No iron man 3 for jon favreau

[A Necessary Evil]

From the main page :

Jon Favreau will not be returning to the Marvel Universe for a third Iron Man film, Vulture reports.
The article suggests that the choice was made at the director's discretion and that he informed Marvel Studios of his decision this morning. Though Favreau's reasoning is purely speculatory at this stage, it is likely that the director simply wishes to pursue other creative ventures. With the upcoming Cowboys & Aliens hitting next summer and The Magic Kingdom in the early planning stages, Favreau should remain suitably busy for the time being.

SuperHeroHype is seeking official confirmation of the news and will bring you updates as soon as they become .

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/112292-no-iron-man-3-for-jon-favreau

BETTER NOT BE :cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

[J.Howlett]

Way to go, Marvel. Marvel's lowballing is finally catching up with them. Is RDJ next?

[Crockett]

I hope it isn't true. :(

[Rac]

I'm not surprised. He wasn't happy at all how Marvel treated Iron Man 2, and I am willing to believe most of the movie's mehness was because of the studio, not Favreau. Or I don't know. Iron Man has been the only Favreau (directed) movie I have liked.

I'm not upset though. I'm interested seeing someone else' take on Iron Man.

[RealIrOnMaN]

OHhhhhh craaaaaaap(

[Project862006]

i saw this coming writing was on the wall folks

1.Terence Howard
2.Low balling Mickey Rourke and Sam Jackson
3.IM2

[Blackman]

Jeez seriously?
what the f***. I pray this isnt true

[MessiahDecoy123]

He's probably tired of Iron Man.

You can kind of tell from watching Iron Man 2.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Maybe he didnt like the fact he didnt get a stab at the avengers movie who knows.

Id like to see Iron Man under someone elses direction. Maybe a bit deeper and a little less AC/DC adventure.

Good job on the Iron Man movies though. I think this is not the last time well see him directing a super hero movie.

[jmc]

Don't blame him.

[Cagefighterkip]

I think this is good for the franchise,
I love both IRON MAN and IRON MAN 2 but bringing in new blood could be good for the franchise so it doesn't grow stale. Get someone who's a fan and is excited to do it... Favreau could and prolly would do a good IM3 but I think new creative/behind the scenes talent is a good thing.

[A Necessary Evil]

Brett ratner for bad second sequel plz

[batman44]

Well, that sucks. I was looking forward to Favreau's take on the Mandrian or whatever he had in mind for IM3. Best of luck to his future projects.

[Blackman]

Idk I just remember after IM1 the talk of it being a trilogy and imagined him staying on for 3 films.

[GoldGoblin]

This is awesome news,IM2 was craptacular.Sloppy writing from start to finish,it made Spider-Man 3 look like a masterpiece.

[A Necessary Evil]

This is awesome news,IM2 was craptacular.Sloppy writing from start to finish,it made Spider-Man 3 look like a masterpiece.

Along with your ideas that i've seen, that must be saying something :awesome:

[RealIrOnMaN]

it made Spider-Man 3 look like a masterpiece.
Nope, it didn't.

[Octoberist]

This is very sad...:(

I can't wait for the trolls to come in, and declaring this as a good thing. Stupid people.

[RealIrOnMaN]

This is very sad...:(

I can't wait for the trolls to come in, and declaring this as a good thing. Stupid people.
Seconded!

[Octoberist]

This is awesome news,IM2 was craptacular.Sloppy writing from start to finish,it made Spider-Man 3 look like a masterpiece.

People like this, who probably didn't even the read the original article.

[Son of Coul]

Still have a hard time believing this. Original article says that
1. He's too pricey. Uh, why do you think he's pricey? Marvel's the one that gave him that career boost. Like I said about them supposedly booting him from IM2 for the same reason- it's not like they're going "No way we can get Favreau, he's too hot off that Iron Man franchise!"
2. Even too pricey for Disney.

...

he's directing Magic Kingdom for Disney, about Disney. Am I missing something?

[Hobgoblin]

Hopefully Marvel will select another talented director that respects the source material. The first thing I thought when I heard that Fav wasnt coming back is "Here comes the cursed third movie in a series," but I try to be optimistic. So we'll see.

[RealIrOnMaN]

MTV News has contacted a representative of Favreau for comment and/or confirmation of the report. In the meantime, hang tight — we'll have an update for you as soon as possible.

[Suzanne78]

I loved IM and IM2, flaws and all, so this made my crappy day even worse! And it really makes me worried about how Marvel's running things behind the scenes...

I'm just preparing myself that it is, indeed, true. Also thinking about who would be a good replacement director for Favreau.

[Octoberist]

Still have a hard time believing this. Original article says that
1. He's too pricey. Uh, why do you think he's pricey? Marvel's the one that gave him that career boost. Like I said about them supposedly booting him from IM2 for the same reason- it's not like they're going "No way we can get Favreau, he's too hot off that Iron Man franchise!"
2. Even too pricey for Disney.

...

he's directing Magic Kingdom for Disney, about Disney. Am I missing something?

I think at this point, money plays a factor only because if Jon is gonna deal with the BS, I suppose he'll only do it if the price is right. I just feel like he's over it.

Also, Disney isn't directly involved with the Marvel stuff, so I think they're just the distributors. So his relationship isn't stained with Disney; Marvel, I don't know.

[Stringer]

Dont like this at all.

[Octoberist]

Well I for one cannot wait for The Magic Kingdom. Seriously.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Hopefully Marvel will select another talented director that respects the source material. The first thing I thought when I heard that Fav wasnt coming back is "Here comes the cursed third movie in a series," but I try to be optimistic. So we'll see.

Shane Black would be my pick.

[J.Howlett]

Octoberist,

Ten bucks says WB snags him for a DC property within the next six months....

[Octoberist]

Hmmm..The Flash?????? :)

[Carlo Comicus]

I don't think this news is true. I hope in a misunderstanding.

[Son of Coul]

This would be seriously ****** if true. And if it is then what the hell, Marvel? I thought the idea was to learn from other studios' mistakes and do these movies right.

[J.Howlett]

Octoberist,

I was thinking the same thing!

[Doc Samson]

Sigh...things started off so beautifully. But after Norton, Howard, Jackson, Rourke, their insistence on Avengers subplots in IM2 and now this, I just have to question what value they really place on the talent itself, aside from the Marvel properties.

I can imagine RDJ wouldn't be particularly thrilled to star in these films without Jon's involvement, so I really do hope Favreau's decision was based solely on the fact he just wanted to do other things. Strangely, with his initial excitement over the future of the IM franchise, not to mention his desire to executive produce the Avengers movie itself, I have to lend credence to something behind the scenes once again mucking up the process.

[elgaz]

Probably a tactic to see if they offer Favreau big money to stay

[Casius--J]

This news really shocked me when I saw the headline on my facebook. I really hope it doesnt turn into an xmen 3 situation.

[J.Howlett]

It wouldn't surprise me if Favreau's name doesn't appear as an "executive producer" on Avengers title cards.

It just seems like the type of thing Marvel would do at this point.

[Raiden]

I really hate the departure of Faverau. RDJ may be credited for IM1's success, but it was really Favearu and his passion for the character that helped made Iron Man into a household name and a superhero kids love to dress up as during Halloween. IM2 suffered a bit, partly due to the awkward implementation of the Avengers-centric stuff that Faverau had to include, as well as the recast for Rhodey, but I had high hopes that IM3 will once again become a standalone film where Favearu gets to do what he wants in the best interest of the franchise. I now have real concerns that IM3 will turn into another X3 or Superman 3, two other franchises where the original director's departure affected the conclusion of the trilogy tremendously.

[Rac]

Hopefully Marvel will select another talented director that respects the source material. The first thing I thought when I heard that Fav wasnt coming back is "Here comes the cursed third movie in a series," but I try to be optimistic. So we'll see.
I don't know will the "cursed third movie" apply for Iron Man, because as a rule for that to happen, the second movie needs to be very good or even better than the first. Iron Man 2 wasn't neither of those. It was like TMNT2 (still, the third TMNT movie sucked...); quickly rushed out flick to grab some hot cash while not being entirely catastrophe in quality, but severely lacking.

[RealIrOnMaN]

It wouldn't surprise me if Favreau's name doesn't appear as an "executive producer" on Avengers title cards.

It just seems like the type of thing Marvel would do at this point.
Agreed. Thought about it too.

[Octoberist]

Octoberist,

I was thinking the same thing!

Haha. Great minds think alike.

Well it depends..because if WB want the Flash out in 2013... Magic Kingdom is also shooting for a 2013 release, don't count on it. Unless they push it back.

Or maybe..just maybe Wonder Woman for a 2014 release?

[JAK®]

Well, it looks like no third movie in a superhero franchise will ever be good. Nolan's going to get cancer and die before TDKR starts filming at this rate.

[The Sage]

Not again...:csad:

[Raiden]

It just look like Marvel still hasn't learned from the debacle of X3 (after the departure of Singer), and how it affected the last film.

[redfirebird2008]

This sucks. :(

[JAK®]

It just look like Marvel still hasn't learned from the debacle of X3 (after the departure of Singer), and how it affected the last film.
That was Fox.

[S.A.A.D.]

This is very sad...:(

I can't wait for the trolls to come in, and declaring this as a good thing. Stupid people.

I may have enjoyed Ironman 2 alot,but this could be a good thing if the quality is better compared to Ironman 2,even though it got lots of positive reviews,those reviews weren't as positive as the ones that were meant for Ironman. I think that this could go either way if in fact that it is true that Favreau won't be directing Ironman 3.

[jmc]

I have no doubt Marvel's denial in granting Fevreau that extra year for film two played a part in this decision. Never felt like he was in control of that film.

[Doctor Jones]

This news sucks hard. I didn't expect this at all.

[Retroman]

If this true i find it sad as i would have liked to have seen what direction he would have taken a sequel in with the Mandarin.Favreau seemed to have a good understanding of Iron Man, what the fans wanted and (not unimportant) he had good relationships with the actors and crew. Which is going to be tough act for the new director and follow.

Unlike some though i can't say i'm too surprised that he's gone because of how things reportedly went during negotiations with him and other actors for Iron Man 2.

Also, to me Favreau seemed somewhat apprehensive and daunted by a post-Thor-Cap-Avengers Iron Man film where magic would be introduced in a more 'grounded' world where the main characters rely heavily on science and tech.:o

[RealIrOnMaN]

CONFIRMED! CRAP!! (http://www.deadline.com/2010/12/confirmed-favreau-wont-helm-iron-man-3/)

[Raiden]

That was Fox.

Yes, I know that. But they saw how it didn't worked out for Fox and the X-Men trilogy and yet they still repeat their mistake. People never learn.

[HighFivingMF]

Damn it. At least he doesn't have to deal with Marvel fiddling with his movies anymore.

[S.A.A.D.]

Well the confirmation didn't take too long. :o

[Chris B]

Well, if it was in fact Favreau's decision to leave and wasn't fired by Mavel, then I respect his decision. Still, this news sucks. IM1 is in the league of great comic book movies, and to speak personally is my all-time favorite superhero movie. And while it wasn't as good as its predeccesor, IM2 was still a good film that just need some finetunning and it would've been just as good or even better than IM1.

I have faith in Marvel to find a capable replacement and not give us another Brett Ratner or Joel Schumaker, but it would've been nice to see Favreau wrap up the trilogy and see his take on the Mandarin.

[ElMariachi]

is this even confirmed, for starters? (edit, nevermind!) If it happens to be true, so what? It's just a movie. You people all complain about Marvel supposedly being cheap, yet they have continue to bring in stars to their franchises (Hopkins, Portman, Weaving, etc.) and replace actors with quality (Cheadle, Ruffalo). You don't think they can manage to bring in a talented director?

Oh, and the IM2 hate is ridiculous. It's arguably the best superhero movie thats isn't directed by Chris Nolan and ironically, Jon Favreau. Maybe the first two Spiderman movies, but that might be a stretch.

[FlawlessVictory]

^Deadline Hollywood has confirmed it.

[J.Howlett]

Who's going to play Happy in Iron Man 3? Just a thought...

[Excelsior.]

I knew it.

Who's going to play Happy in Iron Man 3? Just a thought...
Imagine if Favreau still plays Happy despite not being the director.

[JustABill]

No Iron Man 3. No Favs. No RDJ. No Gwenyth. No deal.

[Doc Samson]

Oh, and the IM2 hate is ridiculous. It's arguably the best superhero movie thats isn't directed by Chris Nolan and ironically, Jon Favreau. Maybe the first two Spiderman movies, but that might be a stretch.

