Does Marvel have a problem?

[Raiden]

First it was Terrence Howard, then it was Edward Norton Jr, and now it's Jon Favreau. It seems like in each case, the actor or the director left due to monetary dispute with Marvel, who refused to pay them their asking price. I'm not sure how much they were asking, but I know for sure that I hate how Marvel keeps doing this to their movies, and while both Howard and Norton were replaced by other actors, I don't think the replacement for Favreau will be quite as smooth. Anyway, I really don't like Marvel's way of doing business, because it seems like they'd rather take a chance than pay to make sure the movie receives the best treatment possible.

 

[dark_b]

we fanboys are a lot of times in denial. nothing wrong with that. we are geeks.
but yes marvel has huge problems and it will be funny how they will fail with their marvel universe.

about not paying stars money. its very simple and common sense. when you hire a big name for your first movie then you agree that he will get a bigger paycheck for the sequels. since we are here talking about summer blockbuster movies it means that there will be sequels.

agaaaain . when you hire big names for your franchise then you agree that the paycheck will go up for the sequels. because the actor was hired because he is known to the public. this is how hollywood works.

now saying that the actor didnt deserve money doesnt make sense since he was hired because of hes name .

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

From what I've seen related specifically to Favreau, the conflict seemed to be related to where the movie was going and how it fit into a larger scheme.

I HATE the idea of movies by committee, it may be something of a necessary evil for the specific case of Marvel. Don't we, as fans, want movies that can connect and inter-relate and works as a cohesive whole? I do, but that is going to make things tough for a director who doesn't want to be constricted. If some directors can't work within that structure, they'll have to fine ones who can.

I'm less interested in big-name actors and more interested in talented actors and talented directors. Edward Norton and Terrence Howard are very talented actors, but they're also big names and they have price tags associated with that.

Marvel films shouldn't need big names. The characters should bring the crowds in (if the films are done right), so more of the budget can be spent on scripts, directors and special effects.

Working within the structure that Marvel needs to create will scare some good directors away, and that's too bad, but the directors need to give the studion what they need. Favreau did a nice job with Iron Man, but he wasn't really a big-name, high profile director prior to that. Iron Man worked well for all involved and there needs to be some shared credit. I think Favraeu likely feels that he made Iron Man what he is . . . and he certainly deserves some credit, but he was given a great character to start with. He needs to remember that he didn't create that character. Iron Man doesn't belong to Jon Favraeu, he belongs to Marvel.

If Marvel isn't really planning things out (as Favraeu claims), then that's a problem they need to work out. They should have some sort of very broad plan that goes out 10 years and illustrates, at least roughly, what films they will be making and how those films tie together and what things need to be included in the films to keep the progression moving. I think THAT's more important than keeping Jon Favraeu happy and if things are chaotic, they need to fix that problem as a primary priority. Maybe he did them a favor by walking and drawing attention to the issue if there is one.

. . . or maybe he's just being a prima-donna. I don't really know.

 

[chapin]

Im still kinda sad that ed norton will not be hulk on the avengers..
I couldnt careless about Jon Favreau. Im not a iron man fan (and i still think IM2 sucked)

 

[Tacit Ronin]

No. Not at all. Marvel are saints. Terrence Howard and Ed Norton were jerks anyway. Too jealous and money/ character hungry to follow the noble and visionary leadership of Marvel. Jon Favreau left on his own. As you can CLEARLY decipher from his tweet, there was no pressure from Marvel at all. Maybe because he thought he wasn't worthy (as in not talented) enough to be part of something Marvel is doing.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Howard was the highest paid actor in Iron Man despite having such a small role, so I don't have any sympathy for him whatsoever. Cheadle is a better actor, anyway.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Howard was the highest paid actor in Iron Man despite having such a small role, so I don't have any sympathy for him whatsoever. Cheadle is a better actor, anyway.

Exactly.

Question to the people that think Marvel screwed over Howard:

Did he deserve more money than Robert Downey Jr?

