Jon Favreau not signed on for sequel?!?!

[Kokomo29]

I just read an article that stated that Jon Favreau still wasn't signed on to direct Iron Man 2. Does anyone honestly think there is a chance that Marvel Studios won't ask him to come back to direct the second installment? He had better direct it - they would be crazy not to get him to do it!!

Here is the article: http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/05/14/jon-favreau-still-unsigned-to-iron-man-sequel/

[Rikxiepoo]

Michael Bay and Transformers 2 all over again =O!

[CaptainStacy]

Last i heard, they were negotiating.

[FaT_tONle]

The three picture contract is ambiguous... it doesn't mean the actors are obligated for three films (director included)... the studio has the two picture option on them. If the studio wants to look in another direction they can and let those people go. When you have a hit, you still have to negotiate with the agents or whomever and essentially work out a brand new deal. Nothing is ever set in stone.

[Kokomo29]

Does anyone think that Jon Favreau will NOT return for the sequel?

[Juggernaut33]

Does anyone think that Jon Favreau will NOT return for the sequel?

I am positive he will. Let's face it, this guy isn't a firestorm of activity. The movie is set to be released in 2 years which I think means that they have to hire a director soon (it's not like Quantum of Solace where the preproduction began meanwhile Casino Royale was shooting) and since Jon Favreau did pretty well (at the box office), they don't have to fix it.

[Arach Knight]

After a successful stint with Raimi on Spider-Man, I do not see why Marvel would not attempt to repeat the same successful formula with the same director and cast. I am aware that Sony was in charge of most of the production, but Marvel still had some what of a say. Why would they risk another Bryan Singer or Ang Lee when John Favreau so clearly works?

[hpwiz89]

If he doesn't come back he would be pretty stupid, come one he knows he will get loads of money plus he will have fun makin ghte movie.

[Ironfan72]

Kevin Freige said last week that they were close to re-signing Jon, so I believe they will announce something within the next couple months.

[TheVileOne]

Favreau talked about signing onto the second movie on Howard Stern and he said would like a percentage of the gross this time. I think he also mentioned for ELF that he didn't get any percentage or royalties for that movie, when the studio claims that ELF has NOT made money yet. Which sounds a little ridiculous.

[Doctor Doom]

Too bad if it's true, I rather enjoyed him as a director.

[Arach Knight]

"After being pressed by Stern, Favreau revealed his director's salary -- $4 million for the first film, with a NET profit deal which will pay a very small percentage once the film begins to turn a profit."

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/05/15/jon-favreau-still-not-signed-for-iron-man-2/

I don't see how he could want more money. This reminds me of when Sean Connery got paid $10 million to star in League of Extraordinary Gentleman. I'm not saying that Favreau didn't deserve to get paid...i'm just saying that if he got paid that $4 million salary for two more films, he'd have $12 million just for directing. Some actors don't even get paid that much after doing three films.

[Devil]

According to IESB and producer Peter Billingsley Jon Favreau has signed for the sequel:
http://http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4996&Itemid=99

[Arach Knight]

Dead link. Even the site does not come up.

[Ironfan72]

just go to iesb.net, it's one of there top stories right, very easy to find.

[Arach Knight]

I tried that and is still does not work.

[Gotham]

I tried that and is still does not work.

They were up earlier in the day. I'm assuming it's the resdesign they've been talking about and it's finally coming into effect.

And basically, Peter said that Jon was back, and Marvel is awesome. Complimented Robert Downey Junior and that was really it.

[Arach Knight]

So it seems like a lot of unnecessary worry. Considering Faverau's limited success (he was part of the production team for Elf, which I believe he wrote and produced), I don't think he would pass on the gold mine that is the newly established Iron Man franchise.

[Cinemaman]

Favreau just wants his take on box office, and that will probably cut some producers' money. But I doubt it will hurt so much the final deision, as they will anyway give it to him, because he is the guy, who made the first movie; so as the movie keeps running, Fav is James Cameron for Marvel.

[kedrell]

This is silly. There is literally waaaay less than 1% chance that he won't be back. Same with RDJ, Howard & Paltrow.

[Raiden]

I think Faverau will be back for sure. He said he wants to return for IM2, and Marvel Studio (being a young company and all) won't be so stupid as to find another director for IM2 and risk ruining a franchise like when Ratner took over X3. But I do think they should try to resolve this negotiation ASAP so he can start to work on the framework for IM2.

[Chewy]

I doubt this'd actually come true, because I think Downey would walk if a move this douchey was made, but still, wtf? We should NOT be hearing that Marvel is even considering dumping Favreau.

You won't believe what Marvel Studios is contemplating, shame on you David Maisel!

Marvel Studios is sitting on top of the world with the recent success of Iron Man so far taking in over $535 million in worldwide box office receipts. So why hasn’t Marvel locked in Jon Favreau to direct the sequel Iron Man 2? It's been known since the release of Iron Man that director Jon Favreau had not yet been officially signed on to direct Iron Man 2. Kevin Feige during our edit bay visit of the Incredible Hulk mentioned that they were in negotiations, several producers have confirmed the same to several different news outlets, so the question is why isn't he locked in yet?
About a week ago, the IESB was tipped off by a junior source at Marvel Studios that there had been some delays with Jon's negotiations regarding the sequel. When asked why I was told that Marvel and Favreau hadn't been able to come to terms regarding money.

At first I thought my source was full of **** and I dismissed it as a rumor. This last Friday I was contacted by another source at Marvel and this one, let's just say, is much higher up on the food chain, and told me that the chairman of Marvel Studios David Maisel who has been in charge of negotiating new terms with Favreau is being cheap and not willing to pay a fair directors' fee.

Favreau was a bargain to begin with, he is after all a fairly new director even though he has had several commercially successful films under his belt when he was brought aboard Iron Man for a steal.

Don't know exact numbers but I am sure that it wasn’t a Michael Bay/Brett Ratner/Bryan Singer paycheck. He had to prove himself after all and looking at what the box office and DVD sales are going to bring in, around $750-800 million, I'd say he did his job well, very well.

So according to our source at Marvel, Jon was expecting a moderate bump in his fee for the sequel but apparently Marvel has other plans.

Our source continues that Maisel believes Iron Man 2 will be a success regardless of Favreau's involvement and feels the studio does not need to pay Jon a higher fee for his services.

This is the most disappointing news that I have heard coming out of Hollywood in years, is Marvel out of their Vulcan mind?
So bottom line, Jon Favreau has not been locked in to direct Iron Man 2 for the simple reason that Marvel is being cheap - this is 100% accurate folks, no ********.

This is completely disheartening. Iron Man was the first real Marvel production on their own two feet and Favreau came through like a champ. He gave credibility to the studio, hell, I'd even say he MADE the studio.

If that movie had bombed and he hadn't done his job right Marvel wouldn't be making the plans for the future like they are now. They would be going back to making films with other studio partners like they always have.
It's time for Marvel to return the favor - give the guy his fee (which I hear is the regular standard director's fee, no more), bring him back and kick some ass with IRON MAN 2!


I've contacted Marvel Studios who quickly asked us to contact their publicists over at Principal Communication Group for comment.
In regards to the March production start date that Terrence Howard talked about in his interview with Military.com, Paul Pflug from Principal Communications gave us a standard "no comment."


So what about Jon coming back to direct Iron Man 2?


The official statement is that they are still negotiating with Favreau.


Interesting…negotiations huh? Take a look at what Favreau posted on his official MySpace (http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=65391631&categoryID=0&IsSticky=1&groupID=102795074&Mytoken=74ABCED8-7E19-44B9-AD9E47ACE4EEAC78873624)page just yesterday:
It’s been five weeks since the one and only phone call my reps have gotten from Marvel. I know their hands are full with the Hulk and I’m sure they will get into it shortly, as they tell me they intend to. I ran into the Marvel guys at the Hulk premiere and everyone sounded eager to get to work on IM2.

I am concerned, however, about the announced release date of April 2010. Neither Robert nor I were consulted about this and we are both concerned about how realistic the date is in light of the fact that we have no script, story or even writers hired yet. This genre of movie is best when it is done thoughtfully and with plenty of preparation. It might be better to follow the BB/DK, X/X2 three year release pattern than to scramble for a date. It is difficult because there are no Marvel 09 releases and they need product, but I also think we owe it to the fans to have a great version of IM2 and, at this point, we would have less time to make it than the first one."
One call five weeks ago is not what I consider "negotiations."


Enough said. I have double checked with my sources again at Marvel who are sticking to their story, negotiations - if you want to call them that - are not going well.


What do you think? Email me at robert@iesb.net (robert@iesb.net) and I'll be sure to send your thoughts on to Marvel Studios…
http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5052&Itemid=99

[FlawlessVictory]

Pretty disturbing. But I can't imagine Marvel being that dumb and continuing the IM franchise without Favreau.

[Showtime]

Wow. Is Marvel turning into WB?

[louiebling$]

Yea. I call shannaigans

[FlawlessVictory]

Wow. Is Marvel turning into WB?

LOL. Imagine, Singer getting to make another Superman and Favreau doesn't get to make another Iron Man. If that happens then the world truly is coming to an end.

[BenReilly19]

Latino Review is also confirming IESB's scoop:

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/breaking-news-marvel-disses-jon-favreau-over-money-4815

BREAKING NEWS: Marvel disses Jon Favreau over money!

By El Mayimbe on June 10, 2008

Blasphemy! Marvel Chairman believes IRON MAN 2 can be successful without Jon Favreau!

El Mayimbe here with disturbing news.

You would think with all the drug cartel money that Marvel is making with IRON MAN that they would naturally give a proven filmmaker like Jon Favreau a decent bump in pay...NOT!

According to this report at IESB, Marvel hasn't locked in a deal with Favreau because they're being cheap. Marvel, are you kidding me?! How could you not want to give Favreau a bump in pay?

I went to my guys to see if what IESB is reporting is even remotely true and unfortunately it is. Sanchez is on the money with this one.

I've seen IRON MAN 3x already and it is one of the best comic book origin movies of all time. Also one of the most critically praised. All of this happened because of Jon's vision.

I found it a tad bit disturbing that Marvel is moving ahead with their plans for their slate, yet they did so without locking in Favreau first.

Usually, when a blockbuster opens big like IRON MAN did, they lock down the filmmaker FAST for a sequel. It's been 5 weeks and Marvel hasn't locked down Favreau for their planned sequel which is bad because there is a lot of work to do on the sequel. If Marvel wants to have a great sequel, then they have to get cracking now with the writing team, the special effects team and especially...THE DIRECTOR.

Favreau has earned that right.

Stop being cheap Marvel.

Pay Favreau what he wants and deserves which I hear is not much and wouldn't break Marvel.

Marvel needs to lock Favs down to a contract, ASAP. The man more than proved his worth, and made a great movie. He definitely should be compensated for his hard work.

We don't need another Singer/X-Men 3 fiasco... :csad:

[Ironfan72]

If true very sad, Jon has been the driving force behind the success of Iron Man without his efforts to reach out to the fans via Myspace, Comic-Con etc, then Iron Man may not of been a success, and Marvel would be in serious trouble with there creditors, Pay the man Marvel.

[Raiden]

I love Marvel, but if they let Favearu walk just because they won't give him a raise (which he deserves), then they are idiots and I won't be surprised if they bring in someone else to helm IM2, and the movie tanks. And considering RDJ's friendship with Favearu, if he doesn't come back it might even affect RDJ tremendously. I hope this is just a rookie mistake by Marvel Studio, but one call in 5 weeks (after the amazing success of IM) is just crazy.

