Iron Man Avi out & Maisel in, he tried to change Iron Man villain!

[bondreborn]

Why can't the studio execs just leave the process ALONE?????!!!!!

 

[Mysterio]

because they wouldn't be doing their job otherwise. it's their money and they're beholden to the stockholders, not the fans. the writers and directors are just contractors.

 

[bondreborn]

True, but if they actually try LISTENING to the fans and the writers and directors for a change, they MIGHT end up with a film worth seeing.

 

[dark_b]

True, but if they actually try LISTENING to the fans and the writers and directors for a change, they MIGHT end up with a film worth seeing.

HAHHAHAH HAH HAHHAH AHHA HA

 

[Mysterio]

True, but if they actually try LISTENING to the fans and the writers and directors for a change, they MIGHT end up with a film worth seeing.

why should they? they've been successful doing what they've been doing. their goal is completely different than the goal of the writer/director or fan. any weak parts or relative failures of the films are not because they didn't listen to the fans.

 

[deathshead2]

why should they? they've been successful doing what they've been doing. their goal is completely different than the goal of the writer/director or fan. any weak parts or relative failures of the films are not because they didn't listen to the fans.

Its better if they don't listin to the fans trust me. Because every time a company listins to the fans ***** about something and then they finnaliy do it. The fans just ***** some more.

 

[YJ1]

And so it begins...

I'm amazed it took this long. Fanboy sniveling usually heats up sooner but Iron Man was coasting along with nothing but raves until now.

I'm positive this turn was brought up during production meetings. Anyone that knows anything about shooting a film knows that the budget is carefully structured before shooting begins. Since this is Marvel's first film and they are contractually obligated to keep it under a certain cost, I guarantee any script changes or polishing occurred before any shooting began. I'd rather them focus perfectly on Iron Man/Tony Stark then give us a bloated movie that cuts corners. I guarantee you that Iron Man will be a great film.

Its better if they don't listin to the fans trust me. Because every time a company listins to the fans ***** about something and then they finnaliy do it. The fans just ***** some more.

It's true. ALL studios have tuned the fanboys completely out now and it's all their fault. I would do the exact same thing. Some people's irrational whining has ruined it for all of us.

 

[dark_b]

listen to the fans? its not like their 3 fans on this whole world. their milions. and how could they listen to so many fans? they dont have the same opinion.

 

[Retroman]

Though I never heard that myself, I was aware that some Marvel execs can be unpopular. Just goes to show, better the devil you know.

True.

Yeah, I always thought it was silly to ignore Avi's contributions when a Marvel movie was a success but give him all the credit when the movies fail.

Yeah....

I'm glad Avi Arad is gone,he is always ruining things with his crazy ideas.

Which crazy ideas?

listen to the fans? its not like their 3 fans on this whole world. their milions. and how could they listen to so many fans? they dont have the same opinion.

Well said dark you can't take on board every fan's opnion or else the film will be a mess. Having said that the majority opnion should be taken into consideration. And it looks like the majority would rather they not merge two classic Iron Man villains.

 

[Mysterio]

listen to the fans? its not like their 3 fans on this whole world. their milions. and how could they listen to so many fans? they dont have the same opinion.

but fans aren't the only people who go see these movies. they aren't making a movie for the diehard fan; they're trying to attract everyone. they're listening to box office receipts, and the numbers so far for comic book movies have been very successful.

as for merging two villians...doesn't bother me. i'm not an Iron Man fanboy. i've never read an Iron Man comic. my knowledge of Iron Man is through the Avengers or through other comics. that isn't going to stop me from seeing the movie. and if it works better to combine a couple of villains to make a better movie then so be it. the casual fan and the regular movie goer aren't going to care a lick as long as it's a good, well written story.

 

[Scandalous]

There's no reason to ever combine villains (in a character sense) in any superhero film. Either you use a villain as he is, or you don't and save him for another time.

It's just as easy to make a casual reference or feature the villain in a very minor role than destroy him by combining him with another.

Combining villain storylines is different...Batman Begins did a great job with this. The two villains are involved in the same scheme, yet operate almost completely independent of one another. I hope that this is the case.

