I agree with you that there could have been more Iron Man and little less Tony and crew; but on the other hand, all the screen-time Tony got was necessary due to his suit problem. If they had done it differently, the movie would have pushed a runtime of 3.5 hours... which wouldn't have been a bad thing for me, but others may have not liked the length.
As for "doing it right", it's a little ridiculous to say that you aren't happy with the direction they're taking with SHIELD... when the movie about SHIELD hasn't even come out yet. You can't judge that element of the Marvel Movie Universe properly until they are actually featured; it's premature to do so based on the little involvement they've had in the two Iron Man films.
Originally posted by marwash22Seeing as how I payed to see the film, am a comic book and film fan in general, a poster on a web forum formed for the basis of movies, and am posting in a Iron Man 2 thread, I don't think you or anyone else is in any position to tell me I can't voice my opinion or judge the film or it's content.
I agree with you that there could have been more Iron Man and little less Tony and crew; but on the other hand, all the screen-time Tony got was necessary due to his suit problem. If they had done it differently, the movie would have pushed a runtime of 3.5 hours... which wouldn't have been a bad thing for me, but others may have not liked the length.As for "doing it right", it's a little ridiculous to say that you aren't happy with the direction they're taking with SHIELD... when the movie about SHIELD hasn't even come out yet. You can't judge that element of the Marvel Movie Universe properly until they are actually featured; it's premature to do so based on the little involvement they've had in the two Iron Man films.
3.5 hours? Get real. No way I'm sitting through a 3.5 hour Iron Man film. S.H.I.E.L.D. is in both films. IMO the organization is not being handled correctly. In the first, I excused it for thinking Favreau was simply including them. After viewing the sequel and the groups portrayal being unchanged, it bears my concern. I would have handled it differently. Period.
I feel the idea of S.H.I.E.L.D. merely being a bunch of agents meddling around in suits carrying regular firearms contradicts with the comic book portrayal. I'm not saying they should have taken the G.I. Joe route but damn, Fury doesn't appear to look like he's of any significance.
S.H.I.E.L.D. technology should rival Stark Enterprises, not just be an imitator of what's being done in the current Bond films. They operate on a much higher level than that. They are implemented to stop world-level threats.
Fury should be much more of a badass. And please don't say that this is an Iron Man film series. This is clearly the way they are looking to portray them in an Avengers film if it is ever made. Hell, Tony Stark himself, appeared in a seperate Marvel film.
If your going to have S.H.I.E.L.D. in the film, do it right. I felt Black Widow was handled reasonably well. I wish the other agents and Fury himself would resemble the their comic-book counterparts.
Please, don't assume I'm going on a rant. This is a trivial 'con' of the film. I happened to notice and voiced my opinion in my review of the picture. This is solely in response to the above poster and to expand upon my opinion.
First off, chill out. I'm wasn't trying to tell you not to have an opinion, or whether you could express it or not. IMO, you're formulating the opinion too quickly.
To your point about SHIELD/Fury not resembling their comic book counterparts... I think you have to take into consideration that SHIELD didn't even have a name in the first movie, so obviously they're just getting started. Point is, give it time, at least until the Fury movie comes out to determine if Marvel is doing them justice or not.
Be rest assured, I'm chilling. S.H.I.E.L.D.'s title was mentioned 2-3 times in the first film. As I said, it's a small gripe.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
damn, darth martin kinda spazzed lol
Originally posted by Darth Martin
Please, don't assume I'm going on a rant. This is a trivial 'con' of the film. I happened to notice and voiced my opinion in my review of the picture. This is solely in response to the above poster and to expand upon my opinion.
Could be quite possible that you just misinterpreted it.
Black Widow was pretty lame. I would have much rather had a bunch of nameless, business suited SHIELD agents calmly and precisely do the bit at Hammer's place than see a bunch of goofy movie martial arts, as spectacular as they may have been. Though it would have been similar to the first movie, it would really give SHIELD some needed cred and shown that their people are not to be messed with. Not that they're a bunch of buffoons with a few named bosses you need to look out for.
