Marvel Films Worst MCU movie?

[Venom 1988]

That film was actually rushed.

Apparently Thor and Hulk didn’t make as much as hoped stirring articles to question if Avengers would be a success or a flop. Not due to budget but perceived interest in Marvel and a supposed “superhero fatigue.”

That rushed Iron Man 2 into production (well, according to Vice’s Icons Unearthed at least).

Iron Man 2 was released before Thor or Cap. So Iron Man 2 may very well have been rushed, but it was not due to the performances of Thor or Cap as they had no box office when it was released

IM2 was rushed into production yea (they only had less than 2 years) but it was rushed because of how succesful Iron Man 1 was. David Maisel wanted to strike while the iron was hot and get working on a sequel asap. This was also partly due to them wanting to pay back the Merrill Lynch loan earlier than they intially expected.

 

[Cap2024]

IM2 was rushed into production yea (they only had less than 2 years) but it was rushed because of how succesful Iron Man 1 was. David Maisel wanted to strike while the iron was hot and get working on a sequel asap. This was also partly due to them wanting to pay back the Merrill Lynch loan earlier than they intially expected.

Yeah, I got Thor and Cap mixed up.

May have been they didn’t know if those would be solid hits after Hulk which was noticeable dip from Iron Man earnings.

What I mostly recall from Icons Unearthed: Marvel episode 2 (which had interviews with those involved behind the scenes) was the company was financially stressed and they were unsure of how others would perform.

 

[Venom 1988]

Yeah, I got Thor and Cap mixed up.

May have been they didn’t know if those would be solid hits after Hulk which was noticeable dip from Iron Man earnings.

What I mostly recall from Icons Unearthed: Marvel episode 2 (which had interviews with those involved behind the scenes) was the company was financially stressed and they were unsure of how others would perform.

The info I cited is directly from an interview with Maisel from the Reign of Marvel Studios book. Also IM2 was greenlit before Hulk came out.

 

[Cap2024]

The info I cited is directly from an interview with Maisel from the Reign of Marvel Studios book. Also IM2 was greenlit before Hulk came out.

Was it just green lit or fast tracked “we need tomorrow”? There’s a difference.

Obviously it would be green lit before Hulk came out. The difference is was it going to have a more standard production window or be rushed.

Adding: a film can be green lit and then have the timeframe to complete and premiere it significantly tightened. This is the situation I’m referring to.

 

[Venom 1988]

Was it just green lit or fast tracked “we need tomorrow”? There’s a difference.

Obviously it would be green lit before Hulk came out. The difference is was it going to have a more standard production window or be rushed.

Adding: a film can be green lit and then have the timeframe to complete and premiere it significantly tightened. This is the situation I’m referring to.

...I know there's difference. And I don't understand why you're questioning all this when the info is readily available. But if you want a timeline...

* David Maisel hosted a dinner for Downey and Favreau the weekend of the Iron Man 1 premier to one celebrate the soon to be success of the movie and two get them commited to do a sequel in exactly 2 years. He even tried to entice them by even buying them cars. Favreau was sceptical given how much work went into the first one and now he was gonna commit to another. And he didn't officially sign on until a few months later.

* After opening weekend, Marvel announced the sequel was being developed with an intial release date of April 30th, 2010 (this later got delayed to May 7th). Again a month before TIH even came out, so already they are putting themselves on this crunch timline, regardless how the Hulk's box office performance was going to turn out.

 

[Cap2024]

...I know there's difference. And I don't understand why you're questioning all this when the info is readily available. But if you want a timeline...

* David Maisel hosted a dinner for Downey and Favreau the weekend of the Iron Man 1 premier to one celebrate the soon to be success of the movie and two get them commited to do a sequel in exactly 2 years. He even tried to entice them by even buying them cars. Favreau was sceptical given how much work went into the first one and now he was gonna commit to another. And he didn't officially sign on until a few months later.

