Faverau and RDJ not happy with IM2 (Report)

[LostSon88]

http://www.**************.com/fansit.../news/?a=21139

This pretty much seems in line with what we've heard about Marvel the past couple years...

Going for the cheap hire, lowballing the talent, overall studio interference...yep, sounds like Marvel.

I'm telling you, this studio is just a few years away from imploding. I'm talking 'Batman & Robin' proportions.

again, IF this is all to be believed.

[Blackman]

...IM2 was mediocre
But saying the studio is a "few years away from imploding...'Batman & Robin proportions' is kind of ludicrous

[J.Howlett]

This report doesn't surprise me one bit. Iron Man 2 just didn't feel right...coming off Iron Man.

Not even remotely surprised.

[FaT_tONle]

What are people going to say when Favs walks? Can't wait for the Marvel defenders... "HE'S REPLACEABLE... hell I could direct..." This whole thing is a joke. I guess that's the reason why Favreau quickly jumped to another project once Avengers was off the table. I hope to God they worked out some sort of side deal for IM3, knowing their won't/shouldn't be any major crossovers or setups in that. Then again, gotta setup Avengers 2. Maybe if Marvel actually gives him full control we can get something really good, and not something that is going to be overshadowed by something like Inception; or anything more original or groundbreaking in general.

[Karelia]

Iron Man 2 definitely wasn't as good as the first, IMO. IM2 wasn't bad, just not great.

At least they know it wasn't the best effort they could do. Hopefully IM3 will be the best out of the trilogy.

[bunk]

It would be great to find out more details about what the movie could have been. You basically just have to take him at his word that it would've turned out better if Marvel interfered less. Certainly the pace of production could have been hurt the movie. Hopefully Favs still has one more left in him.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by LostSon88

http://www.**************.com/fansit.../news/?a=21139

This pretty much seems in line with what we've heard about Marvel the past couple years...

Going for the cheap hire, lowballing the talent, overall studio interference...yep, sounds like Marvel.

I'm telling you, this studio is just a few years away from imploding. I'm talking 'Batman & Robin' proportions.

again, IF this is all to be believed.

Robert Downey Jr.
Edward Norton
Liv Tyler
Anthony Hopkins
Sam Rockwell
Mark Ruffalo
William Hurt
Tim Roth
Jeff Bridges
Jermey Renner
Stellan Skarsgard
Don Cheadle
Mickey Rourke
Samuel L. Jackson
Scarlett Johannsen
Tommy Lee Jones
Hugo Weaving
Toby Jones
Stanley Tucci
Idris Elba
Natalie Portman
and all the small parts played by well known/quality actors (Gary Shandling, Paul Bettany, Kate Mara, John Slattery, Ray Stevenson, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, etc.)

This is considered 'cheap hires' in Hollywood? Eesh, what were you people expecting for godsake? Will Smith for War Machine? Brad Pitt for Thor? Meryl Streep Frigga? Julia Roberts for Jane Foster? George Clooney Senator Stern? Jack Nicholson for Howard Stark? With Cap directed by Speilberg, Thor directed by Ridley Scott, Punisher directed by Scorsese, Ant Man directed by Clint Eastwood, and Avengers directed by James Cameron? If Marvel was as cheap as you people say, then they wouldn't have actors as good as the ones listed. War Machine would have been played by T.I. and Tony Stark would have been played by whatever pretty boy is currently on CW. Evans and Hemsworth were probally cheap, but those parts should be filled by a lesser known actor in my opinion.

This article seems a bit questionable to me. If RDJ was upset, he sure didn't show it at Comic-Con. And wasn't Justin Theroux allowed on board at RDJ's request? Favreau wanted more money after the first, so this could possibly be old news. He has been talking up Iron Man 3 in some interviews and is going to be an executive producer for The Avengers. As for being upset at the whole SHIELD/Avengers thing......this doesn't make sense. It was barely in the movie and had nothing really to do with the plot. I can understand that they rushed the movie a bit quick though, but this article seems to raise a few eyebrows.

[rashad]

Here's the full CinemaBlend article.
http://cinemablend.com/new/How-Iron-...vel-20003.html

[redfirebird2008]

Just as I suspected. Studio meddling out the wazoo. IM1 was great but IM2 felt like a "by the numbers" sequel.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Just as I suspected. Studio meddling out the wazoo. IM1 was great but IM2 felt like a "by the numbers" sequel.

how? It was rather unique and bold in many regards to be considering "by the numbers". A complex plot and character may have been the issue, not Marvel. If this was just some drivel pushed out to make a buck, it would have been all out action. Instead, there were some creative ideas and scenes in the movie.

[mikey1974]

IM1 was great...just a great story,and for somewhat bigger-budget Hollywood Summer action-flick,it felt quite reserved,and somewhat intimate...

IM2 was Spidey 3...cram as much ***** as you can in ...itbecame a "product",designed to sell as many toys,Kids Meal's,and video games as possible...

people will argue that IM1 had these as well,and it did...but the level of promotion and amount of stuff increased exponentially...they wanted it to be the next summer blockbuster, movie itself be damned...

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

how? It was rather unique and bold in many regards to be considering "by the numbers". A complex plot and character may have been the issue, not Marvel. If this was just some drivel pushed out to make a buck, it would have been all out action. Instead, there were some creative ideas and scenes in the movie.

Nope. Only truly great scene in the movie was the video message from Tony's dad. And that wasn't exactly "bold" or "unique." It was just well-made.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

If RDJ was upset, he sure didn't show it at Comic-Con.

