cheesy and over-the-top in a flaunting kind of way, but then again Iron Man was never about subtlety so that's all fine with me.
I just wish the trailer was more in the vein of the original film's, or built more on the 'there will be blood in the water, and the sharks will come' kind of voice-overy feel they barely touched on. Instead this doesn't really fully hit any sort of trailer/anticipation format.
To me, in trying to satisfy all audiences and show 'Hey guys, look we've got Whiplash in the movie! Oh, and Nick Fury! Oh, and Black Widow too! Oh yeah, and War Machine!' it just feels too forced
and the characters shoe-horned in shot-by-shot in this.
Don't much care about the Black Widow being in it- adding so many notable characters to this film isn't quite as cool to me as it is kitsch
(sort of like X-Men 3) but I'm still really excited.
Samuel L. as Nick Fury was the best bet of all the recent films. For my money, at least. Now let's just wait and see if this film delivers- for all my semi-disappointment with this trailer I've got a pretty positive feeling it will...
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 5:19pm
Post 11 of 48
As I said, as boring as Black Widow is, it makes complete sense that she's in this movie. It's not an Xmen 3 thing at all. All of these movies are building up towards one main thing, The Avengers (in which she becomes a member). What makes even more sense was that her first appearance is actually in an Iron Man comic ha. Besides, Fury's in it. Seems like wherever you see him, Widow is soon to follow. (It's better than her having her own movie to introduce her character)
I loved the shot of the whips as well...
It was in the comicon leaked trailer months ago and I've been waitin forever to check it out in HD.
Where I think this trailer falls flat in the edit is the last shot before the Iron Man 2 title comes up. If they would have added a cool track with some more action clips (about 30secs more) before they showed the title, it would have been better. They spent all that time building it up and then cut right when he's flying away and your expecting to see more badass stuff. I mean, listen to the ambient track when he's flying over the cars, that's the classic "trailer build up sound before they hit you with a specialized track while showing you a slew of crazy action-sweet shots" technique. But then they just cut...
When the title came up after that, my heart sank a little bit in disappointment. But then they covered their asses with the sick duo shot and them wrecking face.
Last edited Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 5:33pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 5:32pm
Post 12 of 48
It doesn't really matter if it makes sense that they're all in the movie, I'm just saying in the trailer
it all feels shoe-horned in. In X-Men 3 it made perfect sense to have Collosus and Multiple Man and Juggernaut, etc. but it didn't mean it wasn't slightly too much
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally game and more than ecstatic for an Avengers movie, but in trying to build up to that it - to me - makes these films less of solid standalone movies that they could be and more of anticipation-builders for a movie that may or may not come out. You know?
But don't get me wrong, I'm totally pumped to see this, see War Machine, and Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow. I'm just saying for a trailer it felt a bit much. I would've preferred it to start at the racing track and have the Tony Stark charisma full-blaze and cut to the car getting destroyed and cut it out on Whiplash coming towards Stark.
I completely agree with you on the trailer build-up. It kinda falls flat right before the title. And, while I love the War Machine/Iron Man shots after the title, I feel like the spoil the movie and scene for me and satisfy the audience a little cheaply. I mean, yeah, no doubt we were gonna get War Machine this time around, everyone knew that- but by showing it all- something that probably comes at the end of the movie- in the trailer so explicitly just kind of..........I dunno........feels like cutting corners in a trailer to me. I loved it deeply, but now that I've seen it feel like I should've been rewarded
with those shots in seeing the movie, not the trailer.
But whatever, I'm still excited. Just saying.
Last edited Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 5:35pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 5:35pm
Post 13 of 48
I Am FXHome Legend wrote:Instead the clip seems overlong and underwhelming- kind of embarrassing to watch because I know they obviously thought it would seem incredibly cool and scary and it just.......isn't. Which, you know, just makes it funny.
Yeah, I couldn't help giggling at it. I wondered how long he was going to keep doing it for. Maybe he should have used them as a skipping rope. Or been humming the Singing in the Rain tune.
Main issue I had with it is that surely a security guard would just have shot him while he faffed about with his whips? Although maybe police in Monaco aren't armed?
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 5:56pm
Post 14 of 48
I Am FXHome Legend wrote:It doesn't really matter if it makes sense that they're all in the movie, I'm just saying in the trailer it all feels shoe-horned in.
I mean damn, they only gave her like 3 shots with a total of 5-6 seconds of time lol. Wouldn't it make sense to introduce a face of a character whose probably going to play a somewhat important role in the film (especially in the first released trailer for the feature - and especially for an actress like Scarlett Johansson ha).
