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

[Admiral_Young]

Yep it was what started that sequence.

 

[Dream]

My problem with IM2 was not enough action. There's the racing fight... and the fight at the end. Some people count drunk Tony slapping around War Machine. And that's it. I loved the Avenger-y stuff in it.

And then there's the scene with Black Widow beating up a bunch of random security guards.

They weren't random. They were Hammer's security guards. Did someone not see this movie?

 

[Aragorn]

You know, if we keep saying bad things about Iron Man 2, Kevin Feige is going to ban us from going to see the rest of Marvel's movies.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

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.

I am in complete agreement with you and JacksonArcher, Captain Craig.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I'm wondering where that poster is who said we're not talking about Iron Man 2 enough.

 

[DarthPipes]

So, if I understand correctly, Marvel is the more the ass here the Favreau, right? Because I've always been a fan of Favreau's work and I thought Iron Man (the original) was a great movie and 2 was a huge disapointment as it did seem like it was trying to do about four different plot threads at once there.

I don't wish to point fingers, especially since this is only one side of a likely multiple-sided story, but if you follow Marvel's history dealing with clients then it makes a lot of sense. The falling out with Terrence Howard, payment disputes with Mickey Rourke, and then of course what just happened recently with Edward Norton.

It begins to make sense. Especially since Favreau almost didn't direct Iron Man 2 after the disagreements they had over payment.

As for the story problems with Iron Man 2, I think had Marvel not pushed for some of the Avengers elements like they did and allowed Favreau to make his own film like he did with the first film then Iron Man 2 could have been considerably stronger.

Interesting point. I also heard the deal Scarlett Johannsen signed to appear in all those movies were terrible.

The funny part was the Marvel Universe elements in Iron Man 2 was some of the stuff I liked the best. I can totally agree that Iron Man 2 was rushed into production though. The second film was released less than two years after the first movie. That's a short amount of time for a sequel. Maybe that contributed to the film's suckatude.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I'm not quite sure time has necessarily anything to do with it so much as being allowed to tell a good story without inference. You've hired good filmmakers, now let them do their job and tell their story.

For example, Sam Raimi made Spider-Man 2 only two years after the first Spider-Man and he was allowed to make the film he wanted to make. Spider-Man 3 was released three years after the second film but had a lot of studio and producer inference which led to a compromised quality.

While Favreau did voice concerns that he would be unable to make Iron Man 2 in the timetable that Marvel wanted, I think had he been allowed to make the film uninhibited he could have made a better film. Then again, that was probably only one factor in many that contributed to the lackluster quality of Iron Man 2.

 

[T'Baio]

I have to admit, people saying ScarJo got a shitty multi picture deal make me laugh.

What...did she only get a couple million to appear in several of the coolest movies ever? Oh, boo fucking hoo.

Perspective...it's not like she's integral to the success of these movies, so I'm sure she's getting paid quite well. Like, more than I'll see in my life.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Honestly I couldn't care less what kind of deals these people get as long as they perform and deliver a good movie. It's not like they're not already making millions from other projects they're working on.

 

[Mr Light]

I'm confused... when IM2 first came out I thought everybody was gushing over it. But everyone here seems to be negative about it now.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Scarlett was hot but her role served no purpose to the movie.

Like I said before, Black Widow helped shut off the hijacked War Machine armor. Plus she was great eye candy!

It would have been better had Pepper Potts had done that or something. Maybe Stark is trying to talk her through it or something. It could have strengthened the dynamic and relationship between Stark and Potts in that movie and would have allowed her to do something in the third act besides stand around.

Didn't they do that in the first movie?

 

[Admiral_Young]

I gave a negative review for Iron Man 2 in the discussion thread...while I enjoyed parts of it overall it was a disappointment so it's not like I'm stating stuff I haven't said before. That being said I will still pick up the DVD but only because there's Favs commentary on it.

 

[scnj]

I'm confused... when IM2 first came out I thought everybody was gushing over it. But everyone here seems to be negative about it now.

Try starting an Avatar thread.

 

[Captain Craig]

I'm confused... when IM2 first came out I thought everybody was gushing over it. But everyone here seems to be negative about it now.

I quick look back at the IM:2 Review/Discussion thread shows that roughly 79% of those voting on the BBS rated the movie either Excellent or Above Average. So, yeah most people(some people like these things to back consensus) liked it but as is normal sometimes a passionate chorus of those shouting it down can seem like a majority.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I liked it okay - I didn't mind the multiple, convoluted plot threads and the Avengers tidbits. I expect it to be part of a larger story. The Black Widow should have been played by an actress more like Hillary Swank; ScarJo is too simplistic for the role.

 

[Aragorn]

Not sure what Hillary Swank would've brought to the role. It wouldn't have changed how superficial and unnecessary Black Widow was.

 

[Gaith]

Black Widow should have been younger and tighter-bodied than Pepper, so that when Tony finally chooses her, it's for her personality, rather than how she looks in a pencil skirt. (Not that she'd look at all bad in one, but, hey, it's the movies.)

 

[Admiral_Young]

Yeah I'm not sure how Hilary Swank would change the role except costing Marvel Studios more money I still think Emily Blunt was the perfect first choice to play Natasha, too bad she had to drop out.

 

[Mr Light]

I am disappointed that Black Widow didn't speak in a "moose and squirrel" Russian accent, though. Also I thought she was gonna be a bad guy (Russian undercover spy? Movie's bad guy is Russian?) and then defect to the good guys for love of Tony or something. Didn't she defect from Russia because she fell in love with Hawkeye in the comics?

 

[Anwar]

Natasha is a spy, so she shouldn't speak with an accent. This was mentioned in the comics once, I believe.