Iron Man 2 question

[Kobold-Bard]

Watched this film this weekend. When I did I had quite a bit of beer and Indian food in me so was a bit sleepy and may have missed something. But this is bugging me so I have to know.

1. Tony Stark's dad discovered an element that he had no idea how to synthesise or prove was anything more than a random thought like so many others could be. Howzat?

2. And this element just happens to be exactly the thing Tony needs to save his life? Though I'm willing to let this go as a happy storytelling coincidence.

3. How did his dad know that Tony would be the only person who could make it when he was only a kid? Couldn't someone else have done it? Why did he hide it in a video rather than leave it in a place he might actually find it?

4. Why couldn't SHIELD try this? Seriously. Why was it ONLY Tony Stark who could make this?

I know I'm taking a fantasy too seriously, but that's how I roll :smallcool:

Thanks in advance,
K-B

[Selrahc]

Tony Stark is a complete and utter genius. It's not out of reason that he would be the only person who could possibly have created the element.

The reasons why it was the exact thing needed for Tony are less easy, but basically it is because the element was not random. It was predicted to be the perfect element for the power generation technology they'd created, and the fact that Tony would later decide to stick a miniaturized version of their early attempts into his chest was just a coincidence. But the reason why Stark Senior *knew* that this theoretical unprocurable element would be the best fit aren't really all that coherent.

[Mando Knight]

4. Why couldn't SHIELD try this? Seriously. Why was it ONLY Tony Stark who could make this?

Because only Tony could revolutionize the energy industry in a cave with a box of scraps. He needed to get back to his roots and do it again, but in a workshop instead.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Watched this film this weekend. When I did I had quite a bit of beer and Indian food in me so was a bit sleepy and may have missed something. But this is bugging me so I have to know.

1. Tony Stark's dad discovered an element that he had no idea how to synthesise or prove was anything more than a random thought like so many others could be. Howzat?In short, this aspect is total rubbish. We can't predict the qualities of undiscovered elements beyond sweeping generalisations and trends even today.


2. And this element just happens to be exactly the thing Tony needs to save his life? Though I'm willing to let this go as a happy storytelling coincidence.IF we allow the "predict elemental properties" line then this is far less of a problem because Stark would know that the arc reactor would be running "dirty" and that this element would allow it to run "clean". Where it would be running is not really relevant.


3. How did his dad know that Tony would be the only person who could make it when he was only a kid? Couldn't someone else have done it? Why did he hide it in a video rather than leave it in a place he might actually find it?For your first two sub-questions here, Mr Stark was proud of his son and sentimental. True, many others that may have been able to make it work, but Tony was the only one his father could envisage. For the second half, I assume that he was trying to protect the idea from exploration by others, although he could just have been being perculiar, geniuses are like that. Also he clearly was not planning on being dead before he hit retirement, perhaps he expected to be able to tell Tony about it in person.


4. Why couldn't SHIELD try this? Seriously. Why was it ONLY Tony Stark who could make this?SHIELD may well have been able to, but Tony is a genius with the best kind of motivation to work it out, if he messes it up, he dies.

[An Enemy Spy]

I think it's because he knew that Tony would have access to all the Technology of Stark industry, which he knew would be advanced enough by that time to make the element.

[0Megabyte]

Of course, this all ignores the fact that it being an element in the first place is patently ridiculous...

[An Enemy Spy]

Of course, this all ignores the fact that it being an element in the first place is patently ridiculous...

Well, since this is comic book science, I think nothing can truly be considered implausible anymore. At least not in-universe.

[VanBuren]

Perhaps Tony's dad was actually able to synthesize it, just on a scale too small of be of any use.

[Jayngfet]

I assume since he was paying for his kids education and whatnot, he saw the problem of an arc reactor coming up at some point. He probably taught kid Tony how the ins and outs of the damn thing before he could walk because it was his best bet of seeing it finished.

I mean, the arc reactor is an efficient enough energy source and all but nobody could be able to make it worthwhile without either the element or an extreme degree of familiarity.

I assume this was why Tony knew enough about a power source he had nothing to do with to build a pocket sized version in a cave.

With a box of scraps.

