Robert Downey Jr. Is Dr. Doom / Victor Von Doom - "Same task, new mask"

[AndrewGilkison]

They're getting his name on the poster and that's all most will care about. If this wasn't a safe move, someone else would have been cast. They're not investing 100 mil per movie on what they deem a risk. They're spending it exactly for the opposite.

That doesn't make any sense. People love RDJ as Tony Stark. Turning him villain is a big swing that will either be a massive success, or a massive fail. But its not safe. It is very subversive.

Being safe would be casting someone like Cillian Murphy or Mads Mikkelsen, both actors who are practically typecast as villains, and don't have the baggage of being the face of Marvel the way RDJ was for a decade.

 

[Boom]

As a side note, this mask is perfect. No notes. Hopefully we at least get a faithful design for the guy. I'll take whatever victories I can at this point.

 

[Breogan]

... its not safe. It is very subversive..

 

[Spider-Fan]

That doesn't make any sense. People love RDJ as Tony Stark. Turning him villain is a big swing that will either be a massive success, or a massive fail. But its not safe. It is very subversive.

Being safe would be casting someone like Cillian Murphy or Mads Mikkelsen, both actors who are practically typecast as villains, and don't have the baggage of being the face of Marvel the way RDJ was for a decade.

They do love him as Tony Stark. Hence why they're bringing him back. Using him as the villain is safe way to make cheap headlines and get people say "How can you make Iron Man evil!" But it isn't a big swing. The evil opposite is a common trope. It is far more safe to cast someone people know and recognize than someone without proven drawing power in this kind of movie.

 

[Boom]

I'm thinking of the "Bucky?"/"Who's Bucky?" meme.

 

[lenz]

I do agree that there's probably going to be a reset after Secret Wars but I don't think it's gonna be a total reboot. Reason being is Feige's thought process on it.

"In a million years I would not advocate rebooting the Iron Man MCU. To me it's James Bond and we can keep telling new stories for decades even with different actors."

Now granted, this email from Feige (part of the Sony leaks) was from 14 years ago, long before they decided to kill off Tony. The MCU was in a vastly difference place then than it is now. People can certaintly change their minds on things, especially when billions of dollars is on the line. But I do think there is some aspect of this is still true. I do think there will be a reset but in a way that still keeps the MCU's history intact. I don't see them retelling people's origin stories again but I do think there gonna do something to reopen up the door to retired/dead characters.

I always thought that was a silly statement based on pure ego and dillusion, because it already assumes an audience will always be there. The BOND example even then was laughable, because there was only one film every few years or so with that franchise, not multiple. In 2010, there had been 21 Bond films over a 46 year period. It took the MCU only 11 years to get to that number. If you asked him in 2010 whether he would consider Downey Doom, I bet he'd think it crazy. Here we are, lol.

 

[Venom 1988]

I always thought that was a silly statement based on pure ego and dillusion, because it already assumes an audience will always be there. The BOND example even then was laughable, because there was only one film every few years or so with that franchise, not multiple. In 2010, there had been 21 Bond films over a 46 year period. It took the MCU only 11 years to get to that number. If you asked him in 2010 whether he would consider Downey Doom, I bet he'd think it crazy. Here we are, lol.

Tbf, I think he's just saying everytime there was a new Bond (except Craig) they didn't try to redo his origin or repeat stories over and over again. Here's Bond and here's his next mission. They're similar to comics in that they have a sliding timeline. Yea over the years there might be continuity issues here or retcons there but he was considered to be the same character (at least to the point that no one put much thought into it anyway).

 

[AndrewGilkison]

They do love him as Tony Stark. Hence why they're bringing him back. Using him as the villain is safe way to make cheap headlines and get people say "How can you make Iron Man evil!" But it isn't a big swing. The evil opposite is a common trope. It is far more safe to cast someone people know and recognize than someone without proven drawing power in this kind of movie.

So turning Tony Stark, the most popular MCU hero, into the biggest Marvel supervillain is "playing it safe".... but casting some of the names floated around for Doom, some of which were the most obvious choices (like Mads Mikkelsen and Cillian Murphy), is risk taking?

 

[Spider-Fan]

So turning Tony Stark, the most popular MCU hero, into the biggest Marvel supervillain is "playing it safe".... but casting some of the names floated around for Doom, some of which were the most obvious choices (like Mads Mikkelsen and Cillian Murphy), is risk taking?

