Iron Man 2 Trailer released

[Zor]

What happened to the mk2 reactor Staine stole from Stark for his own armor?

It got blown to bits along with Staine himself at the end of the movie.

Oddly enough one of the things i have the hardest time buying fort this trailer (now that i got the player working is the Machine guns on War Machine, the repulser rays seem to be a much better weapon in most respects and they don't have the complications of ammo storage and such.

Zor

[Parallax]

Probably well suited for a career military person like Rhodes, who is used to missiles and bullets far more than fancy energy beams.

It may also be an energy saving method; instead of an arc reactor having to power various repulsor based weapons, it just has to handle physically moving the weapons themselves. It could very well be that the War Machine arc reactor can't handle consistent use of a lot of repulsor weapons. Then again, considering all the things the Ironmonger suit managed ... this isn't very likely at all.

[Drooling Iguana]

What's the effective range on an offensive repulsor blast, anyway? I don't recall it ever being used against a distant target, so guns might just work better as a dedicated weapon.

[TheLostVikings]

Did anyone else notice that at the end Iron Man was wearing a new armor, complete with a new (and improved?) triangular arc reactor?

I haven't read the comics in a long time, but I guess it means something important.

[Imperial Overlord]

Did anyone else notice that at the end Iron Man was wearing a new armor, complete with a new (and improved?) triangular arc reactor?

I haven't read the comics in a long time, but I guess it means something important.

Not really. Tony is always tinkering with his armour, improving it and building specialized suits.

[CaptainChewbacca]

He has something like forty suits of armor, not counting outdated prototypes.

[TheLostVikings]

Did anyone else notice that at the end Iron Man was wearing a new armor, complete with a new (and improved?) triangular arc reactor?

I haven't read the comics in a long time, but I guess it means something important.

Not really. Tony is always tinkering with his Armour, improving it and building specialized suits.

Sight, well I guess I didn't phrase it correctly, my bad. I meant as in him getting a whole new arc reactor put into himself, which at least to me is a slightly bigger change than simply putting on a new suit.

I.e. in the middle of the trailer we see Stark with his shirt open, showing silvery "veins" radiating out from his arc reactor, slightly resembling computer circuitry.




And in the first movie it was clearly shown that the navigation GUI of his suit was located in a heads up display in his helmet, yet here we see him diving out from a plane helmet less yet still able to effortlessly catch up to and retrieve his falling helmet in midair.

In the only recent comics I read WWH, Stark was doing stuff like levitating the individual parts of the suit to, remote controlling it, and directly interfacing with a lot of tech, etc, because apparently he was no longer just a regular guy with a suit, but an actual cyborg, so I guess that's the road they are heading down with the movies as well.

[Parallax]

in the comics he had a nanobot based ability called extremis, which let him remotely control his armour (including allowing him to have it form around him without any physical interaction, amongst many other things).

When the Skrulls invaded, they shut Stark down through sabotaging extremis and he no longer has it.

[SCRawl]

In the only recent comics I read WWH, Stark was doing stuff like levitating the individual parts of the suit to, remote controlling it, and directly interfacing with a lot of tech, etc, because apparently he was no longer just a regular guy with a suit, but an actual cyborg, so I guess that's the road they are heading down with the movies as well.

Apples and oranges. Stark was intentionally infected with a sort of techno-virus that re-worked his body, allowing him lots of neat new abilities. (He needed to do it to be able to defeat someone else who was modified by the same means.) They might do that in the films, but I seriously doubt it.

That photo might be indicative of Stark becoming more integrated with the ARC reactor, which is still interesting.

[FSTargetDrone]

And in the first movie it was clearly shown that the navigation GUI of his suit was located in a heads up display in his helmet, yet here we see him diving out from a plane helmet less yet still able to effortlessly catch up to and retrieve his falling helmet in midair.

Perhaps he's got some fancy contact lenses, something like the ones that we discussed in SLAM last month, say with a basic flight information-type HUD interface.

