No iron man 3 for jon favreau

[kedrell]

DIAB will not work as a movie. As an arc of a TV series? Yeah there's room for it there but in one of these movies I don't see how you can deal with it without

a)Committing what writers call 'the sin of moses', i.e. your hero crosses that fine line, making the audience HATE your hero now to the point where they will not be changing their minds during the rest of this particular movie.....so your movie's screwed,

or

B)Making the subject of Tony's alcoholism either way too depressing in an effort to treat such a serious issue with the respect it needs,

or

C)making it too frivolous in an effort to squeeze it in there but not have it bring down the movie(make the movie boring) and thus a very seriuos problem is treated with 'afterschool special' kid gloves and looses all it's dramatic punch.

[RachelDawes]

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

IM2 was not dark enough that's true, but I don't think it would have been necessary for Tony to have hit rock-bottom, unless Favreau and Marvel were planning to do a trilogy. That structure calls for things to go to hell in part two (think Empire Strikes Back and TDK), which in Stark's case would probably mean hitting the bottle. That story beat will probably be explored later, but we know now it won't be in Favreau's hands. That might actually be a good thing, because although he did a good job balancing humor with characterization I don't know if Favs had what it takes to effectively go that dark. I don't know if Marvel can either.

Tony's alcoholism wouldnt've needed to be explored for there to have been some drama. The problem with IM2 was that none of the drama inherent in the story panned out at all. Tony's illness had no effect on his ability to use his suit, for example. Imagine how tense the fight between him and Vanko would've been if Tony'd had to struggle to fly and shoot. Then the symptoms of the illness are just removed by Fury, so there's no excitement in Tony's search for the cure. Again, imagine if he'd been slowly weakening until he discovered the cure at the last second. That would've been interesting.

Then there's he conflict with his dad. We learn that Howard hadn't liked Tony, then we suddenly find out from the video that he did. That subplot wasn't well handled.

That's not even mentioning the fact that Vanko, the most threatening villain, virtually disappears for the second act of the movie, only to be replaced by Hammer, a much more comical villain. It's like Theroux wanted to create such a funny, family-friendly film that he forgot to add any intense drama to it.

[Spider-Aziz]

Iron Man 2 served me much more than the first movie did, it entertained me more
I say Favreau made the right choice by not being involved as a director how so many considered IM2 the rust after solid Iron, I hope he still acts as Happy though

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by RachelDawes

Tony's alcoholism wouldnt've needed to be explored for there to have been some drama. The problem with IM2 was that none of the drama inherent in the story panned out at all. Tony's illness had no effect on his ability to use his suit, for example. Imagine how tense the fight between him and Vanko would've been if Tony'd had to struggle to fly and shoot. Then the symptoms of the illness are just removed by Fury, so there's no excitement in Tony's search for the cure. Again, imagine if he'd been slowly weakening until he discovered the cure at the last second. That would've been interesting.

Then there's he conflict with his dad. We learn that Howard hadn't liked Tony, then we suddenly find out from the video that he did. That subplot wasn't well handled.

That's not even mentioning the fact that Vanko, the most threatening villain, virtually disappears for the second act of the movie, only to be replaced by Hammer, a much more comical villain. It's like Theroux wanted to create such a funny, family-friendly film that he forgot to add any intense drama to it.

This. All this. And this all leads to a badly written script. This had nothing with add characters, but just missing dramatic beats, and missing them badly.

[TheVileOne]

Some of the posts here make me sick and want to vomit:

1. After Iron Man and **** even BEFORE Iron Man we all had the expectation of War Machine being brought in later. The ****ing first movie basically blatantly points and says HEY HERE YOU GO! YOU WILL SEE WAR MACHINE IN THE NEXT MOVIE FOR SURE! Now some of the momentum was admittedly lost because Howard left the production, but I mean, don't go around saying War Machine should never have been in the movie. None of you guys were saying **** like that before the movie came out. So stop saying that **** now because it is ********!

2. The Avengers connection. THIS WAS IN IRON MAN! IT WAS ALL OVER THE PLACE! That's what got us excited about Iron Man, we KNEW they were building up to an Avengers movie. So that was an added bonus to the movie. It's irrational to get ticked off about it because all this is precedence for Iron Man's history. Avengers, Black Widow, War Machine is all a part of it. It makes sense to have references because you know this is one of the cooler aspects about it. Now I think they could've made the ending less awkward with the whole advisor/retainer, not right now thing. Since it sort of conflicts with where Tony Stark is at the end of Incredible Hulk.

