Faverau and RDJ not happy with IM2 (Report)

[Alex Logan]

Originally Posted by LostSon88

Yeah um...in case you didn't know, Marvel (presumably) has a history of LOWBALLING these A-list talents to star in their movies. After signing Howard to a ridiculous amount for IM1, they upped RDJs salary and pretty much cut small deals for everyone else. Some that were found to be quite insulting.

Case in point:

Edward Norton (then again, this was moreso about creative differences)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_642588.html

Sam Jackson ($$)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/hero...ury-no-mo.html

Mickey Rourke ($$...at the time it was rumored they were only offering him $200,000 for the role)
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=52979

Terrance Howard ($$ asked him to take a pay cut, he refused.)
http://www.parade.com/celebrity/cele...recasting.html

Jon Faverau ($$...low offer for him to return, as they will likely do for pt. 3)
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/06/...-2-it-cant-be/

I'm just saying that they have a history of doing this. They're cheap when it comes to hiring talent. That was my whole point.



Yeah um, its called being a professional.



You seriously feel like 'The Avengers' was a minor plot of Iron Man 2? Seriously? The Avengers are ALL OVER IRON MAN 2!!

This is very interesting... must investige further.

Man... I really think we need a Rorschach smilie.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by LostSon88

The point is that the director was forced to include something into his script that he didn't want to simply because Avi Arad (HIS BOSS) told him to. With the arc that Raimi had built up with his previous two films, it didn't make sense to randomly include Venom into the foray when there were already two other villains (with connections to the first two films) occupying space.

It was completely random and was simply done because the "fans wanted Venom". So Raimi had to work around the parameters that they gave him and came out with a less than quality product.

What are you not understanding?

OUR WHOLE POINT IS THAT MARVELS CONSTANT INTERFERENCE IN THEIR FRANCHISES IS HAVING AN EFFECT ON THE QUALITY OF THEIR FILMS.

You keep saying, "oh its the directors fault, writers this, actors that". Forgetting that in the end, they answer to MARVEL and have to do what they say.

Marvels the boss, and the talent are at their mercy.

How can you say he was "forced" to put Venom in this or that Marvel interferred at all? And even if he was forced (which isn't proven), how could he possibly f--k up an easy, cool, and iconic character THAT bad? Sorry man, but only Raimi can be blamed for that mess. He directed it and wrote it---and had a hefty budget to make the film. Don't blame Marvel for him screwing it up unless they forced him to add in Extreme Sports Goblin, the Sandman with a heart, emo Spidey, stupid dance movies, and cheasy romance. We too much of the chese in the second movie and I apparently was the only person to notice it. Not saying I didn't like the movie, but you could see the direction it was going.

And personally I don't blame them for insisting they put Venom in. He is Spidermans most famous villian along with Goblin and Doc Ock. I don't know anybody that would have prefered an Imotep clone over the symbiote.

[LostSon88]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

Please stop trying to talk sense into him, it's an impossible mission.

Indeed.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

Please stop trying to talk sense into him, it's an impossible mission.

What do I need to do to come to my senses? Freak out about every little thing that not only you don't you have any control over, but things you don't even know are true or not.

Like I said, you sound like sports fans. Yankee fans to be quite honest, as if money is no object. RDJ is Jeter, so he must be paid his due. But you people would given the Melky Cabreras (Norton in Avengers as a human for 5 minutes) and Carl Pavanos (Terrence Howard) of the world big money.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by FaT_tONle

Again, fans shouldn't have to settle for this by default and believe this is the best they are ever going to get. These characters are very lucrative and a lot of them have Batman level potential. So why is Batman on a different pedestal not only financially but critically? Simply because it has the number one talent in the industry behind it, and a studio that recognizes that talent. Until Marvel gives their film makers some leeway, and lets them push the boundaries and take these characters to new limits, we aren't going to get anything we haven't already seen. If you are not going to set the bar high and take risks, get the **** out of the office. That goes to Feige and any other knuckle head that wants these movies to be part advertisements for future projects or things completely unrelated to the project at hand, such as exposure for merchandising, TV shows/spinoffs, video games, and even comics. The movie by committee approach DOES NOT WORK. We have seen that story play out time and time again and we know the results more often than not.

Cmon man, we have seen Batman fighting crime and the Joker going nuts before. TDK made money and was critically acclaimed because Christopher Nolan is one of the best directors of our generation. Not only that, but Batman is one of the most famous and beloved characters in pop culture.

