Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
Yeah, well, this one is so bad, I'll ignore it when I go back to working on my own timeline.
Most of these are just minor hiccups at best. I don't really mind if the official sources fudge up little details like that. As long as the continuity between films is solid and there's no major plot holes caused by it, I can accept the timeline not being 100% perfect.
Remember, the continuity could always be worse.
I'm at my aunt and uncle's place for Thanksgiving and they happened to have Iron Man 2 on DVD so they let me watch it. So I did out of curiosity/completionism. It's okay. Had its cool moments but I won't be racing to watch it again. At least that's another MCU movie under my belt.
Self-serious autistic trans gal who loves rock/metal and animation with all her heart. (she/her)One thing I found interesting about Iron Man 2 is that Ivan Vanko could be considered a prototype for Killmonger in Black Panther (2018). The two of them have very similar backstories, but whereas Killmonger is considered one of the MCU's best villains, Vanko's often considered one of the weakest.
In terms of similarities:
- Their fathers both had close relationships with the father of the main hero.
- Both were born into poverty, while the hero inherited the riches and fortunes of their family's legacy.
- Their fathers were both betrayed by the father of the hero, although Vanko's father was deported whereas Erik's was murdered.
- Both wish to take revenge against the hero out of a sense of entitlement and tarnish the legacy their family built.
- Both end up betraying the Big Bad Wannabe, and prove to be much more of a cunning threat than they initially anticipated.
- Both ultimately choose to kill themselves rather than be imprisoned.
There's plenty of differences though, the most obvious being that Killmonger is played more sympathetically and given more time to develop than Vanko was. Also, where Tony learned that his estranged father truly did love him, T'challa learned his beloved father did terrible things to maintain Wakanda's isolationist policies.
I just find it fascinating how two stories can approach villains with so many similarities in widely different ways. Or maybe I'm overthinking things. That's possible too.
Edited by chasemaddigan on Nov 22nd 2018 at 6:06:58 AM
Yeah, Vanko is a case where he could've been an interesting villain, but he falls apart in the second act by:
1. Nick Fury coming in to exposit "actually Vanko's father was evil and Howard was good", which is a pointless derail because we already know Vanko is wrong for attacking Howard's son even if Howard was evil.
2. Vanko suddenly becomes determined to personally kill Tony, which doesn't fit with his earlier goal of merely showing the world that Iron Man isn't invincible and can be reverse-engineered. It's simply a dumb device for getting all the Hammer Drones destroyed so that Tony can end the film still being an exclusive vigilante.
Honestly, the main problem is that everything connected to Vanko is just unbelievable convoluted, from his motivation (I am still not sure if his father had a honest grievance or not) to his plan. To quote from my article about him:
"When it comes to confusing plans, Vanko takes the cake. Let’s take this from the top: He attacks Tony at the racing track. I am not sure how he was able to predict that Tony would drive in the race, but okay, I roll with it, he might have simply waited for an opportunity to catch him, and that was the first one he got. After a fight in which he is keeps wielding his whips when he could have simply shoot Tony with arc reactor energy, he gets arrested. But then he claims that he still won because the world saw Ironman bleed. Wait, does this mean that he wanted Tony to survive, or did he want to kill him? And why going through all this effort when he already knows that Tony is dying? Granted, taking revenge in person is more satisfying, but what is the point of all this when he just ends up in prison? He can’t know that Justin Hammer will free him after all. And then we end up with the apparently on the fly created plan to attack Stark Expo. That makes a little bit more sense, because this way he attacks Tony’s legacy and not just his body – which actually might have been the idea from the get go. But Hammer is the one suggesting it to him, so perhaps not? All in all his plan is a nonsensical convoluted mess."
At the end of the day it feels like the story Ironman 2 actually wanted to tell is Tony struggling with his impending end, and they just showed Vanko in so that they could have an excuse for action scenes.
Some of it I think is explainable:
I'm pretty sure Vanko's first armor does not have repulsors, so he can't blast Tony with arc reactor energy. Given the Hammer Drones/Iron Monger/Crimson Dynamo fly on conventional rocket boosters and so are larger to carry more fuel, the implication seems to be that repulsors are a Tony-exclusive invention. Although this should mean Tony could stomp Vanko easily by just flying out of range of his whips.
Vanko's Plan A was: 1. attack Tony with own arc reactor-powered suit. 2. world sees "God bleed" and that the arc reactor can be copied, and so doubles efforts to take down Iron Man, even if Vanko doesn't succeed in killing him personally.
The rest does indeed not make sense, though.