[fazeforce]

Hiya folks - I haven't posted on the SHH Boards forever, but with this Favs business breaking today, I jumped on to see what folks were saying. Hopefully, the fallout from this leaking will be all it takes for Marvel to man up and sign with Favs. I did just see this posted on MTV - an interview from the Hulk premiere which took place on Sunday; Favs seems to indicate that perhaps he'd rather do Avengers than IM 2 - maybe that's part of the reason why he hasn't been signed yet? See the quotes in the article:

'Iron Man 2' And 'Avengers' Are Set To Open Only A Year Apart -- So Which Will Jon Favreau Direct?

'There's no way that I could direct both,' filmmaker says on 'Incredible Hulk' green carpet.

By: Shawn Adler
http://s7.addthis.com/button1-bm.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=12&winname=addthis&pub=mtvca&s=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtv.ca%2Fnews%2Farticle.jhtml %3Fid%3D9218&title=MTV.ca%20%7C%20News%20-%20\'Iron%20Man%202\'%20And%20\'Avengers\'%20Are%2 0Set%20To%20Open%20Only%20A%20Year%20Apart%20--%20So%20Which%20Will%20Jon%20Favreau%20Direct%3F)
A release date has been set, the principal cast will be returning and honchos at Marvel are already talking up potential villains. Just one month after its release, the overwhelming success of "Iron Man" has everyone talking sequel - including director Jon Favreau, the one guy in this whole affair who isn't even officially committed to the project.
Unlike with actors, it's unusual for studios to sign directors to more than one film. And yes, Marvel is brand-new to the whole negotiating thing. But could it be that the reason Favreau isn't signed yet for "Iron Man 2" is because he really wants to do ... something else?
Favreau himself teased as much at the green carpet for "The Incredible Hulk," insisting that, despite the overwhelming success of "Iron Man," he'd still like to be considered for "The Avengers."
"I'd love to [direct 'The Avengers']. But they announced that it's coming out in 2011, and 'Iron Man 2' is coming out in 2010, so there's no way that I could direct both. They'll either change the date, or maybe I'll just do 'Avengers' and not 'Iron Man 2,' or maybe just 'Iron Man 2' and not 'Avengers.' I would have preferred for those two movies to be at least two years apart so I could be involved with both of them."
Given a choice between the two, Favreau seems to prefer "The Avengers," the superhero tag-team event that will showcase Captain America, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner, among others. Why? Because it will feature Captain America, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner, among others.
" 'Avengers' seems to be the more fun one," Favreau said. "You get to use all the heroes for that one."
Favreau insisted that he hasn't had any official meetings with Marvel about either.
If Favreau does wind up working on "Iron Man 2," it may be on a different story line than perhaps he originally intended. As early as last July, when MTV News visited the set of "Iron Man," Favreau was hinting that the sequel would follow the famed "Demon in a Bottle" arc, wherein Tony Stark battles alcoholism. (For goodness' sake, the first shot of Stark in the current "Iron Man" is of him holding a drink!)
There's no doubt that it was set up, but now it might not pay off, Favreau implied.
"I always said it was interesting. I still think that. [But I'd] like to see if the public is ready to see Tony Stark fall apart yet. They might want to see him grow as a superhero before then," Favreau said. "It's just one of the story lines that I find compelling and would lend itself well to being in the movie.
"You want to stand out," Favreau continued. "There are so many superhero films out. I mean, 'Hancock' seems like it deals with similar themes. I want to see how they handle it and how the public receives that."
But regardless of what develops in closed-door meetings between Favreau, Marvel, the screenwriters and Robert Downey Jr., there is one thing that Favreau is happy to divulge about the sequel, independent of whether he'll be directing.
"Happy Hogan will have more to do next time," he said of the character he played in the first film. Hogan had a much more developed presence in the comics and eventually scores a romance with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). "I had my hands full this time."

[FlawlessVictory]

^Thanks for posting. So Favs would rather direct The Avengers over IM2, interesting.

[Chewy]

But why are sources claiming the issue stems from money, then?



This is X3 all over again. I can see it now: I2 - The Last Stand, a film by Brett Ratner.

[Raiden]

I hope us fans can bring some online pressure to Marvel to force them to sign Fan quickly.

[CaptainStacy]

Wow. Is Marvel turning into WB?

Probably. You know the odds of them screwing this up are high. They have dollar signs in their eyes with the first film, and will most likely start rushing out inferior product to cash in as quickly as possible.

Fox, WB, Marvel...it's all the same animal. :csad:

[FaT_tONle]

My mouth just dropped open... why is Marvel even flirting with the idea of letting this guy go? Directors are AS IMPORTANT as the cast... he NEEDS TO DO IM 2... not Avengers. For goodness sake Hogan will probably be in the love triangle? Is Fav going to just act and not direct another picture? I never thought Jon would direct Avengers. Just give that project to someone else or better yet... push the freaking release date back a few years. Jeez...

[louiebling$]

I am calling BS on this article.... jon just had an interview talkin about the film check out SSH main page

[FaT_tONle]

People always talk... it's the contract that counts. This guy should be getting ready to direct. If he doesn't get signed in a month or two and more rifts are created then **** Marvel... and **** the Avengers movie... no joke. I am telling you right now what we'll get without Favs... we'll geet a bunch of cameos in IM 2... guys that eat up screen time. Hawkeye, Black Widow... not only that but Thor will be a supporting character just like the early reports mentioned. There will be no character development and the movie will be another X3: TLS because they need the run time under two hours. And Avengers will suck ass as well. Expect a recast or two. I guarantee that's what will happen if Marvel wants to play wise ass with the people that brought them to this point.

[louiebling$]

Wat if they are not signing him to ironman cuz they want him to do avengers?

[FlawlessVictory]

Wat if they are not signing him to ironman cuz they want him to do avengers?

That seems like a possibility. And it sounds like he would rather do Avengers more than IM2.

[louiebling$]

Yea like really he already paved the road for ironman.. I want him to come back for it but I want him to do avengers too

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah but that doesn't mean Marvel should hold their hope for him coming back for the team up film... What is a better fit right now??? IM2. That's not an argument. This is Jon's franchise at the moment. Marvel shouldn't be messing with it. If the guy wants three years in between then they should give him three years. He deserves that much at least. IM can go to May and Cap can go to July.

[TheVileOne]

For one thing. Look at the Latino Review report. He doesn't say anything of merit besides reiterating what was on IESB. He doesn't report any actual facts or new updates.

I wouldn't trust El Miyambe if he said he was on fire while literally looking like he was on fire.

OK, Marvel said they plan on releasing the sequel in the summer of 2010. OK. Favreau's statement on his myspace page doesn't really conflict with that.

Terence Howard mentioned a hopeful filming start date in 2009. OK, there's that. But that's what Howard said. Marvel didn't give any filming date as of yet.

Favreau's simply saying he doesn't want the movie to be rushed.

But if they really want to meet the target release date, they need to start writing it and everything. They need to lock up the cast and crew and get to work.

The problem is actors might be going on strike on the 30th. So who knows what will happen then. The actor's strike has prevented any Marvel Studios movie from being released in 2009 save for Wolverine which is a Fox production.

[Boom]

Not signing Favreau would be failure of epic proportions.

Is this studio run by monkeys? Honestly. The mere notion of not hiring back the director who delivered a critical and financial success is mind-bogglingly stupid. It almost pisses me off.

[TheVileOne]

OK but look at where the industry is now. If the SAG issue is not resolved in 20 days there could be another work strike. The second big work strike in less a year.

[Downhere]

That would be a real stupid move on Marvel's part if they don't get Fav's back. Seriously, they are making enough green to up his pay for the sequel.

[Bub]

OK but look at where the industry is now. If the SAG issue is not resolved in 20 days there could be another work strike. The second big work strike in less a year.

Which is all the more reason why they should lock down the director and writers now. The actors striking is not the same as the writers striking in that the preproduction can break ground while the actors march. Instead of playing games that will only delay production further (which will likely be delayed even more if/when the actors strike) Marvel should be moving forward on getting a story and script. That way when the strike ends they'll be ready with a script and schedule.

[TheVileOne]

Nothing is ever that simple in Hollywood.

Getting any movie made is a small miracle.

Thing is, they had a writer and director set up on Thor pre-writers' strike and look what happened there.

studios have avoided greenlighting a lot of projects out of fear for the actors' strike.

[Bub]

Oh I know. I just like to pretend that the entertainment facilities in this world are NOT run by greed but instead creative integrity. Also, that they are ruled by sense, as in get started on something ASAP so when a strike ends, they're ready to go. :yay:

[TheVileOne]

The thing is you make it sounds like its as simple as turning on a light switch which it isn't.

It's not simply a matter of being ready to definitely go right after a strike is over. The length of the strike could definitively affect that type of status.

[DBZ2cool]

Now you guys are making Marvel studios the villain?

Wth is your problem??

Marvel has limited production budget money for all their films like 800 something million and they already have used up $290 million of it. So naturally they don't want to bump Jon's paycheck because then it will cost too much since Robert too will demand a much higher paycheck.

You guys need to realize that ASAP.

I for one am ok if they change the director and get someone as talented as Jon. Maybe do it like the harry potter series. Truth be told Sam Raimi stayed with SM franchise and guess what! He delivered a piece of garbage with SM3.

[Bub]

The thing is you make it sounds like its as simple as turning on a light switch which it isn't.

It's not simply a matter of being ready to definitely go right after a strike is over. The length of the strike could definitively affect that type of status.

The point that I was subtly trying to make was that it should be that simple. There's no reason that it shouldn't. If a film is successful and it's due in kind to the director's talent and vision as well as the writers involved and the actors, then it makes sense to lock them up quickly, right? And with something like an actor's strike looming, it again makes sense to get the ball rolling on the script. But that's not at all what Marvel is doing. Which doesn't make sense.

[Hoedowned]

Now you guys are making Marvel studios the villain?

Wth is your problem??

Marvel has limited production budget money for all their films like 800 something million and they already have used up $290 million of it. So naturally they don't want to bump Jon's paycheck because then it will cost too much since Robert too will demand a much higher paycheck.

You guys need to realize that ASAP.

I for one am ok if they change the director and get someone as talented as Jon. Maybe do it like the harry potter series. Truth be told Sam Raimi stayed with SM franchise and guess what! He delivered a piece of garbage with SM3.


No, SM-3 sucked because Avi Arad and Lauren Ziskin forced Raimi to include Venom and Gwen Stacy (though Sandman being Uncle Ben's real killer was his idea, so I'll give you that). It only helps prove the point that if a director delivers a hit and you want to keep making that mighty buck that you brought the first time...do not f**k him over! You should encourage him even more to work with you (I remember reading somewhere WB gave Zack Snyder a car (an Aston Martin if memory serves my right) as a present for all the cash 300 brought in) and not the opposite (Singer, Fox, X-men 3, remember that?)

Plus it's not like Marvel has lost any money, hell i'm pretty sure they've made enough to fund 2 or 3 more movies than originally planned. So i don't see why Marvel has the need to cry poverty.

And regarding the time constraints, I see no reason why we couldn't see Iron Man 2 in 2010, maybe not April 30 2010, but in a later month like July (kinda like what happened with SM-2). Given that this mess gets fixed on time.