You people still haven't said where Marvel interferred. They must have done it for the first movie with injecting a SHIELD storyline and forced that movie to made pretty quick. Read the Jeff Bridges interview and see what I mean. This movie isn't being critically acclaimed because they got the guy from Tropic Thunder to write it. Do you think Batman would have been great if they get the dude who wrote Dinner for Schmucks or Judd Apatow to pen the movie? As amusing as the idea of Jonah Hill being in it is, it probally would not have been as good as BB/TDK. Case. Closed.

[Alex Logan]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

How can you say he was "forced" to put Venom in this or that Marvel interferred at all? And even if he was forced (which isn't proven), how could he possibly f--k up an easy, cool, and iconic character THAT bad? Sorry man, but only Raimi can be blamed for that mess. He directed it and wrote it---and had a hefty budget to make the film. Don't blame Marvel for him screwing it up unless they forced him to add in Extreme Sports Goblin, the Sandman with a heart, emo Spidey, stupid dance movies, and cheasy romance. We too much of the chese in the second movie and I apparently was the only person to notice it. Not saying I didn't like the movie, but you could see the direction it was going.

And personally I don't blame them for insisting they put Venom in. He is Spidermans most famous villian along with Goblin and Doc Ock. I don't know anybody that would have prefered an Imotep clone over the symbiote.

How long have you been around? The reason I ask is because it's pretty widely known that the film's top producer, Avi Arad, interfered heavily with the film. Sam Raimi didn't get to make the movie he waned to make. How can you say that Marvel didn't interfere at all? That's what movie studios do my friend. They want movies that they can sell "stuff" from. Where do you think George Lucas made all of his money? TOYS, TOYS and more TOYS!

How could Raimi, the man who gave us two of the best comic books films to date, screw up the third act all on his own? Why didn't Raimi, along with the rest of cast, return for Spiderman 4? I got two words for you: studio interference.

And screwing up Venom was easy by the way. They brought in a character, which took years to build and tried to fit him into one film. Oh... and they cast that Grace idiot.

[Alex Logan]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Cmon man, we have seen Batman fighting crime and the Joker going nuts before. TDK made money and was critically acclaimed because Christopher Nolan is one of the best directors of our generation. Not only that, but Batman is one of the most famous and beloved characters in pop culture.

You people still haven't said where Marvel interferred. They must have done it for the first movie with injecting a SHIELD storyline and forced that movie to made pretty quick. Read the Jeff Bridges interview and see what I mean. This movie isn't being critically acclaimed because they got the guy from Tropic Thunder to write it. Do you think Batman would have been great if they get the dude who wrote Dinner for Schmucks or Judd Apatow to pen the movie? As amusing as the idea of Jonah Hill being in it is, it probally would not have been as good as BB/TDK. Case. Closed.

I'm sorry, but your argument about Batman doesn't even hold water in this matter. Burton's Batman and Nolan's Batman are like Karate and Jujitsu. Both are great martial arts and both have pros and cons, but they are far too unique to compare and it's best to know both.

[LostSon88]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Cmon man, we have seen Batman fighting crime and the Joker going nuts before. TDK made money and was critically acclaimed because Christopher Nolan is one of the best directors of our generation. Not only that, but Batman is one of the most famous and beloved characters in pop culture.

Yeah, that and the fact that WB stayed out of his way and let him do what he wanted with the character.

You people still haven't said where Marvel interferred. They must have done it for the first movie with injecting a SHIELD storyline and forced that movie to made pretty quick. Read the Jeff Bridges interview and see what I mean. This movie isn't being critically acclaimed because they got the guy from Tropic Thunder to write it. Do you think Batman would have been great if they get the dude who wrote Dinner for Schmucks or Judd Apatow to pen the movie? As amusing as the idea of Jonah Hill being in it is, it probally would not have been as good as BB/TDK. Case. Closed.

What the hell are you talking about? First you use a lame analogy regarding liking Iron Man 1 and African Americans...then you transition into comparing us to Yankee fans and now, this?

Yeah...there's no talking to you.

[Alex Logan]

Originally Posted by LostSon88

Yeah, that and the fact that WB stayed out of his way and let him do what he wanted with the character.