As for it being hidden in the map: Inventors often leave coded theories and ideas behind while working it out in case someone else works it out faster. That way nobody can steal it even with a copy unless they know the specific code used, and if somebody else develops it faster they can prove who was working on it several years earlier once the info is public anyway.

[Avilan the Grey]

...I have to ask... you do know you are asking questions about super hero comic book science, right?

All you need is Unobtanium, Plebonium, Plotonium and a few other easily obtained materials and it all works out for you.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

...I have to ask... you do know you are asking questions about super hero comic book science, right?

All you need is Unobtanium, Plebonium, Plotonium and a few other easily obtained materials and it all works out for you.
Pretty much. Don't even bother trying to justify it...it just works. Because it's Tony Stark.

[Kobold-Bard]

...I have to ask... you do know you are asking questions about super hero comic book science, right?

All you need is Unobtanium, Plebonium, Plotonium and a few other easily obtained materials and it all works out for you.


...

I know I'm taking a fantasy too seriously, but that's how I roll :smallcool:

...

I am aware of that. And I'm ok with it.

[cdstephens]

Did anyone else notice the element made is used for Captain America's shield?

[Avilan the Grey]

Did anyone else notice the element made is used for Captain America's shield?

Actually it's not; the shield is already being constructed by Stark, he just uses it to support the improvised particle accelerator (which he built in his workshop. With a bunch of Scrap!)

[Parra]

(which he built in his workshop. With a bunch of Scrap!)

To be fair, it is a much higher quality scrap then you would find in yer average workship/basement

[An Enemy Spy]

...I have to ask... you do know you are asking questions about super hero comic book science, right?

All you need is Unobtanium, Plebonium, Plotonium and a few other easily obtained materials and it all works out for you.

Or just simply RADIATION!!!. It can do anything!

[Obrysii]

It's a comic book movie, that's why. :smallwink:

My theory is just ignore the technobable and be distracted by the awesomely hilarious fight between War Machine and Iron Man, set to, among other things, Another One Bites The Dust and Robot Rock.

[Dragosai]

It's a comic book movie, that's why. :smallwink:

My theory is just ignore the technobable and be distracted by the awesomely hilarious fight between War Machine and Iron Man, set to, among other things, Another One Bites The Dust and Robot Rock.

Bingo was his name-o. For more info see W. Shatner SNL skit.

[TheEmerged]

RE: The "Comic Book Science" Argument. Let's remember, originally Iron Man's suit was powered by transistors.

[SmartAlec]

Why did he hide it in a video rather than leave it in a place he might actually find it?

Likely because Obadiah Stane (remember him?) would have found it first, and it's possible Howard didn't trust him with something this big.

[KerfuffleMach2]

The answer to those questions?

Because Plot said so.

You see, Plot is a magical force that can, and will, take any logic and kick it in the face, until said logic finally gives up.

The magical power of Plot overrules everything.

EVERYTHING!

[Icewalker]

Actually it's not; the shield is already being constructed by Stark, he just uses it to support the improvised particle accelerator (which he built in his workshop. With a bunch of Scrap!)

I believe there is a connection? I've only heard the details second hand, and it was a while back that I saw the movie and heard about this, but I believe that the shield was created in a similar process that nobody ever managed to recreate, and it was a subtle reference back for fans who know the details.

[AtlanteanTroll]

...I have to ask... you do know you are asking questions about super hero comic book science, right?

All you need is Unobtanium, Plebonium, Plotonium and a few other easily obtained materials and it all works out for you.

You forgot Chemical X.

[CorrTerek]

I believe there is a connection? I've only heard the details second hand, and it was a while back that I saw the movie and heard about this, but I believe that the shield was created in a similar process that nobody ever managed to recreate, and it was a subtle reference back for fans who know the details.

I'm betting on this unknown element turning out to be Vibranium -- it's the perfect setup for the Captain America movie.

[Kobold-Bard]

I'm betting on this unknown element turning out to be Vibranium -- it's the perfect setup for the Captain America movie.

