Iron Man Sequels No iron man 3 for jon favreau

[Doc Samson]

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.

The way you defend Marvel is just as ignorant as the people "blaming" Marvel, in your words. I'm not bashing anybody, I'm giving my honest opinion on the situation.

As far as Fury & Widow are concerned, who's to say that the whole palladium poisoning wasn't thrown in there just to justify their presence? Furthermore, Stark basically figured it out on his own, so what was the point of them? There was none, other than T&A in Scarlett's case, and bad comic relief on SLJ's part, that offered no comedy or relief, and a nod and a wink to the fans. Widow was in the movie more than Whiplash, and yet, she wasn't necessary to the proceedings, other than a fight at the end of the film. We just have different opinions, I told you this yesterday. This is just how I feel about it, that's it. Your opinion is no more right or wrong than mine.

And you shouldn't assume Thor/Cap will be huge successes either. Stranger things have happened, and the point I've been trying to make is that while we can debate about how much time the Avengers stuff took in IM2, there's no dispute that those subplots were much more a part of IM2 than IM1 or TIH. Thor's hammer at the end of the movie served the exact same purpose without having anything to do with the central film, and it took about 60 seconds. Instead of asking how much time the Avengers stuff took, ask yourself how much it added to the movie.

 

[Ironfan72]

I was shocked to hear Jon was off Iron Man 3, he seemed like he planned on directing three films, while I enjoyed IM2, I can see why people didn't enjoy the way it could have been, changing writers did not help, seemed to lack real direction.
Jon has been complaining since the first film that he had no idea how to translate Mandarin to the big screen, and now that he had to bring the character to life, he is no longer attached, seems strange that he is no longer on board now.
I have also heard that the studio interferred in the production so maybe it was just a matter of time, perhaps Marvel and Disney decided that the franchise needed new blood, especially with both Thor and Captain America coming out and Avengers, perhaps they felt after IM2 did not get the reveiws they wanted maybe Jon was not what they wanted to helm their lead franchise, all speculation of course.
As a die-hard fan, I am forever grateful to Jon for bringing Iron Man to the big screen and not only that but made two awesome pictures, and he did it with passion and stayed true to the character, and I thank him.

 

[ElMariachi]

The way you defend Marvel is just as ignorant as the people "blaming" Marvel, in your words. I'm not bashing anybody, I'm giving my honest opinion on the situation.

I am defending them because I feel they are being wrongfully attacked without any evidence. It's all knee jerk reactions from people who don't know the full story. There isn't always a good guy and a bad guy in every situation.

As far as Fury & Widow are concerned, who's to say that the whole palladium poisoning wasn't thrown in there just to justify their presence? Furthermore, Stark basically figured it out on his own, so what was the point of them? There was none, other than T&A in Scarlett's case, and bad comic relief on SLJ's part, that offered no comedy or relief, and a nod and a wink to the fans. Widow was in the movie more than Whiplash, and yet, she wasn't necessary to the proceedings, other than a fight at the end of the film. We just have different opinions, I told you this yesterday. This is just how I feel about it, that's it. Your opinion is no more right or wrong than mine.

Why are you guys so hung up on this one aspect of the story? The point of Nick Fury was to straight talk a Tony Stark who walked over everybody(Pepper, Rhodey, Agent Coulsen, the government, etc.). He was the only character that could support Tony in regards to technology, information, and connections to his past. Black Widow was just a sexier version of Agent Coulsen and another connection to SHIELD. She is the one character that could have been axed, but she wasn't distracting enough to bother me like it has you. I also thought that SLJ was funny in this movie and the audiences seemed to agree. As a matter of fact, people laughed at lines in this movie more than any other superhero movie I can think of.

I never said your opinion was wrong but you are seeing things that don't exist. Blowing other things out of proportion. Minor plot details that would have been ignored in any other movie.