No argument here, I'm just genuinely interested why you think 5-6 secs was an uncomfortable fit in the trailer. At least they didn't put Olivia Munn in the preview.
Oh, and I still don't acknowledge X3 as actually happening. What movie are you taking about?
Tarn wrote:Main issue I had with it is that surely a security guard would just have shot him while he faffed about with his whips? Although maybe police in Monaco aren't armed?
Never thought about it like that hah. The only question I thought to myself during this trailer was how in the hell Stark found his helmet randomly in the sky while flying after it at night. The visuals the helmet gives him are pretty key ha. I woulda been screwed. And Pepper and I would've had an argument.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 6:10pm
Post 15 of 48
I hate it when returning characters are recast. Cheadle is a good actor and all, but he's not Rhodey. Especially in a case like this, where you have a number of films that eventually merge in the epic Avangers movie, starting to recast characters suddenly makes the whole thing less impressive. I mean, if we can't count on seeing the same characters they are introducing in all the build-up films actually returning in the Avengers movie without being changed or recast, the entire project loses a lot of its coolness. That, to me, was what made the entire multi-movie Marvel universe they were construction so awesome. When all the same actors came together and their characters were united on screen, its a whole new shape of cinema. You start recasting and that's gone.
I realize that most of the original actors will most likely be in the Avengers movie, and that recasting was probably unavoidable, but it still cheapens the whole experience for me.
Oh, and yeah, that scene with the cross-whipping move was way too long and drawn-out. Maybe they forgot that there's really not many moves you can do with two whips that won't just get you tangled up.
Still, I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy this movie quite a bit.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 6:22pm
Post 16 of 48
You just outlined one of the biggest reasons I will never call The Dark Knight a masterpiece of a movie, Axeman. Recasting heavily cheapens a movie no matter how
good it is. It's like you're telling the audience 'Oh, hey, yeah you won't notice this- but we changed the actor here, so just keep that part quiet.' But we always know it's a different actor, you know?
I guess Iron Man just thought they could get away with it after TDK. I love Cheadle as an actor, but I really liked Terrence Howard in the role. I'm upset that he's gone- as Ben and I were just laughing about: his I'm-about-to-cry-but-holding-in-the-tears nasally sound and look while acting is what makes me love him.
And CX3- it's not the amount of time that everyone's in the trailer, it's that it just makes the movie feel ingenuine to me- like they're saying 'Oh, this isn't an Iron Man
movie, it's a leading-up-to-the-Avengers-movie. Look, you can tell by all the cameos and people we put in it!'
But I dunno, like I said that could just be me. Just feels a little campy.
And haha, I know whatcha mean about X3. Though I still think you're crazy if you don't think that long whipping shot isn't even a tad
bit silly looking.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 6:54pm
Post 17 of 48
I must be crazy cuz that shot didn't sit wrongly with me, I was cool with it ha. You in turn must be crazy for thinking that adding a another character in the sequel's storyline makes it campy.
It makes it all the better as your actually seeing all of the characters come together and how they met. It must just be the fact that you know who this character is (I'm guessing?). I mean, given any other movie sequel, if they introduce a new character that wasn't in the first one (which I'd say happens with... every... movie sequel) I don't think you'd have a problem with it. So why this one?
You went on to say how Sam Jackson as Nick Fury is the best. You're praising the same thing that you're implying makes the movie campy. Ha, I don't get it.
All of these movies really have one purpose, introduce the audience to the Avengers (hence why were getting Solo movies of the individual members). The Hulk had crossovers in the film, Ironman has had crossovers since the first one and now Ironman 2 introduces another piece to the puzzle. Why feel cheapened now when you blatantly knew that this was the route of the movies? ha
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 8:02pm
Post 18 of 48
I'm pretty sure that Atom's complaint wasn't the introduction of new characters in and of itself; but rather the fact that, like X3, too many new major characters are introduced. With that many characters being introduced simultaneously, you run the risk of not being able to focus on and develop any of them as well as you could by discluding one or two of them from this particular film.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 8:07pm
Post 19 of 48
Haha, I guess I just don't get it because from this trailer, we're really only getting introduced to a whopping TWO new faces.
1.) Whiplash (The Villain), which is understandable, no?
