Howard finally speaks!

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/ironmannews.php?id=7742

This looks like Marvel have **** on him big-time, what the hell is going on here? Are Marvel becoming another fox (something I actually predicted a while back) or something?

[Ziggyman]

Yikes...!

Soft spoken anger!

[donk70]

If there is anytime that I wish there could be an about face is this time. Howard was excellent in the 1st flick. I'm not knocking Cheadle, but Howard says ""Rhoady" to me alot easier than he does.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Who knows if what he says is true or not? Studios usually are run by a-holes so I'm not standing up for them but I've never seen a studio that liked recasting, because they like to keep everything the same to a sequel to a successful film. So I'll put this in the for all I know it could be true and if it is the studio is wrong but I don't really believe it because it doesn't add up category.

[UA-Archangel]

Nobody can really say what happened here. It may not have been Howard at all, but his agent that messed things up.

Considering that Howard is saying he doesn't know, I'd probably try and find out from his agent what might have happened.

Does anybody really think that Marvel is going to offer Howard half the dough to re-play this part, just so they can cast somebody else?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

If there is anytime that I wish there could be an about face is this time. Howard was excellent in the 1st flick. I'm not knocking Cheadle, but Howard says ""Rhoady" to me alot easier than he does.

Agreed, Cheadle is a great actor to me, but Howard fits Rhodey so much more.

[ultimatefan]

We have yet to see Marvel´s version, but if this is true, it´s totally f***ed up, and I mean, Tom Rothman-level f***ed up.

[FlawlessVictory]

This doesn't make much sense, there has to be more to it that Howard is not saying. Why would a studio WANT to recast after such a successful first film when the actor's personal life is not attached to anything controversial (i.e. Scientology :hehe:). I think there is more to it, but whatever the reason, I'm disappointed he is not returning.

[SurfDUI]

A lot of this argument has to do w/ proximity, were closer to the last one than part II. IF what we know today goes forward and we specualte 3 IM films and Cheadle does the last two. It'l be like Bale vs. whomever other Jokers you USED to like before Bale got w/ Nolan.

Keep ur mind open, and realize that a) Howard is the original b) IM is a huge worldwide success c) Nobobdy directly associated w/ the film is hurtin for notarity or bankroll.

this is what we do tho

[Yellow Cyclone]

Tom Rothman-level f***ed up.



whoa, whoa. nobody deserves that :woot:

[Eros]

Its all a Money thing dude, Howard probably wanted a percantage of the sequel gross.

[Stringer]

Ill take Howards word (whos continued to do plenty of low budget features since his careers taken off) over Marvels.

[Nirvana]

Wow, if what Howard says is true, total dick move on Marvel's part. Who knows if they're heading in the right direction anymore...

[FaT_tONle]

There are two sides to every story... no way are you signing an actor like Cheadle if Howard was affordable for Marvel's standards... use some sense people. Howard overpriced himself... that's all there is too it.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

We have yet to see Marvel´s version, but if this is true, it´s totally f***ed up, and I mean, Tom Rothman-level f***ed up.


Agreed.

Ill take Howards word (whos continued to do plenty of low budget features since his careers taken off) over Marvels.

On this one I gotta take Howards side, Marvel made some terrible decisions when making TIH, and have seriously run the risk of losing a great actor like Norton for a potential franchise by cutting out scene's from TIH that would have made the movie A LOT better.

It wouldnt surprise me if they had done something similar with Howard. Howard previously said he wouldnt mind waiting until movie 3 to become War Machine, maybe Marvel disagreed with that strongly.

[Stringer]

There are two sides to every story... no way are you signing an actor like Cheadle if Howard was affordable for Marvel's standards... use some sense people. Howard overpriced himself... that's all there is too it.
So all the sudden Howard overprices himself after being in movies like Awake, Idlewild, and The Perfect Holiday, all after he was nominated for an Oscar?:whatever:

You act like Marvel is above screwing someone over.

[Sweetchuck]

So war machine is supposed to be an old man from mozambique?
Dumb...Just Dumb...:bh:

[Casius--J]

This all still doesnt add up to me, why would Marvel now tell Howard themselves rather than let him find out the way he did.

I need some more confirmation before i fully believe this recast has been made because it just doesnt make sense. You would think Cheadle would require a bigger pay packet than Howard! I'm just waiting for Jon or Marvel to clear everything up for us.

[dark_b]

MARVEL is new to all of this. it looks like they need to learn a lot.first TIH and now this.

or someone is lying....but who.

[StanLee Wannabe]

You guys can jump on Marvel all you want, but you have no clue if Howard is telling the truth. Dont just take him at face value, THINK.

He lost a game of financial chicken with a studio and LOST. Do you think he's going to say it was his own greed? Of course not. Do you think he likes losing out on what would have been a cash cow for him? Of course not. The sucker is trying to save face.

All you have to do is go back and watch his pre-IM interviews to see how cocky the SOB was. If he and his agent acted like that with Marvel, then Marvel did the right thing. Howard was never right for the part with his sissy voice, slight frame, and stoner demeanor.

[FaT_tONle]

So all the sudden Howard overprices himself after being in movies like Awake, Idlewild, and The Perfect Holiday, all after he was nominated for an Oscar?:whatever:

You act like Marvel is above screwing someone over.

Maybe becasue Iron Man was supposed to be his bankable franchise and he didn't have anything else to fall back on... other than a singing career... :whatever:. It is what it is... you aren't going to tell me an actor like Cheadle comes cheap. If Howard wanted double of that... or even triple of that money that went to Cheadle... that may have put Marvel over their budget. Marvel just can't start handing out blank pay checks.

[TheVileOne]

Once again everyone's throwing Marvel under the bus.

You guys should be more respectful because we don't know all the facts. And besides that, if it wasn't for Marvel we wouldn't be getting these movies or Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark or things like that at all.

They were the ones that took control of their properties and said they were going to do them this time.

We wouldn't have gotten Iron Man the way it was without Marvel. Just think about that sometime.

[YJ1]

Does anybody really think that Marvel is going to offer Howard half the dough to re-play this part, just so they can cast somebody else?

Exactly. It's not like Cheadle is a no-name, cheap actor.

I'm crying "BS" on Howard. He knows why and is just using a public forum to try and stick it to Marvel for not giving in to his demands.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

2 + 2 = 4

What Howard is saying just simply don't add up. They just out of the blue recasted the role for no reason what-so-ever??? I don't believe that for one second. Again I don't know exactly what happened and I'm not standing up for the studio but why would they recast with an actor for no reason? I'm inclined to believe the actors before the big corporation but please. Cheadle ass and cheap either, he was a nominated for a best actor oscar just like Howard...I know we are all inclined to believe the lil actor over the big bad studio, but think for a moment! It doesn't add up.

Right now I'm inclined to believe that Howard lost a game of chicken over the, the studio recast my role for no reason, explaination."

[lordofthenerds]

2 + 2 = 4

What Howard is saying just simply don't add up. They just out of the blue recasted the role for no reason what-so-ever??? I don't believe that for one second. Again I don't know exactly what happened and I'm not standing up for the studio but why would they recast with an actor for no reason? I'm inclined to believe the actors before the big corporation but please. Cheadle ass and cheap either, he was a nominated for a best actor oscar just like Howard...I know we are all inclined to believe the lil actor over the big bad studio, but think for a moment! It doesn't add up.

Right now I'm inclined to believe that Howard lost a game of chicken over the, the studio recast my role for no reason, explaination."
Well if that's the case, maybe the studio should give their explanation for the recast instead of just sitting around letting Howard talk crap about them. I mean, Howard's word is the only one we have right now and Marvel screwed Norton over during TIH, so you can't blame people for giving him the benefit of the doubt.

WB recasted Katie Holmes for basically no explanation and yes I know her performance was a laugh riot, but who knows. It could've happened here as well.

[DACrowe]

Marvel seems to be taking a very bottom line approach to movie-making. It is all about the quickest dollar and movies like TIH prove that and the rushed factor of IM2 and all their movies that are supposedly going to be out by 2011.

Who knew Marvel would be act this dumb? I think Cheadle is a great actor and will do fine in the role, but Howard played the part in the first movie and it would've been nice to see it continue for continuity's sake and that Howard did very well with the part and seemed to enjoy the character.

Oh well.

[DACrowe]

Once again everyone's throwing Marvel under the bus.

You guys should be more respectful because we don't know all the facts. And besides that, if it wasn't for Marvel we wouldn't be getting these movies or Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark or things like that at all.

They were the ones that took control of their properties and said they were going to do them this time.

We wouldn't have gotten Iron Man the way it was without Marvel. Just think about that sometime.

Eh as good as IM was I won't show any studio blind loyalty. If they are rushing their movies into production without screenplays and turning out mediocre efforts (TIH being the first example) then it should be noted. They are not above criticism.

I'll wait to hear what the trade papers (Variety and HR) have to say, though.

[TheVileOne]

What blind studio loyalty? What rushed factor of Iron Man? They are writing the movie right now. They apparently made a new deal with Favreau. What's the problem?

Also since when did WB recast Katie Holmes for no reason in Dark Knight? For one thing she almost KILLED the first movie. For another, I think they even still wanted her back, but the shoot didn't fit in with her schedule now that she's under control of the scientologists. Rachel was a horrible character anyway and shouldn't have even been in the first movie. In the second movie they killed her off and that was it. Big deal.

[The Chibi Kiriyama]

Yes, they offered the role back to Holmes. She declined, for reasons that should be obvious to everyone.

I still think this is bad decision-making coming from Marvel Studios. I've yet to hear Howard say anything that throws an alarm to his intentions, and the most we've gotten out of Marvel Studios about this is some BS about how "the characters come first." Maybe they'll be proven right when the day is done, but right now they come off as another Fox in the making.

[FaT_tONle]

Marvel is not getting a pass from me because of one hit... anyone who gives them a pass is just not paying attention... how an independent studio comes out and announces not only a sequel but a whole freaking slate up till 2011... right after a 100 million dollar opening weeked? That's a disgrace.... that's number one. It's IRRESPONSIBLE to come out and make all these future plans based off of the earnings of one film on its opening weekend.

And then whole TIH thing with Norton, they went for the money. The shorter screen time... Marvel knew the movie was not gonna be a money maker. They were probably hoping for 150... they didn't even get that much. They sacrificed quality for more screenings and gave audiences a no better than average film... they lost some credibility right then and there. It will be a miracle to see Norton work with these guys again... it really will.

And now IM2. First Favreau... I mean I was having heart attacks when I heard Marvel was being a bit stiff with the checks (and there is no question they played hard ball with Favs)... but they got him signed at the end of the day. But we have had A LOT of changes in such a short span. New writers... now Cheadle... what's next? I have no doubt IM2 will be a great film. It's just troublesome...

At the end of the day... Marvel needs to get off their high horses and start treating the people they are bringing in with some respect. I mean let's not forget about Mathew Vaughn... contract expires... and he isn't even in talks at any point from then on. But I am not worried about IM2... what I am worried about is Avengers. If Marvel rushes that project and ****s people over in the process... it will be the most disappointing thing to bear for comic book films. And we comic book fans will have to suffer because of yet another studios greed.

It's too early to panic... and I think Terrance Howard is mostly to blame here... but this is surely a disturbing pattern nonetheless.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Well if that's the case, maybe the studio should give their explanation for the recast instead of just sitting around letting Howard talk crap about them. I mean, Howard's word is the only one we have right now and Marvel screwed Norton over during TIH, so you can't blame people for giving him the benefit of the doubt.

WB recasted Katie Holmes for basically no explanation and yes I know her performance was a laugh riot, but who knows. It could've happened here as well.It's obvious why she was recast. Most people didn't like her in the film because her acting was terrible and she wasn't even charming in the admittedly poorly written role. I don't believe for a second that she was offered the role and didn't take it. I got a bridge I'd like to sell you if you believe that.

I'm sorry but I'm not taking Howards word as gospel anymore than I'd take Marvels.

Ed Norton is a whiney little overrated punk who likes to try and steal movies from directors and writers because he thinks that he is g-d's gift to cinema. Good riddice to his bland ass.

[jamesjuhn]

Actually, Holmes was offered role of Rachel, but she turned it down to do "Mad Money" - you can see the link below for her reason behind turning down the role (but I couldn't care less since I didn't really like Rachel's character at all)

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1579619/20080114/story.jhtml


As for Norton, I don't know what your problem with Norton is. I mean, I don't like the guy(although I did like his performance in TIH), but that does not mean I hate him either - but it seems as if you have a personal vendetta against him or something.


In Howard's case, well I don't know who to believe right now. Unless Marvel makes a statement clearing up this mess, then I think I'll just stick in the middle ground in terms of believing who's right.

[Ironfan72]

Marvel does have to learn to do a better job of negotiating with their talent, if what Terrance is saying is true than shame on Marvel, they are really in no position to dictate like their Paramount or Sony. I agree they've techically only had one official hit, TIH while good wasn't as big a success as the first Hulk film, Terrence should be given every chance to reprise hid role as Rhodey. Rhodes should have a bigger role in IM2 and Terrence should be paid for the increased role, now if it comes out that he had outragious demands that made Marvel think twice, then I could see Marvel's side.
We have yet to hear from Marvel and quit frankly this could still be negations between both Marvel and Howards camps, make it public and but pressure on one side or the other.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Actually, Holmes was offered role of Rachel, but she turned it down to do "Mad Money" - you can see the link below for her reason behind turning down the role (but I couldn't care less since I didn't really like Rachel's character at all)

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1579619/20080114/story.jhtml


As for Norton, I don't know what your problem with Norton is. I mean, I don't like the guy(although I did like his performance in TIH), but that does not mean I hate him either - but it seems as if you have a personal vendetta against him or something.


In Howard's case, well I don't know who to believe right now. Unless Marvel makes a statement clearing up this mess, then I think I'll just stick in the middle ground in terms of believing who's right.

The katie holmes situation was a corporate type firing where they are canning your ass but with some dignity in order not to damage your image in front of the public. Does anyone honestly think any person would turn down a sequel to Batman begins to do a comedy with Queen Latiffa?

I have a feeling the powers that be were not happy with all the TomKat situation that was taking away from the BB marketing, and to top it off she could easily be replaced with someone of higher talent. Not a very difficult desicion.

She got fired. In a nice way, but still fired.

Now as for marvel vs howard, we dont know all the details for sure but you can bet your ass it came down to money. So either Howard got greedy or Marvel found cheaper services for another high quality "brand name" actor. Its hard to tell, but whatever, Im interested to see what cheadle does as the war machine in the next one.

And the situation with TIH. Marvel did screw that one up. Norton's cut was much better and they did not make marketing a priority for a movie that was certainly entertaining. It was still a success, but the indifferent stance that they seem to provide from their silence towards a sequel can be taken as a confirmation of their lack of leadership.

[TheVileOne]

Marvel is not getting a pass from me because of one hit... anyone who gives them a pass is just not paying attention... how an independent studio comes out and announces not only a sequel but a whole freaking slate up till 2011... right after a 100 million dollar opening weeked? That's a disgrace.... that's number one. It's IRRESPONSIBLE to come out and make all these future plans based off of the earnings of one film on its opening weekend.