 

[Obi-Ron]

it will be funny how they will fail with their marvel universe.

We'll see.

 

[JoeyConQueso]

I think the most important matter is whether Happy will be in Part 3.

 

[Silvermoth]

Nope, Marvel doesn't have a problem. In the future they may need to deal with the threat of corporate influence from Disney but as of the moment, no. As stated in previous posts, there's a fair explanation for those other actors leaving.

 

[Micromind]

I think that Marvel Studios is a new and inexperienced studio, so Disney influence would bring some welcome change in the way they conduct their projects.

 

[Supermanreturns]

First it was Terrence Howard, then it was Edward Norton Jr, and now it's Jon Favreau. It seems like in each case, the actor or the director left due to monetary dispute with Marvel, who refused to pay them their asking price. I'm not sure how much they were asking, but I know for sure that I hate how Marvel keeps doing this to their movies, and while both Howard and Norton were replaced by other actors, I don't think the replacement for Favreau will be quite as smooth. Anyway, I really don't like Marvel's way of doing business, because it seems like they'd rather take a chance than pay to make sure the movie receives the best treatment possible.

Nope.

1. Howard wants more money than Robert Downey Jr. for a small role. Marvel fired him.
2. Norton wants more money than other cast members and not sign in multi-contract (this is important for marvel, without that multi-contract nobody cant's top norton to exit bruce banner's role after avengers). Marvel fired him to replace with Mark Ruffalo (who - read - sign multi-contract and sign his presence for more movies).
3. Jon Favreau exit of his own Iron Man 3 but still is executive producer for Avengers. I will not surprised if he will executive producer also Iron Man 3 and will play again Happy for a cameo.

 

[JP]

Silly thread.

If anything John left because he wants to pursue other projects (which he already is) and Disney already has a release date set and is probably not going to budge. If he REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted to direct IM3 he would be. But, its obvious that he's moved on, and good for him.

In terms of the "money" conspiracies that always come up, meh. Honestly actors think they're worth millions and they're not. They're just not. It disgusts me that the upcoming film How Do You Know spent $50 on its 4 lead actors alone. I mean, seriously?

 

[KenK]

What kills me is that everyone was psyched at the prospect of Marvel characters interacting with one another from film to film, especially The Avengers, and now that it's happening, everyone wants to complain.

I could understand if Cheadle replacing Howard had been bad, but honestly, I didin't miss Howard a bit. I thought the chemistry between Cheadle and Downey Jr. was just as good, if not a little bit better, and let's be series, Howard's voice as War Machine wouldn't have been nearly as authoritative as Cheadle. When he came into the party wearing the Mark II and told everyone to get out, I thought to myself "Yeah. He'll do just fine!"

I'd be more upset at the replacing of Norton if Marvel were doing another stand-alone Hulk film. But even if Norton and Marvel were still on good terms, and Norton were in the Avengers, prospects for another Hulk movie still aren't that great. The Incredible Hulk, despite being a step-up from Ang Lee's version, didn't fare much better financially, so it's not really in their best interests financially. They can lump him into an Avengers film and it's fine, 'cause the primary characters are going to be Iron Man, Thor and Captain America. Yeah, those two separate films for Thor and Cap still need to succeed first, But they've got some good points in their favor. A solid cast (Anthony Hopkins as Odin is just a master stroke), and a proven director whose love of Shakespearean drama and gravitas can only be a plus for a character like Thor. And while many folks will scoff at Joe Johnston over The Wolfman, he's still got a few solid films under his belt, not to mention a comic adaptation that still holds up today, and exhibits the perfect tone and time period for Captain America. And again, you've got a very strong cast for the film. Hugo Weaving as The Red Skull? When has Weaving failed at villainy? If just doing the voice for Megatron, say what you will about the Transformers films in general, you can't tell me his voice work wasn't great.

