No iron man 3 for jon favreau

[Tony Stark]

I don't know exactly what happened, but it sounds like Favreau wanted to work out something to do two projects that would conflict and Marvel wouldn't move their schedule, so now he's directing a flick for Disney.

[Son of Coul]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

As far as Fury & Widow are concerned, who's to say that the whole palladium poisoning wasn't thrown in there just to justify their presence?

Originally Posted by craigdbfan

People would be up in arms if this were to happen. Again I'm someone who prefers for these characters to get all the focus in terms of story/character development in their respective movie.

I can't believe that people are against this.

ok, I'm leaving this thread

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by HappyPalooza

ok, I'm leaving this thread

Sayonara! You can face palm all you want, adding Fury to the whole palladium subplot could have been Favreau's way of trying to make him relevant to the movie beyond Marvel's Avengers agenda. And it still didn't really work.

[craigdbfan]

Originally Posted by HappyPalooza

ok, I'm leaving this thread

Oh no two opinions that were expressed using explanations and reasoning isn't tolerable somehow. Instead of placing an emoticon and internet storming out of the thread you can retort or not write anything at all.

[Spider-Fan]

I don't think IM3 is def sucking cause he is gone, but I would have preferred he stayed.

[S.A.A.D.]

It's Favreau's fault that he didn't know how to go about the Mandarin because in his Ironman movies he wanted to basically ground them in realism,if he hadn't had done that then I don't think that he would have struggled so much about figuring out how create an appropriate movie version of the Mandarin. He should have no one to blame about that but himself.

[I Am The Knight]

I don't think Favs wanted to make a third one anyway.

[Marvel]

Since Iron Man 2 was one of the top films of the summer and maybe the entire year, I'm glad most of us are ignoring some stuff in some of those articles. Favs staying in the Disney family and still producing Avengers means all this gossip is mostly without merit. Favs has devoted almost 5 years of his life to Iron Man and has to do so under every fanboy scrutiny possible. That doesn't even take in to effect the jealous haters of the world. If he's had enough, that's more then fine. He delivered two great films and moved on.

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

Sayonara! You can face palm all you want, adding Fury to the whole palladium subplot could have been Favreau's way of trying to make him relevant to the movie beyond Marvel's Avengers agenda. And it still didn't really work.

Adding Fury in the subplot was hardly the problem. It didn't take away from the main plot or anyone else. No one lost screen time or action scenes because Fury showed up for a few brief seconds.

The real problem was the other subplot with Rhodey/War Machine which took away from Whiplash. There is just no defending that.

Originally Posted by Marvel

Since Iron Man 2 was one of the top films of the summer and maybe the entire year, I'm glad most of us are ignoring some stuff in some of those articles. Favs staying in the Disney family and still producing Avengers means all this gossip is mostly without merit. Favs has devoted almost 5 years of his life to Iron Man and has to do so under every fanboy scrutiny possible. That doesn't even take in to effect the jealous haters of the world. If he's had enough, that's more then fine. He delivered two great films and moved on.

Agreed.

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Originally Posted by jmc

^ You could make the argument then that without studio meddling there's every possibility that he could have found a way for that character to work if he had been left to do his own thing and develop films 2 and 3 more organically. Who's to say he couldn't have figured out the way to crack the character's code had he been granted more freedom. I know from personal experience having to include stuff is always going to screw with you creatively because that great idea you might of had now has to accommodate other aspects you don't necessarily want.

It is possible.

I'm getting the feeling that Marvel's trying to run their film company like a comics company if you think about it and if all these conflicts Marvel have are true.

[Chris B]

I don't think Nick Fury, Black Widow, or War Machine were responsible for bogging down IM2 myself.

For me, it was the feeling that IM2 lacked the depth the first film had. They just didn't really do any thing to make you invest in Stark's story of dealing with the palladium poisoning.

I think had that whole angle been handled better and had Whiplash been given more to do, I think the film would've easily have been equal to IM1 in terms of quality.

[kedrell]

Well IM1 had a pretty well set out template in Lee's original story. They just followed it and updated here and there. IM2 was kinda flying blind by comparison.

[ElMariachi]

I think the difference between the two movies is that Obadiah Stane was a much more compelling villian. It's not that Rourkes' Whiplash was bad by any means, but his motivations in the movie were not as interesting as Obadiahs. In the end, he was just another bad guy looking for revenge against the hero. It can be argued that Justin Hammer wasn't really a villain in Iron Man 2.

I disagree with those saying the movie on Tony Stark's end wasn't interesting or having depth. I thought he owned every scene he was in and his story arc was interesting.

Things that I personally would have changed would have been....

-No Black Widow. If they were going to stick with her, they should never have revealed her identity at the donut shop. That was truly pointless and overlooked by most in regards to this scene. The Fury/Stark stuff was brilliant and funny in my opinon. She kind of had no point in that scene.

-A longer fight scene on the racetrack. That scene and build-up was incredible, but the fight was a bit underwhelming once Tony got the suit on.

-Longer final fight with Whiplash, whose armor should have been red and more interesting. Also, it should have been IM vs. Whiplash, not a tag team match. Keep the WM/IM team up against the drones. Also, the 'crossing the streams' angle was used twice in the movie and the finishing blow to Whiplash should have been more original. Again, it was a great scene, but just a bit too short and sweet. The actual fight was one of the best superhero fights put to film.