I don't know if anybody is saying they hate IM2, at least I'm not, but the fact of the matter is it wasn't nearly as good as the first, and a huge portion of that was Marvel's intrusion and insistence of the Avengers subplots, which took away from the main story and added all sorts of unnecessary threads into the film. The Thor stuff at the end was sufficient, everything with Nick Fury & Black Widow was just tacked on and needless, just as their "help" with Tony's condition was. The whole middle of IM2 was just bogged down, boring & unneeded, and it's just further prove that Marvel isn't handling things as well as we all thought they would

[Pac-Master]

This came out of nowhere. I enjoy these films, and was looking forward to him returning for a third. Hopefully whoever they find will do a great job.

Oh man... :csad:

[ElMariachi]

Who's going to play Happy in Iron Man 3? Just a thought...

Terrence Howard in white face.

[eledoremassis02]

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/12/jon_favreau_iron_man_3.html?_r=true

[ElMariachi]

I don't know if anybody is saying they hate IM2, at least I'm not, but the fact of the matter is it wasn't nearly as good as the first, and a huge portion of that was Marvel's intrusion and insistence of the Avengers subplots, which took away from the main story and added all sorts of unnecessary threads into the film. The Thor stuff at the end was sufficient, everything with Nick Fury & Black Widow was just tacked on and needless, just as their "help" with Tony's condition was. The whole middle of IM2 was just bogged down, boring & unneeded, and it's just further prove that Marvel isn't handling things as well as we all thought they would

These are the same criticisms parroted around here and I think they are ridiculous, no offense. The movie might not be as critically acclaimed as IM1, but it's hardly a noticeable difference in quality. The Avengers subplot is still being overblown on here. It was barely there and the scenes that it did involve didn't ruin anything in the plot. The NF/BW helping Tony scene criticism is also getting pretty old. This same thing happened in Batman Begins and few people had a problem with that. I suppose getting a cure-all from Morgan Freeman is somehow better than SLJ.

Also, why the blame for Marvel for these scenes? I am tired of everybody blaming Marvel for EVERYTHING. They have done a great job handling all these characters and this universe. If there is any blame to go around, it is to the directors and writers. Justin Theroux was brought on at the request of RDJ wasn't he?

[Doc Samson]

These are the same criticisms parroted around here and I think they are ridiculous, no offense. The movie might not be as critically acclaimed as IM1, but it's hardly a noticeable difference in quality. The Avengers subplot is still being overblown on here. It was barely there and the scenes that it did involve didn't ruin anything in the plot. The NF/BW helping Tony scene criticism is also getting pretty old. This same thing happened in Batman Begins and few people had a problem with that. I suppose getting a cure-all from Morgan Freeman is somehow better than SLJ.

Also, why the blame for Marvel for these scenes? I am tired of everybody blaming Marvel for EVERYTHING. They have done a great job handling all these characters and this universe. If there is any blame to go around, it is to the directors and writers. Justin Theroux was brought on at the request of RDJ wasn't he?

Well we can agree to disagree, but the whole middle of the film bogs down my experience to the point that I can't get through it. I can't comment on what everybody else is saying or what have you, but IMO, trying to compare that to Fox helping Wayne isn't even the same scenario.

The comedic moments mostly fell flat, the action was even more nonexistent than the first film, and the inclusion of Fury & Widow could have been easily done without, but hey that's just me. I will tell you one thing though, this Avengers movie better blow the socks off everything & everybody, or else all this other crap was for nothing

[PWN3R]

Loved the first and still think the second gets too much hate, but Fav is still the guy for this franchise. Sucks.

I wonder what RDJ's reaction to this will be.

[Pac-Master]

Loved the first and still think the second gets too much hate, but Fav is still the guy for this franchise. Sucks.

I wonder what RDJ's reaction to this will be.
Hopefully not leaving.

[bubbadoom]

Sorry to hear this news, I wonder if he will change his mind if C&A does not do well...

[ElMariachi]

oh and why no blame for Favreau here in terms of money?. $15 million plus 15% of the gross? Thats alot of money.

[RealIrOnMaN]

Hopefully not leaving.
He's got a contract for 4 movies (Iron Man - Iron Man II - The Avengers - Iron Man 3), so hopefully we don't have to worry about Robert.

[RealIrOnMaN]

Sorry to hear this news, I wonder if he will change his mind if C&A does not do well...
By that time, as I think, they'll already reveal the new director.

[ElMariachi]

Well we can agree to disagree, but the whole middle of the film bogs down my experience to the point that I can't get through it. I can't comment on what everybody else is saying or what have you, but IMO, trying to compare that to Fox helping Wayne isn't even the same scenario.

The comedic moments mostly fell flat, the action was even more nonexistent than the first film, and the inclusion of Fury & Widow could have been easily done without, but hey that's just me. I will tell you one thing though, this Avengers movie better blow the socks off everything & everybody, or else all this other crap was for nothing

It was slow, no dobut, but hardly as bad as many make it out to be. The only scene that really was boring in that movie was the one with Stark/Pepper on the airplane. The slow parts of the movie might not have had action but they were funny, entertaining scenes in my opinion.

The Lucious Fox scene was exactly the same thing. Batman goes down and is rescued, cured by a magical forumla. No different than Stark getting cured. Then again, this was explained as a temporary solution and he did heal himself by discovering the new element.

I thought that this movie was hilarious, so I am not understanding the parts that fell flat. The action was limited in some ways (length of Whiplash/IM fight) but all in all, it was entertaining and well done. The IM/WM fight v drones was excellent in my opinion.

[The Squirrel]

It sounds like it was his choice, so I don't think Marvel was to blame. So none of the poll options work for me. It's definitely sad news though.

[Excelsior.]

It sounds like it was his choice, so I don't think Marvel was to blame.But who influenced his choice? Clearly not Marvel, they are saints.

[Octoberist]

Kevin James as the new Happy Hogan!

:p :(

[The Squirrel]

But who influenced his choice? Clearly not Marvel, they are saints.
Twist my words that I didn't say if you want. I don't know what happened, but heaven forbid a grown man made his own decision, right? Shocking. If Marvel forced him out then that news will break sooner rather than later.

[GoldGoblin]

They will probably just reboot now instead of continue with a sequel,look at what happened to Superman Returns.

[Octoberist]

They will probably just reboot now instead of continue with a sequel,look at what happened to Superman Returns.

You must be a kid. No rational adult thinks like that.

[Excelsior.]

I didn't twist your words at all. He made his own decision, but as you know, decisions are influenced by certain events, people etc.

[Raiden]

They will probably just reboot now instead of continue with a sequel,look at what happened to Superman Returns.

Why should they reboot Iron Man? RDJ is still under contract for 2 more movies, for Avengers and IM3; there's absolutely no reason for them to reboot even after Favreau's exit from the franchise.

[Octoberist]

again, no rational adult thinks like that unless Goldgob's a young kid. If he's not, then that's scary.

I know we live in a fast food world, where everything is disposable, but to take things for granted like a film franchise like this that is silly and absurd.

[The Squirrel]

again, no rational adult thinks like that unless Gold's youngerish. Under 15.

I know we live in a fast food world, where everything is disposable, but to take things for granted like a film franchise like this that is silly and absurd.

Yeah, they might recast (Hulk/Rhodey) but they won't reboot it.

[Octoberist]

rebooting it now would be stupid and nonsensical.

Iron Man worked because of many elements, like RDJ. We can't take that for granted. Too bad geeks tend to overlook stuff like that.

[Doc Samson]

It was slow, no dobut, but hardly as bad as many make it out to be. The only scene that really was boring in that movie was the one with Stark/Pepper on the airplane. The slow parts of the movie might not have had action but they were funny, entertaining scenes in my opinion.

The Lucious Fox scene was exactly the same thing. Batman goes down and is rescued, cured by a magical forumla. No different than Stark getting cured. Then again, this was explained as a temporary solution and he did heal himself by discovering the new element.

I thought that this movie was hilarious, so I am not understanding the parts that fell flat. The action was limited in some ways (length of Whiplash/IM fight) but all in all, it was entertaining and well done. The IM/WM fight v drones was excellent in my opinion.

I don't know, to me, when Fury shows up, the whole tone of the movie changes, which doesn't happen with Lucius Fox.

Lord knows I love SLJ, and in his small part at the end of IM1, it was tonally perfect, but here he comes in and he's all "Sir I'm gonna have to ask you to exit the Donut." Then he comes full throttle "Wait! You just let little man come in, kick ya ass, take ya suit, your Iron Man ain't cha?" Lol, it was just over the top, hammy SLJ and the whole film just got weird from there, to me. I know its meant to be funny, but it was just corny. IM1 was funny minus the cheese. The whole "new element" situation was hokey, overlong, and boring as well. The fight scenes are almost nonexistent. What's there is cool, but everything is 3 seconds long, except when he's getting chased. And I could go on and on.

We just have differing opinions, which neither of us need to defend, but my point is that the worse parts of IM2 are directly the result of a subplot that IMO wasn't needed, and Marvel is to blame for that because it's their idea. There's no question in my mind that without it, IM2 would have been better, no matter how good you think it might be already. The bottomline is they had better deliver with The Avengers or none of these subplots would have been worth it anyway

[ElMariachi]

I don't know, to me, when Fury shows up, the whole tone of the movie changes, which doesn't happen with Lucius Fox.

Lord knows I love SLJ, and in his small part at the end of IM1, it was tonally perfect, but here he comes in and he's all "Sir I'm gonna have to ask you to exit the Donut." Then he comes full throttle "Wait! You just let little man come in, kick ya ass, take ya suit, your Iron Man ain't cha?" Lol, it was just over the top, hammy SLJ and the whole film just got weird from there, to me. I know its meant to be funny, but it was just corny. IM1 was funny minus the cheese. The whole "new element" situation was hokey, overlong, and boring as well. The fight scenes are almost nonexistent. What's there is cool, but everything is 3 seconds long, except when he's getting chased. And I could go on and on.

We just have differing opinions, which neither of us need to defend, but my point is that the worse parts of IM2 are directly the result of a subplot that IMO wasn't needed, and Marvel is to blame for that because it's their idea. There's no question in my mind that without it, IM2 would have been better, no matter how good you think it might be already. The bottomline is they had better deliver with The Avengers or none of these subplots would have been worth it anyway

Completely disagree on that, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree. :word: Thought SLJ was great in this movie and the element scene was among the best in a superhero movie.

But, I will say that you can't blame Marvel for everything here. The Avengers subplot really didn't affect the plot. Fury in the middle and at the end, as an add-on to the conclusion.

The question is, do you people want a Marvel Universe in movies or for them to be seperate? All this "too much Avengers" backlash is unfounded and taken too far in my opinon. The slightest scenes mentioning it are declared commercials for this movie and thats wrong in my eyes.

[Dr. Manhatten]

It'd be hilarious to me if it was cause they wouldn't pay Favreau more money and they were starting to lowball. It'd be one thing if they lowballed the Hulk people cause it wasn't a huge hit but Iron Man's their biggest franchise. The last people you'd wanna piss off are the ones who're bringing home the bacon

[Doc Samson]

Completely disagree on that, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree. :word: Thought SLJ was great in this movie and the element scene was among the best in a superhero movie.

But, I will say that you can't blame Marvel for everything here. The Avengers subplot really didn't affect the plot. Fury in the middle and at the end, as an add-on to the conclusion.

The question is, do you people want a Marvel Universe in movies or for them to be seperate? All this "too much Avengers" backlash is unfounded and taken too far in my opinon. The slightest scenes mentioning it are declared commercials for this movie and thats wrong in my eyes.

The Thor scene at the end was fine, just like the Stark scene at the end of TIH. But to go further than that, and actually wrap your plot around Nick Fury in order to tie-in wasn't necessary. How was his inclusion important to the film as a whole? Because of the Element? You said yourself Stark figured that out on his own, they could have omitted Fury completely. And what was Widow's use? T&A shots to be sure, but other than that, what was she really needed for? Honestly?

[mclay18]

Eh, I wasn't thrilled with IM-2. It was fun in spots, but you could tell Favreau didn't have his heart in it. Maybe now that RDJ has director approval for IM-3, we'll get a director who'll inject some freshness into the franchise. (Hopefully RDJ doesn't do anything silly like get Justin Theroux to pen IM-3, get Whedon or reliable writers to do it.)

