You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Iron Man 2

Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2010, 6:53pm

Post 1 of 89

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

*TOPIC MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. HOWEVER I URGE PEOPLE TO SPOLERTAG INDIVIDUALLY. THAT WAY PEOPLE CAN SAFELY READ THE REVIEWS*


Exactly 24 hours until I will be entering the cinema. Even though the trailer for this one impressed me much less than the trailer for the first one, I'm getting kind of excited.

Anyone else got their tickets?

Last edited Wed, 28th Apr 2010, 10:09pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2010, 8:28pm

Post 2 of 89

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Doesn't open until May 7th here in the states, but I'll be there opening day. The trailers don't exactly have me excited either, but I'm sure it will be fun. It'll be the first movie where I stay through the credits. smile

Might want to put up a big spoiler warning. smile
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2010, 11:01pm

Post 3 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

From what I've heard, it's terribly disappointing (Unless you ask Harry Knowles). The trailers haven't really done anything for me, but I didn't trust the trailers for the first one, either, so I remain cautiously optimistic.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2010, 9:43am

Post 4 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Most reviews seem to be complaining about the lack of action sequences and too much dialogue, which actually struck me as a little odd. Don't critics normally complain that action movies have too much action and not enough actual substance?

I wonder if non-comic book readers have been conditioned by comic book movies so far to expect wall-to-wall action? Some of the best comics I've read, even the mainstream Marvel/DC stuff, focus around the characters rather than the superhero action.

I'm intrigued to find out what I make of it - hoping to see it Friday.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2010, 10:28pm

Post 5 of 89

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I liked the film a lot. The only thing that can be said against it was that it didn't even try to up the game from the first one. The status quo approach seems to be because they are building to The Avengers. It's almost like the second episode of a TV-series where you liked the pilot. It's not taking off yet. The Avengers hinting is sometimes really in your face, but contrary to some reviewers I thought it was fun. Scarlett Johansson is awesome, Downey gives his usual best and Don Cheadle is even better than Howard was in the first one. No complains on acting. Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke play two of the funniest and most likable villains I have seen in a while. If the actors weren't so good it might have been Saturday morning cartoonish. And watch out for director Jon Favreau reprising his role of Happy. Knowing he is the director somehow makes it funnier. You also might wanna watch the entire movie until it is over.

If you liked the first one it's a must see. If not, the only reason I can give you to see it is if you are waiting for The Avengers. I'm looking forward to hearing from comic-book geeks about all the Easter eggs I missed. Anyway, it's late. I'll probably think of something better to say in the morning. Oh and the Visual Effects (done primarily by ILM) and the sound (by Skywalker Sound) are both really good, but after Star Trek, District 9, Transformers 2 and most notably Avatar last year it's like: what do you expect? CGI is finally becoming really realistic and invisible.

SPOILERS BELOW








Stay until after the credits. Do it smile And how about that Captain America reference? Epic win.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 1:32am

Post 6 of 89

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

Oh and the Visual Effects (done primarily by ILM) and the sound (by Skywalker Sound) are both really good, but after Star Trek, District 9, Transformers 2 and most notably Avatar last year it's like: what do you expect? CGI is finally becoming really realistic and invisible.
Your thoughts echo mine. Digital effects are coming to the point where everything is flawlessly done and in fact, believable.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 4:15am

Post 7 of 89

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Why so Serious? wrote:

Staff Only wrote:

Oh and the Visual Effects (done primarily by ILM) and the sound (by Skywalker Sound) are both really good, but after Star Trek, District 9, Transformers 2 and most notably Avatar last year it's like: what do you expect? CGI is finally becoming really realistic and invisible.
Your thoughts echo mine. Digital effects are coming to the point where everything is flawlessly done and in fact, believable.
Wow, I thought that idea was a little out there at first, but now that two of you agree about it, visual effects must actually look real! eek

But to be topical, glad you enjoyed it, at least to a certain extent. I'll be going to see this opening day, so hopefully it's at least as good as you've said it to be. Fingers crossed.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 7:05am

Post 8 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Staff Only wrote:

I liked the film a lot. The only thing that can be said against it was that it didn't even try to up the game from the first one. The status quo approach seems to be because they are building to The Avengers. It's almost like the second episode of a TV-series where you liked the pilot.
I really like this approach that Marvel are taking. I felt it with the first Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, and it sounds like Iron Man 2 is going the same way. They're building a universe, not just a film franchise. The storytelling they're going for is closer to comic book storytelling than traditional multi-film storytelling.

I'm intrigued to see if it's going to pay off.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 9:21am

Post 9 of 89

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I really like this approach that Marvel are taking. I felt it with the first Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, and it sounds like Iron Man 2 is going the same way. They're building a universe, not just a film franchise.
*SPOILER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE TRAILER*

Yes, and while that is cool, I've had some time to think about it, and I think the biggest problem I had with Iron Man 2 is that the stakes sometimes feel much lower than in the first one. They have done some stuff to up the drama, but all in all things seem much less bleak than in the first one. We learn in the first ten minutes (and in the trailer) that Stark has secured world peace. That really sets the tone. In the first one he realizes that he has thrown the world in to turmoil by being an evil arms-dealer. In the second he's like: “I took care of that 6 months ago. Kk, bye.”

I'll be interested to hear your takes on this.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 10:11am

Post 10 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm curious about the "world peace" thing you mention. If this is set in the same universe as every other Marvel movie, what were all the other superheros doing while Iron Man was securing world peace, and what do they have to do now? Will they be making a Spiderman movie where he just kinda hangs out, kicking the pavement and cursing Iron Man for putting him out of a job? wink

Seriously, though. It seems pretty strange to have even a brief time of "world peace" in a comic book movie where it has been established that the main character is not the only superhero around. Obviously it doesn't last, because the movie has to have SOME action, but it seems weird to me.

I assume that it's not actual world peace, but just "no ongoing wars, because everyone used Stark weapons, and he stopped making them"?
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 10:14am

Post 11 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Although at this point the only other 'known' character is the Hulk. We don't yet know the status of the Cap' and Thor.

What's slightly more odd is the need for SHIELD and 'putting together a team', if Stark is handling it all on his own quite easily.

