Iron Man Bridges is The Mandarin & Favreau is Happy Hogan.

[FlawlessVictory]

Right on, congratulations on figuring it out . I can't find any reason to doubt Bridges is Stane at this point. If memory serves, Favreau was dismissing the Howard Stark character also.

I favor Toub as the insurgent Raza, but could easily be wrong.

My pet theory is that "The Mandarin" is a weapon system and not a real live man, controlled and/or developed by Gene Kahn with a little help from illicitly gained Stark tech.

I've got something else pretty big I want to run past you guys, but have to wait until I'm back home tonight so's I can provide evidence.

edit: Well, I'll drop it now and back it up later. Jon is most likely not Happy; I'm doubting Happy will even be in the first flick.

Ok, if Bridges is Stane, then why keep that a secret? (And I'm not necessarily doubting you, just wondering)

 

[the reel chris]

No worries, man It's all still guesses anyways.

I posted this in the Conference Call thread, but will reiterate. My guess as to why they haven't confirmed Bridges' identity is because the details Feige released about his character don't gibe with Stane's backstory, and they may have been trying to avoid a noisy fan backlash which could taint the production. I think we have a reputation for being somewhat 'reactionary'. t:

Again, I don't claim this as definitive, it's just my conclusion based on the evidence available. Alot of time has passed since CC2006, things could have changed.

 

[Chris B]

No worries, man It's all still guesses anyways.

I posted this in the Conference Call thread, but will reiterate. My guess as to why they haven't confirmed Bridges' identity is because the details Feige released about his character don't gibe with Stane's backstory, and they may have been trying to avoid a noisy fan backlash which could taint the production. I think we have a reputation for being somewhat 'reactionary'. t:

Again, I don't claim this as definitive, it's just my conclusion based on the evidence available. Alot of time has passed since CC2006, things could have changed.

I still don't buy into the "Bridges is Stane" argument. The description of his role made it sound like he is playing a father figure to Tony Stark. I would hate it if they retooled Stane's character to fit that. Based on the description they did give leads me to believe that Bridges is playing Howard Stark.

 

[Chris B]

Right on, congratulations on figuring it out . Well, I'll drop it now and back it up later. Jon is most likely not Happy; I'm doubting Happy will even be in the first flick.

Actually, a few months back, Favreau asked the fans over at his MySpace group who they would want to see play Happy and he was the fan favorite for the role.

 

[the reel chris]

I was the first to ask him to play the part in that thread. The buff Jon from Friends, the Break Up, etc. remains the perfect casting for that role. Adam Baldwin would be a sweet runner-up.

However, someone discovered about 16 pages(?) later that the thread was started by a Jon imposter, (a pretty convincing one). The thread link is on my home computer, that's one of my bits of evidence I was going to post later.

We cannot count on that thread as proof that Happy is in the movie.

 

[Chris B]

I was the first to ask him to play the part in that thread. The buff Jon from Friends, the Break Up, etc. remains the perfect casting for that role. Adam Baldwin would be a sweet runner-up.

However, someone discovered about 16 pages(?) later that the thread was started by a Jon imposter, (a pretty convincing one). The thread link is on my home computer, that's one of my bits of evidence I was going to post later.

We cannot count on that thread as proof that Happy is in the movie.

Really? I didn't know that. Then you're probably right about the character not appearing.

 

[the reel chris]

I still don't buy into the "Bridges is Stane" argument. The description of his role made it sound like he is playing a father figure to Tony Stark. I would hate it if they retooled Stane's character to fit that. Based on the description they did give leads me to believe that Bridges is playing Howard Stark.

I think the retooling happened. But I know what you mean, I was sure Bridges was Howard until I went back over that interview. But again, it's all guesses until we get confirmation.

I'm going to go back through the Questions for Jon thread when I get home to tighten up some of my wild accusations, but I'll later post my further reasoning for Happy. I'm confident he'll show in the 2nd movie; not the first.

 

[MarvelXI]

I don´t think Bridges will play Mandarin but maybe someone who wasn´t mentioned yet, maybe Kevin O´Brian.
Happy could be Favreau but I don´t know I think he will be to busy to direct the film.

 

[the reel chris]

^^^ In this MySpace thread, Jon himself narrowed down the characters Bridges could be playing to the following:

Mandarin
Justin Hammer
Edwin Jarvis
Howard Stark
Obadiah Stane

Happy Hogan was on that list until Jon later denied Bridges would be playing him.

