Iron Man 2 Faverau and RDJ not happy with IM2 (Report)

[ElMariachi]

If someone is giving you a hard time, report it. The mods will take care of it from there.

nah, they aren't a bother to me. I'll wait for them to respond to my arguments and continue posting my opinions.

 

[TheVileOne]

Yes apparently Iron Man was basically written on the fly and basically re-written on set by Favreau and Downey as well. But I mean sometimes that happens in filmmaking anyway. However Bridges then later said they basically didn't have an actual script and had an outline and worked from there.

 

[CaptainClown]

Yes apparently Iron Man was basically written on the fly and basically re-written on set by Favreau and Downey as well. But I mean sometimes that happens in filmmaking anyway. However Bridges then later said they basically didn't have an actual script and had an outline and worked from there.

actually it did feel like that, not like its a bad things

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah, one can argue the whole method is part of what made the first movie the success it ended up being.

 

[CaptainClown]

ya, btu at the same time I can find it a tad annoying as it causes scenes to drag on a tad, oh well

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The half writen script hurt the first film in my eyes. They assumed the risk by using that same method again and on top of that they had to deal with a meddling studio trying to sell another movie and toys. Favs is not completely innocent when it comes to the problems of Iron Man 2 anymore than Raimi was when it comes to Spider-Man 3. I don't claim that either of those directors films would have been perfect without studio guys shoving lame things into them but they would have been a hell of alot better than what we got.

 

[Alex Logan]

why is it desperate? It's quite obviously true and evident to anybody who frequents comic book/movie websites. Or do honestly think there is no bias that goes into these things and everybody on the internet is open minded? Please. Marvel movies are a 'threat' to the nerd egos of different fanbases. We have seen this with every major franchise that has come about, whether thats Transformers, Avatar, or Twilight. Don't tell me this doesnt' exist because I have been on the internet since these sorts of message boards began existing.

Conspiracy theories, payoffs, fanboy lobbying? Over Ironman? Really? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

So what is it that we are debating here? Bias on the internet? Or some ridiculous notion that DC payed off a fanboy to start some stupid rumor? One of those is very real, the other is just some juvenile rant that nobody will buy for even a dollar.

Mavel movies are "theat" to nerd egos? First off, who are you calling a nerd? If it's people who like comics, fantasy and sci fi then I got news for you... your one them. Second, why does it have to be a threat? Why can't someone like DC and Marvel? Or Marvel and Twilight? There's more then enough room for all those properties to co-exist. Personally, I hate Twilight, but do run around bagging on the fans? No, I don't. Why? Because I don't care and because I don't think those movies are even half has good as Ironman or TDK.

And just incase you're wondering those two films are my favorite comic books to date. t:



Why are you telling me how long you've been around?

 

[danoyse]

I've tried to be careful on who I labled a "hater" and those who simply didn't like the movie.

I'm getting tired of warning you about labelling everyone who has the audacity to disagree with you, so I'm giving you one last warning to stop.

Yeah, it's clear you are not thinking straight so I've pretty much given up on you. Any criticism of IM2 is a nitpick to you and anyone who didn't love the movie is a blind hater of all things Iron Man and Marvel. Thats a strange opinion but it's yours and I accept it. Don't understand it but I accept that it is your opinion.

I'm getting tired of that attitude too. If you really have given up, keep those same kind of snide comments to yourself.

 

[Tony Stark]

I will say this, the second movie in many ways is a very different film than the first, though still connected. To be honest I've felt that way about most superhero sequels with the exception of Spider-man 2. For some reason in that movie it felt more connected to the first movie than other superhero sequels.

In some cases like Superman 2 you can understand, because of what they pulled with Donner and all the last minute changes and re-writes. I've not seen his director version, I'll be very curious to watch it someday.

X2 was somewhat connected, but the tone was just very different. I thought the first movie was more of an ensemble film while the second really focused on Wolverine and Striker. Magneto was just a side player almost in that one. I still love X2 and think it's one of the best in the genre, but just very different.

Iron Man 2 was filmed more in the style of the 60's Bond movies. It was very much about the glitz and glamour, like Monoco, and the jet setting. I very much liked that as well but it was just very different.