It's not just one hit. David Hayter said people like Kevin Feige were also majorly responsible for the early success of the X-men movies.

Uh yeah to your other point. After they did that people weren't saying crap like that. People were genuinely excited.

Your arguments don't make any sense. Why is it irresponsible? They've been planning these self-produced movies before Iron Man came out. They started developing them before Iron Man came out. So what's the problem?

It's no more irresponsible to me than New Line Cinema giving Peter Jackson and WETA $300 million to shoot a LOTR trilogy which had many failed starts before. And when Peter Jackson's biggest movie beforehand was THE FRIGHTENERS.

The big announcement came off like a very calculated, bold, and smart move to me. I don't see where the irresponsibility is.

And then whole TIH thing with Norton, they went for the money. The shorter screen time... Marvel knew the movie was not gonna be a money maker. They were probably hoping for 150... they didn't even get that much. They sacrificed quality for more screenings and gave audiences a no better than average film... they lost some credibility right then and there. It will be a miracle to see Norton work with these guys again... it really will.

I'm not sure what your point is here. We don't know everything that happened with Norton. Also look at the Hulk. Audiences HATED the artist's take of The Hulk. Can you seriously prove that people would've liked the alternative cut better?

Also, you can't really deny Ed Norton's history in this town and the way he takes so much control over everything.

And now IM2. First Favreau... I mean I was having heart attacks when I heard Marvel was being a bit stiff with the checks (and there is no question they played hard ball with Favs)... but they got him signed at the end of the day. But we have had A LOT of changes in such a short span. New writers... now Cheadle... what's next? I have no doubt IM2 will be a great film. It's just troublesome...

So they got him signed. What's the problem? New writers? Justin Theroux was pretty much hand-picked by Robert Downey Jr. Now that could end up being good or bad, we'll see. But it's not uncommon for sequels to get new writers and talen aboard. First Iron Man had multiple writers attached. After many writers had taken a stab at it previously.

Except after Marvel took it back from New Line they got rid of all the really ridiculous, stupid story decisions. They wanted Iron Man to fly, they didn't want Howard Stark to be the villain.

Some of these complaints are pretty lame to me. Iron Man was not like X-men where they had to constantly struggle with Fox, and Fox undercut the movie at every turn. They gave Iron Man the money it needed and they stood by Favreau and his decisions including Robert Downey Jr.

No one suddenly wants to give Marvel credit for that anymore. It's all boo-urns Marvel right now.

At the end of the day... Marvel needs to get off their high horses and start treating the people they are bringing in with some respect. I mean let's not forget about Mathew Vaughn... contract expires... and he isn't even in talks at any point from then on. But I am not worried about IM2... what I am worried about is Avengers. If Marvel rushes that project and ****s people over in the process... it will be the most disappointing thing to bear for comic book films. And we comic book fans will have to suffer because of yet another studios greed.

Why is that Marvel's fault? His contract expired in the middle of a WGA strike which stalled a lot of things and killed a lot of things for EVERYBODY. Do you know how many projects and deals got killed because of the strike? A freaking ton. Directors attach themselves for a while to projects and leave all the time. The way you are trying to spin this like Marvel tyrannically drove Matthew Vaughn away is disgusting.

How the hell would they be rushing out Avengers when they first announced it in 2006? That's five years.

It's too early to panic... and I think Terrance Howard is mostly to blame here... but this is surely a disturbing pattern nonetheless.

After all this and you say you think Howard is to blame. Could've fooled me.

[BigCityBoy]

I don't really know who to believe with this one. One could say Howard said what he said in that interview because he was basically told to say what he said by higher-ups and if it was him wanting more money, he not gonna say that because he doesn't want to ruin his reputation. It all sounds FISHY!

[Zephyr Alexian]

I'm not sure about this. Howard seems like a stand-up guy, but he was extremely vague on the details. Marvel isn't helping their case any by these kinds of incidents, but it's over now. That interview was actually a very interesting one. Usually, I loathe this type of setting, save for the James Lipton show, but this one was pretty good.

[Timstuff]

I was already pissed enough about him getting recast, but to find out that Marvel stabbed him in the back is just outrageous. I will try to stay as optimistic as possible about this movie since I loved the first one so much, but if Marvel is going to start a project by backstabbing their actors it's not a good sign. I hope they aren't turning into an evil studio, but this sinister decision is not good evidence to the contrary.

[FaT_tONle]

It's not just one hit. David Hayter said people like Kevin Feige were also majorly responsible for the early success of the X-men movies.

Uh yeah to your other point. After they did that people weren't saying crap like that. People were genuinely excited.

Excited... yes... skeptical... yes??? If anyone didn't feel both ways then they were just being naive. The X-Men trilogy wasn't smashed into a four year window either... I understand they failed miserably nonetheless with X-3. But X-3 was still a rush job with the studio stalling. And with the strike in the middle of all of this... pushing everything back a full year... why try and get all these projects out in this window? Makes ZERO sense IMO.

Your arguments don't make any sense. Why is it irresponsible? They've been planning these self-produced movies before Iron Man came out. They started developing them before Iron Man came out. So what's the problem?

It's no more irresponsible to me than New Line Cinema giving Peter Jackson and WETA $300 million to shoot a LOTR trilogy which had many failed starts before. And when Peter Jackson's biggest movie beforehand was THE FRIGHTENERS.

Yes Avengers was planned from the start... but that doesn't mean it was going to happen automatically. A LOT had to go their way... A LOT still has to go their way. They don't know what Thor is going to be... they don't know what Captain America is going to be... Marvel is just dead set on getting these films out as soon as possible before their Avengers deadline, which is WAY too soon.

The big announcement came off like a very calculated, bold, and smart move to me. I don't see where the irresponsibility is.

I don't know how calculated announcing release dates for 2011 that early really is... the attention was on Marvel that week and they decided they needed to make another splash. It was an impulsive decision. You don't see WB giving BB3 a tenative release... and don't tell me Favreau and the cast were already locked for a sequel at that point... because they obviously weren't.

I'm not sure what your point is here. We don't know everything that happened with Norton. Also look at the Hulk. Audiences HATED the artist's take of The Hulk. Can you seriously prove that people would've liked the alternative cut better?

Also, you can't really deny Ed Norton's history in this town and the way he takes so much control over everything.

Marvel knew the baggage they were getting with Norton... I agree they shouldn't have let him basically run the film like it was his production... but that was Marvel's decision... and frankly... they got burned. But the quality of the film lies on Marvel and Marvel alone... and they just didn't deliver with TIH. It's not like Norton produced or directed... it was a Marvel film.... and an average one that people were frankly tired of.


So they got him signed. What's the problem? New writers? Justin Theroux was pretty much hand-picked by Robert Downey Jr. Now that could end up being good or bad, we'll see. But it's not uncommon for sequels to get new writers and talen aboard. First Iron Man had multiple writers attached. After many writers had taken a stab at it previously.

Except after Marvel took it back from New Line they got rid of all the really ridiculous, stupid story decisions. They wanted Iron Man to fly, they didn't want Howard Stark to be the villain.


This is true.

Some of these complaints are pretty lame to me. Iron Man was not like X-men where they had to constantly struggle with Fox, and Fox undercut the movie at every turn. They gave Iron Man the money it needed and they stood by Favreau and his decisions including Robert Downey Jr.

No one suddenly wants to give Marvel credit for that anymore. It's all boo-urns Marvel right now.

How many times can we give Marvel credit? Iron Man was a hit... but it's over. It's in the past. Now we have to move forward. But one movie and they are not the end all be all. To me they lost with TIH... they are one up and one down in the win/loss... they still have a lot to prove. Even if IM2 is a more successful effort (both critically and financially) than IM... I still won't be sold. Not until Marvel shows me they can hit it on the money with some of these other characters. You don't see WB fast tracking JLA just because TDK was a smash hit. Even if GL does better than expected... I think WB would still wait and see how the Supes reboot performs before greenlighting JLA... if those efforts flop then it's over for DC. Why the same would not apply to the likes of Captain America/Thor/Avengers is beyond me...

Why is that Marvel's fault? His contract expired in the middle of a WGA strike which stalled a lot of things and killed a lot of things for EVERYBODY. Do you know how many projects and deals got killed because of the strike? A freaking ton. Directors attach themselves for a while to projects and leave all the time. The way you are trying to spin this like Marvel tyrannically drove Matthew Vaughn away is disgusting.

How the hell would they be rushing out Avengers when they first announced it in 2006? That's five years.

All they did was hire Penn to script the thing... it will be a miracle if the final script is actually his work... I mean we had Penn talking about an Avengers movie done in a similar format to Beowulf or Star Wars Clone Wars a year back... was that really Marvel's plan from the start? Please. I agree Marvel had their eyes on Avengers from the start... but right now their focus has to be Thor/IM2. Cap AND Avengers will get in the middle of post production of both Thor/IM2 and that to me is rushing things.

After all this and you say you think Howard is to blame. Could've fooled me.

It's irrelevant... I am not celebrating like you have based on Iron Man's box office. It was a good start... but make no mistake about it... this is a young studio that will go through growing pains.

The katie holmes situation was a corporate type firing where they are canning your ass but with some dignity in order not to damage your image in front of the public. Does anyone honestly think any person would turn down a sequel to Batman begins to do a comedy with Queen Latiffa?

I agree with most of what you said... but once again... the world does not revolve around comic book characters for these actors... and Holmes obviously didn't need the money.

[TheVileOne]

Excited... yes... skeptical... yes??? If anyone didn't feel both ways then they were just being naive. The X-Men trilogy wasn't smashed into a four year window either... I understand they failed miserably nonetheless with X-3. But X-3 was still a rush job with the studio stalling. And with the strike in the middle of all of this... pushing everything back a full year... why try and get all these projects out in this window? Makes ZERO sense IMO.

They weren't saying the crap that you are saying.

We aren't talking about a four year window though. They've been planning this since BEFORE 2008. So you don't make any sense.

I'm not sure why you are so upset. If it had not been for the strike, Thor would probably already be in production right now with Matthew Vaughn directing for a summer 2009 release. That's the thing man. The strike did delay a lot. Thor got pushed back big time. And probably Ant-Man as well. So they still aren't rushing Thor for 2009. That's good.

Also, just because this is the window they have planned doesn't guarantee they will keep it. If they have to change it, they will. I'm not sure why you are so worried about it considering that they have been planning this for such a long time and you won't acknowledge that.

Yes Avengers was planned from the start... but that doesn't mean it was going to happen automatically. A LOT had to go their way... A LOT still has to go their way. They don't know what Thor is going to be... they don't know what Captain America is going to be... Marvel is just dead set on getting these films out as soon as possible before their Avengers deadline, which is WAY too soon.

Those bridges will be crossed when they get to them. Also, this is freaking MARVEL. These are their characters. I think they know what they want them to be. It's just a matter of what don't know how they will perform. And if they can make them as good and as exciting as Iron Man a character no one expected it would perform as well it did, I think it will be fine. People like comic book super hero movies. They don't want to watch overly political ********. They want ultimately uplifting, satisfying super hero flicks that are well made and not hacked together crap.

Also, I don't see what is so bad about this schedule. We shouldn't have to wait 5 years for Avengers if all these movies are logically building toward it, and they are already scripting them and they are thinking about all of them. And they started figuring this out over 2 years ago. If they have to change the schedule they will.

It's also not the same crews on each movie. You need to get a grip. Production companies can have multiple movies in production while still gearing up others. This has gone on for years in the industry. The thing is, you seem to think that they can only do these one at a time and like three years apart each. OK, so you want to wait three years between Thor, Cap, Iron Man 2, and Avengers? Sorry but no.

Why don't you come up with what is in your mind a realistic schedule?

I don't know how calculated announcing release dates for 2011 that early really is... the attention was on Marvel that week and they decided they needed to make another splash. It was an impulsive decision. You don't see WB giving BB3 a tenative release... and don't tell me Favreau and the cast were already locked for a sequel at that point... because they obviously weren't.

WB is WB. Marvel Studios is Marvel Studios. They don't have other numerous other potential franchises and tentpoles to deal with. WB set up tentative release dates for all the Harry Potter sequels, and yet you don't complain about that? The Harry Potter movies don't look rushed either, even though the last several came out less than 2 years inbetween. 5 and 6 will in fact be the longest gap between Harry Potter films, and then they already know know then last 2 are coming out. So epic fail to this horrible point. The wait for Batman 3 is because they don't know what Nolan and co. want to do yet.

For Iron Man, Favreau and co. all wanted to do a sequel and wrote the story with multiple chapters in mind so they could continue afterward. Nolan and Goyer did not admit to taking this approach with Batman. They are doing strictly one at a time. We still don't know what the fate of Batman 3 is right now.

Marvel knew the baggage they were getting with Norton... I agree they shouldn't have let him basically run the film like it was his production... but that was Marvel's decision... and frankly... they got burned. But the quality of the film lies on Marvel and Marvel alone... and they just didn't deliver with TIH. It's not like Norton produced or directed... it was a Marvel film.... and an average one that people were frankly tired of.

Marvel's decision was based off the reception of The Hulk. It didn't work out quite as planned, but the movie was not a terrible failure. They basically hit a double with the movie so they could still save some face.

At the end of the day, I think they should've just not pursued the Hulk at all. I think Ed Norton is a great performer and creator, but he has personality clashes on productions like this. I liked his Banner and everything, but I agree, I don't think audiences really care about the Hulk. You aren't always going to get lightning in a bottle or hit a homerun with everything like Iron Man. But ultimately Marvel did the right thing in focusing everything on Iron Man instead of Hulk.

I think Marvel more than succeeded with the results this year. When people thought Iron Man would get blown out of the water by other competition when it really outperformed just about everything except Dark Knight. In such a crowded summer, Hulk could've done a lot worse. It didn't bomb, so they still have the Hulk under their banner.

This is true.

In other words, they know what they are doing. The writer is someone the star and director are cool with. The older writers could still take a stab at it or be on set, we don't know. Also, sequel writers change a lot. Hayter was the final screenwriter of X-men, but he was the first one for X2 before Dougherty and Harris who did a good job. Some directors like giving new writers a chance.

I think Theroux is a talented writer. Tropic Thunder was a truly clever, funny, script. It mixed action and comedy better than just about any movie I can recall before. Iron Man 2 needs more than just comedy and I hope Theroux can do that. But he seems to get wit and timing very well.

How many times can we give Marvel credit? Iron Man was a hit... but it's over. It's in the past. Now we have to move forward. But one movie and they are not the end all be all. To me they lost with TIH... they are one up and one down in the win/loss... they still have a lot to prove.

OK, but again so what? I think for Iron Man alone they deserve the benefit of the doubt. And not just for that. Things like Spectacular Spider-man. Wolverine and the X-men. These are great animated shows. The folks there really seem to get these properties and characters and how to execute them. I think Hulk was a bit of a stumble, but I mean Marvel really wanted to try and bring back the Hulk and they tried really hard. I don't think that's bad, just maybe should've tried something else first.

Marvel deserves credit for actually giving us what we've been begging for for years. An actual cinematic version of the Marvel Universe. Something no one else would even attempt before.

