Does Marvel have a problem?

Im sure Disney isnt going to hand the keys to the red & yellow Ferrari to an unknown. It will be someone we have heard of & gave them ideas of how he wil go about Iron man 3. And because Favreau isnt there, will that really make us all not go see it? I liked John to but if he didnt wanna stick around, I think he should go. He should have been like Iron Man is his baby & he wanted to close it out. I guess he doesnt want to direct shell head that bad.
 
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...

If that was the case, don't you think Disney would be willing to make a compromise so that John F could direct both, like how Christopher Nolan directed The Prestige and Inception between the Batman movies? I think this was either about money, the direction the franchise was moving in, or both. I think that this is another Sam Raimi situation where the studio has a particular direction they want to move things in, and when they start mandating the director to put in things no-one likes it. And then, instead of just saying "OK, you were right, we'll do things your way," they basically say "you're either going to accept even MORE mandates than last time, or you're off the project."
 
The problem IMO was that when Marvel first signed most of these guys they were thinking short term, not knowing if Avengers was happening for sure. It was kind of hinging on the success of Iron Man and TIH.

They signed the best talent they could get to make the movies a success without much long term planning because if these didn't succeed there wouldn't be any more movies.

By all accounts Howard was on the hook for WAY to much money. If I remember correctly they signed him before RDJ. They seemed to think at the time they signed him that he might be the biggest name in it. There also seemed to be some unhappiness with Howard as Rhodey (from Favreau).

There was obviously SOME conflict going on with Marvel and Norton too. I liked Norton and wish he had been kept on. I think Norton had a love for the character and wanted some hands on control over the direction of the character in future movies. He was being difficult unless he got certain assurances for the character from what i've gathered. Marvel seemed to think it was to much trouble. I'm sort of on Nortons side though really (without knowing all the facts). If he liked the character enough to fight for him them i'm all for it.

From everything i've gathered, Favreau was "called up" to a major Disney property. Him and Feige are still friends and talk regularly. I have no doubt there were issues with studio intervention in Iron Man II and i'm sure that played a part. Having said that, if Marvel/Disney wanted him on Iron Man II thats what he would be signed on for IMO. He's a super hot talent and Disney wanted him on one of their new flagship properties.


I don't think its "problems", just business as usual. This kind of stuff goes on a lot. I always hate when studios interfere in the movie process but its also probably not possible to put together these multi-movie tie ins and franchises without some oversight and studio intervention in the scripts/scenes/characters. This is kind of new grounds they are breaking.

We'll see how it all plays out I suppose.
 
About Terrence Howard, going into the production of Iron Man, he was coming off his Oscar nomination, so he was the hotter actor so I can see why he deserved a big paycheck. It's not his fault that he his role wasn't that big or got reduced. I like Howard and Don Cheadle, but Cheadle brought nothing particularly interesting or different, or better to the Rhodes character than Howard did IMO.

Of course it didn't make much sense for Howard to get a bigger check than Downey, but if you were Howard would you turn it down? And wouldn't you want the same or more for a sequel? I think most of us would.
 
The problem IMO was that when Marvel first signed most of these guys they were thinking short term, not knowing if Avengers was happening for sure. It was kind of hinging on the success of Iron Man and TIH.

They signed the best talent they could get to make the movies a success without much long term planning because if these didn't succeed there wouldn't be any more movies.

By all accounts Howard was on the hook for WAY to much money. If I remember correctly they signed him before RDJ. They seemed to think at the time they signed him that he might be the biggest name in it. There also seemed to be some unhappiness with Howard as Rhodey (from Favreau).

There was obviously SOME conflict going on with Marvel and Norton too. I liked Norton and wish he had been kept on. I think Norton had a love for the character and wanted some hands on control over the direction of the character in future movies. He was being difficult unless he got certain assurances for the character from what i've gathered. Marvel seemed to think it was to much trouble. I'm sort of on Nortons side though really (without knowing all the facts). If he liked the character enough to fight for him them i'm all for it.

From everything i've gathered, Favreau was "called up" to a major Disney property. Him and Feige are still friends and talk regularly. I have no doubt there were issues with studio intervention in Iron Man II and i'm sure that played a part. Having said that, if Marvel/Disney wanted him on Iron Man II thats what he would be signed on for IMO. He's a super hot talent and Disney wanted him on one of their new flagship properties.


I don't think its "problems", just business as usual. This kind of stuff goes on a lot. I always hate when studios interfere in the movie process but its also probably not possible to put together these multi-movie tie ins and franchises without some oversight and studio intervention in the scripts/scenes/characters. This is kind of new grounds they are breaking.

We'll see how it all plays out I suppose.


They did sign RDJ to a multi deal, so someone had foresight to know something.
 
All I can say is....I wouldnt be surprised if marvel ended up not making avenger's 2....it seems like a challenge getting number 1 together.
 
All I can say is....I wouldnt be surprised if marvel ended up not making avenger's 2....it seems like a challenge getting number 1 together.
Marvel has NO PROBLEMS whatsoever. Didn't you get the memo? Terrence Howard, Jon Favs, and Edward Norton are in the wrong here. Marvel are saints.
 
yeah, whether or not you're being sarcastic....my point still stands. If Avengers becomes a hit like it should, I could see more issues come up between marvel and its actors.
 
