Iron Man 2 Jon Favreau not signed on for sequel?!?!

[Hiruu]

I think what Marvel is doing is more ambitious.



Something like Harry Potter didn't need movie stars. WB more than likely saw printed money.



Marvel only focuses on superheroes because that's what they are. WB is a division of one of the most powerful communication conglomerates in the world. They have much more resources than Marvel, yet they still can't do jack with the DC Universe that they also entirely own.

It's about management that GET IT...The DC guys have very little say at TW, so you get SR, which isn't based on book lore, but is a remake of the first movie. And don't forget about lovely Catwoman...possibly the worst genre movie of the new era...BB was a REALLY great film, but they've yet to do much.

 

[Evil Twin]

Something like Harry Potter didn't need movie stars. WB more than likely saw printed money.

I'm sure the makers of Lemony Snicket, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass, a chunk of superhero properties, a host of Harry Potter ripoffs, a host of television remakes, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a host of Stephen King adaptations, etc. more than likely saw printed money as well. Anyone, including Marvel, that spends over $100 million on a movie obviously thinks that they're on to something.

Potential franchises fail all the time and there's always risk and ambition involved. No matter the pedigree. Dismissing success whether it be Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings, etc. with hindsight does a disservice to everyone involved.

WB's priorities aren't superheroes. Stinks because DC can't shop their properties elsewhere, but it doesn't mean that WB has no ambitions or are taking no risks. Heck, trying to launch a whole television network is a different type of ambition than what Marvel is attempting.

 

[TheVileOne]

I'm sure the makers of Lemony Snicket, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass, a chunk of superhero properties, a host of Harry Potter ripoffs, a host of television remakes, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a host of Stephen King adaptations, etc. more than likely saw printed money as well. Anyone, including Marvel, that spends over $100 million on a movie obviously thinks that they're on to something.

Well Chronicles of Narnia the first movie made a TON of money.

Also, a lot of those book series are nowhere near as popular as Harry Potter. Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy never had the kid appeal or demographic that is something executives wanted. Hitchhiker's Guide also didn't cost more than $100 million. Same with a lot of Stephen King adaptations.

Potential franchises fail all the time and there's always risk and ambition involved. No matter the pedigree. Dismissing success whether it be Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings, etc. with hindsight does a disservice to everyone involved.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm crediting Marvel for taking such steps with their property that TW/DC never would.

WB's priorities aren't superheroes. Stinks because DC can't shop their properties elsewhere, but it doesn't mean that WB has no ambitions or are taking no risks. Heck, trying to launch a whole television network is a different type of ambition than what Marvel is attempting.

Their priorities are messed up then. This has nothing to do with a TV network. But it has to do with something for their character rights other than letting them sit all the time and only doing things like Batman and or Superman every some odd years.

I think if Marvel is doing what they are doing. There is no way that Time Warner can't.

 

[Arach Knight]

Here is a break down of each company


Warner Bros:

-Division of Time Warner (Formerly called AOL Time Warner)

-Owns DC Comics

-Money for Warner Bros is made via record lable, television studios, movie studios, telecommunications (Time Warner Internet/Cable) and comic book/book publishing.

Marvel Studios:

-Division of Marvel Entertainment

-Money for Marvel Entertainment is made via publishing and licensing of over 5,000 IP's in the form of comic book characters.


The fact is, DC is part of a division that has far more vast resources where as Marvel Comics is a division of a company that pretty much focuses on comic characters in every aspect of their business. Warner Bros. puts some of their IP to use. Six Flags is themed after Looney Tunes and DC. They have been great at putting their characters out there in television form (Justice League, Batman TAS, Smallville etc) but they leave a lot to be desired in the theatres. All they ever put out is Batman and Superman. The closest they came to putting out other "super heroes" were John Constantine and V...but their status as super heroes is debatable. I have to agree. Marvel is making far better moves with far less resources. This is why Marvel destroys Warner (DC) at the box office and the comic racks. Marvel is just far more aggressive. They want success. DC just rests on their laurels.