I hope this whole thing gets worked out in the end. The last thing I want to see is Marvel falling on it's face while they had things working so well.

[J.Howlett]

This is Bryan Singer vs. Fox on X3 all over again. I think Iron Man's a tad overrated but it was quite good under the direction of Jon. He can and I think he will improve for the sequel, if Marvel doesn't get an ego, which it seems they have all of a sudden.

They'd be stupid to not bring him back and rush it out for 2010.

This is just crazy, almost unbelieveable.

[TheVileOne]

Well I don't see how this is all that similar since Singer kind of did accept an offer from WB to do Superman Returns. While Favreau has not really done anything like that.

When Marvel announced the release date of summer 2010, no one was saying that they were rushing it out.

[LostSon88]

So it seems like a lot of unnecessary worry. Considering Faverau's limited success (he was part of the production team for Elf, which I believe he wrote and produced)

Wrote, produced...oh yeah and, DIRECTED. :o

I don't think he would pass on the gold mine that is the newly established Iron Man franchise.

No he wouldn't...but he wouldn't want to be shortchanged either. I mean c'mon, he made Marvel a TON of cash...

IMO, a pay raise is NOT that unreasonable of a request given these particular circumstances.

You lose Faverau, you lose RDJ, Howard, Paltrow, etc.

Not literally of course because I guess they're under contract but I could totally see RDJ simply 'phoning it in' for sequels if they dump his #1 collaborator (Faverau)...

[FlawlessVictory]

(I remember reading somewhere WB gave Zack Snyder a car (an Aston Martin if memory serves my right) as a present for all the cash 300 brought in) and not the opposite (Singer, Fox, X-men 3, remember that?)

I'm pretty sure Marvel has done the same thing with Favreau. I believe I read on the front page that they gave Favs a car after the big OW as a token of appreciation.

It's interesting how this is playing out because there are two parts to this: the supposed money issue and if Favs returns, whether or not it would be for IM2 or Avengers.

[LostSon88]

I'm pretty sure Marvel has done the same thing with Favreau. I believe I read on the front page that they gave Favs a car after the big OW as a token of appreciation.

It wasn't Marvel that gave him a car...that was Paramount.

:cwink:

[FlawlessVictory]

It wasn't Marvel that gave him a car...that was Universal.

:cwink:

Oh! :woot:

[LostSon88]

EDIT: I mean Paramount...

Spending too much time at the Hulk boards. Lol.

[Evil Twin]

When Marvel announced the release date of summer 2010, no one was saying that they were rushing it out.

When Marvel announced the release date, people assumed that the scripting process was well underway and that it was only a formality to resign the director and his crew. Further information indicates that those were false assumptions.

[FlawlessVictory]

EDIT: I mean Paramount...

Spending too much time at the Hulk boards. Lol.

Yea, got ya.

[J.Howlett]

Vile,

It's similar to the Singer situation in that Fox waited too damn long to sign Singer for X3 after X2 was such a critical and financial hit. The decision shouldn't have taken two years for Fox to figure out what they wanted to with Singer for the third film...hence WB pursuing of Singer. They were just as surprised as the rest of us that Singer wasn't locked up for the third film.

The same situation, but slightly different, is happening with this. It's just plain stupid.

[LostSon88]

What if WB offered Favreau "Superman: Man of Steel"?

That'd be such a kick in the balls now wouldn't it?

Lol.

[ProfeZZor X]

It's likely that Marvel didn't want Favreau on the Iron Man sequel because in a fairly recent interview, he expressed his interest in directing the Avengers movie. He went on to say that it would be impossible for him to take on both productions because of timing, so I think that Marvel just might surprise him and give him a shot at the Avengers movie, mainly because he did such a brilliant job with Iron Man, that they want to grant his wish... That makes the most logical sense, but you never know these days.

[LostSon88]

But he also has made it very clear that he wants to do an Iron Man 2. And after that, if possible, he would like to do The Avengers.

[jrd550]

absurd, Marvel is acting like the studios they hated working with...

[Smit84]

It's not the first time Marvel had done something like this. Stan Lee sued them around the time the original Spider-man hit DVD because he wasn't even paid one red cent for the movie. Marvel's defense: "the movie didn't make a profit."

[Chewy]

Harry from AICN is confirming this too.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37037

[bullets]

this is the suck . if it turns out that favreau doesnt direct iron man 2 and directs the avengers then maybe it will make some sense but i doubt that would happen . there needs to be some sort of agreement and hopefully soon.

[FaT_tONle]

Someone shoot this David Maisel in the forehead.

[TheVileOne]

OK, just curious, is this really the only side of it? Everyone is ready to crucify Marvel Studios right now. And I don't think there's enough information to say these things.

[DBZ2cool]

OK, just curious, is this really the only side of it? Everyone is ready to crucify Marvel Studios right now. And I don't think there's enough information to say these things.

And the worse part is that all this negative buzz comes right before hulk release.

Sometimes I think fanboy blogs shouldn't exist. They are pests.

[TheVileOne]

Internet rumors, bloggers, and gossip reporters all said Hillary Swank was in Iron Man. And we all know how that turned out. We saw why it happened as well.

[Juggernaut33]

Internet rumors, bloggers, and gossip reporters all said Hillary Swank was in Iron Man.

Jon Favreau said on his myspace that: he was in the film as well as Samuel L. Jackson and Hilary Swank. And then he added that one of the three names he mentionned might be a lie...

Everybody knew that Jon Favreau was going to play Happy Hugan. Every internet websites broke the news that Samuel L. Jackson would play Nick Fury. And then people were apparently too dumb to realise that the whole Hilary Swank thing was just a joke by Favreau but they still tried to find her in the picture...

[TheVileOne]

No. The Swank rumor came first, followed by the Favreau joke, saying one or whatever of the things was true.

Favreau didn't report on Swank first on his myspace board. Internet bloggers and reporters were saying it first. More than likely because of the dark haired girl in the caesar's palace scene looked similar to Swank. Mystery solved.

[TheComicbookKid]

Marvel has limited production budget money for all their films like 800 something million and they already have used up $290 million of it. So naturally they don't want to bump Jon's paycheck because then it will cost too much since Robert too will demand a much higher paycheck.

You guys need to realize that ASAP.



I forgot about that limited amount of cash.

But can't they just increase his backend pay from toys and DVD etc?

[Gotham]

I forgot about that limited amount of cash.

But can't they just increase his backend pay from toys and DVD etc?

That may work.

I'm surprised the most, though, that they didn't contact him immediately after the release to lock him down. He did fantastic with the material.

[FaT_tONle]

OK, just curious, is this really the only side of it? Everyone is ready to crucify Marvel Studios right now. And I don't think there's enough information to say these things.

Just get the guy signed and the fan backlash stops... end of story. I am sure this story will surface back to Marvel at some point. They can put an end to these reports immediately. They control their own destiny. There is only one right decision to make.

[TheComicbookKid]

Just get the guy signed and the fan backlash stops... end of story. I am sure this story will surface back to Marvel at some point. They can put an end to these reports immediately. They control their own destiny. There is only one right decision to make.

And if Iron Man 2 sucks, how many fans will be like "why did they bring Fav's back, that movie sucked?":whatever:

[Evil Twin]

RDJ is already signed to a multi-picture deal. He's locked in and his contract situation has nothing to do with Favreau's.

[Symbiotic]

"I've got a bad feeling about this."

[hatebox]

I don't think Fav is totally irreplaceable as a director - this isn't Christopher Nolan we're talking about here. As long as the new director stuck to the source material and retained the light tone of the first film the change wouldn't be bad. Let's not kid ourselves, Iron man was enjoyable but it wasn't an inimitable masterpiece.

[Evil Twin]

I don't think Fav is totally irreplaceable as a director - this isn't Christopher Nolan we're talking about here. As long as the new director stuck to the source material and retained the light tone of the first film the change wouldn't be bad. Let's not kid ourselves, Iron man was enjoyable but it wasn't an inimitable masterpiece.

No, Favreau isn't irreplacable. Although the attention to character and dialogue and the light tone certainly has his fingerprints all over it.

But, the larger question is, who are you going to get that's any better than Favreau if the word goes out that Marvel Studios is cheap and ungrateful? And how does it affect Marvel Studios other projects? I think most people would agree that Thor is going to be a difficult project to pull off and cast, and having a bad reputation for employee relations is going to make it more difficult.

[TheVileOne]

These actors have gotten out of three picture deals before.

Eric Bana, Sam Elliott, and Jennifer Connelly all signed on to do THREE Hulk movies.

Didn't Downey Jr. also say he wasn't totally locked up yet for the second movie?

Besides that, Maguire was all signed for three movies, but he still almost didn't do Spider-man 2.

I think this news has gotten out of hand. Its one thing for IESB or who ever to talk about their sources. But then TRASH like Latino Review basically puts on a little rant and passes it off as journalism, without any relevant new facts even. All they did was regurgitate what was on IESB.

All of you are so quick to usually trash or take a whiz on anything Harry Knowles and AICN writes, but no one's doing that now.

[The Chris]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Give up the dough, and the time if he needs it. I know it's easier said than done, but favreau deserves it. It's not everyday that you get a filmmaker so passionate for projects like this.

[TheVileOne]

Once again, we are on the verge of another union strike. If that happens production on everything comes to a halt.

Someone said earlier that Marvel can only release their movies over the summer. OK, if that's true, then aren't they also obligated to release two every summer? That can't happen in 2009 because of the work strike, but doesn't that mean in 2011 they have to do Thor and Iron Man 2 for their investors?

[jrd550]

can we start a petition, or does anyone have an email address at Marvel that we can write to and knock some sense into them... I want a mass outrage!

[TheVileOne]

Geez.

Why do we need a petition based on these unconfirmed rumors? You guys should try reading the thread with Favreau's comments on his page:

March seems unrealistic.

We had always hoped for the film to be well received, but we were all pleasantly surprised by how much business it has done.

Robert and I speak a lot and can’t wait to get started developing the script for IM2.

There is nothing to announce.

The only guy that talked about March was Terence Howard. That didn't come from Marvel. Favreau simply isn't sure they can start by March.

Also, internet petitions don't work.

[DBZ2cool]

I forgot about that limited amount of cash.

But can't they just increase his backend pay from toys and DVD etc?

Well that is the deal he has with this first film. But i guess Jon wants an increase in his paycheck for next movie as well as the backend pay which isn't suiting marvel.

[FaT_tONle]

If they don't film in March when are they filming it? April? May? The movie will be released a year later. So they pretty much have to film in March give or take a month or two. So that date doesn't seem unrealistic. Plus reports have stated they are using IM2 as a spring board to Thor. Changing the release dates seems more unrealistic. Either Favreau is just not up to the task or he just wants the pay raise so he can comitt the fall and winter to pre-production. Marvel needs to pay them man because no new director is going to come and just jump and deliver a good product with barely six months of pre-production with filming beginning in the spring.

[TheVileOne]

Well, when did they start filming Incredible Hulk?

[FaT_tONle]

June? That's still a year away. Is two months going to make a difference anyway?

[TheVileOne]

If its June instead of March that could be a difference of 3-4 months time.

Also, look at Spider-man 2 which was ultimately pushed back two months from its original release date. Plus the hiccup with Tobey Maguire.

Ultimately, I do agree with Favreau. And I want everything to start moving ASAP. I'm just worried about what the potential strike does to all these projects.