I'm going to take a wild guess that the 'world peace' concept is just Stark propaganda. smile
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 10:31am

Post 12 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'll buy that. Obviously I haven't seen it yet, I'm sure it'll make sense when I do.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 12:09pm

Post 13 of 89

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Jerusalem Jackson wrote:

Will they be making a Spiderman movie where he just kinda hangs out, kicking the pavement and cursing Iron Man for putting him out of a job? wink
Nah, he'll probably still be hung up on Mary Jane and can never find the courage to ask her to marry him or to go on a date for that matter. That's what the last three were about wink.
About the world peace thing, who bets that will be a thing of the past once the new avengers movie comes out.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 12:15pm

Post 14 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Much as I love the first two Raimi Spideys and the first two X Men movies, it's such a shame that they don't exist in the same Marvel universe. Same with the Fantastic Four, although those movies weren't up to the same standard.

I would dearly, dearly love to see Iron Man, Spider-Man and Captain America on screen together. Thematically and politically they represent a really interesting spectrum of views that would play our marvellously.

Last edited Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 12:33pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 12:31pm

Post 15 of 89

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I would dearly, dearly love to see Iron Man, Spider-Man and Captain America on screen together. Thematically and politically they represent a really interesting spectrum of views that would play our marvellously.
I think we've all thought of that at one time or another, myself included. Imagine combining Joker, venom, sandman, doc oc, Doom, etc. against all of the avengers with some extra's like spider man, wolverine, etc. *sigh*
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 12:52pm

Post 16 of 89

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Jerusalem Jackson wrote:

I assume that it's not actual world peace, but just "no ongoing wars, because everyone used Stark weapons, and he stopped making them"?
It's actually as they put it (in the first 10-15 minutes): "No ongoing wars because Iron Man is the new nuclear deterrent."

The point isn't that there is no conflict in the film (or future films), because let's face it; these films are rarely about war. They're mostly about hero vs. bad guys (everyone else including the army standing helpless on the sidelines). I just thought it was more interesting when Stark had to live with his past mistakes (at least for little while). Also Stark weapons are really powerful and a lot of sides were in possession of them, which is why whenever Stark said: "I gave you world peace so shut up." all I could think was: How exactly did you do that?! Even Dr. Manhattan spent 2 weeks winning Vietnam. How did Iron Man do that in such a short amount of time? And how can the worlds most advanced fighter-jet/soldier be more terrifying than a nuclear weapon?

If you can let these questions slide or make up some explanation of your own the rest of the film is pretty darn good.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 1:02pm

Post 17 of 89

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

While the 10-year-old inside me absolutely adores the idea of having Spiderman and X-Men in an Avengers crossover universe, I can't help but feel standalone, solidly 'franchised' movies were the right and best thing for such iconic characters. Why? Because they've got such strong mythos, status, material, and fanbase on their own that putting them in this world as just mere characters among many, many others does Spiderman and the lot sort of a disservice.

Yes, they're in comic crossovers- but I feel the reason the Avengers works best, and the reason Marvel is able to get away with making what might be considered 'lesser-quality story' films (like Iron Man 2) is because they're ballsy enough to know if you're going to buildup to an ultimate movie, your other former films have to 'feel' lesser in terms of scale, plot, and characters; and try doing that. The inherent problem with this is that movies like Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk (and likely Cap) inevitably feel like an obligatory afterthought of 'oh this movie is just to set things up, wait til you see The Avengers!' more than they do solidly strong, standalone films.

Which, yes, is a testament to how comic books are made. And perhaps how comic book movies should have been made from the get-go. But instead we took the idea that each comic book character had their own story to tell and world to show, and I'm damn happy we got stuff like X2, Spidey, and The Dark Knight out of it.

The reason Avengers has the potential to work, and to be awesome, is because it takes a bunch of far less iconic, less universally-liked, and just arguably lesser-known superheroes (yes, even 'ol Cap) and says 'Hey, we're making you important enough to have your own film, but ultimately you're being put to film for an Avengers movie- because THAT is what is wanted, well-known, and iconic.'

That policy simply doesn't work with Spiderman or the X-Men. People don't say 'I can't wait to see Spidey in the Avengers movie!' They say 'I can't wait to see the next Spiderman movie!'

And there's the rub: either Marvel cheapens all of their characters with lesser-than-this-upcoming-teamup-movie films, or they successfully pull off a comic book mythos on a cross-film universe. As exciting as the prospect is, it isn't and never would've been worth the gamble with one of the big league characters.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 1:24pm

Post 18 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Thing is, you wouldn't even need to put Spidey in an Avengers movie. What saddens me is that they exist so separately.

Take most of the Spidey comics, for example - the vast majority of the time, it's just Spidey versus the Spidey villains. It's fairly rare that other Marvel characters pop up. But the knowledge that they're out there is very cool - so in an issue of Spidey you can have a throwaway line about Reed Richards, or Tony Stark, etc.

So it's not that I want the crossover-to-end-all-crossovers. But it'd be nice if the X Men and Spidey movies, while being primarily standalone in terms of story, still resonate within that larger universe.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 1:46pm

Post 19 of 89

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

So it's not that I want the crossover-to-end-all-crossovers. But it'd be nice if the X Men and Spidey movies, while being primarily standalone in terms of story, still resonate within that larger universe.
Exactly. For one second i wouldn't wish that all the superhero movies had been just rolled into one. But now that Batman, spider man, the x men, fantasic 4, etc. all have their back stories and franchise it's possible to roll them all together without having to explain the origins of each one in detail. In short the avengers will already be well known and the story can continue without a lot of back story stuff. Not to mention that the it'll help all of these franchises large fan bases.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 1:49pm

Post 20 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Just to clarify, because the fanboy in me is twitching like crazy: Batman and Superman are published by DC Comics and exist in a completely different universe to those others you mentioned, which are published by Marvel.

DC have a similar cross-over thing in their comics universe, which hasn't been attempted on film yet. Although you can bet that if the Avengers is a success, they'll be rebooting Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman in that direction tout suite.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 2:06pm

Post 21 of 89

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Thing is, you wouldn't even need to put Spidey in an Avengers movie. What saddens me is that they exist so separately.

Take most of the Spidey comics, for example - the vast majority of the time, it's just Spidey versus the Spidey villains.
This is exactly my point. Even the comics don't have much crossover, so the very idea that you could throw in a Reed Richards line (isn't there one referencing the Baxter Building in Spidey 3?) is just as plausible and could happen in a Raimi Spidey movie. Just as the comic stands to be separate and icon, the movie does.

Both treat it as if Spiderman is the superhero. New York's superhero. And that's fine- because they can still acknowledge other things here or there for fun just like the comic.

Wasn't there a reference, for instance, to Metropolis and Superman in Batman Returns? Stuff like that is perfectly fine- and does happen already. It's the full-on 'you're not alone, you're part of a bigger superhero universe- see!' attitude that wouldn't work for those bigger characters the way it does for Iron Man. In you mentioning DC: This is the very reason the Justice League movie completely fell apart.