 

[Ironfan72]

I agree, DC is also very difficult with how they handle there properties, not letting characters appear in other show's like Smallville, the producers wanted desperately to get either Wonder Women or Batman to appear and DC refused several times. Same with Justice League, when the rumor started about a possible Aquaman movie, his character was pulled from Justice League and not allowed to be used again, even in the opening credits.
where Marvel seems to have no problem crossing movies that they own and control.

 

[Arach Knight]

Remember the ******ed Bat Embargo? Man...DC/Warner has no business sense sometimes. I don't know how they can pull off something like Smallville and 52, but then they drop the ball on a lot of other fronts. That's okay...because Dark Knight next week is going to kick ass. So at least some things are done right. But the point of this all, is that Marvel is being ambitious. Jon Favreau worries about the time frame, but I think it can be done. They don't have to do as much work this time. They already have most of the process down, so all subsequent films can be done expeditiously.

 

[fu manchu]

Remember the ******ed Bat Embargo? Man...DC/Warner has no business sense sometimes. I don't know how they can pull off something like Smallville and 52, but then they drop the ball on a lot of other fronts. That's okay...because Dark Knight next week is going to kick ass. So at least some things are done right. But the point of this all, is that Marvel is being ambitious. Jon Favreau worries about the time frame, but I think it can be done. They don't have to do as much work this time. They already have most of the process down, so all subsequent films can be done expeditiously.

next week??? you must mean next month? TDK comes out July 18. well, unless you're confusing it with Get Smart or the Love Guru.

 

[Arach Knight]

Holy crap...you're right. I don't know why I thought it said June 18th. That is disappointing actually...

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Remember the ******ed Bat Embargo? Man...DC/Warner has no business sense sometimes. I don't know how they can pull off something like Smallville and 52, but then they drop the ball on a lot of other fronts. That's okay...because Dark Knight next week is going to kick ass. So at least some things are done right. But the point of this all, is that Marvel is being ambitious. Jon Favreau worries about the time frame, but I think it can be done. They don't have to do as much work this time. They already have most of the process down, so all subsequent films can be done expeditiously.

And yet we were/still might going to get a JLA movie which featured different actors as Batman and Superman while the solo franchises are still going on. I swear WB is clueless with this stuff.

 

[Arach Knight]

I'm going to assume you aren't being sarcastic (sorry hard to tell online). So yes, I agree. Using different actors will only confuse the audience when both franchises are planned as triologies (Batman and Superman). Even though Warner owns all of these characters, they treat them as if they are from seperate studios. Really there should be no legal complication that creates such a problem. But there are some actor related issues.

Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale think like I do. They believe that Batman has no real business on a team like the Justice League. It clashes with his image as this figure that is supposed to be a dark urban legend. The boogey man for criminals. He can't exactly do that and simultaneously run around in intergalactic satellites with laser beams and day time adventures. So Bale pretty much refused to take part in it, that ways, if Warner does make a JLA with Batman, it won't be the same Batman that was seen in Batman Begins (at least in spirit).

 

[fu manchu]

Holy crap...you're right. I don't know why I thought it said June 18th. That is disappointing actually...

really, how so? did you mean you had your batman costume already for the midnight screening?

 

[Evil Twin]

Marvel is making far better moves with far less resources. This is why Marvel destroys Warner (DC) at the box office and the comic racks.

That's only true with the myopic view that superheroes are the only genre that matters.

Say what you will but Harry Potter (from WB) destroys everything else at the world wide box office. That's been WB's #1 priority this decade and say whatever you will about risk, ambition, etc. it's been a spectaculary great business decision. Marvel has no franchise as successful as Harry Potter. Not even Spider-Man and X-Men combined. And they've had plenty of other successes.

From a stockholder point of view, not a superhero fan's point of view, WB's leadership has done a terrific job this decade with setting priorities. When the final tallys are made at the end of the decade, WB/New Line is likely to be the #1 grossing company of the decade. Just because a company has different priorities than superhero fans doesn't mean that those priorities are wrong.

And, heck, we all know Marvel's plans aren't flawless. 2009 without a Marvel Studios film speaks to mistakes made. The fact that Marvel has logos and release dates, but no signed directors, also speaks to the idea that they value their IPs more than they value the people that they'll entrust to bring those IPs to life.