[Raiden]

And if Iron Man 2 sucks, how many fans will be like "why did they bring Fav's back, that movie sucked?":whatever:

If IM2 turns out to be back (which I seriously doubt would happen), I think Fav earned the right to do it nevertheless; I'd rather have Fav screw it up than anyone else, because it is him who made the first one so successful.

[TheVileOne]

Its funny because now people on here want Raimi to have nothing to do with any future Spider-man movies :p .

[Marvin]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Give up the dough, and the time if he needs it. I know it's easier said than done, but favreau deserves it. It's not everyday that you get a filmmaker so passionate for projects like this.

Mark Johnson may be the most passionate (marvelminded) cat to ever work with marvel
it's about a lot more than just just "passion"

personally I'd rather hear the whole story before jumping on anyones back over this

the truth is, unlike money bags WB or fox, marvel has (like someone said) only 8 mill to make like how many movies?...they are completely revenue driven at this point...and although Iron man made it's money back...it didn't make spidey money...or even TF money
and i still stand by the idea that it did so with minmal competition before and after it...(replace speed and narnia and whatever else...with smith, bale and norton...or dead mans chest...)

I believe that JF helped make iron man the finished product but ultimately he just surrounded himself with the right ppl and let them do their thing RDJ being the biggest example of that...ilm, the marvel script concil...(technically that's all a great director need do)
if JF is asking for too much, it can't be helped, I think he can be replaced tho, everything we come away with liking about that/this film really comes from the "help." Weather it be (Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby) story, or RDJ or the suit....all that can still work without JF shouting action...and cut
I'm curious if there would be such an outcry if camron was tied to the sequel...
Latterier seems happy to do anything...and he genuinely seems like a humble guy...with real visual talent.

that being said
hopefully they bring him back at this point due to the ultimate fact that a director does loads for continuity and that's something this genre needs
not including the fluke of Blade 2(which was good)
as hot as a fincher or Scott TDK would be, it's just not right at this point

just like Singer...he's good where he is
(and just like singer...he's forgettable anywhere else:oldrazz:)...elf.

[Evil Twin]

Ultimately, I do agree with Favreau. And I want everything to start moving ASAP. I'm just worried about what the potential strike does to all these projects.

The potential actor's strike should have no effect on Iron Man 2. Or Thor. Both of them are months of preproduction, and scripting, away from going before cameras.

[TheVileOne]

Evil Twin, a lot of people like you said the strike would have no affect on JUSTICE LEAGUE.

[The Chris]

Mark Johnson may be the most passionate (marvelminded) cat to ever work with marvel
it's about a lot more than just just "passion"

personally I'd rather hear the whole story before jumping on anyones back over this

the truth is, unlike money bags WB or fox, marvel has (like someone said) only 8 mill to make like how many movies?...they are completely revenue driven at this point...and although Iron man made it's money back...it didn't make spidey money...or even TF money
and i still stand by the idea that it did so with minmal competition before and after it...(replace speed and narnia and whatever else...with smith, bale and norton...or dead mans chest...)

I believe that JF helped make iron man the finished product but ultimately he just surrounded himself with the right ppl and let them do their thing RDJ being the biggest example of that...ilm, the marvel script concil...(technically that's all a great director need do)
if JF is asking for too much, it can't be helped, I think he can be replaced tho, everything we come away with liking about that/this film really comes from the "help." Weather it be (Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby) story, or RDJ or the suit....all that can still work without JF shouting action...and cut
I'm curious if there would be such an outcry if camron was tied to the sequel...
Latterier seems happy to do anything...and he genuinely seems like a humble guy...with real visual talent.

that being said
hopefully they bring him back at this point due to the ultimate fact that a director does loads for continuity and that's something this genre needs
not including the fluke of Blade 2(which was good)
as hot as a fincher or Scott TDK would be, it's just not right at this point

just like Singer...he's good where he is
(and just like singer...he's forgettable anywhere else:oldrazz:)...elf.

I should of added, and with talent to match.

[jrd550]

Geez.

Why do we need a petition based on these unconfirmed rumors? You guys should try reading the thread with Favreau's comments on his page:



The only guy that talked about March was Terence Howard. That didn't come from Marvel. Favreau simply isn't sure they can start by March.

Also, internet petitions don't work.

the petition/mass email would be a preemptive measure really. Jon's myspace page post seems more like a plea than a simple update.

[FaT_tONle]

If its June instead of March that could be a difference of 3-4 months time.

Also, look at Spider-man 2 which was ultimately pushed back two months from its original release date. Plus the hiccup with Tobey Maguire.

Ultimately, I do agree with Favreau. And I want everything to start moving ASAP. I'm just worried about what the potential strike does to all these projects.

Yeah but the director is different from actors in that they can't hop on board the last minute. If this deal can't get done by the summer and then were hear about a new guy stepping in in the fall... I'm sorry to say but it's over. The studio will basically have it's way and the film will be a critical disaster at least among the fan boys. Which often means a critical disaster period. If the actors strike it's different and ultimately the film will be delayed. You can't go forward without the actors. But don't think for one second they are going to delay if they can't strike a deal with Jon.

[FaT_tONle]

the truth is, unlike money bags WB or fox, marvel has (like someone said) only 8 mill to make like how many movies?...they are completely revenue driven at this point...and although Iron man made it's money back...it didn't make spidey money...or even TF money.

And how much money was the movie supposed to make for Marvel to start handing out blank paychecks? Right now, no matter what happens with the Hulk... you give RDJ and Jon blank paychecks. It would be irresponsible NOT to do just that. And the idea that Marvel won't have money... are you kidding me? They have spent only 300 up till this point... maybe 350 for both films this year. They still have a good 450 left. You'd think 250 for IM2 tops... 200 for Thor. Cap/Avengers will be around 500. And those are maximum estimates marketing included. With the 450 left over plus Marvel's 08 returns... they can fund all of the projects above. Do the math... and that's not even counting the net profits they'll make for future films here on out.

[hatebox]

Yeah but the director is different from actors in that they can't hop on board the last minute. If this deal can't get done by the summer and then were here about a new guy stepping in in the fall... I'm soryr to say but it's over. The studio will basically have it's way and the film will be a critical disaster at least among the fan boys. Which often means a critical disaster period.

Unless the film is, y'know, good anyway.

[Marvin]

director changes only fails with the director goes from good to bad

they succeed when they go from bad to good, good to good, and good to better

ala aliens, blade, die hard...

peter segal is looking great these days

[Marvin]

And how much money was the movie supposed to make for Marvel to start handing out blank paychecks? Right now, no matter what happens with the Hulk... you give RDJ and Jon blank paychecks. It would be irresponsible NOT to do just that. And the idea that Marvel won't have money... are you kidding me? They have spent only 300 up till this point... maybe 350 for both films this year. They still have a good 450 left. You'd think 250 for IM2 tops... 200 for Thor. Cap/Avengers will be around 500. And those are maximum estimates marketing included. With the 450 left over plus Marvel's 08 returns... they can fund all of the projects above. Do the math... and that's not even counting the net profits they'll amke for future films.

math like that suggests that a company like WB(technically they don't have the same constraints as marvel at the moment) can pay a director 100 mill

there are quotas in place, i'm sure marvel isn't signing any back end (on revenue) deals at the moment and they aren't going over 5 million on directors...ergo the relatively no-name helmers they've gotten thus far..

they have so many plans in place that i can see them being financially butt tight on paychecks...

the real question comes down to a directors skill at this point

[TheVileOne]

Just curious, if Iron Man 2 and eventually the hulk make all this money, doesn't that go beyond the original amount alotted to them in the original deal?

Iron Man's on tap to make about $600 million+ worldwide. Now of that, I'm not sure how much of that plus all the merchandise and what not goes to Marvel. And then Paramount, and then exhibitors.

But I would imagine they come out ahead of the costs of the picture right? And does that not give them some leeway with the remaining funds?

[Marvin]

it does but
to give them to a director that may or may not be crucial to a mega successful franchise may not be exec...exec have the highest job loss rate in the industry lol

[Evil Twin]

Evil Twin, a lot of people like you said the strike would have no affect on JUSTICE LEAGUE.

An Actor's Strike is different than a writer's strike as it has little to no effect on preproduction. If it goes 3 or 4 months, which seems unlikely considering that many actors already lost some paychecks from the earlier strike, it will be over in the Fall. That leaves half a year before production is likely to begin on IM2. And, it's important to note, they already have the principal cast for IM2 except for the villain under contract.

Maybe Thor will have some issues with casting while the actors are on strike, but we're at least 3 or 4 months of preproduction and script rewrites away from that ever seeing the camera. Not to mention they have to hire a director.

[Bubastis]

I know I'm probably a broken record here, but not getting Favreau to direct the sequel is indescribably stupid. (The phrase "shoot yourself in the foot" comes to mind.) Iron Man is the best thing to happen to marvel movies since Sam Raimi released Spider-Man. Creating marvel as its own studio was an incredibly risky thing to do, but Favreau's film is becoming one of the highest-grossing movies of all time, and is so far the most critically acclaimed movie of the year.
Not making sure that Favreau directs the film would be cinematic and economic suicide.

[Marvin]

I know I'm probably a broken record here, but not getting Favreau to direct the sequel is indescribably stupid. (The phrase "shoot yourself in the foot" comes to mind.) Iron Man is the best thing to happen to marvel movies since Sam Raimi released Spider-Man. Creating marvel as its own studio was an incredibly risky thing to do, but Favreau's film is becoming one of the highest-grossing movies of all time, and is so far the most critically acclaimed movie of the year.
Not making sure that Favreau directs the film would be cinematic and economic suicide.

that may not be true

[ultimatefan]

Accorfding to AICN and IESB, the problem with bringing Favreau back is David Maisel, the Marvel Studios head, is being cheap about making his deal... Can you seriously believe that? This movie, about a character WHO WAS NOT A HOUSEHOLD NAME PROPERTY, has just made more money than almost any of their other "iconic" characters... And this is thanks to the talent involved Marvel, make no mistake, it wasn´t the huge built-in Iron Man fanbase... It was the talents of Favreau, RDJ and the rest of the gang that made IM a megahit... To cheapen out on bringing that talent back is a franchise killing decision worthy of Tom Rothman´s dumbest brainstorms!

[Raiden]

Accorfding to AICN and IESB, the problem with bringing Favreau back is David Maisel, the Marvel Studios head, is being cheap about making his deal... Can you seriously believe that? This movie, about a character WHO WAS NOT A HOUSEHOLD NAME PROPERTY, has just made more money than almost any of their other "iconic" characters... And this is thanks to the talent involved Marvel, make no mistake, it wasn´t the huge built-in Iron Man fanbase... It was the talents of Favreau, RDJ and the rest of the gang that made IM a megahit... To cheapen out on bringing that talent back is a franchise killing decision worthy of Tom Rothman´s dumbest brainstorms!

I agree completely. If Marvel is too cheap to sign Favearu, then they shouldn't have created a studio in the first place, because other studios like Sony are more than willing to sign their stars long-term. :cmad:

[Marvin]

sony's always had money marvel has to be smart

[Rac]

Iron Man 2: Directed by Brett Ratner and Written by Zak Penn & Simon Kinberg.

And I thought Marvel Studios would be a different movie studio!