Apparently it already happened. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibranium#In_film)

[CorrTerek]

Apparently it already happened. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibranium#In_film)

Awesome. I hadn't even read the novelization. :smallbiggrin:

[cdstephens]

Actually it's not; the shield is already being constructed by Stark, he just uses it to support the improvised particle accelerator (which he built in his workshop. With a bunch of Scrap!)

Well the element has the same name as the element used for the shield in the comics.

And dude, don't diss scrap.


RE: The "Comic Book Science" Argument. Let's remember, originally Iron Man's suit was powered by transistors.

To be fair, they were probably made in Japan.

[Avilan the Grey]

You forgot Chemical X.

Oh yes. And Element Zero. And Explodium. And...

[cdstephens]

Oh yes. And Element Zero. And Explodium. And...

You forgot Lyrium.

[Om]

For your first two sub-questions here, Mr Stark was proud of his son and sentimentalAnd that was, comic-science and shockingly bad ending aside, one of the more jarring elements of the film. Apparently the only real display of sentimentality that Stark Sr displayed for his son comes at the end of a hidden reel of out-takes. Yet he was depending on said son, who was supposedly the apple of his eye, to realise his grand dream? Sure

Actually, and this is topical because I finished watching this not two minutes ago, the whole film should be held up as an example of how a comic book adaptation can go wrong. It wasn't so much a film as it was a string of implausible, and sometimes simply silly, circumstances/characters strung together with only charm, colour and allusions to other franchises holding the whole thing in one piece. May work if you're familiar with the base material, and thus able to fill in the gaps, but for me it was a mess. Even if it was entertaining

[VanBuren]

And that was, comic-science and shockingly bad ending aside, one of the more jarring elements of the film. Apparently the only real display of sentimentality that Stark Sr displayed for his son comes at the end of a hidden reel of out-takes. Yet he was depending on said son, who was supposedly the apple of his eye, to realise his grand dream? Sure

It doesn't sound so implausible to me. He may have really loved Tony, but was just the kind of man who had no idea how to relate to another person, especially a child. Entrusting his legacy to a grown-up Tony, who could understand him as a professional may have been the only way he could find to express himself.


Actually, and this is topical because I finished watching this not two minutes ago, the whole film should be held up as an example of how a comic book adaptation can go wrong. It wasn't so much a film as it was a string of implausible, and sometimes simply silly, circumstances/characters strung together with only charm, colour and allusions to other franchises holding the whole thing in one piece. May work if you're familiar with the base material, and thus able to fill in the gaps, but for me it was a mess. Even if it was entertaining

I have only a passing familiarity with Iron Man lore, but I didn't have any troubles following it.

[Om]

It doesn't sound so implausible to me. He may have really loved Tony, but was just the kind of man who had no idea how to relate to another person, especially a child. Entrusting his legacy to a grown-up Tony, who could understand him as a professional may have been the only way he could find to express himselfI remain highly sceptical that people actually work like that. You don't cold shoulder a son you love all their childhood and then suddenly reveal, from beyond the grave, that you actually loved them very much indeed. Besides, if this were the case then Stark Sr wasn't in a loving relationship with his son, he just wanted a working relationship with another scientist


I have only a passing familiarity with Iron Man lore, but I didn't have any troubles following it.You misunderstand - there was nothing to follow. In place of any real coherent plot or story we got a set of weak individual threads all thrown together. To illustrate: I understand that Scarlett Johansson's character is from the comics, but her role in the film was entirely superfluous. She was eye-candy and little more. Now exploring the character over a series of comics and story arcs might be interesting but you can't boil that down into a single fight scene in a film without losing something

The original Iron Man had a similar problem, albeit in a more structured fashion, and I was hoping that the sequel would be better for having gotten most of the exposition out of the way. Instead they threw in more characters, more Avenger references, and skimped on the actual film. For a primary villain - and he was definitely the best thing on the screen - Mickey Rourke spent little time on the screen. As I've already hinted, his final fight scene was scandalously short and weak. This should have been the climax of the film but all the other nonsense ate up the time and relegated it to a brief scrap

[VanBuren]

I remain highly sceptical that people actually work like that. You don't cold shoulder a son you love all their childhood and then suddenly reveal, from beyond the grave, that you actually loved them very much indeed. Besides, if this were the case then Stark Sr wasn't in a loving relationship with his son, he just wanted a working relationship with another scientist

Skeptical.