 

[Cinemaman]

I don't believe this guy could be that stupid. Combining characters to save money doesn't make sense.

Why not just save the other classic villian for the sequel?

Actually, it was already done in BB (though not for money) and it made sense.

Why it won't work with IM? Because idea is no longer old now and IM would look stupid with showing what has already been used Besides, Mandarin is more iconic character than Ras.

I hope Jon didn't do that.

 

[blind_fury]

Actually, it was already done in BB (though not for money) and it made sense.

That was different. Nolan had one character(Ras Al Ghul) pretend to be another closely related character(Ducard).

He didn't combine two completely unrelated characters Scarecrow and Bane into a completely new character. That would simply be a waste of two classic characters.

 

[odiin]

Actually, it was already done in BB (though not for money) and it made sense.

Why it won't work with IM? Because idea is no longer old now and IM would look stupid with showing what has already been used Besides, Mandarin is more iconic character than Ras.

I hope Jon didn't do that.

No... it wouldn't work because having Jeff Bridges playing a Chinese guy would be downright stupid. Ra's Al Ghul was one thing, but there's no getting over an American Mandarin, of course they could come up with something like Stane gets possessed by the "spirit" of Mandarin but that would be completely atrocious.

I may be giving him too much credit since I haven't actually seen any of the film in action, but I doubt Jon would stand for this.

Either A.) He argued his case and DID end up getting the two villains he wants, which directors have to do ALL the time especially in Super Hero movies. Execs always ask thing like "Well does he HAVE to wear a costume" or "Iron MAN? How about we make it an Asian woman instead?" and the director has to fight just to get some of the most basic essential things about the character on screen


Or B.) he worked tirelessly to remove Mandarin from the script and rewrote it just with Iron Monger, and is saving the Mandarin parts for the next film.

 

[GoldGoblin]

Which crazy ideas?

^
He tried to make Doc Ock in SM2 a kid Peter's age and he wanted there to be a love traingle with Doc Ock MJ and Peter,and then he made Raimi put in Venom in SM3 which replaced the Vulture.

Then I hear how he was trying to combine two Iron Man villains into one for this movie.The guy is just trying to destroy the movies.

 

[YJ1]

^
He tried to make Doc Ock in SM2 a kid Peter's age and he wanted there to be a love traingle with Doc Ock MJ and Peter,and then he made Raimi put in Venom in SM3 which replaced the Vulture.

Avi was one of the main OPPONENTS of the young Doc Ock love triangle storyline. Watch the original DVD bonus features, Avi hated that idea. I've also read some of "The Spider-Man Chronicles: The Art and Making of Spider-Man 3" by Grant Curtis. It's an amazing book that covers every aspect of the film. It discusses why Venom was used over Vulture and I have to say that I agree with their reasoning 100%.

Having a kick ass Iron Monger battle in Iron Man and saving Mandarin for the sequel works fine for me.

 

[Retroman]

^
He tried to make Doc Ock in SM2 a kid Peter's age and he wanted there to be a love traingle with Doc Ock MJ and Peter

Well i stand corrected those are crazy ideas but in preproduction there are always crazy ideas thrown around and some of them actually work some don't.He's produced so many movies for Marvel and surely he deserves credit for some of the successes.

and then he made Raimi put in Venom in SM3 which replaced the Vulture.

I'm glad Arad suggested Venom over Vulture (even though the idea of Ben Kingsley in the role intrugues me). But unfortunately Raimi didn't show the character a whole lot of love with short screentime and [BLACKOUT]killing it off[/BLACKOUT].

Then I hear how he was trying to combine two Iron Man villains into one for this movie.The guy is just trying to destroy the movies.

You may want to read the qoute in the again. David Maisel is the one who's suggested combining two Iron Man villains to save money not Avi.

 

[Retroman]

Avi was one of the main OPPONENTS of the young Doc Ock love triangle storyline. Watch the original DVD bonus features, Avi hated that idea.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I've also read some of "The Spider-Man Chronicles: The Art and Making of Spider-Man 3" by Grant Curtis. It's an amazing book that covers every aspect of the film. It discusses why Venom was used over Vulture and I have to say that I agree with their reasoning 100%.

Another reason to get this excellent looking book.