[Raiden]

sony's always had money marvel has to be smart

It is smart to sign a director who just delivered a movie about a superhero who was previously unknown outside comicdom, and the movie is now grossing $500M+ WW and got almost universal rave reviews. If Marvel let Fav go it'd be the biggest blunder in their history.

[Chewy]

sony's always had money marvel has to be smart

So it's smart for a fledgling studio to screw over the director who put them on the map so they can save a few bucks? They might as well hang up a sign that reads "Established/Talents Directors: Come make a movie with us, but you are completely expendable to us in the future if we can hire someone more cheaply."

[JackMercy]

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/regarding-all-those-iron-man-2-rumors/

Well that's a quick turnaround...

;)

[Marvin]

what's smart is paying the right ppl to carry on the success of a franchise that has so much success it's next film would be hard pressed to bomb

[Chewy]

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/regarding-all-those-iron-man-2-rumors/

Well that's a quick turnaround...

;)


Damage control if I ever saw it. The day after reports of Marvel ****ing Favreau over break out they make an offer, after 1 call in 5 weeks.

[FlawlessVictory]

Damage control if I ever saw it. The day after reports of Marvel ****ing Favreau over break out they make an offer, after 1 call in 5 weeks.

LOL, agreed. What a coincidence that now Favs gets offered the sequel. :rolleyes:

[Blader5489]

Damage control if I ever saw it. The day after reports of Marvel ****ing Favreau over break out they make an offer, after 1 call in 5 weeks.

Not necessarily.

I don't think people understand that directors are signed by a film-by-film basis. Sam Raimi had to be signed up for each Spider-Man movie; Bryan Singer had to be signed for each X-Men movie; and Chris Nolan had to be signed for each Batman movie. It's not the same as actors, who have to sign a three picture deal at once.

[The Guard]

He made a good movie. It's not like he made a movie that no one else could ever make. Maybe he's asking for too much money. Maybe they're lowballing him. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Apollo]

my support for Marvel studios is slowly fading..:csad:

if Iron man 2 turns out to be rushed with a director put on the set within the last second like x3, i'm going to be pissed.
:cmad:

I thought Marvel studios was going into a more positive light for their films, not trying to repeat marvel film history :o

hope its all cleared up and i'm wishing for the best...i hope jon gets it before Brett Ratner tumbles in...

[TheVileOne]

Its another second hand internet news gossip rumor report. Make of it what you will.

While its the complete opposite. The report says, "an insider" or whatever. So in the end we don't really know.

However, Favreau only said he thought a March start date MIGHT be unrealistic. I think people blew everything out of proportion and was ready to crucify Marvel before we knew all the facts.

[jrd550]

Accorfding to AICN and IESB, the problem with bringing Favreau back is David Maisel, the Marvel Studios head, is being cheap about making his deal... Can you seriously believe that? This movie, about a character WHO WAS NOT A HOUSEHOLD NAME PROPERTY, has just made more money than almost any of their other "iconic" characters... And this is thanks to the talent involved Marvel, make no mistake, it wasn´t the huge built-in Iron Man fanbase... It was the talents of Favreau, RDJ and the rest of the gang that made IM a megahit... To cheapen out on bringing that talent back is a franchise killing decision worthy of Tom Rothman´s dumbest brainstorms!

well said - if anything Marvel can't afford to screw up. if they really want to play up this 'marvel film experience' then each outing has to be of tremendous quality.

[ultimatefan]

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/regarding-all-those-iron-man-2-rumors/

Well that's a quick turnaround...

;)

I don´t wanna be pessimistic and this could well be true, but wasn´t Nikki Finke the columnist who said Ed Norton wasn´t going to do any promotion for TIH cuz he disagreed with the cut, and now I see him on MTV Awards with Liv Tyler and doing interviews for a number of media outlets?

[fu manchu]

i think its completely ridiculous that Marvel is considering not bringing back Favreau because they want to be cheap. If this proves to be true, then I don't see many good directors wanting to work with Marvel in the future.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/regarding-all-those-iron-man-2-rumors/

Well that's a quick turnaround...

;)

I hope it works out in the end.

[Hiruu]

I think everybody involved needs to get their emotions in check, this film was a HUGE success because of both Jon and Marvel, and the impressive performance by the cast. Everybody needs to be compensated for their efforts in making this such a huge success. If Favreau isn't re-signed, it will be a serious tragedy for all of us concerned. I think Marvel needs to strongly look at incentives and benchmarks for this next movie to incentivize Jon, and if the film meets them, then compensate him, and they probably also need to lock him into a third film. The guy's a good director, so Marvel shouldn't let success go to their heads...it's a team effort, and think it's plug and play will lead to disaster.

To the marvel reps who read these boards, fon't screw up a good thing...look at Fox, WB, vice Sony, who has enjoyed success after success on Spider-Man.

[JackMercy]

wasn´t Nikki Finke the columnist who said Ed Norton wasn´t going to do any promotion for TIH cuz he disagreed with the cut, and now I see him on MTV Awards with Liv Tyler and doing interviews for a number of media outlets?

She said:

"Some fear things blowing up to the point where Norton might not publicize the movie."

and

"I bet he does next to none."


...And she's not that far off. So, post-production, he's done an MTV appearance -- where he didn't have to say a word about the movie, mind you -- and, what, an AOL featurette, and a Total Film interview (most of which was compiled months in advance)...?

And yes, he came to the premiere, and talked. I think they're lucky he even showed...

Hey, I want to like these movies, and have enjoyed some previous efforts from the Marvel canon -- but it seems to me that it's pretty clear that with both Hulk and Iron Man, Maisel is the one who has his hand stuck too far down the cookie jar, here, and is refusing to pull it out...

[explode7]

Some new info.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5052&Itemid=99

Has Marvel completely lost it?

[FlawlessVictory]

^That article is what we have been discussing.

[jrd550]

After TIH's successful weekend I hope they make an official announcement...

[Hiruu]

Some new info.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5052&Itemid=99

Has Marvel completely lost it?

I have to say...Jon being a bit too public with this stuff...we are talking about behind-close-door negotiations, and I fully expect that Marvel realizes that Jon is going to get more money, after the splendid job he did for IM, but the deal making is in HOW MUCH...sorry, but the Marvel isn't fox, and something will be worked out, now on the other hand, I'm not sure WTF Marvel is doing setting a release date for IM2 when they haven't locked in the cast and the crew for the movie, as that's a bit arrogant. No script, no Director, cast isn’t signed, and you set a release date??? Dave Maisel must have bumped his head after passing out from Iron Man’s opening weekend tally.

[Arach Knight]

Rumors from uknown sources are all for the sake of driving up web site hits. I believe our elders have an expression for this. "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." These people are starting up rumors and controversy for their own interest. That isn't news. That's tabloid behavior. News isn't about speculation from unknown sources. An "unamed" source with an actual position, is what real news utilizes. Unknown sources who are "higher up the food chain" don't exactly strike me as legitimate reporting.

[FaT_tONle]

After TIH's successful weekend I hope they make an official announcement...

Kind of off topic... but what announcements can we expect if TIH does well this weekend? The 75 million or more type weekend which I think is definitely in reach. Any chance at all they greenlight a Hulk sequel and move some things around? I personally doubt it. Hopefully they come out an announce they have writers and the principle cast in place by the end of the summer. I think this Jon thing is going to drag until the fall for some reason. I hope I am wrong. They have to get all the deals done by the end of the fall for sure with the script in place.

[ProfeZZor X]

But he also has made it very clear that he wants to do an Iron Man 2. And after that, if possible, he would like to do The Avengers.

...Which would be impossible, because he would be half way through IM2 by the time Avengers went into full production. Unless Avengers has an early production start date, and he shoots both films simultaneously.. .

[Arach Knight]

I don't see why both films could not be done simultaneously. Especially since the films are linked (many of the same actors). They filmed the last two Lord of the Rings films back to back. It would not be impossible to do the same with Iron Man and The Avengers. Contrary to popular belief, movie scenes are not filmed in order. So they could save time by filming similar scenes (scenes in suits) at the same time. It is not easy...but it is possible.

[Evil Twin]

I don't see why both films could not be done simultaneously. Especially since the films are linked (many of the same actors). They filmed the last two Lord of the Rings films back to back. It would not be impossible to do the same with Iron Man and The Avengers. Contrary to popular belief, movie scenes are not filmed in order. So they could save time by filming similar scenes (scenes in suits) at the same time. It is not easy...but it is possible.

They haven't even settled on a director or cast for Thor or Captain America yet. And they'd be wise to defer to whoever is directing the solo movies. It might be doable with Thor is they stick to the original schedule, but I doubt they're going to film The Avengers before they film Captain America.

That and I don't believe it's creatively healthy for a director to film 3 superhero projects in a row. Exercising some other creative muscles is often a good thing in the big picture.

Personally, I believe that Avengers is going to get pushed back at least a year, likely while Runaways takes one of the 4 dates proposed, so that Marvel can get their ducks in a row. There's really no reason to rush into The Avengers while there are still quite a few challenges to be overcome for Thor and Captain America. Harry Potter fell off their original 7 movies in 7 years plan through no one's fault fairly early, and it wouldn't be surprising if similar things happen. Heck, Marvel had a 2009 plan at one point, likely including Ant-Man, so things happen.

[ultimatefan]

She said:

"Some fear things blowing up to the point where Norton might not publicize the movie."

and

"I bet he does next to none."


...And she's not that far off. So, post-production, he's done an MTV appearance -- where he didn't have to say a word about the movie, mind you -- and, what, an AOL featurette, and a Total Film interview (most of which was compiled months in advance)...?

And yes, he came to the premiere, and talked. I think they're lucky he even showed...

Hey, I want to like these movies, and have enjoyed some previous efforts from the Marvel canon -- but it seems to me that it's pretty clear that with both Hulk and Iron Man, Maisel is the one who has his hand stuck too far down the cookie jar, here, and is refusing to pull it out...

In Norton´s case it´s even hard to tell cuz he´s known to never do a lot of publicity for his movies.

[FaT_tONle]

Personally, I believe that Avengers is going to get pushed back at least a year, likely while Runaways takes one of the 4 dates proposed, so that Marvel can get their ducks in a row. There's really no reason to rush into The Avengers while there are still quite a few challenges to be overcome for Thor and Captain America. Harry Potter fell off their original 7 movies in 7 years plan through no one's fault fairly early, and it wouldn't be surprising if similar things happen. Heck, Marvel had a 2009 plan at one point, likely including Ant-Man, so things happen.

It's interesting in that Marvel has said two films a year plus the fact that they have announced the Runaways... the math doesn't add up because then they'd be over that two film limit. Avengers should be July 2012. I also want Ant-Man and a Hulk sequel if there is another story to tell there. So ideally I'd wait till 2013. Marvel is probably afraid one of these films might bomb and that's why they are rushing everything so quickly.

[Marvin]

if JF was so hot for the franchise and fans (his words not mine)

maybe the money wouldn't come first

face it, in the end it's his decision, the contract signer, not the contract maker

i love how marvel is the bad guy here

"Our source continues that Maisel believes Iron Man 2 will be a success regardless of Favreau's involvement and feels the studio does not need to pay Jon a higher fee for his services."
this is classic exec talk here
i usually hate exec talk...this time it's understandable

as far as them rushing productions...again they have huge disadvantages other studios don't, the longer you go without movies the worse
in theory if IM2 was coming out in two weeks that would mean more precious much need money for the studio and the audience is teeming for it now more then 3 years later(minus the late finding dvd audience of course)

[The Guard]

I would tend to agree that it's absurd to paint Marvel as the bad guy here when we don't even know the specifics. It's possible Favreau is just holding out for more money, period.