What set the first film apart was the cave scene. To me it represents the best of the genre. And the Mark I suit, with all the practical effects. Just shows you that with all the CGI, sometimes you just can't beat the real thing.

Avengers was really a small part of Iron Man 2. Some people have called it a commercial for Avengers, and that's a bit unfair IMO. I will be very curious on how those elements play out in Thor.

 

[First Avenger]

I will say this, the second movie in many ways is a very different film than the first, though still connected. To be honest I've felt that way about most superhero sequels with the exception of Spider-man 2. For some reason in that movie it felt more connected to the first movie than other superhero sequels.

In some cases like Superman 2 you can understand, because of what they pulled with Donner and all the last minute changes and re-writes. I've not seen his director version, I'll be very curious to watch it someday.

X2 was somewhat connected, but the tone was just very different. I thought the first movie was more of an ensemble film while the second really focused on Wolverine and Striker. Magneto was just a side player almost in that one. I still love X2 and think it's one of the best in the genre, but just very different.

Iron Man 2 was filmed more in the style of the 60's Bond movies. It was very much about the glitz and glamour, like Monoco, and the jet setting. I very much liked that as well but it was just very different.

What set the first film apart was the cave scene. To me it represents the best of the genre. And the Mark I suit, with all the practical effects. Just shows you that with all the CGI, sometimes you just can't beat the real thing.

Avengers was really a small part of Iron Man 2. Some people have called it a commercial for Avengers, and that's a bit unfair IMO. I will be very curious on how those elements play out in Thor.

Absolutely agree,IM2 felt different than IM1,but I still loved it,Avengers was just a 2 min subplot('super secret boy band' and the last 2 scenes).I think many people confuse S.H.I.E.L.D's role in the movie with Avengers'subplot,while they are connected,they're still different things,Nick Fury himself said he wanted to help Tony,he was not trying to recruit him.In the end,Mjolnir was the only heavy Avengers-related thing IMO in the movie,Natasha and Fury still belong to S.H.I.E.L.D only.

 

[ElMariachi]

Conspiracy theories, payoffs, fanboy lobbying? Over Ironman? Really? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

So what is it that we are debating here? Bias on the internet? Or some ridiculous notion that DC payed off a fanboy to start some stupid rumor? One of those is very real, the other is just some juvenile rant that nobody will buy for even a dollar.

Mavel movies are "theat" to nerd egos? First off, who are you calling a nerd? If it's people who like comics, fantasy and sci fi then I got news for you... your one them. Second, why does it have to be a threat? Why can't someone like DC and Marvel? Or Marvel and Twilight? There's more then enough room for all those properties to co-exist. Personally, I hate Twilight, but do run around bagging on the fans? No, I don't. Why? Because I don't care and because I don't think those movies are even half has good as Ironman or TDK.

And just incase you're wondering those two films are my favorite comic books to date. t:



Why are you telling me how long you've been around?

No, I was joking about DC paying off some fanboys. I am not joking, however, about these fanboys hating on Marvel and hoping their endeavors fail. This is plainly obvious to me. And no, apparently people can't like two comicbook companies. You seriously have no idea how childish/tribal people are, especially on the internet. We see it with everything and it shouldn't suprise you that some are biased in regards to fictional men wearing tights. Yes, I am a geek, but I am one that is well reasoned and normal.

And some of them do perceive The Avengers as a threat to their geek ego. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's true. You don't think that Star Trek being as great at is was got under the skin of those extreme Star Wars geeks? There is no other reason to hate on something other than judging it as a threat. I rarely if ever go out of my way to hate, but I did for Avatar. Why? Because the plot was so left-wing and ridiculous that it got under my skin. Avengers is one of the most daring film projects in cinema history, therefore people have to hate just like they did for Inception, Avatar, or anything that is hyped/popular. Even TDK had it's haters, evidenced by the amount of people voting "1" (16,000).

 

[solidsnake86]

We've been over this numerous times. Iron Man's story in the comics is Avengers. A character like Spider-man, his story was never about Avengers, until he was recently forced into the group to boost slowing comic sales. For you to say Avengers is a waste of time, well you never cared for the character in the first place. Clearly from the first movie those items were introduced, and not just in the after credits scene, the whole thing with S.H.I.E.L.D, it was all there.

