I’ve talked about my love of “Iron Man 2” here before and why I loved it, admittedly cheap and shallow reasons centering around explosions and robots and particle accelerators.
However, this essay does a really good job of laying out the flaws that a lot of people saw in the movie.
The problem is that for this kind of superhero tale to work, we must accept and know that Tony Stark is the good guy and that he will always do good — he’s the protagonist, after all. Therefore anyone set against him is necessarily either an antagonist or an obstacle to be overcome, which in this case includes Senate panels interested in a private citizen with worlds more power and money than anyone around him who also possesses a unique suit that can level city blocks.
Granted, my theory is that the instant you introduce a completely fictional element into a story meant to be “realistic” (something like Stark’s arc reactor technology), that creates a ripple effect that will make a variety of other stuff plausible within the fictional story’s universe and that furthermore, any sort of story with such fantastic elements (like miniaturization technology for near-infinite power sources like the said arc reactor) can’t possibly be a total reflection of “reality”.
If anything, I personally agreed with a review of “Iron Man 2” I heard somewhere mentioning that the film is (similar to “The Dark Knight”) meant to be about escalation in weaponry and technology fields.
But whatever. Like I said, it’s definitely an interesting read that does offer the possibility to look at “Iron Man 2” in a different light. Check it out.