Iron Man Sequels No iron man 3 for jon favreau

[hatebox]

Yes, most people are Favreau defenders. Or Norton defenders or Howard defenders. People continue to say that Marvel is cheap, yet their track record of hiring actors disputes that claim. There is alot of buzz for Thor, Cap, and Avengers. Hardly a mess or a bad situation. Iron Man 3 comes out in a few years, so I don't see why the plot has to be entirely fleshed out at this time.

Whether or not things are indeed 'a mess' at Marvel, this is undoubtedly a spanner in the works. It's also overtaken the Norton debacle as the most obvious sign that things aren't that rosy with the studio's masteplan, given that Iron Man is still their biggest asset.

It's safe to say the only reason Favreau would abruptly leave would be because he'd had enough of studio interference (not that that'll be the official line), which means whoever else comes in will have to suffer it. I'm struggling to see how that's a good prospect.

 

[ElMariachi]

Whether or not things are indeed 'a mess' at Marvel, this is undoubtedly a spanner in the works. It's also overtaken the Norton debacle as the most obvious sign that things aren't that rosy with the studio's masteplan, given that Iron Man is still their biggest asset.

It's safe to say the only reason Favreau would abruptly leave would be because he'd had enough of studio interference (not that that'll be the official line), which means whoever else comes in will have to suffer it. I'm struggling to see how that's a good prospect.

Where are you basing this all off of? You people all speak as if you know the full story and are going off conflicting reports/rumors. Studio interference? This isn't an art house movie, it's the cornerstone of an entire studio. He isn't Spielberg or James Cameron where he is entitled to carte blanche. And thats assuming that he even wanted that. His move to directing this Magic Kingdom movie surely doesn't speak much for him wanting independence from the studios. Do you think he will get the kind of freedoms he had for Iron Man 2 directing a movie about Disney World?! This is a tourism ad with a plot in the eyes of Disney for their most precious symbol aside from Mickey Mouse.

 

[Doc Samson]

Where are you basing this all off of? You people all speak as if you know the full story and are going off conflicting reports/rumors. Studio interference? This isn't an art house movie, it's the cornerstone of an entire studio. He isn't Spielberg or James Cameron where he is entitled to carte blanche. And thats assuming that he even wanted that. His move to directing this Magic Kingdom movie surely doesn't speak much for him wanting independence from the studios. Do you think he will get the kind of freedoms he had for Iron Man 2 directing a movie about Disney World?! This is a tourism ad with a plot in the eyes of Disney for their most precious symbol aside from Mickey Mouse.

Because where there's smoke there's fire. There can't be this big of a coincidence, there's been multiple stories coming out of either studio interference to the point that the whole movie changes or reluctance to pay talent.

-Mickey Rourke was low-balled for IM2 and I believe he only took the part because he wanted to work with RDJ for many years, and finally had the opportunity to do so.

-Ed Norton/Louis Leterrier both had issues with Marvel insisting on cutting out parts of the script. I understand Marvel being a bit nervous with the movie being too slow again, but nothing I saw on the bonus scenes would have extended the movie that much further

-Terrence Howard was reportedly low-balled as well, and while some may think Cheadle is a better actor (which I do too) in this type of film, your acting pedigree isn't as important as your chemistry with the central character, and Howard had a heck of a lot more chemistry with RDJ.

-Now that I think of it, Samuel L. Jackson was low-balled too, at least initially, and for somebody that's supposed to be the thread that ties all this together, you would think Marvel wouldn't have played games with him for as long as they did

-And now this. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe Favreau just wanted to do his own thing, but at the same time, just look how enthusiastic he was about the whole universe at first. He wanted to executive produce Avengers for Pete's sake, you don't jump at that sort of opportunity if your not fully invested. Now all of a sudden, after IM2, where once again we hear reports of discontent with the director and principal actor over changes being made, mysteriously, he wants nothing to do with the franchise again?

 

[Deaths Head II]

I was worried that Marvel would scare of Favreau with their business practices and it looks like those fears were well founded. This sucks to hear.

 

[ElMariachi]

Because where there's smoke there's fire. There can't be this big of a coincidence, there's been multiple stories coming out of either studio interference to the point that the whole movie changes or reluctance to pay talent.

-Mickey Rourke was low-balled for IM2 and I believe he only took the part because he wanted to work with RDJ for many years, and finally had the opportunity to do so.

-Ed Norton/Louis Leterrir both had issues with Marvel insisting on cutting out parts of the script. I understand Marvel being a bit nervous with the movie being too slow again, but nothing I saw on the bonus scenes would have extended the movie that much further

-Terrence Howard was reportedly low-balled as well, and while some may think Cheadle is a better actor (which I do too) in this type of film, your acting pedigree isn't as important as your chemistry with the central character, and Howard had a heck of a lot more chemistry with RDJ.

-Now that I think of it, Samuel L. Jackson was low-balled too, at least initially, and for somebody that's supposed to be the thread that ties all this together, you would think Marvel wouldn't have played games with him for as long as they did

-And now this. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe Favreau just wanted to do his own thing, but at the same time, just look how enthusiastic he was about the whole universe at first. He wanted to executive produce Avengers for Pete's sake, you don't jump at that sort of opportunity if your not fully invested. Now all of a sudden, after IM2, where once again we hear reports of discontent with the director and principal actor over changes being made, mysteriously, he wants nothing to do with the franchise again?

What do you expect them to do? Highball these actors and directors? When you go to buy a car, do you buy the listed price right away? In the same way, should a film studio pay whatever is asked? You all forget that this is a business. They may have lowballed actors, but you don't know what the situation was in regards to the money. How do you know that SLJ didn't want big money for small roles like he had in IM2? How do you know that Norton didn't want huge money for a role that would most likely be 75% CGI? There are reports that he was and is a diva, yet nobody cares about that side of the story. Then you have Terrence Howard, who wanted a huge paycheck and be paid more/same as RDJ!

You bring up smoke and fire. But Marvel brought on Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Tommy Lee Jones, William Hurt, Tim Roth, Hugo Weaving, Stellan Skarsgard, Stanley Tucci, Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, etc. to their movies. These are some of the best actors in the business are they not? Marvel apparently can bring these actors to their stable, yet it is being said that they are cheap. It doesn't add up does it? Even the lesser characters in Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, and Captain America are highly regarded actors and somewhat well known. A cheap studio would hire nobodies from the CW and cheap young actors like Fox is doing with that awful X-Men movie. If Marvel was as cheap as many of you claim, Cheadle would not be War Machine. The guy from the Old Spice ads would be. The movies would look like cheap crap with poor special effects (cough Wolverine cough), but instead all of their movies have been high quality in this department.

 

[Project862006]

rumor is rdj is the reason favs left

 

[HighFivingMF]

rumor is rdj is the reason favs left

Source would be nice?

 

[Project862006]

cbm i know lol but something to keep the gossip high!!!

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/scifimediazone/news/?a=26487

 

[Mister J]

Jon Favreau Explains Why He Traded ‘Iron Man 3′ For Disneyland Trip


Still making my way through it, but nothing particularly revealing as of yet.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

All I'm gonna say is this, all of this will go away if the remaining three Marvel films (Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers) are successful, including the latter being crazy successful.

The Avengers will not only be the biggest gauge of the superhero genre, but it will no doubt decide the future of Marvel Studios. Will everything, including everything that's happened behind it be worth it.

Either way, someone should make a documentary about this when all the films are done. t:

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

cbm i know lol but something to keep the gossip high!!!

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/scifimediazone/news/?a=26487

Its CBM and it says an exclusive scoop. I don't really ever take CBM seriously as a source, though it does make some sense. I'm just gonna take it with a grain of salt though.

 

[ElMariachi]

Either way, someone should make a documentary about this when all the films are done. t:

yes!

And get the guy who did Cocaine Cowboys to do it.

 

[Doc Samson]

What do you expect them to do? Highball these actors and directors? When you go to buy a car, do you buy the listed price right away? In the same way, should a film studio pay whatever is asked? You all forget that this is a business. They may have lowballed actors, but you don't know what the situation was in regards to the money. How do you know that SLJ didn't want big money for small roles like he had in IM2? How do you know that Norton didn't want huge money for a role that would most likely be 75% CGI? There are reports that he was and is a diva, yet nobody cares about that side of the story. Then you have Terrence Howard, who wanted a huge paycheck and be paid more/same as RDJ!