2.) Black Widow
I mean, come on lol. How is that too many?? Ironman is already a solo based hero to begin with. Unlike the Xmen which is completely team based, so of course adding more people in that universe is going to be a bit much. We're hit with more major characters in the first Lord of the Rings movie than we've been introduced in both Ironman 1 and 2 combined ha.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 8:32pm
Post 20 of 48
3. War Machine (yeah, he's an existing character, sort of)
4. Nick Fury (yeah, I know he had 10 seconds of screen time after the credits, but we weren't exactly introduced to the character)
Personally, I didn't think that the number of new characters seemed excessive, I was just explaining how I understood Atom's comments. While we agree on the recasting issue, we disagree on the new characters issue.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 8:48pm
Post 21 of 48
Yeah same, I think the recasting sucks as well (not that Cheadle sucks by any means). I'm just gonna try to look passed it as best as I can because I really want to enjoy this movie.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 10:25pm
Post 22 of 48
Hey I'm not saying it's too many people or that it won't work- just that I get wary of having so many superheroes- even lesser known comic icons- in what I would expect to be a Iron Man-centric movie.
Like I said, nothing wrong with this and I'm really excited to see them all- but like, say, Spiderman 3 I just get nervous when I see so many additions to a cast that weren't there (at least in their current state) beforehand. Just a habit, not saying it won't work or that the movie won't be entirely awesome- I'm fairly certain it will be.
Posted: Thu, 17th Dec 2009, 10:51pm
Post 23 of 48
I see I see.
I Am FXHome Legend wrote:but like, say, Spiderman 3
Wait, they made a 3rd Spiderman movie??
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 12:22am
Post 24 of 48
Here goes with you guys over analyzing stuff again.
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 12:32am
Post 25 of 48
Actually the analyze was over, if you read the previous post. But thanks for trying to entice.
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 2:58am
Post 26 of 48
I hope this movie is 75% Tony Stark attention whoring, 20% Scarlett looking sexy, and 5% story/everything else. That would be the best Superhero movie ever made.
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 9:23am
Post 27 of 48
RodyPolis wrote:Here goes with you guys over analyzing stuff again.
Welcome to what we like to call 'interesting debate'!
Atom/Axeman - agree totally on the recasting issue. It was a particular problem in TDK because the Rachel character was so plot-crucial in that one. I wish they'd do a Lucas and digitally composite Gyllenhaal back into Batman Begins - same with Cheadle in Iron Man 1.
Apparently Howard in IM1 was the highest paid actor, and wanted even more money for IM2, which is why they couldn't get him back. And then, bizarrely, ended up with arguably an even better actor. Doesn't stop it being annoying, though - especially after Howard's brilliant "Next time, baby" line in the first film.
The core strength of the Harry Potter franchise is that they've somehow managed to keep the same cast all the way through - with the sad exception of Dumbledore, of course.
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 3:33pm
Post 28 of 48
Welcome to what we like to call 'interesting debate'!
Fair enough...I guess.
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 6:23pm
Post 29 of 48
I didn't see the first one and find Tony stark an "interesting" character...
Last edited Sat, 19th Dec 2009, 1:25pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 10:29pm
Post 30 of 48
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 10:38pm
Post 31 of 48
I didn't watch the first one and those are the frames my computer froze on...
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 11:10pm
Post 32 of 48
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 11:32pm
Post 33 of 48
And if you delivered the -1 that was completely uncalled for...
Posted: Fri, 18th Dec 2009, 11:56pm
Post 34 of 48
Looks like fun. Although I hope it doesn't overshadow Speed Racer 2.
Posted: Sat, 19th Dec 2009, 12:05am
Post 35 of 48
Agent 702 wrote:And if you delivered the -1 that was completely uncalled for...
Wasn't me. But I think it was justified.
Posted: Sat, 19th Dec 2009, 5:18am
Post 36 of 48
I did it. You deserved it. Get past it.
That was a pointless post, it made no sense, and warranted nothing more than an 'Uh, ok'. So........yeah. That's kind of what the rating system is for.
Posted: Tue, 9th Mar 2010, 12:18am
Post 37 of 48
Posted: Tue, 9th Mar 2010, 3:11pm
Post 38 of 48
Maybe I'm just easy to impress, but I thought that was pretty darn awesome, and further supports my theory that the number of robots in a film is directly proportional to it's perceived bad-assery.
Posted: Tue, 9th Mar 2010, 4:45pm
Post 39 of 48
pixelboy wrote:Maybe I'm just easy to impress, but I thought that was pretty darn awesome, and further supports my theory that the number of robots in a film is directly proportional to it's perceived bad-assery.
Then you haven't seen Transformers 2.