You are right I never did care for the character but I enjoyed the first movie, doesn't make my opinion any less valid. I'm not a fan of sacrificing single character movies at the expense of having one team up movie that may or may not be good. Obviously these characters can carry there own comic book series, which means they can carry there own movie. That whole thing with S.H.I.E.L.D. in the first movie, please it just made sense because instead of labeling it the FBI they just made it there own agency. I think some of you give marvel way to much credit on this whole plan, they put one scene at the end of the movie, had iron man failed at the box office I don't think you would be seeing thor and captain america. The first movie had little nods to the fans, the second movie threw them in our face. Honestly, if one of these marvel movies fails, they all come crashing down on eachother, and thats a huge risk.

And take it easy with the "dc fans have to come in here and take pot shots" last time I checked this was an open forum. I enjoy comic book movies and want them to be good so we get more of them, this silly notion of wanting one company to do worse then the other is dumb because the reality of the situation is people don't even know the difference in companies.

 

[Tony Stark]

You are right I never did care for the character but I enjoyed the first movie, doesn't make my opinion any less valid. I'm not a fan of sacrificing single character movies at the expense of having one team up movie that may or may not be good. Obviously these characters can carry there own comic book series, which means they can carry there own movie. That whole thing with S.H.I.E.L.D. in the first movie, please it just made sense because instead of labeling it the FBI they just made it there own agency. I think some of you give marvel way to much credit on this whole plan, they put one scene at the end of the movie, had iron man failed at the box office I don't think you would be seeing thor and captain america. The first movie had little nods to the fans, the second movie threw them in our face. Honestly, if one of these marvel movies fails, they all come crashing down on eachother, and thats a huge risk.

And take it easy with the "dc fans have to come in here and take pot shots" last time I checked this was an open forum. I enjoy comic book movies and want them to be good so we get more of them, this silly notion of wanting one company to do worse then the other is dumb because the reality of the situation is people don't even know the difference in companies.

Let me say this, the vast majority of DC fans are cool. I even like DC properties, and I'm probably going to get DC Universe Online when it comes out. I have a friend in closed beta and he says the game is great.

Needless to say, there's fanboys on both sides. I try not to go on other boards and needlessly trash the movie 'till it pisses off the other fans, I hope that others try to do the same here. That's pretty much all I'll say. Unfortunately it's gotten out of control a few times, but sometimes people say things.

You're right these are open forums, and I have no objections to someone posting the article. I just hope those that don't like the movie, for whatever reason, realize that just because they didn't like it doesn't make this article true.

As I mentioned, I was very critical of Fiege and his handling of the Ed Norton situation. You don't use the public forum to trash someone when negotiations go bad. However, I don't think Fiege is a bad person. Anyone who's ever run a business knows that you have to run a bottom line.

Films are and interesting thing. They are art, and you don't want to take away a director, or actors artistic vision, but Disney is a publically traded company, and you have to show shareholder value, and you have to be profitable. It's Fiege's job as an executive producer to make sure things come in on or under budget. Sometimes that requires ruffling some feathers.

If Favreau was having problems behind the scenes, I doubt he would stay on as XP for Avengers, or director for IM3. Sure everyone has problems back stage. I don't see how any of the things that Marvel wanted included were a hiderance to Favreau getting the film he wanted.

With Black Widow, yeah she's a bit of a cardboard character in this, but people forget, Black Widow was introduced in the Iron Man comics (Tales of Suspense actually, before IM had his regular titled book), not in Avengers. So saying her presence only has to do with Avengers is not accurate.

The movies including the first one are all about Tony, and any other characters are secondary. This was the right approach, IMO. The comics have always been about Tony's inner struggle.

Now others may not care about Iron Man's comic history, but if they did a BatMan movie and they said "screw the books were making our own story," I doubt you'd be happy. In fact one of the brilliant things about Nolan's Batman films are how he draws from the source material, while still making it his own thing.

As I said, Iron Man's story is Avengers, he was a founding member (Captain America was not BTW), and Tony Stark donated Stark Industries as their headquarters. Some of Iron Man's greatest stories were him as an Avenger. To leave that out IMO is a disservice to what Lee/Kirby created. Other characters like Spier-man as I mentioned earlier, was a solo character and has no need of a "team-up", even though he joined the Avengers later on.