Now that Marvel and Disney are producing IM-3, they'll pick someone reliable and used to helming big-budget pics to direct this. Not a yes-man like Brett Ratner.

[Batman713]

I don't blame him for leaving. Marvel ****ed IM2 with all that Avengers garbage. The movie was basically a commercial for The Avengers.

[J.Howlett]

Listen, this only affects Marvel after the Avengers. Thor's in the can. Captain America will be soon. The Avengers starts shooting soon.

After the Avengers, it's anybody's guess where this leaves Marvel.

In all honesty, after Avengers, why do Iron Man 3 at all if it's just going to feed back to Avengers 2?

Just do another origin film for another character and then work that character into Avengers 2. Rinse, repeat until they get to Civil War, which we all know that want to at least attempt.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Yeah Fury was basically comedic relief in IM2. It was sam jackson being sam jackson with a patch really.

[ElMariachi]

The Thor scene at the end was fine, just like the Stark scene at the end of TIH. But to go further than that, and actually wrap your plot around Nick Fury in order to tie-in wasn't necessary. How was his inclusion important to the film as a whole? Because of the Element? You said yourself Stark figured that out on his own, they could have omitted Fury completely. And what was Widow's use? T&A shots to be sure, but other than that, what was she really needed for? Honestly?

Sure, they could have omitted Fury, but I enjoyed his role in this movie. He was the only guy that could cut through Tony's arrogance and b.s. If anything, the Tony/Fury scenes had the best dialouge in the movie aside from the courtroom banter between Stark and the Senator.

Widow for the most part was useless aside from T&A. I did like the fight scene she had though and that added to a great climax. LOL at using the word 'climax' relating to Scarlett Johannson. :cwink:

[Spider-ManHero12]

DAMNIT! This sucks! :csad:

[ElMariachi]

I don't blame him for leaving. Marvel ****ed IM2 with all that Avengers garbage. The movie was basically a commercial for The Avengers.

Oh ffs......One scene relating seriously to the Avengers and an after credits one is a commercial now?

I am tired of this Favreau=Jesus stuff that is going around on here. It's the same with Norton as the Hulk. It's as if Favreau is unfallible and can do now wrong----almost in the same category as the Allfather Chris Nolan.

[Doc Samson]

Sure, they could have omitted Fury, but I enjoyed his role in this movie. He was the only guy that could cut through Tony's arrogance and b.s. If anything, the Tony/Fury scenes had the best dialouge in the movie aside from the courtroom banter between Stark and the Senator.

Widow for the most part was useless aside from T&A. I did like the fight scene she had though and that added to a great climax. LOL at using the word 'climax' relating to Scarlett Johannson. :cwink:

Oh don't get me wrong, I just watched "He's just not that into you" yesterday because I turned by and saw her jiggling in a red bra, so I'm with you on enjoying her "climax," I'm just saying in terms of justification, both Widow & Fury were rather shoehorned in just for the sake of some sort of continuity in this Marvel Universe, where the Thor cameo achieved the same goal in about a minutes time at the end of the movie.

[Son of Coul]

Nick Fury and Black Widow pop up in the comics for some deus ex machina and just the sake of it all the time. Wasn't an ad for The Avengers, just warming up for the many future crossovers of the MCU in general. You could tell they had fun putting them in there, something they could never do before. I guess some people (the fans, ironically) didn't have fun watching them. I know I did.

[ElMariachi]

Oh don't get me wrong, I just watched "He's just not that into you" yesterday because I turned by and saw her jiggling in a red bra, so I'm with you on enjoying her "climax," I'm just saying in terms of justification, both Widow & Fury were rather shoehorned in just for the sake of some sort of continuity in this Marvel Universe, where the Thor cameo achieved the same goal in about a minutes time at the end of the movie.

It sucks for Ryan Reynolds that she is on the open market now. Then again, hot women to a movie star are like hoodrats to regular people to you and me.

Widow had more screentime in the movie and had less use. I'll agree on that. Fury had a purpose and his scenes were enjoyable though.

[HighFivingMF]

It sucks for Ryan Reynolds that she is on the open market now. Then again, hot women to a movie star are like hoodrats to regular people to you and me.

Widow had more screentime in the movie and had less use. I'll agree on that. Fury had a purpose and his scenes were enjoyable though.
Yeah, poor Sexiest Man Alive being single again. How ever will he find someone else? :dry:

[Doc Samson]

It sucks for Ryan Reynolds that she is on the open market now. Then again, hot women to a movie star are like hoodrats to regular people to you and me.

Widow had more screentime in the movie and had less use. I'll agree on that. Fury had a purpose and his scenes were enjoyable though.

I don't feel all that bad for him, he got to roll around with Blake Lively as a consolation prize :cwink:

On another note though, don't sleep on me son! lol, I do ok with the hoodrats

[The Squirrel]

They got divorced? When?

[HighFivingMF]

They got divorced? When?
They separated today.

[ElMariachi]

This could be a blessing in disguise for all we know. If Favreau isn't 100% excited for this movie, it's time to move on. If he is more pumped for a Magic Kingdom themed kids movie over Iron Man, it's time to look for fresh talent. He did a great job and we should be happy for what he did with a fringe character. Just hope he doesn't turn into a diva like the guy who has the same last name sans the 'au'.

Favreau, however, didn't make this franchise great. Robert Downey Jr. did. As long as he stays, these movies will at least be entertaining. He truly is one of the best actors of our time and he is here for another two movies. I would be more saddened by this depature if it wasn't for how awesome Cap/Thor look and the fact that we are getting an Avengers movie before IM3 even hits the screen.

[ElMariachi]

Yeah, poor Sexiest Man Alive being single again. How ever will he find someone else? :dry:

He probally scared her away by getting kinky in bed wearing the Barakapool outfit.

[ElMariachi]

I don't feel all that bad for him, he got to roll around with Blake Lively as a consolation prize :cwink:

On another note though, don't sleep on me son! lol, I do ok with the hoodrats

Yeah, Blake Lively is hot. Maybe hotter than Scarlett. Both happen to be wooden actresses. Therefore, the audiences got wood by watching her in Iron Man 2.

The hoodrats are fine in my opinion. Many of them are enjoyable people to be around. :yay:

[Gabe99]

From io9 Aug 6, 2010:
Did Marvel really snub Jon Favreau as director of The Avengers? (http://io9.com/5606601/did-marvel-really-snub-jon-favreau-as-director-of-the-avengers)
Favreau's Iron Man remains one of the few truly great superhero movies, so it's sad to read Cinemablend's report, based on an inside source they say has proven reliable in the past. According to this source, Iron Man 2 wasn't the movie that Favreau wanted to make, and he felt it was rushed into production without a decent script. (With only two years between Iron Man and Iron Man 2, and Favreau having complained publicly about the haste in the past, this part sound plausible.)

Cinemablend's (http://cinemablend.com/new/How-Iron-Man-2-Ruined-Jon-Favreau-s-Relationship-With-Marvel-20003.html) source also says Marvel interfered excessively with Favreau's work on the movie, and "turned the project into an infomercial for The Avengers." And Favreau is unlikely to be back for Iron Man 3, both because of this bad experience and because Marvel won't want to pay him what he wants to be paid a second time. The source also claims Robert Downey Jr. saw the same problems, and while he's already locked in for Iron Man 3 and he'll have star billing in The Avengers, he probably won't be back after that.

[Supermanreturns]

From io9 Aug 6, 2010:
Did Marvel really snub Jon Favreau as director of The Avengers? (http://io9.com/5606601/did-marvel-really-snub-jon-favreau-as-director-of-the-avengers)
This was garbage. Theroux and Favreau confirmed they shoot what they write.

From Jon Favreau's twitter (http://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau):

It's true, I'm directing Magic Kingdom, not Iron Man 3. I've had a great run with Marvel and wish them the best.

No money problems or ideas problems...He will directed Magic Kingdom instead of Iron Man 3. Maybe the production of the two are at the same time.

[DCUmoviepage]

Bad move for Marvel Studios...But changes sometimes is a good thing, but the time show to us this kind of change is not good after all...

[antsman41]

Favreau confirmed it also on his twitter account.

Edit, someone posted it above^

[Parker Wayne]

Whether it was Marvel's fault or not, s**t is really hitting the fan for this Cinematic Universe for Marvel.

I hope they can find a great replacement, but it's gotta be one that can please RDJ and keep a tone similar to the first one. It's gonna be tough and the replacement will have some pretty big shoes to fill.

[hatebox]

Not too surprising, given the rumours around his treatment during IM2.

But this may not be a bad thing. The first 2 movies were ok but certainly left room for improvement.

[DACrowe]

Well that's a surprise. Then again if he's tired I don't want a SM3 on our hands. IM2 wasn't that far from it and was pretty blah. But this could lead to more Marvel Films homogenization. So, I do not know.

[Fanticon]

i just don't think he has faith in the avengers and doesn't get it or where they are taking it.
"This whole world...I have no idea what it is. I don't think they do either, from conversations I've had with those guys."



Comic book movies have been grounded in a certain believable reality or distant future and have done quite well without mixing it up with other characters. Avengers will be the first of its kind as far as taking separate heroes who've had their own movies and then bringing them all together. I think he just needed to wait it out and see what happened with the avengers before saying that.

I'm not mad at him either...I think I do understand that this will have a major impact on the way he told his iron man story. If anything I think the avengers movie would inspire Favs because it opens up new doors and new possibility for villains. These things might seem outrageous to him now but once general audiences have seen thor and the avengers maybe they'd be ok with a villain as great as Mandarin.

[ElMariachi]

Not too surprising, given the rumours around his treatment during IM2.

But this may not be a bad thing. The first 2 movies were ok but certainly left room for improvement.

aww...poor Jon Favreau having to work hard, get paid millions of dollars, and include 2 minutes of Avengers talk.

What a joke. The Favreau defenders are almost as annoying as the Nolan zealots. What is it with the hero worship in this country where the individual can never be wrong?

[hatebox]

aww...poor Jon Favreau having to work hard, get paid millions of dollars, and include 2 minutes of Avengers talk.

What a joke. The Favreau defenders are almost as annoying as the Nolan zealots. What is it with the hero worship in this country where the individual can never be wrong?

Am I a "Favreau defender"? I thought the first 2 movies were rather mediocre. It's obvious things at Marvel are a bit of a mess though. They announced IM3 without a clue what to do with it if Favreau's to be believed.

[Parker Wayne]

aww...poor Jon Favreau having to work hard, get paid millions of dollars, and include 2 minutes of Avengers talk.

What a joke. The Favreau defenders are almost as annoying as the Nolan zealots. What is it with the hero worship in this country where the individual can never be wrong?

What is it with people who think they can't admire people who get things right? I can understand Nolan, but I don't think anyone worshipped Favreau.

And to me, both of those of these directors earned the right to be defended because those two are pretty good directors.

[ElMariachi]

Am I a "Favreau defender"? I thought the first 2 movies were rather mediocre. It's obvious things at Marvel are a bit of a mess though. They announced IM3 without a clue what to do with it if Favreau's to be believed.

Yes, most people are Favreau defenders. Or Norton defenders or Howard defenders. People continue to say that Marvel is cheap, yet their track record of hiring actors disputes that claim. There is alot of buzz for Thor, Cap, and Avengers. Hardly a mess or a bad situation. Iron Man 3 comes out in a few years, so I don't see why the plot has to be entirely fleshed out at this time.

[Sebastos]

Whether it was Marvel's fault or not, s**t is really hitting the fan for this Cinematic Universe for Marvel.

I hope they can find a great replacement, but it's gotta be one that can please RDJ and keep a tone similar to the first one. It's gonna be tough and the replacement will have some pretty big shoes to fill.

This.

[Doc Samson]

What is it with people who think they can't admire people who get things right? I can understand Nolan, but I don't think anyone worshipped Favreau.

And to me, both of those of these directors earned the right to be defended because those two are pretty good directors.

I think a lot of it has to do with that innate human need to feel like an individual, so inevitably, when anything gains popularity, you have a pocket of people who view themselves as being above the masses by having a negative opinion, even when there's no discernible reason for it. It's comparable to the Goth kids who use to wear black and hang out at the mall, not even noticing that they've inadvertently "left" a group just to join another.

[Mister J]

I was hoping Jon would debunk this, but stemming from the scuttlebutt we heard concerning signing him for IM2 (and the rumors of studio meddling), I'm not really surprised. Still sucks though.

