Faverau and RDJ not happy with IM2 (Report)

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

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?!

The movie bored the hell out of me. It's an opinion. You can take it or leave it. A 5/10 on my scale is not bad, it's mediocre. I grade harshly, which is precisely why 8/10 is the highest I've ever given any superhero movie. If I give something a 5, I didn't hate it but I didn't particularly enjoy it either. It's just "meh." That's exactly what my reaction to IM2 was.

And your race issues analogy is ridiculous.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

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?

I know that he is under contract. That doesn't mean he has to be happy or as into the project as he seemed at Comic-Con. His attitude there didn't come across as somebody who wanted nothing to do with the project and was only there because of the money.

This story sounds like a bunch of bull to me. Like the examples Iron Stark busted out or anything regarding Brett Favre's feelings. This came out pretty late for starters and doesn't really equate to the current quotes of people in the article.

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by 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.

How the hell is it accurate when the title of the article is this.

Unhappy With Iron Man 2, Jon Favreau Wanted To Direct The Avengers; Marvel Said No?

When in reality before IM2 even started filming, fans and the studio wanted him to do the Avengers but he said no because of his commitment to the IM franchise, and that he would be signing on to executive produce the Avengers, so he could "oversee what they do with Iron Man".

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

This story sounds like a bunch of bull to me. Like the examples Iron Stark busted out or anything regarding Brett Favre's feelings. This came out pretty late for starters and doesn't really equate to the current quotes of people in the article.

We'll have our answer when IM3 is announced. If Favreau agrees to do it, then I guess this story was BS (unless of course his salary is insane). If he flat-out refuses to do it, however...

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by 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.

what do you people mean "knowing Marvel"? Since when did Marvel become Fox and start making a bunch of s--t? All of their independent movies have had quality casts, quality CGI work, and have generally been liked by audiences. Anybody comparing Iron Man 2 to the likes of X-Men Orgins, Fantastic Four 2, Elektra, Spiderman 3, or Ghost Rider needs to have their head checked.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

The movie bored the hell out of me. It's an opinion. You can take it or leave it. A 5/10 on my scale is not bad, it's mediocre. I grade harshly, which is precisely why 8/10 is the highest I've ever given any superhero movie. If I give something a 5, I didn't hate it but I didn't particularly enjoy it either. It's just "meh." That's exactly what my reaction to IM2 was.

And your race issues analogy is ridiculous.

8/10 is your highest and it was for Iron Man? Eesh, well then that explains it.

My race analogy is perfect. Everybody likes Iron Man and everybody has a black friend.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

8/10 is your highest and it was for Iron Man? Eesh, well then that explains it.

IM1 was one of a number that have received that rating. Superman, Superman II, B89, Batman Returns, BB, TDK, X2, and Blade come to mind. And your race analogy is ridiculous.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

We'll have our answer when IM3 is announced. If Favreau agrees to do it, then I guess this story was BS (unless of course his salary is insane). If he flat-out refuses to do it, however...

Sure, but I think that we have our proof already with what he has said in the past weeks. I think he will do Iron Man 3 because it has the best villian and a chance to "redeem" himself. Which of course would be ridiculous because it wasn't received THAT bad. I do like how they seem to strive for critical praise and aren't just happy with making $621 mil. Hopefully this inspires them somehow to make a better movie. I won't complain. But I think people are being too hard on IM2.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

IM1 was one of a number that have received that rating. Superman, Superman II, B89, Batman Returns, BB, TDK, X2, and Blade come to mind. And your race analogy is ridiculous.

Ok then.....then we disagree on Superman 2 (which was actually on last night), Batman Returns, and Blade.

My race analogy was perfect, just admit it!

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Sure, but I think that we have our proof already with what he has said in the past weeks. I think he will do Iron Man 3 because it has the best villian and a chance to "redeem" himself. Which of course would be ridiculous because it wasn't received THAT bad. I do like how they seem to strive for critical praise and aren't just happy with making $621 mil. Hopefully this inspires them somehow to make a better movie. I won't complain. But I think people are being too hard on IM2.

