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

[Alex Logan]

That's EXACTLY my point. Bias shows up all around the net. You're guilty, I'm guilty but at least I use my head and acknowledge it and can see it when it rears its head. If it takes a flat out confession for you to see it then I suggest you look harder at everything you read.

You shouldn't assume others are guilty of being biased. I knew you were biased after I read your first post in this thread, I was simply pointing it out. Why do I need look harder when you make it so obvious?

 

[chiefchirpa]

Actually topdog's bias is okay. He's practically in his "homebase". The other kind of bias is more or less not needed. Yeah, we know some of you don't like the movie so say your opinion then move on instead of mucking on the negativity. There are plenty of forums to go around and one of them might become your favorite.

 

[Tony Stark]

CinemaBlend is NOT a comic book movie site and I can't remember ANY time in the past where CB posted an unreliable story.

I love how you guys will defend your own beliefs as if they are facts, but when it comes to what someone else believes it has to be a made up or a lie. Great argument!

**************.com, is one of the most unreliable sources out there and that's been proven. I'm not defending anything, this could be true, but it sounds like BS made up of half truths.

This is like the story that the whole Ed Norton thing was a publicity stunt by Kevin Fiege to bring excitement to the comicon panel when Ed would come walking out on stage.

Why would Favreau agree to stay on as executive producer if he wanted to direct and was turned down? Why would he agree to stay on for Iron Man 3?

Yeah he may have wanted to direct it, but my guess is the scheduling probably conflicted with another project, and considering IronMan 3 will be out in 2013, he won't have time to direct this. Just speculation on my part, but that makes alot more sense than this "Kevin Fiege is a cheapskate" theory.

You can roll your eyes all you want and call me a fanboy or whatever, this story is BS and CinemaBlend and **************.com are just about as reliable as TMZ.

 

[danoyse]

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA

It's unbelievable that something could be that...well I don't want an infraction so I'll leave it at that.

You lose. Anybody who respnds with smileys has no argument/point to challenge mine with. Same goes with I SEE SPIDEY with her indirect potshots.

And you can all continue this discussion without taking shots at each other. Stay on the topic of this thread, not the argument of which of you is better than the other.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Just a pet peeve of mine: You can't say BW widow "literally" did nothing and then go on to list the things she did.

Yes...things that could have been assigned to other characters. She had no arc nor any real purpose outside of not being new in Avengers in this film. She was a massive distraction in the film, and doesn't do anything significant enough to warrant being in the movie.

So yes, she does things. But nothing overtly useful to the movie. Her screentime is wasted.

 

[ElMariachi]

Black Widow literally does nothing. The only true character moment she had was her saying she'd do whatever she wanted if she knew she was dying. She was a distraction. That whole scene where she beats up guards to get to Vanko accomplished what? She could have just did that hacking stuff on the Stark computers. No unnecessary action piece needed, and more money for the actual final fight (which was rushed and needed to be longer). Widow was in this solely so she wouldn't be new in Avengers. Coulson could have filled her role. Fury has little screentime, but he isn't wasted. She has a lot, but is totally wasted.

Again, I don't hate IM2 by any stretch, but I do recognize where it was flawed. IM1 was in production much longer than IM2. IM1 had been in the pipeline over many years, so more time went into actually getting it made. IM2 was rushed into production. 2 year sequel schedule can work, but in IM2's case, the rushed nature is present.

I don't think we needed anything more from Black Widow. She was eye candy, window dressing, and nothing more. As for the action piece, why are you complaining about something as trivial as that? It looked cool and was a fun scene with Happy. It cut in perfectly with the rest of the action going on and had no complaints about it at all.

As for it being rushed, I just don't agree to this. Every aspect of this movie was perfect, aside from script. And the reason for this was hiring a comedy writer instead of one that does drama. Theroux could have had an extra year to write and I don't see how he makes it THAT much better.

 

[ElMariachi]

Yep, you're right! It's all a conspiracy by DC and Marvel hating fanboys!



Good gravy man, do you know how desperate and pathetic your argument is getting?

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.

 

[ElMariachi]

I'm not even talking about something as grand as a "pay off." Think about it. Being more of a Marvel Man than anything, if I ran a site or wrote for a site my own natural proclivities would shine through. It happens in real media, why wouldn't it happen with online terds??? If I saw an opportunity to bash something that annoyed me or hold down something I perceive as competition, I'd take a few leaps in logic and "report" an exaggeration at best or most likely a lie. Plausible deniability... "it might be true" would be my defense. That happens all the time.