And you shouldn't assume Thor/Cap will be huge successes either. Stranger things have happened, and the point I've been trying to make is that while we can debate about how much time the Avengers stuff took in IM2, there's no dispute that those subplots were much more a part of IM2 than IM1 or TIH. Thor's hammer at the end of the movie served the exact same purpose without having anything to do with the central film, and it took about 60 seconds. Instead of asking how much time the Avengers stuff took, ask yourself how much it added to the movie.

They will make money, along with Green Lantern. Perhaps not as much as Iron Man, but I have a hard time believing they will flop like Jonah Hex.

There was no Avengers subplot to Iron Man 2. This is what I was talking about with you guys bringing up stuff that doesn't exist. The only Avengers talk in the movie occured at the end of the movie after the plot concluded. I think the Stark/Fury scene there added alot to the movie because it was funny and expanded the Avengers plot with no harm to IM2s plot.

 

[craigdbfan]

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.

The inclusion of Black Widow for one, who was planned from the beginning to be a big part of the entire Avengers line up.

Her character was completely shoved in and provided nothing to the overall Iron Man story, again it was used to keep propping up the entire Avengers deal.

Warmachine was the only cameo appearance that had a right to be in the film.

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.

Oh but they do.

All these things add up. I'd like to see if TDK would still be as lauded if it were to have references to Superman, Green Lantern, and the Flash. Even Nolan would probably churn out something "ok" with demands like that.

People would be up in arms if this were to happen. Again I'm someone who prefers for these characters to get all the focus in terms of story/character development in their respective movie.

I can't believe that people are against this.

Insinuated? Like what?

The unjust policies of the entire military industrial complex. Instead we see him parading around as a nuclear deterrent, that was not what was implied at all throughout the first film.

In fact they made a complete turnaround and held the status quo that Tony Stark wanted to destroy in the end of the first film. A really wonderful setup that was thrown away and reverted him back to a uncaring business tycoon who sets up a theme park around himself.

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.

He had a truncated and neutered version of an arc. Bruce did have an arc in TDK it was that he wasn't up to snuff to handle the various problems of Gotham without pinning all the collateral damage on himself. That is a great arc and different from the principle theme in Begins.

In the first Iron Man film we had a similar if not better setup for Tony Stark to have a great second film in which he could have attacked the entire system that he was a part up to free the innocent in war torn countries that his weapons partly caused.

Some of this is kind of addressed in IM2 (for example showing the US governments desire for the Iron Man tech and Hammer industries showing his competitors).

In the end the US does get the tech, the war in those countries is still being waged on by other shady military weapon corporations despite Hammer being arrested.

So what did Iron Man accomplish in the second film? I guess he took care of the man who's fathers tech was taken and used without any sort of credit to create the suit he uses.

What a great message.

Just seems like they could have done a lot more if they weren't tied down to this entire "Avengers" initiative is all.

I'm not against the Avengers film but rather the way Marvel is going about doing this.

 

[Octoberist]

I feel like neither party is neither innocent or guilty.

I can say that I'm sure that there was a drift between Marvel and Favs. It was kinda evident during the filming of Iron Man 2. Again, no proof but just a vibe. What Jon Favs has to say was more of 'spin' on the story, which happens all the time to cool the public off. Happens all the time.
I'm sure Marvel and Jon are okay, but I doubt he'll do anything else with them beyond The Avengers. Even that, it's probably just a name thing.
You have to keep in mind that Marvel is a newer studio and they will make mistakes along the way. It's how it is. With the recastings and cast salaries, you would be ignorant not to notice it.

That said, it doesn't mean their intentions are bad or bad people in general, but they're just novices. They like to play hardball, from the looks of it.

 

[Doc Samson]

I am defending them because I feel they are being wrongfully attacked without any evidence. It's all knee jerk reactions from people who don't know the full story. There isn't always a good guy and a bad guy in every situation.

Once again, these people you speak of doesn't include me. I don't have any allegiance to DC, Marvel, Fox or anybody else. I just want quality movies with characters I've loved since my childhood. If Marvel did pressure Favreau to include anything he didn't want to, then yes, Marvel would be at fault, because this whole universe is their idea.