[Broomstick]

Either that, or he's been practicing so he can fly the suit without relying so heavily on the HUD.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So... its looking like IM2's Whiplash is more a combo of Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo. Interesting.

[Jim Raynor]

Awesome trailer.

So... its looking like IM2's Whiplash is more a combo of Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo. Interesting.

That's the way it looks. The character seems to be taking Whiplash's name and Dynamo's real last name, the whips, and apparently little else. I usually prefer movie adaptations that stick closely to the source, but in this case the source material on these characters is kind of lame so I really don't mind the changes. I mean, look at comic Whiplash. A flowing green ponytail and a purple cape and collar, what the fuck. I don't know much about Crimson Dynamo but a quick search reveals no less than thirteen different men behind the armor.

As others have speculated, the character will probably don some Crimson Dynamo armor before the end of this movie. That should make him a more credible threat to Iron Man (I'm not a fan of the shirtless bum look either). Mickey Rourke sounded incredible though.

[FSTargetDrone]

Either that, or he's been practicing so he can fly the suit without relying so heavily on the HUD.

Possibly, but he still needs to somehow see and then catch up to his helmet because I think he's wearing it when he lands. Perhaps the there is a signal link of some kind between suit and helmet which can be fed to the hypothetical contacts so he can locate the helmet.

[Oskuro]

That's a longstanding problem in superhero movies. See Spiderman 2, when you can't help but wonder why some cop doesn't just put a bullet through his soft body.

It is a big problem in comics too. I love the silly justifications they came up with in the old times. Take the Vulture, a Spiderman villain who wore a vulture costume and whose only ability was a gadget that granted him flight. In his first appearance we get dialog among a two cops, and they say they can't fire upon a man flying above them because the bullets could bounce and hit someone on the street.

I think the thing was that they just wanted to avoid guns (Comics Code and all), and thus led to very silly villians (or heroes, for that matter). If my research is correct, Batman himself used guns until the editors mandated that he was to avoid them, and thus the whole "My parents were killed with a gun, I hate guns" angle was worked into the comic.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

[Ghost Rider]

As for gun usage, blindness. Comic book writers tend to be completely blind to it EXCEPT when they want to make the villain look smart/cool. Then they have said character do what you think they should do, ie assassinations, exploiting easy weakness, and other things that most readers could've spotted from day 1.

As for Batman and guns? That ended because of....Robin. In the 39-40 period, Batman used a gun...twice. Seriously let's stop looking and think he was Punshier with a fetish. And another thing that ended with Robin? Killing of the enemy. Superman also used to do that, by flipping them over his shoulders when he was on top of a skyscraper.

[Havok]

Oh...

Oh...

I just came in my panties.

[Oskuro]

As for Batman and guns? That ended because of....Robin. In the 39-40 period, Batman used a gun...twice.

Yeah, I researched the Batman+guns issue recently (online, mind you, not some serious research). From what I found, Batman did use a gun just a couple times, and it was then that one of the editors mandated he would never ever use guns again.

Robin came in, of course, to make things more kid friendly, like most sidekicks of the time.

[Havok]

What happened to the mk2 reactor Staine stole from Stark for his own armor?

It got blown to bits along with Staine himself at the end of the movie.

So. The MkI was blown to bits and it was still usable as a basis for the Iron Monger. I have a feeling that reactor will be the basis for the rest of the "Iron Men" power sources we see that are probably made by the military.

Oddly enough one of the things i have the hardest time buying fort this trailer (now that i got the player working is the Machine guns on War Machine, the repulser rays seem to be a much better weapon in most respects and they don't have the complications of ammo storage and such.

The repulsors are primarily flight stabilizers in this universe. I can also see Rhodey just wanting bullets and little rockets and such. That and the repulsor tech is still proprietary Stark tech, and Rhody is still military, so maybe Tony didn't want it outside of his own armor, which he makes pretty clear in the opening of the trailer. Also note that all the Iron Men chasing Stark down are firing what looks like standard munitions as well.