Even if they end up being less than average, I'd probably rather watch what Marvel Studios puts out than the terrible disappointments from 20th Century Fox. Because it's Marvel making these decisions and not dumb Hollywood people that don't know or care about these properties at all and just see them as a quick cash in. To Marvel, these characters are everything to them.

Even if IM2 is a more successful effort (both critically and financially) than IM... I still won't be sold. Not until Marvel shows me they can hit it on the money with some of these other characters. You don't see WB fast tracking JLA just because TDK was a smash hit.

:whatever: There's no fast track. They've been planning to do this for a long time.

And the thing is WB DID try and fast track JL! Before the strike hit they desperately wanted JL as their tentpole for summer 2009! Even before Dark Knight came out. Thank God it didn't work out that way. The thing is WB owns DC comics. There's no DC Studios like Marvel Studios. There's like I think one DC guy who works for WB. This is not even a valid comparison when WB has so many divisions dealing with so many other movies when DC is not their sole priority when at Marvel Studios the movies are their top priority so they can focus on these projects which they've been planning for years.

It's fine to be skeptical and for wanting them to prove it to you but your arguments are flimsy and illegitimate.

We know what the worse case scenario is. If the movies bomb, then Marvel might lose the film rights to the characters. And I genuinely don't think these movies will bomb as badly as something like Speed Racer.

Also, WB basically wants to copy Marvel's model with JL now anyway. But they stumbled with Superman in 2006, and they don't know what the hell to do with that.

Even if GL does better than expected... I think WB would still wait and see how the Supes reboot performs before greenlighting JLA... if those efforts flop then it's over for DC. Why the same would not apply to the likes of Captain America/Thor/Avengers is beyond me...

Because WB didn't really come up with a plan on how to feasibly do all this like Marvel has/is doing. They tried to do a stupid JL movie with different actors as the same time as the Batman films to try and start franchises and do spin-off solo films. That didn't work. The fans were loud and clear that they did not want that.

Hey it might be the same for Marvel, but that hasn't happened yet. Once again, cross that bridge when it happens.

All they did was hire Penn to script the thing... it will be a miracle if the final script is actually his work... I mean we had Penn talking about an Avengers movie done in a similar format to Beowulf or Star Wars Clone Wars a year back... was that really Marvel's plan from the start? Please. I agree Marvel had their eyes on Avengers from the start... but right now their focus has to be Thor/IM2. Cap AND Avengers will get in the middle of post production of both Thor/IM2 and that to me is rushing things.

I don't recall Penn ever saying that. Right now it looks like they are focusing on Thor and Iron Man 2, so what's the problem?

What you don't seem to understand is that Marvel Studios has been right there as collaborators with all these other movies before. Multiple movies in production coming out each year. Yeah some mixed results. But stop acting like it's impossible.

It's irrelevant... I am not celebrating like you have based on Iron Man's box office. It was a good start... but make no mistake about it... this is a young studio that will go through growing pains.

They aren't that young. It's only just recently that they started producing the movies of the properties themselves instead of through other studios/production companies.

I agree with most of what you said... but once again... the world does not revolve around comic book characters for these actors... and Holmes obviously didn't need the money.

My simple point is they didn't re-cast her for no reason. Katie Holmes apparently didn't really want to do it. And if that's really not true, the woman almost sabotaged Batman Begins with the TomKat nonsense and the marketing of the movie as well.

[FaT_tONle]

They weren't saying the crap that you are saying.

We aren't talking about a four year window though. They've been planning this since BEFORE 2008. So you don't make any sense.

I'm not sure why you are so upset. If it had not been for the strike, Thor would probably already be in production right now with Matthew Vaughn directing for a summer 2009 release. That's the thing man. The strike did delay a lot. Thor got pushed back big time. And probably Ant-Man as well. So they still aren't rushing Thor for 2009. That's good.

Also, just because this is the window they have planned doesn't guarantee they will keep it. If they have to change it, they will. I'm not sure why you are so worried about it considering that they have been planning this for such a long time and you won't acknowledge that.


I am not knocking Thor in 2010... what I don't get is Cap and Avengers the following year... that makes zero sense. And I have been saying Marvel will probably delay Avengers... but everyone seems to think that since they announced the release dates everything is set in stone and everything will stick... :whatever:. Maybe not you... but a lot of people feel that way.

Those bridges will be crossed when they get to them. Also, this is freaking MARVEL. These are their characters. I think they know what they want them to be. It's just a matter of what don't know how they will perform. And if they can make them as good and as exciting as Iron Man a character no one expected it would perform as well it did, I think it will be fine. People like comic book super hero movies. They don't want to watch overly political ********. They want ultimately uplifting, satisfying super hero flicks that are well made and not hacked together crap.

Exactly... let's give Marvel the benefit of the doubt every freaking time and assume they will churn out the best film possible... you go do that... I am not gonna do that after one hit and one semi flop.

Also, I don't see what is so bad about this schedule. We shouldn't have to wait 5 years for Avengers if all these movies are logically building toward it, and they are already scripting them and they are thinking about all of them. And they started figuring this out over 2 years ago. If they have to change the schedule they will.

What is Marvel honestly gonna do after Avengers? Black Panther??? I mean they got one shot at this. I mean there is IM3... maybe we don't even get Avenger sequels with the same cast/heroes. I want them to perfectly flesh out IM2, Thor, Cap movies before worrying about Avengers... the one year lay off is just not enough time. Neither is the two month layoff for Cap.

It's also not the same crews on each movie. You need to get a grip. Production companies can have multiple movies in production while still gearing up others. This has gone on for years in the industry. The thing is, you seem to think that they can only do these one at a time and like three years apart each. OK, so you want to wait three years between Thor, Cap, Iron Man 2, and Avengers? Sorry but no.

Oh I get all of that... I get that Marvel is only doing two films a year and they have plenty of time on there hands... but why blow your load just because the market is hot right now? You have to be patient... and Marvel is just racing toward Avengers... you can't tell me these other solo films won't suffer because of that.

Why don't you come up with what is in your mind a realistic schedule?

IM2/Thor 2010... TIH2 2011... Cap 2012... IM3/Avengers 2013 or later... spread over FIVE/SIX years... but that's not realistic schedule because TIH does not warrant a sequel thanks to Marvel's incompetence. And if that's indeed the case then bump everything back a year and remove IM3.

Let me be clear about something though... and this may come as a shock... I LIKE Avengers for 2011... IF AND ONLY IF Norton is signed on... I feel Norton will 100% walk if they wait longer than three years with no TIH sequel in between... I realize Thor will suffer because Marvel will give his film second class treatment like they did with TIH. I trust them with Cap... but I hate recasts just as everyone else. plus I think the Hulk/Banner is PIVOTAL to Avengers... Hulk should be the backbone of the film... if Norton is not back and they still try to meet that deadline it will be one of many mistakes to follow. THat's just my personal take on that.


WB is WB. Marvel Studios is Marvel Studios. They don't have other numerous other potential franchises and tentpoles to deal with. WB set up tentative release dates for all the Harry Potter sequels, and yet you don't complain about that? The Harry Potter movies don't look rushed either, even though the last several came out less than 2 years inbetween. 5 and 6 will in fact be the longest gap between Harry Potter films, and then they already know know then last 2 are coming out. So epic fail to this horrible point. The wait for Batman 3 is because they don't know what Nolan and co. want to do yet.

Yeah yeah I get all that... but the point is WB is weary after of all their comic book films after one semi flop... in SR... that movie still made a near 200 million dollar profit WW. And no sequel... and no freaking JLA plans to speak of... at least plans that actually fell through. Marvel Studios has not taken notice of something they call patience.

For Iron Man, Favreau and co. all wanted to do a sequel and wrote the story with multiple chapters in mind so they could continue afterward. Nolan and Goyer did not admit to taking this approach with Batman. They are doing strictly one at a time. We still don't know what the fate of Batman 3 is right now.

Yeah yet no one knew how Avengers would fall into those plans... or better put... disrupt those plans. No way around just that. I still don't think anyone knows how all of that will work out.

Marvel's decision was based off the reception of The Hulk. It didn't work out quite as planned, but the movie was not a terrible failure. They basically hit a double with the movie so they could still save some face.

At the end of the day, I think they should've just not pursued the Hulk at all. I think Ed Norton is a great performer and creator, but he has personality clashes on productions like this. I liked his Banner and everything, but I agree, I don't think audiences really care about the Hulk. You aren't always going to get lightning in a bottle or hit a homerun with everything like Iron Man. But ultimately Marvel did the right thing in focusing everything on Iron Man instead of Hulk.


I disagree... if you are gonna hapass something why do it at all? Simple... greed. C'mon you don't need to reintroduce Hulk for an Avengers movie... now Norton's status is up in the air... and they have to start from scratch again... this time in Avengers. Hulk may not even have a big role especially if Norton is gone.


I think Marvel more than succeeded with the results this year. When people thought Iron Man would get blown out of the water by other competition when it really outperformed just about everything except Dark Knight. In such a crowded summer, Hulk could've done a lot worse. It didn't bomb, so they still have the Hulk under their banner.

You need to stop overplaying Iron Man's success... Nolan's Batman does not green light a JLA movie... and the same must said about Iron Man/Avengers... yet Marvel begs to differ... until another character sticks... the only poster boy Marvel has in Avengers is Stark... and that's not enough for what the movie can potentially be.

In other words, they know what they are doing. The writer is someone the star and director are cool with. The older writers could still take a stab at it or be on set, we don't know. Also, sequel writers change a lot. Hayter was the final screenwriter of X-men, but he was the first one for X2 before Dougherty and Harris who did a good job. Some directors like giving new writers a chance.

Benefit of the doubt post # 132134... again you are free to feel that way... why should everyone else?

I think Theroux is a talented writer. Tropic Thunder was a truly clever, funny, script. It mixed action and comedy better than just about any movie I can recall before. Iron Man 2 needs more than just comedy and I hope Theroux can do that. But he seems to get wit and timing very well.

We'll see.

Marvel deserves credit for actually giving us what we've been begging for for years. An actual cinematic version of the Marvel Universe. Something no one else would even attempt before.

I didn't think it was ever a possibility. So the cameos are a bonus let alone an Avengers movie.


Even if they end up being less than average, I'd probably rather watch what Marvel Studios puts out than the terrible disappointments from 20th Century Fox. Because it's Marvel making these decisions and not dumb Hollywood people that don't know or care about these properties at all and just see them as a quick cash in. To Marvel, these characters are everything to them.



:whatever: There's no fast track. They've been planning to do this for a long time.


Basically repeated what you already said.

And the thing is WB DID try and fast track JL! Before the strike hit they desperately wanted JL as their tentpole for summer 2009! Even before Dark Knight came out. Thank God it didn't work out that way. The thing is WB owns DC comics. There's no DC Studios like Marvel Studios. There's like I think one DC guy who works for WB. This is not even a valid comparison when WB has so many divisions dealing with so many other movies when DC is not their sole priority when at Marvel Studios the movies are their top priority so they can focus on these projects which they've been planning for years.

If you are going to tell me "at the end of the day, Favs was resigned..." then I am going to say the same thing about Miller's JLA... it got cancelled... period. DC/WB has their work cut out for them though... they know that a Nolan third means virtually nothing for the rest of their characters other than money.


It's fine to be skeptical and for wanting them to prove it to you but your arguments are flimsy and illegitimate.

We know what the worse case scenario is. If the movies bomb, then Marvel might lose the film rights to the characters. And I genuinely don't think these movies will bomb as badly as something like Speed Racer.


Well I am not expecting Speed Racer... but people are tired of mediocrity... TDK has raised the bar... meet that bar or rely on the same formulas... it doesn't work forever.

Also, WB basically wants to copy Marvel's model with JL now anyway. But they stumbled with Superman in 2006, and they don't know what the hell to do with that.

One similar stumble and Marvel won't be in the same boat?

Because WB didn't really come up with a plan on how to feasibly do all this like Marvel has/is doing. They tried to do a stupid JL movie with different actors as the same time as the Batman films to try and start franchises and do spin-off solo films. That didn't work. The fans were loud and clear that they did not want that.

It didn't happen... simple as that.

Hey it might be the same for Marvel, but that hasn't happened yet. Once again, cross that bridge when it happens.

Well we know how quickly the fans turn the tables when the slightest thing goes wrong.


I don't recall Penn ever saying that. Right now it looks like they are focusing on Thor and Iron Man 2, so what's the problem?

What you don't seem to understand is that Marvel Studios has been right there as collaborators with all these other movies before. Multiple movies in production coming out each year. Yeah some mixed results. But stop acting like it's impossible.

Well Penn did say that... and of coruse there will always be mixed results... which is why I think Marvel shouldn't be releasing TWO tentpoles every summer. Get one right... then go on the the next. Right now... as this slate stands today... I don't think it can or will be done.


They aren't that young. It's only just recently that they started producing the movies of the properties themselves instead of through other studios/production companies.

They are a young independent movie studio... period.

[rashad]

Look how long it took for Marvel to commit to Favreau for IM2. That's all the evidence you need.

[Tony Stark]

Sorry I'm not going to dump on Marvel for this one. I though Howard did a wonderful job in the movie, but it was Downey who made the movie work, and Downey is going to get a big pay raise. If there were a no. 2 on the list of who made that movie work, it would be Paltrow.

This is no knock on Terrance. He did a phenomenal job, but if he's asking for a boatload of more money, budgets have to be met, and not everyone can get a pay raise. Yes they want a great sequel, but it has to be profitable as well.

[Tony Stark]

Look how long it took for Marvel to commit to Favreau for IM2. That's all the evidence you need.

That wasn't why that happened. It was Favreau who delayed the talks, NOT Marvel. He did so because he felt the film was going to be rushed. He wanted 3 years between films, Marvel wanted two. He wanted three so he could have at least the same amout of time he had to work/prepare for the first film.

[TheVileOne]

It's not much difference if they already have the main cast line-up and a lot of the technical logistical design and stuff like that done. And they are writing it now.

Look the hardest work was establishing the franchise, and they've done that. They did Spider-man 2 two years after Spider-man and that was the best Spider-man movie. Favreau said they came up with the story with multiple parts so they'd know where to go in the sequels.

[Brian Braddock]

Remember the old saying; 'There are two sides to every story'.

It's only natural that Howards going to react by painting the picture of being the victim in all of this given that the word's already out that he was recast because of his excessive financial demands.

Truth is; we may never know the full extent of what's transpired.

[SatEL]

I think what occured here was that Howard and perhaps the other 2 were promised a raise in their pay of the film made a certain amount. And what has occured here is Marvel not coming through on that promise, I am guessing but his talk about the contract has led me to this conclusion.

[Steel]

Most of you guys will see it regardless so stop acting like its a big deal,the batman franchise had different actors and war machine isn't even the main guy.Live with it or don't see the movie.

[Brian Braddock]

^^^Pfft!

I don't think you've been round here long enough to even think about telling other posters what to do.

I suggest you adjust the attitude.

[SatEL]

^^^Pfft!

I don't think you've been round here long enough to even think about telling other posters what to do.

I suggest you adjust the attitude.

Oct 2006, 22 posts.

[Brian Braddock]

Yeah; obviously a poster who makes a really valid contribution to the boards.