What I find really interesting on that thread is that you won't find Stane mentioned before Jon confirmed one of those characters. However, future posts reply to a 'Kenneth' who mentioned Obadiah Stane within the proper time period...

 

[Chris B]

I think the retooling happened. But I know what you mean, I was sure Bridges was Howard until I went back over that interview. But again, it's all guesses until we get confirmation.

Then the question becomes why? In that AICN article about the visit to the production offices, Favreau said that he wouldn't change something unless he felt that he had to. I don't see how it would be that hard to incorporate Stane into the story as the arbitrary business rival.

 

[the reel chris]

Then the question becomes why? In that AICN article about the visit to the production offices, Favreau said that he wouldn't change something unless he felt that he had to. I don't see how it would be that hard to incorporate Stane into the story as the arbitrary business rival.

First, thanks for the chat, cb. This is fun, and far more interesting than work t:

OK. We're all operating under the impression that, despite Feige's description, this character is not all sweetness-and-light. This isn't new. So we're left with, "Why Stane, and why change him?"

This is all I got.

1. I think they need the true antagonist to be more than a business rival. This has to be personal. Stark would be a hard person to intimidate, so I think only someone who was once part of the inner circle might be able to truly faze him.
2. So why not Howard Stark? Assuming my first paragraph holds true, this mentor will turn on Tony, which is less likely to accept from someone with blood ties, less realistic. And hopefully they're taking another step away from Batman Begins by not making the Stark legacy a focal point of the story.
3. When you got rights to a name like "Obadiah Stane", you gotta put that front and center. That's a slice of fried gold right there.
4. And with Jon naming Stane as one of the core characters, I'm just having to accept his role has been altered to fit their needs as they've done to Mandy.

That's where I'm at.

 

[Jamie Madrox]

I bet Jeff Bridges is playing Tony's Dad. It seems more likely. I doubt he's playing Mandarin or anyone else.

 

[the reel chris]

OK, going back to why Happy may not appear in the flick, and pretty certainly why Jon wouldn't play him. This'll be quick and anticlimactic.

Here's the 'Think Happy Thoughts' MySpace thread. It was simple and clean, no reason to doubt it. The thread starter mimicked Jon's picture and ID characteristics perfectly for the time. (Ironically, Jon's personal pictures have rotated back to the bartender, matching the fake which remains static). Clicking on the starters' name takes you to a dummy personal page.

Jon's only direct response regarding Happy's inclusion in the Questions for Jon thread is as follows:

Posted: Jun 10, 2006 11:02 PM

Jordan Wrote:

Now I can't remember though, whether anyone asked about Pepper Potts or Happy Hogan. Any plans for them in the film? Also, very excited about Jim Rhodes (and, in effect, War Machine)

Pepper-yes
Rhodey-yes
Happy-not planning to

I've also gone through the entire MySpace group and compiled all (or nearly all) of Jon's posts, (as I've been trying to put an updated FAQ together for the group). Few to none as far as Happy mentions; the Bridges denial and the quote above is pretty much it.

Happy wasn't mentioned in Miranda Fox's awesome Casting Call thread.

I seem to remember another Happy denial from another early interview with AICN, but their search function is t*ts-up at the moment. MySpace groups are down for maintenence again, so I can't get there to QC this post.

Disclaimer: none of the above rules Happy's inclusion out, just leads me to believe it's quite unlikely. If anyone has more info, please put forth.

Lastly, as shown in this gallery of pictures from the Made screening on Feb. 17th, he's not looking the part. This is not to be critical of the guy; he's a minor deity to me. He simply looks more like the three-time father that he is rather than the ex-boxer who winds up with Gwyneth Paltrow.

Yup. Flame on.

 

[the reel chris]

Last thing. In running through the Questions for Jon thread, I came across Jon's interpretation of the Mandarin character. I'm just posting it for the hell of it, take it as you will.

Here he responds to a "don't make the Mandarin a stereotypical fu-manchu Chinese guy" plea.

I'm glad that I set up this group for no reason other than to answer questions like these.

We live in a different society than when the Mandarin was originally conceived. We in no way want to prepetuate any ridiculous stereotypes. The aspect of the Mandarin that is appealing to us is his mysterious and formidible nature. He is the most powerful and definitive of the Iron Man villians. He also allows us to weave in other fan pleasing "personalities" as he is a mastermind and not simply a brutish thug. The Mandarin presents the best opportuntity to write a complex and colorful character. It has always been my feeling that the villian is the most fun character to play, write for, and watch. If we create a great character, a great actor will hopefully follow. These are our goals.