But, we've wandered far off topic here. Especially since we wandered back into the same old Marvel vs. DC/WB topic that's been beaten to death in a dozen topics.

Back on topic, Marvel Studios would be foolish to save a few million in salary and alienate the director of their biggest success to date. Especially since that decision would make it harder to attract talent to their other properties. I think the latest leak, which I think was started from Favreau through his Myspace page artice, was a smart negotiating tactic on Favreau's part. It's certain to make other director's hesitate if Favreau isn't taken care of. And Marvel does need directors to get involved in the preproduction process soon if they want to meet their schedule.

 

[TheVileOne]

2009 is because of the strike, not because of Marvel's mistakes. If not for the strike, Thor and Ant-Man likely would've been released in 2009.

Now they are up against another work strike which is about to happen in about two weeks time.

 

[Evil Twin]

2009 is because of the strike, not because of Marvel's mistakes. If not for the strike, Thor and Ant-Man likely would've been released in 2009.

Now they are up against another work strike which is about to happen in about two weeks time.

Ant-Man has completely fallen off the schedule. There's obviously more than the strike going on there. And Thor doesn't have a director attached anymore. Usually, you want to write a script to accentuate the strengths of the director. Who are they writing the script to Thor for? Maybe we'll get an announcement at Comic-Con, but Marvel certainly didn't hit the ground running the second the strike ended.

And, Marvel obviously had no backup plans. Which is on them since the strike wasn't a surprise.

The strike is the primary cause for Marvel having no 2009 movies. But, there were obviously other factors at work too. Fox was able to deal with the strike and get Wolverine in the pipeline. WB was able to deal with the strike and get Watchmen in the pipeline. Lionsgate was able to deal with the strike and get The Spirit in the pipeline. G.I. Joe, Transformers 2, Star Trek, and Terminator are moving ahead. Marvel wasn't able to deal with the strike. At all. And that's on them.

 

[TheVileOne]

Ant-Man has completely fallen off the schedule. There's obviously more than the strike going on there. And Thor doesn't have a director attached anymore. Usually, you want to write a script to accentuate the strengths of the director. Who are they writing the script to Thor for? Maybe we'll get an announcement at Comic-Con, but Marvel certainly didn't hit the ground running the second the strike ended.

Thor lost the director DURING the strike. His deal expired during the strike when they couldn't do any re-writes or move the project more at all. Same with Ant-Man. You really can't just brush aside how the movie industry pretty much halted during the WGA strike.

And, Marvel obviously had no backup plans. Which is on them since the strike wasn't a surprise.

They had their first two huge movies they needed to focus on. Which were of the utmost importance.

Look at WB as well. They aren't the sole producers of the Terminator movie last time I checked.

The strike is the primary cause for Marvel having no 2009 movies. But, there were obviously other factors at work too. Fox was able to deal with the strike and get Wolverine in the pipeline. WB was able to deal with the strike and get Watchmen in the pipeline. Lionsgate was able to deal with the strike and get The Spirit in the pipeline. G.I. Joe, Transformers 2, Star Trek, and Terminator are moving ahead. Marvel wasn't able to deal with the strike. At all. And that's on them.

So what. You think Marvel wasn't working on Wolverine either? Also a lot of those movies were being re-written and had started production before the strike. They were at a stage where the productions could be safe when the strike started. Watchmen finished filming months ago as well.

Same with The Spirit. Started production before the strike. Miller was first announced on it in 2006.

GI JOE. Paramount rushes to get a script finished in 7 weeks before the strike and greenlights it for $175 million into production. It's looking a lot like crap so far.

Star Trek was delayed 6 months and was having a whole lot of problems filming during the strike. The movie also began production before the strike.

Wolverine comes out in 2009 and that still has their name on it if you want to be really technical.

Either way none of these are valid comparisons. They were gearing up 2 huge releases for 2008. They had other movies in the pipeline that suddenly couldn't move forward at all because of the strike. The strike halted tons of productions which you are ignoring. You are making comparisons to movies that were rushed into being greenlight, started shooting already with finished shooting scripts, or had shooting scripts ready to go before the strike started.

GI JOE had a finished script that was greenlit during the strike. They did their casting. And pretty much started shooting right as the strike ended.