[Flint Marko]

I'm cautiously optimistic about this, hoping for the best...
Favreau did great with the first 2 movies (the sequel being an 'avengers commercial' talk has ALWAYS annoyed me, what do you expect out of a shared universe...?) and I'm happy with how those turned out, but it's never a bad thing to have some fresh blood come in and give it a new spin, as long as it's a good one. Which, as I said, I'm hoping will happen :woot:

[samsnee]

On the one hand: new director: X3
On the other hand: same director: Spider-man 3

It sounds like if Favreau stayed, it would have been like Spider-man 3 with lots of studio influences. So it's probably for the best.

[Parker Wayne]

This.

And I just read that RDJ has director approval, so its gonna be that much harder to find a director, thought when they do get a director it shouldn't be much of a problem for him to get along with RDJ.

RDJ will come back (he's contracted to and he's probably the only one Marvel won't release).

[A Necessary Evil]

CONFIRMED! CRAP!! (http://www.deadline.com/2010/12/confirmed-favreau-wont-helm-iron-man-3/)

SON OF A ***** :cmad::cmad: :csad::csad:

[ElMariachi]

What is it with people who think they can't admire people who get things right? I can understand Nolan, but I don't think anyone worshipped Favreau.

And to me, both of those of these directors earned the right to be defended because those two are pretty good directors.

People are defending Favreau for no reason though. It's possible he just wanted to move on or Disney threw a pile of money at him to direct this silly Disneyland movie. You are assuming that it ended poorly or Marvel screwed him. He did a good job and Marvel gave him the resources to do well.

I am tired of everybody hating on Marvel and assuming the worst every time about every story. Making movies is a business and having a huge cast of talented actors/directors in unwieldy. This is something that has never really been attempted before and the experiment is going extremely well so far.

[hatebox]

Yes, most people are Favreau defenders. Or Norton defenders or Howard defenders. People continue to say that Marvel is cheap, yet their track record of hiring actors disputes that claim. There is alot of buzz for Thor, Cap, and Avengers. Hardly a mess or a bad situation. Iron Man 3 comes out in a few years, so I don't see why the plot has to be entirely fleshed out at this time.


Whether or not things are indeed 'a mess' at Marvel, this is undoubtedly a spanner in the works. It's also overtaken the Norton debacle as the most obvious sign that things aren't that rosy with the studio's masteplan, given that Iron Man is still their biggest asset.

It's safe to say the only reason Favreau would abruptly leave would be because he'd had enough of studio interference (not that that'll be the official line), which means whoever else comes in will have to suffer it. I'm struggling to see how that's a good prospect.

[ElMariachi]

Whether or not things are indeed 'a mess' at Marvel, this is undoubtedly a spanner in the works. It's also overtaken the Norton debacle as the most obvious sign that things aren't that rosy with the studio's masteplan, given that Iron Man is still their biggest asset.

It's safe to say the only reason Favreau would abruptly leave would be because he'd had enough of studio interference (not that that'll be the official line), which means whoever else comes in will have to suffer it. I'm struggling to see how that's a good prospect.

Where are you basing this all off of? You people all speak as if you know the full story and are going off conflicting reports/rumors. Studio interference? This isn't an art house movie, it's the cornerstone of an entire studio. He isn't Spielberg or James Cameron where he is entitled to carte blanche. And thats assuming that he even wanted that. His move to directing this Magic Kingdom movie surely doesn't speak much for him wanting independence from the studios. Do you think he will get the kind of freedoms he had for Iron Man 2 directing a movie about Disney World?! This is a tourism ad with a plot in the eyes of Disney for their most precious symbol aside from Mickey Mouse.

[Doc Samson]

Where are you basing this all off of? You people all speak as if you know the full story and are going off conflicting reports/rumors. Studio interference? This isn't an art house movie, it's the cornerstone of an entire studio. He isn't Spielberg or James Cameron where he is entitled to carte blanche. And thats assuming that he even wanted that. His move to directing this Magic Kingdom movie surely doesn't speak much for him wanting independence from the studios. Do you think he will get the kind of freedoms he had for Iron Man 2 directing a movie about Disney World?! This is a tourism ad with a plot in the eyes of Disney for their most precious symbol aside from Mickey Mouse.

Because where there's smoke there's fire. There can't be this big of a coincidence, there's been multiple stories coming out of either studio interference to the point that the whole movie changes or reluctance to pay talent.

-Mickey Rourke was low-balled for IM2 and I believe he only took the part because he wanted to work with RDJ for many years, and finally had the opportunity to do so.

-Ed Norton/Louis Leterrier both had issues with Marvel insisting on cutting out parts of the script. I understand Marvel being a bit nervous with the movie being too slow again, but nothing I saw on the bonus scenes would have extended the movie that much further

-Terrence Howard was reportedly low-balled as well, and while some may think Cheadle is a better actor (which I do too) in this type of film, your acting pedigree isn't as important as your chemistry with the central character, and Howard had a heck of a lot more chemistry with RDJ.

-Now that I think of it, Samuel L. Jackson was low-balled too, at least initially, and for somebody that's supposed to be the thread that ties all this together, you would think Marvel wouldn't have played games with him for as long as they did

-And now this. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe Favreau just wanted to do his own thing, but at the same time, just look how enthusiastic he was about the whole universe at first. He wanted to executive produce Avengers for Pete's sake, you don't jump at that sort of opportunity if your not fully invested. Now all of a sudden, after IM2, where once again we hear reports of discontent with the director and principal actor over changes being made, mysteriously, he wants nothing to do with the franchise again?

[Deaths Head II]

I was worried that Marvel would scare of Favreau with their business practices and it looks like those fears were well founded. This sucks to hear.

[ElMariachi]

Because where there's smoke there's fire. There can't be this big of a coincidence, there's been multiple stories coming out of either studio interference to the point that the whole movie changes or reluctance to pay talent.

-Mickey Rourke was low-balled for IM2 and I believe he only took the part because he wanted to work with RDJ for many years, and finally had the opportunity to do so.

-Ed Norton/Louis Leterrir both had issues with Marvel insisting on cutting out parts of the script. I understand Marvel being a bit nervous with the movie being too slow again, but nothing I saw on the bonus scenes would have extended the movie that much further

-Terrence Howard was reportedly low-balled as well, and while some may think Cheadle is a better actor (which I do too) in this type of film, your acting pedigree isn't as important as your chemistry with the central character, and Howard had a heck of a lot more chemistry with RDJ.

-Now that I think of it, Samuel L. Jackson was low-balled too, at least initially, and for somebody that's supposed to be the thread that ties all this together, you would think Marvel wouldn't have played games with him for as long as they did

-And now this. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe Favreau just wanted to do his own thing, but at the same time, just look how enthusiastic he was about the whole universe at first. He wanted to executive produce Avengers for Pete's sake, you don't jump at that sort of opportunity if your not fully invested. Now all of a sudden, after IM2, where once again we hear reports of discontent with the director and principal actor over changes being made, mysteriously, he wants nothing to do with the franchise again?

What do you expect them to do? Highball these actors and directors? When you go to buy a car, do you buy the listed price right away? In the same way, should a film studio pay whatever is asked? You all forget that this is a business. They may have lowballed actors, but you don't know what the situation was in regards to the money. How do you know that SLJ didn't want big money for small roles like he had in IM2? How do you know that Norton didn't want huge money for a role that would most likely be 75% CGI? There are reports that he was and is a diva, yet nobody cares about that side of the story. Then you have Terrence Howard, who wanted a huge paycheck and be paid more/same as RDJ!

You bring up smoke and fire. But Marvel brought on Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Tommy Lee Jones, William Hurt, Tim Roth, Hugo Weaving, Stellan Skarsgard, Stanley Tucci, Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, etc. to their movies. These are some of the best actors in the business are they not? Marvel apparently can bring these actors to their stable, yet it is being said that they are cheap. It doesn't add up does it? Even the lesser characters in Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, and Captain America are highly regarded actors and somewhat well known. A cheap studio would hire nobodies from the CW and cheap young actors like Fox is doing with that awful X-Men movie. If Marvel was as cheap as many of you claim, Cheadle would not be War Machine. The guy from the Old Spice ads would be. The movies would look like cheap crap with poor special effects (cough Wolverine cough), but instead all of their movies have been high quality in this department.

[Project862006]

rumor is rdj is the reason favs left

[HighFivingMF]

rumor is rdj is the reason favs left
Source would be nice?

[Project862006]

cbm i know lol but something to keep the gossip high!!!

http://www.**************.com/fansites/scifimediazone/news/?a=26487

[Mister J]

Jon Favreau Explains Why He Traded ‘Iron Man 3′ For Disneyland Trip (http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/12/14/jon-favreau-explains-why-he-traded-iron-man-3-for-disneyland-trip/)


Still making my way through it, but nothing particularly revealing as of yet.

[Parker Wayne]

All I'm gonna say is this, all of this will go away if the remaining three Marvel films (Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers) are successful, including the latter being crazy successful.

The Avengers will not only be the biggest gauge of the superhero genre, but it will no doubt decide the future of Marvel Studios. Will everything, including everything that's happened behind it be worth it.

Either way, someone should make a documentary about this when all the films are done. :woot::o

[Parker Wayne]

cbm i know lol but something to keep the gossip high!!!

http://www.**************.com/fansites/scifimediazone/news/?a=26487

Its CBM and it says an exclusive scoop. I don't really ever take CBM seriously as a source, though it does make some sense. I'm just gonna take it with a grain of salt though.

[ElMariachi]

Either way, someone should make a documentary about this when all the films are done. :woot::o

yes! :awesome:

And get the guy who did Cocaine Cowboys to do it.

[Doc Samson]

What do you expect them to do? Highball these actors and directors? When you go to buy a car, do you buy the listed price right away? In the same way, should a film studio pay whatever is asked? You all forget that this is a business. They may have lowballed actors, but you don't know what the situation was in regards to the money. How do you know that SLJ didn't want big money for small roles like he had in IM2? How do you know that Norton didn't want huge money for a role that would most likely be 75% CGI? There are reports that he was and is a diva, yet nobody cares about that side of the story. Then you have Terrence Howard, who wanted a huge paycheck and be paid more/same as RDJ!

You bring up smoke and fire. But Marvel brought on Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Tommy Lee Jones, William Hurt, Tim Roth, Hugo Weaving, Stellan Skarsgard, Stanley Tucci, Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, etc. to their movies. These are some of the best actors in the business are they not? Marvel apparently can bring these actors to their stable, yet it is being said that they are cheap. It doesn't add up does it? Even the lesser characters in Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, and Captain America are highly regarded actors and somewhat well known. A cheap studio would hire nobodies from the CW and cheap young actors like Fox is doing with that awful X-Men movie. If Marvel was as cheap as many of you claim, Cheadle would not be War Machine. The guy from the Old Spice ads would be. The movies would look like cheap crap with poor special effects (cough Wolverine cough), but instead all of their movies have been high quality in this department.

That's the issue, what's the sense of bringing in all this talent if you refuse to pay for it after they give you successful movies? What good is it if Cheadle, Hopkins or Renner walk after 1 movie because they aren't getting paid? Or so many changes are made to the movie, nobody feels comfortable with it anymore? Keep doing that a few more times and who's going to be left to work with? No actor or director worth anything is going to sit there and let the studio mismanage the project, or worse, refuse to pay them what their worth? Would you take a pay cut for no reason?

[ElMariachi]

Jon Favreau Explains Why He Traded ‘Iron Man 3′ For Disneyland Trip (http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/12/14/jon-favreau-explains-why-he-traded-iron-man-3-for-disneyland-trip/)


Still making my way through it, but nothing particularly revealing as of yet.

It is beginning to sound to me like Favreau is a Disneyphile. We saw it in Iron Man 2 with the brilliant Stark Expo scene and the similarities of Howard Stark/Walt Disney.

I love classic Disney stuff, so this movie might actually be pretty good. I wish him best of luck, but it's sad that he isn't finishing the trilogy. It sounds like there wasn't any issue with the studio so I don't understand all the speculation here. Sad though if the reports of an RDJ/Favreau rift are true.

[Parker Wayne]

yes! :awesome:

And get the guy who did Cocaine Cowboys to do it.

And insert fan opinions throughout as it went from:

(If the Avengers suceeds):

From excitement to confusion, anger (after the Norton thing) to sadness (After the Favs thing) to happiness

(If The Avenger fails):

From excitement to confusiong, anger, to sadness to disappointed/depressed

From excite

[Suzanne78]

Hmmm... I guess I'm giving Marvel too much benefit of the doubt but maybe it was simply a matter of franchise burnout for Favs. He really does have a lot on his plate post IM2 and perhaps the thrill factor just isn't there for him like it was with the first movie.

