Geek Valve explosion....

[griffindodd]

Iron Man 3 trailor, makes me very happy happy happy...

[Howard_Casto]

Eh....
Iron Man was ok...
Iron Man 2 was crap. 

We are on part three... do you honestly think it's going to be any good?

Specials effects don't make a good movie... they merely make a good spectacle. 

[Well Fed Games]

I had lost track of this, was excited to see the trailer too.

[Howard_Casto]

Origin story has been squared away... so...

He'll grow complacent.

An unexpected enemy will arise.

Iron Man will muster up the strength to take him on.

Uh oh, it looks bad.

Nope, Iron Man wins.



Sorry, I just blew the plot of every single super hero movie ever.

Yeah that's what I was getting at.  These super hero movies would have the potential to be great, if somebody would actually write a plot for them.  As-is they are just great looking, which is something all-together different.  I enjoy seeing the FIRST interation of a Super Hero movie... it's fun to see how they are adapted to the screen... but the sequels... well they are pointless because you've already seen it. 

I mean there are exceptions... Spiderman 2 was certainly better than 1, because Doc-Oc is just cooler than some dude in a halloween costume.  The Incredible Hulk was better than "Hulk" because Hulk was crap, but in general  replacing the random bad guy you face with another random bad guy doesn't make the film worth watching over again. 

I mean from what I understand the villian in this one is the Mandarin..... yeah the "Ming the Merciless" ripoff with magic alien rings.  Except and english guy is playing him?  I mean wtf?  I'll pass.... all of Iron Man's villian's are lame so his films will always be lame. 

[ChadTower]

I am still willing to pay to see Gwyneth Paltrow as a redhead.

[HaRuMaN]

I am still willing to pay to see Gwyneth Paltrow as a redhead.

[shmokes]

Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins. Hellboy II was better than Hellboy (actually it wasn't but I'm in a distinct minority on that opinion). Mission Impossible III was better than Mission Impossible I (not a superhero movie, but may as well be). X-Men 2 was better than X-Men. Electra was better than Daredevil, lmao. Many James Bond films have been better than their prequels (and James Bond is really as much a superhero as Batman).

Anyway, my point is, superhero sequels, like all sequels, are derivative by nature since they feature the same characters and back story. But, like other all sequels, this doesn't necessarily make them worse. And considering the mediocrity of Iron Man 2, there's really not much reason to think that Iron Man 3 won't be as good or better (especially considering the excellence of The Avengers). Of course, it probably won't be that good. But I'm just saying at least wait for the reviews. 

[SavannahLion]

I didn't like the first Hellboy so much that I never bothered to watch the second. Strangely, I think someone gave the DVD to me which pisses me off even more. It's like a cancer in my collection.

Worse, I don't know what I did with it after I moved and knowing it's in the damn house just makes my skin crawl.

From what I gather, that puts me in an even smaller minority than you.

[ChadTower]

Mickey Rourke is like Jack Nicholson.  Not that great an actor, just a great presence on the screen, plays the same basic person in every single movie.  Not much to see there if you've seen Rourke in any other movie in the last 5 years.

[Howard_Casto]

Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins. Hellboy II was better than Hellboy (actually it wasn't but I'm in a distinct minority on that opinion). Mission Impossible III was better than Mission Impossible I (not a superhero movie, but may as well be). X-Men 2 was better than X-Men. Electra was better than Daredevil, lmao. Many James Bond films have been better than their prequels (and James Bond is really as much a superhero as Batman).

Anyway, my point is, superhero sequels, like all sequels, are derivative by nature since they feature the same characters and back story. But, like other all sequels, this doesn't necessarily make them worse. And considering the mediocrity of Iron Man 2, there's really not much reason to think that Iron Man 3 won't be as good or better (especially considering the excellence of The Avengers). Of course, it probably won't be that good. But I'm just saying at least wait for the reviews. 

The whole new batman trilogy sucks, so that's like saying the second turd stinks less.  All the mission impossible films are crap and they aren't super hero movies anyway.  Electra could join the ranks of of Catwoman as one of the worst super hero movies ever made, and keep in mind Ms. Gardner is from West Virginia, so I'm actually biased in her favor.  Any James Bond film without Connery in it is by default inferior just for his absence.  Hellboy and Hellboy II are on equal footing in a way, but the first one had lovecraftian monsters and nazis, so that makes it the better film.   X-men was better than X2 because it had an actual villian and 3 was a train wreck. 

And while we are on that theme name me any franchise, super-hero or otherwise, where the films are still great by part III (Back to the Future and Lord of the Rings don't count, they were pre-planned). 