BTW- I think the Black Widow was handled perfectly. Any more screen time and the film would've been too bogged down. Her storming of Hammer Industries added to what could be considered the best third act in comic adaptation history.

Exactly and thats a great point when you bring up the real media. We see obvious, glaring biases with anything regarding politics from the mainstream media. Why not with a bunch of superhero fans on here? It should be evident to anybody on here that box office discussions are filled with bias and ego. The internet is rife with haterism and schadenfreude. Everything is a competition and everything will attract haters. Sports, video game consoles, politics, singers, clothing stores, etc. In this particular case, I don't see how people can buy into this story unless they want to. We have all seen the stories that contradict this one and quotes from people like Favreau that make this hard to believe.

And you are right about BW. Anything more from her would have wasted screentime. We heard all we needed to know about her backround--she modeled, knows all these languages, has a Russian backround, is an expert martial artist, and later that she is a agent of SHIELD. That is all I needed to hear, at least in this movie. I also agree with you on her fight scene and the third act.

 

[ElMariachi]

And you can all continue this discussion without taking shots at each other. Stay on the topic of this thread, not the argument of which of you is better than the other.

at least I am contributing to this discussion and am offering opinions. These two are just coming in for the driveby. And they have the nerve to say I'm trolling!?

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't think we needed anything more from Black Widow. She was eye candy, window dressing, and nothing more. As for the action piece, why are you complaining about something as trivial as that? It looked cool and was a fun scene with Happy. It cut in perfectly with the rest of the action going on and had no complaints about it at all.

Because all the money invested in that scene could have been used to deliver a better fight with Vanko. They didn't need the extra sets/actors needed to make that Widow action sequence. It was pointless. All she does is access a computer in that building. Something she could have done at the Stark Expo. Why the other location? I'd rather get a better climax than a slightly amusing Happy scene.

As for it being rushed, I just don't agree to this. Every aspect of this movie was perfect, aside from script. And the reason for this was hiring a comedy writer instead of one that does drama. Theroux could have had an extra year to write and I don't see how he makes it THAT much better.

Rushing the script IS a sign of rushing the movie. Had they had more time, they could have hired other writers to polish up the script, worked out the smaller problems, etc. It's a good movie, but nowhere near perfect.

 

[danoyse]

at least I am contributing to this discussion and am offering opinions. These two are just coming in for the driveby. And they have the nerve to say I'm trolling!?

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

 

[solidsnake86]

I don't see how anyone could think Iron Man 2 wasn't rushed and didn't have any behind the scenes problems, they announced the sequel before they even told the director who delivered the movie to them which was a smash hit and critical success, if thats not questionable I don't know what is. Especially with a character like Iron Man that doesn't have that many key stories that people can point to and say, that should be adapted (besides demon in a bottle, but thats a marketing nightmare for the demograph) I'm surprised they were able to even pull off what they did. In fact I thought this movie actually had some amazing potential with whiplash and thats what makes it more frustrating. The avengers stuff for me was a waste of time and thats where fans are probably split. Some want to see those team up movies, and others would rather have movies based on the character without shoehorning in other references or advertising for a team up movie. I mean, had Iron Man 2 actually thought of building upon the ten rings reference with Vanko IMO it would have been a better movie.

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't see how anyone could think Iron Man 2 wasn't rushed and didn't have any behind the scenes problems, they announced the sequel before they even told the director who delivered the movie to them which was a smash hit and critical success, if thats not questionable I don't know what is. Especially with a character like Iron Man that doesn't have that many key stories that people can point to and say, that should be adapted (besides demon in a bottle, but thats a marketing nightmare for the demograph) I'm surprised they were able to even pull off what they did. In fact I thought this movie actually had some amazing potential with whiplash and thats what makes it more frustrating. The avengers stuff for me was a waste of time and thats where fans are probably split. Some want to see those team up movies, and others would rather have movies based on the character without shoehorning in other references or advertising for a team up movie. I mean, had Iron Man 2 actually thought of building upon the ten rings reference with Vanko IMO it would have been a better movie.

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.

Most movies are rushed, and that's just a fact. The first movie was rushed, and in Downey's own words "we were delivering the baby on the way to the hospital." Look at the first Superman movie, they ran out of money, and the studio told them to put together a cut or it was going to be shelved, and the Salkinds would have been out millions. This is why Superman II is so different from Donners original vision.

If you didn't like the film fine. But this story is in all likelyhood a pound of lie, from an ounce of truth. We already know the money aspect about Favreau not being able to direct Avengers is false.

