Iron Man Sequels No iron man 3 for jon favreau

[Supermanreturns]

yep, thats a pretty good break down on where the blame lies.

So, wait! 5 minutes of 120' automatically considered IM2 a spot for Avengers? WOW!

Because Avengers are:
1. 3 minutes with Nick Fury and Black Widow at middle;
2. 2 minutes with Fury at end talking about Avengers;
3. After credits scene with Thor.

Stop.

Black Widow's character is well integrated in the plot, Avengers or not. The scene with Fury talking about his dad is "plot-centered". And there isn't other Avengers-talking in the movie.

So what's spot? 5 minutes? Wow

I love haters.

 

[kedrell]

While I enjoyed the 2nd I honestly am not suprised. I hope we get a nice replacement Director. In all honesty though, do we need a 3rd Iron Man?

Do we need any more P.O.S. Batman movies? Or Superman or Spider-Man or X-Men movies? Since when has NEED have to do with anything?

 

[KalMart]

Do we need any more P.O.S. Batman movies? Or Superman or Spider-Man or X-Men movies? Since when has NEED have to do with anything?

Fanboys 'need' something to ****** about...other than cereal prizes and such.

 

[Octoberist]

So, wait! 5 minutes of 120' automatically considered IM2 a spot for Avengers? WOW!

Because Avengers are:
1. 3 minutes with Nick Fury and Black Widow at middle;
2. 2 minutes with Fury at end talking about Avengers;
3. After credits scene with Thor.

Stop.

Black Widow's character is well integrated in the plot, Avengers or not. The scene with Fury talking about his dad is "plot-centered". And there isn't other Avengers-talking in the movie.

So what's spot? 5 minutes? Wow

I love haters.

There's haters but in real life, I think the film was..okay.

I think the problem stems from it being uneven. It feels like certain characters come and go for plot points, so the drive of the film gets kinda lost near the middle.

 

[Octoberist]

I wonder if Robert Downey Jr himself might end up directing

I'm not too sure where this is coming from, because I keep reading about how some fans want RDJ to direct. I'm gettting it.

 

[kedrell]

The only real problem I have with IM2 is that they went to the trouble of making a great looking/acting villain and then didn't give Roarke enough screen time to capitalize on it.

 

[Doc Samson]

There's haters but in real life, I think the film was..okay.

I think the problem stems from it being uneven. It feels like certain characters come and go for plot points, so the drive of the film gets kinda lost near the middle.

Exactly, who's to say that the whole "element" subplot was only there because of Nick Fury's inclusion, and trying to make him somewhat integral to the story to explain why he's there. And besides T&A I fail to see how Black Widow was necessary to the plot, at all.

 

[kedrell]

Did she HAVE to be necessary? It wasn't her movie, after all.

 

[Octoberist]

Honestly, Black Widow was wasted, along with Ivan (the IT guy aka Whip Lash).

I'm sorry to say this but I felt that Whip Lash wasn't a well developed character; started off strong but then...goes downhill from there.

 

[kedrell]

Whiplash could've used another 10-15 min. of screentime, IMO.

 

[Doc Samson]

Did she HAVE to be necessary? It wasn't her movie, after all.

I would like to think so, if she's there taking up screentime. You mention yourself how unused Whiplash was, right. You can't tell me her screentime wouldn't have been better used on him

 

[kedrell]

I would like to think so, if she's there taking up screentime. You mention yourself how unused Whiplash was, right. You can't tell me her screentime wouldn't have been better used on him

Or they just could've made the film an extra 10-15 minutes longer. Even then it wouldn't have been too long. The film clocks in at about 2hrs right now.

 

[solidsnake86]

So, wait! 5 minutes of 120' automatically considered IM2 a spot for Avengers? WOW!

Because Avengers are:
1. 3 minutes with Nick Fury and Black Widow at middle;
2. 2 minutes with Fury at end talking about Avengers;
3. After credits scene with Thor.

Stop.

Black Widow's character is well integrated in the plot, Avengers or not. The scene with Fury talking about his dad is "plot-centered". And there isn't other Avengers-talking in the movie.

So what's spot? 5 minutes? Wow

I love haters.

