Iron Man 2 Won't End on a Cliffhanger

Second!

This mean there will be no "bonus scene" post-credits?

pistachio?!



no, no... cashew!!!

yaaaaaaaaayyy!!!

GLAD to hear it cause i thought 2 Towers sucked as a stand alone film. As a part of the whole story, it wasn't that bad but still the worst part of the trilogy IMO. If they were capable of ending The Fellowship with a smooth enough cliffhanger, i don't get why they couldn't do the same for 2 Towers. That part felt rushed and half assed when you don't have the other two chapters to accompany it. I for one have to watch all three the same day or else it sucks.

Cliffhangers mean normally 100% sequel!

Though we better be getting an IRON MAN 3!!

(ARMOR WARS) or (DEMON IN THE BOTTLE) though two should've been that! ; D

SHAMAN??

Dude TWO TOWERS is like that because all the LOTR movies was set out and filmed as a TRILOGY lol????

I like cliffhangers.. look at EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and X2!!

Blackout & Green Lantern @

....

P.s. How many new articles in a matter of hours?? ; P

I'm [frick]ing off to FAN-FIC! : D

"You want to leave some things open, you know, to be like a food cache for them to set things up..."

the man really knows how to play the strings... he is the front man, and the man is teaching well... let's see if Johnston is doing the homeworks to get an A+ (or at least an C+).

LOTR & IM are apples and oranges. LOTR followed a set series of books and was envisioned as a trilogy, nothing more, nothing less. IM is built off of 40 years of stories and is expanding into Avengers as well. It will always be somewhat open ended for further movies to be made.

Which is how it should be.

LEEE- Dude i KNOW they're part of a trilogy. Yet, i could watch the first or last chapter of the trilogy on it's own without feeling the need for anything else. With Two Towers i can't. Jackson didn't film the books, he adapted them to film. There's a huge difference. It's all in the film making. Jackson COULD have filmed the exact same film but with a slightly better opening and end so that it could stand alone like the other two. He did not do that hence why the film on it's own sucks regardless if it's part of a trilogy. That's a HUGE detail a director should concider when filming an arch. I'm just glad Favreau does. If Jackson couldn't film it slightly differently to make it a better film because it would involve changing too much of the source, then that means that Two Towers was a sucky ass book. Name any other book series, each book SHOULD be able to stand on it's own regardless if there are 3 or 20 in the series. If the second book can't stand on it's own with a proper beggining and a proper ending then it's not a [frick]ing book, it's a chapter that quite frankly SHOULDN'T be sold separately. It should then be ONE huge book, period.

Damn @Shaman, that made complete sense. Good explanation...

Actually, LOTR was one big book that the publishing house broke up into three books. And there should have more than three movies to cover the story.

First time poster.

they are doing a ironman 3 after the avengers, so why cant they do a hulk sequel after as well.?

Cause Hulk's concept sucks for a stand alone film. He's better off as a small part of the Avengers. We've seen him rampage about and tear Abomination a new one, so thats a "been there done that" scenario. Lets move on.

As if he needed any more nerd cred, Favreau gives it to us with his two movie references! You're the ma, Jon!

good to hear..no need...no BS...jsut look forward to a new adventure for IR3...YES !!!!!