I think most of the DC crowd has to react this way and take pot shots at Marvel because they've been so incompetent with some of their own franchises, most of which I'd love to see on film, be it Wonder Woman, Flash, or Justice League.

Marvel is doing something, that really has never been attempted before, and they're doing it for their fanbase. I admire them, and Downey is right, this is the most ambitious film ever. Now in all honesty, yeah this thing had better live up to the hype. Marvel raised the bar and they need to achieve it. Having said that, I'm glad they got the stones to make this, because most studio execs would say exacly what the nay-sayers are doing and saying "you can't do that". But this is about making art, and yes these movies are art, just as the comics are art, and they have a place in our culture.

The real ironic thing is the very thing that many of you are accusing Marvel of doing, are doing the same thing. You claim that Marvel is only after a buck, and yet you complain about the box office performance. That's the way a studio exec looks at things. You then point to movies like Transformers 2, as some kind of standard that IM2 should have met. Well if that's what it takes to be a 400 million dollar film, I'm sure as hell glad IM2 didn't make 400 million.

 

[dark_b]

Tony Stark why do you connect everything to someone opinion on the movie?

to me it looks like you dont belive the story because you like the movie. and if anyone thinks that there were big problems behind the scenes that then it means that they think the movie is bad.

you are acting like this is the first article about problems with Favraue and Marvel. we had 2 if not 3. why are you ignoring this?

 

[Tony Stark]

Tony Stark why do you connect everything to someone opinion on the movie?

to me it looks like you dont belive the story because you like the movie. and if anyone thinks that there were big problems behind the scenes that then it means that they think the movie is bad.

you are acting like this is the first article about problems with Favraue and Marvel. we had 2 if not 3. why are you ignoring this?

And I could equally say that you all believe it because you didn't like the movie.

I don't believe the story because Favreau already stated way before this came out why he wouldn't be directing Avengers. Also because it came out from **************.com.

These guys just ran a story about the whole Ed Norton thing being a publicity stunt so that when he came out on stage at Comicon it would be a huge thing. That story was 1000% false, there wasn't a shred of evidence to it, and while they were running the story Mark Ruffalo was signing his contract.

Fanboy journalism doesn't cut it. Like I say, you may as well believe everything TMZ puts out or the Enquirer.

Also people were comparing this to Avi Arad's "interference" with Sam Rami. I pointed out the only thing Arad did was get him to put Venom in the movie. It wasn't Arad's choice to put Topher Grace in there, or have Toby crying in every other damn scene. BTW, I think Spider-man 3, while not a horrible film, is one of the most dissapointing sequels of all time.

Was there problems behind the scenes? yes, and I know this because they had trouble dealing with Rourke and that was well publicised. But the fact is most of the changes Rourke wanted made it into the movie, and came off well. Like the Russian mafia tatoos, that was his idea, not Favreau's or the writers.

It's rather pathetic that some of you point to this stuff and hope it's true, because you want to trash the movie. If you don't like the movie, say so and move on.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Excuses, excuses.

 

[TheVileOne]

Ultimately yeah I could see the movie using a little polishing.

Cinema Blend isn't all that great of a site. They sometimes report false or misleading stuff or recycle other news stories.

Now here's the other thing, the first Iron Man movie had a Nick Fury scene. And these movies are about building to Avengers. So Favreau should've been prepared for that. On one hand I'm disappointed that Favreau had this whole "we can't do magic or anything close to non-tech non-realism." I get that they created this strong tone for the first movie, but at the same time Favreau know he signed up for a world where Marvel is saying we want to do all these movies coming together and making Avengers. If Favreau is going to be that wishy washy about using magic and otherwordly stuff how can he be a viable candidate to direct Avengers?

 

[CaptainClown]

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.

 

[CaptainClown]

Ultimately yeah I could see the movie using a little polishing.

Cinema Blend isn't all that great of a site. They sometimes report false or misleading stuff or recycle other news stories.

Now here's the other thing, the first Iron Man movie had a Nick Fury scene. And these movies are about building to Avengers. So Favreau should've been prepared for that. On one hand I'm disappointed that Favreau had this whole "we can't do magic or anything close to non-tech non-realism." I get that they created this strong tone for the first movie, but at the same time Favreau know he signed up for a world where Marvel is saying we want to do all these movies coming together and making Avengers. If Favreau is going to be that wishy washy about using magic and otherwordly stuff how can he be a viable candidate to direct Avengers?

IM2 would have been a better transition to the Avengers if they did have "magic" elements in it something Mandarin related. however it does go against the tone of the first film and what they created then,which i understand as well but ya. it basically feels like a clash of styles with Avengers being the victor but not necessarily the best

 

[TheVileOne]

But ultimately Favreau got his way and they had little to nothing like that in the actual movie. Just the post-credits scene with the Thor hammer.