* After opening weekend, Marvel announced the sequel was being developed with an intial release date of April 30th, 2010 (this later got delayed to May 7th). Again a month before TIH even came out, so already they are putting themselves on this crunch timline, regardless how the Hulk's box office performance was going to turn out.

As you said - the information is readily available and can even be viewed at this Amazon link here (for free, so anyone with Prime can see it).

But, if you want a transcript...

Vice TV: The Incredible Hulk had stumbled, making less than Iron Man's box office, putting the MCU on uneven ground. To even things up, Feige and Marvel had a choice to make.

Zack Stentz (Thor screenwriter) : They had a board and it was like Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America, and then like TBD movie, TBD movie. And then we came in one morning and we saw they had flipped Iron Man 2 and Thor.

[supplemental material: 'Thor gets a date in 2010' Empire article link (released 2011, this is why I got confused with including Thor before - I thought I remembered that it played a role somehow]

Vice TV: Thor was considered a much bigger risk than the Hulk. At the same time, Iron Man 2 was in a position to set up the bigger MCU.

Todd McFarlane: If you build a strong foundation as they did with Iron Man, you can put a skyscrapper on a strongfoundation.

Vice TV: Iron Man 2 was now set to come out a year earlier than expected, sending the production into scramble mode.

[supplemental material: the only trace that I can find of the 2011 release date being flirted with is this interview with Jon where he states 2010 or 2011 and these comments in 2008 for the LA Times (which the article says there was a debacle with Jon and that he has now confirmed (in August) that it is set for 2010); which has it sound as though 2011 was discussed more during this time period (summer, 2008) as a possibility. Due to how many years ago these articles are - it's difficult to actually find articles to present here. If I was to guess, behind the scenes Jon may have wanted 2011 whereas Marvel wanted 2010 that could explain discrepancies and the "debacle".]

Adam Chitwood (The Wrap writer): Immediately Jon Favreau was under the gun, and he's gotta get the sequel made, and the sequel has to be successful.

I guess it all comes down to whose side of the story one is more apt to believe - an "unauthorized" account or an account by Vice TV that is authorized.

Adding: Marvel, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, James Bond, Batman, and the Fast and the Furious franchises have all entrusted Vice TV with access to film clips and interviews with the filmmakers involved.

 

[Venom 1988]

As you said - the information is readily available and can even be viewed at this Amazon link here (for free, so anyone with Prime can see it).

But, if you want a transcript...

Vice TV: The Incredible Hulk had stumbled, making less than Iron Man's box office, putting the MCU on uneven ground. To even things up, Feige and Marvel had a choice to make.

Zack Stentz (Thor screenwriter) : They had a board and it was like Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America, and then like TBD movie, TBD movie. And then we came in one morning and we saw they had flipped Iron Man 2 and Thor.

[supplemental material: 'Thor gets a date in 2010' Empire article link (released 2011, this is why I got confused with including Thor before - I thought I remembered that it played a role somehow]

Vice TV: Thor was considered a much bigger risk than the Hulk. At the same time, Iron Man 2 was in a position to set up the bigger MCU.

Todd McFarlane: If you build a strong foundation as they did with Iron Man, you can put a skyscrapper on a strongfoundation.

Vice TV: Iron Man 2 was now set to come out a year earlier than expected, sending the production into scramble mode.

[supplemental material: the only trace that I can find of the 2011 release date being flirted with is this interview with Jon where he states 2010 or 2011 and these comments in 2008 for the LA Times (which the article says there was a debacle with Jon and that he has now confirmed (in August) that it is set for 2010); which has it sound as though 2011 was discussed more during this time period (summer, 2008) as a possibility. Due to how many years ago these articles are - it's difficult to actually find articles to present here. If I was to guess, behind the scenes Jon may have wanted 2011 whereas Marvel wanted 2010 that could explain discrepancies and the "debacle".]

Adam Chitwood (The Wrap writer): Immediately Jon Favreau was under the gun, and he's gotta get the sequel made, and the sequel has to be successful.

