• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BLACK WIDOW in Iron Man 2!

Started by DiceX,

62 posts in this topic

Turtle

Turtle

Posted
Posted
You guys are nuts, Scarlet is gonna be great as BW. I think Kate's a bad choice because once costumes are all said and done hers would look very similar to the one she wore in Underworld. Audience members would say "What's the girl from those crappy Underworld movies doing in Iron Man 2? Are there vampires in this thing"?

 

Tony Stark was perfect. Rhodes was perfect. Why ruin it now with someone who won't work?

 

How do you feel about the switch from Howard to Cheadle for Rhodes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boboset

Boboset

Posted
Posted

I'm totally agaisnt the Howard to Cheadle fix. BUT if they were going to cast the movie at least they picked a VERY good actor to fill his shoes. I can't help but think if this movie was filmed like 15 years earlier we would see Snipes or Billy Blanks as Rhodes.

 

War Machine= billy-blanks-ultimate-tae-bo-dvd-cover.jpg

 

:gossip: I own some of those tapes, only used them twice as evidenced by me and my girlfriends fat asses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted

I'll say this now, but I think they're gonna screw the pooch on this one.

 

Whenever an action movie franchise tries to introduce a "kick female" co-star or antagonist, who somehow will hold their own or even beat up their male counterpart, it tends to cook the franchise as the predominantly male-teenage audience just doesn't buy it.

 

And Scarlett Johansson is about as uncoordinated and gawky as you can get (ref. The Island lol ), and if she's shown taking part in any physical altercation with Iron Man (or anyone at all) people will be filing out of the theater.

 

It's not sexist, but I can list the number of popular female action roles on one hand, and even fewer of those have been against a male antagonist. The most popular was probably Ripley and she was fighting Aliens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
You guys are nuts, Scarlet is gonna be great as BW. I think Kate's a bad choice because once costumes are all said and done hers would look very similar to the one she wore in Underworld. Audience members would say "What's the girl from those crappy Underworld movies doing in Iron Man 2? Are there vampires in this thing"?

 

Tony Stark was perfect. Rhodes was perfect. Why ruin it now with someone who won't work?

 

How do you feel about the switch from Howard to Cheadle for Rhodes?

 

Sucks. Howard was perfect. Cheadle is a great actor but I hate it when they shift in a sequel.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
I'll say this now, but I think they're gonna screw the pooch on this one.

 

Gotta agree. I think they'll lose the magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boboset

Boboset

Posted
Posted

Iron Man 2 has such a great cast and a VERY strong first film to go on, where I think it will be difficult to screw it up entirely. It may not be as good as the first, but it won't suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted

The first movies are always simple to do because you have the initial character arc - Tony goes from war-monger to pacifist while fighting the forces of evil.

 

That's what drove the first movie, but it's far more difficult to work the same magic in the sequels.

 

That's part of why TDK worked so well, as we'd already seen Batman's moral shift in BB, while the sequel fed off Harvey Dent's character arc from white knight to villain and its effect on Batman/Bruce Wayne and the Joker. Without that, it's just Batman and Joker punching each other.

 

Successful sequels often follow a different character journey, like Toy Story 1 and 2, the first was about Buzz understanding who he was and his role in the world, then the sequel smartly shifted gears and asked Woody to answer the same question. Same with Godfather 1 and 2, the first followed Michael's descent while the sequel used flashbacks to show us the Don's rise to power.

 

If Iron Man 2 just gives us a "kewl action movie with neato CGI" while ignoring the above, audiences will leave unsatisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boboset

Boboset

Posted
Posted
The first movies are always simple to do because you have the initial character arc - Tony goes from war-monger to pacifist while fighting the forces of evil.

 

That's what drove the first movie, but it's far more difficult to work the same magic in the sequels.

 

That's part of why TDK worked so well, as we'd already seen Batman's moral shift in BB, while the sequel fed off Harvey Dent's character arc from white knight to villain and its effect on Batman/Bruce Wayne and the Joker. Without that, it's just Batman and Joker punching each other.

 

Successful sequels often follow a different character journey, like Toy Story 1 and 2, the first was about Buzz understanding who he was and his role in the world, then the sequel smartly shifted gears and asked Woody to answer the same question. Same with Godfather 1 and 2, the first followed Michael's descent while the sequel used flashbacks to show us the Don's rise to power.

 

If Iron Man 2 just gives us a "kewl action movie with neato CGI" while ignoring the above, audiences will leave unsatisfied.

 

Smart post. BUT the first Iron Man did'nt give us "a kewl action movie with neato CGI" so why even worry if the second one will. This is such an important movie for Marvel I really don't think it will be allowed to be sub par. I know that sounds stupid but Marvel is a company built around storytellers so I think enough safety measures are in place to assure success and I'm not speaking box office success as that is already very guaranteed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boboset

Boboset

Posted
Posted

On a somewhat different note, I think Mickey Rourke will be playing Crimson Dynamo instead of Whiplash as it's been reported. I think all that whiplash talk is misinformation spread by the movie company to surprise viewers at a later date. Just a thought. The russian combo of Dynamo and Widow makes to much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Smart post. BUT the first Iron Man did'nt give us "a kewl action movie with neato CGI" so why even worry if the second one will.

 

Go watch The Hulk again. :tonofbricks:

 

And that's Marvel too, and it's pure sheit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bronze_rules

bronze_rules

Posted
Posted

The Bond franchise has been very successful at creating European spies, played by guess who -- European actresses. I liked the way they presented her in Ultimate Avengers. It would be nice to follow both concepts in a similar manner on the big screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boboset

Boboset

Posted
Posted
Smart post. BUT the first Iron Man did'nt give us "a kewl action movie with neato CGI" so why even worry if the second one will.

 

Go watch The Hulk again. :tonofbricks:

 

And that's Marvel too, and it's pure sheit.

 

You talking about the INCREDIBLE Hulk? I quite enjoyed that one. The first Hulk was'nt Marvel and yes it did suck.

At the same time the second Hulk was'nt really a sequel so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Many will take my side. The reviews for the Incredible Hulk were about the same as 300 and Watchmen. I'm assuming you didnt like either of those?

 

They were not "the same" unless you're being simplistic using stupid Rotten Tomato numbers or something. Even the slightly-less-flawed IMDB numbers put your Hulk movie a distant third in numerical ratings.

 

I read several reviews for The Incredible Hulk, and even if they liked it, most referred to it as "mindless action" or "popcorn fun for teens".

 

Both 300 and Watchmen, flawed as they are, aimed a bit higher than two CGI creatures fighting for 90 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AGGIEZ

AGGIEZ

Posted
Posted
Many will take my side. The reviews for the Incredible Hulk were about the same as 300 and Watchmen. I'm assuming you didnt like either of those?

 

I'm with you Boboset, I liked the Ed Norton Hulk. I love it when wanna be movie elitist try to pick through every funny book movie 'flaw' instead of taking it for what it is...a funny book movie...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
I love it when wanna be movie elitist try to pick through every funny book movie 'flaw' instead of taking it for what it is...a funny book movie...

 

Sorry, but I grew out of "funny books" when I was 13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
I love it when wanna be movie elitist try to pick through every funny book movie 'flaw' instead of taking it for what it is...a funny book movie...

 

Sorry, but I grew out of "funny books" when I was 13.

 

 

Why hang out here then?

 

I'm still a teeny bopper!

 

:applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing