http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovi...u-iron-mans-next-villain-you-have-do-mandarin
About time! They really need to get away from villains with power suits in the next movie.
I wonder who would be the best actor for the role...
Iron Man 3. Jon Favreau speaks about next villain (Spoilers?)
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovi...u-iron-mans-next-villain-you-have-do-mandarin
About time! They really need to get away from villains with power suits in the next movie.
I wonder who would be the best actor for the role...
Depending on how fantastic and envelope pushing Avengers is we may be ready to buy a more sci-fi origin for the Mandarin's rings.
Favreau has said that mixing the other elements of the emerging MCU into Iron Man could possibly change the tone of future installments.
So if Asgardian gods of lore turn up maybe alien rings of technological origin could work if the alien aspect is toned down.
Favreau has said that mixing the other elements of the emerging MCU into Iron Man could possibly change the tone of future installments.
So if Asgardian gods of lore turn up maybe alien rings of technological origin could work if the alien aspect is toned down.
We are going to have an Asgardian diety in Avengers. Magic will be in full existence in the cinematic Marvel U, and good on that.
If Favreu decides to nut up and embrace magic rings, that's perfectly fine with me. He just may need to back off from the Fu Manchu trappings a bit, is all.
If Favreu decides to nut up and embrace magic rings, that's perfectly fine with me. He just may need to back off from the Fu Manchu trappings a bit, is all.
Well hopefully the villains are better than Whiplash and Justin Hammer. The villain presence in Iron Man 2 was unbelieveably weak.
Iron Man doesn't have a strong rogue's gallery to begin with.
Iron Man doesn't have a strong rogue's gallery to begin with.
Angela 0077
Captain
I really think they should not make a 3rd installiment of Ironman.
They should leave it to the two they have made already.
I was disappointed with what l saw of Ironman 2.
But if they go through with making the third one they should put more action in it. and up the storyline for the characters who are playing these roles.
This is what was lacking in it too.
They should leave it to the two they have made already.
I was disappointed with what l saw of Ironman 2.
But if they go through with making the third one they should put more action in it. and up the storyline for the characters who are playing these roles.
This is what was lacking in it too.
Iron Man 3 would have to come after The Avengers, which will involve magic due to Thor, so there's no real reason to avoid the rings' magical nature other than stubbornness. Like it or not, the Iron Man movies are part of a shared movie universe; it's not like X-Men or Spider-Man where the rights are owned by a different company so they can do things however they want.
Angela 0077
Captain
But dont you think that if you have had a good run with the first installiment and looking at the second made me think that it should not be continued or this third one might be a disaster if they dont lift there game on the acting side of it.
Maybe Chow Yun Fat, Tony Leung or Andy Lau (I think all three speak Cantonese though) to play The Mandarin. Leader of a new breed of the Chinese mafia working with the Chinese government producing weapons of mass destruction in the underworld and they specialize in stealing new tech, and they really want to get there hands on Stark's Arc Reactor technology. He and the Ten Rings are portrayed to be ruthless and cunning, but if they can avoid being hammy and a caricature of a Chinese Fu Man chu twirling villain, even better. Just a suggestion.
Really? I thought the acting in Iron Man 2 was excellent.
I really, really hope this isn't the villains' motivations again. The first Iron Man centered on Stane getting his hands on the arc reactor and using it as a weapon. Iron Man 2 featured Hammer acquiring the services of Vanko, for the purpose of having Vanko duplicate the arc reactor and using it for his own army of Iron Man knock-offs. A three-peat of the villains seeking to use the arc reactor for their own purposes would feel, at least to me, like trying to draw water from a well that has run dry.
Well then if not the arc reactor, his shiny new element he discovered. Same shit different smell. Of course their endgame would be world domination. Either to rule it or destroy it as per usual. Seems like it's been there objective from the beginning. Wasn't Stane working with them?
Er, the rings are technology, not magic. They're from an alien spacecraft that the Mandarin recovered.
Whatever, they aren't an issue. It's a fucking comic book movie.
