Why is it controversial? Heath Ledger died before the premiere of The Dark Knight.
Then again, I don't remember if that was controversial or not.
Why is it controversial? Heath Ledger died before the premiere of The Dark Knight.
Then again, I don't remember if that was controversial or not.
I don't like her. She's not even really into the comic book and geeky scene. She seems out of touch with Kevin on those subjects in the show while Blair Butler on the other hand, you can definitely tell she's involved.Originally Posted by JKTrix
I hope when Thor, Cap, and Avengers are through integrating all sorts of weird stuff into the Marvel Movieverse, Iron Man will be able to fight something other than (SPOILER)other Iron Men.
I'd like to see the Registration Act come up in something, hopefully they don't make Iron Man look like a jackass in it though.
Personally I liked it better than the first, I thought the plot was much more fleshed out, the first one I found to be this big GRAHHHHAJKKDJSG TWO RIDICULOUS MACHINES FACING OFF, and this one I felt was much better developed, I liked the way (SPOILER)Hammer and the whole US army thing played in with the crazy Russian physicist, who I really liked as a villain.
I thought there were pacing issues with this movie. I kept waiting for things to happen.
I'd give it like a B- for general mindless entertainment. Also, ScarJo is smokin' hot. I mean, she's always been hot, but damn she looked good in that skin tight outfit of her's. Wowza.
It was sad seeing him in the movie, knowing what eventually happened to him.
That didn't happen til the end of the movie, just like with this one. Not to add it was anti-climatic this time.GRAHHHHAJKKDJSG TWO RIDICULOUS MACHINES FACING OFF
My only real beef with 2 (other than that Rourkes head didn't get blown off even those his armour gets totalled) is the lack of science. In 1, they explain the hows and the whys with some tasty pseudo-science that acts to suspend your disbelief magnificently. In 2, there was none of that. There was no "these massive tubes are for concentrating the ionic energy of my polonium beam reactor etc. etc." (haha I even suck at fake science! xD) crap to make it believeable. You're just supposed to think "well, it's Tony. The dude made the first ever miniature arc reactor in a cave out of missiles. He's epic". I didn't really like that.
Otherwise, good film. Will probably buy.
I think that it all made sense without the need for our hands to be held, it's not really new information like it was in the first movie.My only real beef with 2 (other than that Rourkes head didn't get blown off even those his armour gets totalled
Otherwise, good film. Will probably buy.
Creating a completely new element wasn't new information?
And saying it all made sense is just a lie. It didn't make any sense. The entire scene relied upon your trust that Stark is awesome. Which he is, so it's not that big a deal. It's just something that bugged me a little. xD
Well, I understood what was going on dammit. I knew what was going on as shortly after he started studying the model of the city.
Oh yeah, I totally understoof the "sweet, I've got a nice layout of a new element. Cheers dad!" bit. But then the robot tells us it's impossible. Then BOOM! construction montage and Tony manages it. In 1, he told us about the polonium etc. etc. and the disbelief was suspended with atonne of hgih tension cables and industrial grade blu-tack. Here it's suspended with chewing gum fresh out some-guy-who-drools-too-muchs mouth and dry semen. We only believe it because Tony Stark is a legend. xD
Oh, come on. I'm sure lots of things are deemed impossible until they're actually achieved. How many people would have believed in manned flight a couple hundred years ago?
smurf it, he's Tony Stark. It doesn't need explaining.
1. It’s a movie, and does need intricate scientific foundations.
2. It’s a super-hero sequel. Setup is always for the first movie; second is for action. If you had the setup in the second movie, you’d have two first movies.
That's a list of two things that I disagree with. Everything in a movie is an attempt to suspend disbelief. If your movie uses science as a major feature, then you should support that science, even if it is just with lame movie pseudo-science.
And the idea of "it's always been like this etc etc" is just too ridiculous to discuss any further.
Agh. Now I'm pulling a Raistlin. The film was great, and my problem with it is a small thing. But then people start mindlessly leaping to the defence of some people who don't know or care about them over a minor point that was merely an afterthought.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