Marvel made the right choice in not rushing a bad script into production just to make sure they have 2009. That is not a mark against them.

 

[TheVileOne]

Producer Kevin Feige speaks:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/881/881664p1.html

IGN recently spoke with Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige about Iron Man 2 and all the rumors swirling around about it. Recent rumors have stated that Marvel was considering not bringing director Jon Favreau back because they didn't want to pay his high salary. Favreau has come out and expressed concern about Marvel announced a release date for Iron Man 2 of April 2010, saying it is too soon and that he hasn't even been contacted about a sequel.

Anyway, Feige had this to say.

"The only thing I'll say is that not everything you read on the Internet is true, for sure. Everybody knows that. In this particular case, the notion that… Let's put it this way, here's all I'll say. Negotiations are actively ongoing, as they have been, and as they'll continue to be, I hope for not much longer and we'll get it all figured out."

"But the people behind the scenes at Marvel Studios I hope, I think, I hope should earn the trust of the fans from this summer. I mean these are the same people that made the decisions to make the films that are now in theaters that I think people like and enjoy, and those are the same people that are still making the decisions here. So if you've agreed with and enjoy the decisions they've made in the past you're probably going to agree with the decisions they make in the future and all of the efforts are being put together now to ensure that we can go into our next film with all of the exact same pieces in place that led to the success of the first one."

As for Favreau's concerns over the release date of Iron Man 2, Feige said the following.

"That time period gives us about the same amount of time that we had on the first one. And frankly we spent so much time, we know who the cast is now, we know who the actors are, we know who the characters are, we know what the basic design of the suits and the world is. That was all stuff that we had to figure out from scratch on the first one. All that R&D is done. That gives you a huge advantage going forward. But I'm actually very confident, and anything's possible, but I'm very confident in those timetables simply because we've done it before. We had this exact amount of time going from Spidey 1 to Spidey 2, and I believe Spider-Man 2 is one of the best sequels we've ever made. And that's certainly what we're setting out to accomplish with the next Iron Man film."

 

[Hiruu]

Producer Kevin Feige speaks:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/881/881664p1.html

Exactly, other than designing the villian, the Movie is pretty much on track...and as for the story...errr....get it from the source material? Then it's just grinding on the script to make it doable, but that's laymen's work, not creative genius stuff...Favreau did a bang-up job, and Marvel needs to put forth every effort to get him onboard, but the crap I'm hearing from Jon makes me stratch my head...not very win-win and positive imho. Hopefully, it's just a negoitating tactic, but...

 

[Arach Knight]

That's only true with the myopic view that superheroes are the only genre that matters.

Say what you will but Harry Potter (from WB)

Not only is Harry Potter not a comic book franchise, it is not even owned by DC or Warner. I am speaking about what Warner does with its comic franchises. They ignore the bulk of them.

 

[TheVileOne]

That said, it doesn't exactly give them the same amount of time if they are facing an actor's strike.

 

[Gotham]

If Feige is confident that we'll see Favreau back, then I'm confident we'll see Favreau back.

 

[StylishHokie21]

I hope he comes back. He would be pretty foolish not to.

 

[Evil Twin]

Not only is Harry Potter not a comic book franchise, it is not even owned by DC or Warner. I am speaking about what Warner does with its comic franchises. They ignore the bulk of them.

Yeah, so? WB makes more money from Harry Potter than they do or are likely to make from any comic book adaptation. Even with paying J.K. Rowling.

So what if WB doesn't concentrate on their owned properties? They make more money on Harry Potter anyways and they still maintain ownership of their properties. They have their priorities straight as far as making money even if superhero fans chafe at it. It's the same reason why Superman and Batman are going to come before their other superheroes.

 

[DACrowe]

Just gotta' say it is sad Marvel is making the same mistakes Fox did, because they only see the brand name and not the artistry required.

 

[Cinemaman]

So he hasn't signed it yet? I thought it wouldn't take so long for both sides to decide.

 

[RonStoppablefan]

I hope there just making suspense on the fans, waiting till the last minute to have him sign. It would be horrible if they didn't, I'd be so sad about that. Also actors strike now? Are the voice actors with this as well? Shoot, I don't want that, why do the studios have to be so annoying?