Sure, Marvel probably interfered more than JF would've liked. Maybe there was an increasing rift between JF and RDJ... but studios intervene frequently with their big pics and I didn't have much issue with the Avengers material included. In fact, I really didn't think it was all that intrusive. And I definitely appreciated the small bits of Black Widow; getting to see a female hero kick ass again was very much welcome.

IM2 could've been streamlined, but it still managed to gross almost as much as its predecessor domestically, so... *shrugs*

[ElMariachi]

That's the issue, what's the sense of bringing in all this talent if you refuse to pay for it after they give you successful movies? What good is it if Cheadle, Hopkins or Renner walk after 1 movie because they aren't getting paid? Or so many changes are made to the movie, nobody feels comfortable with it anymore? Keep doing that a few more times and who's going to be left to work with? No actor or director worth anything is going to sit there and let the studio mismanage the project, or worse, refuse to pay them what their worth? Would you take a pay cut for no reason?

There is nothing to base this off of though. Howard clearly wanted too much money and they weren't going to overpay for a smaller role. We don't know about the Norton situation, but it's possible that he was behind these problems. Or at least responsible for part of them.

Aside from that, where are all the subtrations in these movies? They have done a good job keeping their talent aside from these two big instances. The Favreau thing is sounding more like he was drawn to a huge Disney project, which he probally is going to get paid alot of money for.

[Supermanreturns]

It is beginning to sound to me like Favreau is a Disneyphile. We saw it in Iron Man 2 with the brilliant Stark Expo scene and the similarities of Howard Stark/Walt Disney.

I love classic Disney stuff, so this movie might actually be pretty good. I wish him best of luck, but it's sad that he isn't finishing the trilogy. It sounds like there wasn't any issue with the studio so I don't understand all the speculation here. Sad though if the reports of an RDJ/Favreau rift are true.

Yes. Favreau was a good director for Iron Man but I think he's more suitable as a comedy or a family-movie than Iron Man. You can look from what he have done with these movies: lack of action, more comedy.

I think when they want him for Magic Kingdom he said yes because it's a movie for him.

[ElMariachi]

And insert fan opinions throughout as it went from:

(If the Avengers suceeds):

From excitement to confusion, anger (after the Norton thing) to sadness (After the Favs thing) to happiness

(If The Avenger fails):

From excitement to confusiong, anger, to sadness to disappointed/depressed

From excite

That could be an epic documentary. There is so much material that could be used. A whole chapter on just the failures of Fox superhero movies, Alan Moore's whining, the D.C. vs. Marvel rivalry, etc. Of course you would have to get some geeks to inverview like Harry Knowles.

[Iron_Stark]

Because where there's smoke there's fire. There can't be this big of a coincidence, there's been multiple stories coming out of either studio interference to the point that the whole movie changes or reluctance to pay talent.

-Mickey Rourke was low-balled for IM2 and I believe he only took the part because he wanted to work with RDJ for many years, and finally had the opportunity to do so.

-Ed Norton/Louis Leterrier both had issues with Marvel insisting on cutting out parts of the script. I understand Marvel being a bit nervous with the movie being too slow again, but nothing I saw on the bonus scenes would have extended the movie that much further

-Terrence Howard was reportedly low-balled as well, and while some may think Cheadle is a better actor (which I do too) in this type of film, your acting pedigree isn't as important as your chemistry with the central character, and Howard had a heck of a lot more chemistry with RDJ.

-Now that I think of it, Samuel L. Jackson was low-balled too, at least initially, and for somebody that's supposed to be the thread that ties all this together, you would think Marvel wouldn't have played games with him for as long as they did

-And now this. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe Favreau just wanted to do his own thing, but at the same time, just look how enthusiastic he was about the whole universe at first. He wanted to executive produce Avengers for Pete's sake, you don't jump at that sort of opportunity if your not fully invested. Now all of a sudden, after IM2, where once again we hear reports of discontent with the director and principal actor over changes being made, mysteriously, he wants nothing to do with the franchise again?

Terrance Howard was never lowballed by the current people in charge. Before Favreau, Downey and the rest were hired, Avi Arad hired him and gave him X amount of money. That amount turned out to be more than RDJ himself.

He didn't deserve a raise or to keep making more than RDJ, no way in hell. So him leaving was more Arad's fault.

[I Am The Knight]

Well, obviously Favs doesn't want to do it. His heart is not in it anymore I guess?

I don't think this means the third one will suck. It will be a different beast, though, and that could be very good, actually. The franchise needs a hungry director.

[SuperT]

Well his explanation as to why he left makes sense and behold, no foul play or awful negotiations.

Sounds like he just wanted to move onto something that gave him a bit more creative freedom.

[Iron_Stark]

It sucks that Favreau isn't coming back, I wish him the best.

I hope they get an equally as talented director.

And for the love of all thats good and holey, get a director that knows action, I love Favs and all, but he just didn't know how to make an action sequence.

[ElMariachi]

Yes. Favreau was a good director for Iron Man but I think he's more suitable as a comedy or a family-movie than Iron Man. You can look from what he have done with these movies: lack of action, more comedy.

I think when they want him for Magic Kingdom he said yes because it's a movie for him.

I think he did a great job, but there is so much potential for a new director. This is a high profile, coveted job opening. It's a successful, well liked franchise that can open alot of doors for a middling director. Look what Batman did for Chris Nolan. He wasn't ever going to get the big money needed to fund his dream project (no pun intended) Inception without the success of BB/TDK. I don't know who that director is for Iron Man, but Duncan Jones is the name being thrown around alot.

[Gold Samurai]

If this true i find it sad as i would have liked to have seen what direction he would have taken a sequel in with the Mandarin.


Favreau's personal confirmation via twitter

http://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/statuses/14838249365176320


It's true, I'm directing Magic Kingdom, not Iron Man 3. I've had a great run with Marvel and wish them the best.

Well that's it, he's out for good. I guess Iron Man 4 will be a reboot with a younger Tony and it will be influenced by the "Ultimates" version >_>

[ElMariachi]

Well, obviously Favs doesn't want to do it. His heart is not in it anymore I guess?

I don't think this means the third one will suck. It will be a different beast, though, and that could be very good, actually. The franchise needs a hungry director.

Paladium poisoning? Hey-o! :woot:

[Iron_Stark]

Yes. Favreau was a good director for Iron Man but I think he's more suitable as a comedy or a family-movie than Iron Man. You can look from what he have done with these movies: lack of action, more comedy.

I think when they want him for Magic Kingdom he said yes because it's a movie for him.

Well, obviously Favs doesn't want to do it. His heart is not in it anymore I guess?

I don't think this means the third one will suck. It will be a different beast, though, and that could be very good, actually. The franchise needs a hungry director.

Spot on posts. :up:

If his heart isn't in it anymore, then lets get someone in that wants it.

Iron Man 2 was getting too joke heavy and less on the action.

[Anita18]

Terrance Howard was never lowballed by the current people in charge. Before Favreau, Downey and the rest were hired, Avi Arad hired him and gave him X amount of money. That amount turned out to be more than RDJ himself.

He didn't deserve a raise or to keep making more than RDJ, no way in hell. So him leaving was more Arad's fault.
:lmao: Oh, another Arad fail...

[Sentinel X]

All I can say is......YAY!!! :)

Iron Man 1 was enjoyable but nothing to call home about. Iron man 2 was even less impressive. Hopefully they hire someone who can do a better job. Im pretty excited for his Cowboys and Aliens however

[Golgo-13]

Here comes the 3rd movie jinx..again. Like Blade 3, Spidey 3 and X3.....history repeats itself...

[Rac]

Hopefully not leaving.
He ain't leaving.

[Son of Coul]

I read the article about why he left and feel a lot better about it. Basically, he wants to surprise people and simply seems tired of the franchise and having to please fans, the GA, and the studio for a big adaptation. He's clearly more excited about Magic Kingdom and wants to relive his Elf days and that's fine. It's cool that he keeps in touch with Feige, they seemed to get along well and I like that he's staying on as producer for The Avengers to prevent an appearance of bad blood.

Let's hope that Marvel finds someone who can orchestrate the same emotion and fun as Favreau while pulling together even better action scenes (not that the first two were bad at all, just could be slightly better is all).

[Excelsior.]

Here comes the 3rd movie jinx..again. Like Blade 3, Spidey 3 and X3.....history repeats itself.......or it could be the best in the franchise if they can get an Aronofsky like director.

[A Necessary Evil]

Here comes the 3rd movie jinx..again. Like Blade 3 and X3.....history repeats itself...

fixed.:cwink:

[I Am The Knight]

At least the third one shouldn't be rushed now. That much. I mean, I assume they are shooting for a may 2013 release date?

[Parker Wayne]

fixed.:cwink:

No, Spider-man 3 belongs in there. Whether you like it or not, there were huge problems occuring behind the scenes.

[A Necessary Evil]

No, Spider-man 3 belongs in there. Whether you like it or not, there were huge problems occuring behind the scenes.

Oh I thought he meant as a whole lol. Yeah I mean it had its problems, both movie-wise and BTS, but I liked it fair enough.

3.1 would make it about 32 times better though:o

[Gold Samurai]

Here comes the 3rd movie jinx..again. Like Blade 3, Spidey 3 and X3.....history repeats itself...

Which is why we should all stick to "The Dark Knight Rises"
:woot:

[I Am The Knight]

Yes, Spidey 3 definitely belongs there. See also: Superman III, Batman For3ver.

[Rac]

Here comes the 3rd movie jinx..again. Like Blade 3, Spidey 3 and X3.....history repeats itself...
Batman Forever, Superman 3

[Figs]

3.1 would make it about 32 times better though:o

Has there ever been detailed info on what would be added in or taken out of a possible 3.1 or is it all fan wishes?

[mclay18]

I wouldn't say IM-3 is struck by the third movie curse. At least not until we know who's directing and who's writing the script.

I think they are already thinking of more IM movies after three. They've hired Marti Noxon (or at least in negotiations) to pen IM-4, according to Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118019974?refCatId=).

[A Necessary Evil]

Has there ever been detailed info on what would be added in or taken out of a possible 3.1 or is it all fan wishes?

I don't think so....but the deleted scenes are there. So I think things wouldn't be the exact same, but the movie would be an improvement. I'd say maybe from a 6.5 to a 7-8 maybe.


The dance remains in both though.:awesome:

[A Necessary Evil]

I wouldn't say IM-3 is struck by the third movie curse. At least not until we know who's directing and who's writing the script.

I think they are already thinking of more IM movies after three. They've hired Marti Noxon (or at least in negotiations) to pen IM-4, according to Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118019974?refCatId=).

wtf this was originally three and now they're onto the fourth?

this reminds me of a certain superhero series who had a 5th movie being written before the fourth one came out...:o

[I Am The Knight]

Paladium poisoning? Hey-o! :woot:

Painful way to die :o

[A Necessary Evil]

Painful way to die :o

Lookin pretty sprightly for a dead guy...:wow::wow:

[Leenie]

Favs confirmed it on twitter: http://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/status/14838249365176320

I'm very, very sad about this. :(

(I swear, if RDJ is the next to go ... Well, there goes your whole franchise, Marvel.)

[ChinoXL]

This is awesome news,IM2 was craptacular.Sloppy writing from start to finish,it made Spider-Man 3 look like a masterpiece.

yup this is actually not bad news at all there is a plethora of guys who can build upon Iron Man better

[TheVileOne]

I think the people being emotional about this need to get over it.

I think recently Favreau has shown that he's sort of done with Iron Man and ready to move on.

For starters these things:

1. Favreau didn't want to do Demon in A Bottle. According to Bob Layton, RDJ really wants to do it, but Favreau does not.

2. Favreau doesn't want to do stories that have types of magical or fantasy stories in the Iron Man realm, so nothing that isn't tech-based or isn't realistic. He couldn't really get over that hump and I think that's why he wasn't picked for Avengers either.

3. He's got lots of other projects lined up right now, so he should be fine.

4. Its just, he just hasn't acted serious about wanting to lead and be the visionary for the franchise or other Marvel movies. I think he basically had his take and he's stepping aside now. What is wrong with that?

I think the only thing that would hurt the franchise is losing Robert Downey Jr.