Why are you guys so hung up on this one aspect of the story? The point of Nick Fury was to straight talk a Tony Stark who walked over everybody(Pepper, Rhodey, Agent Coulsen, the government, etc.). He was the only character that could support Tony in regards to technology, information, and connections to his past. Black Widow was just a sexier version of Agent Coulsen and another connection to SHIELD. She is the one character that could have been axed, but she wasn't distracting enough to bother me like it has you. I also thought that SLJ was funny in this movie and the audiences seemed to agree. As a matter of fact, people laughed at lines in this movie more than any other superhero movie I can think of.

Nick Fury isn't needed to straight talk Stark, that's what Potts & Rhodey are there for. As soon as he shows up, the movie got goofy and cheesy, it doesn't matter if he was there for 2 seconds or 2 hours. As soon as IM is in the donut, it was damn near a nuking the fridge moment. Everything from that point forward concerning Stark was farfetched, boring, or corny. The comedy felt forced and was unfunny. The tone of the movie up to that point was different, and more in line with IM1. That's my opinion, sorry for having one. I like SM3, most people hate it, doesn't bother me one bit.

I never said your opinion was wrong but you are seeing things that don't exist. Blowing other things out of proportion. Minor plot details that would have been ignored in any other movie.

I'm not blowing anything up, it's right there. If the plot details are so minor WHY ARE THEY NECESSARY? They aren't, point blank. Nobody needed to see Nick Fury or Black Widow in the actual movie plot, at all. They could have moved all that crap to the end of the movie along with Thor's hammer, and given extra time to a criminally underused villain, the 5-second action scenes, or handling the palladium poisoning better.

They will make money, along with Green Lantern. Perhaps not as much as Iron Man, but I have a hard time believing they will flop like Jonah Hex.

Making money and meeting expectations are two different things. TIH made money, but didn't deliver as expected, there's no foregone conclusion to this until the numbers are in.

There was no Avengers subplot to Iron Man 2. This is what I was talking about with you guys bringing up stuff that doesn't exist. The only Avengers talk in the movie occured at the end of the movie after the plot concluded. I think the Stark/Fury scene there added alot to the movie because it was funny and expanded the Avengers plot with no harm to IM2s plot.

You just said there was no Avengers subplot to IM2, then in the same paragraph you say Fury's scene expanded the Avengers plot

 

[craigdbfan]

El Marachi is getting way to defensive. No one is attacking anything but rather expressing opinions on the matter. Also I don't know where the no "evidence" part is coming in as everybody on both sides has presented facts. Whether or not they are to your liking is another story.

I also resent that he is assuming that people on here don't know the entire dealings with Marvel and Jon. Sure we aren't on the set or working at Marvel but some of us do try following as much information that gets out on the "behind the scenes" work to make these films happen.

 

[Octoberist]

Even though I lean more DC, even I admit that their track record in film has been sluggish and disappointing. Green Lantern is a film that I look forward to, but even then, the trailer was...meh, while I thought Thor's was more effective.

My point is that nobody's perfect and I'll admit the faults of things that don't live up to their potential, with constructive angle of course. But man, Blind fanboyism (or Geek Denial) gets the best out of people sometimes.

 

[Doc Samson]

El Marachi is getting way to defensive. No one is attacking anything but rather expressing opinions on the matter. Also I don't know where the no "evidence" part is coming in as everybody on both sides has presented facts. Whether or not they are to your liking is another story.

I also resent that he is assuming that people on here don't know the entire dealings with Marvel and Jon. Sure we aren't on the set or working at Marvel but some of us do try following as much information that gets out on the "behind the scenes" work to make these films happen.

Exactly, I don't know where it's coming from. We discussed things yesterday and it was cool, now it's back to square one. I never said I hated IM2 either, I like it, I just feel with some omissions it could have been on par or better than the first. And chief amongst those omissions would be Fury/Widow, at least in terms of the central movie.