Favreau leaving Iron Man, I don't see it as the end of the world. For every example someone will point out of a comic book sequel failing from a change in director, there are just as many where director changes didn't prove to be detrimental at all. Why Favreau left, who knows. We can speculate and scrutinize everyone word from every article and interview we read, but none of us can say for sure.

It just seems like some of us are just being really quick to take every change that comes about as a bad omen.

 

[Doc Ock]

This is going to make me sound super ******ed, but what happened with Jon Faverau and Marvel?

 

[KenK]

This is going to make me sound super ******ed, but what happened with Jon Faverau and Marvel?

Favreau has decided to not do Iron Man 3, and fandom at large is having a conniption fit.

 

[Ipodman]

But is Fav ACTING in Iron man 3 tho....

 

[Doc Ock]

Favreau has decided to not do Iron Man 3, and fandom at large is having a conniption fit.

Ah, that seems so far away from now anyways to have me care right now.

 

[jacobed]

I was happy they got rid of Howard, I thought he was a weak spot in Iron Man 1. Cheadle was a huge improvement. It was sad to see Norton go but he wanted too much money. It's not like they hired some no name to replace him, they got a legitimate damn good actor so shouldn't we be congratulating them for being able to do that. It sucks that Jon had to go but maybe seeing a new take on Iron Man is exactly what the franchise needs, the man wants to do something new so I applaud him for doing it.

 

[Timstuff]

The Marvel terror alert system:

Blue (Low Risk) - Wow, Iron Man really kicked ass!

Green (General Caution) - OK, so The Incredible Hulk wasn't a huge hit, but it was still pretty good.

[BLACKOUT]Yellow (Elevated Caution) - Wait, they fired Terrance Howard as Rhodey? Well, I guess the new guy is pretty cool. But why wasn't Iron Man 2 as good as the first one?[/BLACKOUT]

Orange (High Threat): They freaking fired Ed Norton as Bruce Banner!? What the hell, Marvel!?

Red (Severe Danger): JOHN FAVRAEU LEFT IRON MAN 3!? FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU--

 

[MadVillainy]

lol

 

[Timstuff]

Exactly.

Question to the people that think Marvel screwed over Howard:

Did he deserve more money than Robert Downey Jr?

Maybe you should look at it this way.

You pay someone X amount of money to do a job. The project he worked on for you makes LOTS of money. Now that you've made all this money, you ask him to come back for an even bigger job. However, you say he'll be payed less money. Is it not logical that there will be a problem there?

The question should not be "why does Terrance Howard deserve a bigger paycheck than RDJ?" What the fans SHOULD have been asking is "Why was RDJ being paid less than Terrance Howard?" Marvel could have afforded to pay RDJ more than Howard on Iron Man 2 and STILL have given them both a pay raise, but chose just to re-cast Rhodey because it saved them some money. It was not a big deal initially, but it was a warning sign about how the business side of things would be affecting Marvel's movies later down the line. They fired Edward Norton for having an opinion about his character, and now they're letting John Favraeu walk because he wanted to make "Iron Man 3" and not "The Avengers 1.5." For all we know, Iron Man could be Marvel's only hit franchise, and yet they'd rather lose the series' director than not impose tons of mandates for references to other franchises that we don't even know if the audience cares about yet.

 

[MadVillainy]

Just to play devil's advocate. Howard was more active than RDJ at the time of Iron Man. True RDJ had great roles under his belt, but Howard was more current plus even though he was clean RDJ did have all that drug related incidents.
Maybe that's why. But still a "sidekick role" shouldnt be paid more than lead

 

[Timstuff]

The solution should have been to pay RDJ more, not pay Terrance Howard less. It was Marvel who chose to pay Howard such a huge lump of change in the first place, and even though his role was bigger in the sequel they expected him to be perfectly OK with a pay cut.

 

[bubbadoom]

Didn't John F. drop out of IM3 because he had another Disney project lined up. Maybe The Magic Kingdom was closer to happening than IM3 and he chose to do it rather than wait for IM3 to start up. Just sounds like bad timing to me...