But even the first movie had all the SHIELD/AVENGERS stuff. So it wasn't like there wasn't going to be more of that in a sequel.

But again in 2006, Marvel wanted to do Avengers. Iron Man had all the Avengers stuff in it.

Also let's also be realistic, they had basically the same amount of time they did for Iron Man. Favreau and everyone got announced around second half of 2006. So they basically had about 2 years for the first movie. Also Jeff Bridges basically said they didn't have a script for the first movie. So I mean arguably the first movie was pretty rushed as well, but Favreau and I guess Downey were good at dealing with that the first time around.

 

[Tony Stark]

Excuses, excuses.

You either like the movie, or you don't, but what does that have to do with running a BS story about Favreau not being paid enough to do Avengers, and then posting it up here like it's some commentary on the movie?

 

[Tony Stark]

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.

I'm not familiar with any of your past posts, so I wouldn't call you a hater. There are some on here however who are haters, and that kinda stuff just happens unfortunately.

There are definitely some who were dissapointed, although judging from the poll it's fairly low. Some of those people posted and moved on. Some of them stay on here and constantly tell us that the movie sucked and that we are fanboys who actually liked the movies. Those are the haters.

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

The point on this thread is the article that was posted, is pretty rediculously stupid, and came from a source who has a proven track record of being wrong. If people want to believe that, fine. There's still people who believe the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. What are you going to do?

I think asking if the studio had too much control is a fair question. What I don't like is labling Kevin Fiege like he's a cheapskate. Anyone who's ever worked in a job where you've had to maintain a budget knows that you can't throw money around. I feel bad for the fallout of Ed Norton, and criticized Fiege for his mishandling of the situation from a PR perspective. But if they had a number that they could not go past to get Norton on, and he refused to agree, that's just part of the business.

This article seems to take that as if it's a regular practice for Fiege, because of the fallout of Terrance Howard, and speculates about what Favreau has already publically addressed long ago. We should also note that Favreau also does projects outside of Marvel, for those who thinks he just sits around waiting for Marvel to hand him another job and then turn him down because he wants too much money.

Honestly if this story were true, why on earth would he stay on as executive producer, and why would Marvel keep him on for IM3 after spending 200 million on IM2? The whole thing is rather silly.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You either like the movie, or you don't, but what does that have to do with running a BS story about Favreau not being paid enough to do Avengers, and then posting it up here like it's some commentary on the movie?

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.

 

[TheVileOne]

Cinema Blend does have a questionable track record and reliability. I think people just want to believe the negativity.

I'm sure there was some issues and drama with Iron Man. But I mean, that's the nature of the business. It's like Favreau said himself, the reality is that sometimes things don't work out. Such is life.

 

[ElMariachi]

Because all the money invested in that scene could have been used to deliver a better fight with Vanko. They didn't need the extra sets/actors needed to make that Widow action sequence. It was pointless. All she does is access a computer in that building. Something she could have done at the Stark Expo. Why the other location? I'd rather get a better climax than a slightly amusing Happy scene.


Rushing the script IS a sign of rushing the movie. Had they had more time, they could have hired other writers to polish up the script, worked out the smaller problems, etc. It's a good movie, but nowhere near perfect.

It wasn't pointless. It was excessive and over the top, but it didn't detract from the movie at all. I, for one, enjoyed this scene and would bet that most people would agree. I know you liked the movie, but I think you are digging deep for flaws if this bothered you in the midst of that action packed, hectic third act.

I also don't think they rushed the script either. Theroux had 9 months to write the script. He already had a template to formulate his story around and worked close with Favreau/others with ideas. Sure, this isn't enough time to write some epic, but Iron Man 2 was never going to be an epic. It's a summer Hollywood blockbuster and these movies are going to have to be churned out at a faster clip then movies like Inception or Avatar. That's why they get paid the big dollars and are professionals. The first movie has been noted for being disorganized with a script, but that turned out fine. This movies scipt wasn't bad, it just had the wrong writer. I wish you guys would just realize that the only mistake may have been hiring Theroux. He did a good job in my opinion, but he wasn't the guy to do drama. The comedy was great and I stand by the idea that Iron Man 2 is one of the funniest movies of the year. Some feel it was over the top and I can understand that, but it really didn't bother me at all. It was a sleek, cool sequel and is more rewatchable (in my opinion) then movies like Spidey 2 with all the romantic drama b.s.