I'm not saying it will be bad, but it defiinately won't be good... or at lest not enough to get excited about it. 

And your right, just because it's a sequel doesn't automatically make it bad, but take that, along with the fact that it's a modern Marvel Superhero movie, combined with the fact that it's the third film in an unplanned trilogy means it doesn't have a chance in hell of being anything better than "eh it was good". 

Not that DC is doing in better (they are doing far worse actually) but Marvel movies are really bad.  They typically have next to no plot aside from the origin film and they pull source from the inferior ultimates universe.  Using ultimates back-story is like WB doing a Batman movie, but using the Bat-Mite mythos instead.  The X-men films were kind of ok, but you've got to remember that Fox did those.  The first two Spidermen were fantastic, but that's because they used mostly the classic story lines and Rami was directing. 

The over-use of CG really hurts these films as well.  While the "normals" are impressed by the special effects in these films, I feel like I'm watching a video game and that is NOT a good thing.  Practical effects or GTFH!  Again, go back to the really good ones (Spiderman, and to a much lesser degree X-men) and they used mostly practical effects.... at least in the good films of the franchises. 

But this is decidedly a problem with super hero and big action movies more so than other genres.  You say that all sequels are derivate, but that isn't true.  The Hellraiser and Tales from the Crypt films are all completely different from each other.  Indiana Jones films are also unique.  Sure Indy is in each one, but that's the only returning character.  Not only that, but the location, pacing and general theme of each sequel was different as well.  There aren't a lot of franchsises that have pulled it off admittedly, but the way superhero films are setup they are derivate by design.  Think about it... typically a superhero says in a single city.  They have a set supporting cast that follow them throughout each film, there really aren't any other people in the film aside from the extras, so there's only one thing that ever gets changed... the villian.  That's great if it's Batman or Spiderman... they have a ton of interesting villians, but if you are Thor your stuck with Loki... if you are Captain America you are stuck with the Red Skull and if you are any of the lesser heroes.. hell you don't have a memorable rouges gallery at all!

[ChadTower]

The whole new batman trilogy sucks, so that's like saying the second turd stinks less.

[yotsuya]

Eh, don't sweat it.  Mickey Rourke was better in The Wrestler anyway.

+1

[t3design]

Hellboy and Hellboy II are on equal footing in a way, but the first one had lovecraftian monsters and nazis, so that makes it the better film. 

I met a guy like you in rehab. Anything with nazis in it was his cup of tea.

I'm just glad they are making movies about superheros at all. That didn't happen much for a very long time, and the few they made were not of a very high production value.

They are, after all, just turning comic books into movies....

I think they should make a movie where the Avengers take on my teenage daughter. They haven't created the special effects that would require, and unlike the boring plots alluded to above, the Avengers would get their asses kicked. You could add nazis too, she would rip them all a new one, and you wouldn't need a Lovecraftian creature since if you spend time with my daughter you will most certainly be driven insane.

[shmokes]

And while we are on that theme name me any franchise, super-hero or otherwise, where the films are still great by part III (Back to the Future and Lord of the Rings don't count, they were pre-planned). 

Well you've named two already, obviously. Whether they were planned is irrelevant. You're just dismissing them arbitrarily because they're obvious exceptions to your rule. And anyway, Back to the Future III was no more pre-planned than Iron Man III. At least Lord of the Rings was all written ahead of time and all three movies were filmed in one go. How is Back to the Future a legitimate exception?

Beyond that there's Jason Bourne films, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Star Wars, X-Men (3 sucked, but X-Men: First Class is good), Batman, Harry Potter (actually got better with each movie), Many 007 films, Night of the Living Dead, Trois Couleurs, Evil Dead, Toy Story . . .

[kahlid74]

Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins. Hellboy II was better than Hellboy (actually it wasn't but I'm in a distinct minority on that opinion). Mission Impossible III was better than Mission Impossible I (not a superhero movie, but may as well be). X-Men 2 was better than X-Men. Electra was better than Daredevil, lmao. Many James Bond films have been better than their prequels (and James Bond is really as much a superhero as Batman).

Anyway, my point is, superhero sequels, like all sequels, are derivative by nature since they feature the same characters and back story. But, like other all sequels, this doesn't necessarily make them worse. And considering the mediocrity of Iron Man 2, there's really not much reason to think that Iron Man 3 won't be as good or better (especially considering the excellence of The Avengers). Of course, it probably won't be that good. But I'm just saying at least wait for the reviews. 