Look at it this way - if Disney would rather have Jon F. on one of their studio movies than a Marvel movie, maybe this is a sign of them keeping their noses out of Marvel's business.
 
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.
I'm honestly not sure if I should laugh or not.
 
well, they start shooting Avengers 1 in a few months...and I have no doubt a second one will follow a few years later. Marvel has not really let the fans down yet [unlike Fox, Sony, etc.] so I am willing to give them a chance before casting any doubts. Thor is looking good, and I think Cap will be okay, too...
 
yeah, whether or not you're being sarcastic....my point still stands. If Avengers becomes a hit like it should, I could see more issues come up between marvel and its actors.

I think that it's inevitable that between the time that Avengers comes out and Avengers 2 goes into production, more people are going to get thrown under the bus. Someone is going to end up getting re-cast, because Marvel has already demonstrated that there are no sacred cows on their farm, and if they have a problem with an actor they simply hit the eject button on their chair rather than negotiating.
 
^ Thats why they should just focus on solo films after Avengers, IMO....
 
Beside X-Men.........Both Fantastic Four movies, Watchmen & Last X-men films are terrible. I really want to see the Avengers turn it back around for team movies. Its an allstar cast that cant miss IF its done right, so we will have to wait & see the final product.
 
Didn't Favreau complain about Marvel turning Iron Man 2 into an Avengers infomercial?
 
Marvel has NO PROBLEMS whatsoever. Didn't you get the memo? Terrence Howard, Jon Favs, and Edward Norton are in the wrong here. Marvel are saints.

It's silly to think that Marvel are saints yes, but it's also just as silly to think those actor(s) and director(s) are untarnished angel's as well.

The street goes both ways, not everything is so black and white. Especially coming from people (e.g, all of us here and around the net) that have absolutely no clue what goes on behind closed doors other than rumors that are inflated and overblown as they pass from ear to ear.
 
None of which are Marvel Studio productions...

Very true,That is why I am pro Avengers without having seen it I admit.Its why Im hoping the Avengers kicks all their @$$es in terms of quality.
 
i dont get the flak Watchmen gets...i thought it was great and ive read the GN numerous times and love it.
 
i dont get the flak Watchmen gets...i thought it was great and ive read the GN numerous times and love it.


Watchmen kicked ass and was the most faithful comic adaption yet.

I still to this day don't understand how a comic fan would not like this movie. Theres no accounting for taste I guess. :dry:
 
..............hmmmmmmmmm, a problem in the harsher sense of the word, I don't think so. But it's not hard to see that Marvel is going to wind up in a few predicaments with some actors and directors.

I think they have handled the most recent issues as well as they could have handled them--though I didn't really care for the Bruce Banner recast. Marvel is putting their characters first and foremost and they deserve a lot of credit for it.

That said, Marvel's plans are becoming one of the worst kept secret in Hollywood and anyone who wants in will have to accept the prospect of a incremental pay increase per sequel. Like it or not, take it or leave it. Part of me still doesn't like the problems this will create, but it emphasizes Marvel's commitment to their product. Honestly, it's inevitable that Marvel will eventually have to pony up big dollars and some point, be it to an actor or director. But the tone they set from the onset is very important. As some one else said earlier: "there are no sacred cows."

Look at it this way, how many A-listers are really going to sign on for these films anyway? The ones that do either don't mind (since money isn't a concern for them or the part is so small it doesn't garner a large payout) or they want to be part of something special and can see the big picture. These films are about the characters and not the actors so much--it's about the spectacle--putting your face in such a spectacle is like having a world wide advertisement. B to C listers will be more than willing, and A- listers who are on their way down the scale will or should be willing as well.

As for Favs wanting to do "other things", that shouldn't be any real surprise. Good film making is obviously a grind. Making good sequels is probably even more of a grind. Factor in expectations and the fact that like it or not, this is Marvel's baby and they are calling the shots in terms of where they want things to end up.........well, it is what it is. I still don't like it though, not letting a director complete his trilogy is usually a bad thing. Hate it actually as the vision may well become somewhat disjointed or inconsistent (x-franchise). But the Potter franchise has successfully done it without missing a beat or anyone noticing much of a difference in the quality of the films. That may very well be the approach Marvel has in mind for their films in general, should a director not want to finish what he started.

We have to remember, what Marvel is attempting has never been done before (though I believe Fox is the closest with their Predator and Alien franchises) and will garner more than it's fair share of criticism, skepticism, cheers and jeers. Actors and directors simply have to be aware of what they are getting themselves into. It's all about these characters first and foremost. These characters aren't theirs. PERIOD. If they cannot handle that,..........................

I think this is what has propelled the Potter franchise to it's current height, besides the books of course. Rowling had a huge say in how the films were done--she was not going to let some director's or actor's ego ruin her life's work. Frankly, you have to give Marvel a lot of credit for sticking to their guns so far--like it or not. Integrity of the party's involved with these types of films is usually sorely lacking and Marvel's steadfastness so far has garnered alot of respect amongst fans.
 
Last edited:
It's a pity MARVEL STUDIO executives interfered with Jon Favreau's creative process and artistic vision for Iron Man 2.

Hopefully they will never sink to the same level of incompetence as Fox Abattoirs & Phony Sony. :-)
 
Technically Universal did it first when they put Dracula, Wolfman and Frankenstein's monster in the same movie
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"