I think it looks very promising. I just hope the fact that everyone knows Stark is Iron Man doesn't ruin the whole dynamic.
Posted: Tue, 9th Mar 2010, 4:59pm
Post 40 of 48
Staff Only wrote:Then you haven't seen Transformers 2.
Nah, Transformers 2 is
bad-ass. It's also an awful movie, however.
Anyway, I don't really think that Iron Man's identity being public will be a problem. It's worked quite well in the comics, and it's nearly unique among superheroes. I think staying under the radar like most heroes would be rather out of character for someone like Stark.
Posted: Tue, 9th Mar 2010, 5:29pm
Post 41 of 48
pixelboy wrote:Nah, Transformers 2 is bad-ass. It's also an awful movie, however.
On some level maybe. But Transformers 1 is infinitely more bad-ass with significantly less robots. Not just because in the first one the storytelling and "funny" moments isn't/aren't completely off, but because TF2 lacks the really awesome moments the first one had. Like the attack in the opening scene, or Ironhide in slow-mo leaping over a screaming woman. The only moment I went: "THAT's badass" in TF2 was "I rise, you fall.", and that was completley out of character according to fanboys. But enough of that.
pixelboy wrote:Anyway, I don't really think that Iron Man's identity being public will be a problem. It's worked quite well in the comics, and it's nearly unique among superheroes. I think staying under the radar like most heroes would be rather out of character for someone like Stark.
Glad to hear it. I don't know a lot about the Iron Man comics, but I really want this film to be good. I'm a fan of Favreau's directing work as well as his acting. He has that "competent movie in all areas" factor that J.J. Abrams has.
Posted: Wed, 10th Mar 2010, 12:19am
Post 42 of 48
The last 10 seconds of the new trailer are so cool they are beyond words.
Excited for this. Very excited.
Posted: Wed, 10th Mar 2010, 3:16am
Post 43 of 48
Now that was cool. Looks like one of those things becoming habitual with mainstream superhero films: the sequel improving on the first.
Posted: Wed, 10th Mar 2010, 3:39am
Post 44 of 48
And then they totally blow it on the third one. That'show it goes right?
Posted: Wed, 10th Mar 2010, 4:03am
Post 45 of 48
Sadly massively pedestrian/underwhelming. Just.......I dunno......nothing really that fresh to me (with the exception of the uberl33t last few seconds). I really loved the first one- but I dunno, this just feels sorta 'been-there-done-that' to me.
Maybe it's just that I just watched the much better (or perhaps just more-exicting) Tron Legacy trailer. That could be it, I guess...
Posted: Wed, 10th Mar 2010, 6:41am
Post 46 of 48
Evman wrote:The last 10 seconds of the new trailer are so cool they are beyond words.
Hooray for ridiculously and absurdly convoluted CGI machines!
I kinda agree with Atom, that it doesn't really feel fresh at all. The whole "Iron Man Army" thing feels a little obvious and predictable, and it just seems to suffer from Way Too Much Going On In The Sequel Syndrome. Of course, I didn't see the first one until it was on DVD, because I didn't find the trailer interesting, but the movie blew me away. Could be the same thing happening with this one.
Posted: Wed, 10th Mar 2010, 8:02am
Post 47 of 48
Aculag wrote:[The whole "Iron Man Army" thing feels a little obvious and predictable, and it just seems to suffer from Way Too Much Going On In The Sequel Syndrome.
Yes. Exactly. I mean of course this is all conjecture and speculation- but wasn't the whole plot (if not the overarching theme of arms-dealing-regret) of the first one sort of summed up to a similar point in the first film's trailer? "...a man with an army of these could rule all of Asia..."?
And then there's just all of the busy-ness. And recasting (even given how much I love
The Cheadle- no bueno). And some cheap effects. And just not as much 'blow me away with cunning and slickness badassery'.
I dunno, I'll have to wait and see. Mickey Rourke's character and the art direction with him both seem terribly cheesy and ill-fitting to me, almost to a fault, but that could just be a product of Jeff Bridges being a tough act to follow. We'll see.
Love RDJ, love Favreau, love Iron Man, loved Scarlett Johanssen. And The Cheadle. For these reasons, I somewhat reserve judgement. Although yeah, this trailer makes me more wary- not less.
Posted: Wed, 10th Mar 2010, 9:11pm
Post 48 of 48
RodyPolis wrote:And then they totally blow it on the third one. That'show it goes right?
Well, there's only been one third one (I think), but yes it was