Yep.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Alex Logan

How long have you been around? The reason I ask is because it's pretty widely known that the film's top producer, Avi Arad, interfered heavily with the film. Sam Raimi didn't get to make the movie he waned to make. How can you say that Marvel didn't interfere at all? That's what movie studios do my friend. They want movies that they can sell "stuff" from. Where do you think George Lucas made all of his money? TOYS, TOYS and more TOYS!

How could Raimi, the man who gave us two of the best comic books films to date, screw up the third act all on his own? Why didn't Raimi, along with the rest of cast, return for Spiderman 4? I got two words for you: studio interference.

And screwing up Venom was easy by the way. They brought in a character, which took years to build and tried to fit him into one film. Oh... and they cast that Grace idiot.

In what ways did Marvel interfere though? You guys have no basis to make these claims and it's nothing more than fanboy speculation. Even if they did absolutely force Venom into the movie, thats still no excuse for how the movie turned out. Raimi is to blame, not Marvel. The movie isn't good if Venom is removed. Sandman still is lame, so is the storyline with Harry and the forced down our throats romance with MJ. You dudes are really started to make excuses for these directors now with this one!

As for Venom, he should be an easy character to do. They made it silly and cast the most random actor possible. This storyline could have easily been made in one movie in my opinion.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Alex Logan

I'm sorry, but your argument about Batman doesn't even hold water in this matter. Burton's Batman and Nolan's Batman are like Karate and Jujitsu. Both are great martial arts and both have pros and cons, but they are far too unique to compare and it's best to know both.

Batman is the same character in every movie aside from Batman Begins. The quality of actors and director has changed, but the character remains the same. There was nothing in TDK that we haven't seen before aside from better choreography and a more realistic approach.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by LostSon88

Yeah, that and the fact that WB stayed out of his way and let him do what he wanted with the character.



What the hell are you talking about? First you use a lame analogy regarding liking Iron Man 1 and African Americans...then you transition into comparing us to Yankee fans and now, this?

Yeah...there's no talking to you.

I don't see what they could have done to change Batman in the first place. You are giving WB far too much credit here. He is like Robin Hood, same character, different directors and quality.

And what is wrong with this other analogy? You people think running a studio is like playing fantasy sports. There is a reason why they don't overspend and it's called being a good business. Marvel isn't WB where they have all these movies coming out each year bringing in profits. If you may recall, Marvel was bought out by Disney last year after Iron Man 2 was already being filmed. They had to be frugal, in a similar fashion as sports teams like the Oakland A's and the Minnesota Twins. My sports analogy is perfect because some of you are taking the opposite mindset and are thinking like Yankee fans. Like Yankee fans (and maybe Boston, Mets, and Chicago fans), you don't see how penny pinching is needed elsewhere because they don't have the lucrative sources of income. It's a perfect analogy and I am the master at them.

[Alex Logan]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

In what ways did Marvel interfere though? You guys have no basis to make these claims and it's nothing more than fanboy speculation. Even if they did absolutely force Venom into the movie, thats still no excuse for how the movie turned out. Raimi is to blame, not Marvel. The movie isn't good if Venom is removed. Sandman still is lame, so is the storyline with Harry and the forced down our throats romance with MJ. You dudes are really started to make excuses for these directors now with this one!

As for Venom, he should be an easy character to do. They made it silly and cast the most random actor possible. This storyline could have easily been made in one movie in my opinion.

Wrong, if you would do a little research insead of just screaming fanboy speculation, you would find that are many aticles to back up this "theory".

http://screenrant.com/sam-raimi-cont...an-3-rob-6336/

http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/11509

http://cpedia.com/wiki?q=Raimi&guess...aimi+Ted+Raimi+

All you have to do is read.

Then you haven't read the comics pre-dating his apperance.

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Batman is the same character in every movie aside from Batman Begins. The quality of actors and director has changed, but the character remains the same. There was nothing in TDK that we haven't seen before aside from better choreography and a more realistic approach.

Clearly someone didn't pay attention to detail.

Keaton's Batman/Bruce - Rarely spoke, his movements were stiff, his mannerisms were quite and reserved except in a fight, had no change in voice from one to the other, was a shut-in type, appered to have no desire to give up being Batman.

Bale's Batman/Bruce - Had many lines, his movements were fluid, his mannerisms were extreme and in your face most of the film, had a big change in voice from one to the other, flanted his money and power, wanted to give up one day and have a normal life.

Yep, same character.