[Happy Jack]

It's probably too early to make any judgments on this, since a new director hasn't been brought in, but similar happenings in the past do not bode well for this. Iron Man 2 was already a step down from the first, even with Favreau directing, and a part of me can't shake the feeling that they'll pull a Ratner or Schumacher.

[S.A.A.D.]

There is a bit if irony about Favreau leaving his spot to direct Ironman 3 since he had no problem working on Cowboys&Aliens which is an adaption of a graphic novel and which had a built in fanbase before the movie was made.

[A Necessary Evil]

he didn't leave because of it being a comic book....what irony? :huh:

[ClarkLuther55]

I'm not happy to read about Favreau's departure. And I thought that Iron Man 2 was a step down from the original.

But please, let's all stop exaggerating here. IM2 was not a horrible movie; overall I would still give it a "thumbs up." It didn't tear the box office apart like The Dark Knight but it still made over $300 million, and mainstream audience polls like Cinemascore show that people liked it. And what's this talk about IM2 being an "infomercial for the Avengers?" That sounds like total fanboy hyperbole. Nick Fury showed up in the middle of the film, but he didn't even mention the Avengers then. We just got a few brief lines at the end about Tony being considered for membership, and the after-credits scene with Thor's hammer. IM2 had its problems but being flooded with Avengers isn't one of them.

[TheVileOne]

It's all BS because we knew it was happening already. All of that stuff was IN Iron Man. They set up SHIELD and Nick Fury in Iron Man. As well as the Avengers Initiative and everyone loved.

[I Am The Knight]

There is a bit if irony about Favreau leaving his spot to direct Ironman 3 since he had no problem working on Cowboys&Aliens which is an adaption of a graphic novel and which had a built in fanbase before the movie was made.

I'm not sure that irony is the right word, but you can't compare C&A to the expectations (and baggage) an IM3 comes with.

[S.A.A.D.]

he didn't leave because of it being a comic book....what irony? :huh:

What I was trying to get across is that since it's based on a source material,fans of it are going to have expectations regarding the C&A movie,the fans who have read the graphic novel for it that is. He acted as if certain people won't have expectations for the movie and so going off of that one problem he might as well just stick with doing movies that aren't based on an existing source material if that one problem bugs him so much.

[bullets]

I think studio interference and timing issues are probably what caused him to drop out. I liked IM2 but wanted to see something separate from the Avengers for IM3. I think Favreau would of delivered and now it's up in the air.

[Parker Wayne]

I'm not happy to read about Favreau's departure. And I thought that Iron Man 2 was a step down from the original.

But please, let's all stop exaggerating here. IM2 was not a horrible movie; overall I would still give it a "thumbs up." It didn't tear the box office apart like The Dark Knight but it still made over $300 million, and mainstream audience polls like Cinemascore show that people liked it. And what's this talk about IM2 being an "infomercial for the Avengers?" That sounds like total fanboy hyperbole. Nick Fury showed up in the middle of the film, but he didn't even mention the Avengers then. We just got a few brief lines at the end about Tony being considered for membership, and the after-credits scene with Thor's hammer. IM2 had its problems but being flooded with Avengers isn't one of them.

Its all been exaggerated. If you actually count how much time is spent on the avengers its only the brief reference to New Mexico, the ending, and the after credits. That's all 3, 4 minutes tops.

[S.A.A.D.]

I'm not sure that irony is the right word, but you can't compare C&A to the expectations (and baggage) an IM3 comes with.


I wasn't even trying to compare them in terms of what their expectations are and what they will be. I didn't touch on the baggage that Ironman 3 has either and I also didn't draw differences or parallels in terms of baggage and expectations between the movies.

[Stuart Green]

I saw this earlier and I'm disappointed that Mr. Favreau won't be doing a third "Iron Man", but after seeing the second, it seemed that he had less control over it than the first. I really, REALLY hope this doesn't go the "X-Men: The Last Straw" route and have the third film be the weakest installment due to a new director who didn't do as good of a job as his predecessor.

[jmc]

What I was trying to get across is that since it's based on a source material,fans of it are going to have expectations regarding the C&A movie,the fans who have read the graphic novel for it that is. He acted as if certain people won't have expectations for the movie and so going off of that one problem he might as well just stick with doing movies that aren't based on an existing source material if that one problem bugs him so much.

Fans? Let's be honest, that fan base isn't exactly big, besides Fevreau has already said it was C&A in name only and the most of the story has got nothing to do with the comic, that film is based off the concept more than the original.

[S.A.A.D.]

Fans? Let's be honest, that fan base isn't exactly big, besides Fevreau has already said it was C&A in name only and the most of the story has got nothing to do with the comic, that film is based off the concept more than the original.

I was already aware that the fanbase for C&A isn't big. Thanks for pointing the other stuff out to me.

[craigdbfan]

Hopefully Marvel will select another talented director that respects the source material. The first thing I thought when I heard that Fav wasnt coming back is "Here comes the cursed third movie in a series," but I try to be optimistic. So we'll see.

I wouldn't mind, but the fact that Marvel seems to think "cheaper" is better really makes me think they aren't exactly looking for quality but rather someone who is just "capable".

Terrible way to approach an already established series.

[KalMart]

I respect him for his decision....regardless of what project he's doing next. I'd be pretty concerned with Marvel's leading up to the Avengers dictating what the next IM movie would have to be, as well, if I were him. I think he's more than done his part for Marvel, and he should take whatever opportunities he wants that are available to him now. Would've been nice to see him wrap it up, but at least we got two really good ones.

[Timstuff]

First no Ed Norton in Avengers, and now Jon Favreau's not directing Iron Man 3. WTF is going on, Marvel?

[J.Howlett]

Marvel better hope and pray that financially and critically, Thor and Captain America are runaway hits...because if they're not, what's the point of the Avengers then?

This whole thing is about Marvel's creative and business practices.

[Supermanreturns]

First no Ed Norton in Avengers, and now Jon Favreau's not directing Iron Man 3. WTF is going on, Marvel?

Nothin', Hollywood industry. Ed Norton was not returning for money issues, Favreau is not for his personal decision. He's a comedic director and wants to come back to family movies. I don't shame on him for that. It's not Marvel's fault this time. Stop blaming out everytime.

[jacobed]

It is disappointing thats for sure since he has always had such enthusiasm for the movie series. Hopefully his replacement will be just as good

[KalMart]

Um...I thought he was Iron Man 3 because he's doing Magic Kingdom.
That's what the latest interview states, yeah.

[El Payaso]

To mme he dropped the ball in IM2. The first one had been brilliant but the second one was boring and uninteresting to the extreme so it's not like I'm crying over this. Who knows what a Favreau's third IM movie would be. I don't even know what to m,ake of him as a IM movies director actually. Well the first one is still one of the best superhero movies for me.

[Spider-ManHero12]

I find it funny that people call IM2 horrible, when, so many people I've talked to to loved it. I know I did. Was it as good as the first? Not 100%, but almost. ALso,I'm in the group tht thinks IM2 was not an infomercial for the Avengers. However, IM3 could have turned out that way if everything was going to go Marvel's way. Now, I love the Avengers references and hints at the end of Iron Man 1 and 2. However, I think that these films should stay in the "Iron Man film" zone and not "Avengers" zone. It should have Avengers references, but it's still an Iron Man film.

Now, Favreau isn't doing IM3 and it actually makes me really sad because i think he did an incredible job with 1 and 2. I wanted to see how he would translate Mandarin from the comics onto the big screen.

[jmc]

Marvel better hope and pray that financially and critically, Thor and Captain America are runaway hits...because if they're not, what's the point of the Avengers then?

This whole thing is about Marvel's creative and business practices.

I think the whole point has been this single universe, and when you do something like that with so many characters and so many creative teams involved with each character it starts to become a bit of a mess. Here's the bigger issue, Avenger's will already be underway before Thor and Cap are released, possibly be finished even, that to me is ludicrous, in fact I'd say it's down right reckless.

[craigdbfan]

I think the whole point has been this single universe, and when you do something like that with so many characters and so many creative teams involved with each character it starts to become a bit of a mess. Here's the bigger issue, Avenger's will already be underway before Thor and Cap are released, possibly be finished even, that to me is ludicrous, in fact I'd say it's down right reckless.

It really is.

Joss Whedon probably already knows how Thor and Captain America are going to end so he could technically still make a pretty good Avenger film.

I think at this point all three of these films (Thor, CA, and The Avengers) have to stand out as its own distinctive and sustained story. If all of them accomplish this then Marvel would still be in the clear.

What I fear is that they've turned each of these films into a lead up into the next on, sort of like Iron Man II that might not be the right move IMO. It will get cluttered and lessen the impact of the character to the audience if we don't really care that they are involved then that could lead to a somewhat lousy film.

I know its to early to speculate but its warranted.

[Iron_Stark]

I think the people being emotional about this need to get over it.

I think recently Favreau has shown that he's sort of done with Iron Man and ready to move on.

For starters these things:

1. Favreau didn't want to do Demon in A Bottle. According to Bob Layton, RDJ really wants to do it, but Favreau does not.

2. Favreau doesn't want to do stories that have types of magical or fantasy stories in the Iron Man realm, so nothing that isn't tech-based or isn't realistic. He couldn't really get over that hump and I think that's why he wasn't picked for Avengers either.

3. He's got lots of other projects lined up right now, so he should be fine.

4. Its just, he just hasn't acted serious about wanting to lead and be the visionary for the franchise or other Marvel movies. I think he basically had his take and he's stepping aside now. What is wrong with that?

I think the only thing that would hurt the franchise is losing Robert Downey Jr.

Exactly, normally I'd be up in arms about this, ala Ed Norton's departure, but maybe, just maybe this could turn out good.

And also, Favs was also vastly afraid to do Mandarin.

[GhostPoet]

It's a shame he's leaving...I hope whoever steps in can keep the same feel and quality of the first two. Oh and I thought Iron Man 2 was a huge step up from the first...you actually get to see more of Iron Man (go figure) in the film. It's just an overall better film.

[kedrell]

I think they're both in the cream-o-the crop when it comes to superhero movies. And the 1st is probably my second favorite film of all time after Jaws.

[Donut]

As long as he returns as Happy Hogan I am good

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Iron Man 1 and 2 were fun movies that were a heavy character vehicle for RDJ. Action and fun but thats it. However, the movies themselves felt like they were pretty freestyled in terms of plot. As if things were being put together on the spot. I think he didnt characterize Nick Fury all that well in #2, actually he missed it pretty badly, but he also corrected Rhodey at the same time. He went from being this lackey chasing Stark around to this military personality with serious pull in the Army ranks.

[kedrell]

Why? Happy's such an inconsequential character in these movies anyway?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I gotta say, this does not come as a surprise to me at all, this has been on the cards since before IM2 was released IMO. What the hell are Marvel doing though? They are losing all their talent and dont seem to care, they just hire someone else, they really have made some major **** ups along the way so far IMO.

Losing Norton was bad enough, now this. I wasnt best pleased with IM2, but IMO the problems with that movie were down to Marvel rather than Favreau.

[Spider-Fan]

Wow. I am sad to hear this. Maybe the reports of him being disappointed with IM2 are true? I can't say for certain. He made a great movie and a decent sequel. I hoped he would end on a higher note than IM2, but looks like the RDJ trilogy won't have that continuity we all want. I'm willing to see what someone else is going to do, at the same time though. I hope they get a worthy successor.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

This isn't surprising news at all. The surprise would have been him directing the 3rd one. The series has already gone down hill so there isn't any need for me to worry about the 3rd movie sucking.

Favs made the right choice. Why making another two hour advertisment for the Avengers?

[Raiden]

I gotta say, this does not come as a surprise to me at all, this has been on the cards since before IM2 was released IMO. What the hell are Marvel doing though? They are losing all their talent and dont seem to care, they just hire someone else, they really have made some major **** ups along the way so far IMO.

Losing Norton was bad enough, now this. I wasnt best pleased with IM2, but IMO the problems with that movie were down to Marvel rather than Favreau.

Yeah, I feel the same way. It just seems to me that Marvel is so unwilling to compromise, they'd rather jettison talents and get a replacement than keep the actors that have done a good job (Howard, Norton). And now they have gotten rid of a good director as well. As a Marvel fan, I don't like how Marvel is doing their business, and I think if it continues this will eventually give the company a bad reputation around Hollywood.

[Iron_Stark]

This isn't surprising news at all. The surprise would have been him directing the 3rd one. The series has already gone down hill so there isn't any need for me to worry about the 3rd movie sucking.

Favs made the right choice. Why making another two hour advertisment for the Avengers?