This pivot by its nature is risk adverse. The actual risky move would have been to keep going with a new Kang. But paying RDJ a bunch of money is definitely a safer play on the safeness spectrum than casting the other people you mentioned.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

This pivot by its nature is risk adverse. The actual risky move would have been to keep going with a new Kang. But paying RDJ a bunch of money is definitely a safer play on the safeness spectrum than casting the other people you mentioned.

Why is casting Cillian Murphy as Doom a "risk" when he was on everyone's fan cast practically? Its not like he's an unknown at this point either. That casting choice would not have generated any type of controversy whatsoever.

 

[lenz]

Tbf, I think he's just saying everytime there was a new Bond (except Craig) they didn't try to redo his origin or repeat stories over and over again. Here's Bond and here's his next mission. They're similar to comics in that they have a sliding timeline. Yea over the years there might be continuity issues here or retcons there but he was considered to be the same character (at least to the point that no one put much thought into it anyway).

True. The Bond fanchise itself has had peaks and valleys in terms of box office and cultural relevance. The Craig era was a harder reboot, but it also produced some of the best films and box office success in (arguably) decades because of it. For me personally, after SW, I'd love a hard reboot and not some wishy-washy mixture of new and old. Clean slate.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Why is casting Cillian Murphy as Doom a "risk" when he was on everyone's fan cast practically? Its not like he's an unknown at this point either. That casting choice would not have generated any type of controversy whatsoever.

I didn't say it was a risk. But it is riskier than RDJ cause RDJ played Tony Stark and the public interest with him is much higher. Yes, he is playing a villain. But that ultimately doesn't matter. Just adds a curiosity factor for the casual that don't follow this like we do. The controversy generated by the RDJ casting is amongst fans. There is no controversy amongst your average movie goer. It's a beyond safe move

 

[Venom 1988]

Why is casting Cillian Murphy as Doom a "risk" when he was on everyone's fan cast practically? Its not like he's an unknown at this point either. That casting choice would not have generated any type of controversy whatsoever.

It also wouldn't have generated the amount of hype that the RDJ announcement had either (15th most viewed video of all time on Instagram for what it's worth). While to some it is controversial, a whole heck of a lot more people (unfortunately) are pretty excited for it. I've seen posts from different platforms where we people are practically going crazy about it. And others that claim they gave up on the MCU and this brought them back. I don't like it but it seems the casual fans are all for it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It also wouldn't have generated the amount of hype that the RDJ announcement had either (15th most viewed video on Instagram of all time for what it's worth). While to some it is controversial, a whole heck of a lot more people (unfortunately) are pretty excited for it. I've seen posts from different platforms where we people are practically going crazy about it. And others that claim they gave up on the MCU and this brought them back. I don't like it but it seems the casual fans are all for it.

This move is 100% for the casual people who stopped watching. Marvel doesn't care about us. They know they have us in their pocket. It doesn't matter to Marvel if fans like me are upset about what it appears is going to be done with Doom. Their priority isn't to build a Doom for the next 20 years. Getting the casual fan back on board now means more to them than that does. I 100% don't like it, but it's the reality. I don't expect these Avengers films to be as well regarded critically and such as IW or EG were. But Marvel cares less about that and more on that $$$$$.

 

[Kon]

Why is casting Cillian Murphy as Doom a "risk" when he was on everyone's fan cast practically? Its not like he's an unknown at this point either. That casting choice would not have generated any type of controversy whatsoever.

It's a bigger risk due to the current situation of the new Avengers in the MCU. Disney hardly could depend on the team for Avengers 5 and 6.

Cillian Murphy as Doom will hardly ignite emotion on the general audience. They will need to work on the character without the assurance that the general audience will be interested.

Instead, RDJ as Doom automatically receives hype and emotion from general audience. It's appearance will also bring part of the audience lost in the last years.

That's why RDJ as Doom is the safe choice.

 

[lenz]

This move is 100% for the casual people who stopped watching. Marvel doesn't care about us. They know they have us in their pocket. It doesn't matter to Marvel if fans like me are upset about what it appears is going to be done with Doom. Their priority isn't to build a Doom for the next 20 years. Getting the casual fan back on board now means more to them than that does. I 100% don't like it, but it's the reality. I don't expect these Avengers films to be as well regarded critically and such as IW or EG were. But Marvel cares less about that and more on that $$$$$.

Ultimately, none of this matters if everything is being reset In a few years. That's my optimistic outlook, born out of increasing cynicism.

It's clear Marvel has worn out it's welcome with a number of critics now, as well as people working in the industy itself. Seemingly, we can expect on cue, a well- timed hit-piece from a trade, magazine, or sensitive artiste who has a gripe about the state of films conveniently around the time a new MCU film hits the market. The most important people who have your back is, usually, the fans. So to assume, or take for granted that these fans will always have your back in this 'dialect', while continually swallow whatever form of quality you decide to serve them, is the ultimate form of hubris and disrespect. Once fans become cynical about the motives, about creative decisions, about the films themselves, then it's inevitable, at some point, this will dramatically effect the impact your films make downstream. That is the inherent risk in a decision like this, because it feeds into this mindset. The negative impact may not be felt immediately, say with Doomsday, but things always have a way of catching up with you.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Ultimately, none of this matters if everything is being reset In a few years. That's my optimistic outlook, born out of increasing cynicism.

It's clear Marvel has worn out it's welcome with a number of critics now, as well as people working in the industy itself. Seemingly, we can expect on cue, a well- timed hit-piece from a trade, magazine, or sensitive artiste who has a gripe about the state of films conveniently around the time a new MCU film hits the market. The most important people who have your back is, usually, the fans. So to assume, or take for granted that these fans will always have your back in this 'dialect', while continually swallow whatever form of quality you decide to serve them, is the ultimate form of hubris and disrespect. Once fans become cynical about the motives, about creative decisions, about the films themselves, then it's inevitable, at some point, this will dramatically effect the impact your films make downstream. That is the inherent risk in a decision like this, because it feeds into this mindset. The negative impact may not be felt immediately, say with Doomsday, but things always have a way of catching up with you.

I agree that the short term $$$$ gains will come back to bite them, as this will take Doom essentially off the board for being a future FF movie villain and Avengers crossover bad guy in a better developed story in all likelihood. So you're losing on 2 fronts. Plus you're pivoting this late in the game, which is going to not be good for the creative quality. Never is when you have to pull something out of where the sun doesn't shine. Plus, if these end up being more divisive movies, as I am expecting they will be for a variety of factors, that will hurt the brand's credibility more than Quantumania or whatever ever could have. Cause Avengers IS the Marvel brand right now.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I find the notion that RDJ as Doom is a big swing or a risk to be pretty funny. It's anything but a risk. It's the safest possible risk adverse move ever

Well I think the very reaction of his casting (which largely seems confusion, surprise and outrage) shows that it absolutely wasn't safe.

Also years of the Russos, RDJ and Feige all basically saying Stark's death was final, they wouldn't bring him back unless the story REALLY called for it etc. I mean the Russos have been super adamant in the past that RDJ's journey was ended and they closed that chapter.

So I would think the risk is obvious? The Russo's aren't idiots. They know exactly what it looks like. It directly contradicts what they've previously said, which obviously invites scrutiny. Which is the risk?

A better example of Marvel playing it safe is casting someone like Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards, because he's so inoffensively fine. Like people love Pedro, he's great in a lot of already popular things. He could still be a good Reed. But there's nothing about that casting that knocks your socks off.

In a way, I think the RDJ Doom casting is the most exciting casting they've done in a while because it makes me go "WTF?!? What the hell are they planning?" Which is the most intrigued I've been about an MCU project in ages.

And the intrigue and excitement is one of the main things I miss from the early days of the MCU. I miss being like "How the hell are they going to make Thor exist in the same world as 2008's Iron Man?!?"

They're getting his name on the poster and that's all most will care about. If this wasn't a safe move, someone else would have been cast. They're not investing 100 mil per movie on what they deem a risk. They're spending it exactly for the opposite.

I think you're looking at Safe vs Risky the wrong way. If they just wanted a big name for the poster to draw people in, there are plenty of huge names that still could have done that. If they just wanted RDJ to come back, then why not specifically bring back Tony Stark? THAT would be the safest, Iron Man is coming back! People love Iron Man!

Risky is bringing back the most iconic MCU actor as a different character. Most people immediately went "Why?" That potentially confuses people. Potentially cheapens the story telling of the world. The ending of Tony's arc. I mean, literally all the proof of why it's a risky move is in every page of this thread?