You bring up smoke and fire. But Marvel brought on Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Tommy Lee Jones, William Hurt, Tim Roth, Hugo Weaving, Stellan Skarsgard, Stanley Tucci, Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, etc. to their movies. These are some of the best actors in the business are they not? Marvel apparently can bring these actors to their stable, yet it is being said that they are cheap. It doesn't add up does it? Even the lesser characters in Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, and Captain America are highly regarded actors and somewhat well known. A cheap studio would hire nobodies from the CW and cheap young actors like Fox is doing with that awful X-Men movie. If Marvel was as cheap as many of you claim, Cheadle would not be War Machine. The guy from the Old Spice ads would be. The movies would look like cheap crap with poor special effects (cough Wolverine cough), but instead all of their movies have been high quality in this department.

That's the issue, what's the sense of bringing in all this talent if you refuse to pay for it after they give you successful movies? What good is it if Cheadle, Hopkins or Renner walk after 1 movie because they aren't getting paid? Or so many changes are made to the movie, nobody feels comfortable with it anymore? Keep doing that a few more times and who's going to be left to work with? No actor or director worth anything is going to sit there and let the studio mismanage the project, or worse, refuse to pay them what their worth? Would you take a pay cut for no reason?

 

[ElMariachi]

Jon Favreau Explains Why He Traded ‘Iron Man 3′ For Disneyland Trip


Still making my way through it, but nothing particularly revealing as of yet.

It is beginning to sound to me like Favreau is a Disneyphile. We saw it in Iron Man 2 with the brilliant Stark Expo scene and the similarities of Howard Stark/Walt Disney.

I love classic Disney stuff, so this movie might actually be pretty good. I wish him best of luck, but it's sad that he isn't finishing the trilogy. It sounds like there wasn't any issue with the studio so I don't understand all the speculation here. Sad though if the reports of an RDJ/Favreau rift are true.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

yes!

And get the guy who did Cocaine Cowboys to do it.

And insert fan opinions throughout as it went from:

(If the Avengers suceeds):

From excitement to confusion, anger (after the Norton thing) to sadness (After the Favs thing) to happiness

(If The Avenger fails):

From excitement to confusiong, anger, to sadness to disappointed/depressed

From excite

 

[Suzanne78]

Hmmm... I guess I'm giving Marvel too much benefit of the doubt but maybe it was simply a matter of franchise burnout for Favs. He really does have a lot on his plate post IM2 and perhaps the thrill factor just isn't there for him like it was with the first movie.

Sure, Marvel probably interfered more than JF would've liked. Maybe there was an increasing rift between JF and RDJ... but studios intervene frequently with their big pics and I didn't have much issue with the Avengers material included. In fact, I really didn't think it was all that intrusive. And I definitely appreciated the small bits of Black Widow; getting to see a female hero kick ass again was very much welcome.

IM2 could've been streamlined, but it still managed to gross almost as much as its predecessor domestically, so... *shrugs*

 

[ElMariachi]

That's the issue, what's the sense of bringing in all this talent if you refuse to pay for it after they give you successful movies? What good is it if Cheadle, Hopkins or Renner walk after 1 movie because they aren't getting paid? Or so many changes are made to the movie, nobody feels comfortable with it anymore? Keep doing that a few more times and who's going to be left to work with? No actor or director worth anything is going to sit there and let the studio mismanage the project, or worse, refuse to pay them what their worth? Would you take a pay cut for no reason?

There is nothing to base this off of though. Howard clearly wanted too much money and they weren't going to overpay for a smaller role. We don't know about the Norton situation, but it's possible that he was behind these problems. Or at least responsible for part of them.

Aside from that, where are all the subtrations in these movies? They have done a good job keeping their talent aside from these two big instances. The Favreau thing is sounding more like he was drawn to a huge Disney project, which he probally is going to get paid alot of money for.

 

[Supermanreturns]

It is beginning to sound to me like Favreau is a Disneyphile. We saw it in Iron Man 2 with the brilliant Stark Expo scene and the similarities of Howard Stark/Walt Disney.

I love classic Disney stuff, so this movie might actually be pretty good. I wish him best of luck, but it's sad that he isn't finishing the trilogy. It sounds like there wasn't any issue with the studio so I don't understand all the speculation here. Sad though if the reports of an RDJ/Favreau rift are true.