:whatever:

[StanLee Wannabe]

I just wish people wouldn't jump on Marvel simply because they're a big, bad company. We'll probably never know the real story. I'm not saying Marvel gets a free pass to act terrible, but you know how these things snowball. If you mess up the relationship between fans and company we'll never have a voice.

[Matt]

It all seems very odd to me. I would assume nothing about Marvel or Howard. It is, what it is. I'm sure Cheadle will do fine just as I am sure there is probably much more to this than we know. Perhaps Favreau will shed some light on this in days to come, though he has never been anything but a total professional, so I doubt he will gossip. Downey Jr., who does not have a tendency to hold his tounge, is more likely to give us some kind of information (if he knows anything).

[DACrowe]

What blind studio loyalty? What rushed factor of Iron Man? They are writing the movie right now. They apparently made a new deal with Favreau. What's the problem?

Also since when did WB recast Katie Holmes for no reason in Dark Knight? For one thing she almost KILLED the first movie. For another, I think they even still wanted her back, but the shoot didn't fit in with her schedule now that she's under control of the scientologists. Rachel was a horrible character anyway and shouldn't have even been in the first movie. In the second movie they killed her off and that was it. Big deal.

Saying that we should not criticize Marvel because they gave us Iron Man with Downey (the only major risk of the movie, but an inspired one) and are making movies more like the comics is showing blind loyalty. Iron Man 2 was announced before Favreau was back and the studio is talking about putting Thor in before Favreau even was signed and sounded skeptical of it. Favreau didn't like the LESS THAN 2 years date, but had no choice but to comply. Supposedly Captain America, Thor and Avengers will all be out within three years, even though none of them have screenwriters or directors.

They moved this briskly on TIH which was extremely formulaic, safe and dumb.

I like Iron Man and eagerly await Iron Man 2, but I don't see why one cannot criticize Marvel when it comes out they fired Howard without even telling him before letting it go to the press.

Anyway, as for Holmes I imagine it was something more than a scheduling conflict, but James Rhodes I think will be a bigger deal in IM2 than Rachel Dawes. As for the character, I never hated her. I think there is some pathological thing among comic fans that they hate anyone who wasn't in the comics or has a vagina. I'm not saying this describes you, but they always want to see any owman in the movie die or be minimalized as much as possible. TDK did both to Rachel, so I'm surprised there is still a great disdain for her character. She was better written (though not nearly as well acted) in BB. I also do not see how the character took away from the movie, albeit the actress may have, but even that I doubt.

[FlawlessVictory]

Saying that we should not criticize Marvel because they gave us Iron Man with Downey (the only major risk of the movie, but an inspired one)

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the inspired choice of RDJ come from Favreau and he had to do a lot of work to convince the studio to sign him?

[Chewy]

I like Iron Man and eagerly await Iron Man 2, but I don't see why one cannot criticize Marvel when it comes out they fired Howard without even telling him before letting it go to the press.
That's not what Howard said, he didn't even imply that. He just called it a surprise that his contract vanished and said he read it was a money issue in the trades.

There's obviously more to this than what we've been told.

[Raiden]

Favreau has always been very opened about IM in his MySpace page, but he's been surprisingly silent about Howard's dismissal. Is it because Marvel forced him to make this replacement? And as fans, can we demand to make Marvel bring Howard back? IM2 hasn't started yet so I hope we can force them to reverse this decision before it's too late.

[ABongHalloween]

this all makes Howards "Next time baby" line SO much funnier

[Marvin]

just like fav's howard wanted more money, due to the mega success, the studio ain't having it and most likely like fav's they don't see any thing out side of RDJ as essential to the profit margin of Iron Man 2

my $0.2

[Angel_Faerie]

And as fans, can we demand to make Marvel bring Howard back? IM2 hasn't started yet so I hope we can force them to reverse this decision before it's too late.

I was thinking something similar.

[FaT_tONle]

You guys need to forget about Howard... move on already.

[Stringer]

Howard will be fine, IM2 will be fine, its better just to move on.

[UA-Archangel]

just like fav's howard wanted more money, due to the mega success, the studio ain't having it and most likely like fav's they don't see any thing out side of RDJ as essential to the profit margin of Iron Man 2

my $0.2

Is it really 20 cents now for one's thoughts?

Are most people really worth 20 cents these days?

Just askin.

[dark_b]

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the inspired choice of RDJ come from Favreau and he had to do a lot of work to convince the studio to sign him?correct. he had to fight for him.

[dark_b]

just like fav's howard wanted more money, due to the mega success, the studio ain't having it and most likely like fav's they don't see any thing out side of RDJ as essential to the profit margin of Iron Man 2

my $0.2if marvel thins that only RDJ is the oen why IM made a lot of profit then they are lost.

[Retroman]

^^Good point.

It's great to have an actor like Don Cheadle (though i'm not sure if he'd make a good Rhodey) in the cast but i'm very disappointed that Terrence Howard is no longer a part of the franchise.:csad: The news has caught me completly by surprise so i'm very curious what really happened. Favreau and Marvel approached Howard (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24037) for the Rhodes role months before they even got RDJ as Stark so something serious must have happened for them to part ways like this.

There has been talk of expanding Rhodey and War Machine's role in the sequels and rumors that he might possibly appear in Avengers and maybe even his very own spinoff film (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=311055). Maybe Terrence was promised a cut of the merchandise from War Marchine toys and games?:huh: There could be a ton of reasons. Whoever is to blame it doesn't shine a good light on Marvel who've had 'problems' in the past with Favreau, Norton and now Howard.

[strikezone89]

There are two sides to every story... no way are you signing an actor like Cheadle if Howard was affordable for Marvel's standards... use some sense people. Howard overpriced himself... that's all there is too it.
yeah..... had they cast some unknown to replace howard. then i would take howards side but i mean it's no secret that chedle is a better actor than howard IMO. but howard did play Rhodes the way Rhodes should have been played in IM. Well just see i do remember there being a lot of hater to Heath Ledger being cast as the joker for tdk and now at tdk now.

[Marvin]

if marvel thins that only RDJ is the oen why IM made a lot of profit then they are lost.


they're not thinking that

they're thinking he's the only thing needed to ensure the success of the sequel.

similar to the aliens situation.

in the studios mind, fav and howard were good, but they're not really what grabbed hold of the audience and more importantly, considering what they're probubly asking for(now that it's a hit) there are alternatives

my 20 cents:cwink:

[TNC9852002]

I really don't see how this was about money. If it was, they would've gotten someone a LOT less cheaper than Cheadle and besides, this is Iron Man, the second biggest movie of 2008, right? I'm sure they had plenty of money to bring Howard back.

-TNC

[Zephyr Alexian]

I just watched IM last night again. I hadn't seen it since its theatrical run.

:( Howard was Rhodey. :csad:

It's a shame he's no longer James. If Jim no longer officially works for the military in the sequel, then maybe Don will translate, but as seamless as his ability is to fit into a lot of different roles, "military" personnel just doesn't feel like one of them. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

Was Chiwetel Ejiofor busy?:o

Michael Jai White?:o

I'd even fractionally believe in Derek Luke.:o

[I SEE SPIDEY]

They already cast the role so it's silly to keep bringing up names.

[hatebox]

if marvel thins that only RDJ is the oen why IM made a lot of profit then they are lost.

Well let's be realistic, nobody flocked to see the supporting cast...

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think that people went to see the movie because it was a cool looking Superhero movie about a guy in a cool looking robot suit.

[SymbioteKal-El]

Dont know who to believe in this debate, plenty of actors in the past have believed they are worth more than they actually are, and on other hand Marvel's troubles with Norton and Favreau could point to the blame lying with them.

Either way, what has happened has happened and we cant change it.

[TheVileOne]

DACrowe all that's from the perspective of just Howard and assuming all of that is 100% the truth.

[Spider-Fan]

There is a lot more to this story than what has been said, and we won't be given all the behind the scenes stuff. But, Howard I will say is likely at least partially at fault. He did nothing as Rhodey in IM, so not a huge loss IMO. Goodbye. I'm willing to give Cheadle a chance, though to the naked eye not a great pick.

As for Marvel's tentpole, I have debated this endlessly with FaT tONle, and I will summarize by saying IM2 and Thor make 2010 and Cap is probably the only 2011 movie by Marvel. I see Avengers getting moved due to 2011's competition shape up. However, Marvel wasn't arrogant in making this tentpole. They have been working on these for a while, and Cap even has pre-production stuff done already. Thor is now getting underway (new director and since Craig turned Thor down, looks like casting is going on). IM2 is being worked on, and Favs said this was planned 3 movies from the get-go. Not rushed. Why do we love the 3 movie gap so much? SM2- 2 year gap, SM3- 3 year gap. Which was better?

As for what Marvel has post Avengers. Depending upon BO, you may get Thor 2, Cap 2, IM3, Avengers 2, etc. They also are now planning for Dr. Strange (great decision), and they still have the likes of Namor (whom I'd love to see as the villain in Avengers), Black Panther, many other smaller projects, and possibly FF if the contract expires.

My point is Marvel has plenty of options, and even if they only had Avengers related characters, I still think that is good enough. I think Thor makes TIH #'s sadly, but Cap I easily see being IM big. IM2 is money in the bank, and so is likely Avengers.

I won't say Marvel is in the right all the time. They do appear to have screwed Norton and do seem a little cheap, but I am not willing to give Howard the benefit of the doubt on this. I'm not blindly loyal to Marvel's plan. I think Avengers will be a generic movie in actualality (they form and fight Hulk in first 1/3, they get real threat and focus on that next 2/3, likely Skrulls and it being Ultimates light). However, Thor and Cap I am really pumped for. Excited for IM2 also, but more so Thor & Cap.

[FaT_tONle]

I don't know how we got on this topic again but I guess I'll add my .02 cents... more like 2000.00 $ the amount of times I have commented on this... but I don't have a problem with IM2 in 2010 as I already said. We pretty much agree on everything... but as far as War Machine... Cheadle doesn't seem like the best pick but he's a name... and that helps. I don't know if we'll get WM in IM2... we probably will... because I don't think they will save WM for Avengers or IM3. Something to think about with Avengers... if it does indeed get pushed back... that means IM3 MIGHT be in jeapordy. RDJ isn't getting any younger and you wonder if he'd be back for yet another film. That's why I think they will try to cram as much as possible in IM2... including possibly Mandarin as the featured villain. Not ruling that out one bit. And as far as the other characters... I don't seem them being franchises... and Dr. Strange/Namor are C-listers... Marvel really doesn't have much outside Avengers... they'd be foolish rushing and hapassing it... btw you really want Skrulls for the first film Spider-Fan?

[Spider-Fan]

I don't know how we got on this topic again but I guess I'll add my .02 cents... more like 2000.00 $ the amount of times I have commented on this... but I don't have a problem with IM2 in 2010 as I already said. We pretty much agree on everything... but as far as War Machine... Cheadle doesn't seem like the best pick but he's a name... and that helps. I don't know if we'll get WM in IM2... we probably will... because I don't think they will save WM for Avengers or IM3. Something to think about with Avengers... if it does indeed get pushed back... that means IM3 MIGHT be in jeapordy. RDJ isn't getting any younger and you wonder if he'd be back for yet another film. That's why I think they will try to cram as much as possible in IM2... including possibly Mandarin as the featured villain. Not ruling that out one bit. And as far as the other characters... I don't seem them being franchises... and Dr. Strange/Namor are C-listers... Marvel really doesn't have much outside Avengers... they'd be foolish rushing and hapassing it... btw you really want Skrulls for the first film Spider-Fan?

No, but that is what I think we're going to get. My personal choice at this moment is Namor. I think that would be an interesting choice. Especially if he teamed with the Hulk (as the two have been wronged by the land dwellers).

I see IM3 getting made regardless, since IM was so huge, that is the franchise I am sure Marvel will do all they can to keep going. However, I think that puts Stark's status in Avengers 2 in jeopardy.

Dr. Strange has a ton of cinematic potential. His world of magic is visually interesting, he has a sellable origin, and and I see the movie doing well. IM well? No, but I think it could be bigger than TIH easily.

[FaT_tONle]

I don't see Skrulls... I am down with the original Avenger origin for the film.. but even though I like Namor I don't see him making the cut. I don't think a guy like Namor would appeal on the level of a Silver Surfer for example. It would just come across as a random underwater dude to general audiences because I doubt people are familiar with him. I think they have to do more than just Loki/Namor/Hulk... now if Namor was introduced in a previous film then it could work.

Maybe just start (or end the Cap movie) the Avengers movie with a bunch of sea creatures worshipping Cap's frozen body... like the after the credit scene in POTC: DMC... that isn't a formal introduction though.

[Spider-Fan]

I don't see Skrulls... I am down with the original Avenger origin for the film.. but even though I like Namor I don't see him making the cut. I don't think a guy like Namor would appeal on the level of a Silver Surfer for example. It would just come across as a random underwater dude to general audiences because I doubt people are familiar with him. I think they have to do more than just Loki/Namor/Hulk... now if Namor was introduced in a previous film then it could work.

Maybe just start (or end the Cap movie) the Avengers movie with a bunch of sea creatures worshipping Cap's frozen body... like the after the credit scene in POTC: DMC... that isn't a formal introduction though.

I think Namor gives us a credible threat that is not a rehash of another villain. Plus, Atlantis would appear in the movie :up:

Having Namor remember Cap due to seeing him frozen would be interesting too.

[FaT_tONle]

Meh... Avengers is packed as it is... we wouldn't have time to get into Namor's whole story.... unless they were trying to get him on the team or something. Who knows... we already have Hulk for the anti-hero... if Hulk is not in the film then by all means go for it. Namor should be featured in a FF movie or his own movie before Avengers though.

[LadyLane]

For all those who want Howard back as Rhodey, I (with the help of my friend) start up a campaign devoted to just that. You can visit the site and see how to contribute here:

http://www.freewebs.com/saverhodey/

[Kmack]

That's kinda screwed up, I was actually looking forward to his return:(
On a positive note, they did find an awesome replacement:up:

[Blade X]

I heard on the radio Wednesday morning that Howard MIGHT NOT be out as Rhodes/War Machine for IM2. According to the Ed Lover morning show, Marvel has released a statement saying that they have NOT made a decision one way or the other about who will play Jim Rhodes. They said the story about Howard being replaced by Cheadle came from the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER and NOT them. They said no contracts have been completed and/or signed yet.

[Angel_Faerie]

I heard on the radio Wednesday morning that Howard MIGHT NOT be out as Rhodes/War Machine for IM2. According to the Ed Lover morning show, Marvel has released a statement saying that they have NOT made a decision one way or the other about who will play Jim Rhodes. They said the story about Howard being replaced by Cheadle came from the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER and NOT them. They said no contracts have been completed and/or signed yet.

The plot thickens...

[zmystico]

I heard on the radio Wednesday morning that Howard MIGHT NOT be out as Rhodes/War Machine for IM2. According to the Ed Lover morning show, Marvel has released a statement saying that they have NOT made a decision one way or the other about who will play Jim Rhodes. They said the story about Howard being replaced by Cheadle came from the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER and NOT them. They said no contracts have been completed and/or signed yet.