[tamron]

I have to say...Jon being a bit too public with this stuff...

I agree, Jon is being too public. However, from a negotiation standpoint, this is the best bargaining chip he has.

He's spent well over 2 years carefully generating fan interest and support, then delivered a crowd pleasing film. If he goes public with "Hey, I'm not gonna get to do the sequel," Marvel Studios gets a wave of bad pub, and it potentially forces their hand to bring him back.

While I understand that Marvel is limited due to their financing situation, I find it hard to believe they can't find someway to compensate him in another way, if the offer is really as low as they're making it sound. But then again, maybe Jon is greedy. It's hard to say.

I don't think we have the full story by any stretch.

[dark_b]

i reallly dont think that he demands a spielberg paycheck.

if he nows takes the same amount money that marvel wants to give him then they will win. he spend 2 years working on this movie. its their first movie and it was a good movie. people liked it. he deserves more money. of course if he wants unrealistic numbers that i agree that they should replace him.
but from interviews Jon never sounded like a guy who would act like that. so....

[Marvin]

we never know what ppl are like from how they act on tv

Will smith seems like the nicest guy in hollywood...at the same time he gets paid 20plus million a film

not saying he's not nice, but you can't be that nice to ask for that much money lol

i think jon deserves to ask for more...that's just fair

but when it comes to pay checks in hollywood it's less a matter of what someone "deserves" and more a matter of how much they are needed or rather how essential they are to the success of the fourth coming film

at this point, Iron man 2 will bomb without Robert Downey

judging by weather or not the hulk kicks as and feels like the same universe...JF may not be needed.

[Nirvana]

Wow, they better sign him on again.

[Arach Knight]

Just because the film was successful doesn't mean that he should instantly get more money. That cuts into profits, which cuts into future spending. The producers of League of Extraordinary gentleman, claimed that the film was so crappy because Sean Connery demanded $10 million (which was half of the film budget). I'm not saying that they can't pay him a little more. It is reasonable that their success with the film, should be his shared success. But we don't know two critical pieces of information...

1)How much Favreau was paid for his services this time around.
2)We don't know how much he wants for next time.

If Marvel gave him something like $4 million and he wants $10 million, that would be pretty ridiculous. We need more information before we pass judgement and make any calls on who is messing up. I'm not saying Favreau is the "bad guy" but we honestly don't know both sides of the story.

[Marvin]

i think the kind of success the ppl turned ironman into is enough to make any poker player ask for more (and fav love's him some poker)

assuming it's a money thing

[Lauryn2000]

Some new info.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5052&Itemid=99

Has Marvel completely lost it?

Yes....they're beginning to start smelling themselves....

[zanos]

Favereau got 4 million for the first film so if he wants more money for the sequel then I can see why the studio would be hesitant to go much more.

[CaptainStacy]

Im curious why Jon is nervous about a two year space between the Iron Man movies...didnt Spider-Man 2 come out two years after the first Spidey movie, and go on to be one of the most critically acclaimed and finacially successful comic movies of all time?

Perhaps his lack of expierience and confidence is really the only thing in question here...:huh:

[RonStoppablefan]

Come on Marvel, think about what your doing. Don't do a Heroes Volume 2 mistake.

[Marvin]

how long did superman take

[Chewy]

Im curious why Jon is nervous about a two year space between the Iron Man movies...didnt Spider-Man 2 come out two years after the first Spidey movie, and go on to be one of the most critically acclaimed and finacially successful comic movies of all time?


I was thinking the same thing. He uses the reasoning that BB/TDK had three years between, but that's only because Nolan spent his time making The Prestige. I doubt Favs is going to be making any films in between, so I don't see the problem. I imagine they'll end up making the 2010 date.

[Mal'Akai]

I was thinking the same thing. He uses the reasoning that BB/TDK had three years between, but that's only because Nolan spent his time making The Prestige. I doubt Favs is going to be making any films in between, so I don't see the problem. I imagine they'll end up making the 2010 date.
Favreau is actually attached to three films, all set for a 2009 release. Me & My Monster (As a director), Neanderthals (As a writer/producer), and I Love You, Man (As an actor). On top of that, Doney Jr. is playing Hugh Heffner in a bio-pic set for 2010 release. All of this should keep them busy, and would explain why Jon doesn't want to rush a sequel.

[TheVileOne]

Well with Spider-man 2 they got started very quickly as I recall. They weren't up against an actor's strike either. They also really seemed to know what they wanted to do.

[Chewy]

Favreau may not be making a movie in the next couple years, but Downey Jr. is. He's playing Hugh Heffner in a bio-pic. So, he's gonna be a little busy.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he waiting on a script before signing to that project?


TheVileOne: Good point, I hadn't thought about the strike. I hope to hell it isn't as dragged out as the writer's one or, god forbid, longer.

[Evil Twin]

Favereau got 4 million for the first film so if he wants more money for the sequel then I can see why the studio would be hesitant to go much more.

That's chickenfeed for the director of a major blockbuster. Especially since he reportedly didn't get back end compensation. Favreau probably could have made more over that span by acting in multiple movies. Had less stress too.

[TheVileOne]

Favreau didn't sound too unreasonable with what he was looking for when he was on Howard Stern.

For one thing, all the trash that Murphy writes about Favreau just angers me more.

[TheVileOne]

Take a look at the new default image on Jon Favreau's Iron Man group page:

http://a315.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/111/l_fc299ab6530930284d2ce188f86c319a.jpg

[Chewy]

Where's Mandarin?

I'm starting a new rumor: No Mandarin in Iron Man 2.

[tamron]

Take a look at the new default image on Jon Favreau's Iron Man group page:

http://a315.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/111/l_fc299ab6530930284d2ce188f86c319a.jpg

Very interesting. I hope it means they've got the deal done (if not on paper, at least in principle) and we can put all of this to rest.

[FaT_tONle]

I was thinking the same thing. He uses the reasoning that BB/TDK had three years between, but that's only because Nolan spent his time making The Prestige. I doubt Favs is going to be making any films in between, so I don't see the problem. I imagine they'll end up making the 2010 date.

The three year gap is always better than the two year gap. The only reason I favor the two as opposed to the three is that Downey is in his mid forties and I don't want him getting too old and fat too soon. That said these people have other projects lined up. RDJ has time for what? One film as a different character bewteen now and 2011? Maybe he can fit another low budget project in there somwhere but that is virtually zero time off. I'd be a little annoyed at Marvel for this slate if I were Rob or Jon.

[FlawlessVictory]

Very interesting. I hope it means they've got the deal done (if not on paper, at least in principle) and we can put all of this to rest.

Agreed. That seems like a very encouraging sign.

[TheVileOne]

He might not have time at all if he goes on strike in a few weeks.

The WGA strike lasted over three and a half months. That's a whole quarter of a year. Tons of projects and deals were messed up and lost because of the strike. People lost their jobs.

Let's say the strike does happen and gets wrapped up by say August/September to be lucky. OK, then actually Downey would have a little time to do another feature before an Iron Man sequel is set to film. And then there's the start date of the sequel. Tony Stark as a character was in almost every scene in Iron Man. One would imagine he'll be integral to the new movie. About how many scenes in Iron Man had no Stark? I think about 2-3.

I'm not sure what the truth is. But for one thing. A bunch of people here you know who you are were ready to jump on and crucify Marvel before there was anything really concrete about this story. You trusted a dirt rag like LATINO REVIEW, and a poor commentator like EL MAYIMBE who actually didn't even report anything legit on the subject. He only regurgitated the unconfirmed IESB story with a bunch of "inside sources" and "junior sources".

Then everyone was saying Marvel was doing too much too fast yadda yadda yadda. OK. There might be some validity there. But people only started getting anti-Marvel about it when this internet rumorz story broke out.

All Favreau really said he wasn't sure if the start date was realistic. And who knows. Movies had to have been pushed back before a couple months a quarter or what not.

I don't think the quick to crucify and villify Marvel was fair at all. Keep in mind they did hire Favreau who did a bang up job. But let's not downplay their role in these movies either.

[Spider-Fan]

I am not ready to say IM2 can't be done by the release date yet. Let's see where things go, and Marvel shouldn't be crucified for what they are attempting to do. If anything, they should be praised for having a big picture (when any other studio really thinks one at a time with these movies). If all goes as planned for Marvel, awesome! If it doesn't, oh well, something gets pushed back a year. At least they have a plan.

[TheVileOne]

Yes it is ambitious, no question.

But yes that's a great point. Marvel is at least putting a plan down and letting us know about it. They want to make Thor, Cap, Iron Man 2, then Avengers. I mean that's great. I mean of course best laid plans/execution all that. But Marvel is at least getting the groundwork done, which Iron Man and Hulk are a big part of.

WB NEVER does this though. WB owns one of the greatest groups of characters and intellectual property of all time and they can't do anything close to this. Marvel has to make due with a certain chunk of characters but damn they are making it happen.

What sucks the most is that we couldn't see these crossovers before because of dumb studio politics. Harry Knowles made a great point in the Hulk review. It doesn't matter if Hulk is Universal and Iron Man is Paramount. Iron Man is still in Hulk and it doesn't matter. Marvel made that happen. Do you guys realize how huge that is? Fox would never do this. Sony would never do this.

[FaT_tONle]

I don't think fans overreacted... the reports were there... confirmed from multiple sources. Fans have a right to be up in arms... the idea of a director change when a sequel is less than a year away from filming would make any fan boy pull their own hair out.

[FlawlessVictory]

WB NEVER does this though. WB owns one of the greatest groups of characters and intellectual property of all time and they can't do anything close to this. Marvel has to make due with a certain chunk of characters but damn they are making it happen.

I wish WB was as ambitious as Marvel Studios with their superhero projects. But WB could clearly care less, they just give half ass attempts at other superhero films outside of Batman and Superman. And then they blow a whole lot of hot air when it comes to discussing those projects. And a big difference, unfortunately for fans of DC characters, is that WB has so much to lie back on outside of superhero films. Marvel Studios has no choice but to make superhero film after superhero film.

[Evil Twin]

WB NEVER does this though. WB owns one of the greatest groups of characters and intellectual property of all time and they can't do anything close to this. Marvel has to make due with a certain chunk of characters but damn they are making it happen.


I'd argue that the scope and resources thrown at Harry Potter is just as impressive. How many out there thought that they'd have to recast the principal actors by now? Or New Line (WB's sister company) gambling on LOTRs with an unknown director.

Yes, it would be nice if they threw some of those resources at DC's superheroes, but superheroes aren't the only success story in Hollywood. Heck, the fact that they're attempting WATCHMEN is an ambitious and gutsy choice.

[FlawlessVictory]

Yes, it would be nice if they threw some of those resources at DC's superheroes, but superheroes aren't the only success story in Hollywood. Heck, the fact that they're attempting WATCHMEN is an ambitious and gutsy choice.

That's fair. I give them credit for bringing Watchmen to the screen and allowing Snyder to do it in the manner he wants to.

[TheVileOne]

The only reason WB is attempting Watchmen is because Snyder came onto the project and he got cred with the execs after Dawn of the Dead and 300.

Harry Potter is just one series of books. DC Universe is a series of hundreds of books and characters. Also it was an easy property to attract so much interest at the time.