Please, the series is hardly going downhill. And how exactly was part 2 an advertisement for the Avengers? List all the Avengers references and amount of time it took up.

Wait weren't you the one that was yapping how IM2's BO was going to hurt the dvd/BR sales, yet it ended up selling about 2 million more units than the first. Goes to show how much you know.



The problem with part 2 was them shoehorning in War Machine at the expense of the villains.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm allowed to dislike Iron Man 2 and voice my opinion about Favs leaving.

And I also predicted it would make over 400mil domestically so...?

As for it's DVD sales, if I'm wrong so what? The final sales figures aren't out yet so I'm going to wait and see how wrong I am overall.

I'm sure you didn't predict Avatar to make 2.8bil worldwide.

It's funny how you are burying your head in the sand about Iron Man 2. If the movie was so loved and wildly successful to the director, why isn't he coming back? I didn't make him not come back for a 3rd movie so don't take it out on me. lol

BTW:

This thread is not about my DVD or boxoffice predictions so stay on topic. I'm not going to respond to anymore comments reagrding that because I'm going to talk about the topic at hand. Marvel screwed over Favs so he left. Ofcourse he isn't going to admit that and thats fine with me.

[Excelsior.]

Its funny seeing so many people in denial.

[kedrell]

Which ones?

[SuperT]

This thread is such a headache to read.

Everyone always wants to blame someone whether it's the studio or director. lol

[Hush]

While I enjoyed the 2nd I honestly am not suprised. I hope we get a nice replacement Director. In all honesty though, do we need a 3rd Iron Man?

[A Necessary Evil]

If the movie was so loved and wildly successful to the director, why isn't he coming back? I didn't make him not come back for a 3rd movie so don't take it out on me. lol

My two cents is cause marvel was pulling a sony :o

[I SEE SPIDEY]

My two cents is cause marvel was pulling a sony :oThats mine as well. Expect it's not so strange for a director to not come back for a 4th film but in this day and age, it is news that a director is not coming back for a 3rd.

Marvel better pray that this Avengers thing works because if it doesn't they messed up a perfectly good franchise for nothing. Ofcourse, just like I said about Raimi regarding Spider-Man3, I'm not going to blame every problem on the studio, Favs is partly responsible for Iron Man 2's problems.

[A Necessary Evil]

Thats mine as well. Expect it's not so strange for a director to not come back for a 4th film but in this day and age, it is news that a director is not coming back for a 3rd.

Marvel better pray that this Avengers thing works because if it doesn't they messed up a perfectly good franchise for nothing. Ofcourse, just like I said about Raimi regarding Spider-Man3, I'm not going to blame every problem on the studio, Favs is partly responsible for Iron Man 2's problems.

I agree. I'm more inclined to blame marvel, but favs is partially to blame to. I'd say about 90% of the crap goes to marvel.

[IronJoe]

While I enjoyed the 2nd I honestly am not suprised. I hope we get a nice replacement Director. In all honesty though, do we need a 3rd Iron Man?

^^ Agree, not too surprised. When he didn't walk out on stage with the rest of the Avengers cast at Comic Con like I expected him to (since Cowboys & Aliens panel was right before) I figured something was up.


I think we need a 3rd Iron Man because we haven't yet seen the Mandarin. That's like having a Batman movie series without the Joker, or a Superman series without Lex Luthor, or an X-Men series without Magneto. The Mandarin is Iron Man's arch-nemesis and deserves a movie. With the rise of China going on in the real world, I'd like to see the "Temujin" persona of the Mandarin:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5VgL6ZXwkaw/Rml9cpuIktI/AAAAAAAACzg/YjuTG5IiD_4/s320/Iron+Man+18-3.JPG

Anyway I think a lot will change after the Avengers. Who knows, we may see a trilogy of Avengers movies before IM3 is made.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I agree. I'm more inclined to blame marvel, but favs is partially to blame to. I'd say about 90% of the crap goes to marvel.yep, thats a pretty good break down on where the blame lies.

[jab1118]

Not really getting the marvel hate. Fav wasnt fired or not asked to come back. He decided to do another movie for essentially the same company, Disney. And im not really all that upset even though I loved the first one and liked the second one the action was kind of weak. And honestly going off interviews he gave I dont think he thinks adding in fantasy elements from avengers is going to work. And with him were never gonna get Mandarin for that reason just another tech based villain. So hopefully we get a director with the balls to go for it

[BH/HHH]

I wonder if Robert Downey Jr himself might end up directing

[Son of Coul]

This thread is a complete wallbanger. There's clearly no bad blood, Favs just had more interest in another project that shoots at the same time, so he took it. But somebody's always got to be blamed.

And are we really still on this retarded notion that IM2 was an Avengers ad again? Oh no, there was a SHIELD scene at the end and a Thor hint after the credits. That one-track minded Marvel! As soon as a filmmaker does well, everybody has to leap in to be naysayers, searching for faults. Fact of the matter is, Marvel has done pretty outstanding compared to any other studio with nothing but three films, a teaser, and a game plan.

Also I'd like to request people to cease quoting I SEE SPIDEY, it defeats the purpose of having her on my ignore list. :oldrazz:

[jmc]

What I fear is that they've turned each of these films into a lead up into the next on, sort of like Iron Man II that might not be the right move IMO. It will get cluttered and lessen the impact of the character to the audience if we don't really care that they are involved then that could lead to a somewhat lousy film.

I know its to early to speculate but its warranted.

I've said the exact same thing and have been hounded for saying it, some people just don't want to hear it. I think the problem is some fans eyes glazed over at the prospects of the single universe and consequently point blank refuse to see the potential problems in what Marvel are attempting in the time frame they've set themselves. There was always going to be difficulties in attempting something this audacious, casting problems, creative differences, production time frame, scheduling, etc, did people really think things were just going to go smoothly? IM1 works great because at the time it wasn't really bound to any one direction, IM2 saw things starting to be filtered one way to accommodate what's coming up, and Favreau probably felt creatively suffocated in having to work that way, especially after Nolan was given the luxury by WB to do as he pleased for TDK, Marvel you could say did the exact opposite to him.

[Excelsior.]

Maybe Favreau demanded Happy's character be expanded even further (having his own Iron Man suit this time) and Marvel denied. Disgruntled, Favreau left.

[Doc Samson]

Marvel better hope and pray that financially and critically, Thor and Captain America are runaway hits...because if they're not, what's the point of the Avengers then?

This whole thing is about Marvel's creative and business practices.

Exactly. In theory, it sounds cool, but to actually implement it, at the expense of using that time to fully flesh out your individual story, sometimes doesn't have positive results. For all we know, Thor & Cap could BOMB at the BO, and then what? And all you guys on here that loved IM2, so be it. Nobody needs to defend their viewpoints when it's a personal opinion, but IMO, Nick Fury & Black Widow were highly unnecessary, and yes, they were in the movie collectively a lot more than 2 minutes, like some of you are suggesting.

Furthermore, does anybody really expect Jon Favreau to come out screaming and bashing Marvel? The same studio that's owned by Disney? The same company he's going to continue to work for with Magic Kingdom? Please. Even if he wasn't doing Magic Kingdom, no professional worth his salt is going to publicly slander a previous employer, if they can help it. There's no point in it, and if anything, it would go a long way towards alienating you from opportunities in the future. Of course he's not going to acknowledge any issue he might have had publicly, but I think the proof is in the pudding. After IM1 he was excited for the sequel and wanted to be a part of The Avengers movie. After IM2, he wants nothing to do with it anymore?

[Supermanreturns]

yep, thats a pretty good break down on where the blame lies.

So, wait! 5 minutes of 120' automatically considered IM2 a spot for Avengers? :wow: WOW!

Because Avengers are:
1. 3 minutes with Nick Fury and Black Widow at middle;
2. 2 minutes with Fury at end talking about Avengers;
3. After credits scene with Thor.

Stop.

Black Widow's character is well integrated in the plot, Avengers or not. The scene with Fury talking about his dad is "plot-centered". And there isn't other Avengers-talking in the movie.

So what's spot? 5 minutes? Wow :doh:

I love haters.

[kedrell]

While I enjoyed the 2nd I honestly am not suprised. I hope we get a nice replacement Director. In all honesty though, do we need a 3rd Iron Man?

Do we need any more P.O.S. Batman movies? Or Superman or Spider-Man or X-Men movies? Since when has NEED have to do with anything?

[KalMart]

Do we need any more P.O.S. Batman movies? Or Superman or Spider-Man or X-Men movies? Since when has NEED have to do with anything?

Fanboys 'need' something to ****** about...other than cereal prizes and such.

[Octoberist]

So, wait! 5 minutes of 120' automatically considered IM2 a spot for Avengers? :wow: WOW!

Because Avengers are:
1. 3 minutes with Nick Fury and Black Widow at middle;
2. 2 minutes with Fury at end talking about Avengers;
3. After credits scene with Thor.

Stop.

Black Widow's character is well integrated in the plot, Avengers or not. The scene with Fury talking about his dad is "plot-centered". And there isn't other Avengers-talking in the movie.

So what's spot? 5 minutes? Wow :doh:

I love haters.

There's haters but in real life, I think the film was..okay.

I think the problem stems from it being uneven. It feels like certain characters come and go for plot points, so the drive of the film gets kinda lost near the middle.

[Octoberist]

I wonder if Robert Downey Jr himself might end up directing

I'm not too sure where this is coming from, because I keep reading about how some fans want RDJ to direct. I'm gettting it.

[kedrell]

The only real problem I have with IM2 is that they went to the trouble of making a great looking/acting villain and then didn't give Roarke enough screen time to capitalize on it.

[Doc Samson]

There's haters but in real life, I think the film was..okay.

I think the problem stems from it being uneven. It feels like certain characters come and go for plot points, so the drive of the film gets kinda lost near the middle.

Exactly, who's to say that the whole "element" subplot was only there because of Nick Fury's inclusion, and trying to make him somewhat integral to the story to explain why he's there. And besides T&A I fail to see how Black Widow was necessary to the plot, at all.

[kedrell]

Did she HAVE to be necessary? It wasn't her movie, after all.

[Octoberist]

Honestly, Black Widow was wasted, along with Ivan (the IT guy aka Whip Lash).

I'm sorry to say this but I felt that Whip Lash wasn't a well developed character; started off strong but then...goes downhill from there.

[kedrell]

Whiplash could've used another 10-15 min. of screentime, IMO.

[Doc Samson]

Did she HAVE to be necessary? It wasn't her movie, after all.

I would like to think so, if she's there taking up screentime. You mention yourself how unused Whiplash was, right. You can't tell me her screentime wouldn't have been better used on him

[kedrell]

I would like to think so, if she's there taking up screentime. You mention yourself how unused Whiplash was, right. You can't tell me her screentime wouldn't have been better used on him

Or they just could've made the film an extra 10-15 minutes longer. Even then it wouldn't have been too long. The film clocks in at about 2hrs right now.

[solidsnake86]

So, wait! 5 minutes of 120' automatically considered IM2 a spot for Avengers? :wow: WOW!

Because Avengers are:
1. 3 minutes with Nick Fury and Black Widow at middle;
2. 2 minutes with Fury at end talking about Avengers;
3. After credits scene with Thor.

Stop.

Black Widow's character is well integrated in the plot, Avengers or not. The scene with Fury talking about his dad is "plot-centered". And there isn't other Avengers-talking in the movie.

So what's spot? 5 minutes? Wow :doh:

I love haters.

I thought they did an excellent job in setting up whiplash, but ultimately fell short because instead of focusing on an Iron Man universe, they were to busy dealing with an avengers universe. I thought Iron Man 2 was okay, but it could have been so much better. In fact, had they tried to do more with whiplash and focus on the ten rings as a big threat to stark while setting up the mandarin for the third I think that would have been a much better move. You can't forget the general audience which fanboys seem to overlook way to much, if I'm going to see Iron Man, why should I care about captain america or thor, and what exactly do they mean to me if I have no exposure to the comics, I paid to see iron man and his universe. In the end its all subjective opinion but its naive to think everything is rosey and the proof is in him leaving.

[Iron_Stark]

I'm allowed to dislike Iron Man 2 and voice my opinion about Favs leaving.

And I also predicted it would make over 400mil domestically so...?

As for it's DVD sales, if I'm wrong so what? The final sales figures aren't out yet so I'm going to wait and see how wrong I am overall.

I'm sure you didn't predict Avatar to make 2.8bil worldwide.