Batman and Superman and Green Lantern, etc. just exist as too separate of iconic entities to be brought together in a film. It just wouldn't/doesn't work; especially when you've got Nolan's universe and Singer's cityscapes already in the vault. And there's nothing wrong with this- because each brought a really artful touch conducive to their respective characters to film. But together- some things just mesh much, much better in comics than they do in movies. I'm a firm believer in this, even as a (closeted) comic book geek. wink

Also, there are a few Spidey references in the Director's Cut of Daredevil, too. Stuff like that I love, because it's wary of others but still completely disposable to leave the movie as a standalone classic/solid. (And, yes, watch Daredevil: Director's Cut. It is excellent. Like, really.)

Also:

Why so Serious? wrote:

had been just rolled into one. But now that Batman, spider man, the x men, fantasic 4, etc.
Please stop doing this. There's Marvel and DC, and they are worlds (literally- and literarily) apart. You already threw The Joker in a list with Venom, now Batman in with Spiderman. Please, just stop. You're going to get me (a Marvel lover) and someone like CX3 (a DC fanboy) all cranky and out-of-sorts if you continue. biggrin
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 2:18pm

Post 22 of 89

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Dude, I realize with every Neuron in my body that they are both different universes. Do you think I'm that dumb? Well I'm not. wink
Sadly enough my dream of seeing the two universes unite will probably never happen, however, I can see some genius writer like Stan lee finding a believable way to do it. What isn't there to like about a all-out-war-between the the universes? wink
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 2:33pm

Post 23 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom - yeah, agreed in many ways. But the problem between little references in Spidey, Daredevil etc is that you know it's just a joke. You know there's no possibility of it ever happening.

Which isn't to say it should happen, from a story point of view. But it's the possibility that makes it exciting.

Otherwise it's just an in-joke.

If the storytellers choose not to have the characters in the same world, that's fine. If the money men decide not to have the characters in the same universe (as is the case with Batman, Spidey, X Men, FF etc)...that's lame.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 3:10pm

Post 24 of 89

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Yeeeeeah, but just as much as money men decide it; filmmaker's tend to agree anyway. Both Nolan and Raimi said they only wanted to (and only would) direct/tell stories and make movies for Batman and Spiderman, respectively, if they were in their own world. Both are pretty vocal about not liking the idea of having a criss-crossing universe; so I become alright with the notion when I watch the movies knowing this.

Maybe it was a money thing, but it's just as much a 'the storyteller's they chose wanted it that way, too' thing.

Why so Serious? wrote:

Do you think I'm that dumb?
First off: Yes. Yes, I do.

Secondly- What's so bad about mixing them? Well, I like a cheeseburger and chocolate shake perfectly fine; but I wouldn't blend them together and consume it, now would I? wink
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 3:26pm

Post 25 of 89

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Secondly- What's so bad about mixing them? Well, I like a cheeseburger and chocolate shake perfectly fine; but I wouldn't blend them together and consume it, now would I? wink
You wouldn't mix them together but you would eat them both at the same meal.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 3:28pm

Post 26 of 89

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Right. I watch Batman movies and Spiderman movies. But I wouldn't want to see them in a movie (or comic, for that matter) together. I guess you missed.....the point.....of that analogy.....wink
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 3:31pm

Post 27 of 89

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I didn't miss the point, I just re-said it another way. But I know what you mean about how they just really wouldn't go together. "wink"
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 4:56pm

Post 28 of 89

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm just saying this out of nowhere because it doesn't relate to your debate Tarn and Atom, but The Avengers better be close to 3 hours long and sustain suspense for every minute. Not that I doubt Whedon at all, but even he couldn't make a film with that much info and pre-build-up, work in the standard "right under 2 hours" mark.

Also another notable thing is that Jon Favreau has twittered that Iron Man 2 takes place before The Incredible Hulk, which makes sense considering Stark's appearance at the end of The Incredible Hulk and what he says, when you relate it to his relationship with S.H.I.E.L.D at the start of Iron Man 2. It was always just assumed that he said: "I do" to Nick Fury after the credits of Iron Man 1 (minor spoiler white tagged), but that was not the case. The fact that Iron Man 2 takes place before The Incredible Hulk is interesting because it means that this is fast becoming as convoluted as one of your comic books (razz) and it tells us something about the story restrictions the standalone films are working with here. I'm just curious to know what will happen if The Avengers is awesome and makes a ton of cash. Do we go straight to The Avengers sequel, or do we do 4-5 years of standalone sequels first?

Either way this is pretty film-historical.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 6:04pm

Post 29 of 89

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

Not that I doubt Whedon at all
You should. He may understand writing and character development/juggling, but he has no concept of cinematic storytelling; which is something else entirely that I think people forget. His only 'movie' was more sharply-written-and-really-well-done-made-for-TV-movie than it was anything else.

Look on Collider, there's a great deconstruction of why Favreau should've been picked and why Joss Whedon is a really worrisome choice in a sort of 'State of Marvel' video they've got. I know we've already been over this a few times, I just get more and more worried the more and more I hear about Whedon. He's not JJ Abrams, and he won't follow the JJ Abrams' 'path of showrunner to overall cinematic genius/acclaimed director'.

Why? Because there weren't/aren't clear indicators of the scope and talent, cinematically I mean, that Whedon has in his work on Buffy, Angel, Dollhouse, or even the great Firefly (all 'quality of entertainment' and writing aside) the same way there were in the pilot of Lost, Fringe, or any episode of Alias for JJ Abrams before M:I3 or Star Trek came out. And mark my words, as much as a superb television episode may get you by and give you faith, The Avengers is a film that is- even inherently- going to need a sh*t-ton of cinematic storytelling; and it just remains to be seen with Whedon. I mean, yeah, he could pull it off and prove me wrong- but I'm still worried.

I think Marvel might've misstepped, and the more we build up this movie, the worse it is gonna get and harder it'll be to tie it the livable amounts of hype. Even The Dark Knight only narrowly lived up to it's hype- and that's only because it was such a well-made film that had hype so hugely proportioned. Think of how The Avengers could backfire, or the hype could deflate.

Take it from someone who knows it- I'm worried about all this build-up/hype. Especially if it all hinges on one movie. (Now, if they break up The Avengers movie- all sequels aside- into one complete story told in two staggered-release films, I might be more inclined to breath easy. smile)

Also, quick. While it's still there.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 6:26pm

Post 30 of 89

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Very good points. Also geeks are merciless. This will have hype likened only to The Phantom Menace release so the pressure is up there.

On another point, that link Atom is a substantial spoiler. Might wanna tag it?

Last edited Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 7:54pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 6:28pm

Post 31 of 89

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

Very good points. Also geeks are merciless. This will have hype likened only to The Phantom menace release so the pressure is up there.
Somehow I doubt we'll see that kind of hype again for a while, precisely because of Ep.1 razz
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 10:49pm

Post 32 of 89

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I would really like to see Spiderman mixing with Iron man. It would be cool to see the innocent, lovestruck teenager in contrast with the cynical, probably relentless character; how they would clash in handling a situation based on their different tactical knowledge and moral values. Of course, they would probably have some kind of battle just to see who's tougher, at some point in the film.
Posted: Fri, 30th Apr 2010, 10:51pm

Post 33 of 89

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

The first photo of Hemsworth as Thor...

http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/movie-stills/gallery/2588/thor-stills#info
Posted: Tue, 4th May 2010, 8:16am

Post 34 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom - I get that you don't like Whedon's stuff, but there's plenty of evidence in his back catalogue to a decent cinematic skill. You have to remember the kind of budgets Whedon's played with, both on TV and with Serenity.

I found Serenity to be one of the most visually arresting sci-fi and action movies for years, which is impressive given it had half the budget of emost SF movies.

I mean, Favreau wasn't exactly known for his grand, epic scale prior to Iron Man.

Oh, meanwhile: saw Iron Man 2, loved it. Perfect continuation of the story. Don't really get why people are complaining about a lack of action.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 8:00am

Post 35 of 89

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Just saw it. All I have to say is this:

sad
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 8:19am

Post 36 of 89

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Saw it too and thought it was "ok" at best. The action scenes were very cool and some stuff was funny, but all in all, it had way too much "let's all talk very fast at the same time" humour which I found utterly annoying and the whole progressed too slow for my liking. Didn't care much for the story that was told, which is a shame.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 8:28am

Post 37 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, your response seems to be how people are reacting generally. With Iron Man 2 it feels like I saw a different film to everyone else on the planet. razz
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 8:33am

Post 38 of 89

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

A good-not-great kind of film, but an enjoyable movie nonetheless. Just as good as the first, no doubt, but made to look worse inevitably by a retread of the once-refreshing wit and pacing of the film.

Both succeed, but they don't 'up the ante' in the way we feel like they should. Despite my cautions and worries, and given my liking to the first film, I ended up pretty pleasantly surprised by Iron Man 2.

Yes, it had an overdose of plotlines and an emptiness of some better/less-spaced-apart action sequences, and these are very valid and noticeable flaw of the film that some critics have noted.

But overall the movie still just finds a way to work, and the faults are basically forgivable. Given the mounting expectations of this movie and success of it's predecessor; it would seem easy to feel disappointed this time around.

But when you look at it with cautious and wary eyes, like I did, I think you find the movie for what it really is- a fun, frenetic, charismatic movie. The fact that it happened to be the sequel to Iron Man may play some importance in weighing it's value- but ultimately it's a strong and entertaining film all the way through.

RDJ, Rockwell, very sweet and top-of-her-game Gwyneth. Gary Shandling.

This movie left it to me actors- and despite an overreliance on underwhelming spectacle in the third act (the primary flaw of the first film as well, which was also stronger in it's first half) and an overuse of so-so CG- this movie pretty much gets and does things right. And it's worth seeing.

But it isn't elevated to that crazy 'best movie of all time!!!!' status or hype like Iron Man (and then later in the day The Dark Knight) because it never finds any territory to transcend. But it's not for lack of trying, and the movie is by no means bad. It's rather good, and a pleasant surprise. I liked it.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 8:38am

Post 39 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom wrote:

But it isn't elevated to that crazy 'best movie of all time!!!!' status or hype like Iron Man (and then later in the day The Dark Knight) because it never finds any territory to transcend. But it's not for lack of trying, and the movie is by no means bad. It's rather good, and a pleasant surprise. I liked it.
Good, balanced review. This last bit is interesting - in retrospect I think people are remembering Iron Man 1 as being better than it was. It was a great fun movie, but it wasn't remarkable. Iron Man 2 sits happily in that same bracket for me.

Glad you mentioned Shandling, he was brilliant. As was Rockwell, who made me feel real pity for a character that could have just come across as weasely.

Main thing for me, though, is that Iron Man 2 contains what is almost certainly going to be my Favourite Scene Of The Year, just as Iron Man 1 did.

In Iron Man 1, it was the first proper suiting up, followed by the amazing rescue of the hostages in Afghanistan, an action sequence that was shot with real restraint which made it all the cooler.

Iron Man 2 has an equally kick ass sequence, notably the suitcase-suit bit, which made me want to jump out of my seat and jump around like a loon.

There aren't many filmmakers that can put scenes together that work that well for me.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 8:56am

Post 40 of 89

Shadow013

Force: 943 | Joined: 17th Mar 2008 | Posts: 154

EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I liked it. It was a lot of fun. If this seems a little less thought out, that's only because its pretty late and I'm pretty tired. I'm not really a comic book reader, but there was one thing I was able to put two and two together and that was the Thor references. The Thor movie that is. They mentioned New Mexico, which is where it is being filmed... ? (If I'm wrong, sorry. I am very tired). I remember them having a casting call for it around here. So I don't know. All in all I enjoyed the movie.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 12:38pm

Post 41 of 89

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Mediocre superhero film that only the fans will remember. Something that get's watched once in a while. I had hope for a groundbreaking, awesome, sequel but...
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 12:43pm

Post 42 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I'm trying to figure out what kind of quality scale people use to define medicore and average these days. If Iron Man 2 is mediocre then we must be living in a golden age of science fiction/fantasy movies.

Do people not remember Spawn, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Blade 3, Ghost Rider, X3, Daredevil, Constantine, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Shadow, etc etc etc.

In other words, what are these amazing, outstanding superhero movies that people are comparing Iron Man 2 to, which result in it being judged mediocre? I'm genuinely curious, because I want to see them!

If the answers is essentially 'The Dark Knight', then I still don't get it. Iron Man 2 isn't a great film or a classic, it's not genre-busting...but it's not meant to be.