 

[LostSon88]

No, I was joking about DC paying off some fanboys. I am not joking, however, about these fanboys hating on Marvel and hoping their endeavors fail. This is plainly obvious to me. And no, apparently people can't like two comicbook companies. You seriously have no idea how childish/tribal people are, especially on the internet. We see it with everything and it shouldn't suprise you that some are biased in regards to fictional men wearing tights. Yes, I am a geek, but I am one that is well reasoned and normal.

You are delusional if you are truly under the assumption that it is impossible for some people not to enjoy both DC and Marvel. I may be a DC guy but I also like Marvel and whatever issues I may have with IM2 and/or any other Marvel movie property has nothing to do with it being a rival company. I also thought Superman Returns was boring as hell...so where in your "logic" does that place me?

AND AGAIN...I'm not blindly hating the movie--I LIKE IRON MAN 2.

And some of them do perceive The Avengers as a threat to their geek ego. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's true. You don't think that Star Trek being as great at is was got under the skin of those extreme Star Wars geeks? There is no other reason to hate on something other than judging it as a threat. I rarely if ever go out of my way to hate, but I did for Avatar. Why? Because the plot was so left-wing and ridiculous that it got under my skin. Avengers is one of the most daring film projects in cinema history, therefore people have to hate just like they did for Inception, Avatar, or anything that is hyped/popular. Even TDK had it's haters, evidenced by the amount of people voting "1" (16,000).

Good lord you're pretentious.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I am surprised that so many people believe that some of us are "hating" just to "hate" I feel that a good portion are disappointed by IM2. Oh well I am just an unsatisfied fanboy to some.

No man.

After all, RDJ has allegedly "dissed" the godlike Nolan twice now. You don't think he's a target for the fanatics now? .

We are not hating just to hate. Appearently we are hating on Ironman 2 because of something Downey said about TDK three years ago.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Variety or the HollywoodReporter's blog spots could be reporting the same thing and the fans would be denying that it was true. HollywoodDeadline could be reporting the same thing and the fans would be discounting it; all because it doesn't match there perception.

It's a fact that Favs and other actors have had problems with Marvel low balling them. It's a fact that Favs wanted more time to do Iron Man 2. The things in that article are not such a leap...at all. Again they can kiss and make up and this all goes away but it is not surprising nor should it be dismissed to hear that there is trouble in Marvel Land. I think that Marvel could be in trouble; right now, Thor looks average, Captain America is being helmed by a mediocre director and The Avengers is being helmed by a good writer.

Thor looks average from seeing a 5 minute comic con preview with no sfx?

And as far as Cap goes, well at least Evans made an upgrade in directors from his last comic book movie. Any one is a step up from that talentless clown that made both FF movies that you like.

 

[TheVileOne]

People are hating on Iron Man 2 just to hate when they complain about things that were prevalent in the first movie as well.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Thor looks average from seeing a 5 minute comic con preview with no sfx?

And as far as Cap goes, well at least Evans made an upgrade in directors from his last comic book movie. Any one is a step up from that talentless clown that made both FF movies that you like.

Yep I'm in love with both FF movies

Fantastic Four

6.5/10

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

5.5/10

I'm so in love with those films.

And give me a f**king break, people judge movies all the time with 2 minutes of footage. Should we just shell out our money for every movie because we have only seen a little footage of it ? I don't need to see Jonah Hex to know that it's a piece of s**t. As for Thor I'm still going to give it a chance to impress me with some more footage but right now it looks silly and mediocre.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Yep I'm in love with both FF movies

Fantastic Four

6.5/10

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

5.5/10

I'm so in love with those films.

And give me a f**king break, people judge movies all the time with 2 minutes of footage. Should we just shell out our money for every movie because we have only seen a little footage of it ? I don't need to see Jonah Hex to know that it's a piece of s**t. As for Thor I'm still going to give it a chance to impress me with some more footage but right now it looks silly and mediocre.

Bottom line, Evans has worked with an awful talentless hack that has never made an enjoyable movie and was able to give a pretty good performance.

Johnston at least has made some good movies before that took place in the 40s.

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't know what to say to someone that says Thor looks mediocre at this early stage.