And I don't think we're holding up Stark Sr. as a role model. Besides, every person is different so I wouldn't be surprised if someone did work like that. It doesn't seem implausible to me, even though it does seem to a major parental failure.


You misunderstand - there was nothing to follow. In place of any real coherent plot or story we got a set of weak individual threads all thrown together. To illustrate: I understand that Scarlett Johansson's character is from the comics, but her role in the film was entirely superfluous. She was eye-candy and little more. Now exploring the character over a series of comics and story arcs might be interesting but you can't boil that down into a single fight scene in a film without losing something

The original Iron Man had a similar problem, albeit in a more structured fashion, and I was hoping that the sequel would be better for having gotten most of the exposition out of the way. Instead they threw in more characters, more Avenger references, and skimped on the actual film. For a primary villain - and he was definitely the best thing on the screen - Mickey Rourke spent little time on the screen. As I've already hinted, his final fight scene was scandalously short and weak. This should have been the climax of the film but all the other nonsense ate up the time and relegated it to a brief scrap

Odd, because I managed to follow a coherent plot. So what was going on in my case then?

[grimbold]

there are so many issues with the physics of iron man i just roll with it so i can enjoy the movie

[Selrahc]

Skeptical.

Sceptical is spelt that way only in the US. Correcting a word based on a regional spelling is silly. :smalltongue:

[Om]

Odd, because I managed to follow a coherent plot. So what was going on in my case then?*Shrugs* Obviously I can't peer into your skull, but I'd wager that you simply care less about the importance of a good self-contained narrative structure to a film

[Mando Knight]

Sceptical is spelt that way only in the US. Correcting a word based on a regional spelling is silly. :smalltongue:

Well, the British spelling is silly, like all your extra 'u's and such. So there. :smalltongue:

[KerfuffleMach2]

The answer to those questions?

Because Plot said so.

You see, Plot is a magical force that can, and will, take any logic and kick it in the face, until said logic finally gives up.

The magical power of Plot overrules everything.

EVERYTHING!

I reiterate, this is the answer to your questions.

Also, please stop trying to connect the movie to the comics. This will always disappoint. I mean, the movies are officially a separate reality from the comics. Therefore, events in them should not be compared to the comics. The movies are an adaptation, not the comic itself.

[Marnath]

*Shrugs* Obviously I can't peer into your skull, but I'd wager that you simply care less about the importance of a good self-contained narrative structure to a film

Or maybe you're just mistaken. I found the plot to be perfectly understandable as well.

[Pie Guy]

*Shrugs* Obviously I can't peer into your skull, but I'd wager that you simply care less about the importance of a good self-contained narrative structure to a film

Yeah, I had no trouble following either.

[VanBuren]

Yeah, I had no trouble following either.

Which apparently proves that we don't care about plot or something. Now that I hard a time following.

[cdstephens]

It wasn't hard to follow; I just thought the plot was stupid.

[The Linker]

You know, it would nice if when a person invites others to explain something in a movie for a bit of fun, if less people would post nothing more than "It's a movie, go with it." He said that in his OP, guys. It's for fun. A thought exercise. 'It's comic book science' is insanely, insanely overdone and the guy clearly wasn't looking for that. :smalltongue:

[Om]

Or maybe you're just mistaken. I found the plot to be perfectly understandable as well.Well done. Clearly I was mistaken when I said the plot was hard to follow. Oh wait, I never said that

I repeat: there was nothing of worth to follow, this does not mean that it was incomprehensible. The 'plot' was simply an excuse to cobble together a few unconnected scenarios and characters. Pure popcorn stuff. This isn't exactly Inception here. Any semblance of putting together a proper narrative-driven story went out the window after the first half hour. The rest of the film was a saggy mess, but not a particularly demanding one. Some people don't mind this but its not for me

(Not least the ridiculous unobtainium device)

[Marnath]

Well done. Clearly I was mistaken when I said the plot was hard to follow. Oh wait, I never said that


Yes, you did.