Even outside the comic superhero genre, it felt considerably more fun and accomplished than most action movies from the last 12 months that aren't called Kick Ass.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 1:33pm

Post 43 of 89

alienux

Force: 1050 | Joined: 6th Jan 2010 | Posts: 299

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I found Serenity to be one of the most visually arresting sci-fi and action movies for years, which is impressive given it had half the budget of emost SF movies.
I couldn't agree more. On a side note, I also really miss Jayne's humor from Firefly. He and Mal had some great back and forth banter, in both the series and the movie.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 1:52pm

Post 44 of 89

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

If the answers is essentially 'The Dark Knight', then I still don't get it. Iron Man 2 isn't a great film or a classic, it's not genre-busting...but it's not meant to be.
Yes, and I really don't feel The Dark Knight deserves all the credit it gets. It's way to flawed (both in the story/plausibility department and in the action-scene department. Joker is awesomeness, but a superhero film needs some awesome action-scenes, not just okay ones). As far as superhero movies go:

1. Place: Batman Begins tied with Watchmen and The Incredibles

2. Place: X2 tied with Kick Ass

3. Place: Spider-man 2 with The Dark Knight

then the Iron Man films I guess.

That's my list.

alienux wrote:

Tarn wrote:

I found Serenity to be one of the most visually arresting sci-fi and action movies for years, which is impressive given it had half the budget of emost SF movies.
I couldn't agree more. On a side note, I also really miss Jayne's humor from Firefly. He and Mal had some great back and forth banter, in both the series and the movie.
I LOVE Serenity. I saw Firefly because I bought Serenity on DVD due to a hunch that it might be good. It's now my favorite film of all time alongside A New Hope and Star Trek 2009. Serenity is such a feat in writing and directing that I can't believe it doesn't get more credit by critics and sci-fi lovers in general.

And to alienux: watch Chuck. You're going to love it. I can't decide anymore if I like Jayne or John Casey more.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 1:55pm

Post 45 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Staff Only wrote:

Tarn wrote:

If the answers is essentially 'The Dark Knight', then I still don't get it. Iron Man 2 isn't a great film or a classic, it's not genre-busting...but it's not meant to be.
Yes, and I really don't feel The Dark Knight deserves all the credit it gets. It's way to flawed (both in the story/plausibility department and in the action-scene department. Joker is awesomeness, but a superhero film needs some awesome action-scenes, not just okay ones). As far as superhero movies go:

1. Place: Batman Begins tied with Watchmen and The Incredibles

2. Place: X2 tied with Kick Ass

3. Place: Spider-man 2 with The Dark Knight

then the Iron Man films I guess.

That's my list.
More-or-less agree. I guess my point is that coming in a list after those films doesn't make a film mediocre by any degree. It just means it's not as good as films that are utterly awesome. Which is fine.

Maybe it's just the fanboy thing, whereby if something isn't the Best Thing Ever, it's automatically the Worst Thing Ever?
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 2:25pm

Post 46 of 89

alienux

Force: 1050 | Joined: 6th Jan 2010 | Posts: 299

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

And to alienux: watch Chuck. You're going to love it. I can't decide anymore if I like Jayne or John Casey more.
I've actually only seen one episode (the 3d one) and a few scenes from some other episodes, but it did look entertaining. If Adam's character on Chuck is anywhere near as entertaining as Jayne, I'm sure I'd enjoy it. I'll have to catch up on it on that recommendation.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 2:31pm

Post 47 of 89

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Tarn wrote:

With Iron Man 2 it feels like I saw a different film to everyone else on the planet.
What did you see then? Did you see more then an "ok" film that had it's entertaining but also it's boring parts?
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 2:34pm

Post 48 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, I saw a good film that was very entertaining throughout, with a couple of really standout scenes. The possibility of being bored during a film like Iron Man 2 seems really strange to me. smile
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 2:48pm

Post 49 of 89

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Well, I found a couple of scenes in Iron Man 2 rather boring and would lie if I'd say I cared much for it's by-the-book cookie cutter story. And I really don't enjoy Sam Rockwell much other then in Frost/Nixon, but that was a better movie in every single department.

But yes! The film had some great standout scenes which did in fact lift it to "ok" level. And of course, Robert Downey who's just kind of really awesome to watch. He also lifted Sherlock Holmes to "ok" level. cool


But yes, alas, tastes are different. I'm glad you had a good time. I had an ok time myself.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 2:57pm

Post 50 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Sollthar wrote:

Well, I found a couple of scenes in Iron Man 2 rather boring and would lie if I'd say I cared much for it's by-the-book cookie cutter story. And I really don't enjoy Sam Rockwell much other then in Frost/Nixon, but that was a better movie in every single department.
While the plot was very derivative (and in places pretty much identical to the first film), the characters were more than enough to keep me engaged. Rockwell in particular I thought was superb - made much more of a character that could have just been a joke.

But, yes, different opinions and all that. smile

I'm just surprised by some of the 'mediocre' comments, because they inherently imply this wealth of vastly superior stuff in and around the genre, which I just don't see.

The suitcase bit is awesome regardless. smile
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 3:03pm

Post 51 of 89

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I think, with the exception named above, I found Rockwell annoying in everything I've seen him in. He has that acting style of "odlly nervous mimicing" which gives me shivers to watch. I also really inherently dislike him whenever he's visible on screen, even if he doesn't play a dodgy character. smile

I wouldn't say that calling something "mediocre" implies better films in the same genre, allthough I'd argue that there are vastly better films in that genre. It implies there are better films. smile
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 3:08pm

Post 52 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I think Rockwell is great. smile Recently saw Moon and Galaxy Quest again, in which he's superb. In fact, he's rapidly becoming one of my favourite actors.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 3:25pm

Post 53 of 89

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Tarn wrote:

I think Rockwell is great. smile Recently saw Moon and Galaxy Quest again, in which he's superb. In fact, he's rapidly becoming one of my favourite actors.
Agreed. Matchstick Men and Choke are also worth checking out.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 3:27pm

Post 54 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Meanwhile, some interesting behind the scenes stuff on the motion graphics bits and pieces in the film:

http://perceptionnyc.com/node/68
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 4:31pm

Post 55 of 89

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I never got why people thought the first one was so great. I remember everyone, you guys included (which was weird since you guys hate everything smile ), talking about how great it was so I had to see it. I saw it and thought it was a fun movie, but nothing else. Something about Iron Man just doesn't get me excited at all. It might have to do with the fact that it's a superhero I didn't know existed till about 3 years ago smile

So I'm guessing IM2 is exactly like IM1 was except this time people came into their senses and realized it wasn't that great? I should be seeing it this weekend so hopefully it's better than the first one cause the first one was a big pile of just-above-average to me.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 6:21pm

Post 56 of 89

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I pretty much, despite my first lack of enthusiasm, whole-heartedly agree with Tarn.