Yes. Favreau was a good director for Iron Man but I think he's more suitable as a comedy or a family-movie than Iron Man. You can look from what he have done with these movies: lack of action, more comedy.

I think when they want him for Magic Kingdom he said yes because it's a movie for him.

 

[ElMariachi]

And insert fan opinions throughout as it went from:

(If the Avengers suceeds):

From excitement to confusion, anger (after the Norton thing) to sadness (After the Favs thing) to happiness

(If The Avenger fails):

From excitement to confusiong, anger, to sadness to disappointed/depressed

From excite

That could be an epic documentary. There is so much material that could be used. A whole chapter on just the failures of Fox superhero movies, Alan Moore's whining, the D.C. vs. Marvel rivalry, etc. Of course you would have to get some geeks to inverview like Harry Knowles.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Because where there's smoke there's fire. There can't be this big of a coincidence, there's been multiple stories coming out of either studio interference to the point that the whole movie changes or reluctance to pay talent.

-Mickey Rourke was low-balled for IM2 and I believe he only took the part because he wanted to work with RDJ for many years, and finally had the opportunity to do so.

-Ed Norton/Louis Leterrier both had issues with Marvel insisting on cutting out parts of the script. I understand Marvel being a bit nervous with the movie being too slow again, but nothing I saw on the bonus scenes would have extended the movie that much further

-Terrence Howard was reportedly low-balled as well, and while some may think Cheadle is a better actor (which I do too) in this type of film, your acting pedigree isn't as important as your chemistry with the central character, and Howard had a heck of a lot more chemistry with RDJ.

-Now that I think of it, Samuel L. Jackson was low-balled too, at least initially, and for somebody that's supposed to be the thread that ties all this together, you would think Marvel wouldn't have played games with him for as long as they did

-And now this. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe Favreau just wanted to do his own thing, but at the same time, just look how enthusiastic he was about the whole universe at first. He wanted to executive produce Avengers for Pete's sake, you don't jump at that sort of opportunity if your not fully invested. Now all of a sudden, after IM2, where once again we hear reports of discontent with the director and principal actor over changes being made, mysteriously, he wants nothing to do with the franchise again?

Terrance Howard was never lowballed by the current people in charge. Before Favreau, Downey and the rest were hired, Avi Arad hired him and gave him X amount of money. That amount turned out to be more than RDJ himself.

He didn't deserve a raise or to keep making more than RDJ, no way in hell. So him leaving was more Arad's fault.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Well, obviously Favs doesn't want to do it. His heart is not in it anymore I guess?

I don't think this means the third one will suck. It will be a different beast, though, and that could be very good, actually. The franchise needs a hungry director.

 

[SuperT]

Well his explanation as to why he left makes sense and behold, no foul play or awful negotiations.

Sounds like he just wanted to move onto something that gave him a bit more creative freedom.

 

[Iron_Stark]

It sucks that Favreau isn't coming back, I wish him the best.

I hope they get an equally as talented director.

And for the love of all thats good and holey, get a director that knows action, I love Favs and all, but he just didn't know how to make an action sequence.

 

[ElMariachi]

Yes. Favreau was a good director for Iron Man but I think he's more suitable as a comedy or a family-movie than Iron Man. You can look from what he have done with these movies: lack of action, more comedy.

I think when they want him for Magic Kingdom he said yes because it's a movie for him.

I think he did a great job, but there is so much potential for a new director. This is a high profile, coveted job opening. It's a successful, well liked franchise that can open alot of doors for a middling director. Look what Batman did for Chris Nolan. He wasn't ever going to get the big money needed to fund his dream project (no pun intended) Inception without the success of BB/TDK. I don't know who that director is for Iron Man, but Duncan Jones is the name being thrown around alot.

 

[Gold Samurai]

If this true i find it sad as i would have liked to have seen what direction he would have taken a sequel in with the Mandarin.

Favreau's personal confirmation via twitter

http://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/statuses/14838249365176320

It's true, I'm directing Magic Kingdom, not Iron Man 3. I've had a great run with Marvel and wish them the best.

Well that's it, he's out for good. I guess Iron Man 4 will be a reboot with a younger Tony and it will be influenced by the "Ultimates" version >_>