Even though I lean more DC, even I admit that their track record in film has been sluggish and disappointing. Green Lantern is a film that I look forward to, but even then, the trailer was...meh, while I thought Thor's was more effective.

My point is that nobody's perfect and I'll admit the faults of things that don't live up to their potential, with constructive angle of course. But man, Blind fanboyism (or Geek Denial) gets the best out of people sometimes.

QFT!

 

[Octoberist]

Exactly, I don't know where it's coming from. We discussed things yesterday and it was cool, now it's back to square one. I never said I hated IM2 either, I like it, I just feel with some omissions it could have been on par or better than the first. And chief amongst those omissions would be Fury/Widow, at least in terms of the central movie.



QFT!

geeks are a fickle and sensitive bunch. Very reactionary sometimes.

 

[craigdbfan]

Even though I lean more DC, even I admit that their track record in film has been sluggish and disappointing. Green Lantern is a film that I look forward to, but even then, the trailer was...meh, while I thought Thor's was more effective.

My point is that nobody's perfect and I'll admit the faults of things that don't live up to their potential, with constructive angle of course. But man, Blind fanboyism (or Geek Denial) gets the best out of people sometimes.

Yup.

I've loved various characters from both Marvel and DC so I'll never be able to align myself completely with one brand as that would be stupid and insincere on my part.

In a certain way this allows me to criticize or praise both brands when they actually do make mistakes or inroads with a series/character that I like.

When Fox/Marvel did something stupid; Wolverine Origins, I call it out. Same goes for WB/DC with Catwoman and the Neon/Rave Batman years (yikes). Sony/Marvel/Raimi with Spider-Man 3 etc.

None of these companies or directors are perfect that much is sure, but being able to stand in some sort of objectivity and pointing out obvious problems should be something more people should practice. My mantra no reason for anybody else to follow it.

 

[ElMariachi]

The inclusion of Black Widow for one, who was planned from the beginning to be a big part of the entire Avengers line up.

Her character was completely shoved in and provided nothing to the overall Iron Man story, again it was used to keep propping up the entire Avengers deal.

Warmachine was the only cameo appearance that had a right to be in the film.

What does Black Widow have to do with the Avengers? She was an agent of SHIELD, which was apart of the first movie.

All these things add up. I'd like to see if TDK would still be as lauded if it were to have references to Superman, Green Lantern, and the Flash. Even Nolan would probably churn out something "ok" with demands like that.

People would be up in arms if this were to happen. Again I'm someone who prefers for these characters to get all the focus in terms of story/character development in their respective movie.

There is a huge difference between Iron Man and Nolan's Batman though. Iron Man as a franchise was intended as a lead up to The Avengers from it's inception. The references to other characters are flawless because they fit in the context of the story.

Nolan's films never intended to be apart of a bigger DC universe. The Dark Knight was barely a superhero movie for starters and more closely related to a crime drama. It would of course make zero sense to bring up Superman because the realism of the story/setting.

 

[Doc Samson]

geeks are a fickle and sensitive bunch. Very reactionary sometimes.

I guess. I'm definitely a comic geek, but I try not to fly off the handle when someone disagrees with me. Then again, I might just be battle hardened from those pesky Dark Knight Threads

Yup.

I've loved various characters from both Marvel and DC so I'll never be able to align myself completely with one brand as that would be stupid and insincere on my part.

In a certain way this allows me to criticize or praise both brands when they actually do make mistakes or inroads with a series/character that I like.

When Fox/Marvel did something stupid; Wolverine Origins, I call it out. Same goes for WB/DC with Catwoman and the Neon/Rave Batman years (yikes). Sony/Marvel/Raimi with Spider-Man 3 etc.

None of these companies or directors are perfect that much is sure, but being able to stand in some sort of objectivity and pointing out obvious problems should be something more people should practice. My mantra no reason for anybody else to follow it.