Favreau doesn't need to redeem himself. I blame the studio's meddling for how the film turned out. If anything, he should have received more creative control for the sequel after the first one made so much money for the studio. It seems like they went the other direction and clamped down on him.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Favreau doesn't need to redeem himself. I blame the studio's meddling for how the film turned out. If anything, he should have received more creative control for the sequel after the first one made so much money for the studio. It seems like they went the other direction and clamped down on him.

how can you blame the studio? He admitted they gave him the creative freedom and they for sure gave him a big enough budget with some great actors. Their meddling couldn't have been too bad if this article is true. One real scene talking Avengers in the movie, one after credits scene (like the first), and a few easter eggs for the geeks. That isn't really meddling unless the studio told Theroux exactly what the write and personally, that sounds a bit much.

Nobody seems to be complaining about the studio meddling/forcing him to put a scene in the first movie with obvious product placement for Burger King, having Agent Coulsen/SHIELD in the movie, and having Nick Fury at the end.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

how can you blame the studio? He admitted they gave him the creative freedom and they for sure gave him a big enough budget with some great actors. Their meddling couldn't have been too bad if this article is true. One real scene talking Avengers in the movie, one after credits scene (like the first), and a few easter eggs for the geeks. That isn't really meddling unless the studio told Theroux exactly what the write and personally, that sounds a bit much.

Nobody seems to be complaining about the studio meddling/forcing him to put a scene in the first movie with obvious product placement for Burger King, having Agent Coulsen/SHIELD in the movie, and having Nick Fury at the end.

Actually, I have complained about the product placement of the first film. Not a fan of the end credits scene either. Agent Coulsen I didn't mind, but that's probably a result of enjoying his work on the Old Christine show. I never called the first film perfect. I gave it a 8/10 for a reason. That reason is because it's great but does have its share of minor flaws. They don't kill the movie by any means but they keep it from getting a 9 or 10 from me. Same applies to any of the other superhero flicks that I've given a 8/10 rating.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Favreau doesn't need to redeem himself. I blame the studio's meddling for how the film turned out. If anything, he should have received more creative control for the sequel after the first one made so much money for the studio. It seems like they went the other direction and clamped down on him.

Spot on, and this rumour doesnt surprise at all, many aspects of the movie werent up to par, when this movie easily could have been the best in the genre, as I have said before, and been accused of being a TDK fanboy for, the movie felt rushed, and many aspects werent explored as they should have been.

With this and TIH, Marvel needs to get a grip and just let people do their thing.

[redfirebird2008]

Mariachi, a perfect example of meddling would be the timeline of IM2's production. They forced the issue to get the film done within 2 years of the first one's release. Favreau didn't want to do it so quickly, yet that's what happened. Creative freedom would have been letting him make it on his own timeline, which was 3 years. The first movie made plenty of money. There was no need to force the issue like that on Favreau.

[Alex Logan]

I can't say that this really surprises me, Marvel is known for pulling crap like this.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Mariachi, a perfect example of meddling would be the timeline of IM2's production. They forced the issue to get the film done within 2 years of the first one's release. Favreau didn't want to do it so quickly, yet that's what happened. Creative freedom would have been letting him make it on his own timeline, which was 3 years. The first movie made plenty of money. There was no need to force the issue like that on Favreau.

Sure, it was rushed a bit but what more could be done with another year? Aside from script, everything else looked perfect. The CGI didn't looked rushed at all. Could the problem be Theroux as a writer? The dude wrote only one other movie and that was a spoof comedy. Compare that to the first movie, which was written by the guys who worked on Children of Men. You can see why the movie was less dramatic and had more comedy. Everybody wants to blame Marvel here, but the only thing we maybe could blame them for is allowing RDJ to get his guy in here. That is something that should change for IM3.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Alex Logan

I can't say that this really surprises me, Marvel is known for pulling crap like this.

like what?