The confirmations of these rumors hold about as much weight as the accusations of Barak Obama being a Muslim terrorist.

[dark_b]

WB has enough projects and enough money. they dont need DC characters. marvel has to do this because they are ''marvel''. its their own studio now.

[Evil Twin]

The only reason WB is attempting Watchmen is because Snyder came onto the project and he got cred with the execs after Dawn of the Dead and 300.

Harry Potter is just one series of books. DC Universe is a series of hundreds of books and characters. Also it was an easy property to attract so much interest at the time.


Yeah, so? Does it make Watchmen any less ambitious and gutsy? An R-rated, complex, superhero deconstruction that some think will be impossible to pull off satisfactorly to the fans isn't rolling the dice? Dismissing the ambition and risk of that project because of past success is like dismissing Iron Man 2 because Iron Man was a success.

I'm sure there's a WB exec rolling his eyes at the idea that Harry Potter, with a very accelerated schedule, relying on child actors with no real box office stars attached, and with an ending that hadn't been written yet, was easy and unambitious to pull off. Or the idea that a company that wants to make 6 movies in 4 years is somehow more ambitious than a company that makes 6 movies every 4 months.

It's very easy to suggest that success was a no brainer with hindsight, but if it was so obvious back then J.K. Rowling would be a lot richer than she already is. We've seen plenty of franchises burn out after a successful first or second outing or fail outright, The Golden Compass, that I think it's a mistake to just dismiss how much work, effort, and ambition goes into sustaining a project this long. How ambitious and risky was the 2-shot of Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima to pull off?

It's great that Marvel Studios has had one huge success and, at the very least, looks like they're going to make money with their second movie. And that they have plans. But, I think it's a mistake to dismiss another company because their priorities are on things other than superheroes, even though they make those too and other non-superhero comic book properties, as unambitious or lacking in plans.

[TheVileOne]

Yeah, so? Does it make Watchmen any less ambitious and gutsy? An R-rated, complex, superhero deconstruction that some think will be impossible to pull off satisfactorly to the fans isn't rolling the dice? Dismissing the ambition and risk of that project because of past success is like dismissing Iron Man 2 because Iron Man was a success.

I think what Marvel is doing is more ambitious.

I'm sure there's a WB exec rolling his eyes at the idea that Harry Potter, with a very accelerated schedule, relying on child actors with no real box office stars attached, and with an ending that hadn't been written yet, was easy and unambitious to pull off. Or the idea that a company that wants to make 6 movies in 4 years is somehow more ambitious than a company that makes 6 movies every 4 months.

Something like Harry Potter didn't need movie stars. WB more than likely saw printed money.

It's great that Marvel Studios has had one huge success and, at the very least, looks like they're going to make money with their second movie. And that they have plans. But, I think it's a mistake to dismiss another company because their priorities are on things other than superheroes, even though they make those too and other non-superhero comic book properties, as unambitious or lacking in plans.

Marvel only focuses on superheroes because that's what they are. WB is a division of one of the most powerful communication conglomerates in the world. They have much more resources than Marvel, yet they still can't do jack with the DC Universe that they also entirely own.

[Hiruu]

I think what Marvel is doing is more ambitious.



Something like Harry Potter didn't need movie stars. WB more than likely saw printed money.



Marvel only focuses on superheroes because that's what they are. WB is a division of one of the most powerful communication conglomerates in the world. They have much more resources than Marvel, yet they still can't do jack with the DC Universe that they also entirely own.

It's about management that GET IT...The DC guys have very little say at TW, so you get SR, which isn't based on book lore, but is a remake of the first movie. And don't forget about lovely Catwoman...possibly the worst genre movie of the new era...BB was a REALLY great film, but they've yet to do much.

[Evil Twin]

Something like Harry Potter didn't need movie stars. WB more than likely saw printed money.



I'm sure the makers of Lemony Snicket, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass, a chunk of superhero properties, a host of Harry Potter ripoffs, a host of television remakes, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a host of Stephen King adaptations, etc. more than likely saw printed money as well. Anyone, including Marvel, that spends over $100 million on a movie obviously thinks that they're on to something.

Potential franchises fail all the time and there's always risk and ambition involved. No matter the pedigree. Dismissing success whether it be Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings, etc. with hindsight does a disservice to everyone involved.

WB's priorities aren't superheroes. Stinks because DC can't shop their properties elsewhere, but it doesn't mean that WB has no ambitions or are taking no risks. Heck, trying to launch a whole television network is a different type of ambition than what Marvel is attempting.

[TheVileOne]

I'm sure the makers of Lemony Snicket, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass, a chunk of superhero properties, a host of Harry Potter ripoffs, a host of television remakes, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a host of Stephen King adaptations, etc. more than likely saw printed money as well. Anyone, including Marvel, that spends over $100 million on a movie obviously thinks that they're on to something.

Well Chronicles of Narnia the first movie made a TON of money.

Also, a lot of those book series are nowhere near as popular as Harry Potter. Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy never had the kid appeal or demographic that is something executives wanted. Hitchhiker's Guide also didn't cost more than $100 million. Same with a lot of Stephen King adaptations.

Potential franchises fail all the time and there's always risk and ambition involved. No matter the pedigree. Dismissing success whether it be Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings, etc. with hindsight does a disservice to everyone involved.


I'm not dismissing anything. I'm crediting Marvel for taking such steps with their property that TW/DC never would.

WB's priorities aren't superheroes. Stinks because DC can't shop their properties elsewhere, but it doesn't mean that WB has no ambitions or are taking no risks. Heck, trying to launch a whole television network is a different type of ambition than what Marvel is attempting.

Their priorities are messed up then. This has nothing to do with a TV network. But it has to do with something for their character rights other than letting them sit all the time and only doing things like Batman and or Superman every some odd years.

I think if Marvel is doing what they are doing. There is no way that Time Warner can't.

[Arach Knight]

Here is a break down of each company


Warner Bros:

-Division of Time Warner (Formerly called AOL Time Warner)

-Owns DC Comics

-Money for Warner Bros is made via record lable, television studios, movie studios, telecommunications (Time Warner Internet/Cable) and comic book/book publishing.

Marvel Studios:

-Division of Marvel Entertainment

-Money for Marvel Entertainment is made via publishing and licensing of over 5,000 IP's in the form of comic book characters.


The fact is, DC is part of a division that has far more vast resources where as Marvel Comics is a division of a company that pretty much focuses on comic characters in every aspect of their business. Warner Bros. puts some of their IP to use. Six Flags is themed after Looney Tunes and DC. They have been great at putting their characters out there in television form (Justice League, Batman TAS, Smallville etc) but they leave a lot to be desired in the theatres. All they ever put out is Batman and Superman. The closest they came to putting out other "super heroes" were John Constantine and V...but their status as super heroes is debatable. I have to agree. Marvel is making far better moves with far less resources. This is why Marvel destroys Warner (DC) at the box office and the comic racks. Marvel is just far more aggressive. They want success. DC just rests on their laurels.

[Ironfan72]

I agree, DC is also very difficult with how they handle there properties, not letting characters appear in other show's like Smallville, the producers wanted desperately to get either Wonder Women or Batman to appear and DC refused several times. Same with Justice League, when the rumor started about a possible Aquaman movie, his character was pulled from Justice League and not allowed to be used again, even in the opening credits.
where Marvel seems to have no problem crossing movies that they own and control.

[Arach Knight]

Remember the retarded Bat Embargo? Man...DC/Warner has no business sense sometimes. I don't know how they can pull off something like Smallville and 52, but then they drop the ball on a lot of other fronts. That's okay...because Dark Knight next week is going to kick ass. So at least some things are done right. But the point of this all, is that Marvel is being ambitious. Jon Favreau worries about the time frame, but I think it can be done. They don't have to do as much work this time. They already have most of the process down, so all subsequent films can be done expeditiously.

[fu manchu]

Remember the retarded Bat Embargo? Man...DC/Warner has no business sense sometimes. I don't know how they can pull off something like Smallville and 52, but then they drop the ball on a lot of other fronts. That's okay...because Dark Knight next week is going to kick ass. So at least some things are done right. But the point of this all, is that Marvel is being ambitious. Jon Favreau worries about the time frame, but I think it can be done. They don't have to do as much work this time. They already have most of the process down, so all subsequent films can be done expeditiously.

:huh: next week??? you must mean next month? TDK comes out July 18. well, unless you're confusing it with Get Smart or the Love Guru.

[Arach Knight]

Holy crap...you're right. I don't know why I thought it said June 18th. That is disappointing actually...

[FlawlessVictory]

Remember the retarded Bat Embargo? Man...DC/Warner has no business sense sometimes. I don't know how they can pull off something like Smallville and 52, but then they drop the ball on a lot of other fronts. That's okay...because Dark Knight next week is going to kick ass. So at least some things are done right. But the point of this all, is that Marvel is being ambitious. Jon Favreau worries about the time frame, but I think it can be done. They don't have to do as much work this time. They already have most of the process down, so all subsequent films can be done expeditiously.

And yet we were/still might going to get a JLA movie which featured different actors as Batman and Superman while the solo franchises are still going on. :huh: I swear WB is clueless with this stuff.

[Arach Knight]

I'm going to assume you aren't being sarcastic (sorry hard to tell online). So yes, I agree. Using different actors will only confuse the audience when both franchises are planned as triologies (Batman and Superman). Even though Warner owns all of these characters, they treat them as if they are from seperate studios. Really there should be no legal complication that creates such a problem. But there are some actor related issues.

Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale think like I do. They believe that Batman has no real business on a team like the Justice League. It clashes with his image as this figure that is supposed to be a dark urban legend. The boogey man for criminals. He can't exactly do that and simultaneously run around in intergalactic satellites with laser beams and day time adventures. So Bale pretty much refused to take part in it, that ways, if Warner does make a JLA with Batman, it won't be the same Batman that was seen in Batman Begins (at least in spirit).

[fu manchu]

Holy crap...you're right. I don't know why I thought it said June 18th. That is disappointing actually...

really, how so? did you mean you had your batman costume already for the midnight screening? :oldrazz:

[Evil Twin]

Marvel is making far better moves with far less resources. This is why Marvel destroys Warner (DC) at the box office and the comic racks.

That's only true with the myopic view that superheroes are the only genre that matters.

Say what you will but Harry Potter (from WB) destroys everything else at the world wide box office. That's been WB's #1 priority this decade and say whatever you will about risk, ambition, etc. it's been a spectaculary great business decision. Marvel has no franchise as successful as Harry Potter. Not even Spider-Man and X-Men combined. And they've had plenty of other successes.

From a stockholder point of view, not a superhero fan's point of view, WB's leadership has done a terrific job this decade with setting priorities. When the final tallys are made at the end of the decade, WB/New Line is likely to be the #1 grossing company of the decade. Just because a company has different priorities than superhero fans doesn't mean that those priorities are wrong.

And, heck, we all know Marvel's plans aren't flawless. 2009 without a Marvel Studios film speaks to mistakes made. The fact that Marvel has logos and release dates, but no signed directors, also speaks to the idea that they value their IPs more than they value the people that they'll entrust to bring those IPs to life.

But, we've wandered far off topic here. Especially since we wandered back into the same old Marvel vs. DC/WB topic that's been beaten to death in a dozen topics.