Absolutely. I see this time and again, and usually, it rears its head in the form of needless bashing of TDK, just because it's perhaps more critically acclaimed than someone else's favorite superhero movie. It's analogous to sports fans really. I think ElMariachi suspects me of the same thing, but if he took the time to ask, he would realize I've defended IM2 on a number of fronts when it came out. That being said, I'm going to call it how I see it too

 

[Spider-Vader]

I hope Favs can still be Happy in the movie. I'm sure Marvel will find a good replacement, I find it odd how he goes from one Disney movie to another though. :/

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

One thing I'll agree with is that the Marvel v DC stuff should stop. I hate when people bring it up. All I care about is if the film is good, I couldn't care less if it was based on a Marvel or DC character. Despite what some think, my problems with Iron Man 2 have nothing to do with anyother comicbook flick, I just simply didn't like it for reasons I've already brought up.

And those problems are my own. If you like Iron Man 2, thats your business but I have a right to state my negative opinion about it or anyother film, provided I'm not trolling. Nobody is going to convince me that Iron Man 2 was a good flick...sorry.

 

[Iron_Stark]

The inclusion of WAR MACHINE for one, who was planned from the beginning to just show people that Tony can work well with others in the Avengers line up.

HIS character was completely shoved in and provided nothing to the overall Iron Man story, again it was used to keep propping up the entire Avengers deal.

There fixed for you.

Warmachine was the only cameo appearance that had a right to be in the film.

Nonsense, War Machine had no damn business in the movie, especially if it meant taking away from the villains.

There was no need for him except because of the excessive fanboy whining to put him in the movie.

Besides if you know anything about Iron Man's history (which I doubt you do) Fury and Widow appeared in the comics YEARS before Rhodey and DECADES before War Machine.

It's funny how people want to blame those two for taking away from the villains, yet I don't remember ILM spending an ass load of money on their shots, or Legacy Studios making them two suits or the promotion promoting them right next to Iron Man like a co-star. It was all War Machine.

ILM spent the important shots on War Machine that could've gone to Whiplash, Legacy Studios spent time and money rebuilding the Mark II "autopsy" suit which should've gone to a Whiplash Mark II suit, and the promotion should've gone to Mickey Rourke. Good grief look at the damn movie poster, no Whiplash.

 

[Marvin]

good news, it would suck if they brought back someone that obviously doesn't care about the material anymore.

but honestly about half way through im2, almost no one really cared anymore it's run it course and you could throw as many robots at RDJ and his sthitck all day while he stands and finds new ways to shoot them down...
It's time for some new blood.

I say jones.
fav's just doesn't doesn't know what to do if he doesn't have good script handed to him. I still have yawns over that monaco scene.

 

[craigdbfan]

There fixed for you.



Nonsense, War Machine had no damn business in the movie, especially if it meant taking away from the villains.

There was no need for him except because of the excessive fanboy whining to put him in the movie.

Besides if you know anything about Iron Man's history (which I doubt you do) Fury and Widow appeared in the comics YEARS before Rhodey and DECADES before War Machine.

Jeez could you be anymore hostile?

Yes, you're right I'm not incredibly familiar with Iron Man in terms of comics and all their intricacies. But I did know that SHIELD has been around longer than Rhodes. Now you are just insulting me for no reason. The Avengers have been around since the 60's while Rhodes was an 80's add on, yeah thanks for preaching to the choir. Nowhere in my post do I say "OMG WARMACHINE IS DAW AWESOME, HE BE COOLER DAN DAH AVENGERS YAH!?".

But thats not what we are talking about now are we? We are talking about the film series which had already established Rhodey as a prominent character in the first film so including War Machine and Rhodey in the second film was an obvious move.

I can't believe you are calling him shoved in when Fury and Black Widow are the ones that felt like extra baggage in IM2.

 

[ElMariachi]

El Marachi is getting way to defensive. No one is attacking anything but rather expressing opinions on the matter. Also I don't know where the no "evidence" part is coming in as everybody on both sides has presented facts. Whether or not they are to your liking is another story.

