Iron Man 2 The Official Whiplash Thread

[FaT_tONle]

You said I would continue to excuse Marvel no matter what the situation is. Which isn't true. And TIH proves that. You probably ignored how I was critical that I felt the movie wasn't promoted enough also. Also, while I like the movie a lot and I think it was a big improvement over 2003, it still had some editing and story problems that could've been executed better IMHO.

Also, Variety also isn't accurate 100% of the time. I don't feel inclined to take that snippet as 100% accurate and truthful at face value.

As OsGom said we just know snippets. Posters here take things out of context all the time and go crazy with it.

Several years ago people said Kirsten Dunst should be fired as Mary Jane for getting pregnant because she would be too "fat and ugly" to play the role.

Well TIH was a disappointment as we all know, but I just don't know how IM movies get a pass with all the changes made thus far. I mean new writers/actors... the only constant is RDJ and Favs, and you wonder how long that even lasts. Wouldn't shock me if there is another issue with Paltrow when it's all said and done... but we'll see. I just think that with this many changes... it's ridiculous to assume automatic success... and by that I mean success beyond box office numbers...

 

[Ace of Knaves]

You say actor(s), but isn't it just Rhody who has changed?

 

[Rich Santoro]

I am not sure if this was mentioned (I am trying to catch up on the Rourke pay-day discussion, but there are too many pages, and WAY too many assumptions... as well as lectures).

Rourke has mentioned that he wants to film another movie at the sametime... there are multiple villains... CD / TM (whichever he plays) will most likely be CG and a stuntman in a suit for some close-ups, for many of the shots in which he is in the film...

So, I deduce that Rourke's onscreen minutes will be small (comparatively), and a portion of his time in the film will be voice work (and perhaps a few head-shots, ala the HUD we saw for RDJ). With this in mind, he may not be getting a prime salary offer based on the role being a "supporting" role, rather than a central figure...

Or Marvel is lowballing the hell out this one...

 

[TheVileOne]

Well TIH was a disappointment as we all know, but I just don't know how IM movies get a pass with all the changes made thus far. I mean new writers/actors... the only constant is RDJ and Favs, and you wonder how long that even lasts. Wouldn't shock me if there is another issue with Paltrow when it's all said and done... but we'll see. I just think that with this many changes... it's ridiculous to assume automatic success... and by that I mean success beyond box office numbers...

Fat Toni:

-Only one character from the previous movie has been recast that we know of.

-New writers. Flimsy, illogical, and illegitimate argument. Sequels and comic book movie sequels get new writers all the time. The first Iron Man movie had multiple writers on it in case you've forgotten. X-men 2 got new writing talent involved and it was for the better. Justin Theroux is a talented writer. Also, Favreau is involved in the writing and story process as well just as the first one. He's the main storyteller.

Automatic success, who knows, but success based off the first movie now that it's established is a pretty good bet once the ball is rolling.

No one is giving Iron Man a pass. You are just assuming the worst because you enjoy being negative more.

People as well as the media just generally like to assume the worst.

 

[FaT_tONle]

And what are people like you going to say if SLJ gets replaced... "Oh he was replaceable..." For Ultimate Nick Fury... no... I don't think SLJ is replaceable. I mean I heard a poster saying... "Oh originally he didn't look like SLJ anyways"... Are you serious??? Just can't make it up... and the LAST thing I want is some dumb brute actor playing a no substance villain with brutal dialouge... we all know what happened with Juggernaught. Get Rourke signed and that won't happen. That's what I believe... I am tired of these negotiations and re-negotiations and non-stop bull **** we keep getting with each new development.

 

[cerealkiller182]

And what are people like you going to say if SLJ gets replaced... "Oh he was replaceable..." For Ultimate Nick Fury... no... I don't think SLJ is replaceable. I mean I heard a poster talking about... "Oh originally he didn't look like SLJ anyways"... Are you serious??? Just can't make it up... and the LAST thing I want is some dumb brute actor playing a no substance villain with brutal dialouge... we all know what happened with Juggernaught. Get Rourke signed and that won't happen. That's what I believe... I am tired of these negotiations and re-negotiations and more non-stop bull **** we keep getting with each new development.

Well, when Nick Fury first appeared in Ultimate X-Men he didnt look like SLJ like he did when he was in The Ultimates. Either way I still want him if they are going Ultimate route.

We are hearing every step of every process at Marvel. Im not sure why. If people think this **** isnt happening at other studios (in and out of contract agreements, negotiations with undercut offers) then those people are fooling themselves.