Yeah and he's under contract for millions of dollars to put on a happy face during the production and marketing phase of these films. Shia LaBeouf put on a happy face while promoting TF2 and then less than a year later he admitted the movie sucks. They are selling a product, so their behavior at a public advertising event for said product is not going to be anything other than enthusiastic.

[mikey1974]

there were some great ideas and scenes in it:

anytime Tony and his Dad were involved...

the whole revenge plot of Whiplash going after Tony...the sins of the father are passed onto the son...

his whole dying,and how he reacts....

rest was pretty much just a typical hollywood film...i think i actually liken it more to Batman Forever ...some good scenes and some decent expostion/drama, surrounded by a Hollywood blockbuster summer popcorn film...

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by mikey1974

IM1 was great...just a great story,and for somewhat bigger-budget Hollywood Summer action-flick,it felt quite reserved,and somewhat intimate...

IM2 was Spidey 3...cram as much ***** as you can in ...itbecame a "product",designed to sell as many toys,Kids Meal's,and video games as possible...

people will argue that IM1 had these as well,and it did...but the level of promotion and amount of stuff increased exponentially...they wanted it to be the next summer blockbuster, movie itself be damned...

what did they 'cram' into IM2 to the same level of Spidey 3? Both movies had 2 villians (Stane/Raza, Vanko/Hammer), a main core of Stark, Pepper, and Rhodey, and pretty much the same number of action sequences. The difference is Spidey 3 injected a lame villain who got more play than one of the characters most iconic villians. Add in all the love triangle nonsense, Harry being a bad guy, stupid dancing sequences, and in no way does it add up to IM2.

The reason IM1 felt intimate is because he was an unknown character and it was an orgin story.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Nope. Only truly great scene in the movie was the video message from Tony's dad. And that wasn't exactly "bold" or "unique." It was just well-made.

That was the only great scene of the movie now? It's increasingly becoming more obvious to me who are the haters and who are the reasonable moviegoers.

And yes, I think that was a rather bold and unique plotpoint for a superhero movie. A touching message from the 60's and a follow up having a person create an element in their basement using a model as a basis seems pretty bold to me.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

That was the only great scene of the movie now? It's increasingly becoming more obvious to me who are the haters and who are the reasonable moviegoers.

Hater my arse. I rated IM1 a 8/10, which is the highest grade I've ever given any superhero movie. The notion that I'm a biased hater is a crock of BS. IM2 was a 5/10 for me, which isn't the worst movie ever and certainly not a terrible movie. I agree with your point about it not being anywhere near as bad as Spidey 3. IM2 was just very boring to me. That's it.

[Iron_Stark]

I smell BS, so some writer comes out and said he heard it from someone that said it to someone else.

How many of these stories have he heard, Paltrow/Scarlett not getting along, Hemsworth/Hopkins not getting along.

pfff, until Favreau comes out and says he's not doing IM3, I'm not going to worry about ****.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Yeah and he's under contract for millions of dollars to put on a happy face during the production and marketing phase of these films. Shia LaBeouf put on a happy face while promoting TF2 and then less than a year later he admitted the movie sucks. They are selling a product, so their behavior at a public advertising event for said product is not going to be anything other than enthusiastic.

Comic-Con happened a few weeks ago, bro. He seemed elated and happy to be there, which conflicts with this report that he is unhappy with this series. It doesnt' really add up, nor does this stuff about Favreau. He just said this a few days ago.

"I'm here because of my success with Marvel for the most part," said Favreau. "I've felt tremendous creative support, and as they cut their teeth as a studio, I cut my teeth as a big filmmaker. So we've grown a lot together and I am completely invested in the success of that studio. I really want to see the 'Iron Man' stuff play out really well through these other movies and hopefully collaborate in the future."

[Project862006]

looks like FOX has some competition

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Comic-Con happened a few weeks ago, bro. He seemed elated and happy to be there, which conflicts with this report that he is unhappy with this series. It doesnt' really add up, nor does this stuff about Favreau. He just said this a few days ago.

I know exactly when it happened, "bro." My point is he's under contract. Comic-Con is a promotional event for these franchise movies. He "seemed" elated to be there? He's a professional actor (a damn GREAT one) and you think it's impossible for him to put on a happy face even if he's not actually happy behind the scenes?

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Hater my arse. I rated IM1 a 8/10, which is the highest grade I've ever given any superhero movie. The notion that I'm a biased hater is a crock of BS. IM2 was a 5/10 for me, which isn't the worst movie ever and certainly not a terrible movie. I agree with your point about it not being anywhere near as bad as Spidey 3. IM2 was just very boring to me. That's it.

Dude, people saying they loved Iron Man 1 on this forum is like white people saying "I have black friends" when they talk about race issues.

I am not going to tell people what to think, but I think some of you are overreacting with your criticisms. I honestly came out of Iron Man 1 with more issues then I did for this movie. People are sitting on here talking about Rhodey being able to pilot the suit and Fury giving Tony the serum, yet ignoring some of the same issues in the first movie. Seriously, whats more believable---Rhodey piloting the suit or Tony building the Mark 1 (capable of flight, shooting missles/flames, protecting from bullets, etc.) in a cave with a box of scraps?!

[Iron_Stark]

IIRC, it was Favreau that said NO to the Avengers because he was going to be doing IM2 and IM3.

I don't know what the hell that writer was smoking.

[hatebox]

Everything in the article sounds completely accurate, but at the same time it's still conjecture. I mean, knowing Marvel I believe it all, but this isn't really news. Anyone can see IM2 had a very hasty development.

[Maximillian]

It might be legit. In the end it makes sense. My first impression after watching Iron Man 2 was "that's it?" Then again, Favreau only had 2 years to finish it.

There's been a lot of internal problems with Marvel Studios lately. It's sad because there's so much potential for these movies.