Lance Quazar said:Though the hiring of Black is a masterstroke and the line we've heard from him about making "Iron Man 3" a kind of "Tom Clancy" style thriller is very intriguing, I just wonder how we'll be able to accept a scaled down "Iron Man" story after the expansive silliness of "The Avengers."
Once we know that Tony Stark lives in a universe of hulks and gods and all kinds of goofy comic-book elements, is it even possible to put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak?
I fear it might like following the cinematic "Superman 2", where Superman and Kryptonian baddies are chucking busses at each other in Times Square with George Reeves-style stories where he's confronting two-bit thugs who throw their revolvers at him after running out of bullets.
But, really, I hope that once the Avengers film is out and the massive Marvel franchise is secure, the Marvel suits will back off and just let Shane tell a great story on its own terms, without forcing his hand like they did with Favreau and IM2.
This is the strangest analysis of this that I've seen in a long time, man! They won't have to put the genie back in the bottle. Just advance the story from where the Universe is at that point. It's completely less complicated than you've framed it here.
And the Superman 2 comparison? Huh? That movie is widely heralded as one of the best comic book movies ever made, even amdist the current flood of comic book films!
I will say though that I agree with your sentiments about the Marvel suits, Shane Black and Iron Man 2. Iron Man 2 suffered incredibly because of a weak story and use of a relatively lame villain who would've been better served as a lacky with a true mastermind manipulating him - i.e., the Mandarin rather than Justin Hammer.