 

[marvelman2006]

I can see elements of studio pushing, kind of like they gave john a checklist of what they wanted to see in the movie in order for them to finance. I.E. the avengers crap, tons of humor to make it family friendly, etc. I really feel like there was not alot of time in the movie for us to sit down and go deeper into stark and what made his character rich and fascinating in the first, you know the whole "arms dealer with a conscience" idea. I also didnt like how vanko was suppose to be the main villian and yet he dips out of the movie after joining with hammer only to come back for the last fight which last only 3 minutes. was there really a need for hammer in this movie? couldnt vanko have just been a smart russian millionaire who had his own company and still kept the obssessed angle and make it more of a rivalry? I mean they had ideas in this movie that could of been great if implemented better but most of the ideas didnt go anywhere.

 

[hatebox]

I don't know what to say to someone that says Thor looks mediocre at this early stage.

I have no real opinion of it yet, but I do know that if they want it to make any money they have to create a trailer that A) presents a clear narrative drive and B) gives Thor a personality.

Granted the 5 minute reel was only for fans, but it didn't do either of those extremely important things. As a casual observer I have no idea what this character and story is about, and for a superhero movie that's poison.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I can see elements of studio pushing, kind of like they gave john a checklist of what they wanted to see in the movie in order for them to finance. I.E. the avengers crap, tons of humor to make it family friendly, etc. I really feel like there was not alot of time in the movie for us to sit down and go deeper into stark and what made his character rich and fascinating in the first, you know the whole "arms dealer with a conscience" idea. I also didnt like how vanko was suppose to be the main villian and yet he dips out of the movie after joining with hammer only to come back for the last fight which last only 3 minutes. was there really a need for hammer in this movie? couldnt vanko have just been a smart russian millionaire who had his own company and still kept the obssessed angle and make it more of a rivalry? I mean they had ideas in this movie that could of been great if implemented better but most of the ideas didnt go anywhere.

No, because 1. Hammer always bank rolled the 2nd tier villains in the comics. and 2. Vanko and his dad kept a grudge with the Stark family for them being successful and Vanko and his old man living in Siberia. Remember what his did said before he died, "That should've been you"

I don't see what the problem is with them trying to keep it as close to the comics as they can.

 

[Tony Stark]

I have no real opinion of it yet, but I do know that if they want it to make any money they have to create a trailer that A) presents a clear narrative drive and B) gives Thor a personality.

Granted the 5 minute reel was only for fans, but it didn't do either of those extremely important things. As a casual observer I have no idea what this character and story is about, and for a superhero movie that's poison.

You just said it, the comicon footage was for fans. Although alot of the elements of the story were there, the fight with the father, his banishment, Loki taking over,etc. It would not be hard to reassemble what they had into a narritive.

My comment was only to say that no one really knows now if this will be good or bad. I've been impressed with the scope that Branaugh has done so far, and if you've seen his other films you can understand why. Even on a low budget, such as Much Ado About Nothing, his scale is grand and his vision is wide. Now that he has some bucks to play with, I'm going to be very excited to see what he has planned.

 

[marvelman2006]

No, because 1. Hammer always bank rolled the 2nd tier villains in the comics. and 2. Vanko and his dad kept a grudge with the Stark family for them being successful and Vanko and his old man living in Siberia. Remember what his did said before he died, "That should've been you"

I don't see what the problem is with them trying to keep it as close to the comics as they can.

yeah maybe but in the movie ivan was suppose to be the main villian and he didnt do anything after the race track to the final battle. He didnt terrorize stark and keep going after him while he was weak, all he did was build a couple bots for a billionare then make his own suit and fight for 3 minutes then die. so in the end what did he do in this movie? he might have been the most least used main villian ever, I understand how hammer might have been in the comics but that whole funding thing didnt translate well because its not like hammer tried to kill stark, all he wanted to do was have better guns. It doesnt mesh well when you have 2 villians and neither have common ground, one wants to kill stark six ways to sunday and the other just wants to have better weapons to sell to the government. It would have been better if hammer wanted stark dead and had ivan build him weapons to constantly try to kill him. Like I said nothing seemed well though out in this movie, kinda like john and co didnt fully flesh out these characters and there motives.