I just hope that they don't turn Mandarin green like they did in the cartoon.
They'll probably avoid calling him the Mandarin in the movie and use his real name. Vanko was never called Whiplash and Natasha was never called Black Widow in IM2. I was waiting for Justin Hammer to introduce Rhodey as War Machine near the end of IM2, but he never did.
They'll probably avoid calling him the Mandarin in the movie and use his real name. Vanko was never called Whiplash and Natasha was never called Black Widow in IM2. I was waiting for Justin Hammer to introduce Rhodey as War Machine near the end of IM2, but he never did.
^Natasha was never called Natasha either.
And Ironman suffers what I like to think of as the "Superman" problem, in that he is so overpowered and invincible that credible threats to him are hard to come up with.
Was there any sense of danger to Ironman in either movie? Not when he was in the suit, that is for sure.
And Ironman suffers what I like to think of as the "Superman" problem, in that he is so overpowered and invincible that credible threats to him are hard to come up with.
Was there any sense of danger to Ironman in either movie? Not when he was in the suit, that is for sure.
Stark did make such a reference while he and Rhodey were tearing up the mansion ("So you want to be the war machine?"), not unlike Stane's reference to himself and Stark as "iron mongers" in the first film.
yes she was. Fury called her 'Agent Natasha Romanov'
Yes she was. In the diner with Fury.
That's not true. At the end of the day, he's a guy with a bad heart in a suit. Tony is in no way portrayed as invincible in the comics either.
Forget villains, I've seen less powerful guys like Spider-Man and even Cap who has no powers at all take him down.
Fury called her Agent Romanov in the diner, I made a note of it when watching the movie earlier today because that scene seemed so important to building the future Avengers stuff.
As to Ironman and his sense of vulnerability. I haven't read the comics, nor know much about them.
But so far as the movies go as soon as he suits up he seems completely invincible. Mostly because he gets completely beaten and hit with crap and we never see him get bruised or bloody afterwards. And everything seems so easy.
And of course the fact that, at least in the 2nd movie, no one dies except Whiplash and a couple of guards off-screen.
Which brings up something I was thinking while leaving the theater. A super hero team in a comic or animated is one thing, and due to the format a bit of corniness and camp is expected. But in the Marvel movie universe that stuff is, at least so far, kept to a minimum. When we get to the Avengers movie it is going to be really tough to have anyone keep up with Thor, Hulk and Ironman. Those guys are heavy hitters, whereas Cap, Hawkeye, Wasp, Antman, and whoever else are much more frail.
It is going to be a tough thing to do to make a movie that makes all the characters useful without feeling ridiculously forced.
I still remember a line from Roger Ebert's review of the first X-Men movie that went something like, "You have people who can control the weather, fly, move things with their minds, control metal and stop bullets, and you want me to believe that a man with switch-blades that come out of his hands is in their same league?"
As to Ironman and his sense of vulnerability. I haven't read the comics, nor know much about them.
But so far as the movies go as soon as he suits up he seems completely invincible. Mostly because he gets completely beaten and hit with crap and we never see him get bruised or bloody afterwards. And everything seems so easy.
And of course the fact that, at least in the 2nd movie, no one dies except Whiplash and a couple of guards off-screen.
Which brings up something I was thinking while leaving the theater. A super hero team in a comic or animated is one thing, and due to the format a bit of corniness and camp is expected. But in the Marvel movie universe that stuff is, at least so far, kept to a minimum. When we get to the Avengers movie it is going to be really tough to have anyone keep up with Thor, Hulk and Ironman. Those guys are heavy hitters, whereas Cap, Hawkeye, Wasp, Antman, and whoever else are much more frail.
It is going to be a tough thing to do to make a movie that makes all the characters useful without feeling ridiculously forced.
I still remember a line from Roger Ebert's review of the first X-Men movie that went something like, "You have people who can control the weather, fly, move things with their minds, control metal and stop bullets, and you want me to believe that a man with switch-blades that come out of his hands is in their same league?"