I guess it all comes down to whose side of the story one is more apt to believe - an "unauthorized" account or an account by Vice TV that is authorized.

Adding: Marvel, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, James Bond, Batman, and the Fast and the Furious franchises have all entrusted Vice TV with access to film clips and interviews with the filmmakers involved.

So you deleted your original post that basically ended this tiring argument just to turn around and double down on it. Ok...

First off, the interview snippit from Zack Stentz you posted does not contradict anything about what I said (how Vice TV presents it in the video though is pretty suspect and misleading). All it means is that at some point, Thor was planned to come first. That's it. And that was indeed the case, because Iron Man 2 wasn't on the slate yet when Thor was first added.

Also neither account is authorized btw. Obtainting a license for to use film clips or interviewing people does not make it authorized. But I'll believe the person who interviewed Feige, Maisel and Favreau directly, not to mention countless others over the span of several years. Like how she interviewed Feige for this article. Secrets of the Marvel Universe

But even then, even if for some reason you didn't want to believe it (which seems to be your prerogative at this point), you just need to look at the facts.

Cha-ching! ‘Iron Man 2’ set for summer 2010

Following the film’s blockbuster opening weekend, Marvel Entertainment is planning an “Iron Man” sequel for 2010 after a 2009 without feature releases.

www.today.com

"Marvel Studios announced Monday it will release “Iron Man 2” on April 30, 2010, following the success of the first in the comic-book franchise, which pulled in $104.2 million domestically since opening last Thursday and $201 million worldwide."

Marvel released this press statment on May 5th, 2008, a month before TIH came out. So the decision to release Iron Man 2 in 2 years, before Thor, has nothing to do with the Hulk's performance. Now later on was there added pressure on Favreau to deliver a great movie due to the Hulk's performance? Or maybe Favreau felt the crunch timeline was too much and wanted an extra year before agreeing to Marvel's already announced 2010 release date? Sure absolutely, both of those things are valid and could be very well be true. But neither of those things have anything to do with I'm talking about.

 

[Cap2024]

First off, the interview snippit from Zack Stentz you posted does not contradict anything about what I said (how Vice TV presents it in the video though is pretty suspect and misleading). All it means is that at some point, Thor was planned to come first. That's it. And that was indeed the case, because Iron Man 2 wasn't on the slate yet when Thor was first added.

Now later on was there added pressure on Favreau to deliver a great movie due to the Hulk's performance? Sure absolutely.

First off - he literally says Iron Man 2 was slotted to come after, not before Thor.

“They had a board and it was like Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America…” in that order.

Second off - well done, absolutely.

There is also a difference between Marvel wanting 2010 while Jon (from all sounds of it) kept on fighting for 2011 or more time. Behind the scenes disputes and shifting release dates isn’t unheard of because of that. Over the summer was the (LA Times phrasing, not mine) “Jon debacle” that cooled down in August. So Hulk put the pressure on? Oh, yeah, it did.

 

[Venom 1988]

First off - he literally says Iron Man 2 was slotted to come after, not before Thor.

“They had a board and it was like Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America…”

Yea and? I'm not saying there wasn't a board. I literally said this "Iron Man 2 wasn't on the slate yet when Thor was first added." Which is true. Their intial slate of movies included Iron Man, Hulk and Ant-Man. Then they later added Thor, Cap and Nick Fury (which of course, that last one never happened). Still no Iron Man 2 yet when Thor was first added.

Comic-Con 2006: Marvel Announces Three

Second off - well done, absolutely.

There is also a difference between Marvel wanting 2010 while Jon (from all sounds of it) kept on fighting for 2011 or more time. Behind the scenes disputes and shifting release dates isn’t unheard of because of that.

Never said they weren't unheard of? My dude, I've been following movie productions for 25 years. Of course there's behind the scenes polictics and disputes going on. I don't know what you are trying to get at here. It doesn't change the fact that Marvel wanted Iron Man 2 fast tracked due to the first movie's success. That's it, that's literally all I've been saying since my first post.