3. Stop acting like Favreau is this defenceless little lamb that Marvel screwed over. I think it was time for Favreau to move on. He seems more interested in other projects now and I just don't think he's as creatively stimulated by Iron Man anymore. Sorry but its true. Favreau also publicly has NOT proven that he is the guy to helm Avengers. He EVEN said he's afraid of using material that isn't realistic or tech based. HE SAID ALL OF THAT! He didn't want to do Demon In A Bottle because it would be too much like Leaving Las Vegas. He didn't want Tony to sleep around with other women.

I think Favreau deserves all the credit in the world for getting the ball rolling and starting the franchise. But he just did not seem to have the ambition or desire to see it through to the end as like the captain at the wheel. And that's fine. Because Iron Man 2 did have its issues, so new vision and a fresh look is NOT going to hurt it.

That being said, I would like Favreau to return as Happy if he has time. Since he's not directing that would be a good way to give Happy more of something to do.

[I Am The Knight]

Originally Posted by RachelDawes

Then there's he conflict with his dad. We learn that Howard hadn't liked Tony, then we suddenly find out from the video that he did. That subplot wasn't well handled.

Agreed. And when the reveal happens, it's a very manufactured Hallmark moment. "My greatest creation, was...YOU!" (TM)

Put that on your Hallmark cards, parents of the world.

[hatebox]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Some of the posts here make me sick and want to vomit:

Ahhh... Superherohyperbole.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Some of the posts here make me sick and want to vomit:

1. After Iron Man and **** even BEFORE Iron Man we all had the expectation of War Machine being brought in later. The ****ing first movie basically blatantly points and says HEY HERE YOU GO! YOU WILL SEE WAR MACHINE IN THE NEXT MOVIE FOR SURE! Now some of the momentum was admittedly lost because Howard left the production, but I mean, don't go around saying War Machine should never have been in the movie. None of you guys were saying **** like that before the movie came out. So stop saying that **** now because it is ********!

Exactly.

Just about everybody wanted to see War Machine. When the first teaser poster came out people were like "Yay! War Machine!" and I'm pretty sure there were comments like "Screw Whiplash, I want to see War Machine!"

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Some of the posts here make me sick and want to vomit:

1. After Iron Man and **** even BEFORE Iron Man we all had the expectation of War Machine being brought in later. The ****ing first movie basically blatantly points and says HEY HERE YOU GO! YOU WILL SEE WAR MACHINE IN THE NEXT MOVIE FOR SURE! Now some of the momentum was admittedly lost because Howard left the production, but I mean, don't go around saying War Machine should never have been in the movie. None of you guys were saying **** like that before the movie came out. So stop saying that **** now because it is ********!

I never wanted him in the film, I always knew it would be a bad idea. I thought he would take away from Iron Man, I was wrong, he ended up taking away from Whiplash.

Originally Posted by JAK®

Exactly.

Just about everybody wanted to see War Machine. When the first teaser poster came out people were like "Yay! War Machine!" and I'm pretty sure there were comments like "Screw Whiplash, I want to see War Machine!"

Unfortunately that was true. And unfortunately that's what Marvel thought as well, screw Whiplash, lets put the promotion, suits, action sequences, sfx and everything else behind War Machine.

[A Necessary Evil]

Serious Question. I heard faverau say that they would make a 30 minute extended cut to IM2 a while back. Is this still happening or...?

[JAK®]

So I just watched Iron Man 2 for the second time.

All you people that are relieved Favreau is gone are crazy.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by Severus_Snape

Serious Question. I heard faverau say that they would make a 30 minute extended cut to IM2 a while back. Is this still happening or...?

Hmm, I never heard that. I'm all for it though if it's true. Especially if it gives Roarke more screentime.

[A Necessary Evil]

Originally Posted by JAK®

So I just watched Iron Man 2 for the second time.

All you people that are relieved Favreau is gone are crazy.

this

Originally Posted by kedrell

Hmm, I never heard that. I'm all for it though if it's true.

I mean I read it on the web, so it could be as true as a SM3.1 or Incredible Hulk's 70+ extra minute cut... 1--% agreed with Rourke...I mean I love the movie (saw it 4 times) but I needed more of him.

[Son of Coul]

back with my mind back intact yo

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.

Alright, you can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the argument you were making when I responded- you were suggesting that the entire subplot was added so Fury and Widow had a role, which was just beyond ridiculous to me.

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.