[Havok]

So... its looking like IM2's Whiplash is more a combo of Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo. Interesting.

That's the way it looks. The character seems to be taking Whiplash's name and Dynamo's real last name, the whips, and apparently little else. I usually prefer movie adaptations that stick closely to the source, but in this case the source material on these characters is kind of lame so I really don't mind the changes. I mean, look at comic Whiplash. A flowing green ponytail and a purple cape and collar, what the fuck. I don't know much about Crimson Dynamo but a quick search reveals no less than thirteen different men behind the armor.

The CD for most of his existence has been a state/Soviet sponsored program with the man inside the armor fairly interchangeable.

As others have speculated, the character will probably don some Crimson Dynamo armor before the end of this movie. That should make him a more credible threat to Iron Man (I'm not a fan of the shirtless bum look either).

I wouldn't rule out him taking the 'Titanium Man' moniker either (also a Russian based character) as The Crimson Dynamo was strongly tied to the Soviet government which is non existent in the time frame of this movie. Where the TM was a rogue.

Mickey Rourke sounded incredible though.

When does he not?

[SCRawl]

I have a feeling that reactor will be the basis for the rest of the "Iron Men" power sources we see that are probably made by the military.

This makes a whole lot of sense, especially in light of the comments from the Stark design staff who couldn't whip up a power source small enough to power the Iron Monger suit. The only viable type of power source appears to be the ARC reactor.

The repulsors are primarily flight stabilizers in this universe.

That might have been the reason for their development in the first place, but they're still the workhorse weapon in the Iron Man arsenal, even in the movie-verse. But yeah, your point about keeping the repulsors out of the hands of non-Stark Iron Men seems valid.

[Peptuck]

Unless the movie establishes something along the lines of him stealing the plans, or the knowledge or something, I will be very VERY disappointed if they just have this "Guy" make an Arc Reactor on his own, when all the Researchers and resources of Stark Industries couldn't.

Having now seen the trailer myself I can comment on this. There's a very clear point in the trailer where we see the movies big bad in his garage with a giant blue print which clearly has STARK on the corner.

Ahhhhh you are right.. Still that asks the question of why TOny, after being so secretive and guarded about the Reactor in movie One, would write down the information where it could be stolen... Of course with what else I've seen in the movie, IE lots and lots of IronMan like suits/robots Attacking Stark and 'WarMachine' I'm guessing the genie is out of the bottle.

From what Whiplash is saying in the trailer, I got the impression that he might have been involved with the research that developed the Arc Reactor technology. He does talk about how the Stark family are all "thieves".

[Drooling Iguana]

That might have been the reason for their development in the first place, but they're still the workhorse weapon in the Iron Man arsenal, even in the movie-verse. But yeah, your point about keeping the repulsors out of the hands of non-Stark Iron Men seems valid.

Hadn't Stark already sold the repulsor technology to the military in the form of the Jericho rocket?

[Havok]

That might have been the reason for their development in the first place, but they're still the workhorse weapon in the Iron Man arsenal, even in the movie-verse. But yeah, your point about keeping the repulsors out of the hands of non-Stark Iron Men seems valid.

Hadn't Stark already sold the repulsor technology to the military in the form of the Jericho rocket?

Yes, but obviously not in the refined form that he used in the MkII or III. He also ended all his military contracts when he got back from Desertstan for weapons manufacturing. Presumably though, whatever weapons were delivered were reevaluated and reexamined by the military for reapplication I am sure.

[Ritterin Sophia]

You do realise that the song "Iron Man" has absolutely nothing to do with the comic character, right? It's nice that they gave it a bit of a nod in the closing credits, but it would have been completely out of place in the actual movie.

You do know that's completely irrelevent when the entire appeal to the Marvel movies are based on immature male indulgences like big explosion action scenes, right? It's an action movie.