Let's hope that is the case, and Howard DOES return. I'll be the first to admit that in certain scenes in IM, Howard's voice sounded very feminine (the award banquet mostly), but for most of the film it seemed fine. He does have the look of Jim Rhodes, and as far as Cheadle being a better actor, I'd have to disagree, I think Cheadle is a better dramatic actor, but Howard is nothing to scoff at. He can pull off a convincing good or bad guy.

As far as recastings go, its not always a bad idea, most people I talked to hated Katie Holmes in Batman Begins, also in large part due to the annoyance of her character, but Maggie did a BANG UP job. I haven't seen TIH yet, but if I had to bet, I would say Norton probably did a better job then Eric Banna. IM has a really good shot of being a good franchise, and if handled properly, War Machine is popular enough to get his own film...but you have to have consistency with his part.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well its official, Howard isnt returning, watching Iron Man tonight this has me bummed because he did more than a good enough job and had some good scene's left on the cutting room floor also. Cheadle is great actor, but he just doesnt convince me as Rhodey like Howard does. Howard convinced me before I even saw him playing the part. Damn shame, and no explanation from Marvel doesnt help either.

Also if they were dead set on replacing Howard, wouldnt Jamie Foxx have been a much better fit and choice? He looks a LOT more like Howard than Cheadle does also.

[Downhere]

That news sucks about Howard not returning. I like Cheadle and all, but not for this role.

[FlawlessVictory]

Found this on LatinoReview :hehe:

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/howardinironman2

Edit: LR has nothing to do with that petition, they just happened to come across it themselves.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/FlawlessVictory_photos/IM2WM.jpg

[Chewy]

I like how the guy who made that site didn't even spell Favreau's name right :woot:

[Timstuff]

I wasn't really into Iron Man before I saw the movie (I was a DC kid), so for me Howard really defined who Rhodey is. I don't really have any attachment to the character outside of his performance as him, so seeing someone else playing the role is going to be just plain jarring. I really liked Howard and I thought he brought something really special to the movie, but I guess that in Marvel's mind the only thing that matters is keeping RDJ on board. :cmad:

[zmystico]

strike one for IM:2 :(

[Blackheart]

No offense to Don Cheadle (great actor), but I totally felt and believed Terrence captured Rhodes to a tee. And I really wanted to see him become War Machine. Now I'm not looking forward that much to the sequel. Damn it all to Hell!

[Matt]

Someone said earlier that is could have to do with spin-offs and I think they may be onto something. Perhaps Marvel is more confident that Don Cheadle can carry a movie than Howard.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I dont see how, Cheadle has been in more movies but it is rare he has carried one himself, same with Howard really, so both are in the same position when it comes to carrying a movie IMO. That said, I really thought Howard nailed the role and am still unhappy they got rid of him.

[ANTOINE X]

I would also prefer Howard but Cheadle is also good . He has a small body. He need to beef up a little.

As for Marvel they need to clean this mess by rehiring Terrence. I mean they made a freaking 300M for this movie this summer, its not like they can't afford Howard? Also it will look more like a reboot than a sequel if they take Cheadle.They are taking a unnecessary risk.

[Spider-Fan]

I would also prefer Howard but Cheadle is also good . He has a small body. He need to beef up a little.

As for Marvel they need to clean this mess by rehiring Terrence. I mean they made a freaking 300M for this movie this summer, its not like they can't afford Howard? Also it will look more like a reboot than a sequel if they take Cheadle.They are taking a unnecessary risk.

Holmes was fired from TDK and no one cared. No one will miss Howard other than nerds. RDJ is really the only essential keeper.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Holmes was fired from TDK and no one cared. No one will miss Howard other than nerds. RDJ is really the only essential keeper.Exactly.

[ANTOINE X]

Holmes was fired from TDK and no one cared. No one will miss Howard other than nerds. RDJ is really the only essential keeper.

:huh:
There is absolutely no comparison with Holmes and Howard. Holmes f*** UP her batman career her self and Howard didnt do anything wrong.

[Chewy]

:huh:
There is absolutely no comparison with Holmes and Howard. Holmes f*** UP her batman career her self and Howard didnt do anything wrong.
That's quite the assumption

[ANTOINE X]

That's quite the assumption

If he is too expensive thats not his fault.

[Chewy]

If he is too expensive thats not his fault.
And if he's difficult to work with, is that his fault?

You're jumping to some conclusions here when we have no idea what actually happened and we probably never will. The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, Marvel didn't want Howard back and he isn't coming back. And no one will care when trailers and promotional photos start to come out.

[ANTOINE X]

And if he's difficult to work with, is that his fault?

You're jumping to some conclusions here when we have no idea what actually happened and we probably never will. The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, Marvel didn't want Howard back and he isn't coming back. And no one will care when trailers and promotional photos start to come out.


Well first I never said that Howard was irreplaceable. And I think Don can do a good work. But there s also the fact that you get use to the actors especially when the movie goes well. Now I heard some thing like favreau was unhappy with Terrence work. I looked Iron man movie and so far I don`t see what he did wrong. With the role he was offred there was nothing really he could have done better. The focus was on Robert Downey Jr not Terrence. If they think they pay him too much in the first thats their problem not his.

[Spider-Fan]

:huh:
There is absolutely no comparison with Holmes and Howard. Holmes f*** UP her batman career her self and Howard didnt do anything wrong.

Rachel was more vital to BB than Rhodey was to IM. But, she was replaced and no one even blinked. Howard is not a mega star, nor was the character of Rhodey so unforgettably awesome in IM. Replacing him won't hurt the movie's BO take, so there is really no financial risk on Marvel's part in doing this. Only people paying attention to this story are people like you and me. The people who will pay to see it regardless. The average joe is not caught up in this and is uneffected by it.

IM2 will be fine.

[ANTOINE X]

Rachel was more vital to BB than Rhodey was to IM. But, she was replaced and no one even blinked. Howard is not a mega star, nor was the character of Rhodey so unforgettably awesome in IM. Replacing him won't hurt the movie's BO take, so there is really no financial risk on Marvel's part in doing this. Only people paying attention to this story are people like you and me. The people who will pay to see it regardless. The average joe is not caught up in this and is uneffected by it.

IM2 will be fine.

People didn`t blink about Holmes because the person who will replace her will do the exact same role But Don will be the main villain in IM2 which was suppose to be Terrence who was a good guy in IM. So you have a different person doing a different role for the same character. It s a bit confusing when you think about it.

I`m skeptical about Favreau saying that Terence is difficult to work with. When things go well you don`t suddenly fire someone because he has an attitude usely its something more serious like money.

[Spider-Fan]

People didn`t blink about Holmes because the person who will replace her will do the exact same role But Don will be the main villain in IM2 which was suppose to be Terrence who was a good guy in IM. So you have a different person doing a different role for the same character. It s a bit confusing when you think about it.

I`m skeptical about Favreau saying that Terence is difficult to work with. When things go well you don`t suddenly fire someone because he has an attitude usely its something more serious like money.

Rhodey is likely going to be War Machine, yes. Who said anything about him being a villain :huh:

[Ironfan72]

There seems to be this mis-perception that War Machine was a villian, yes Iron Man and War Machine did fight years ago, Stark had faked his own death without telling Jim, so Jim was given control of Stark Enterprises in Tony's will, while Jim ran Stark Enterprises Jim as continued the Iron Man legacy in the War Machine armor.
When Tony came back, Jim felt betrayed by Tony and he had a falling out with Stark, Tony went after him to get the War Machine armor back and they had a 2 issue battle in Iron Man and War Machine titles, from that people assume War Machine was a villian. that is not true.

[Spider-Fan]

There seems to be this mis-perception that War Machine was a villian, yes Iron Man and War Machine did fight years ago, Stark had faked his own death without telling Jim, so Jim was given control of Stark Enterprises in Tony's will, while Jim ran Stark Enterprises Jim as continued the Iron Man legacy in the War Machine armor.
When Tony came back, Jim felt betrayed by Tony and he had a falling out with Stark, Tony went after him to get the War Machine armor back and they had a 2 issue battle in Iron Man and War Machine titles, from that people assume War Machine was a villian. that is not true.

I know War Machine is not a villain. Besides, didn't Favs hint that we may get a female villain in IM2?

[Ironfan72]

I know War Machine is not a villain. Besides, didn't Favs hint that we may get a female villain in IM2?

Sorry if it sounded like I was giving you a hard time,lol, I could have worded it better. I was essentially addressing the War Machine villian myth. Posters have been saying they want Iron Man vs. War Machine since before the villian was announced for the first film.

[ANTOINE X]

I was saying the word villain as for "vs Iron man" and I was not aware that Madame mask would be In Iron man2. Where did you get that info?

[Ironfan72]

Madam Masque is a possiblity, due to the resent casting call looking for a European woman lead, could be either Madam Masque or Black widow.

[LightningFlash]

Howard is going to be touring for his CD anyways...another reason of why Cheadle is the new Rhodey.

[batman44]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/938/938949p1.html

Cheadle speaks about getting the role.

[Bloodwynd]

I don't think Howard was difficult to work with at all...I think that was an excuse used to cover up the fact that he's too expensive for Marvel. They stuck their own foot in their own mouth when they offered him the money. It's not like he demanded anything. They came to him & offered him the money, and then decided to give us a crappy excuse about him not performing well, and then get Cheadle. Big mistake.

[Chewy]

Definitely. The big bad producers are stepping on the little helpless actor once again. There's only one side to this story.

:whatever:

[Bloodwynd]

I never said there was only one side of the story or that Howard is an angel, just that MS is largely in the wrong here.

[Chewy]

Based on.............? Howard's words? Your assumptions?


We know next to nothing about what actually went on. Give me a break. The studio wasn't happy with some aspect of Howard, and they moved on. It happens every day in the business, and it will not affect this movie in the slightest. Cheadle is a better actor, and the people who care about this change are the ones who are going to see this movie anyway.

[Bloodwynd]

Cheadle...a better actor? Lol, with that comment, I think I'm done talking about this with you for now..

Lol

[Infinity9999x]

]I don't think Howard was difficult to work with at all...I think that was an excuse used to cover up the fact that he's too expensive for Marvel.[/B] They stuck their own foot in their own mouth when they offered him the money. It's not like he demanded anything. They came to him & offered him the money, and then decided to give us a crappy excuse about him not performing well, and then get Cheadle. Big mistake.


And you are basing this off what? It's just your opinion, you have absolutely no evidence to back this up. None of us know what happened, but I'm going to be more disposed to believe the word of someone who was actually there during filming then someone who has no connection to it at all.

And what's so bad about Cheadle? The guy's an oscar nominated actor, and he's versatile as hell. He can play a huge variety of roles. Watch him in Oceans 11, then Hotel Rwanda, and then Talk to Me. Each character is vastly different from the other. It's not like Howard is leaps and bounds ahead of him, if he's ahead of him at all. Howard only has one Oscar nom, just like Cheadle. Howard's a good actor too, but it's not like he's a five time Oscar Winner with years of more experience and credibility. Cheadle's a good actor, he'll do fine.

[smooth3006]

Cheadle...a better actor? Lol


whats so funny, he is a better actor.

[ANTOINE X]

They re both good actors but don't have the same style. I would prefer Terrence Howard to come back.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Definately, while Cheadle is a good actor, he just doesnt fit Rhodey as a character as much as Terence does, and Terence is a good actor also. I just wish we knew the genuine reason this happened, but, and this is just my opinion, Marvel seem more in the wrong to me.

[SurfDUI]

Some w/ opinions don't know Cheadle like 'we...I, ME & U' know Donnie's work.
D.C. has waaayyy more range than Hazel- He plays a better second bananna like in Devil in a Blue Dress. He can play deep, like when he had to hide in his dead mommas caskett:csad:. After Traffic he can do what he want's. I can't wait.

Forget sweet faced Terance-All I need for him to do is be ready when the 'Charlie Pride' biopic starts filming.

CHEADLE, CHEADLE!:im:

[Hypestyle]

Say, anyone notice that Howard, Cheadle, Downey and Rourke were all at the Golden Globes? Wonder if it was awkward at all backstage..

[Leenie]

Rachel was more vital to BB than Rhodey was to IM. But, she was replaced and no one even blinked. Howard is not a mega star, nor was the character of Rhodey so unforgettably awesome in IM. Replacing him won't hurt the movie's BO take, so there is really no financial risk on Marvel's part in doing this. Only people paying attention to this story are people like you and me. The people who will pay to see it regardless. The average joe is not caught up in this and is uneffected by it.

IM2 will be fine.

The difference between Katie Holmes and Terrence Howard, in my opinion, is that Terrence Howard actually had chemistry with the lead role and was a likable character. When Maggie Gyllenhaal replaced Katie Holmes, I didn't really care ... And while Gyllenhaal was the better actress in the end, I still couldn't stand the Rachel Dawes character, so it didn't matter to me.

Now, I'm not saying that Don Cheadle is going to suck because he replaced Howard. I'm just saying that it's going to be difficult to duplicate the chemistry that RDJ and Howard had in Iron Man 1.

With that said, I do like Don Cheadle. I think he's a good actor. I'm just not sure if he's the right person to play War Machine. I'll give him a fair chance though, because I really want this recasting to be a success. :)

I do agree with you about money, though. Iron Man 2's box office success shouldn't (and won't) be determined by the recasting of Rhodey.

[Octoberist]

Say, anyone notice that Howard, Cheadle, Downey and Rourke were all at the Golden Globes? Wonder if it was awkward at all backstage..

I wanted them to fistfight damnit!

[ANTOINE X]

Based on.............? Howard's words? Your assumptions?


We know next to nothing about what actually went on. Give me a break. The studio wasn't happy with some aspect of Howard, and they moved on. It happens every day in the business, and it will not affect this movie in the slightest. Cheadle is a better actor, and the people who care about this change are the ones who are going to see this movie anyway.


Now that Samuel can't do Nick Fury for a money reason cause Marvel is in recession. I think it tell s you that Howard was right! It s a money issue. The things that he was difficult to work with is crap! You don't do that when a movie is making 300$ It s got to be more than attitude problem trust me.

[LostSon88]

Howard wasn't fired...HE QUIT! :whatever:


Howard Can't Get His Story Straight About Iron Man Sequel


Actor Terrence Howard (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005024/) has left fans confused about his departure from the Iron Man (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/) sequel after talking about the shock of hearing he had been replaced in one radio interview while explaining he quit the film in a magazine chat. Speaking to National Public Radio in America last year, the Hustle & Flow star revealed it was "the surprise of a lifetime" when he learned Don Cheadle (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000332/) would be replacing him in Iron Man 2 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228705/).
He added, "There was no explanation... I read something in the trades implicating that it was about money or something, but apparently the contracts that we write and sign aren't worth the paper that they're printed on, sometimes.
"Promises aren't kept, and good faith negotiations aren't always held up."

But in a new Ebony magazine article, which hit the streets on Thursday, Howard suggests he walked away from the film after taking advice from his friend Will Smith (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000226/).



Howard says, "I was simply on the wrong path with that movie."
Cheadle will take over the role of Jim Rhodes in the 2010 sequel.


http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0670658/

Apparently to Smith and Howard an expanded role in a blockbuster film franchise is career suicide. :o

[StylishHokie21]

If that's true, I've lost respect for him and Will Smith.