 

[Cap2024]

Yea and? I'm not saying there wasn't a board. I literally said this "Iron Man 2 wasn't on the slate yet when Thor was first added." Which is true. Their intial slate of movies included Iron Man, Hulk and Ant-Man. Then they later added Thor, Cap and Nick Fury (which of course, that last one never happened). Still no Iron Man 2 yet when Thor was first added.

Comic-Con 2006: Marvel Announces Three




Never said they weren't unheard of? My dude, I've been following movie productions for 25 years. Of course there's behind the scenes polictics and disputes going on. I don't know what you are trying to get at here. It doesn't change the fact that Marvel wanted Iron Man 2 fast tracked due to the first movie's success. That's it, that's literally all I've been saying since my first post.

So now you are agreeing that at some point Iron Man 2 was slotted in-between Thor and Captain America? Per as the Thor screenwriter has said.

It wasn’t “and then Iron Man 2 appeared” it was “and the Iron Man 2 was positioned earlier than originally planned.” There’s a difference.

Marvel increasingly wanted over the summer and put the pressure increasingly on Jon (who didn’t want to play ball) because - Hulk underperformed and didn’t meet their expectations. I assume you would at the very least agree to that.

 

[Spider-Fan]

@Cap2024 You're dying on an odd hill here. Just let it go. Ultimately, this is an argument about semantics and does it really frigging matter at this point who was right about movie timeliness in 2008? It's 2024 and it ultimately doesn't matter anymore. Regardless why Iron Man 2 was rushed, it was rushed and I stand by it being my least favorite MCU movie. Regardless WHY it was rushed. The fact is it was rushed and had a sloppy story. The product speaks for itself and it being rushed doesn't make me excuse the overall product. Every production has challenges. Make a better movie.

Hopefully this ends this argument for everyone

 

[Spider-Fan]

Though as I said before, while Iron Man 2 is my least favorite movie, I do think both Secret Invasion and Falcon and the Winster Soldier are worse than Iron Man 2. I'd also say What If is my least favorite MCU product, but I haven't even finished season 2 yet so it has an asterisk for that reason for me

 

[Ironfan72]

Iron Man 2 was rushed, i think it was scheduled to release after Thor but for some reason Marvel didnt think Thor would do well, especially after Hulk under performed so they decided to rush Iron man 2 into theaters as they knew it would do well and overall, it did perform well at the box office, making more than the first film, the problem was Marvel insisting on adding so many non-Iron man characters and essentially making a launching off point for the Avengers, I didnt mind having multiple Iron man villians, the more the merrier for me, but Whiplash being the son of Anton Vanko was a stretch, was it the worst film, no, but i am abit bias as I am an Iron man superfan, so I try to take the rose colored glasses off and see other perspectives and this film isnt a top 10 film in the MCU and felt like a wasted film as an Iron Man fan as it really wasnt completely about him and his characters.
Iron Man 3 was another film that gave a giant middle finger to shellhead fans as they couped out on the Mandarin, some liked the twist, but in the iron man community they hated it, it did resonate with non-iron man fans as it did make $2 Billion at the box office, gave us the first MCU hero to deal with PTSD but it felt less an Iron Man story and more lethal weapon as Shane Black wrote and directed it.

 

[psylockolussus]

I checked my rankings on my laptop. This is my bottom 3:

3. Iron Man 2
2. Thor: The Dark World
1. Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

 

[Harleen SB]

Movies:
3. Eternals
2. Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
1. Thor: Love and Thunder

Shows:
3. She-Hulk
2. Moon Knight
1. Secret Invasion

 

[psylockolussus]

I can get some enjoyment from Thor: Love and Thunder and Eternals, so I wouldn't consider them as bottom 3.

The line up for Eternals was refreshing and interesting. Production wise, it looked splendid. The premise was ambitious and didn't feel like another Mcu film despite all the issues.

Thor: Love and Thunder had Jane Foster as Thor which I find a better watching experience than anything on The Dark World. I cringed a lot when watching The Dark World.