 

[Double Down]

I am not sure if this was mentioned (I am trying to catch up on the Rourke pay-day discussion, but there are too many pages, and WAY too many assumptions... as well as lectures).
Rourke has mentioned that he wants to film another movie at the sametime... there are multiple villains... CD / TM (whichever he plays) will most likely be CG and a stuntman in a suit for some close-ups, for many of the shots in which he is in the film...
So, I deduce that Rourke's onscreen minutes will be small (comparatively), and a portion of his time in the film will be voice work (and perhaps a few head-shots, ala the HUD we saw for RDJ). With this in mind, he may not be getting a prime salary offer based on the role being a "supporting" role, rather than a central figure...
Or Marvel is lowballing the hell out this one...

Seriously, what's with all the lectures?

 

[TheVileOne]

And what are people like you going to say if SLJ gets replaced... "Oh he was replaceable..." For Ultimate Nick Fury... no... I don't think SLJ is replaceable. I mean I heard a poster saying... "Oh originally he didn't look like SLJ anyways"... Are you serious??? Just can't make it up... and the LAST thing I want is some dumb brute actor playing a no substance villain with brutal dialouge... we all know what happened with Juggernaught. Get Rourke signed and that won't happen. That's what I believe... I am tired of these negotiations and re-negotiations and non-stop bull **** we keep getting with each new development.

That's because he didn't. Ultimate Nick Fury's debut he was wrong with HAIR and not bald. Hitch was the one who drew him like Samuel L. Jackson when Ultimates started. And then they threw in the line about wanting to be played by Samuel L. Jackson in a movie.

Tada:

I'm not saying definitively he's replaceable. But I do think some posters like you are putting too much stock into the role he played in the first one which was a post credits 30 second cameo. He didn't make or break the movie with that one cameo.

I'm saying we don't know what the scope of Fury's role would be and we don't know the whole story.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah they brought in SLJ because of Ult. Fury's original appearances in X-Men... The bottom line is he was brought in because of the character depictions from the Ultimates... which the Avengers movie appears to be following rather closely considering the rumored characters in IM2 on top of the SLJ cameo.

 

[AdamantiumWR]

Look it has to be SLJ if they want to do it right. The reason they used SLJ is because that is literally who Ultimate Nick Fury is based on. Marvel comics asked his consent to base the character off of himself. It's not like it just happens to look like him, it is him. They are going to have to really spin it if they aren't going to use him.

 

[TheVileOne]

I'm not sure what you mean there.

Ultimates didn't come after a lot of Ultimate Iron Man stories. Iron Man was in Ultimate Marvel Team-Up but didn't really do much else before Ultimates came along.

The Hawkeye and Black Widow appearances? You obviously don't know much about comic history, because Hawkeye and Black Widow originated as antagonists for Iron Man/Tony Stark in the 1960's. Not sure what this has to do with Marvel basing everything off of Ultimates besides the fact that Hawkeye and Black Widow were both members.

 

[Brian Braddock]

I think a couple of people are not getting what you say, Vile; no matter how many times or how many different ways you have to say it.

Personally, I agree with you. Fury's 1st Ultimate universe appearance wasnt based off SLJ, so I cant understand why are some people so resistant to the idea that another actor can play him (aside from the 10 second clip after the IM credits that only fanboys and bored girlfriends got to see)?

 

[TheVileOne]

Well I'm also not saying someone else should definitely play him. Through revisionist history though people are ignoring that when he first appeared he was not SAMUEL L. JACKSON.

Also, Samuel L. Jacskon isn't the be all end all take of Fury. He's the version for Ultimate Nick Fury. But what about 616 Fury?

 

[FaT_tONle]

The Hawkeye and Black Widow appearances? You obviously don't know much about comic history, because Hawkeye and Black Widow originated as antagonists for Iron Man/Tony Stark in the 1960's. Not sure what this has to do with Marvel basing everything off of Ultimates besides the fact that Hawkeye and Black Widow were both members.

Oh give me a break ... of all the characters in the IM mythos... we get Hawkeye? They are putting him and black widow in there so they'll have them ready for Avengers...

 

[cerealkiller182]

Oh give me a break ... of all the characters in the IM mythos... we get Hawkeye? They are putting him and black widow in there so they'll have them ready for Avengers...

...and? They still fit. Its not like they are introducing Thor in Iron Man, they are introducing 2of his actual supporting characters. One of which has been connected to him and Nick Fury for awhile now it seems (Black Widow) and one who was a regular on his 90s cartoon (Hawkeye).

 

[FaT_tONle]

...and? They still fit. Its not like they are introducing Thor in Iron Man, they are introducing 2of his actual supporting characters. One of which has been connected to him and Nick Fury for awhile now it seems (Black Widow) and one who was a regular on his 90s cartoon (Hawkeye).

And...... look... this is the same ridiculous argument I heard from The Guard in the JLA forums a while back... we (the Mulroney's) are going to include Talia in the script... because she was important in ONE of the comic series... and NOT because of the BB's influence... of all the JLA villains in the gallery. Talia Al Ghul? Why? Because the writers figured Bale would be game for the film. The argument is as ridiculous as that...

And if they were going classic... using all the old comics from the 60's and 70's... we would have just gotten the big six in the Avengers and no one else. And if the film will draw inspiration from both comic series... it still means Ultimates will be heavily factored... meaning SLJ is vital for the film.

 

[TheVileOne]

Hawkeye did become an Avenger in the 60's you know. Black Widow became an Avenger in the 1970's.

You don't know much about comic history at all.

Hawkeye and Black Widow in their history originated as Iron Man characters in the comics. We don't exactly know what role if any they are playing in Iron Man 2, as well as Iron Man for that matter.

 

[cerealkiller182]

And...... look... this is the same ridiculous argument I heard from The Guard in the JLA forums a while back... we (the Mulroney's) are going to include Talia in the script... because she was important in one of the comic series... and not because of the BB's influence... of all the JLA villains in the gallery. Talia Al Ghul? Why? Because the writers figured Bale would be game for the film. The argument is as ridiculous as that...

I dont think so. Marvel actually has commited people that they dont have to try and bait into a joint film. marvel was very clear that they were building towards an avengers movie with these solos yet they havent added anybody that is inappropriately placed in the series. Thats the point. And Talia might have appeared in a JLA arc at some point but she STARTED in Batman, same with Hawkeye. He started in IRON MAN but has appeared in Avengers but with a bigger role than Talia ever had.

And if they were going classic... using all the old comics from the 60's and 70's... we would have just gotten the big six in the Avengers and no one else. And if the film will draw inspiration from both comic series... it still means Ultimates will be heavily factored... meaning SLJ is vital for the film.

They are using a number of different sources. Not just one. SLJ is not vital just because they drew him like the character. I would PREFER him if they are using the Ultimate version, but i really dont see him being more important.

 

[TheVileOne]

Right Ultimates isn't the be all end all source. I'm sure it will be an influence in some respects.

With Iron Man they didn't have Tony in Vietnam, they used the more modern origin update with the Middle East.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Hawkeye did become an Avenger in the 60's you know. Black Widow became an Avenger in the 1970's.

You don't know much about comic history at all.

Hawkeye and Black Widow in their history originated as Iron Man characters in the comics. We don't exactly know what role if any they are playing in Iron Man 2, as well as Iron Man for that matter.

Vile... I may not be as up to date as you... but believe me... I am aware of these issues. So stop using that elitist argument that I am unaware of the history. But if they were strictly making a classic Avengers movie, I don't believe they would have gotten far enough to include those two characters... the arcs involving Hulk and Captain America are more than enough material for the first film. Hawkeye and BW only came later on. And I have no problem setting them up in IM2... I am saying it coincides more with the Ultimates timeline than it does the classic for the obvious reason that Avengers is due a year later... they could have saved those character origins for later films. But I think they want them out there before the Avengers movie, which will be heavily geared toward the Ultimates as is obvious with the inclusion of SLJ.

I dont think so. Marvel actually has commited people that they dont have to try and bait into a joint film. marvel was very clear that they were building towards an avengers movie with these solos yet they havent added anybody that is inappropriately placed in the series. Thats the point. And Talia might have appeared in a JLA arc at some point but she STARTED in Batman, same with Hawkeye. He started in IRON MAN but has appeared in Avengers but with a bigger role than Talia ever had.

Exactly... but you can't tell me why they would put Hawkeye in there at this very moment when there are clearly other vital characters that have not been touched upon yet. It's not a coincidence...

They are using a number of different sources. Not just one. SLJ is not vital just because they drew him like the character. I would PREFER him if they are using the Ultimate version, but i really dont see him being more important.

Yeah you prefer... anyone would prefer... is he vital? I'd lean more toward "yes"... since it either means a recast (which is bad)... or worse going back to 616... which is such a bad idea IMO that it is beyond words. Will I get over a recast? I guess... but how many more recasts are we going to get? That would already be two... for that reason it's VERY important.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Exactly... but you can't tell me why they would put Hawkeye in there at this very moment when there are clearly other vital characters that have not been touched upon yet. It's not a coincidence...