Originally Posted by jmc

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

There's no issue there, I know people who don't know jack about the MCU and they weren't jarred or confused at all. I know someone who said her friends were telling her Coulson would become Captain America because he picked up the shield. She didn't like the movie, but it didn't have to do with The Avengers. The only people I've heard complain about it are the fans, while the GA is into it. How backwards is that?

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

I think most people have this set view how people should deal with death and sadness. The problem is that this Tony Stark character that Robert Downey Jr. created is different than say, Batman or Spiderman. Instead of pouting ontop of the Chrysler Building or sulking in a penthouse, he seculdes himself in a giant donut. The scenes of him deciding to drive the Formula 1 car, throwing an outrageous party, being a drunk fool, looking like he was going to die when talking to Rhodey in his basement, his reaction to Vanko mentioning the palladium, tearing up his house, handing his company over, and lamenting to Pepper were enough proof that he was concerned about death. The whole Stark Expo and the themes of his family legacy also played into this. Perhaps I am reading too deep into a summer blockbuster movie, but the proof is there. Many people didn't care for the comedy regarding all this, but this is one of the things that set this franchise apart from others. There was no melodrama and I personally liked that. Then again, there were some scenes like this in the first movie which everybody loved.

Yes. I love that Stark isn't like the other heroes in that he doesn't just stand around brooding and actually handles it with humor and being overly ostentatious. Shows how messed up he really is, and reminds me of the way in reality some depressed people become comedians or attention-seekers.

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Some of the posts here make me sick and want to vomit:

1. After Iron Man and **** even BEFORE Iron Man we all had the expectation of War Machine being brought in later. The ****ing first movie basically blatantly points and says HEY HERE YOU GO! YOU WILL SEE WAR MACHINE IN THE NEXT MOVIE FOR SURE! Now some of the momentum was admittedly lost because Howard left the production, but I mean, don't go around saying War Machine should never have been in the movie. None of you guys were saying **** like that before the movie came out. So stop saying that **** now because it is ********!

2. The Avengers connection. THIS WAS IN IRON MAN! IT WAS ALL OVER THE PLACE! That's what got us excited about Iron Man, we KNEW they were building up to an Avengers movie. So that was an added bonus to the movie. It's irrational to get ticked off about it because all this is precedence for Iron Man's history. Avengers, Black Widow, War Machine is all a part of it. It makes sense to have references because you know this is one of the cooler aspects about it. Now I think they could've made the ending less awkward with the whole advisor/retainer, not right now thing. Since it sort of conflicts with where Tony Stark is at the end of Incredible Hulk.

3. Stop acting like Favreau is this defenceless little lamb that Marvel screwed over. I think it was time for Favreau to move on. He seems more interested in other projects now and I just don't think he's as creatively stimulated by Iron Man anymore. Sorry but its true. Favreau also publicly has NOT proven that he is the guy to helm Avengers. He EVEN said he's afraid of using material that isn't realistic or tech based. HE SAID ALL OF THAT! He didn't want to do Demon In A Bottle because it would be too much like Leaving Las Vegas. He didn't want Tony to sleep around with other women.

I think Favreau deserves all the credit in the world for getting the ball rolling and starting the franchise. But he just did not seem to have the ambition or desire to see it through to the end as like the captain at the wheel. And that's fine. Because Iron Man 2 did have its issues, so new vision and a fresh look is NOT going to hurt it.

That being said, I would like Favreau to return as Happy if he has time. Since he's not directing that would be a good way to give Happy more of something to do.

Haha, I love this post. I'd actually have to agree for the most part. Optimistic and truthful, in its own fuming way.

Originally Posted by JAK®

So I just watched Iron Man 2 for the second time.

All you people that are relieved Favreau is gone are crazy.

[Timstuff]

Originally Posted by JAK®

So I just watched Iron Man 2 for the second time.

All you people that are relieved Favreau is gone are crazy.

The people saying that Favreau leaving is a good thing are the same idiots who think that Sam Raimi ruined Spider-Man. The people who are responsible for almost everything that was wrong with the last installment are still in charge, except now they are free to hire someone who's less likely to argue when they want him to do something stupid.

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by Timstuff

The people saying that Favreau leaving is a good thing are the same idiots who think that Sam Raimi ruined Spider-Man. The people who are responsible for almost everything that was wrong with the last installment are still in charge, except now they are free to hire someone who's less likely to argue when they want him to do something stupid.

Yep, agreed.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I just think that on the whole... Iron Man 2 has had an aura of disappointment settle over it.