I have to basically, also, disagree with Sollthar on every point. I mean- the 'talk over eachother' kind of moments are pure RDJ. That is, to me, basically the foundation of the first film. I really thought that built the movie up this time around- the dialogue between Potts and Tony is completely fun, natural, funny, and sweet. And bolstered by strong supporting actors (aside from the awful Mickey Rourke- prima donna bad actor in this film) the script as a whole, on a spoken word level, is very strong and fun.

And then there's this other mess of you not, generally, liking Sam Rockwell? What? It's hard for me to even listen to you after that part. biggrin

Overall I think the movie worked as a nice setup for future Marvel films, and was very fun, but wasn't elevated to that *next* tier of greatness. Don't doubt it's solidity or quality though: Iron Man 2 is a really good, really satisfying, really fun movie.

To pass it up for all the other negative reasons, or to not enjoy it because of them, is doing yourself a grave disservice. The more I slept on it (literally), the more I liked the movie.

I mean........well, yeah, that's about it. I liked the movie. It was good. I didn't think I would. I thought it looked tackier and more convoluted/over-packed than the first one (and I voiced many of these fears here), but I wasn't so much wrong about these fears as I was happily, pleasantly surprised. I think it's really cool, as many do, to see what Marvel is doing in interweaving the storylines and characters- and I think it's a commercial and universal audience risk to throw in stuff like these very long, in the scheme of the film, scenes with Samuel L. Jackson. As many reviewers have noted, if you don't know anything about the comics, or The Avengers, then you're kinda left scratching your head. But this concession is made for the overarching success and happiness of those who know what it's leading to and about, and- despite all my hooplah against it- really, really enjoyed this fact. The scenes with Samuel L. Jackson are some of the best in the movie, too.

This being said, it's undoubtedly a tad bit disjointed and slow, but there's a finesse to the movie many other blockbusters lack- on all levels- and this attributes to the success of throwing in all these extraneous, sometimes perplexingly shoe-horned-in elements.

It's good fun. Go see it!

Also, again despite me being 'mehhhh to the first two trailers- The latest Inception trailer, which played at my screening, was absolutely amazing. Like, I'm talking Terminator Salvation/Star Trek trailer #2 quality. Did anyone else catch it? You can watch it by (sort of silly, but completely expected given WB and Nolan's marketing and promotion in the past) going to www.mind-crime.com and building a 'maze' of a city, then going into one of the movie theaters in that city.
Posted: Fri, 7th May 2010, 9:36pm

Post 57 of 89

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I just got home from a late night showing of Iron Man 2 and thought I'd chime in here to say I agree with both Atom and Tarn.

Iron Man gets the mix between personal struggle, charismatic characters and comic humour right so consistently, far better than the Spider Man series has been able to. The action sequences in iron man 2 far outweigh it's predecessor as well, the last 30 minutes or so of this film was non stop carnage.

Loved the rocket in that last sequence too.

-Matt
Posted: Sat, 8th May 2010, 5:37am

Post 58 of 89

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Just saw it this afternoon.

Really good movie. My thoughts echo Tarn and Atom's as well. I personally loved Rockwell's performance, though glad to see that RDJ also brought along his usual quick and clever excellence. Kind of a "same-old, same-old" plot, but I think they stretched it to it's potential. I also enjoyed the Thor and Captain America references throughout the film.

I'd give it an 8/10
Posted: Sat, 8th May 2010, 8:14am

Post 59 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Agreed. Matchstick Men and Choke are also worth checking out.
He's also really good in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which is one of my favorite films. Great, great movie.

Still haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet. Might go tomorrow.
Posted: Sun, 9th May 2010, 7:33am

Post 60 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Bumping this to say that I just got back from seeing it, and I totally agree with Tarn. Definitely enjoyed it a lot, and thought it was a very worthy successor to the first one, with a good amount of action, and a great amount of story. Well played. I'd say I enjoyed it more than the first movie, and Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke were excellent villains.

The references to the Avengers were awesome as well. Most of the people in the theater I was in didn't stay through the credits, and barely anyone responded to Captain America's disc. People are so weird. Once the credits start to roll, it's "whip out the cell phone and get out of the theater as quickly as possible." Why go to a movie at all if you're in such a rush to leave?
Posted: Sun, 9th May 2010, 9:37am

Post 61 of 89

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

People are so weird. Once the credits start to roll, it's "whip out the cell phone and get out of the theater as quickly as possible." Why go to a movie at all if you're in such a rush to leave?
I've thought that too. I almost always stay until after the credits. Only if I'm in a larger party of casual movie-goers do I reluctantly leave with them. It's not really because I expect there to be a scene at the very end (most of the time I already know if there is), but because I like to read which visual effects companies they used (and check if the list on IMDb is complete), who was the visual effects supervisor, the editor, the DoP, that face I recognized in the film but couldn't remember the actors name etc. Also I've payed for the entire film, and some films have really epic credits music. Most notably films Michael Giacchino has worked on. He really puts some effort into the credits music. Like in Cloverfield which didn't have a score, only a really good credits overture.

Giacchino essentials:

Cloverfield Overture "ROAR!"

The Incredibles Credits "The Incredits"

Star Trek 2009 Credits "Star Trek End Credits"

Ratatuoille Credits "End Creditouilles"


Those are all amazing pieces by Giacchino, but one of the pioneers of doing this was John Williams:

Raiders of the Lost Ark Credits "Washington Ending & Raiders March"

Star Wars Credits "The Throne Room End Title"


Why wouldn't you stay and listen to these amazing pieces on awesome 20-channel, THX Certified theater surround sound? It baffles me. I also remember post-Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy (which all feature scenes after the credits) staying after the credits became more mainstream. On the second The Dark Knight screening I was on, the ushers who seemed like they were getting increasingly cross with the 5-10 "morons" who watched the credits and therefore gave them less time to clean between screenings, tried to get me to leave. He told my group: "You can leave, there is nothing after the credits." in an annoyed voice. For a second I contemplated saying some classics like: "I've payed to see the whole film." or "Hey! Spoiler alert?!", but I went with "I know there isn't. I've seen this film before.". You should have seen his face. Geeks who insist on watching the credits twice? It looked like he was wondering what was wrong with the world. Less rude cleaners have taken to glaring at my friends and I like we are evil, and then awkwardly starting to clean the lower rows where no-one is seated.

On Iron Man however I was happy to see that about 200-300 of a 1000 people stayed, because I was the premiere and the place was filled with comic book geeks. Also the Ushers seemed happy that people were enjoying it so much for once.