Back on topic, Marvel Studios would be foolish to save a few million in salary and alienate the director of their biggest success to date. Especially since that decision would make it harder to attract talent to their other properties. I think the latest leak, which I think was started from Favreau through his Myspace page artice, was a smart negotiating tactic on Favreau's part. It's certain to make other director's hesitate if Favreau isn't taken care of. And Marvel does need directors to get involved in the preproduction process soon if they want to meet their schedule.

[TheVileOne]

2009 is because of the strike, not because of Marvel's mistakes. If not for the strike, Thor and Ant-Man likely would've been released in 2009.

Now they are up against another work strike which is about to happen in about two weeks time.

[Evil Twin]

2009 is because of the strike, not because of Marvel's mistakes. If not for the strike, Thor and Ant-Man likely would've been released in 2009.

Now they are up against another work strike which is about to happen in about two weeks time.

Ant-Man has completely fallen off the schedule. There's obviously more than the strike going on there. And Thor doesn't have a director attached anymore. Usually, you want to write a script to accentuate the strengths of the director. Who are they writing the script to Thor for? Maybe we'll get an announcement at Comic-Con, but Marvel certainly didn't hit the ground running the second the strike ended.

And, Marvel obviously had no backup plans. Which is on them since the strike wasn't a surprise.

The strike is the primary cause for Marvel having no 2009 movies. But, there were obviously other factors at work too. Fox was able to deal with the strike and get Wolverine in the pipeline. WB was able to deal with the strike and get Watchmen in the pipeline. Lionsgate was able to deal with the strike and get The Spirit in the pipeline. G.I. Joe, Transformers 2, Star Trek, and Terminator are moving ahead. Marvel wasn't able to deal with the strike. At all. And that's on them.

[TheVileOne]

Ant-Man has completely fallen off the schedule. There's obviously more than the strike going on there. And Thor doesn't have a director attached anymore. Usually, you want to write a script to accentuate the strengths of the director. Who are they writing the script to Thor for? Maybe we'll get an announcement at Comic-Con, but Marvel certainly didn't hit the ground running the second the strike ended.

Thor lost the director DURING the strike. His deal expired during the strike when they couldn't do any re-writes or move the project more at all. Same with Ant-Man. You really can't just brush aside how the movie industry pretty much halted during the WGA strike.

And, Marvel obviously had no backup plans. Which is on them since the strike wasn't a surprise.

They had their first two huge movies they needed to focus on. Which were of the utmost importance.

Look at WB as well. They aren't the sole producers of the Terminator movie last time I checked.

The strike is the primary cause for Marvel having no 2009 movies. But, there were obviously other factors at work too. Fox was able to deal with the strike and get Wolverine in the pipeline. WB was able to deal with the strike and get Watchmen in the pipeline. Lionsgate was able to deal with the strike and get The Spirit in the pipeline. G.I. Joe, Transformers 2, Star Trek, and Terminator are moving ahead. Marvel wasn't able to deal with the strike. At all. And that's on them.

So what. You think Marvel wasn't working on Wolverine either? Also a lot of those movies were being re-written and had started production before the strike. They were at a stage where the productions could be safe when the strike started. Watchmen finished filming months ago as well.

Same with The Spirit. Started production before the strike. Miller was first announced on it in 2006.

GI JOE. Paramount rushes to get a script finished in 7 weeks before the strike and greenlights it for $175 million into production. It's looking a lot like crap so far.

Star Trek was delayed 6 months and was having a whole lot of problems filming during the strike. The movie also began production before the strike.

Wolverine comes out in 2009 and that still has their name on it if you want to be really technical.

Either way none of these are valid comparisons. They were gearing up 2 huge releases for 2008. They had other movies in the pipeline that suddenly couldn't move forward at all because of the strike. The strike halted tons of productions which you are ignoring. You are making comparisons to movies that were rushed into being greenlight, started shooting already with finished shooting scripts, or had shooting scripts ready to go before the strike started.

GI JOE had a finished script that was greenlit during the strike. They did their casting. And pretty much started shooting right as the strike ended.

Marvel made the right choice in not rushing a bad script into production just to make sure they have 2009. That is not a mark against them.

[TheVileOne]

Producer Kevin Feige speaks:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/881/881664p1.html

IGN recently spoke with Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige about Iron Man 2 and all the rumors swirling around about it. Recent rumors have stated that Marvel was considering not bringing director Jon Favreau back because they didn't want to pay his high salary. Favreau has come out and expressed concern about Marvel announced a release date for Iron Man 2 of April 2010, saying it is too soon and that he hasn't even been contacted about a sequel.

Anyway, Feige had this to say.

"The only thing I'll say is that not everything you read on the Internet is true, for sure. Everybody knows that. In this particular case, the notion that… Let's put it this way, here's all I'll say. Negotiations are actively ongoing, as they have been, and as they'll continue to be, I hope for not much longer and we'll get it all figured out."

"But the people behind the scenes at Marvel Studios I hope, I think, I hope should earn the trust of the fans from this summer. I mean these are the same people that made the decisions to make the films that are now in theaters that I think people like and enjoy, and those are the same people that are still making the decisions here. So if you've agreed with and enjoy the decisions they've made in the past you're probably going to agree with the decisions they make in the future and all of the efforts are being put together now to ensure that we can go into our next film with all of the exact same pieces in place that led to the success of the first one."

As for Favreau's concerns over the release date of Iron Man 2, Feige said the following.

"That time period gives us about the same amount of time that we had on the first one. And frankly we spent so much time, we know who the cast is now, we know who the actors are, we know who the characters are, we know what the basic design of the suits and the world is. That was all stuff that we had to figure out from scratch on the first one. All that R&D is done. That gives you a huge advantage going forward. But I'm actually very confident, and anything's possible, but I'm very confident in those timetables simply because we've done it before. We had this exact amount of time going from Spidey 1 to Spidey 2, and I believe Spider-Man 2 is one of the best sequels we've ever made. And that's certainly what we're setting out to accomplish with the next Iron Man film."

[Hiruu]

Producer Kevin Feige speaks:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/881/881664p1.html

Exactly, other than designing the villian, the Movie is pretty much on track...and as for the story...errr....get it from the source material? Then it's just grinding on the script to make it doable, but that's laymen's work, not creative genius stuff...Favreau did a bang-up job, and Marvel needs to put forth every effort to get him onboard, but the crap I'm hearing from Jon makes me stratch my head...not very win-win and positive imho. Hopefully, it's just a negoitating tactic, but...

[Arach Knight]

That's only true with the myopic view that superheroes are the only genre that matters.

Say what you will but Harry Potter (from WB)

Not only is Harry Potter not a comic book franchise, it is not even owned by DC or Warner. I am speaking about what Warner does with its comic franchises. They ignore the bulk of them.

[TheVileOne]

That said, it doesn't exactly give them the same amount of time if they are facing an actor's strike.

[Gotham]

If Feige is confident that we'll see Favreau back, then I'm confident we'll see Favreau back. :up:

[StylishHokie21]

I hope he comes back. He would be pretty foolish not to.

[Evil Twin]

Not only is Harry Potter not a comic book franchise, it is not even owned by DC or Warner. I am speaking about what Warner does with its comic franchises. They ignore the bulk of them.

Yeah, so? WB makes more money from Harry Potter than they do or are likely to make from any comic book adaptation. Even with paying J.K. Rowling.

So what if WB doesn't concentrate on their owned properties? They make more money on Harry Potter anyways and they still maintain ownership of their properties. They have their priorities straight as far as making money even if superhero fans chafe at it. It's the same reason why Superman and Batman are going to come before their other superheroes.

[DACrowe]

Just gotta' say it is sad Marvel is making the same mistakes Fox did, because they only see the brand name and not the artistry required.

[Cinemaman]

So he hasn't signed it yet? I thought it wouldn't take so long for both sides to decide.

[RonStoppablefan]

I hope there just making suspense on the fans, waiting till the last minute to have him sign. It would be horrible if they didn't, I'd be so sad about that. Also actors strike now? Are the voice actors with this as well? Shoot, I don't want that, why do the studios have to be so annoying?

[mtd20_2000]

After what I have read about Marvel and Norton this does not seem to suprise me at all about Favreau (nevertheless they want Dicaprio to play Captain America:wow:)

[Arach Knight]

I doubt they wouldget Leonardo Dicaprio. He is a good actor, but he is too small for the role of Captain America. Maybe he is in the film (possibly as Bucky or as a pre-super soldier Steve Rogers) but I doubt he would be the lead. Besides, I have heard equally as disappointing rumors that Matthew McConihay (or however you spell his name) is slated for the role of the Star Spangled avenger. Anyays, I think we as fans are taking too much of a concern about the business aspect. We should all relax and wait and see how things pan out, before we spend too much time worrying over who is getting paid what.

[EternalMaster]

On a side not, I think that Marvel should push the Avengers' release date back a whole year. Why? Because then Favreau would have time to direct Avengers once Iron Man 2 is over with. LL did well on Hulk, but no where near as great as Favreau did on Iron Man.

If anyone should helm Avengers, it should be Jon, and Marvel should push back Avengers to make it happen. Hey, we'd still get Cap's movie in 2010. I can wait until 2011 to get a GREAT Avengers film rather than a "merely good" one in 2010.

[DACrowe]

Avengers is scheduled for 2011 along with Captain America. Thor and Iron Man 2 (without directors or screenplays yet) are the ones slated for 2010.

I agree with pushing The Avengers back to 2012 and Iron Man 2 back to 2011 if necessary. I suppose Thor and Cap. can make their deadlines, but Marvel can space it out. REmember TDK will also be out in 2011 and so might SM4. There is such a thing as oversaturation.

[artemzz]

I'm guessing the Avengers movie would have to be atleast 2 hours and 30 minutes or a bit more. You can't cram that many superheroes into 2 hours of film time. As it was visible in Spiderman 3 with the under-developed characters.

[shogunrua]

I'm guessing the Avengers movie would have to be atleast 2 hours and 30 minutes or a bit more. You can't cram that many superheroes into 2 hours of film time. As it was visible in Spiderman 3 with the under-developed characters.

I see your point man, and in a certain way I agree with you, this movie shouldn't be under 2 hours. But using your comparision, who did suffer from the worst character development in Spiderman 3 ? Eddie Brock, Sandman, Gwen Stacy, basically the new characters. But it seems that with the Avengers, the lead characters would all already introduced, so I don't think they would have to spend a lot of time reintroducing these characters.

But hey it's just an opinion :)

[spideymouse]

I'd go for a 3-hour Avengers movie. Take that, Peter Jackson!

[artemzz]

I see your point man, and in a certain way I agree with you, this movie shouldn't be under 2 hours. But using your comparision, who did suffer from the worst character development in Spiderman 3 ? Eddie Brock, Sandman, Gwen Stacy, basically the new characters. But it seems that with the Avengers, the lead characters would all already introduced, so I don't think they would have to spend a lot of time reintroducing these characters.

But hey it's just an opinion :)

I actually missed that. My bad for that error. You are totally right. The point of Hulk/Ironman/Thor and etc is to introduce the characters first then make the avengers movie. I didn't realize that. And yeah basically all the new characters of the spider-man 3 movie were under-developed. But to introduce them fully you would need about 20-30 minutes the most for each one which would make the movie over 3 hours a little bit.

EDIT: I forgot where but I read that when the avengers movie is made. People who are not fans of marvel or fans of hero movies at all could watch the avengers without knowing any background information on any of the characters. That says something....