I happen to think that any portrayal of this villian similar to the early books would be comical at best and offensive at worst. Neither result is what we are going for. I hope to update the paradigm and create a character who is a villian because of what he does, not where he's from or what he looks like.

Shoots my pet theory to hell

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Excellent work, the reel chris! So it seems pretty clear from this quote, "I hope to update the paradigm and create a character who is a villian because of what he does, not where he's from or what he looks like" that Favreau is planning on changing things up with the Mandarin. I have to say, I don't like the sound of that and this puts a real damper on things.

 

[the reel chris]

Cheers, man it's appreciated.

Yeah, that got me a little nervous too. I'm hoping the reason for the non-finished script is that they are scratching out anything resembling BB mimickry. :bat:

 

[Chris B]

First, thanks for the chat, cb. This is fun, and far more interesting than work t:

OK. We're all operating under the impression that, despite Feige's description, this character is not all sweetness-and-light. This isn't new. So we're left with, "Why Stane, and why change him?"

This is all I got.

1. I think they need the true antagonist to be more than a business rival. This has to be personal. Stark would be a hard person to intimidate, so I think only someone who was once part of the inner circle might be able to truly faze him.
2. So why not Howard Stark? Assuming my first paragraph holds true, this mentor will turn on Tony, which is less likely to accept from someone with blood ties, less realistic. And hopefully they're taking another step away from Batman Begins by not making the Stark legacy a focal point of the story.
3. When you got rights to a name like "Obadiah Stane", you gotta put that front and center. That's a slice of fried gold right there.
4. And with Jon naming Stane as one of the core characters, I'm just having to accept his role has been altered to fit their needs as they've done to Mandy.

That's where I'm at.

1. Who's to say that Stark would have to be intimidated by Stane in the first film? They could easily save that for the sequel.
2. People are making the mistake of thinking that Bridges' character will turn on Stark. Which may or may not be true.
3. But why use a character from the comics in a different role when they could've just have easily make up their own character.
4. Then they're idiots. I realize that Iron Man's rogues gallery in outdated, but they don't need to completely reinvent some of them.

 

[Chris B]

In regards to the Mandarin quote, I think Favreau only meant that he wants to avoid the Fu Manchu stereotype people associate with the Mandarin.

 

[YJ1]

No. It says Bridges rounds out the ensemble and no more "major" casting decisions. I'd say the lead villain is a major casting decision. And yes I understand they're describing Bridges role as a confident to Stark. That doesn't matter. I'm telling you he's The Mandarin. The role has been changed and updated for the film because they could NOT keep it as it was in the comics. I'm pretty sure Favreau even said way back in the beginning The Mandarin would not be the same as in the comics. The only other possibility is that they cast the mandarin without telling anyone who it was and are keeping some actor a secret. Uhhh no.

I just hope they don't take the same route as the animated DVD story. Having the Mandarin be some ancient Chinese spirit that inhabits the body (Bridges?) of someone in the modern day. He could be both Obadiah Stane AND Mandarin in that case.

I haven't been following the plot rumors much in fear of spoilers but has there been any mention that Obadiah Stane would don armor of his own? Maybe an Iron Monger vs Iron Man finale?

 

[the reel chris]

1. Who's to say that Stark would have to be intimidated by Stane in the first film? They could easily save that for the sequel.
2. People are making the mistake of thinking that Bridges' character will turn on Stark. Which may or may not be true.
3. But why use a character from the comics in a different role when they could've just have easily make up their own character.
4. Then they're idiots. I realize that Iron Man's rogues gallery in outdated, but they don't need to completely reinvent some of them.

1. Spot on. If this betrayal is to happen, it'd make alot of sense to have it happen after we've come to know and love the guy as Tony's mentor; would make a great stepping-off point for the sequel.

2. It's true. Primarily, Feige's description of the character lends itself to "reading into" heavily. I'm thinking that the Bridges is Mandarin talk has played a role in our lumping him into the baddie category, regardless of his role. And if he's a good guy, that leaves only EJ and your favorite, HS.

Just personally, I can't imagine him playing adult RDJr's father, and last July Jon ruled out childhood flashbacks, (which of course may have changed since). But again, who the hell knows? It certainly could be a possiblity.