And that's just Batman I could go on for days about The Joker.

[Tony Stark]

Sorry, this might have been something if it were on a site other than Comicbook movie. I kinda have to laugh when I read, "reliable sources of CinemaBlend".

I mean you might as well start quoting Al Jazeera.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Alex Logan

Wrong, if you would do a little research insead of just screaming fanboy speculation, you would find that are many aticles to back up this "theory".

http://screenrant.com/sam-raimi-cont...an-3-rob-6336/

http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/11509

http://cpedia.com/wiki?q=Raimi&guess...aimi+Ted+Raimi+

All you have to do is read.

Then you haven't read the comics pre-dating his apperance.

I have read about that and my opinion hasn't changed. He sounds like he is passing blame for his failures on Marvel. Pushing Venom into this movie does not automaticaly make it bad. Poor writing was the problem, as well as continuing on with this boring, played out MJ/Harry story. Peter/Harry should have been resolved earlier instead of a 3 movie arc. He isn't interesting or compelling enough to demand it. Same goes with this Peter/MJ romance. That ruined the movie along with making Venom stupid.

Keaton's Batman/Bruce - Rarely spoke, his movements were stiff, his mannerisms were quite and reserved except in a fight, had no change in voice from one to the other, was a shut-in type, appered to have no desire to give up being Batman.

Bale's Batman/Bruce - Had many lines, his movements were fluid, his mannerisms were extreme and in your face most of the film, had a big change in voice from one to the other, flanted his money and power, wanted to give up one day and have a normal life.

Yep, same character.

And that's just Batman I could go on for days about The Joker.

Bale's Batman became Keaton in the second movie. Bale became more Batman than playboy, losing some of his charm from the first movie in the process. I would agree with you if we are talking about Batman Begins, but Nolan really didn't change anything. He just made it look much better and it felt like better quality then Batman 1.

[Tony Stark]

Originally Posted by Alex Logan

How long have you been around? The reason I ask is because it's pretty widely known that the film's top producer, Avi Arad, interfered heavily with the film. Sam Raimi didn't get to make the movie he waned to make. How can you say that Marvel didn't interfere at all? That's what movie studios do my friend. They want movies that they can sell "stuff" from. Where do you think George Lucas made all of his money? TOYS, TOYS and more TOYS!

How could Raimi, the man who gave us two of the best comic books films to date, screw up the third act all on his own? Why didn't Raimi, along with the rest of cast, return for Spiderman 4? I got two words for you: studio interference.

And screwing up Venom was easy by the way. They brought in a character, which took years to build and tried to fit him into one film. Oh... and they cast that Grace idiot.

That's what I like to call a pound of lie from an ounce of truth.

Yes Arad told Raimi to use Venom, because the fans were calling for Venom. Yes I agree Raimi screwed up Venom, and it would have been better if he'd been left out alltogether.

However, "Raimi didn't get to make the film he wanted to make", so then I suppose it was Arad's fault he had Peter crying like a little girl in every other scene? It was Arad's fault that Peter acted like a total jackass through most of the movie? It was Arad's fault to have Kirstin Dunst sing? And it was Arad who came in and said, "you know in this final fight scene, what we really need is two really bad actors to be reporters giving a play by play of the action."

No Raimi very much made the movie he wanted to make, and that was the whole damn problem with Spider-man 3. If you asked me Arad didn't interfere enough.

Avi Arad did alot of good for Marvel. It's not his fault that Sony and Fox pretty much took almost all control away from Marvel. Arad also was responsible for starting success of Marvel Studios being formed, and Iron Man 1 being such a big hit.

It's funny how people exaggerate and make up stuff on this site, and it goes down as fact. I'm not defending Spider-man 3 by any measure, it sucked, but it sure as hell wasn't purely Marvel and Arad interfering. If anything Marvel lost all control of their properties by this point. They couldn't say, "you know Sandman really shouldn't be the killer of Uncle Ben," because the execs at Sony were approving the scripts and runnign the show. Joe Caracciolo had waaay more control than Arad ever did on SM3.

[Alex Logan]

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

Sorry, this might have been something if it were on a site other than Comicbook movie. I kinda have to laugh when I read, "reliable sources of CinemaBlend".

I mean you might as well start quoting Al Jazeera.

CinemaBlend is NOT a comic book movie site and I can't remember ANY time in the past where CB posted an unreliable story.