I also resent that he is assuming that people on here don't know the entire dealings with Marvel and Jon. Sure we aren't on the set or working at Marvel but some of us do try following as much information that gets out on the "behind the scenes" work to make these films happen.

I am not that defensive but I do get tired of people boldly saying things that aren't true. They claim this was an informercial for Avengers and can't back it up with any evidence in the movie. What facts have been presented? One scene and a few random mentions that had absolutely no effect on the plot.

And you don't know the dealings and issues on set or the company has. I have been following too, but the reports are conflicting and impossible to judge anything from. Alot of these reports tend to be b.s. in the end.

 

[Doc Samson]

I hear you on most of this except,

You are blowing things up because you continue to talk about Avengers. What you are referring to is SHIELD, which was introduced in the last movie.

Shield is introduced in a different context here. It's not like it's just Shield for the sake of shield, and it's not like they're using the original Nick Fury who's a very crucial part of Ironman lore.

They're using the version from the Ultimates, which, ultimately, is another version of the Avengers. And when he shows up, he's talking about the Avengers, it's his whole purpose, which is my problem. If you want to do Nick Fury, do it, but do it right, and with justice, not just to tie movies together for the eventual Avengers film, and that's all this is. Make him really integral to the plot in someway, do something important with him, outside of the setup.

 

[Octoberist]

It feels like Nick Fury was a plot device to move the Avengers subplot forward.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Jeez could you be anymore hostile?

Yes, you're right I'm not incredibly familiar with Iron Man in terms of comics and all their intricacies. But I did know that SHIELD has been around longer than Rhodes. Now you are just insulting me for no reason. The Avengers have been around since the 60's while Rhodes was an 80's add on, yeah thanks for preaching to the choir. Nowhere in my post do I say "OMG WARMACHINE IS DAW AWESOME, HE BE COOLER DAN DAH AVENGERS YAH!?".

But thats not what we are talking about now are we? We are talking about the film series which had already established Rhodey as a prominent character in the first film so including War Machine and Rhodey in the second film was an obvious move.

I can't believe you are calling him shoved in when Fury and Black Widow are the ones that felt like extra baggage in IM2.

Yeah Rhodes and Rhodes by himself should've been left as is. There was no need for them to give him a suit and take away from the villains.

Extra baggage? two characters that are important to the the early Iron Man mythos are extra baggage?

War Machine was the only extra baggage in this movie, like I edited in my previous post, neither of those two took away from Whiplash.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

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.

when did ISS say that?

the facts.

Marvel lowballed with TIH.
Then Rourke, SLJ, RDJ (I think?) and favs, cause IM2 wasn't even supposed to be out this year.
Then the norton thing.
Now this.

 

[ElMariachi]

Exactly, I don't know where it's coming from. We discussed things yesterday and it was cool, now it's back to square one. I never said I hated IM2 either, I like it, I just feel with some omissions it could have been on par or better than the first. And chief amongst those omissions would be Fury/Widow, at least in terms of the central movie.



QFT!

It's just that people are crushing Iron Man 2 for minor plot details. This is an example of people being impossible to please and going out of their way to find errors. It's like all these people who b---h about Transformers 2. It's a movie based on a toy for christsake, yet the geeks expect Citizen Kane. The expectations are getting out of control in my opinion. This all started in 08' with Iron Man and TDK. Two comic movies lauded by critics and now the benchmark of everything. People need to curb their expecations and just have fun. There is a reason these movies are released in summer and not in December-January.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

After seeing all the articles and information, I'm starting to think this is all overreaction by all of us. It could be possible that Favreau just wanted to go back to kids films and direct The Magic Kingdom. He did love that place since he was a kid.

Maybe it was something Marvel did, and maybe it was also because Favs truly didn't know where to go with IM3. But it feels as though the main catalyst to me is him simply wanting to do Magic Kingdom more.