I dont understand. I have been saying saying that Hawkeye is the only choice for supporting character somewhere. NO! I said that Hawkeye is a member of the Avengers and has been a supporting character of Iron Man so it makes perfect sense he would show up. Nor is he a ridiculous addition because he makes sense.

Yeah you prefer... anyone would prefer... is he vital? I'd lean more toward "yes"... since it either means a recast (which is bad)... or worse going back to 616... which is such a bad idea IMO that it is beyond words. Will I get over a recast? I guess... but how many more recasts are we going to get? That would already be two... for that reason it's VERY important.

Recasting a tiny cameo? I really dont think it will hurt that bad. Going back to 616? I wouldnt mind that at all, always perfered him over Ultimate but I dont have some vendetta against him like others. Overall, I think they should keep SLJ just because they already used him. But VITAL? DOnt act like he was the glue that held Iron Man together.

I'm not crazy about recasts just for the sake of continuity but you are completely blowing this out of proportion. Marvel is making plenty of mistakes but it will work out. They are a rookie studio who has to figure there **** out. I also cant remember the last time so much information about a studios inner goings like we have this one. Every studio could be going through the same motions and we just dont know about it. I suggest no one assume that we know what is business as usual or not.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I dont understand. I have been saying saying that Hawkeye is the only choice for supporting character somewhere. NO! I said that Hawkeye is a member of the Avengers and has been a supporting character of Iron Man so it makes perfect sense he would show up. Nor is he a ridiculous addition because he makes sense.

Exactly... only Hawkeye isn't a FOUNDING MEMBER... that's the argument here... why is Hawkeye showing up in Avengers if it is indeed an origin film like we all presume it is... answer??? Because both he and Black Widow showed up in Ultimates right off the bat.

Recasting a tiny cameo? I really dont think it will hurt that bad. Going back to 616? I wouldnt mind that at all, always perfered him over Ultimate but I dont have some vendetta against him like others. Overall, I think they should keep SLJ just because they already used him. But VITAL? DOnt act like he was the glue that held Iron Man together.

He's not vital for IM... he's vital for the Avengers movie...

I'm not crazy about recasts just for the sake of continuity but you are completely blowing this out of proportion. Marvel is making plenty of mistakes but it will work out. They are a rookie studio who has to figure there **** out. I also cant remember the last time so much information about a studios inner goings like we have this one. Every studio could be going through the same motions and we just dont know about it. I suggest no one assume that we know what is business as usual or not.

Maybe a little... but this is all rhetoric... I have already said I'll give them a pass with SLJ... it's frustrating but you just learn to move on. Again... this is strike 2... not 1 1/2... at least in my book. Once Norton goes, then I'll really go off.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Exactly... only Hawkeye isn't a FOUNDING MEMBER... that's the argument here... why is Hawkeye showing up in Avengers if it is indeed an origin film like we all presume it is... answer??? Because both he and Black Widow showed up in Ultimates right off the bat.

...And? I already admitted that they are taking influence from more than one source. PLus I'm sure the reason they are showing up right off the bat in Avengers is the same reason they showed up right off the bat in Ultimates, because they have become fan favorites.

The first X-Men wasnt Pr. X and his founding members either.

He's not vital for IM... he's vital for the Avengers movie...

Fury? Yes, Marvel has positioned the character as the man who brings them together. SLJ? No, another black actor could play him.

Maybe a little... but this is all rhetoric... I have already said I'll give them a pass with SLJ... it's frustrating but you just learn to move on. Again... this is strike 2... not 1 1/2... at least in my book. Once Norton goes, then I'll really go off.

But he hasnt officially moved on. All we know is that SLJ isnt getting the deal he wanted.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I do keep forgetting the fact that they are "technically" negotiating, but it's not like we can confirm that. Maybe negotiations are on an indefinite hold for all we know. The point is... the damage is already been done. If this is a picture by picture deal... how on Earth are they getting this done the next time out? The rift has already been created...

 

[cerealkiller182]

I do keep forgetting the fact that they are "technically" negotiating, but it's not like we can confirm that. Maybe negotiations are on an indefinite hold for all we know. The point is... the damage is already been done. If this is a picture by picture deal... how on Earth are they getting this done the next time out? The rift has already been created...

What if they are picture by picture deals? All our info comes from the actors themselves, SLJ could re-negotiating like an a-hole rather than Marvel being the tightwads they are portrayed as.

Like I said, I dont think any of us should act like what Marvel is doing is any different than any other studio. Nortons mad that they took his cut, that happens like 8 times a year at every studio. We have no idea what day-to-day business as usual should go. 250k starting bid could be very normal.