I love how you guys will defend your own beliefs as if they are facts, but when it comes to what someone else believes it has to be a made up or a lie. Great argument!

[bunk]

Originally Posted by FaT_tONle

Again, fans shouldn't have to settle for this by default and believe this is the best they are ever going to get. These characters are very lucrative and a lot of them have Batman level potential. So why is Batman on a different pedestal not only financially but critically? Simply because it has the number one talent in the industry behind it, and a studio that recognizes that talent. Until Marvel gives their film makers some leeway, and lets them push the boundaries and take these characters to new limits, we aren't going to get anything we haven't already seen. If you are not going to set the bar high and take risks, get the **** out of the office. That goes to Feige and any other knuckle head that wants these movies to be part advertisements for future projects or things completely unrelated to the project at hand, such as exposure for merchandising, TV shows/spinoffs, video games, and even comics. The movie by committee approach DOES NOT WORK. We have seen that story play out time and time again and we know the results more often than not.

I'm not sure I indicated these movies will be "the best we ever get" when I specifically said Marvel is not putting out the best product possible.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by Alex Logan

CinemaBlend is NOT a comic book movie site and I can't remember ANY time in the past where CB posted an unreliable story.

I love how you guys will defend your own beliefs as if they are facts, but when it comes to what someone else believes it has to be a made up or a lie. Great argument!

Variety or the HollywoodReporter's blog spots could be reporting the same thing and the fans would be denying that it was true. HollywoodDeadline could be reporting the same thing and the fans would be discounting it; all because it doesn't match there perception.

It's a fact that Favs and other actors have had problems with Marvel low balling them. It's a fact that Favs wanted more time to do Iron Man 2. The things in that article are not such a leap...at all. Again they can kiss and make up and this all goes away but it is not surprising nor should it be dismissed to hear that there is trouble in Marvel Land. I think that Marvel could be in trouble; right now, Thor looks average, Captain America is being helmed by a mediocre director and The Avengers is being helmed by a good writer.

[Spider-Fan]

I buy the article, actually. I enjoyed IM2, but it is flawed as I have said in the past. Marvel had tons of trouble hiring/bringing back talent for the production, and they did seem to rush the film. Now, I can see why they did. Cap and Thor are due in 2011, so they can't have 3 films in 2011 and IM2 was probably the easiest to make on a pinch and was a definite paycheck for Marvel based on IM1. But, the film had some missteps. Black Widow was useless, Vanko was underdeveloped, the final fight with Vanko sucked, and the plot was crowded. With more time and a longer runtime, these problems could have been done away with.

Plus, we had that article a while back where RDJ made that odd comment when someone mentioned IM2.

Again, I enjoyed IM2. But, I can see why Favs and RDJ wouldn't be happy with it. I hope Favs comes back for IM3 and that IM3 benefits from not having to set up Avengers like IM2 did.

[Alex Logan]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

Variety or the HollywoodReporter's blog spots could be reporting the same thing and the fans would be denying that it was true. HollywoodDeadline could be reporting the same thing and the fans would be discounting it; all because it doesn't match there perception.

Yeah, I know. It's good to see that someone hasn't lost thier senses.

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

It's a fact that Favs and other actors have had problems with Marvel low balling them. It's a fact that Favs wanted more time to do Iron Man 2. The things in that article are not such a leap...at all. Again they can kiss and make up and this all goes away but it is not surprising nor should it be dismissed to hear that there is trouble in Marvel Land. I think that Marvel could be in trouble; right now, Thor looks average, Captain America is being helmed by a mediocre director and The Avengers is being helmed by a good writer.

You know, I was thinking the very same thing right after I heard the news about Edward Norton.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

I buy the article, actually. I enjoyed IM2, but it is flawed as I have said in the past. Marvel had tons of trouble hiring/bringing back talent for the production, and they did seem to rush the film. Now, I can see why they did. Cap and Thor are due in 2011, so they can't have 3 films in 2011 and IM2 was probably the easiest to make on a pinch and was a definite paycheck for Marvel based on IM1. But, the film had some missteps. Black Widow was useless, Vanko was underdeveloped, the final fight with Vanko sucked, and the plot was crowded. With more time and a longer runtime, these problems could have been done away with.

Plus, we had that article a while back where RDJ made that odd comment when someone mentioned IM2.