3. and 4. I feel your pain, man. I remember Stane as a very vivid character from the books. The way I remember him, he made the book far more mature than any of the others I'd been reading at the time. The pages showing his and his father's deaths, the dog from the backstory, still stay with me maaaany years later. It's been 10 years minimum since I last picked up an IM book, but Stane in particular really stuck with me.

I have serious man-love for Bridges though, and can't wait to see him in this most intriguing-sounding role. t:

I just hope they don't take the same route as the animated DVD story. Having the Mandarin be some ancient Chinese spirit that inhabits the body (Bridges?) of someone in the modern day. He could be both Obadiah Stane AND Mandarin in that case.

I haven't been following the plot rumors much in fear of spoilers but has there been any mention that Obadiah Stane would don armor of his own? Maybe an Iron Monger vs Iron Man finale?

They're going real, no spirits.

Iron Monger? God willing, that's the final climactic battle in the 3rd movie. No official mention at all, though.

 

[Chris B]

1. Spot on. If this betrayal is to happen, it'd make alot of sense to have it happen after we've come to know and love the guy as Tony's mentor; would make a great stepping-off point for the sequel.

2. It's true. Primarily, Feige's description of the character lends itself to "reading into" heavily. I'm thinking that the Bridges is Mandarin talk has played a role in our lumping him into the baddie category, regardless of his role. And if he's a good guy, that leaves only EJ and your favorite, HS.

Just personally, I can't imagine him playing adult RDJr's father, and last July Jon ruled out childhood flashbacks, (which of course may have changed since). But again, who the hell knows? It certainly could be a possiblity.

3. and 4. I feel your pain, man. I remember Stane as a very vivid character from the books. The way I remember him, he made the book far more mature than any of the others I'd been reading at the time. The pages showing his and his father's deaths, the dog from the backstory, still stay with me maaaany years later. It's been 10 years minimum since I last picked up an IM book, but Stane in particular really stuck with me.

I have serious man-love for Bridges though, and can't wait to see him in this most intriguing-sounding role. t:

I think that once filming starts and we get set pictures, I think we'll get a better idea of who Bridges is playing. Did Favreay say that we wouldn't get childhood flashbacks? I didn't know that. If Bridges was playing Howard Stark, he could still do it in current time. I'm thinking of 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' where Sean Connery is only 12 years older than Harrison Ford in real life. If they aged Bridges a little bit, it could work despite the 16 year age difference between Downey and him.

I have to say though, based on everything you have said given the information shown by Favreau, I've started to think that maybe Bridges is playing Obadiah Stane. I hope not, but maybe it wouldn't be that bad.

 

[InsaneDwayne]

They should've got Pat Morita to play the Mandarin.

 

[the reel chris]

...Did Favreay say that we wouldn't get childhood flashbacks? I didn't know that.

If Bridges was playing Howard Stark, he could still do it in current time. I'm thinking of 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' where Sean Connery is only 12 years older than Harrison Ford in real life.

Duuuuuuuuuude, I did not know that. With Connery's ego, I wouldn't have thought he'd play Ford's dad, that's priceless! And that speaks volumes in support of JB=HS, nice.

The flashback thing is in the Questions for Jon thread, about page 45. When I was thinking JB=HS, I was thinking it was going to be all about the flashbacks, so that was a shock.

I guess my strongest piece of evidence JB=OS is the "core characters" comment from Favs. But as I sit here thinking about it, I really don't want a reason to hate the Bridges. I guess we shall see

Morita as the Mandarin would be really amusing. He died in 2005, which could be even more so...

 

[terry78]

They should've got Pat Morita to play the Mandarin.

From beyond the grave, right?

 

[Chris B]

Duuuuuuuuuude, I did not know that. With Connery's ego, I wouldn't have thought he'd play Ford's dad, that's priceless! And that speaks volumes in support of JB=HS, nice.

The flashback thing is in the Questions for Jon thread, about page 45. When I was thinking JB=HS, I was thinking it was going to be all about the flashbacks, so that was a shock.

I guess my strongest piece of evidence JB=OS is the "core characters" comment from Favs. But as I sit here thinking about it, I really don't want a reason to hate the Bridges. I guess we shall see

Morita as the Mandarin would be really amusing. He died in 2005, which could be even more so...

I don't hate Bridges either, just the idea of reinventing a character. But I must be honest when I say that I could accept Obadiah Stane starting off as a business associate of Stark. I may take some getting used to, but it could possibly work.