Also I would say there's difference between making a safe choice and "Playing it safe". Are the Russo's a safe choice? Sure, because they've proven it? They went from directing a comedy show on television to making the most iconic and popular Marvel films of all time. They're safe NOW, sure. But is what they're doing "playing it safe"? So far, doesn't look like it... And we don't even know 99% of what they've got planned. So how can we say they're a safe choice when so far the only confirmed they've done is announce a casting that instantly divided people?

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Ultimately, none of this matters if everything is being reset In a few years. That's my optimistic outlook, born out of increasing cynicism.

It's clear Marvel has worn out it's welcome with a number of critics now, as well as people working in the industy itself. Seemingly, we can expect on cue, a well- timed hit-piece from a trade, magazine, or sensitive artiste who has a gripe about the state of films conveniently around the time a new MCU film hits the market. The most important people who have your back is, usually, the fans. So to assume, or take for granted that these fans will always have your back in this 'dialect', while continually swallow whatever form of quality you decide to serve them, is the ultimate form of hubris and disrespect. Once fans become cynical about the motives, about creative decisions, about the films themselves, then it's inevitable, at some point, this will dramatically effect the impact your films make downstream. That is the inherent risk in a decision like this, because it feeds into this mindset. The negative impact may not be felt immediately, say with Doomsday, but things always have a way of catching up with you.

I get where you're coming from, but I would also say the comics are a pretty great reference point for the opposite. Some of the best turning points in the comics over the decades weren't full reboots so much as rejuvenating the universes, which is obviously what the MCU needs. But creatively, due to the nature of the MCU, they can make the reboot seem organic and earned. Most superhero universes just release a new movie with a new cast and go "Look it's different now".

Marvel can smash this universe with a high stakes, explosive bang and then usher in a new storytelling universe... But that doesn't mean it won't be a universe bearing the scars of the previous one. You look at the comics, even after massive reboot type events, they still have characters who remember whats happened, the people they've lost, the way things have changed.

I think reboots typically have a negative connotation when it comes to movies, but I just think about all the times that the Russo's have shook up the MCU before. The destruction of SHIELD in TWS, Civil War, the Thanos Snap and then the deaths in Endgame. They love massive, high stakes events with real and lasting consequences.

So any universe reboot they engineer, I can't imagine it being any different from their previous story events.

 

[lenz]

I get where you're coming from, but I would also say the comics are a pretty great reference point for the opposite. Some of the best turning points in the comics over the decades weren't full reboots so much as rejuvenating the universes, which is obviously what the MCU needs. But creatively, due to the nature of the MCU, they can make the reboot seem organic and earned. Most superhero universes just release a new movie with a new cast and go "Look it's different now".

Marvel can smash this universe with a high stakes, explosive bang and then usher in a new storytelling universe... But that doesn't mean it won't be a universe bearing the scars of the previous one. You look at the comics, even after massive reboot type events, they still have characters who remember whats happened, the people they've lost, the way things have changed.

I think reboots typically have a negative connotation when it comes to movies, but I just think about all the times that the Russo's have shook up the MCU before. The destruction of SHIELD in TWS, Civil War, the Thanos Snap and then the deaths in Endgame. They love massive, high stakes events with real and lasting consequences.

So any universe reboot they engineer, I can't imagine it being any different from their previous story events.

I'm more coming at it from a real world, practical POV. No doubt the intent is to make the reboot feel organic and fully earned with these next 2 Avengers films. My main interest is not so much how they create that bridge and set the table for what's to follow, I'm more interested in the foundation itself, what is left afterwards to build upon.

Will the Russos effort over these next two films (assuming they are great) really be worth it? We'll find out. Do fans really want the 2.0 version of the MCU? Basically the same thing all over again, with a fresh coat of paint? Same general tone, same general beats, mainly 4-quadrant, 200 m films, rinse & repeat. Will the fact they have the FF and X-Men from the start this time be enough of a differentiator, with a few R rated titles thrown in occasionally to appease?

There are obvious advantages for doing things the way they did, clearly, but as movie universes go on, just like in the comics, they become prisoners of their own past, and after a point just lose reasonance. If they start anew, but it still feels the same, I really don't see 2.0 having the same mileage. They need to be more adventurous now, explore new territory, maybe attract some established directors, not send them running because they want to create a film, not a puzzle piece. Change is the price of survival, but I feel its just going to be the same old voices in the room, doing things the only way they know how. I know plenty of fans would be happy if they just did the MCU from IM to Endgame again, only with more characters this time. I think that's a mistake.

