No iron man 3 for jon favreau

[Parker Wayne]

After seeing all the articles and information, I'm starting to think this is all overreaction by all of us. It could be possible that Favreau just wanted to go back to kids films and direct The Magic Kingdom. He did love that place since he was a kid.

Maybe it was something Marvel did, and maybe it was also because Favs truly didn't know where to go with IM3. But it feels as though the main catalyst to me is him simply wanting to do Magic Kingdom more.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

And those problems are my own. If you like Iron Man 2, thats your business but I have a right to state my negative opinion about it or anyother film, provided I'm not trolling. Nobody is going to convince me that Iron Man 2 was a good flick...sorry.

All you do is b---h about Iron Man 2. You went out of your way to crush it's success in the box office thread.

Nobody said you shouldn't have an opinion, but you are always railing about it leading me to believe you have some bias. I didn't care for Wolverine, but you don't see me hammering it all the time. If anything, I try to find the good in bad movies, not mine the negative aspects from good movies. There are few movies that I have left angry or complaining about. Then again, I am easy to please and not so demanding about every freaking movie.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

And those problems are my own. If you like Iron Man 2, thats your business but I have a right to state my negative opinion about it or anyother film, provided I'm not trolling. Nobody is going to convince me that Iron Man 2 was a good flick...sorry.

I don't get why you keep saying you have a right to state your opinion. No one's telling you that you can't.

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

After seeing all the articles and information, I'm starting to think this is all overreaction by all of us. It could be possible that Favreau just wanted to go back to kids films and direct The Magic Kingdom. He did love that place since he was a kid.

Maybe it was something Marvel did, and maybe it was also because Favs truly didn't know where to go with IM3. But it feels as though the main catalyst to me is him simply wanting to do Magic Kingdom more.

This is the internet, people overreact over the slightest things.

But yeah that's exactly what I got from that interview and the numerous interviews about him not knowing how to handle the Mandarin.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

I hear you on most of this except,



Shield is introduced in a different context here. It's not like it's just Shield for the sake of shield, and it's not like they're using the original Nick Fury who's a very crucial part of Ironman lore.

They're using the version from the Ultimates, which, ultimately, is another version of the Avengers. And when he shows up, he's talking about the Avengers, it's his whole purpose, which is my problem. If you want to do Nick Fury, do it, but do it right, and with justice, not just to tie movies together for the eventual Avengers film, and that's all this is. Make him really integral to the plot in someway, do something important with him, outside of the setup.

Sure, he is a different Nick Fury from the original one but I really have no issue with it at this point. SHIELD doesn't equal Avengers. Nick Fury is still representing SHIELD, not the Avengers which at this point in the movies is still in planning stages. As a public figure/superhero, SHIELD would be the agency to deal with Tony Stark as he is outside the military.

Again, I think this whole Fury thing is mountain out of a molehill. His inclusion wasn't the problem in the script as he only took up two scenes.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

I hear you on most of this except,



Shield is introduced in a different context here. It's not like it's just Shield for the sake of shield, and it's not like they're using the original Nick Fury who's a very crucial part of Ironman lore.

They're using the version from the Ultimates, which, ultimately, is another version of the Avengers. And when he shows up, he's talking about the Avengers, it's his whole purpose, which is my problem. If you want to do Nick Fury, do it, but do it right, and with justice, not just to tie movies together for the eventual Avengers film, and that's all this is. Make him really integral to the plot in someway, do something important with him, outside of the setup.

Sure, he is a different Nick Fury from the original one but I really have no issue with it at this point. SHIELD doesn't equal Avengers. Nick Fury is still representing SHIELD, not the Avengers which at this point in the movies is still in planning stages. As a public figure/superhero, SHIELD would be the agency to deal with Tony Stark as he is outside the military.

Again, I think this whole Fury thing is mountain out of a molehill. His inclusion wasn't the problem in the script as he only took up two scenes.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

It feels like Nick Fury was a plot device to move the Avengers subplot forward.