-rushing production of Iron Man 2
-recasting The Hulk and bringing in a good actor to replace
-not paying Terrence Howard

and?

oh, silly me. You probally wanted Mark Valley as Cap' and Brad Pitt as Thor.

[Gold Samurai]

First Raimi and now this.

Can't they let the directors just tell their story? Look at Nolan. WB doesn't tell him what to do or at least they keep it on the down low

[louiebling$]

Well now if its on the Internet it must be true


Really guys not to be a dick but what has Cinemablend done for their word to be taken as pure truth?

Now if Latino Review,Slashfilm,Deadline,THR or Variety would have posted I would take this more seriously. And regardless if it came from them I wouldnt believe it entirely.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Gold Samurai

First Raimi and now this.

Can't they let the directors just tell their story? Look at Nolan. WB doesn't tell him what to do or at least they keep it on the down low

What does Raimi have to do with anything? Spider-Man was a Sony movie and I don't think Marvel had any say.

Can somebody give me evidence that Favreau wasn't allowed to tell his story? Some of these comments are similar to the Ed Norton crap. He was allowed to do whatever he wanted in IM2 and I heard he even had the vision for the Stark Expo.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Sure, it was rushed a bit but what more could be done with another year? Aside from script, everything else looked perfect. The CGI didn't looked rushed at all. Could the problem be Theroux as a writer? The dude wrote only one other movie and that was a spoof comedy. Compare that to the first movie, which was written by the guys who worked on Children of Men. You can see why the movie was less dramatic and had more comedy. Everybody wants to blame Marvel here, but the only thing we maybe could blame them for is allowing RDJ to get his guy in here. That is something that should change for IM3.

Theroux is not a great writer by any means (not a big fan of Tropic Thunder), but he could have been given more time to work on the script. I would like to see how it could have turned out if Favreau had some time to help him polish it. The timeline didn't really allow for it.

[falconsgrey]

I came home from my vacation to Italy and I was so psyched for Iron Man 2 but what a disappointment. I was watching various news and I agree this summer overall was a blah and started as a blah. Toy Story 3 saved it and then Salt and Inception came along. But to be honest Im not too crazy and impress by those 2 movies either. They are good but not the greatest.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Theroux is not a great writer by any means (not a big fan of Tropic Thunder), but he could have been given more time to work on the script. I would like to see how it could have turned out if Favreau had some time to help him polish it. The timeline didn't really allow for it.

I think you might be stretching by saying time would cure Theroux as a writer. The movie downgraded at writer and that appears to be the issue. Those guys who wrote for IM1 are writing for Cowboys and Aliens, so I guess we will see how the quality is there.

I liked Tropic Thunder, but I think the casting was the reason why it was good. Some funny jokes there, but RDJ/Jack Black/Tom Cruise's acting ability pretty much stole the show.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

I think you might be stretching by saying time would cure Theroux as a writer. The movie downgraded at writer and that appears to be the issue. Those guys who wrote for IM1 are writing for Cowboys and Aliens, so I guess we will see how the quality is there.

I liked Tropic Thunder, but I think the casting was the reason why it was good. Some funny jokes there, but RDJ/Jack Black/Tom Cruise's acting ability pretty much stole the show.

I'm not saying time itself would have cured Theroux, but I am saying that more time would have allowed Favreau to help him with the script. Favreau is a good writer IMHO. But they didn't have time to do those kind of revisions.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

I'm not saying time itself would have cured Theroux, but I am saying that more time would have allowed Favreau to help him with the script. Favreau is a good writer IMHO. But they didn't have time to do those kind of revisions.

Maybe, but I don't see him changing plot all that much. The plot would need to be seriously overhauled to fix the problems you guys see. Favreau is a comedy actor too, so I don't know how he changes the tone all that much.