I knew some people would have a problem with Scarlett Johanssen pulling off martial arts. I thought it was well done. Hell, I thought her scene was near the Hit Girl scene in Kick-Ass. And it's not like the people changed her character into a ass-kicking machine, that's literally what she is in the comic-books.
Another thing I forgot to mention about the film in the 'Con' section. Iron Man 2 unfortunately has a limited amount of music that thrived in the first one. That "ACDC", "Iron Man", rock, etc. was greatly missed here during the action sequences. The only time I recall them using is at the begginning when Iron Man flies down to his expo. This gives you chills, similar to Optimus Prime jumpimg out of the plane in ROTF in Shanghai. Prime had Joblonsky. Iron Man, here, has his ACDC I believe. But it should have been used all throughout the film like they did with the first installment.
That's one of the thing the Transformers films got right: music.
Originally posted by Darth MartinFirst of all we've only seen a taste of SHIELD.
Seeing as how I payed to see the film, am a comic book and film fan in general, a poster on a web forum formed for the basis of movies, and am posting in a Iron Man 2 thread, I don't think you or anyone else is in any position to tell me I can't voice my opinion or judge the film or it's content.3.5 hours? Get real. No way I'm sitting through a 3.5 hour Iron Man film. S.H.I.E.L.D. is in both films. IMO the organization is not being handled correctly. In the first, I excused it for thinking Favreau was simply including them. After viewing the sequel and the groups portrayal being unchanged, it bears my concern. I would have handled it differently. Period.
I feel the idea of S.H.I.E.L.D. merely being a bunch of agents meddling around in suits carrying regular firearms contradicts with the comic book portrayal. I'm not saying they should have taken the G.I. Joe route but damn, Fury doesn't appear to look like he's of any significance.
S.H.I.E.L.D. technology should rival Stark Enterprises, not just be an imitator of what's being done in the current Bond films. They operate on a much higher level than that. They are implemented to stop world-level threats.
Fury should be much more of a badass. And please don't say that this is an Iron Man film series. This is clearly the way they are looking to portray them in an Avengers film if it is ever made. Hell, Tony Stark himself, appeared in a seperate Marvel film.
If your going to have S.H.I.E.L.D. in the film, do it right. I felt Black Widow was handled reasonably well. I wish the other agents and Fury himself would resemble the their comic-book counterparts.
Please, don't assume I'm going on a rant. This is a trivial 'con' of the film. I happened to notice and voiced my opinion in my review of the picture. This is solely in response to the above poster and to expand upon my opinion.
A couple of suited guys as first response investigators, negotiators, messengers with standard equipment isn't that far of a stretch for SHIELD and definitely doesn't mean they don't have the normal SHEILD units and guys in the background waiting, and I'm sure they'll have the Helicarrier show up sometime either in the Fury movie, or the Avengers movie.
So don't be too quick on it now. I think Black Widow was kinda a teaser for what we'll see more and more of from SHIELD.
Originally posted by Darth Martin
I knew some people would have a problem with Scarlett Johanssen pulling off martial arts. I thought it was well done. Hell, I thought her scene was near the Hit Girl scene in Kick-Ass. And it's not like the people changed her character into a ass-kicking machine, that's literally what she is in the comic-books.
Also, the hacking scenes were just silly but I don't expect a realistic portrayal of that. Nobody wants to see Tony Stark or Ivan Vanko on the phone phishing for user names and passwords.
black widow had a great body and a great ass. she was a kick ass fighter and looked sexy doing it. Nick was in the movie more than i thought he would be. Robert was mad funny, as usual, loved when he told his new ceo "don't think, drink.." during the toast. his wit is fast and just hilarious. i swear he makes it up as he goes. i wish whiplash lasted longer or at least died differently meaning or with more resistance. his russian was bad and practically not understandable. and where was playboy tony?