[Iron_Stark]

Well Will Smith did turn down the role of Neo in the Matrix to do Wild Wild West. :hehe:

[TheVileOne]

Maybe there is some merit about Howard having been hard to work with.

[StylishHokie21]

Well Will Smith did turn down the role of Neo in the Matrix to do Wild Wild West. :hehe:

I forgot about that. :hehe:

[Brian Braddock]

Didnt Connery turned down Morpheous?

I know he turned down Gandalf.

:D

[Iron_Stark]

Didnt Connery turned down Morpheous?

I know he turned down Gandalf.

:D

Yep, that's why he took the League for Extraordinary Gentlemen.

[FlawlessVictory]

Howard says, "I was simply on the wrong path with that movie."

LOL, ridiculous. Wrong path? You mean the path in a franchise where the first film was a box office and critical hit?

He's just trying to save face now but he would have been better off sticking to what he originally said. At least then he was getting some sympathy. Now he just comes off sounding like an idiot.

[fu manchu]

So, basically he quit because he didn't want to be known as Rhodey for a good part of his career. Damn, there could be much worse things to known as. and Rhodey would be awesome to be remember as. Now I am glad that Cheadle is on board.



Damn, now everytime I watch Iron Man and Howard says, "Next time, baby!"...I'll shout out "No you won't, quitter!"

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Why are some people on this thread blaming Will Smith for what a grown ass man did?

I don't believe anything Howard says.

[fu manchu]

Apparently, an advice from Will Smith convinced him to quit playing Rhodey - thats why. and how can u turn down an advice from one of the biggest film star today

[powerbomb1411]

RE: Matrix vs Wild Wild West

Looking at the cast members from either movies. I can't really think of anyone that had a giant career boost from those respective movies.

[Chris B]

I'm not really reading to much into Howard's claim. Likely just trying to save face.

But does anyone else wonder, when they decided to replace Howard, how much input Favreau had in the choice of Cheadle? Maybe he was always his personal choice for Rhodes?

[SurfDUI]

"next time baby, next time baby":oldrazz: uhhh.. NO IT WON'T
Folks act like they feelins was hurt when they first found out he wouldn't be in the next one...then everybody was the bad guy EXCEPT that hazel eyed chump. NOW come find out there were parts of the story that changed, like others said.

:word:

[drax]

Too bad, he is a big boy, he don't need Will Smith for advice for his career (specially a bad advice), I really don't like the change casting.

[BenReilly19]

Terrence Howard talks about his departure from the franchise:

http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/iron-mans-terrence-howard.php

Iron Man's Terrence Howard speaks out about how he got recast

When the first Iron Man movie was in production, Terrence Howard talked about a three-picture arc for his character, James "Rhodey" Rhodes. The film even set up Rhodey's War Machine action in the sequel, when he looked longingly at the Mark II suit and said, "Next time." Then, in October, Marvel announced that Don Cheadle would be filling in the role Howard originated in the sequel.

In the time since that surprising casting news, Marvel has reportedly had troubled in casting negotiations with Samuel L. Jackson (as Nick Fury) and Mickey Rourke (as Whiplash) and has had to replace Emily Blunt with Scarlett Johansson (as Black Widow). Now, with Iron Man 2 going into production without him, Howard spoke frankly about Marvel's decision.

Howard spoke with a group of reporters on Saturday in Beverly Hills, Calif., where he was promoting the action drama Fighting. The following Q&A features edited excerpts of that interview.

We were really looking forward to you continuing in Iron Man 2 and 3. What happened?

Howard: Iron Man happened with that. Marvel happened with it. They made a choice. They made a very, very bad choice. They didn't keep their word. They didn't honor our contract. They sent everyone out into a field and told them to work and produce a great bounty. You produce a great bounty, and then when it's all in the storehouse, you are not allowed into the storehouse.

Does that have anything to do with what went on with Samuel L. Jackson and Nick Fury?

Howard: They did the same thing with Gwyneth [Paltrow], from what I've been told. They did it with almost everyone, I think, except Downey throughout the thing. One of the things that actors need to learn to do is take a tip from Friends [whose cast members all held out for higher pay]. You always choose to stick together. One for all and all for one. Our Gang, you know? Let Spanky be our rule.

Does that teach you a lesson about Hollywood politics?

Howard: Yeah, make sure your Ts are crossed twice.

Aren't you dangerous to them now, since you know the plans for the trilogy?

Howard: Nah, when someone does something wrong, you don't have to get them back. Everything right will return the favor for you.

Will you be eagerly awaiting Iron Man 2 in theaters?

Howard: Yeah, I'm definitely looking forward to it. I want to see what happens with that. I want to see Don Cheadle become me. I want him to do better than me. That's what I really want to see. I think he can. Don Cheadle is the reason I got on Crash. He was one of the producers on Crash, and he called and got me in there. So it's like Don is good by me, anything he does. He's given me the greatest gift I could ever imagine having. Don gave me that, so anything I have, I'll share with him.

[Chewy]

I want to see Don Cheadle become me
:lmao:

[Aesop Rocks]

If I remember correctly wasn't Jon F not satisfied with his overall performance?

[Kirk 1701]

Terrence Howard talks about his departure from the franchise:

http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/iron-mans-terrence-howard.php

I still feel that Terrence Howard needs to sue Jon Favreau and Marvel Entertainment for breach of contract. He could sue and bring the production of Iron Man II to a halt. That's what I would do, but that's his choice.


:im::im::im::im:

[Ironfan72]

Sounds like sour grapes abit, Favreau has said in the past that they weren't happy with Terrence's performance, having to do multiple retakes and finally cutting alot of his screen time, he was the highest paid actor and had the least amount of screen time.
Now, that said, I enjoyed Terrence as Rhody, but understand these things happen and now Cheadle is Rhody and he is very much a talented actor and will do fine as Rhodes, will it be weird, sure at first, but I can get over it very quickly.

[FlawlessVictory]

If I remember correctly wasn't Jon F not satisfied with his overall performance?

Sounds like sour grapes abit, Favreau has said in the past that they weren't happy with Terrence's performance, having to do multiple retakes and finally cutting alot of his screen time, he was the highest paid actor and had the least amount of screen time.

Let's get something straight here. There are NO quotes that exist of Favreau actually saying this. All we have are websites that have reported this. If someone can point me to a direct quote of Favreau saying this, I would love to read it. Otherwise, call me skeptical over that piece of information.

As for the article, it was nice to read how gracious Howard was towards Cheadle. I would definitely prefer Howard though but obviously that ship has sailed.

[November Rain]

I don't know what to make of this all.

I don't think we'll ever get the truth out of this.

terrence and downey did have genuine chemistry though.

I thought the whole idea of the marvel universe was to establish actors as certain roles nd keep overlapping continuity.

for the sake of the dream, i would at least try to keep everyone on the original team happy.

iron man could have easiily been a fluke, its sucess is not guaranteed and i think the studio is taking it for granted.

[Kirk 1701]

Terrence Howard talks about his departure from the franchise:

http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/iron-mans-terrence-howard.php

I think Terrence Howard is giving way too much credit to Don Cheadle, but I could be wrong.


:bh::bh::bh:

[The Major]

iron man could have easiily been a fluke, its sucess is not guaranteed and i think the studio is taking it for granted.
They're not taking it for granted. Howard isn't getting replaced by a untested actor, it's Don Cheatle. He'll make a fine Rhodey.

[kedrell]

I still feel that Terrence Howard needs to sue Jon Favreau and Marvel Entertainment for breach of contract. He could sue and bring the production of Iron Man II to a halt. That's what I would do, but that's his choice.


:im::im::im::im:

How's he supposed to sue them? Do you have a copy of the contract he signed? As I understand it studios usuallykeep a clause or two in the contracts that allow them to drop actors if they are unsatisfied. Clearly they were with Howard, whether due to his performance or just his price, we may never know for sure.

[Chewy]

Let's get something straight here. There are NO quotes that exist of Favreau actually saying this. All we have are websites that have reported this. If someone can point me to a direct quote of Favreau saying this, I would love to read it. Otherwise, call me skeptical over that piece of information.

As for the article, it was nice to read how gracious Howard was towards Cheadle. I would definitely prefer Howard though but obviously that ship has sailed.
There won't ever be quotes like that from Favs, whether it's true or not. He seems like a very professional guy, and it would be incredibly disrespectful of Howard to go on record with something like that

[marcvader]

From all accounts Favreau is a stand up guy. I would never expect him to be classless.

[powerbomb1411]

Does that have anything to do with what went on with Samuel L. Jackson and Nick Fury?

Howard: They did the same thing with Gwyneth [Paltrow], from what I've been told. They did it with almost everyone, I think, except Downey throughout the thing. One of the things that actors need to learn to do is take a tip from Friends [whose cast members all held out for higher pay]. You always choose to stick together. One for all and all for one. Our Gang, you know? Let Spanky be our rule.


See, now after reading this, I am seeing Howard as the bad guy. I understand it's their job to act. But it doesn't mean most of Hollywood is over paid in general. I don't feel the least bit sorry for a lot of these guys getting their massive paychecks. And I feel the same way with people in pro sports. Job or not, you can still be over paid. Maybe they're just in the wrong business. Sticking together for higher paychecks. You worked your a$$ off to get their because you enjoyed the job.

[Kirk 1701]

See, now after reading this, I am seeing Howard as the bad guy. I understand it's their job to act. But it doesn't mean most of Hollywood is over paid in general. I don't feel the least bit sorry for a lot of these guys getting their massive paychecks. And I feel the same way with people in pro sports. Job or not, you can still be over paid. Maybe they're just in the wrong business. Sticking together for higher paychecks. You worked your a$$ off to get their because you enjoyed the job.

What world are you living in? Everyone hates their job. People only work to survive, put a roof over their family's head, and put food on the table. If I had Bill Gates income, do you think I would ever work again. Hell no.


:im::im::im::im:

[Kirk 1701]

How's he supposed to sue them? Do you have a copy of the contract he signed? As I understand it studios usuallykeep a clause or two in the contracts that allow them to drop actors if they are unsatisfied. Clearly they were with Howard, whether due to his performance or just his price, we may never know for sure.


You do have a point and I'm not saying you are wrong. Why would Marvel sign Howard to a three picture deal and then fire him? It makes no sense!

:im::im::im::im:

[sdc10]

You do have a point and I'm not saying you are wrong. Why would Marvel sign Howard to a three picture deal and then fire him? It makes no sense!

:im::im::im::im:

Its become common practice for studios to sign actors to sequel deals just in case the movie does become popular and they green light a sequel. Howard was fired because a) he was payed more than any other actor and b) they were not happy with his performance. As a result they felt he was not worth the cash they were paying him so they let him go.

[kedrell]

You do have a point and I'm not saying you are wrong. Why would Marvel sign Howard to a three picture deal and then fire him? It makes no sense!

There are many kinds of contracts. I'll bet dollar to donuts that Marvel simply optioned the cast for 3 films. They still wanted the freedom to be able to cut loose of a cast member or all of them or drop the entire franchise if it didn't turn out well. Marvel didn't know at the time when they signed these guys whether the film would succeed or not. They hoped it would, but there's always risk.

[kedrell]

What world are you living in? Everyone hates their job. People only work to survive, put a roof over their family's head, and put food on the table. If I had Bill Gates income, do you think I would ever work again. Hell no.


Bulls**t! Not everyone hates their job. Maybe most do but hollywood is a tough place to break into/succeed in. The vast majority of actors/directors etc. who work there went into it because they love it. If all they were about is finding steady work, there are a lot easier fields to break into. And just about everyone who had major roles in this filmis likely already in a position financially where they never should have to work again anyway.

[Crook]

See, now after reading this, I am seeing Howard as the bad guy. I understand it's their job to act. But it doesn't mean most of Hollywood is over paid in general. I don't feel the least bit sorry for a lot of these guys getting their massive paychecks. And I feel the same way with people in pro sports. Job or not, you can still be over paid. Maybe they're just in the wrong business. Sticking together for higher paychecks. You worked your a$$ off to get their because you enjoyed the job.
Heh, I love this overpaid complaint in regards to cinema and sports. The reason they're getting all this money in the first place is because of the market and the audience. We, as a population, give these businesses huge amounts of money in return for entertainment. Think of all the revenue gained from theater chains and sports venues. Thousands of people regularly attend these events on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. Those numbers translates into massive amounts of money. That money circulates amongst the branches of Hollywood. Including actors.

[Kirk 1701]

Heh, I love this overpaid complaint in regards to cinema and sports. The reason they're getting all this money in the first place is because of the market and the audience. We, as a population, give these businesses huge amounts of money in return for entertainment. Think of all the revenue gained from theater chains and sports venues. Thousands of people regularly attend these events on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. Those numbers translates into massive amounts of money. That money circulates amongst the branches of Hollywood. Including actors.

Amen! You tell them.

[Kirk 1701]

Bulls**t! Not everyone hates their job. Maybe most do but Hollywood is a tough place to break into/succeed in. The vast majority of actors/directors etc. who work there went into it because they love it. If all they were about is finding steady work, there are a lot easier fields to break into. And just about everyone who had major roles in this films likely already in a position financially where they never should have to work again anyway.

You mean to tell me if an average joe, who loves his jobs. He works eighty hours or more at works. Then one day, that same man inherits a fortune or wins the Powerball. You are trying to tell me, that man is not suppose to enjoy the rest of his life with his money. That there is some unwritten rule saying that an individual must work until their dying breath. How many people on this website would quite their job in a minute, if they came into a heap load of money.

[powerbomb1411]

You mean to tell me if an average joe, who loves his jobs. He works eighty hours or more at works. Then one day, that same man inherits a fortune or wins the Powerball. You are trying to tell me, that man is not suppose to enjoy the rest of his life with his money. That there is some unwritten rule saying that an individual must work until their dying breath. How many people on this website would quite their job in a minute, if they came into a heap load of money.

http://www.gradst.hr/library/books/books2007/webster%27s-third-new-international-dictionary.jpg
http://www.mywingsbooks.com/inventory/00482-Grammar-in-Plai.jpg

Heh, I love this overpaid complaint in regards to cinema and sports. The reason they're getting all this money in the first place is because of the market and the audience. We, as a population, give these businesses huge amounts of money in return for entertainment. Think of all the revenue gained from theater chains and sports venues. Thousands of people regularly attend these events on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. Those numbers translates into massive amounts of money. That money circulates amongst the branches of Hollywood. Including actors.

And who's fault is that? I try not to buy things that are extremely over priced. And if it was up to me, I'd spread some of that wealth to the people working minimum wage at the theater and the theater itself to get the ticket and food prices back down.

We have no control over it as much as you wish we did.

[Crook]

And who's fault is that? I try not to buy things that are extremely over priced. And if it was up to me, I'd spread some of that wealth to the people working minimum wage at the theater and the theater itself to get the ticket and food prices back down.
Job and income tiers exist for a reason. You earn what you get, coupled with how important you are in society. If you want a high-paying job, you're going to have to work your ass for it.

We have no control over it as much as you wish we did.
Of course we do. It's the basic principles of supply & demand. Without the people, there is no revenue. No revenue, no money to fund projects. No projects, no jobs and money for the athletes, actors, writers, directors, etc.