Edited by Tuckerscreator on Nov 22nd 2018 at 3:43:31 AM
Yeah. Vanko's basic plan was fuck Tony Stark up in any way possible. If he killed him, cool. If he just made him look bad by undermining his claim of being the only person who could make the Arc Reactor (which he ultimately did do), probably not as good, but still nice. He was quite likely hoping to kill him and burn everything he'd created though. He was initially happy because he accomplished plan b (make him look bad) but then Hammer gave him a chance for more and he suddenly realized plan a (kill him) was still on the table.
Now in the end, he went with plan c (do both), with surviving things being optional I'm guessing. I've always said he was too hung up on revenge to realize that making Arc Reactor tech for Hammer and cutting into Tony's exclusivity was probably just as good especially since he'd given Stark a proverbial bloody nose on national television, but lets be honest: Tony does that to people.
One Strip! One Strip!It's unfortunate because Vanko has at least a few scenes where you really see the potential for a reasonably compelling villain. However, the film is unwilling to commit to him because it's too focused on Tony being an asshat; Vanko feels like a distraction, a mandatory obstacle that the narrative isn't that interested in at the end of the day.
Also the film seemingly tries to absolve Howard with Fury's "oh Anton Vanko wanted to make money off the tech." But not only does that make things FAR less interesting, but I'm not sure exactly how that automatically makes Vanko's father the "bad one." Umm, didn't Howard do essentially the same thing to make his fortune? So why is it ok when he does it, but not when Vanko's father wants to? The movie seems to have trouble making up it's mind on that point.
I honestly feel like the movie made a big mistake when it shove Vanko to the side for most of the second half in favor of Hammer. They should have used that time to further develop the whole "sins of the father" idea and Vanko's character instead imo.
Edited by Punisher286 on Nov 22nd 2018 at 4:23:20 AM
I think I would too. Ironman 3 annoys me, because I see what they are going for and it just doesn't work. While Ironman 2 is a hot mess, at least it manages to carry the themes of legacy and Tony's self-destructive tendencies when it isn't distracted with Vanko.
With Ironman 3, there are a few scenes I like (the sky jumping scene for example) but also a lot of stuff I just don't want in the franchise, at all. With Ironman 2 it is more that I actually like every single scene in the movie in itself (other than the unnecessary "let's redress in the backseat of the car" moment), but they don't really fit together all that well.
Plus, while Vanko doesn't work, at least Hammer is entertaining. I can't say the same about Killian.
I think Howard tossed Vanko's dad out because he wasn't just trying to make money off it, but do so with America's enemies. He did try and sell the secrets to Russia didn't he?
Howard might have objected to that, especially if we take the events of Agent Carter into account.
Howard had his own bad experiences, not only with his tech being misused, but also with Russians.
One Strip! One Strip!We interrupt this Vanko discussion to bring you
Why the Netflix MCU verse is slowly dying: An analysis by Movie Bob. Notable, he brings up Ike Perlmutter's antics and stifling creative control, the overall lack of creatively involving the 4 main Netflix shows, and the creation of Disney exclusive live action shows with movie level talent for their streaming service.
Yeah all things considered, IM 2 is not a terrible movie but I'm happy I didn't have to pay to watch it or IM 3. Now, I just need to catch the first two Thors, Winter Soldier and...*sigh*... The Incredible Hulk.
Also, I happened upon this neat little thing that attempts to determine your MCU movie rankings.
Don't expect it to be completely spot on but it's there if you want (here's what I got, I admit I gave priority to the movies I haven't seen and still need to, because otherwise I would definitely take a few spots away from the Thors
)
Edited by AyyItsMidnight on Nov 22nd 2018 at 8:38:45 AM
Self-serious autistic trans gal who loves rock/metal and animation with all her heart. (she/her)Mine
.
I should note that I haven't seen Hulk or the first Iron Man.
The Top 5, though, at least, I think are pretty accurate. I'll say that Avengers ties with Homecoming.
Oh God! Natural light!Pretty much 100% accurate though I think Ragnarok and Civil War are more or less tied and Doctor Strange ended up a bit higher than I would have put it at.
Edited by LordVatek on Nov 22nd 2018 at 12:06:58 PM
This song needs more love.I probably wouldn't have put Homecoming in the Top 5 before, but I liked it a lot better on a rewatch, so I think it's fine where it is.
Oh God! Natural light!Mine. [1]
. I am a lot softer on Thor than most, and I have made peace with Iron Man's lesser outings.
Mine.
https://sorta.app/q/1012/sqijmaropfetlngkdbhc
I have seen every movie.... I think....... I’m a bit iffy on if I’ve fully watched Hulk but I have seen everything else.
Edited by slimcoder on Nov 22nd 2018 at 9:13:00 AM
"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."
