How IRON MAN 2 ruined Jon Favreau's relationship with Marvel
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
He's brought nothing for the WB but gold and more gold(Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception) I'm sure they'll leave him alone
Favs stated back during his press conference and a couple junkets that Mandarin would be in Iron Man 3. It was just a matter of making it work which is why the break between films is a good thing imo this way they can get the story they want.
Yes, the rings are alien the last time I checked, but they might as well been magic. He would have been very different kind of threat. The writers did a good job about setting up the Ten Rings terrorists in the first movie, but for some reason they didn't do anything about it in the sequel.
Iron Man 2 works better if you think of the villains of the movie as Tony's drinking problem and how he deals with the fact that he is going to die. Whiplash and Hammer are there because this is a superhero movie and they are there for Iron Man to punch. They are the least interesting things about the movie for me.
For all the Avengers complaints, Nick Fury and Black Widow did end up having a point in the story. Fury pointed Tony to his father's research and Black Widow helped shut off the hijacked War Machine armor.
At least this movie has no truly horrible scenes like in Spider-Wan 3, like Peter doing his stupid dancing and the writers making Sandman the person that killed Uncle Ben.
Iron Man 2 works better if you think of the villains of the movie as Tony's drinking problem and how he deals with the fact that he is going to die. Whiplash and Hammer are there because this is a superhero movie and they are there for Iron Man to punch. They are the least interesting things about the movie for me.
For all the Avengers complaints, Nick Fury and Black Widow did end up having a point in the story. Fury pointed Tony to his father's research and Black Widow helped shut off the hijacked War Machine armor.
At least this movie has no truly horrible scenes like in Spider-Wan 3, like Peter doing his stupid dancing and the writers making Sandman the person that killed Uncle Ben.
Last edited:
That write-up certainly doesn't go "in-depth" -- it's 621 words, comes from a single, anonymous source, and contains as much editorializing as it does content. Calling it an "article" is a bit of a misnomer.
That said, this doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know -- it was reported ages ago that Favreau had contentious negotiations for his Iron Man 2 contract, we knew that production was frenzied because the release date was locked in before any work had begun on the film. The only nuggets of new information here are that Downey didn't care for the movie, and Favreau may not have been happy with having to insert so much Fury / Avengers material, but I didn't have a problem at all with that stuff. As The Avengers gets closer, the Marvel films are going to have more and more material to set it up -- hence Clark Gregg having such a prominent role in Thor.
Are you this much fun in real life as you are on these boards?
I pitched an Iron Man 2 rewrite where we learn at the end of the film that Mandarin has been secretly behind the scenes and manipulating things since the first film. In my version he is responsible for the stuff with the Senate and Justin Hammer wanting his own Stark Tech because it sets up the Armor Wars. It's been a while since I came up with it but forgot the bulk of the details. Tasha was Shield plant sent by Fury to watch Stark and make sure he doesn't get out of control. Bethany Cabe had an increased role as Stark's budding new love interest.
I agree with Dream's statement regarding the real villain being Tony's drinking problem with I think was handled great in the film. Whiplash and Hammer were surface villains.
I agree with Dream's statement regarding the real villain being Tony's drinking problem with I think was handled great in the film. Whiplash and Hammer were surface villains.
Yeah, it was really weird how Mandarin was pretty much ignored in IM2. He was has a very strong background presence in the first movie, since it's heavily implied that he is the leader of the Ten Rings group that kidnapped Tony which forced Tony to create the armor in the first place.
The writers should have continued building on that, maybe even have Mandarin appear at the very end of IM2 to set up the sequel since they seemed to already be planning to use Mandarin in IM3.
At least one good thing has resulted from all this. Iron Man may be the first superhero movie franchise that ends having it's best villain in it's third movie instead of the first or second. Also the Avengers should also have a much smaller presence in IM3, since the Avengers movie would have already been released by then. There would really be no point to advertising them anymore in IM3.
I think they're going to write it in that Tony has forgotten about the Ten Rings and won't know who the Mandarin is when he appears making it more impactfull when the two actually meet.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
^ yep.
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.
Was that just in the script? I don't remember him ever being named in the actual movie.
And thank good for that. Rumors around that time were swirling for Goldblum to be Scarecrow.
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.
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.
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.
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.