Precisely my point. If we're to be technical, the Avengers had nothing to do with Nick Fury or SHIELD during their inception. But we're not talking about that Nick Fury, we're talking about the Ultimates Nick Fury, so basically, his sole purpose is to be a plot device and connect the Avengers agenda through each film, making him simultaneously unnecessary to IM2 as a standalone film, yet integral to IM2 as the Avenger's tie-in.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Um my feelings on the Avengers thing is not being blown up. I hated the Avengers stuff and felt that it hurt the film overall, I'm not alone in my thinking either. If anyone loved the Avengers stuff and felt that Iron Man 2 was flawlessly handled, fine but I still felt that the film would have actually been good if the Avengers stuff was cut out and the villain had more to do than build things.

My anger towards Iron Man 2 comes from disappointment. I liked the first film and thought that they were going to up the anti when Iron Man 2 came out. I only wanted a few things.

Interesting drama to go along with the jokes

An interesting villain that was better than Staine (who wasn't awful)

Interesting a good (better than the first film) action scenes that fit nicely into a semi interesting the plot

I felt that I didn't get those things and thus I talk about it. I wasn't asking for a certain plot or villain or the greatest film in the world, I just wanted a good film. The film wasn't good or bad to me based on Boxoffice numbers or anyone elses opinions, it just simply wasn't enjoyable to me. It could have made 1bil and Favs could be coming back to direct and it still wouldn't be a good film to me.

I hope that Favs moves on the other and better things and makes another Elf or Iron Man 1. He has problems as a director but he has great potential on the action movie front.

I wish the future director good luck when dealing with Marvel because they have serious issues.

[I Am The Knight]

Favs did state in the past that he felt these comic book franchises run out of steam after the second one, so there you go.

[I Am The Knight]

Hype lag.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Severus_Snape

when did ISS say that?

the facts.

Marvel lowballed with TIH.
Then Rourke, SLJ, RDJ (I think?) and favs, cause IM2 wasn't even supposed to be out this year.
Then the norton thing.
Now this.

So what if they lowballed? Stop worrying if millionaires are getting paid enough. Nobody does this with sports but they are fine with giving actors a blank check. Why is this? Making movies is a business and they should be paying people what they are worth. Obviously, these people all took the jobs, therefore they are getting paid what they are worth.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

I don't get why you keep saying you have a right to state your opinion. No one's telling you that you can't.

I get the feeling that some are with their responses.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Sure, he is a different Nick Fury from the original one but I really have no issue with it at this point. SHIELD doesn't equal Avengers. Nick Fury is still representing SHIELD, not the Avengers which at this point in the movies is still in planning stages. As a public figure/superhero, SHIELD would be the agency to deal with Tony Stark as he is outside the military.

Again, I think this whole Fury thing is mountain out of a molehill. His inclusion wasn't the problem in the script as he only took up two scenes.

He did, but Widow sure didn't. And on top of that, some of us, think his inclusion was bad, from a comedic standpoint, plot standpoint, any point. He can't just be representing SHIELD if everytime he shows up he's talking about the Avengers. His whole purpose for being there, for following Stark, for having Widow as his assistant, for helping with the Palladium, is because of the Avengers, so how isn't that his sole purpose?

Take out the Avengers, and both of those characters (at least in this incarnation) wouldn't even exist. Now if they were really using SHIELD for the sake of SHIELD and fell more inline with the classic interpretations, I would have no problem with that. As it is now though, they're nothing more than a plot device

[R_Hythlodeus]

just read the news. terrible. loved both movies. I hope JF changes his mind, I mean "Magic Kingdom"? wtf?

[A Necessary Evil]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

So what if they lowballed? Stop worrying if millionaires are getting paid enough. Nobody does this with sports but they are fine with giving actors a blank check. Why is this? Making movies is a business and they should be paying people what they are worth. Obviously, these people all took the jobs, therefore they are getting paid what they are worth.

Okay, so why don't you continue taking bigger paycuts? Are you going to be as enthusiastic about your job?