Anyway I couldn't agree more Aculag. There is something special about letting the film sink in instead of running to the parking lot and racing home because those 5-7 minutes of credits-time you are not getting back.

Last edited Sun, 9th May 2010, 11:29am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 9th May 2010, 11:14am

Post 62 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Ugh, I really hate the notion that people would only stay through the credits if there is going to be an extra bit of footage at the end. sad What do people think credits are for?? Obviously for Iron Man it makes sense, and there was some entertaining music throughout the credits, but I just like to sit there and think about the movie while I look at the credits. I would have never known that Genndy Tartakovsky was involved in the production if I hadn't, and that was a nice little tidbit to pick up on. He was a storyboard artist, and visualized the action sequences, apparently. Very cool!

I know 90% of the public just doesn't care about stuff like that, though. It's still a little baffling to me that (a) people have to get out of there immediately, and (b) that people apparently can't do without using their cell phones for two hours. It is absolutely maddening when people text or tweet during the film. I rarely hear people's phones go off these days, but having that bright blue glow from the screen is even more distracting when you're trying to watch something in a darkened room. Especially if it's a 3D feature. People are jerks.

Also, how crazy is it that Justin Theroux wrote the screenplay? I didn't know that ahead of time, and was completely taken by surprise by it.
Posted: Sun, 9th May 2010, 4:38pm

Post 63 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

The rushing out after a film syndrome is an odd one. Regardless of whether you are interested in the contents of the credits, I always like to have a few moments at least to savour what I've just watched. The credits offer a little bit of downtime to recalibrate my brain from being entirely enveloped by "fictional movie universe" back to "real universe".

It's the same reason I hardly watch any live TV, and prefer to not even watch recorded TV. Why? Because they cover the end credits with a load of crap. If you get to the end of an emotional episode of Battlestar Galactica, The Wire, Lost (or whatever you TV show of choice happens to be) the last thing you want is some chump shouting about the next, completely incongruous program that's on.

Frankly, given the power and stomping about that entertainment unions do in the US, I'm always stunned that they haven't fought to ensure the sanctity of credits. It should be part of cast and crew contracts that their credits will be shown uninterrupted.
Posted: Sun, 9th May 2010, 4:53pm

Post 64 of 89

DX6channel

Force: 496 | Joined: 9th Jul 2009 | Posts: 110

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Did the teaser trailer for Voyage of the Dawn Treader play before Iron Man 2?
Posted: Sun, 9th May 2010, 5:18pm

Post 65 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:


It's the same reason I hardly watch any live TV, and prefer to not even watch recorded TV. Why? Because they cover the end credits with a load of crap. If you get to the end of an emotional episode of Battlestar Galactica, The Wire, Lost (or whatever you TV show of choice happens to be) the last thing you want is some chump shouting about the next, completely incongruous program that's on.
I only watch a small handful of shows, but I always mute the TV during commercials, and turn it off immediately after the show ends for this very reason. Lost especially, I always need to just turn it off and absorb what just happened, and the credits are shrunk down to less than half the screen so you can't even read it, while they play some sensationalist ad for next week's episode. Very annoying.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 12:21am

Post 66 of 89

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

God, I hate when my roommates mute the commercials. I dunno why, I just hate that notion and action.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 12:28am

Post 67 of 89

TheOutlawAmbulance

Force: 931 | Joined: 16th Dec 2008 | Posts: 938

EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

DX6channel wrote:

Did the teaser trailer for Voyage of the Dawn Treader play before Iron Man 2?
No, I didn't see it.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 2:17am

Post 68 of 89

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Just saw it.

I think it was disjointed... but fun nonetheless. I was looking for Tony Stark to have some sort of inner conflict... but there was really only a physical conflict. And with all the new characters, Robert Downey Jr. doesn't get enough screen-time.

Still, it's a great movie. Loved the acting, effects, and especially the humor. Both Iron Man 1 and 2 rank right below the new Batman films as my favorite superhero movies.

9/10

EDIT: Is it just me, or did a lot of stuff from the trailers get cut out?
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 2:57am

Post 69 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

God, I hate when my roommates mute the commercials. I dunno why, I just hate that notion and action.
Haha, you must be an... interesting roommate. wink
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 3:21am

Post 70 of 89

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I somewhat get what Atom is saying. For example, if I'm watching a show I really like, I feel uneasy about changing the channel when it switches to commercial. It's like I feel like the least I can do for the awesome hour of TV their giving me is to sit there and watch all the commercial they show.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 3:42am

Post 71 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Well, I personally can't stand commercials. I find them irritating and offensive. Especially because half of them are advertising for beauty products, and the other half are advertising for foods that are going to kill you. There was a KFC commercial on the other day that was for some new campaign they're doing for breast cancer awareness, where you buy a bucket of fried chicken and the proceeds go to cancer research or something. The utter hypocrisy of an ad like that really steams me. You can't claim to be doing good for people when you are selling a product that is almost specifically designed to be unhealthy, and is unequivocally bad for people. It's especially worse when they also advertise for the Double Down Sandwich which is heart disease in a paper wrapper. And a LOT of commercials are like that. I won't even get into the beauty products and how hypocritical companies like Dove are by promoting self-esteem programs for young girls while at the same time selling them anti-aging skin creams and *buzzwords*.

I understand that it's their job to make these things, but I have a big problem with consumerism, and especially the fact that obesity is such a problem in this country, yet companies like McDonalds and KFC are allowed to promote, and sell such unhealthy foods. Sorry for the rant. I could go on for days about why I despise commercials. Having to sit through them is bad enough with the TV muted, which is why I only watch a very small handful of shows while they air. Hulu, or DVD is a much better option for someone like me.

You guys can watch all the commercials you want, if that's your thing. I just don't personally.

Last edited Mon, 10th May 2010, 3:46am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 3:43am

Post 72 of 89

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Another reason why streaming is awesome. Cut out commercials (or at least easy to ignore), and usually a full credit sequence (especially in legal streams). Also usually available only a couple hours after it airs, good quality (unless you need perfect HD, which really only applies to Planet Earth for me tbh). Also, streaming ads, if you don't choose to ignore them, are usually classy commercials for the most part.

