How IRON MAN 2 ruined Jon Favreau's relationship with Marvel

[Timby]

Beyond Antares wrote:

---

I can't disagree more. I thought his drinking problem was very underdeveloped as a subplot. Sure, he's imbibing a little too much at the beginning, but then all of a sudden he's in a drunk slugfest with Rhodey, and then he's cured. It was almost cartoonish in the way it was handled.

Every comic nerd dreams of the movies adapting "Demon in a Bottle," and it's never going to happen without becoming "Iron Man meets Leaving Las Vegas / When a Man Loves a Woman." You can't have that as a major element of a movie without it becoming overly melodramatic, silly, or both.

I've said it before, but the best superhero movies have taken the iconic stories and ideas of their respective characters and boiled them down to the most basic plot points, integrating them into the larger story. "Demon in a Bottle," reduced to its essence, is: "I'm not an alcoholic; OK, I'm an alcoholic; now I'm not an alcoholic." I don't disagree that Iron Man 2 mis-handled that element of the story, but audiences don't want to see Tony Stark trying to climb out of a bottle of whiskey -- they want to see the ultra-smooth wise-ass playboy who gives no fuck and occasionally blows shit up in a suit of powered armor.

Then again, I still want to see Tony fuck up as Iron Man by crashing head-first into a government building or blowing up a school bus full of Special Olympics kids or something. Then, he can show up at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in the Iron Man suit and have one of the grizzled AA veterans hand him his 24-hour sobriety chip and say, "Tony, it's time to take off your mask and take a good hard look at yourself." And Tony flips up his helmet to reveal tears rolling down his cheeks, and then there's a group hug. This would be better / worse / somehow even more amazing than the lunacy of Batman & Robin.

[Dream]

Timby wrote:

---

Every comic nerd dreams of the movies adapting "Demon in a Bottle," and it's never going to happen without becoming "Iron Man meets Leaving Las Vegas / When a Man Loves a Woman." You can't have that as a major element of a movie without it becoming overly melodramatic, silly, or both.

I've said it before, but the best superhero movies have taken the iconic stories and ideas of their respective characters and boiled them down to the most basic plot points, integrating them into the larger story. "Demon in a Bottle," reduced to its essence, is: "I'm not an alcoholic; OK, I'm an alcoholic; now I'm not an alcoholic." I don't disagree that Iron Man 2 mis-handled that element of the story, but audiences don't want to see Tony Stark trying to climb out of a bottle of whiskey -- they want to see the ultra-smooth wise-ass playboy who gives no fuck and occasionally blows shit up in a suit of powered armor.

Yeah, having an entire movie about Tony dealing with his drinking problem would have been awesome for us fans, but the general audience doesn't want that. They want a summer popcorn action movie with action which was what IM2 was.

Then again, I still want to see Tony fuck up as Iron Man by crashing head-first into a government building or blowing up a school bus full of Special Olympics kids or something. Then, he can show up at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in the Iron Man suit and have one of the grizzled AA veterans hand him his 24-hour sobriety chip and say, "Tony, it's time to take off your mask and take a good hard look at yourself." And Tony flips up his helmet to reveal tears rolling down his cheeks, and then there's a group hug. This would be better / worse / somehow even more amazing than the lunacy of Batman & Robin.

That might work in a comics, where fans are more forgivable, but that'll kill this movie franchise pretty quickly. The one thing you don't do in these types of movies is have your superhero killing kids, even if it was an accident. I think they did a good job in the movie in the party scene, showing Tony blowing random things up. He didn't actually hurt anyone of course...

[Timby]

You clearly missed the point where I was joking about how I would be willing to see a movie ruined just to get something so insanely stupid committed to celluloid.

[Anwar]

Actually, Mandarin WAS involved with this movie in a small way: The guy who gave Whiplash his passport was a 10 rings operative.

[Admiral_Young]

^ yep.

[Dream]

Timby wrote:

---

You clearly missed the point where I was joking about how I would be willing to see a movie ruined just to get something so insanely stupid committed to celluloid.

The only good thing about Batman and Robin was that it sucked so badly that it killed any chance of other superheroes movies being made like that in the future. It was so goddamn awful. It also forced a reboot of the entire Batman movie franchise.

[Dream]

Anwar wrote:

---

Actually, Mandarin WAS involved with this movie in a small way: The guy who gave Whiplash his passport was a 10 rings operative.

Was that just in the script? I don't remember him ever being named in the actual movie.

[Samurai8472]

And thank good for that. Rumors around that time were swirling for Goldblum to be Scarecrow.

[Captain Craig]

I don't know who said it but that article in the OP is as much commentary/speculation as it is "facts". Could very well be plenty or very little true. What makes it a fun read to buy into is that those of us following this path towards Avengers have seen how Marvel has handled things. i won't rehash what's been said. Marvel may or may not need to pull back the reins on how they are handling things.

The Favreau stuff was out there as well as the dealing it took to get Sam Jackson on board. Even before it was official many just sniffed something was off when Norton wasn't signed on after weeks of expressing interest. Yet still they got stellar casts for both Thor & Cap and got Renner to sign for Avengers.

Lets see who they get for Runaways, granted it'll be largely unknowns but we'll see.

Also, I'm not of the camp that IM:2 is a bad film even a disappointment creatively(I was rooting for $350m USdom but I digress). As far as any truth in Marvel meddling storywise to get the Avengers links in I don't see it as jarring at all. Could a few elements have been tweaked, sure I suppose.

A tweak I'd have made would be to have that black market passport runner prominently wearing a big ring and verbally saying, "An enemy of Starks is a friend to the Ten Rings, good luck." Or something to that affect, instead of reading the intent of that scene in an interview.

[Timby]

Dream wrote:

---

The only good thing about Batman and Robin was that it sucked so badly that it killed any chance of other superheroes movies being made like that in the future. It was so goddamn awful. It also forced a reboot of the entire Batman movie franchise.

Yeah, I think everyone under the sun is in agreement with you. What's your point? You seem to be having trouble detecting sarcasm, since you think I was serious about having Tony Stark blow up a bus full of kids.

[Turtletrekker]

Dream wrote:

---

Was that just in the script? I don't remember him ever being named in the actual movie.

According to this article, the character is listed in the credits as "10 Rings Gangster".

[Admiral_Young]

The Demon in a Bottle storyline WAS used in both films...I don't think you'd be able to craft an entire two hour blockbuster film around that story arc. I'm quite satisfied with the way it has been used as part of Tony's character.

[Aragorn]

Samurai8472 wrote:

---

That depends on if Marvel wants an Avengers 2. By that time Downey will want to move on(RECAST!)

Evans would probably be in
Jackson's tied to Marvel till he dies
Perhaps ScarJo
Ruffalo would still be fairly fresh and still up for playing Banner
Renner in, unless a Hawkeye movie is in the works

Johansson is tied to Marvel for multiple films... unless she says something bad about them.

When she signed her contract it was widely reported how bad a deal she got.

[Gaith]

I thought IM2 was fantastic, at least as good as IM, and that the amount of Avengers build-up was exactly right: it helped move the story along without dominating things.

And no, it wouldn't work to just assemble the team cold in Avengers. That worked for LXG, but audiences were unfamiliar with those characters, especially those incarnations thereof. But people'd get bored with too many introductions for this one.

I also think the build-up aspects are great fun. It's said to be the first time in film history such a simultaneous, shared continuity is being attempted. For that kind of inherent excitement, I'll gladly watch such Avengers scenes as well-integrated as IM2's.

[Dream]

Timby wrote:

---

Yeah, I think everyone under the sun is in agreement with you. What's your point? You seem to be having trouble detecting sarcasm, since you think I was serious about having Tony Stark blow up a bus full of kids.

I was just pointing out why the writers would never put those scenes into the movie. You made the joke and I further explained why it would be a bad idea. I never actually thought that you were that bloodthristy.