History Headscratchers / IronMan2

** That's not the issue. The issue is that the Mk II Armor would have had to have been refitted to hold the Arc Reactor within the chest plate rather than run it from the reactor already in the user's (In this case Tony's) chest. Why would Tony ''ever'' make a modification that would allow literally anyone to use one of his outdated pieces of tech when in almost every other instance before that, he's kept every single piece of his own tech and any knowledge thereof very close to his chest ([[IncrediblyLamePun literally]])? The problem is less with Rhodey being able to use the suit, but why the suit was modified for his use in the first place.

** Because the outside world doesn't know that Pepper Potts has basically been running the company for Tony already, and there's still a lot of sexism and classism that would say "a super-rich man has got to be a better CEO than a not-visibly-rich woman!" ''We'' know that it's a logical next step that cuts out a mostly unnecessary middle-man and lets Pepper make and execute decisions more quickly and efficiently, while removing a big source of volatility and unreliability. The ''press'' only know that someone widely known only as an assistant (which they probably picture as taking memos and fetching coffee) just replaced a man who, while erratic, had appeared to lead the company successfully, including defeating an attempted coup, and proven his genius (in non-business areas) and thus must be a Smart Guy in all areas.

** Isn't it obvious? His armor is equipped with [[IncrediblyLamePun HAMMER]] [[HammerSpace Space]].

** I like to think the Ex-wife either was a bluff, or merely wasn't designed to take down an armored target less then 50 feet from the launcher. Think about it. Something supposedly so powerful needs a minimum distance to arm, gotta build up speed to have any penetrating power (see Gyrojet guns at Wiki/TheOtherWiki) and... I don't know what else.

*** I'm honestly mystified by this nonsensical and continuing argument by people that Hammer must actually be a really competent weaponsmith and all the failures are totally someone else's fault. The movie makes a bloody running gag of Hammer's incompetence, the missile's failure is clearly part of this running gag. Rhodey talked it up because he was hoping it would work and thought it would make him look cool if it did, but when it didn't he wasn't surprised at all because Hammer's shit ''sucks giant infected donkey balls''.
*** The reason people think Hammer must have some kind of competence is because it's the only explanation for why he's a rich businessman instead of a hobo living out of a cardboard box with a sign saying "Will Dance Like An Idiot For Food." If all of Hammer's material is crap, ''how does he even have a company in the first place?''

** Because there's ''more than one'' man in the world named "Ivan?" I mean, come on, its only a name possessed by about a ''million'' Russian men. What's the Senator supposed to do when he overhears Hammer chatting with one of his employees who has a common Russian name? Think that he's actually conversing with a murderous criminal who ''is supposed to be dead'', with a ''body'' and ''uniform'' to confirm it?

* In the first movie, he had to create the arc reactor to keep a piece of shrapnel in it's place and prevent it from lodging deeper into his heart. Later presumably he kept the arc reactor around for the sake of convenience, because it both worked perfectly fine and was also capable of powering his Iron Man suit. However given the Palladium poisoning issue and the fact that all of his Iron Man suits are now powered by their own arc reactors as evidenced by Mr.War Machine well...stealing one, why doesn't the world's smartest man(capable of creating the Iron Man prototype IN A CAVE! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS! as well as a home-made particle accelerator) with literally infinite resources solve the issue by designing/buying the world's most advanced artificial heart and undergoing an operation?

* In between Hammer introducing the pistol and the shotgun, a silver gun appears on the table [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WDMHKgBfpE out of nowhere]] with no introduction or even a mention and remains there for the rest of the presentation. Was this just a mistake by the filmmakers?

* In between Hammer introducing the pistol and the shotgun a silver gun appears on the table [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WDMHKgBfpE out of nowhere]] with no introduction or even a mention and remains there for the rest of the presentation. Was this just a mistake by the filmmakers?

** Aside from this not being related to the comics, but specifically the movie, I think the main answer to this can be concluded based on his interactions in the first movie. Rhodes is implied to be well rounded in many forms of combat based on his few scenes in the first movie. He is a trainer and liaison (from what this troper noticed in the movies) and really only becomes a true main combatant in the suit sometime after the second movie and before the third. And even then it seems to be implied that he is more of a body guard and "first responder" to the most troubled locations that threaten national security. All that said, his speech about tactics to Tony is basic stuff any military person would have learned in basic (and been retrained on over and over again through their career).

** If a mechanical heart won't do, why not just get a ''real'' one? Heart transplants are performed every day, or heart/lung together if the shrapnel is widespread enough for adjacent organs to be a concern. Don't tell this troper that a billionaire can't bribe his way onto the top of the transplant waiting list in ''some'' country or other, or afford the anti-rejection meds afterwards.