I thought they did an excellent job in setting up whiplash, but ultimately fell short because instead of focusing on an Iron Man universe, they were to busy dealing with an avengers universe. I thought Iron Man 2 was okay, but it could have been so much better. In fact, had they tried to do more with whiplash and focus on the ten rings as a big threat to stark while setting up the mandarin for the third I think that would have been a much better move. You can't forget the general audience which fanboys seem to overlook way to much, if I'm going to see Iron Man, why should I care about captain america or thor, and what exactly do they mean to me if I have no exposure to the comics, I paid to see iron man and his universe. In the end its all subjective opinion but its naive to think everything is rosey and the proof is in him leaving.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I'm allowed to dislike Iron Man 2 and voice my opinion about Favs leaving.

And I also predicted it would make over 400mil domestically so...?

As for it's DVD sales, if I'm wrong so what? The final sales figures aren't out yet so I'm going to wait and see how wrong I am overall.

I'm sure you didn't predict Avatar to make 2.8bil worldwide.

It's funny how you are burying your head in the sand about Iron Man 2. If the movie was so loved and wildly successful to the director, why isn't he coming back? I didn't make him not come back for a 3rd movie so don't take it out on me. lol

BTW:

This thread is not about my DVD or boxoffice predictions so stay on topic. I'm not going to respond to anymore comments reagrding that because I'm going to talk about the topic at hand. Marvel screwed over Favs so he left. Ofcourse he isn't going to admit that and thats fine with me.

Who's taking it out on you? Who's pissed about this? I'm not. But you're acting as though this movie was such a huge flop and embarrassment for Favreau that he didn't want to return.

But as usual, you're WRONG, he said he's moving on to do other more family friendly movies and something that he's wanted to direct since visiting in his childhood. No one screwed anyone, they split on amicable terms, if he was so pissed off at Marvel, then why is he staying on as Producer for the Avengers, which he already said.

But whatever stand on your soapbox and continue to pretend you saw this coming, so carry on.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I thought they did an excellent job in setting up whiplash, but ultimately fell short because instead of focusing on an Iron Man universe, they were to busy dealing with an avengers universe. I thought Iron Man 2 was okay, but it could have been so much better. In fact, had they tried to do more with whiplash and focus on the ten rings as a big threat to stark while setting up the mandarin for the third I think that would have been a much better move. You can't forget the general audience which fanboys seem to overlook way to much, if I'm going to see Iron Man, why should I care about captain america or thor, and what exactly do they mean to me if I have no exposure to the comics, I paid to see iron man and his universe. In the end its all subjective opinion but its naive to think everything is rosey and the proof is in him leaving.

They didn't take away from Whiplash to focus on the Avengers. Watch the movie again. The focus of trying to build up Whiplash as a credible threat was taken out to build up War Machine.

Like I've said many, many times, take out the Mark II/War Machine parts and replace them with Vanko and the movie would've turned out better.

The Avengers parts were barely there despite what people say.

I would like to think so, if she's there taking up screentime. You mention yourself how unused Whiplash was, right. You can't tell me her screentime wouldn't have been better used on him

Read the second paragraph, Whiplash got screwed over by War Machine.

It should've been him crashing the party, putting people in danger, but instead of a big action sequence we get a play fight.

It should've been him getting introduced at the expo at the end causing all the havoc, not wasting him behind a computer only to show up less than one minute at the end fight.

ILM and Legacy Studios should've been hired to build him some badass suits, not a half naked get up and some generic suit at the end.

 

[ElMariachi]

This isn't surprising news at all. The surprise would have been him directing the 3rd one. The series has already gone down hill so there isn't any need for me to worry about the 3rd movie sucking.

Favs made the right choice. Why making another two hour advertisment for the Avengers?

Wow, what a ridiculous and reactionary take. Of course, this isn't suprising coming from you.

He made the movie. It was his creative vision. Yet you completely ignore this and blame everything on Marvel. Almost like Jon Favreau had no fault in the movies issues, which in my opinion are completely overblown by critics.

And where was this movie a two hour advertisement for Avengers? Some of you say this without any evidence from the movie itself. Not only this, but alot of you have selective memories about the first film. Did Marvel tell Favreau to inject all those Agent Coulsen scenes, SHIELD agents, and the after credits scene? Nobody ever complains about this, yet they b---h endlessly about the few references to The Avengers in Iron Man 2. SHIELD was an important part of the plot in the first movie and it carried over to the second.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Wow, what a ridiculous and reactionary take. Of course, this isn't suprising coming from you.

He made the movie. It was his creative vision. Yet you completely ignore this and blame everything on Marvel. Almost like Jon Favreau had no fault in the movies issues, which in my opinion are completely overblown by critics.