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

He did, but Widow sure didn't. And on top of that, some of us, think his inclusion was bad, from a comedic standpoint, plot standpoint, any point. He can't just be representing SHIELD if everytime he shows up he's talking about the Avengers. His whole purpose for being there, for following Stark, for having Widow as his assistant, for helping with the Palladium, is because of the Avengers, so how isn't that his sole purpose?

Take out the Avengers, and both of those characters (at least in this incarnation) wouldn't even exist. Now if they were really using SHIELD for the sake of SHIELD and fell more inline with the classic interpretations, I would have no problem with that. As it is now though, they're nothing more than a plot device

Yeah, I agree with you that Widow could be easily taken out of the movie. But she wasn't bad or distracting (aside from how hot she is). I can't agree with you on Fury though because I think he is an important part of the story and the franchise. His purpose in the movie was director of SHIELD and the government agency that Tony had to deal with. Iron Man is a public figure therefore he must be in contact with some government agency right? He isn't attached to the military anymore and Nick Fury is the contact that makes the most sense. SHIELD was obviously invested in his health as he was an important part of international security, so the palladium plot point makes sense. I don't think the Avengers really has anything at all to do with that.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Severus_Snape

Okay, so why don't you continue taking bigger paycuts? Are you going to be as enthusiastic about your job?

Who is taking a paycut in these movies?

[Saint]

Well, Faverau directed one great movie and one decent sequel, so it's hard to see this as a good thing. Still, a new director might bring something fresh to the table. Although it's unlikely that a new director would take the franchise in a significant new direction, I'd consider this an opportunity to bring some harder sci-fi into the series and tone down the comedy a little.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

just read the news. terrible. loved both movies. I hope JF changes his mind, I mean "Magic Kingdom"? wtf?

Magic Kingdom, if done right, could be the 21st Century's answer to Roger Rabbit.

[Silvermoth]

You know, it sort of reminds me of the Superman franchise. Not that I think we'll see Iron Man-The Quest for Peace but I mean the whole saga of it all culminating in this. Oh well, it seems to me that both Favreau and Marvel are amicable.

[Parker Wayne]

Let's be honest, lets say both hypothetical problems I presented before (Marvel's executive meddling and Favreau not knowing how to approach The Mandarin) came to fruition for IM3. It probably would be for the better that Favreau left the Franchise.

[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.

[kedrell]

I really don't see why the Mandarin's so damn hard anyway.

[Ironfan72]

Originally Posted by kedrell

I really don't see why the Mandarin's so damn hard anyway.

I agree, but Favreau did, mentioning the difficultly of translating him to a movie on numerous occasions, so maybe just maybe he just did not want to take that on in the third film, as many including fans wanted Mandarin for this film, so he was in a no win situtaion, he had no idea how to make Mandarin fit into the Iron Man universe he had created, which I guess I understand, but Mandarin's power's are not magic based but in fact alien technology, so keeping Mandarin in a tech based world was not hard to imagine, whether it be alien tech or tech he made himself, just how do you make a guy with 10 rings of power realistic.

[Supermanreturns]

Originally Posted by Severus_Snape

when did ISS say that?

the facts.

Marvel lowballed with TIH.
Then Rourke, SLJ, RDJ (I think?) and favs, cause IM2 wasn't even supposed to be out this year.
Then the norton thing.
Now this.

Wait.
1.TIH was re-cut by Gale Anne Hurd and David Maisel (that now is not in Marvel anymore), not by Kevin Feige.
2. Marvel is a small studio. It's not bigger like Warner Bros., or Fox or Sony. This is what people must learn. They produce movies with bank loans. If they flop a movie, they're in trouble!
And they can't pay bigger payments to all this star, they seriously can't. This is why Norton was fired. Surely Norton wants more payment and don't want to sign the multi-contract thing.
3. Iron Man 2. This is the only Marvel's fault. Because they make Iron Man 2 after Edgar Wright's Ant-Man was postpone. Like a replacement. But it's true also that Favreau is a comedy director. His "Iron Man" movies are full comedy and lack of action (remember the final fight in both movies?). So I think what he want it's an action comedy. But while Iron Man was good, Iron Man 2 was meh.