** I'm going to guess the above troper is American. In Europe, firearms aren't that widespread, so realistically having police snipers overseeing a race is several different kinds of excessive (and I doubt anywhere in the world actually goes to that level of trouble). Same with cops with submachine guns; do you honestly think it's a smart idea to have automatic weapons in a very crowded public place? And again, Europe. Civilians aren't going to bring guns to a race car event. The only people at the scene who would have guns would be any of the actual police officers and not event security who were around, and they would have to get very close to Vanko in order to shoot at him and be certain they wouldn't miss '''and hit a civilian.'''

** Sorry, I (the troper who brought up the number) meant to say that I figured it was a second island of stability, up there in the multiple hundreds where nobody but Stark Sr. ever bothered to even look at it, but forgot.

*** [[note]] Same troper to avoid a wall of text, it's already too close for my liking... [[/note]] I mean, yeah, none of this negates its logistical advantages, or versatility ones. An army of 100 Iron Men ''would'' certainly be something to be scared of, and a significant military threat. But 100 Iron Men vs. 50 F-22 Raptors? Yeah, my money's on the Raptors. Especially with ''range'' taken into account, a ''realistic'' Raptor could snipe an Iron Man suit from over the horizon.

** Are you freaking kidding? Any event full of people, ''especially'' if in a city and not in an enclosed location, is going to have armed patrols every which where, even in gun-controlled Europe. The whole terrorism thing, y'know? At the very least there'd be cops with pistols, and probably several snipers ready to take position very quickly indeed.

* My main peeve with that scene: the first Whiplash is not armored. We can actually see Vanko's skin through it. And we're supposed to believe there wasn't ONE person with a firearm in the crowd? No police snipers nearby monitoring the situation? No cops with submachine guns? Not even a civilian with a .22? All it'd have taken to disable, perhaps even kill Vanko was ''one'' bullet. As long as he's just walking along the track it's believable that nobody'd just shoot the crazy dude being a nuisance, but as soon as he breaks out the whips, and certainly when he starts slicing cars, bullets would start flying. He should have been reduced into a red mess of holes before Stark even came into the scene.

** The out-universe reason is to show the actor in the superhero suit. How many superhero movies do not have the hero unmask for the final battle. In Iron Man, Stane and Stark fight with no masks, in the first and second Spider-man movie (I haven't seen the third one), Parker unmasks for the final battle. Probably loads of other movies I care not to mention.
** ^ This. It is all because the actors want more face time, or the producers want more of the actor's faces on screen because they are paying big money for them, or a combo of both. The simple in universe example is that they all have HUGE egos and they want to show their opponent the face that is not afraid of them.

[[folder:I see you've gotten extensive plastic surgery]]
* A minor one, but I noticed that people bring up Creator/DonCheadle replacing Creator/TerrenceHoward as Rhodey WAY more often than Creator/MarkRuffalo replacing Creator/EdwardNorton as Bruce Banner. Why is that?
** The only thing I can think of is that the Hulk was much, much more popular in The Avengers than he was in his solo movie, and that has transferred to the actor. Whereas most people are neutral to the change in Rhodey's or prefer the old one (I like the new one better myself). People are more likely to bring things up when they dislike them than when they like them.
** The fact that Banner is a shapeshifter in-Verse has also allowed some fans to justify the difference as his having come to physically resemble the Hulk ever since he attained his state of TranquilFury. With Rhodes, there's no such loophole.
** Part of it may be people are used to seeing a different Banner in every movie, considering how often that franchise has been rebooted. Granted that's no longer the case with the release of Age of Ultron, but people seemed to like Terrence Howard as Rhodes, making Cheadle replacing him a minor case of TheyChangedItNowItSucks
** It's probably got something to do with looks, in general. Edward Norton is very much a classic "pretty boy" in terms of his attractiveness, his scruffy appearance in ''Film/FightClub'' notwithstanding. Bruce Banner has always been more of a masculine sort of guy in terms of his looks, which is why the ruggedly-handsome Mark Ruffalo was better-received by the fandom compared to Norton. Likewise, Terrence Howard's looks and demeanor playing Rhodes fit the character ''perfectly'' in the first movie, whereas it took a couple of movies for Cheadle to fit into the role well enough; and even then it's a bit hard to find Don Cheadle convincing as a physical presence compared to Howard. For instance, Don Cheadle is 5'8"(just below the average adult American male height) and built in a rather lanky manner. Terrence Howard, meanwhile, is 6'0"(just ''above'' average American male height, and in fact his height falls into the unofficial "Hollywood Sweet Spot" when it comes to action leads) and could have played linebacker in the NFL if he kept himself in prime physical condition. If Howard's replacement was a guy with a similar height and build, it would have certainly gone over far better. Funny enough, though, that it was both actors' prima donna behavior offscreen that caused the casting changes, in the first place.
[[/folder]]

* So Tony rediscovers a new element that will replace palladium, which people have dubbed "Starkanium" (Personally I think it is tesseract casing element, which Howard had some of after Cap retrieved it), but after being told it was impossible to make, Tony sets up some sort of array in five minutes and makes it. How did he know EXACTLY how to make Starkanium?