And where was this movie a two hour advertisement for Avengers? Some of you say this without any evidence from the movie itself. Not only this, but alot of you have selective memories about the first film. Did Marvel tell Favreau to inject all those Agent Coulsen scenes, SHIELD agents, and the after credits scene? Nobody ever complains about this, yet they b---h endlessly about the few references to The Avengers in Iron Man 2. SHIELD was an important part of the plot in the first movie and it carried over to the second.

Exactly.

I'm still waiting to on someone to post a breakdown of scenes that were Avengers adverts and exactly how many minutes they took up.

 

[kedrell]

The Avengers complaints never made sense. Now I DO agree that Marvel has been pushing all this 'one universe' stuff forward a bit too much without allowing for natural growth of stories and the Avengers is the chief cause of it all, but that's all behind the scenes stuff. War machine, while I definitely want to see him, was introduced way too early in the franchise. Rhodey needed to sub for Tony as Iron Man before going down that road. In fact, when I heard that IM2 was going ahead, Howard was talking about that aspect of Rhodey along with the 'it makes him crazy and Tony needs to stop/save him' story arc and I was far more pumped for that than War Machine or a DIAB attempt.

 

[craigdbfan]

Iron Man II while not a bad film didn't take Iron Man/Tony Stark to what was insinuated at the end of the first film.

Instead we got a somewhat stagnated story line with enough Avengers references to keep the Tony Stark story at a plateau rather than advancing his growth as a character.

I'm going to bring up an example which I hope people don't kill me for. In no way I'm I saying Nolan's Batman series is better, but what he was able to do was deliver on the impressions he left at the end of Begins.

I personally don't think Jon was allowed to do this. It doesn't matter how many Avengers references there are in the film its the fact that they "have" to be there that affects the rest of how the story is going to play out.

Try writing a story and then having people "make" you include certain references to other franchises and see if that doesn't bother you as a director/creator.

 

[ElMariachi]

Exactly. In theory, it sounds cool, but to actually implement it, at the expense of using that time to fully flesh out your individual story, sometimes doesn't have positive results. For all we know, Thor & Cap could BOMB at the BO, and then what? And all you guys on here that loved IM2, so be it. Nobody needs to defend their viewpoints when it's a personal opinion, but IMO, Nick Fury & Black Widow were highly unnecessary, and yes, they were in the movie collectively a lot more than 2 minutes, like some of you are suggesting.

Furthermore, does anybody really expect Jon Favreau to come out screaming and bashing Marvel? The same studio that's owned by Disney? The same company he's going to continue to work for with Magic Kingdom? Please. Even if he wasn't doing Magic Kingdom, no professional worth his salt is going to publicly slander a previous employer, if they can help it. There's no point in it, and if anything, it would go a long way towards alienating you from opportunities in the future. Of course he's not going to acknowledge any issue he might have had publicly, but I think the proof is in the pudding. After IM1 he was excited for the sequel and wanted to be a part of The Avengers movie. After IM2, he wants nothing to do with it anymore?

It's pretty sad that many are jumping off the Avengers bandwagon. Marvel is doing something fresh and unprecedented with a story arc that spans 6 movies (IM/IM2, Hulk, Thor, Cap, Avengers), yet people aren't happy with that. This is one of the great things about comic books and they are trying to translate it to the screen instead of a limited closed universe. It's a big risk, but that's whats so exciting about it and why there was a buzz at Comic Con. All of the movies in this story arc have been good, yet people are trying to find reason to hate on this experiment for some odd reason. Blaming Marvel as if it's Fox (who is mediocre in every way) or doing anything wrong in regards to it's movies. I listed the names of the big stars Marvel brought in, but apparently this isn't enough to quash these ridiculous 'cheap' claims. Some of the same people posting on this thread are those who were hating on Iron Man 2 throughout it's box office thread and blatantly wanted it to fail---so I really am not suprised. If Thor and Cap bomb at the box office (which isn't going to happen), it has nothing to do with Avengers. The Avengers will make money on the back of Robert Downey Jr. and the excitement this movie has been building for alot of people.

As for IM2, Black Widow and Nick Fury are Iron Man characters as much as they are Avengers characters. Nobody cried about Coulsen, so why Black Widow or Fury? He was as useless in IM1 as they supposedly were in IM2. Fury was barely even in the movie for starters. Two scenes, one of which was almost entirely regarding the plot of Iron Man 2 (paladium poisoning/Howard).