There's just something about the movie as an overall experience (anticipation, marketing, that all important first trailer, the final product, waiting for the home video release) that all seemed incredibly lackluster.

Jon Favreav leaving adds to this sense of disappointment... I know the numbers don't lie (the box office was more than healthy), but I expected so much more from this film.

Iron Man 2... It came and it went.

So perhaps this is good news.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by Timstuff

The people saying that Favreau leaving is a good thing are the same idiots who think that Sam Raimi ruined Spider-Man. The people who are responsible for almost everything that was wrong with the last installment are still in charge, except now they are free to hire someone who's less likely to argue when they want him to do something stupid.

You actually kinda have a point. The real problems were the rushed, terrible script and Marvel forcing all of their ideas when they don't belong.

The only reason I think that it's good he left is because I don't want to him waste his time arguing with the Avenger's obsessed studio. Nothing will come of it. They will win the battles and we (those of us who didn't care for IM2) will be left with another halfbaked sequel and he will get all of the blame for it. Let him move on to other projects before this taints him.

[A Necessary Evil]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

You actually kinda have a point. The real problems were the rushed, terrible script and Marvel forcing all of their ideas when they don't belong.

The only reason I think that it's good he left is because I don't want to him waste his time arguing with the Avenger's obsessed studio. Nothing will come of it. They will win the battles and we (those of us who didn't care for IM2) will be left with another halfbaked sequel and he will get all of the blame for it. Let him move on to other projects before this taints him.

Well Said

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

You actually kinda have a point. The real problems were the rushed, terrible script and Marvel forcing all of their ideas when they don't belong.

The only reason I think that it's good he left is because I don't want to him waste his time arguing with the Avenger's obsessed studio. Nothing will come of it. They will win the battles and we (those of us who didn't care for IM2) will be left with another halfbaked sequel and he will get all of the blame for it. Let him move on to other projects before this taints him.

The funny thing is, I don't really see many fans blaming him for it. A lot of fans either blame it on Marvel or (like me) the terrible script.

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

You actually kinda have a point. The real problems were the rushed, terrible script and Marvel forcing all of their ideas when they don't belong.

The only reason I think that it's good he left is because I don't want to him waste his time arguing with the Avenger's obsessed studio. Nothing will come of it. They will win the battles and we (those of us who didn't care for IM2) will be left with another halfbaked sequel and he will get all of the blame for it. Let him move on to other projects before this taints him.

I usually don't say this, but I agree with you on this one.

After Cheadle replaced Howard they rewrote the script to beef up Cheadle's screen time and shoe horn in War Machine which took away from Rourke. Huge mistake.

Hopefully they learn from this, drop War Machine in the third, don't rush or rewrite the script, and give Mandarin plenty of screen time and make him a real threat.

[Son of Coul]

Didn't Theroux say the "beefing up" rumor was all ********?

[TheVileOne]

I'm not relieved Favreau is gone at all. But many of you are clearly in denial about public statements Favreau has made. Favreau did not have the ambition or desire to helm Avengers clearly.

They brought in Theroux so that was their guy.

What did you guys want? Favreau said he didn't want to do Demon in A Bottle. He said he wanted everything tech-based and realistic.

So what did you all want? What was Favreau going to do differently that would've blown you all away?

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

I'm not relieved Favreau is gone at all. But many of you are clearly in denial about public statements Favreau has made. Favreau did not have the ambition or desire to helm Avengers clearly.

They brought in Theroux so that was their guy.

What did you guys want? Favreau said he didn't want to do Demon in A Bottle. He said he wanted everything tech-based and realistic.

So what did you all want? What was Favreau going to do differently that would've blown you all away?

Why do you assume people are relieved that Fav's gone? Majority of fans liked Favreau. Did you read the posts?

But thing thing is we have to move on from Favreau.

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

Why do you assume people are relieved that Fav's gone? Majority of fans liked Favreau. Did you read the posts?

Others have expressed it! I have read the posts and many of them make me sick and angry. I still taste the bile in my craw.

But thing thing is we have to move on from Favreau.

Exactly but i don't think that's the end of the world. I just think Favreau has emotionally and creatively moved on from the series so I don't think its destructive that its leaving. I think he sort of peaked with the franchise with the first movie. It wasn't like X-men where Singer made a much better movie the second time around.

I would like him to stay on in some capacity and still play Happy Hogan. But on the other hand, I'm not sure what was ruined about Iron Man 2 either and what Favreau would've done with Iron Man 3 that would've been so much better.