-Axe the airplane scene with Pepper and Tony. This is the one scene that I thought was boring and out of place with the rest of the movie.

-More Rhodey/Stark and Stark/Whiplash scenes and less Whiplash/Hammer.

Aside from this minor grievances, the movie was wonderful. I can't let these minor things really ruin any movie for me. The good parts of IM2 make up for the lesser parts. Pretty much every scene up until after Stark meets Whiplash in jail was perfect. Same goes with every scene after the Stark/Rhodey fight (which was still entertaining IMO).

[raybia]

Originally Posted by I Am The Knight

I don't think Favs wanted to make a third one anyway.

From the looks of IM2 he didn't want to make a 2nd movie.

[raybia]

Originally Posted by Chris B

I don't think Nick Fury, Black Widow, or War Machine were responsible for bogging down IM2 myself.

For me, it was the feeling that IM2 lacked the depth the first film had. They just didn't really do any thing to make you invest in Stark's story of dealing with the palladium poisoning.

I think had that whole angle been handled better and had Whiplash been given more to do, I think the film would've easily have been equal to IM1 in terms of quality.

To me the whole movie just seems kind of off the cuff. Like there wasn't really a final script.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by raybia

From the looks of IM2 he didn't want to make a 2nd movie.

Wow is this post great.

Originally Posted by raybia

To me the whole movie just seems kind of off the cuff. Like there wasn't really a final script.

They couldn't have had a final script.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

It is possible.

I'm getting the feeling that Marvel's trying to run their film company like a comics company if you think about it and if all these conflicts Marvel have are true.

Which would be the most idiotic way to handle a film company given the size of the respective fan bases in relation to the size of the general audience. If that is their strategy then heaven help them because it will come back to bite them in the arse.

[JAK®]

They're trying to make a shared universe with one movie building on another. It's actually exactly what the fans wanted so I'm not surprised the fans are complaining about it.

[A Necessary Evil]

Originally Posted by JAK®

They're trying to make a shared universe with one movie building on another. It's actually exactly what the fans wanted so I'm not surprised the fans are complaining about it.

I kinda-sorta REALLY wanna make this my sig...jussayin

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

Wow is this post great.

They couldn't have had a final script.

Originally Posted by jmc

Which would be the most idiotic way to handle a film company given the size of the respective fan bases in relation to the size of the general audience. If that is their strategy then heaven help them because it will come back to bite them in the arse.

When you think about it could be true. I don't believe some of these but its interesting to think about:

1. Shared Universe with cameo appearance in solo films bulding up big events.
2. Editor-in-Chief (or producer Kevin Feige) manipulating the film with #1.

I'm sure there are more examples but I'm too tired to say the others.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by JAK®

They're trying to make a shared universe with one movie building on another. It's actually exactly what the fans wanted so I'm not surprised the fans are complaining about it.

Not necessarily what the other 90% of cinema goers want or even care about, that's the issue.

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by jmc

Not necessarily what the other 90% of cinema goers want or even care about, that's the issue.

There's really no issue except for the few whiners who come on these boards and complain about it.

Originally Posted by Chris B

I don't think Nick Fury, Black Widow, or War Machine were responsible for bogging down IM2 myself.

For me, it was the feeling that IM2 lacked the depth the first film had. They just didn't really do any thing to make you invest in Stark's story of dealing with the palladium poisoning.

I think had that whole angle been handled better and had Whiplash been given more to do, I think the film would've easily have been equal to IM1 in terms of quality.

And that's exactly my point about War Machine not needing to be in the movie. Favreau from the very beginning said the movie wasn't going to be longer than the first, so when Howard was fired and then they rewrote the script to beef up Rhodey's screen time and bring in War Machine, guess who got shafted.

[Timstuff]

Marvel thinks they can run a movie studio the same way that they run their comics. Dumping a director or actor to them is no different than firing a writer or artist from a particular book, because to them it's more important to bombard a book with cross-franchise references and cameos to maintain continuity than it is for the character to look and behave consistently.

Marvel's attitude of the talent being expendable is going to unravel what was originally a very promising start for them. Firing Terrance Howard was a yellow alert. Firing Edward Norton was an orange alert. And now, letting John Fav. walk because he wasn't pliable enough is a freaking red alert.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Originally Posted by Timstuff

Marvel's attitude of the talent being expendable is going to unravel what was originally a very promising start for them. Firing Terrance Howard was a yellow alert. Firing Edward Norton was an orange alert. And now, letting John Fav. walk because he wasn't pliable enough is a freaking red alert.

I find this to be partly true. Now, Don't get me wrong, I thought Don Cheadle as Rhodey/War Machine was awesome, but I thought Terrance Howard did a great job as well. When i heard Edward norton was being recast, I really did get psised, but I do hope mark Ruffalo does a great job, and now, Favreau isn't directing IM3, which is still pissing me off. I have faith that the 3rd will be good without Jon, but I would have felt more secure with him directing a 3rd isntallment.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by jmc

Not necessarily what the other 90% of cinema goers want or even care about, that's the issue.

But have they been complaining about it? Iron Man 2 wasn't unsuccessful at the box office.