The truth about Iron Man 2

OK, so Iron Man 3 is coming out soon, and I know I'm going to here a lot of "I didn't like Iron Man 2" replies when I ask who's going to go see it.

We need to talk a little bit about the truth about Iron Man 2.

The real limitation about Iron Man 2 is that it wasn't Iron Man 2. It wasn't just a sequel, it was a bridge. The story didn't just continue Iron Man's story into Iron Man 3. It was a bridge connecting Iron Man, and the other films, to the Avengers. It was sort of like an Avengers prelude, and introduction to the concept of an Avengers film. It was used to properly introduce Nick Fury, show the audience who he actually is, and bring Black Widow into the mix. Thor had aspects of this too, with Coulson/Sitwell/Barton and company playing a role, and Captain America had Howard Stark and the SSR around to help as well. But Iron Man 2 was focused on bridging the gap and having an ensemble movie. But that's never been done before. There's never been this kind of shared continuity between four different franchises before. And so filmmakers have never had that leap to make before.

So was Iron Man 2 a bad movie? No, not actually. What's the problem? The actual problem with the movie, honestly, is the title. Because it was called "Iron Man 2" people expected an Iron Man-centered storyline, and that's not what they got. But, to be fair, "Iron Man, War Machine, Phil Coulson, Black Widow, Nick Fury, and some Bad Guys" would have made a terrible title. And "Before the Avengers" is no better. So, since Iron Man had more focus than anyone else, it got named after him.

So, for everyone skeptical about seeing this third movie, let me just say that when considering the intents behind the movies, this is the first true "sequel" to Iron Man, and will be much more Tony Stark-centered, and much more the tone of Iron Man, than Iron Man 2 was.

In short, GO SEE THE MOVIE. And comment.

Here's a photo of the only female Whiplash costume I've seen. Enjoy.