*Shrugs* Obviously I can't peer into your skull, but I'd wager that you simply care less about the importance of a good self-contained narrative structure to a film

Seen here, where you assume that because you can't follow the plot, we must not care about being able to follow the narrative, instead of the truth which is many of us thought the narrative flowed smoothly or at least well enough to make the connection.



You misunderstand - there was nothing to follow. In place of any real coherent plot or story we got a set of weak individual threads all thrown together. To illustrate: I understand that Scarlett Johansson's character is from the comics, but her role in the film was entirely superfluous. She was eye-candy and little more. Now exploring the character over a series of comics and story arcs might be interesting but you can't boil that down into a single fight scene in a film without losing something

She's one of the most integral characters. She basically runs this guys life, and has for more than a decade. He relies on her in more ways than one. In this sequel, she takes care of his business while he is keeping his illness from her and trying but failing to express his feelings for her(presumably because he's not good at heart-to-hearts.)


The original Iron Man had a similar problem, albeit in a more structured fashion, and I was hoping that the sequel would be better for having gotten most of the exposition out of the way. Instead they threw in more characters, more Avenger references, and skimped on the actual film. For a primary villain - and he was definitely the best thing on the screen - Mickey Rourke spent little time on the screen. As I've already hinted, his final fight scene was scandalously short and weak. This should have been the climax of the film but all the other nonsense ate up the time and relegated it to a brief scrap

I really have to wonder what your point is here. You do know that most of a film like this is character interactions right? :smallconfused:
Everyone in the film besides maybe Nick Fury(that is who he's supposed to be right?) has decently developed parts in the movie.

[Gray Mage]

She's one of the most integral characters. She basically runs this guys life, and has for more than a decade. He relies on her in more ways than one. In this sequel, she takes care of his business while he is keeping his illness from her and trying but failing to express his feelings for her(presumably because he's not good at heart-to-hearts.)


Psst, he's talking about the black widow, not Pepper Pots.

[LordShotGun]

The only problem I had with the movie was the all too brief fight scene at the end between whiplash and ironman/warmachine. Sure the drones took up most of the animation budget but personally I would much rather have had an air battle between the 3 instead of a chase sceen between drones and Tony.

[Kobold-Bard]

...

She's one of the most integral characters. She basically runs this guys life, and has for more than a decade. He relies on her in more ways than one. In this sequel, she takes care of his business while he is keeping his illness from her and trying but failing to express his feelings for her(presumably because he's not good at heart-to-hearts.)

Can't help but noticed you mixed up some other person for Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts. For this you must die. I'm sorry, but this is an unforgivable transgression.[/overthetopmoviecrush]


I really have to wonder what your point is here. You do know that most of a film like this is character interactions right? :smallconfused:
Everyone in the film besides maybe Nick Fury(that is who he's supposed to be right?) has decently developed parts in the movie.

Proof that Sammy Jackson can play any role (awaits film in which he plays the Pope).

[Marnath]

Can't help but noticed you mixed up some other person for Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts. For this you must die. I'm sorry, but this is an unforgivable transgression.[/overthetopmoviecrush]



Proof that Sammy Jackson can play any role (awaits film in which he plays the Pope).

Yeah, sorry, I'm not sure how I managed that.:smallconfused:
Probably got confused since normally their hair colors are somewhat reversed, chromatically. Ok yeah, her character was underdeveloped, I don't think that hurts the movie really.

Mr. Jackson would be an awesome pope. :smallcool:

[Mikeavelli]

Mr. Jackson would be an awesome pope. :smallcool:



http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/6767/155743-18916-111792-1-battle-pope-genesis_large.jpg






I repeat: there was nothing of worth to follow, this does not mean that it was incomprehensible. The 'plot' was simply an excuse to cobble together a few unconnected scenarios and characters. Pure popcorn stuff. This isn't exactly Inception here.

lolwut? Inception was ALSO a really pretty, yet nonsensical movie. Sure, it's better than Iron Man, but that's not saying much.

[riccaru]

:smallconfused: I was under the impression that the shield wasn't created by Tony, but that Howard (or less likely, Tony) had known Captain America before. The original mythos for the Captain does go back quite far, after all.