It's funny how you are burying your head in the sand about Iron Man 2. If the movie was so loved and wildly successful to the director, why isn't he coming back? I didn't make him not come back for a 3rd movie so don't take it out on me. lol

BTW:

This thread is not about my DVD or boxoffice predictions so stay on topic. I'm not going to respond to anymore comments reagrding that because I'm going to talk about the topic at hand. Marvel screwed over Favs so he left. Ofcourse he isn't going to admit that and thats fine with me.

Who's taking it out on you? Who's pissed about this? I'm not. But you're acting as though this movie was such a huge flop and embarrassment for Favreau that he didn't want to return.

But as usual, you're WRONG, he said he's moving on to do other more family friendly movies and something that he's wanted to direct since visiting in his childhood. No one screwed anyone, they split on amicable terms, if he was so pissed off at Marvel, then why is he staying on as Producer for the Avengers, which he already said.

But whatever stand on your soapbox and continue to pretend you saw this coming, so carry on.

[Iron_Stark]

I thought they did an excellent job in setting up whiplash, but ultimately fell short because instead of focusing on an Iron Man universe, they were to busy dealing with an avengers universe. I thought Iron Man 2 was okay, but it could have been so much better. In fact, had they tried to do more with whiplash and focus on the ten rings as a big threat to stark while setting up the mandarin for the third I think that would have been a much better move. You can't forget the general audience which fanboys seem to overlook way to much, if I'm going to see Iron Man, why should I care about captain america or thor, and what exactly do they mean to me if I have no exposure to the comics, I paid to see iron man and his universe. In the end its all subjective opinion but its naive to think everything is rosey and the proof is in him leaving.

They didn't take away from Whiplash to focus on the Avengers. Watch the movie again. The focus of trying to build up Whiplash as a credible threat was taken out to build up War Machine.

Like I've said many, many times, take out the Mark II/War Machine parts and replace them with Vanko and the movie would've turned out better.

The Avengers parts were barely there despite what people say.

I would like to think so, if she's there taking up screentime. You mention yourself how unused Whiplash was, right. You can't tell me her screentime wouldn't have been better used on him

Read the second paragraph, Whiplash got screwed over by War Machine.

It should've been him crashing the party, putting people in danger, but instead of a big action sequence we get a play fight.

It should've been him getting introduced at the expo at the end causing all the havoc, not wasting him behind a computer only to show up less than one minute at the end fight.

ILM and Legacy Studios should've been hired to build him some badass suits, not a half naked get up and some generic suit at the end.

[ElMariachi]

This isn't surprising news at all. The surprise would have been him directing the 3rd one. The series has already gone down hill so there isn't any need for me to worry about the 3rd movie sucking.

Favs made the right choice. Why making another two hour advertisment for the Avengers?

Wow, what a ridiculous and reactionary take. Of course, this isn't suprising coming from you.

He made the movie. It was his creative vision. Yet you completely ignore this and blame everything on Marvel. Almost like Jon Favreau had no fault in the movies issues, which in my opinion are completely overblown by critics.

And where was this movie a two hour advertisement for Avengers? Some of you say this without any evidence from the movie itself. Not only this, but alot of you have selective memories about the first film. Did Marvel tell Favreau to inject all those Agent Coulsen scenes, SHIELD agents, and the after credits scene? Nobody ever complains about this, yet they b---h endlessly about the few references to The Avengers in Iron Man 2. SHIELD was an important part of the plot in the first movie and it carried over to the second.

[Iron_Stark]

Wow, what a ridiculous and reactionary take. Of course, this isn't suprising coming from you.

He made the movie. It was his creative vision. Yet you completely ignore this and blame everything on Marvel. Almost like Jon Favreau had no fault in the movies issues, which in my opinion are completely overblown by critics.

And where was this movie a two hour advertisement for Avengers? Some of you say this without any evidence from the movie itself. Not only this, but alot of you have selective memories about the first film. Did Marvel tell Favreau to inject all those Agent Coulsen scenes, SHIELD agents, and the after credits scene? Nobody ever complains about this, yet they b---h endlessly about the few references to The Avengers in Iron Man 2. SHIELD was an important part of the plot in the first movie and it carried over to the second.

Exactly.

I'm still waiting to on someone to post a breakdown of scenes that were Avengers adverts and exactly how many minutes they took up.

[kedrell]

The Avengers complaints never made sense. Now I DO agree that Marvel has been pushing all this 'one universe' stuff forward a bit too much without allowing for natural growth of stories and the Avengers is the chief cause of it all, but that's all behind the scenes stuff. War machine, while I definitely want to see him, was introduced way too early in the franchise. Rhodey needed to sub for Tony as Iron Man before going down that road. In fact, when I heard that IM2 was going ahead, Howard was talking about that aspect of Rhodey along with the 'it makes him crazy and Tony needs to stop/save him' story arc and I was far more pumped for that than War Machine or a DIAB attempt.

[craigdbfan]

Iron Man II while not a bad film didn't take Iron Man/Tony Stark to what was insinuated at the end of the first film.

Instead we got a somewhat stagnated story line with enough Avengers references to keep the Tony Stark story at a plateau rather than advancing his growth as a character.

I'm going to bring up an example which I hope people don't kill me for. In no way I'm I saying Nolan's Batman series is better, but what he was able to do was deliver on the impressions he left at the end of Begins.

I personally don't think Jon was allowed to do this. It doesn't matter how many Avengers references there are in the film its the fact that they "have" to be there that affects the rest of how the story is going to play out.

Try writing a story and then having people "make" you include certain references to other franchises and see if that doesn't bother you as a director/creator.

[ElMariachi]

Exactly. In theory, it sounds cool, but to actually implement it, at the expense of using that time to fully flesh out your individual story, sometimes doesn't have positive results. For all we know, Thor & Cap could BOMB at the BO, and then what? And all you guys on here that loved IM2, so be it. Nobody needs to defend their viewpoints when it's a personal opinion, but IMO, Nick Fury & Black Widow were highly unnecessary, and yes, they were in the movie collectively a lot more than 2 minutes, like some of you are suggesting.

Furthermore, does anybody really expect Jon Favreau to come out screaming and bashing Marvel? The same studio that's owned by Disney? The same company he's going to continue to work for with Magic Kingdom? Please. Even if he wasn't doing Magic Kingdom, no professional worth his salt is going to publicly slander a previous employer, if they can help it. There's no point in it, and if anything, it would go a long way towards alienating you from opportunities in the future. Of course he's not going to acknowledge any issue he might have had publicly, but I think the proof is in the pudding. After IM1 he was excited for the sequel and wanted to be a part of The Avengers movie. After IM2, he wants nothing to do with it anymore?

It's pretty sad that many are jumping off the Avengers bandwagon. Marvel is doing something fresh and unprecedented with a story arc that spans 6 movies (IM/IM2, Hulk, Thor, Cap, Avengers), yet people aren't happy with that. This is one of the great things about comic books and they are trying to translate it to the screen instead of a limited closed universe. It's a big risk, but that's whats so exciting about it and why there was a buzz at Comic Con. All of the movies in this story arc have been good, yet people are trying to find reason to hate on this experiment for some odd reason. Blaming Marvel as if it's Fox (who is mediocre in every way) or doing anything wrong in regards to it's movies. I listed the names of the big stars Marvel brought in, but apparently this isn't enough to quash these ridiculous 'cheap' claims. Some of the same people posting on this thread are those who were hating on Iron Man 2 throughout it's box office thread and blatantly wanted it to fail---so I really am not suprised. If Thor and Cap bomb at the box office (which isn't going to happen), it has nothing to do with Avengers. The Avengers will make money on the back of Robert Downey Jr. and the excitement this movie has been building for alot of people.

As for IM2, Black Widow and Nick Fury are Iron Man characters as much as they are Avengers characters. Nobody cried about Coulsen, so why Black Widow or Fury? He was as useless in IM1 as they supposedly were in IM2. Fury was barely even in the movie for starters. Two scenes, one of which was almost entirely regarding the plot of Iron Man 2 (paladium poisoning/Howard).

Finally, we don't have any proof that Favreau was upset about anything. It's possible that he just wanted to branch out and do different projects. Not getting too attached to one franchise. Chris Nolan is going to do the same thing after this next Batman movie. Favreau probally wants to be more like a Spielberg rather than a George Lucas, who is famous for one franchise. It's the same with James Cameron who moved on from Terminator, which he created.

[ElMariachi]

Exactly.

I'm still waiting to on someone to post a breakdown of scenes that were Avengers adverts and exactly how many minutes they took up.

They just can't do it in a way that backs up their argument.

-Stark mentions 'little superhero boy band'
-Fury/Coulsen mentions Southwest region, which is an Easter Egg.
-Stark uses Cap Shield to level out particle accelerator, Easter Egg.
-Fury talks about the Avengers after conclusion of IM2 plot.
-Scenes of Hulk destruction on t.v's behind Fury. Easter Egg. I didn't even notice this until I read about it after seeing the movie.
-Thors hammer in New Mexico post-credits.

Thats all I can remember. Those are minor details that had nothing really to do with anything. They were cool Easter Eggs for the fans.

[kedrell]

Iron Man II while not a bad film didn't take Iron Man/Tony Stark to what was insinuated at the end of the first film.

Insinuated? Like what?

Instead we got a somewhat stagnated story line with enough Avengers references to keep the Tony Stark story at a plateau rather than advancing his growth as a character.

I'm going to bring up an example which I hope people don't kill me for. In no way I'm I saying Nolan's Batman series is better, but what he was able to do was deliver on the impressions he left at the end of Begins.

Tony DID have an arc in IM2. If anything, Bruce either didn't have an arc at all in TDK or it was such an arc that it ended up being a 360...which is essentially the same thing anyway.

[ElMariachi]

Iron Man II while not a bad film didn't take Iron Man/Tony Stark to what was insinuated at the end of the first film.

Instead we got a somewhat stagnated story line with enough Avengers references to keep the Tony Stark story at a plateau rather than advancing his growth as a character.

I'm going to bring up an example which I hope people don't kill me for. In no way I'm I saying Nolan's Batman series is better, but what he was able to do was deliver on the impressions he left at the end of Begins.

I personally don't think Jon was allowed to do this. It doesn't matter how many Avengers references there are in the film its the fact that they "have" to be there that affects the rest of how the story is going to play out.

Try writing a story and then having people "make" you include certain references to other franchises and see if that doesn't bother you as a director/creator.

Where were all the references that were forced into this movie though? They just don't exist on a level large enough to affect the plot like you are making it out to be. These references are Easter Eggs and merely nods to the fans following the development of these movies.

As for Batman, it can be argued that the main character was overshadowed in TDK by the Joker and Harvey Dent. There was so much going on in the plot of TDK that Bruce Wayne didn't grow as a character as he did in BB. The development of Stark/Bruce is identical in IM/IM2 & BB/TDK in my opinion.

[venom892]

I think the people being emotional about this need to get over it.

I think recently Favreau has shown that he's sort of done with Iron Man and ready to move on.

For starters these things:

1. Favreau didn't want to do Demon in A Bottle. According to Bob Layton, RDJ really wants to do it, but Favreau does not.

2. Favreau doesn't want to do stories that have types of magical or fantasy stories in the Iron Man realm, so nothing that isn't tech-based or isn't realistic. He couldn't really get over that hump and I think that's why he wasn't picked for Avengers either.

3. He's got lots of other projects lined up right now, so he should be fine.

4. Its just, he just hasn't acted serious about wanting to lead and be the visionary for the franchise or other Marvel movies. I think he basically had his take and he's stepping aside now. What is wrong with that?

I think the only thing that would hurt the franchise is losing Robert Downey Jr.This.Guy simply wanted to pursue other interests I don't see what's so wrong with that.Also if him and Marvel really had such a horrible fall out why would he stay as producer on Avengers?He also sounded pretty grateful to Marvel and the way they put his name out there.

[ElMariachi]

Tony DID have an arc in IM2. If anything, Bruce either didn't have an arc at all in TDK or it was such an arc that it ended up being a 360...which is essentially the same thing anyway.

Yeah, I am not understanding what people are missing here.

In Iron Man 1, Stark starts off as a cocky, naive, irresponsible rich guy. He changes and becomes a socially conscious idealist/selfless hero.

As evidenced by the opening scene of IM2, he has basically defeated all villians and saved the world. With the entire world knowing he did this, his ego spirals out of control. This is the great thing about this arc. It is a movie about a superhero that is an international celebrity/public figure, not a masked avenger prowling at night.