Finally, we don't have any proof that Favreau was upset about anything. It's possible that he just wanted to branch out and do different projects. Not getting too attached to one franchise. Chris Nolan is going to do the same thing after this next Batman movie. Favreau probally wants to be more like a Spielberg rather than a George Lucas, who is famous for one franchise. It's the same with James Cameron who moved on from Terminator, which he created.

 

[ElMariachi]

Exactly.

I'm still waiting to on someone to post a breakdown of scenes that were Avengers adverts and exactly how many minutes they took up.

They just can't do it in a way that backs up their argument.

-Stark mentions 'little superhero boy band'
-Fury/Coulsen mentions Southwest region, which is an Easter Egg.
-Stark uses Cap Shield to level out particle accelerator, Easter Egg.
-Fury talks about the Avengers after conclusion of IM2 plot.
-Scenes of Hulk destruction on t.v's behind Fury. Easter Egg. I didn't even notice this until I read about it after seeing the movie.
-Thors hammer in New Mexico post-credits.

Thats all I can remember. Those are minor details that had nothing really to do with anything. They were cool Easter Eggs for the fans.

 

[kedrell]

Iron Man II while not a bad film didn't take Iron Man/Tony Stark to what was insinuated at the end of the first film.

Insinuated? Like what?

Instead we got a somewhat stagnated story line with enough Avengers references to keep the Tony Stark story at a plateau rather than advancing his growth as a character.

I'm going to bring up an example which I hope people don't kill me for. In no way I'm I saying Nolan's Batman series is better, but what he was able to do was deliver on the impressions he left at the end of Begins.

Tony DID have an arc in IM2. If anything, Bruce either didn't have an arc at all in TDK or it was such an arc that it ended up being a 360...which is essentially the same thing anyway.

 

[ElMariachi]

Iron Man II while not a bad film didn't take Iron Man/Tony Stark to what was insinuated at the end of the first film.

Instead we got a somewhat stagnated story line with enough Avengers references to keep the Tony Stark story at a plateau rather than advancing his growth as a character.

I'm going to bring up an example which I hope people don't kill me for. In no way I'm I saying Nolan's Batman series is better, but what he was able to do was deliver on the impressions he left at the end of Begins.

I personally don't think Jon was allowed to do this. It doesn't matter how many Avengers references there are in the film its the fact that they "have" to be there that affects the rest of how the story is going to play out.

Try writing a story and then having people "make" you include certain references to other franchises and see if that doesn't bother you as a director/creator.

Where were all the references that were forced into this movie though? They just don't exist on a level large enough to affect the plot like you are making it out to be. These references are Easter Eggs and merely nods to the fans following the development of these movies.

As for Batman, it can be argued that the main character was overshadowed in TDK by the Joker and Harvey Dent. There was so much going on in the plot of TDK that Bruce Wayne didn't grow as a character as he did in BB. The development of Stark/Bruce is identical in IM/IM2 & BB/TDK in my opinion.

 

[venom892]

I think the people being emotional about this need to get over it.

I think recently Favreau has shown that he's sort of done with Iron Man and ready to move on.

For starters these things:

1. Favreau didn't want to do Demon in A Bottle. According to Bob Layton, RDJ really wants to do it, but Favreau does not.

2. Favreau doesn't want to do stories that have types of magical or fantasy stories in the Iron Man realm, so nothing that isn't tech-based or isn't realistic. He couldn't really get over that hump and I think that's why he wasn't picked for Avengers either.

3. He's got lots of other projects lined up right now, so he should be fine.

4. Its just, he just hasn't acted serious about wanting to lead and be the visionary for the franchise or other Marvel movies. I think he basically had his take and he's stepping aside now. What is wrong with that?

I think the only thing that would hurt the franchise is losing Robert Downey Jr.

This.Guy simply wanted to pursue other interests I don't see what's so wrong with that.Also if him and Marvel really had such a horrible fall out why would he stay as producer on Avengers?He also sounded pretty grateful to Marvel and the way they put his name out there.

 

[ElMariachi]

Tony DID have an arc in IM2. If anything, Bruce either didn't have an arc at all in TDK or it was such an arc that it ended up being a 360...which is essentially the same thing anyway.

Yeah, I am not understanding what people are missing here.

In Iron Man 1, Stark starts off as a cocky, naive, irresponsible rich guy. He changes and becomes a socially conscious idealist/selfless hero.

As evidenced by the opening scene of IM2, he has basically defeated all villians and saved the world. With the entire world knowing he did this, his ego spirals out of control. This is the great thing about this arc. It is a movie about a superhero that is an international celebrity/public figure, not a masked avenger prowling at night.