What's this topic about again? razz
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 3:45am

Post 73 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

What's this topic about again?
Some movie about a guy who presses slacks, or something.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 5:04am

Post 74 of 89

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

As someone majoring (and in love with) advertising, it's hard for me to make an opinion I don't think you'll absolutely, seethingly hate- so I'll hold my tongue. biggrin

But, on a separate note, I've actually had a KFC Double-Down. And it was..........amazing.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 5:18am

Post 75 of 89

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

But was the several years off your life span worth it? wink

I'm assuming your opinion is something along the lines of "advertising has artistic merits" or something, which is true. But advertisements aren't life changing and don't need to be watched by everyone who doesn't care, and ones that are "life changing" or very witty or something, usually find the people who actually care.

I really can't imagine an opinion that anyone would really seethingly hate. I might disagree with it if it's marginally more radical than my assumption, but speaking for myself-I wouldn't hate it. So, shoot. smile
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 6:05am

Post 76 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

As someone majoring (and in love with) advertising, it's hard for me to make an opinion I don't think you'll absolutely, seethingly hate- so I'll hold my tongue. biggrin

But, on a separate note, I've actually had a KFC Double-Down. And it was..........amazing.
I don't have a problem with advertising, I just have a problem with hypocrisy in advertising, and the type of advertising that does more harm than good. I wouldn't want to get into film as a career if I had a major issue with advertising at its core. It is pretty much essential to making a film a success. Of course, I'm much more interested in independent production than major Hollywood features, but that's another story.

My issues are mostly with advertising things that are objectively bad for people's health and self-image. And using children for any sort of advertisement that isn't directly related to children is just abhorrent. Toy commercials especially, use the naivety of youth to sell products to adults, and it works! Also, pharmaceutical commercials are absolutely terrifying to me. You know, exploitative stuff. They exist for a reason, but I have personal issues with the messages they send.

But like I said, advertising has its place, I just don't agree with the message that a vast majority of commercial advertisements present, so I mute them, and when I can't, I try to ignore them. And like Serpent said, the ones that are actually well made, I seek out. There was a Nutrigrain spec commercial going around the internet for a while a few years ago that I absolutely loved. Some commercials are just plain cool, but the great majority of them bug me. I definitely encourage you to pursue a career in that field, though, because you definitely have a grasp on hyping things, and the industry needs more ads that are actually creative and well done. It's a "necessary evil".

Also, I have no doubt that the Double Down tastes good. Anything with 32g of fat and over 1000mg of sodium is going to taste great, but it's nonetheless extremely bad for you. I won't tell you how to live your life, but try not to eat very many of those. smile

(Hopefully someone else sees Iron Man 2 soon, so we can start talking about that again. wink)
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 11:53am

Post 77 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Apparently there's an Incredible Hulk reference near the end of the film, but I missed it totally.

Damn, I'm just going to have to go see it again. Hard life.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 12:21pm

Post 78 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Really? I know there was one in the first film, but I definitely didn't notice it in this one. Apparently the Cap shield was in the first film as well. Totally didn't pick up on it.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 12:25pm

Post 79 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

What was in the first film?

In the second, when Fury is talking to Stark about joining SHIELD, on some of the screen in the background it has the aftermath from the Hulk's battle on the college campus from that film. So it looks like the final scenes of Iron Man 2 are supposed to be happening at the same time as the mid-point of Incredible Hulk.

Apparently the Cap's shield is on Stark's workbench in the first film, when Potts finds him half stuck in the suit.

I think the plan is to have Stark Snr. conneted to the Captain America project in WW2, which would be pretty nifty. Otherwise it would make absolutely no sense for the shield to be in Stark's lab in the first Iron Man. razz
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 12:41pm

Post 80 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Actually, I had that backwards, sorry. I was remembering the bit at the end of Incredible Hulk that has Stark walk into a bar and talk to Ross about the team he's putting together.

So I guess you're right, and the events of Iron Man 2 take place before Incredible Hulk, or around the same time. This world that they're putting together is quite something so far. Can't wait to see some more stuff for Thor, that is going to be awesome. I just now realized that Kenneth Branagh is directing that. Should be interesting indeed.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 12:42pm

Post 81 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yup, and "Kirk's Dad" from the new Trek film is playing Thor, which is an interesting choice.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 1:15pm

Post 82 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Ps.


Bad. Ass.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 1:20pm

Post 83 of 89

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I caught the Hulk reference right off the bat. Also when Fury says he's got to go deal with a big disturbance "in the southwest region", it's subtle but I'm pretty sure he's referring to Brazil- where Ed Norton's Bruce Banner is residing at the beginning of the Hulk film.

Last edited Mon, 10th May 2010, 1:23pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 1:22pm

Post 84 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

It's a cool pic. The only problem is that I read on another website someone saying how the floppy bit of hair is really blatantly photoshopped - so I now can't look at it without thinking that. I have no idea whether it is photoshopped, and don't really care either way, but hot damn is it distracting.

A part of me likes to think that they shot the entire film without that floppy bit of hair, and have now painstakingly composited it into every scene.

Maybe we should ask Hybrid.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 1:23pm

Post 85 of 89

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

*Decides not to tell aculag that Jawa Jonny beat him to the picture by like 50 posts* wink
But yes, thor looks truly, eh, thor-ish. Can't wait to see him in action...
EDIT: Tarn, you @#$%&. now I can't look at the picture without noticing it...ARGH!
EDIT 002: Maybe though half the film we'll be wondering why there's always something obscuring the one half of thor's forehead.
Posted: Mon, 10th May 2010, 1:43pm

Post 86 of 89

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I caught the Hulk reference right off the bat. Also when Fury says he's got to go deal with a big disturbance "in the southwest region", it's subtle but I'm pretty sure he's referring to Brazil- where Ed Norton's Bruce Banner is residing at the beginning of the Hulk film.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to New Mexico, where they found Thor's hammer. He probably would have said South America if he meant Brazil.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 5:26am

Post 87 of 89

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I had low expectations for this film from judging the trailers. I saw it today and enjoyed it very much. I had about as much fun watching it as the I did when I saw the first. Mission accomplished. I'll probably be seeing it again considering I can watch movies for free smile.
Posted: Mon, 17th May 2010, 3:13pm

Post 88 of 89

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I know you've all been eagerly awaiting the Spiffing Review of Iron Man 2, so here it is:

http://spiffingreview.com/2010/05/15/episode-13-ironman-who/
Posted: Thu, 27th May 2010, 1:12am

Post 89 of 89

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Currently watching this film. So far I like it a lot. It needs a bit more action and awesomeness, but it's really good and as good a sequel as one can expect. Most of what I want to say has been said already, but I'd like to mention one thing:
Bill O'Reilly's cameo(?) on a TV in Potts' office. It was just hilarious listening to him, cause he talks exactly like on his real shows. It's awesome.