Also, the thing he used to synthesize the element (particle accelerator?) wasn't just "scraps". It clearly showed him removing the pieces from storage as a unit to be put back together. It was implied that they had been in "hardware mode" before like this.

Also, Black Widow was mostly useless. Fury should have stormed Hammer Industries.

[Om]

I should probably note that all my comments in this thread are informed by the fact that I enjoyed the original Iron Man and I thought that the first half hour of the sequel was excellent. That it turned out to be such a mess (including the incredibly stupid final fight) was a big disappointment


Seen here, where you assume that because you can't follow the plot, we must not care about being able to follow the narrative, instead of the truth which is many of us thought the narrative flowed smoothly or at least well enough to make the connectionAgain, where did I say that you could not follow the plot? This is not a matter of 'truths' but you completely missing my point. There is nothing in that quote that indicates that I, or others, could not follow the plot - in fact I specifically rebutted that allegation in the post before the one quoted - but rather it was an insistence that the plot was rubbish; ie, not a " good self-contained narrative structure". Saggy, bloated and devoid of any real pace does not simply translate as incomprehensible


She's one of the most integral characters. She basically runs this guys life, and has for more than a decade. He relies on her in more ways than one. In this sequel, she takes care of his business while he is keeping his illness from her and trying but failing to express his feelings for her(presumably because he's not good at heart-to-hearts.)I could complain about how this, actually interesting, romantic strand was given very little time in the film, but I'm not. I am instead referring to Scarlett Johansson's entirely pointless appearance


I really have to wonder what your point is here. You do know that most of a film like this is character interactions right? :smallconfused:Yeah, no. This is not exactly Pulp Fiction here. Iron Man 2 tries to coast along on Downey's effortless charm, and succeeds to some degree, but this cannot compensate for the laziness in throwing references and characters at the film when they play absolutely no role in propelling the plot forward. It might give fanboys a thrill to see these other comic characters (or shields!) prance around on screen but when they do nothing of note then it is detrimental to the plot and the film as a whole


Everyone in the film besides maybe Nick Fury(that is who he's supposed to be right?) has decently developed parts in the movie.Really...? Please explain to me then the narrative arc that Ms Johansson's character follows in the film. Note that donning a black catsuit does not count as 'character development'


Proof that Sammy Jackson can play any role (awaits film in which he plays the Pope)I do like SLJ but its hard not to conclude that he doesn't play any role these days. He just turns up and does his shouty routine*. Which is not necessarily a bad thing - you could argue that all the biggest stars overshadow their roles - but it does make it hard to take him seriously on screen

*Note: If I'm missing a whole set of arthouse movies in which Jackson plays withdrawn and sensitive souls, then I apologise in advance


lolwut? Inception was ALSO a really pretty, yet nonsensical movie. Sure, it's better than Iron Man, but that's not saying much.*Shrugs* First film that came to mind. Don't read too much into it

[Reverent-One]

I could complain about how this, actually interesting, romantic strand was given very little time in the film, but I'm not. I am instead referring to Scarlett Johansson's entirely pointless appearance


Why pointless? She's a secondary character at best, yes, but that's what her role was supposed to be, SHIELD wanted one of their people watching Tony that he wouldn't know worked for them (as opposed to Agent Coulson). Are minor characters not allowed in movies anymore?

[Om]

Why pointless? She's a secondary character at best, yes, but that's what her role was supposed to be, SHIELD wanted one of their people watching Tony that he wouldn't know worked for them (as opposed to Agent Coulson)See, that's the comic-verse explanation. What is the rationale from the film perspective for having her there? Does she propel the plot forward at all? Does she provide a love interest, comic sideshow, damsel in distress, etc, etc? Most importantly, would anyone notice if she had been removed from film entirely?

If the answer to the above is 'no', as I feel it is, then you have to question why she is there at all. Again, the comic-verse rationale is there but, and this has been my point all along, this does not translate well into film. Unless of course you are familiar with the comic character in which case you may get a thrill seeing her on screen in a catsuit

Adding characters and elements to a film where there is no reason for them to be there in the first place (or alternatively, failing to provide them with something to do) is not good. It detracts from the central storyline and slows the film down with unnecessary baggage. Which is a simple statement of Chekhov's principle

[Reverent-One]

See, that's the comic-verse explanation. What is the rationale from the film perspective for having her there?