The entertainment business does not survive without its audience, plain and simple. It just so happens they generate billions of dollars because of us. That money goes to the people that are responsible for the profit gained. It's only fair.

[kedrell]

You mean to tell me if an average joe, who loves his jobs. He works eighty hours or more at works. Then one day, that same man inherits a fortune or wins the Powerball. You are trying to tell me, that man is not suppose to enjoy the rest of his life with his money. That there is some unwritten rule saying that an individual must work until their dying breath. How many people on this website would quite their job in a minute, if they came into a heap load of money.

What? When did I say an "average joe" wouldn't quit working under those circumstances? I was talking about the actors in the Iron Man movie(who are hardly average joes), each of them already being a millionaire already, yes Howard too. Yet they still choose to work, even though they could live on their savings for the rest of their lives. Clearly, they like working.


And most people don't work 80 hrs a week, gimme a break. No there is no unwritten rule that you must continue working even if you can afford to retire early. I sure wouldn't if I was a millionaire.

[Kirk 1701]

Job and income tiers exist for a reason. You earn what you get, coupled with how important you are in society. If you want a high-paying job, you're going to have to work your ass for it.


Of course we do. It's the basic principles of supply & demand. Without the people, there is no revenue. No revenue, no money to fund projects. No projects, no jobs and money for the athletes, actors, writers, directors, etc.

The entertainment business does not survive without its audience, plain and simple. It just so happens they generate billions of dollars because of us. That money goes to the people that are responsible for the profit gained. It's only fair.


So you are telling me that a CEO from EXXON should get a retirement package of $400M or more, because that CEO made millions of dollars for that company. Do you think that is fair or even right?

:im::im::im::im:

[Kirk 1701]

http://www.gradst.hr/library/books/books2007/webster%27s-third-new-international-dictionary.jpg
http://www.mywingsbooks.com/inventory/00482-Grammar-in-Plai.jpg



And who's fault is that? I try not to buy things that are extremely over priced. And if it was up to me, I'd spread some of that wealth to the people working minimum wage at the theater and the theater itself to get the ticket and food prices back down.

We have no control over it as much as you wish we did.



How do you send a privite post?

[Kirk 1701]

What? When did I say an "average joe" wouldn't quit working under those circumstances? I was talking about the actors in the Iron Man movie(who are hardly average joes), each of them already being a millionaire already, yes Howard too. Yet they still choose to work, even though they could live on their savings for the rest of their lives. Clearly, they like working.


And most people don't work 80 hrs a week, gimme a break. No there is no unwritten rule that you must continue working even if you can afford to retire early. I sure wouldn't if I was a millionaire.

I was commenting on your statements, "Everybody enjoys their job!" I don't and never have enjoyed working. Maybe the actors in Hollywood enjoy working, but average people do not enjoy working.



:im::im::im::im:

[Kirk 1701]

What? When did I say an "average Joe" wouldn't quit working under those circumstances? I was talking about the actors in the Iron Man movie(who are hardly average joes), each of them already being a millionaire already, yes Howard too. Yet they still choose to work, even though they could live on their savings for the rest of their lives. Clearly, they like working.


And most people don't work 80 hrs a week, gimme a break. No there is no unwritten rule that you must continue working even if you can afford to retire early. I sure wouldn't if I was a millionaire.

How many hours do you think a doctor or lawyer works? It may not be eighty hours a week, but I bet it comes close. Especially, if you want to make that hard earn cash.


:im::im::im::im:

[Ironfan72]

I believe Favreau is a stand up guy, he by all accounts has a great relationship with all the actors he works with, we as fans will never truely know what happened that forced Marvel to drop Terrance from any sequals, right now its he said vs rumors, Terrance is the only one talking, everyone else has remained silent, everything else reported are from "inside sources", we all now how reliable they are.
It is a shame Terrence will not be in IM2 and IM3, but we have Don Cheadle and his resume is very good, so by no means is he a step down in talent, we can only wish Terrence good luck and look forward to the future of the Iron Man franchise.

[Kirk 1701]

I believe Favreau is a stand up guy, he by all accounts has a great relationship with all the actors he works with, we as fans will never truly know what happened that forced Marvel to drop Terrance from any sequels, right now its he said vs rumors, Terrance is the only one talking, everyone else has remained silent, everything else reported are from "inside sources", we all now how reliable they are.
It is a shame Terrence will not be in IM2 and IM3, but we have Don Cheadle and his resume is very good, so by no means is he a step down in talent, we can only wish Terrence good luck and look forward to the future of the Iron Man franchise.

You said that Don Cheadle has an excellent resume. Does that include playing a gangster in the movie Colors?



:im::im::im::im:

[The Major]

Heh, I love this overpaid complaint in regards to cinema and sports. The reason they're getting all this money in the first place is because of the market and the audience. We, as a population, give these businesses huge amounts of money in return for entertainment. Think of all the revenue gained from theater chains and sports venues. Thousands of people regularly attend these events on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. Those numbers translates into massive amounts of money. That money circulates amongst the branches of Hollywood. Including actors.
Agreed.

[D-Man22]

I agree also.

[Crook]

So you are telling me that a CEO from EXXON should get a retirement package of $400M or more, because that CEO made millions of dollars for that company. Do you think that is fair or even right?

:im::im::im::im:
If it's their money, they have every right to do whatever the hell they want with it. The only possible way that it wouldn't be fair, is if they're stealing other people's cash. Otherwise, it's fair game.

I'm not understanding the jealousy here. People make more money than you. Deal with it. Life doesn't owe you anything. :huh:

[Kirk 1701]

If it's their money, they have every right to do whatever the hell they want with it. The only possible way that it wouldn't be fair, is if they're stealing other people's cash. Otherwise, it's fair game.

I'm not understanding the jealousy here. People make more money than you. Deal with it. Life doesn't owe you anything. :huh:


Life doesn't owe me anything, but rich people do. Look at all the money Bernard Madoff made from people. Do you think he should be allow to keep any of that money? Do you think that money belongs to Madoff or to the people he scam? According to Obama, he's gone to take more taxes from rich people and spread the wealth. He could care less if rich people made the money or not. Too many rich people as it is.




:im::im::im::im:

[Crook]

Did you just completely ignore my first paragraph? If it's rightly earned money, it's theirs. It is absolutely fair for them to do what they want with it. I wouldn't want people telling me what to do with my belongings, whether I was rich or not. So I wouldn't suppose to do the same for those that are more fortunate than me. In the case of the entertainment industry, it's fair game. There is very little "stealing" going on there, because the market gives us a choice to buy into it or not.

On the other hand, money gained through unfair/illegal means (such as scamming), has to be taken care of. Only then would it not be fair to reap the benefits.

[Figs]

Life doesn't owe me anything, but rich people do. Look at all the money Bernard Madoff made from people. Do you think he should be allow to keep any of that money? Do you think that money belongs to Madoff or to the people he scam? According to Obama, he's gone to take more taxes from rich people and spread the wealth. He could care less if rich people made the money or not. Too many rich people as it is.

We're not talking about corporate whores who scammed people.

We are talking about successful people who got in a field whether it's sports or entertainment(music or film) and made millions of dollars.

Those rich people do not owe you a god damn thing. So because they become successful, that means they have to share their money with people who either didn't try hard enough in life or just had bad luck in life??

[Matt Mortem]

good lord. I'm literally just floating around the Iron Man board and all I seem to do is run into Kirk's political commentary. Don't we have a board for that?????

[FlawlessVictory]

EXCLUSIVE: Terrence Howard Talks ‘Iron Man 2,’ Eyes DC For Future Roles (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/04/08/exclusive-terrence-howard-talks-iron-man-2-eyes-dc-for-future-roles/)

Published by Silas Lesnick (http://splashpage.mtv.com/author/silaslesnick/) on Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 9:31 am.

Though his part in “Iron Man 2 (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/iron-man-2/)” was recast with Don Cheadle (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/10/14/terrence-howard-out-don-cheadle-in-for-iron-man-2-a-good-thing-for-the-franchise/), Terrence Howard (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/terrence-howard) isn’t down for the count. In town to promote his new film “Fighting,” Howard shared his thoughts on the “Iron Man 2″ change and explained that he might change his focus from Marvel to the Distinguished Competition for future films.

“I think they always wanted Don Cheadle from the very start,” Howard told MTV News, “and it’s nice that they get what they want. They could be a little nicer about it. You don’t make 800 million dollars and then try and shake everyone down. That’s not nice.”

Rumors have swelled about the change with the reasoning ranging from money disputes to allegations that Howard was difficult to work with on-set (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/03/why-did-marvel-studios-drop-terrence-howard-from-iron-man-2-money-might-be-the-answer/), but the actor insists that he’s not the sole target of Marvel’s penny-pinching.

“[T]hey did the same thing to Gwyneth,” added Howard. “They came in strong, heavy-handed. You know, life pays everyone back.”

The future is looking bright for Howard, though, and as a committed comic book fan himself, he’s already looking past Marvel and thinking that some DC properties might be right up his alley. Though he’s a Green Lantern fan, Howard said that Warner Bros. has other plans for the franchise.

“[H]e doesn’t become black until the third [Green Lantern],” said Howard. “I think they’re planning to take those steps. We’ll see, I haven’t felt those out yet.”

So, which character does Howard have in his sights?

“Black Lightning,” answered Howard with a smile. “I don’t think he’s really been explored.”
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/04/08/exclusive-terrence-howard-talks-iron-man-2-eyes-dc-for-future-roles/

[MarvelMovies]

Sounds like he holds a little grudge...

Last time I checked, Gwyneth is still in the sequel.

[powerbomb1411]

In the case of the entertainment industry, it's fair game. There is very little "stealing" going on there, because the market gives us a choice to buy into it or not.

Here's the deal. We are going to false advertise a movie. We're going to claim it's one thing then give you another thing. We're going to take advantage of the fact that you feel you must see a movie because a certain character is in it.

We will take your money.

And if you decide to look for a loop hole and say...download a movie without paying us for it. And we find out. We're going to owe us a few millions and spend time in prison.

-----

You're right, that is a hell of a choice.

How many hours do you think a doctor or lawyer works? It may not be eighty hours a week, but I bet it comes close. Especially, if you want to make that hard earn cash.

How many people just become Doctors and Lawyers? They don't. They make a choice to go to school for it. Then they get paid lots of money if they get the job. If they don't want the job, they can leave and someone else will take it.

[Crook]

Are you kidding me? This is like justifying to your wife that you cheated because, "she was really hot, and was all over me". :funny:

You're damn right it's a choice, because no one but YOU is making it. No one's forcing you to, and there are no consequences to it. It is no one's fault but yours if you do not have restraint and personal willpower.

Don't want to feel disappointed by a movie's massive hype? Wait it out a few days for trusted friends/peers to tell you how it is.

Don't want to risk going to jail? Legally pay for the movies you watch.

Take responsibility, stop blaming everyone else.

[powerbomb1411]

Are you kidding me? This is like justifying to your wife that you cheated because, "she was really hot, and was all over me".

No it's not. It's two completely different things on two completely different levels.


Take responsibility, stop blaming everyone else.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

[Crook]

You haven't even retorted any of my points. You can sugarcoat it all you want, but an alluring woman coaxing a man, is the business equivalent of marketing. In the end, they're not forcing you to take them up on their offer. It's simply been laid out on the table. The decision is solely on you.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

[powerbomb1411]

You haven't even retorted any of my points. You can sugarcoat it all you want, but an alluring woman coaxing a man, is the business equivalent of marketing. In the end, they're not forcing you to take them up on their offer. It's simply been laid out on the table. The decision is solely on you.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

I have ZERO control over how much money entertainers make. if I did have a choice, I would be able to distribute the money to those that I saw fit. The company's control that. They decide what happens and pay them off the money I give them. I'm more like a shareholder with no control or voice.

[Crook]

But you have 100% control over how much money they make from YOU. That's what I was getting at.

Earlier on, I was using "us" in the context of the general population. Within this large group, as individuals, we make a choice to give them the money. Collectively, that's a whole lot. But that's dictated by the majority decision to pay up. If the majority decision was to say "f**k the industry", then sure enough they'd go down in flames. As I've said, the only reason they're rich is because we continue to thrive their industry in exchange for entertainment. That's fair game.

[The Major]

But you have 100% control over how much money they make from YOU. That's what I was getting at.

Earlier on, I was using "us" in the context of the general population. Within this large group, as individuals, we make a choice to give them the money. Collectively, that's a whole lot. But that's dictated by the majority decision to pay up. If the majority decision was to say "f**k the industry", then sure enough they'd go down in flames. As I've said, the only reason they're rich is because we continue to thrive their industry in exchange for entertainment. That's fair game.
Agreed.

[Iron_Stark]

Maxim interviewed Terrance Howard in the latest issue.

http://i41.tinypic.com/t56o9l.jpg

:whatever:

[JP]

What a douche. :o

[YJ1]

What a douche. :o

Yeah, is it any wonder Favreau didn't want Howard anywhere near his set in the future? Good riddance.

[Chewy]

Everything on that film was done for me. The special effects were all there, which often made me question why I was.

Did Howard even do any scenes with special effects in it?

It's funny how he alternates between "They made a mistake, they should have brought me back" and "I didn't even want to come back" :o
Also funny how he claims that Marvel lowballed everyone but RDJ, yet magically everyone's negotiations work out except for Howard's. I think that's a pretty good sign that no one involved but him wanted him to come back

[Brian Braddock]

Let's not forget that there were rumours of Howard being a prima donna on the IM set - should his comments in Maxim really come as a surprise to anyone?

Suddenly, I find the stories about Howard making all sorts of outlandish demands in regards to his contract all the more believable. I now wonder whether some of the people who critiscised Marvel, Favs, hell - everyone but Howard, will at least concede that it's becoming more and more of a possibility that the guy was upsetting the applecart?

He's certainly not helping his case by saying *****y s*** like that in interviews.................

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Before I even watched IM Howard always came off like an annoying little weasel to me. That interview is laughable, he sounds like a moron...yet again. Again I didn't dislike him in the first movie but he wasn't good enough for me to miss him, so good riddance.

[DCnightwing23]

Howard pretty much has a chip on his shoulders i would say. He just wants to show Marvel that they shouldnt have let him go. And what a better way then working with DC. I love howard, hes a first class actor. Marvel is quite dumb for letting him go.

[marcvader]

No, they were quite dumb for hiring him and over paying in the first place. I hope whoever was responsible for the negotiations in that deal was warned to not do anything that stupid again.

[Rac]

Before I even watched IM Howard always came off like an annoying little weasel to me. That interview is laughable, he sounds like a moron...yet again.
Same here.

[Shivsguy616]

Life doesn't owe me anything, but rich people do.

:im::im::im::im:

If ever anything has warranted a lol...

[The Ace of Knaves]

Life doesn't owe me anything, but rich people do.

:im::im::im::im:


Please tell me you are joking? No one owes you anything but yourself, until you figure that out, you will never make anything of yourself.

[Raiden]

Terrence Howard: Iron Man Execs Made "Very, Very Bad Choice"


Terrence Howard is not pleased he was replaced in the Iron Man sequel over a reported salary dispute.