 

[elgaz]

It’s a strange casting choice for sure, one I’m struggling to understand until we learn more.

There are many, many accomplished and talented actors out there who could play Victor Von Doom. I personally thought Mikkelsen would have been perfect at one point, though when he was cast in a villainous role in Dr Strange I gave up on that being a possibility.

RDJ is well loved as Stark obviously, but it appears he’s not being cast as a Stark variant who becomes Doom - he is Victor Von Doom himself. So there has to be a reason they have the same face. Maybe he will be masked, maybe he will be scarred and unrecognisable, maybe we the audience are just meant to buy it, maybe Doom alters his aesthetic to mirror Stark for some reason, but all those possibilities still seem like a stretch.

I’m sure RDJ will do a fantastic job but I’m hoping they actually have some story reason for Doom and Stark looking physically identical, and it didn’t just boil down to desperation and them being completely unable to think of another actor who could do the role.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Well I think the very reaction of his casting (which largely seems confusion, surprise and outrage) shows that it absolutely wasn't safe.

Also years of the Russos, RDJ and Feige all basically saying Stark's death was final, they wouldn't bring him back unless the story REALLY called for it etc. I mean the Russos have been super adamant in the past that RDJ's journey was ended and they closed that chapter.

So I would think the risk is obvious? The Russo's aren't idiots. They know exactly what it looks like. It directly contradicts what they've previously said, which obviously invites scrutiny. Which is the risk?

A better example of Marvel playing it safe is casting someone like Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards, because he's so inoffensively fine. Like people love Pedro, he's great in a lot of already popular things. He could still be a good Reed. But there's nothing about that casting that knocks your socks off.

In a way, I think the RDJ Doom casting is the most exciting casting they've done in a while because it makes me go "WTF?!? What the hell are they planning?" Which is the most intrigued I've been about an MCU project in ages.

And the intrigue and excitement is one of the main things I miss from the early days of the MCU. I miss being like "How the hell are they going to make Thor exist in the same world as 2008's Iron Man?!?"



I think you're looking at Safe vs Risky the wrong way. If they just wanted a big name for the poster to draw people in, there are plenty of huge names that still could have done that. If they just wanted RDJ to come back, then why not specifically bring back Tony Stark? THAT would be the safest, Iron Man is coming back! People love Iron Man!

Risky is bringing back the most iconic MCU actor as a different character. Most people immediately went "Why?" That potentially confuses people. Potentially cheapens the story telling of the world. The ending of Tony's arc. I mean, literally all the proof of why it's a risky move is in every page of this thread?

Also I would say there's difference between making a safe choice and "Playing it safe". Are the Russo's a safe choice? Sure, because they've proven it? They went from directing a comedy show on television to making the most iconic and popular Marvel films of all time. They're safe NOW, sure. But is what they're doing "playing it safe"? So far, doesn't look like it... And we don't even know 99% of what they've got planned. So how can we say they're a safe choice when so far the only confirmed they've done is announce a casting that instantly divided people?

I am sorry, but I don't in anyway agree with this sentiment. This is move was made for casuals and not fans. The social media reactions are from fans. Not the people this was targeted for. For your casual movie goer, this is the most risk adverse move ever

 

[BatLobster]

I kinda figured RDJ returning to the MCU was an inevitable at some point, but to announce this so soon honestly just feels like a very desparate and cynical move to me.

The flip side of this is that RJD just reminded everyone with Oppenheimer that he's an incredible actor who can totally disappear into a role if he wants to, so I'd like to this he will really embrace this as an acting challenge to do something radically different than Tony Stark and be a great villain.

But it's just hard not to see this as a studio that is struggling with how to create another big "event" and is willing to fork out ungodly amounts of money to one actor to do so. It'll probably pay off, but...at the moment, idk. Eh.

 

[Boom]

Jeff Sneider heard he is playing a Tony Stark variant who goes by "Doctor Doom."

This is my hell.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Jeff Sneider heard he is playing a Tony Stark variant who goes by "Doctor Doom."

This is my hell.

Has he said anything else beyond what he already wrote in this article?

Inside Robert Downey Jr.’s MCU Return and His Casting as Doctor Doom

Plus, Steven Caple Jr. is in talks to direct I Am Legend 2, but only after getting into an argument with Transformers producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura.

www.theinsneider.com