Read what I just said again, because I just answered that.


Does she propel the plot forward at all?

Yes, she turns control of the iron man mark II suit back over to Rhodey. She also keeps Fury informed on things happening with Tony, which is assumingly what prompts Fury's actions in the movie.


Does she provide a love interest, comic sideshow, damsel in distress, etc, etc?

Why should she have to be one of those roles? She's a supporting character, much like Agent Coulson was in the first Iron man, though she actually does contribute more than he did.


Most importantly, would anyone notice if she had been removed from film entirely?

Well, given that without her Tony would have had to fight off the automated bots, the War Machine armor, and Vanko, yes. The main character being defeated is rather noticable.

[VanBuren]

See, that's the comic-verse explanation. What is the rationale from the film perspective for having her there? Does she propel the plot forward at all? Does she provide a love interest, comic sideshow, damsel in distress, etc, etc? Most importantly, would anyone notice if she had been removed from film entirely?

It's also the film explanation, as evidenced by the fact that it was given in the film.

[Marnath]

I could complain about how this, actually interesting, romantic strand was given very little time in the film, but I'm not. I am instead referring to Scarlett Johansson's entirely pointless appearance


Yeah, I've been called out on that already.:smallredface:
Oops?


Yeah, sorry, I'm not sure how I managed that.:smallconfused:
Probably got confused since normally their hair colors are somewhat reversed, chromatically. Ok yeah, her character was underdeveloped, I don't think that hurts the movie really.

Mr. Jackson would be an awesome pope. :smallcool:

[Om]

Yes, she turns control of the iron man mark II suit back over to Rhodey. She also keeps Fury informed on things happening with Tony, which is assumingly what prompts Fury's actions in the moviePlease, standing over a computer screen for a few seconds does not constitute a significant plot point. There were a hundred and one ways in which control of the suit could have been restored to Rhodes without necessitating the introduction of a new character

As for Jackson he was, aside from producing a huge chest labelled 'backstory', almost equally insignificant. Yet that was probably the one constructive thing that SHIELD contributed over the two films. A cynic might suggest that this is nothing but a device by which to tie these 'Avenger films' together. Still, at least Jackson only had a cameo role


Why should she have to be one of those roles? She's a supporting character, much like Agent Coulson was in the first Iron man, though she actually does contribute more than he didQuite simply because supporting characters also have roles to fulfil. Simply using them as eye candy (or standing around doing nothing for 100-odd minutes before pushing a button) is just bad film-making

[Avilan the Grey]

Quite simply because supporting characters also have roles to fulfil. Simply using them as eye candy (or standing around doing nothing for 100-odd minutes before pushing a button) is just bad film-making

As pointed out to you, she has a BIGGER, more important role than Coulson did in the first movie. So if we are to remove one of them, it should be him. After all he does less than she does, and he is also not "a love interest, comic sideshow, damsel in distress, etc, etc".

[Om]

As pointed out to you, she has a BIGGER, more important role than Coulson did in the first movie. So if we are to remove one of them, it should be him. After all he does less than she does, and he is also not "a love interest, comic sideshow, damsel in distress, etc, etc".Fine, remove him as well. Coulson is not as obvious an offender simply because he takes up a fraction of the screen time afforded to Ms Johansson, who I have only been using as an example. And nor do I see why only one of them should be removed - you could easily broaden out my above posts to argue that everything related to SHIELD should be stripped from the film in order to tighten the plot

[Xondoure]

I don't think the S.H.I.E.L.D. characters are any more guilty of not fulfilling their roles as any other side character in any film. There are reasons they are there and they fulfill them. Whether or not you like these reasons is a different story, but you can't argue they don't add to the story. Could they be removed and the plot tightened? Sure. But so could pretty much every other character that appears in the film, but then you are telling a different story. Also the S.H.I.E.L.D. characters are essential for tying the marvel universe together for the Avengers, so in the long term story of the universe they are essential.