"Marvel made a choice, and it was a very, very bad choice," the actor -- whose role was given to Don Cheadle -- tells Parade.com. "They didn't keep their word. They didn't honor my contract."

See more celeb scandals.

Howard says producers didn't share the profits of the flick -- which earned over $318 million -- with most of the actors.

Terrence Howard is not pleased he was replaced in the Iron Man sequel over a reported salary dispute.

"Marvel made a choice, and it was a very, very bad choice," the actor -- whose role was given to Don Cheadle -- tells Parade.com. "They didn't keep their word. They didn't honor my contract."

See more celeb scandals.

Howard says producers didn't share the profits of the flick -- which earned over $318 million -- with most of the actors.

"They produced a great bounty with the first one, but they put it all in the storehouse and you were not allowed in," he says. "They did the same thing with Gwyneth Paltrow, from what I've been told.

See Gwyneth Paltrow's crazy fashion choices over the years.

The only person who got a raise?

"They did it with everyone but Robert Downey [Jr]," fumes Howard. "One of the things that actors need to do is always stick together: one for all, and all for one."

Even though he's upset, he's not spilling any details
from the anticipated sequel.

"I've seen the script, I know what's going to happen -- but I'm not revealing anything. I believe in karma," he says. "When someone does something wrong, you don't have to get them back. Everything right will return the favor for you."

He'll still watch the follow up -- which also stars Scarlett Johansson -- in theaters.


"I'm definitely looking forward to seeing the movie. I want to see Don Cheadle become me. No, I want him to do better than me," Howard says. "That's what I
really want to see. Don Cheadle was the reason I got Crash, so I have a lot of love for him."

Looks like Howard not only has a grudge with Marvel, he also has it with RDJ.

[Chris B]

Even as someone who wished Howard and Marvel had been able to work something out, I'll admit that he does come across as a bit a douche bag with some of his recent comments regarding IM2.

[Raiden]

Even as someone who wished Howard and Marvel had been able to work something out, I'll admit that he does come across as a bit a douche bag with some of his recent comments regarding IM2.

I had spoken openly against the recast, but now I'm also tired of Howard's rant and I wish he'd move on from this and focus on the future instead.

[Chris B]

I had spoken openly against the recast, but now I'm also tired of Howard's rant and I wish he'd move on from this and focus on the future instead.

Yeah. It also makes me wonder if perhaps Cheadle should've been cast in the first place.

[Artistsean]

His remarks about "I have seen the script and I wont reveal anything, because I believe in karma."
Is he implying that he has seen that the movie will be horrible and is just going to sit back and watch it bomb, grinning because the studio recast him?

[Ironfan72]

I don't know how he's seen the script, he was replaced well before the movie's first script was done.
I was on the fence about Howards departure for what ever reason, I didn't have a problem with him as Rhodey and was confused as to why they replaced him, Cheadle is not a down grade and is very talented actor.
I'm to the point in my opinion that Howard is only hurting himself by showing how he can't take rejection and move on with his career, these things happen in Hollywood, but most actors suck it up and move on with their careers and be classey about it, Howard is not taking the high road, instead taking every oppurtunity to attack Marvel, Jon Favreau and Robert Downey, Jr. and it's a shame.

[FaT_tONle]

I'd be pretty pissed too. Imagine Marvel coming to your agent and saying "we are going to cut your screen time and therefore you have to take a paycut." He may have been difficult to work with, and maybe Favreau could not co-exist with him, but we don't know what happened on that set and to what extent.

[kedrell]

Hiring him was Avi Arad's idea, as far as I know. If Jon had been hired before any of the actors for IM1, there's a good chance Howard would never have gotten the job in the first place. I do think he'll be able to pull off a better movie with Cheadle(someone he chose) in the role.

[FlawlessVictory]

Hiring him was Avi Arad's idea, as far as I know. If Jon had been hired before any of the actors for IM1, there's a good chance Howard would never have gotten the job in the first place. I do think he'll be able to pull off a better movie with Cheadle(someone he chose) in the role.

Where did you hear that one?

I had spoken openly against the recast, but now I'm also tired of Howard's rant and I wish he'd move on from this and focus on the future instead.

If what Howard says is true, and his contract was not honored then he has every right to be pissed. And it's easy to say that Howard should just move on and focus on the future, when it's not your potential income that is being dealt with.

[Chewy]

If what Howard says is true, and his contract was not honored then he has every right to be pissed. And it's easy to say that Howard should just move on and focus on the future, when it's not your potential income that is being dealt with.
If that were true he would be in the middle of suing them right now. He was probably optioned for sequels, and Marvel chose not to pick up said option.

[Ironfan72]

I don't know if we will ever know what happpened, because the only one we are hearing from is Howard, while Marvel, Favreau and everyone else have said nothing, so right now all we are getting is one side of the story and rumors from the otherside.
The problem is too, if Marvel did come to Howard and say that they wanted him to take a pay cut for the what turned out to be limited screen time, that is not out of form from what Marvel has done since Iron Man came out, they low balled Jackson, Rourke & Johansson, and I beleive Howard was the first signed and rumors were he was the highest paid actor in the film, higher paid than the star Robert Downey, so I would imagine Marvel felt it was unfair to Robert to be the lower paid star, who knows.

[greenlantern248]

Hiring him was Avi Arad's idea, as far as I know. If Jon had been hired before any of the actors for IM1, there's a good chance Howard would never have gotten the job in the first place. I do think he'll be able to pull off a better movie with Cheadle(someone he chose) in the role.

Actually if I'm not mistaken Jon was hired before the actors were.
Jon was hired in April 2006, Howard was hired after RDJ
In a direct quote from Howard himself:

“Getting the chance to work with Robert Downey Jr. attracted me to the role more than anything else,” reveals Howard. “I first saw him in `Weird Science' and thought he was hilarious, and then when he did `Chaplin' I realized he was a genius.”

Source http://madeinatlantis.com/movies_central/2008/iron_man_production_details.htm

So I guess Jon did have some say in Howard's hiring.

[3 Dev Adam]

I really think that Cheadle will be better, so...

[kedrell]

Actually if I'm not mistaken Jon was hired before the actors were.
Jon was hired in April 2006, Howard was hired after RDJ
In a direct quote from Howard himself:



So I guess Jon did have some say in Howard's hiring.

I know for a fact that Howard was hired before RDJ. I'm not quite as sure that he was hired before Jon, but I have heard that. I do know Arad was talking to him about the role well before Jon was hired. I'll search for those old web-pages in the Iron Man movie forum. Maybe Howard meant that he was attracted to working with RDJ even though he had already been hired. He probably had some idea of who they were talking to about the Stark role.

[3 Dev Adam]

IIRC, Howard's name appeared on the press way before Downey's. Can't say this is a definitive hint about the casting, but...

[Rock Sexton]

................did anyone see Howard's new head shots?

http://perchristumblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/babycrying.jpg


I can't even begin to tell you how glad I am that I don't have to listen to that sissy-azz voice and those weird, twinkly eyes awkwardly staring deeply into RDJ's soul.......it was scary and quite uncomfortable to watch........

[Rock Sexton]

I don't know if we will ever know what happpened, because the only one we are hearing from is Howard, while Marvel, Favreau and everyone else have said nothing, so right now all we are getting is one side of the story and rumors from the otherside.
The problem is too, if Marvel did come to Howard and say that they wanted him to take a pay cut for the what turned out to be limited screen time, that is not out of form from what Marvel has done since Iron Man came out, they low balled Jackson, Rourke & Johansson, and I beleive Howard was the first signed and rumors were he was the highest paid actor in the film, higher paid than the star Robert Downey, so I would imagine Marvel felt it was unfair to Robert to be the lower paid star, who knows.

At the end of the day, it's Marvel's money. They can do what they want with it. I don't blame them for low-balling anyone ......that's business...... learned it a million times in this life......and in this particular case they clearly upgraded. No more effeminate Rhodey..... now we have a guy with a personality and some wit.

[kedrell]

Howard has never struck me as a guy with all that big a sense of humor. He seems to keep to serious roles. Cheadle is definitely an upgrade since he(like RDJ) has a knack for both.

[Ironfan72]

At the end of the day, it's Marvel's money. They can do what they want with it. I don't blame them for low-balling anyone ......that's business...... learned it a million times in this life......and in this particular case they clearly upgraded. No more effeminate Rhodey..... now we have a guy with a personality and some wit.

I agree, I can't imagine that Howard was signed to a three picture deal with out clauses for re-negotiations by Marvel depending of how much screen time he had, I don't think or haven't heard where Marvel re-negotiated with RDJ or Paltrow it just seems they may have doen it with Howard for what ever reason.
I like Don Cheadle and personally think he is an upgrade at the role, but that said, I like Howard and I hate to see what is a essentailly a major role/character be changed over possilble contract issues.

[Iron_Stark]

I know for a fact that Howard was hired before RDJ. I'm not quite as sure that he was hired before Jon, but I have heard that. I do know Arad was talking to him about the role well before Jon was hired. I'll search for those old web-pages in the Iron Man movie forum. Maybe Howard meant that he was attracted to working with RDJ even though he had already been hired. He probably had some idea of who they were talking to about the Stark role.


He sure was, because I remember the debates about making Tony Stark black when people thought Howard was going to get the main role.

[Ironfan72]

I remember that as well, he was hired a month before Robert Downey. Howard was announced as Rhodes August 1st 2006 and Downey over a month later September of '06.

[kedrell]

Thanks, I knew my memory couldn't be THAT rusty. And I distinctly recall reading somewhere that Arad was in talks with Howard about the role even prior to Favs getting the directors gig in April of 06. Now, I'm sure Marvel was talking to Favs long before that but it does lend credence to the notion that casting Howard in the role wasn't Fav's idea really.

[BigCityBoy]

Thanks, I knew my memory couldn't be THAT rusty. And I distinctly recall reading somewhere that Arad was in talks with Howard about the role even prior to Favs getting the directors gig in April of 06. Now, I'm sure Marvel was talking to Favs long before that but it does lend credence to the notion that casting Howard in the role wasn't Fav's idea really.

Arad was in talks with Howard for a long time to get him to play Diamondback in the Luke Cage movie that never did get off the ground, so I guess Arad offered Howard the Rhodey role since it was the next best thing.

[TheVileOne]

Its interesting. In the Maxim interview, Howard acts like he hated Iron Man and it was a terrible experience. Then in the Parade interview, Howard acts like Marvel betrayed him and he liked the role. Very weird.

Didn't Downey Jr. comment on the situation and basically kept it mum but did say he was good friends with Howard and liked working with him?

As far as the Arad thing. I think EW echoed that Howard was signed to work on the movie by Arad first before Favreau and that Howard was possibly difficult on set. Those were rumors though.

I don't want to jump on any bandwagons or anything. But Howard's recent comments are very curious. I will also say, I'm less upset about his being recast with these comments. I think its disrespectful for him to say those things about Iron Man, that he hates these special FX movies, when he's playing Jim Rhodes a positive black character from the comics who is being realized in cinematic form, a character who also becomes a superhero. Does that not mean something if Howard wants something significant like Will Smith who makes super hero trash like Hancock?

[LostSon88]

He's just being a whiny and bitter b*tch.

He may be in the right in saying that Marvel did him wrong but the way he's taking it is rather pathetic.

He's simply doing everything he can to tear down the sequel...it wont work.

[3 Dev Adam]

Here's an idea.

After Tropic Thunder, RDJ can play Tony Stark AND Rhodes.

http://forums.superherohype.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5762&stc=1&d=1240782154

[FaT_tONle]

So it basically was another Arad botch up from the getgo... chalk up another one in the Arad column of comic book movie **** up's....

[kedrell]

Well IMO Arad deserves some respect for get Marvel into the movie business at least. Granted, he was more interested in getting them just out there than he was with insuring quality but it was a necessary step in the begining. Now however, that type of mindset needs to go. Marvel is established in the movie business and focusing on quality is more important now. Since Fiege is in charge now, we should all be happy since he seems to be a much more quality-oriented guy than Arad was.

[SurfDUI]

Awesome


Can the name of this thread be called somethin else now?!

Hater finally speaks is old. There is a new actor

[3 Dev Adam]

Here's an idea.

After Tropic Thunder, RDJ can play Tony Stark AND Rhodes.

http://forums.superherohype.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5762&stc=1&d=1240782154

[knockout]

Its obvious the tabloids sensationalize the whole Holmes situation. Its simple she left and I dont blame her. The character was finished and going nowhere. Its more fun to hear,read and watch about Holmes getting fired or Cruise jealous of the hunks than the simple Holmes walk out.
Remember how the media sensationalize the missing sex scenes of Holmes and Eckhart too on TYFS when the Reitman and Eckhart simply said it was just a technical mistake not the negative overspins from the press that Cruise ordered the scenes out. Doing the comedy is something fresh for Holmes especially Arthur Miller Broadway and Im hearing she might get a Tony nomination along with Patrick Wilson. Nolan seems really sad about Holmes leaving and Maggie kept saying Katie persuaded her to take the role and that she ask Katie's blessings to become Rachel Dawes.
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a109180/dark-knight-helmer-unhappy-with-holmes.html?rss

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/07/dark-knight-rev.html


Now onto the Iron Man recast Im more of a Cheadle fan than Howard but in this case I really prefer Howard as Rhodey. The whole Air Force Boy scout just fits him but I hope the movie will prove me wrong.
We can never tell. I remember the hype on Maggie but once people saw TDK they appreciated and got nostalgic over Holmes.

[3 Dev Adam]

Now onto the Iron Man recast Im more of a Cheadle fan than Howard but in this case I really prefer Howard as Rhodey. The whole Air Force Boy scout just fits him but I hope the movie will prove me wrong.


Cheadle can pull it off. Remember him a Sammy Davis Jr., Mouse Alexander, Private Washburn and Buck Swope? He's versatile.

[Fanticon]

i just recently told my gf that howard was replaced by cheadle and she was not happy...nothing against cheadle...but i think people just really found howard likable in the movie and will have a hard time adjusting to cheadle...stupid, marvel, reeealll stupid.

[Brian Braddock]

^^^I find that to be a pretty big assumption. I really dont see it as being that big of a deal, and I love the eagerness to jump on MARVEL for this too, by the way.

Anyways Cheadle's forged a career from largely playing loveable/likeable characters, why would the audience not adjust to him?

[kedrell]

Now onto the Iron Man recast Im more of a Cheadle fan than Howard but in this case I really prefer Howard as Rhodey. The whole Air Force Boy scout just fits him but I hope the movie will prove me wrong.
We can never tell. I remember the hype on Maggie but once people saw TDK they appreciated and got nostalgic over Holmes.

Rhodes is NOT a boy scout.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Here's an idea.

After Tropic Thunder, RDJ can play Tony Stark AND Rhodes.

http://forums.superherohype.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5762&stc=1&d=1240782154 Lol! :woot:

[Superman]

There are two sides to every story... no way are you signing an actor like Cheadle if Howard was affordable for Marvel's standards... use some sense people. Howard overpriced himself... that's all there is too it.That's what I'm thinking.

[kedrell]

And he's doing himself no favors by publicly complaining about it all. The classy thing to do would be to accept it and rise above the pettiness.