 

[Saint]

why should they? they've been successful doing what they've been doing. their goal is completely different than the goal of the writer/director or fan. any weak parts or relative failures of the films are not because they didn't listen to the fans.

Not entirely accurate. Historically, those films closer to the source material and embraced by fans (Spider-Man, X-Men, Batman Begins) succeed financially, while films that stink of executive interference and are not true to the source material (Batman & Robin, Catwoman, Steel) fail miserably.

 

[Norm3]

IMHO more than one villain per film RARELY works. Don't like the idea... most of the time it's too much.

Vic

Why is that? These movies are almost 3 hours long now. Thats two movies in some cases.

 

[Norm3]

We need word from Jon on whether or not these "suggestions" have come to pass.

http://groups.myspace.com/ironmanmovie

 

[Mysterio]

Not entirely accurate. Historically, those films closer to the source material and embraced by fans (Spider-Man, X-Men, Batman Begins) succeed financially, while films that stink of executive interference and are not true to the source material (Batman & Robin, Catwoman, Steel) fail miserably.

i think it's pretty accurate. the movies you listed were poorly written and poorly executed. it wasn't because they were unfaithful. there wasn't anything more unfaithful in B&R than there was in Spider-Man. hell, he didn't even have web shooters; he shot organic webbing from his wrists. that's pretty damned unfaithful.

 

[Saint]

i think it's pretty accurate. the movies you listed were poorly written and poorly executed. it wasn't because they were unfaithful.

Also not accurate. The scripts were bad because they were written by people who did not care for the characters, did not understand the characters, and did not understand how to realize those characters on film.

there wasn't anything more unfaithful in B&R than there was in Spider-Man.

This is blatantly false. Spider-Man was true to the spirit and character of the comics. The characters acted as they should, events occurred as they should, and the tone was as it should have been. None of that can be said for B&R. The characters did not act as they should have, the events did not occur as they should have, and the tone was not as it should have been. Batman & Robin was not true to the spirit of comics, and that is pretty much the definition of unfaithful.

When the people making the film understand and care about the property they're adapting, they produce a better film, invariably. And yes, one of the reasons is because they are faithful. If Sam Raimi had made Spider-Man a black-ops Jack Bauer type, the film may have been good, but it would not have been a good Spider-Man film. It would have been a bad Spider-Man film, because it would not have been a Spider-Man film at all--it would have been something else with the "Spider-Man" name stapled to it.

There are changes that have to be made for practicality, or for the sake of storytelling via film, and that's fine. But when you are not faithful to who the characters are at their core, that is invariably bad. When you change who a character is supposed to be, you have failed, because it is not your job to create an original character and call him The Mandarin; your job is to transfer the character that already exists to screen.

 

[Norm3]

Also not accurate. The scripts were bad because they were written by people who did not care for the characters, did not understand the characters, and did not understand how to realize those characters on film.



This is blatantly false. Spider-Man was true to the spirit and character of the comics. The characters acted as they should, events occurred as they should, and the tone was as it should have been. None of that can be said for B&R. The characters did not act as they should have, the events did not occur as they should have, and the tone was not as it should have been. Batman & Robin was not true to the spirit of comics, and that is pretty much the definition of unfaithful.

When the people making the film understand and care about the property they're adapting, they produce a better film, invariably. And yes, one of the reasons is because they are faithful. If Sam Raimi had made Spider-Man a black-ops Jack Bauer type, the film may have been good, but it would not have been a good Spider-Man film. It would have been a bad Spider-Man film, because it would not have been a Spider-Man film at all--it would have been something else with the "Spider-Man" name stapled to it.

There are changes that have to be made for practicality, or for the sake of storytelling via film, and that's fine. But when you are not faithful to who the characters are at their core, that is invariably bad. When you change who a character is supposed to be, you have failed, because it is not your job to create an original character and call him The Mandarin; your job is to transfer the character that already exists to screen.

Great post. I wish Hollywood would listen.

 

[Cinemaman]

That was different. Nolan had one character(Ras Al Ghul) pretend to be another closely related character(Ducard).

He didn't combine two completely unrelated characters Scarecrow and Bane into a completely new character. That would simply be a waste of two classic characters.

Oh, my bad.