Again, I enjoyed IM2. But, I can see why Favs and RDJ wouldn't be happy with it. I hope Favs comes back for IM3 and that IM3 benefits from not having to set up Avengers like IM2 did.

Why shouldn't they be happy with it? This is the most asinine argument (no offense) that people are making on here. I already pointed out that they have practically the same amount of time to work on Iron Man 2 as they did Iron Man 1. This movie was probally much more organized than the first. The only thing they should be disapointed about is bringing on a comedy writer rather than one who is more adept at writing drama. Robert Downey Jr. lobbied to have Theroux as writer of this movie based on Tropic Thunder, which scored him an Oscar nomination. Marvel and Favreau gave him what he wanted, so there is nothing he can be upset about in regards to this movie.

This was not Marvel's fault. And for godsake, the movie wasn't even that bad to be pointing fingers! Sheesh.....all of us liked the movie, but some were slightly disapointed in some regards (minor issues, really). Personally, this is more the fault of fanboy expectations being so high for this movie that it had to be TDK to not disapoint. You hit the nail on the head---they can't have Iron Man 2, Thor, and Cap all in the same year.

As for Black Widow, she wasn't useless. She wasn't intended to be a major, important character in this movie. Just a sexy right hand of both Fury and Stark who could fight. The final Vanko fight didn't suck, it just wasn't long enough. The fight itself was great.

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Why shouldn't they be happy with it? This is the most asinine argument (no offense) that people are making on here. I already pointed out that they have practically the same amount of time to work on Iron Man 2 as they did Iron Man 1. This movie was probally much more organized than the first. The only thing they should be disapointed about is bringing on a comedy writer rather than one who is more adept at writing drama. Robert Downey Jr. lobbied to have Theroux as writer of this movie based on Tropic Thunder, which scored him an Oscar nomination. Marvel and Favreau gave him what he wanted, so there is nothing he can be upset about in regards to this movie.

This was not Marvel's fault. And for godsake, the movie wasn't even that bad to be pointing fingers! Sheesh.....all of us liked the movie, but some were slightly disapointed in some regards (minor issues, really). Personally, this is more the fault of fanboy expectations being so high for this movie that it had to be TDK to not disapoint. You hit the nail on the head---they can't have Iron Man 2, Thor, and Cap all in the same year.

As for Black Widow, she wasn't useless. She wasn't intended to be a major, important character in this movie. Just a sexy right hand of both Fury and Stark who could fight. The final Vanko fight didn't suck, it just wasn't long enough. The fight itself was great.

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA

[Spider-Vader]

This better stop now that Disney's backing up Marvel. If Cap, Thor & Avengers are hits, there's no reason for lowballing anymore because Disney would probably let Marvel do whatever they want.

[LostSon88]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

This was not Marvel's fault. And for godsake, the movie wasn't even that bad to be pointing fingers! Sheesh.....all of us liked the movie, but some were slightly disapointed in some regards (minor issues, really). Personally, this is more the fault of fanboy expectations being so high for this movie that it had to be TDK to not disapoint. You hit the nail on the head---they can't have Iron Man 2, Thor, and Cap all in the same year.

As for Black Widow, she wasn't useless. She wasn't intended to be a major, important character in this movie. Just a sexy right hand of both Fury and Stark who could fight. The final Vanko fight didn't suck, it just wasn't long enough. The fight itself was great.

Get off your high horse and stop trying to portray the rest of us as some overzealous fanboys with ridiculous expectations.

Marvel meddled in this movie by turning IM2 into a big advertisement for the Avengers. Just as they meddled in "The Incredible Hulk" (THAT IS A FACT.) and just as Avi Arad did in Spider-man 3 by forcing Venom into the storyline.

You keep stating how there's no proof that they did when its clearly on the screen. You keep asking for evidence to show how the "Avengers" are all over IM2:

Black Widow, the reference to New Mexico, Howard Stark being a founder of SHIELD, Tony Stark being recruited as a consultant for the Avengers...

...how did any of that contribute to the over-arching story of Tony Stark and his personal battle within himself and Ivan Vanko? In addition to his rivalry with Justin Hammer?

You take those elements out of the film, how much of an impact would it have had on the plot? Little to none.

Those Avenger elements (as awesome as they were), frankly contributed almost nothing to the main plot...THAT is why people say the film is just one big Avengers advertisment and probably why RDJ and Faverau had issues with it.










...But whatever, its the writers fault, right?