ok just saw iron man 2 today TWICE. and for months people have been saying can a movie with 2 villains really work, and i gotta ask. did anyone actually consider this justin hammer a villain? i mean tool yes, joke yes, poser yes, villain are you f***ing kidding me. all throughout the movie i was wondering "how the hell did this guy get his own company", sure the guy gets a couple people dead but in the end he's just an idiot prattling about with not an idea of how much of a joke he is

Is this a rant about the '2 villains' idea in superhero sequels.... or about the way Justin Hammer was portrayed??  I'm tempted to move it to Hammer's forum...

its about hammers portrayal

Well I mean...you usually have the real threat in most comic films. You have your Falcone, your Stryker, your Bob the goon, your Hammer. It's not exactly that they're not villains, it's more that they're just not (what I like to call) face villains. They're not gimmicky or super powered, they don't have a shtick.

Hammer was a joke, but that's how he was suppose to come off as. I do say he was a villain sine if it wasn't for him, Whiplash wouldn't have done most of the things he did. He was a villain, but more a tool. He may come back in the third as much more of a villain though.
 
On that note: I loved Justin Hammer in this film, he was great.

He wasn't the villain. Whiplash was. Hammer did almost NOTHING. Whiplash did everything; Hammer just gave Whiplash the resources he needed. Hammer's creations were crap (ask Rhodey...)
 
I have no problem with two villains. Just look at Batman Begins (2), Dark Knight (2. Really 3 but he wasn't important), Daredevil (2), Ghost Rider (like.... 5), Spider-Man 3 (... ok, really bad example), etc.
 
I have no problem with it.

Justin Hammer was annoying as hell in IM2, it kinda pissed me off at times.