The whole new batman trilogy sucks, so that's like saying the second turd stinks less.  All the mission impossible films are crap and they aren't super hero movies anyway.  Electra could join the ranks of of Catwoman as one of the worst super hero movies ever made, and keep in mind Ms. Gardner is from West Virginia, so I'm actually biased in her favor.  Any James Bond film without Connery in it is by default inferior just for his absence.  Hellboy and Hellboy II are on equal footing in a way, but the first one had lovecraftian monsters and nazis, so that makes it the better film.   X-men was better than X2 because it had an actual villian and 3 was a train wreck. 

And while we are on that theme name me any franchise, super-hero or otherwise, where the films are still great by part III (Back to the Future and Lord of the Rings don't count, they were pre-planned). 

I'm not saying it will be bad, but it defiinately won't be good... or at lest not enough to get excited about it. 

And your right, just because it's a sequel doesn't automatically make it bad, but take that, along with the fact that it's a modern Marvel Superhero movie, combined with the fact that it's the third film in an unplanned trilogy means it doesn't have a chance in hell of being anything better than "eh it was good". 

Not that DC is doing in better (they are doing far worse actually) but Marvel movies are really bad.  They typically have next to no plot aside from the origin film and they pull source from the inferior ultimates universe.  Using ultimates back-story is like WB doing a Batman movie, but using the Bat-Mite mythos instead.  The X-men films were kind of ok, but you've got to remember that Fox did those.  The first two Spidermen were fantastic, but that's because they used mostly the classic story lines and Rami was directing. 

The over-use of CG really hurts these films as well.  While the "normals" are impressed by the special effects in these films, I feel like I'm watching a video game and that is NOT a good thing.  Practical effects or GTFH!  Again, go back to the really good ones (Spiderman, and to a much lesser degree X-men) and they used mostly practical effects.... at least in the good films of the franchises. 

But this is decidedly a problem with super hero and big action movies more so than other genres.  You say that all sequels are derivate, but that isn't true.  The Hellraiser and Tales from the Crypt films are all completely different from each other.  Indiana Jones films are also unique.  Sure Indy is in each one, but that's the only returning character.  Not only that, but the location, pacing and general theme of each sequel was different as well.  There aren't a lot of franchsises that have pulled it off admittedly, but the way superhero films are setup they are derivate by design.  Think about it... typically a superhero says in a single city.  They have a set supporting cast that follow them throughout each film, there really aren't any other people in the film aside from the extras, so there's only one thing that ever gets changed... the villian.  That's great if it's Batman or Spiderman... they have a ton of interesting villians, but if you are Thor your stuck with Loki... if you are Captain America you are stuck with the Red Skull and if you are any of the lesser heroes.. hell you don't have a memorable rouges gallery at all!

As the dude would say "That's just like, your opinion man"

[saint]

And while we are on that theme name me any franchise, super-hero or otherwise, where the films are still great by part III (Back to the Future and Lord of the Rings don't count, they were pre-planned). 

Well you've named two already, obviously. Whether they were planned is irrelevant. You're just dismissing them arbitrarily because they're obvious exceptions to your rule. And anyway, Back to the Future III was no more pre-planned than Iron Man III. At least Lord of the Rings was all written ahead of time and all three movies were filmed in one go. How is Back to the Future a legitimate exception?

Beyond that there's Jason Bourne films, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Star Wars, X-Men (3 sucked, but X-Men: First Class is good), Batman, Harry Potter (actually got better with each movie), Many 007 films, Night of the Living Dead, Trois Couleurs, Evil Dead, Toy Story . . .

Back to the Future III was filmed at the same time as Back to the Future II. There was actually buzz about them doing that at the time (as in, what a great/new/refreshing idea that was).

[shmokes]

Interesting. I didn't know that. I was too young at the time (I'm 34 now) to be exposed to that sort of buzz. Anyway, as The Matrix proves, filming back-to-back won't save a sequel

[ChadTower]

Interesting. I didn't know that. I was too young at the time (I'm 34 now) to be exposed to that sort of buzz. Anyway, as The Matrix proves, filming back-to-back won't save a sequel

Just about on the line there.  IIRC they were both mostly filmed in 1988-1989.

[SavannahLion]

Interesting. I didn't know that. I was too young at the time (I'm 34 now) to be exposed to that sort of buzz. Anyway, as The Matrix proves, filming back-to-back won't save a sequel

Matrix 2 & 3 suffer the same problem as EP1. Trying to cash in on a horny cash cow and completely losing sight of what made the fans so rabid in the first place. Didn't the brothers say they were trying to emulate Lucas' success of 4,5 & 6 or some such nonsense?