Quote Originally Posted by Quin View Post
My only real beef with 2 (other than that Rourkes head didn't get blown off even those his armour gets totalled :mad2:) 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.
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.