Iron Man 3 Discussion (1 Viewer)

[oscar_merkx]

Hi all

Just thought I would start a new thread about Iron Man 3 as Iron Man opens today in the UK and other countries.

Let the speculation begin

 

[Robert Crawford]

Here you go Oscar. Your orignal Iron Man 3 discussion thread got hijack by Iron Man 2 discussion.





Crawdaddy

 

[Jose Martinez]

Iron Man 2 was more of a setup for The Avengers movie rather than a setup for Iron Man 3.


However, they could expand something they touched upon in the first two movies and is a huge part in Iron Man's history: Tony Stark's drunkenness. Robert Downey Jr would definitely excel in portraying a character on a downward spiral to darkness and it's effects on being a drunkard while in a suit of armor, possibly leading to the death of someone close to him. I'm sure they could still make it an action packed movie while dealing with a dark subject matter, especially with James Rhodes as War Machine.

 

[Don Solosan]

I would hope they would avoid this route. It seems to be a trend that they introduce a character (aimed at a reasonably young market, like Spider-Man) and then, to give him room to grow, they go dark. Apparently you can't be a hero without angst. Frankly, it's a pain. I don't want to see Peter Parker fighting with his girlfriend, particularly after that cool scene at the end of part 2 when he saves her and she finds out he's Spidey, etc.


They've already managed to destroy what makes Iron Man special -- the arc reactor. Now it seems like everyone has the technology, and he's just brought another bad thing into the world despite all his best intentions. It's an excuse to introduce more and more variations on the suit, I guess. Ultimately the bad guys win, because they're having fun and the so-called heroes are a bunch of bores.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Jon Favreau on Iron Man III http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/05/07/jon-favreau-iron-man-3-mandarin/

How will the events of "Iron Man 2" affect "Thor," "Captain America" and "Avengers"? Heck, how will they affect "Iron Man 3"?

"I would like 'Iron Man 3' to pay it off, but there's so much I don't understand yet about what the world is going to be like then," said Favreau. "You've got 'Thor,' 'Captain America,' 'Avengers' all happening with different directors before 'Iron Man 3' — and that's all going to affect 'Iron Man 3.'" "What's going to have happened by then?" he asked. "With 'Thor,' you're going to have all this supernatural stuff happening and magic and there's a lot of stuff going on in the world. If it's going to match the comic books, it's going to be incredibly complex for film." As for Iron Man's ten-ringed nemesis The Mandarin, Favreau said the villain is still very much in play for the third film — but bringing him to the screen isn't without its issues. "You have to do The Mandarin," he said. "The problem with The Mandarin is, the way it's depicted in the comic books, you don't want to see that. He also has 10 magical rings, and it just doesn't feel right for our thing, so it's either tech-based or the rings are not really rings." "But maybe with 'Thor' and all those others you'll introduce magic to that world and it won't seem so out of place," he said.

 

[TonyD]

What's the spoiler for, is it about IM2 or info on 3.

If 3 spoilering that seems over kill this early.

 

[Greg_S_H]

It's solely about 3.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Originally Posted by TonyD

What's the spoiler for, is it about IM2 or info on 3.

If 3 spoilering that seems over kill this early.

Like Greg was saying, it is all about 3.


Hopefully the IM 3 will arrive shortly after the Avengers

 

[oscar_merkx]

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/12/06/iron-man-3-jon-favreau-avengers/

"I don't know a lot about 'Thor,'" Favreau told MTV News when we visited him at the "Cowboys & Aliens" editing studio.


"I've talked to ['Thor' director] Kenneth Branagh. I've met the cast members. I had a conversation with ['Avengers' director Joss Whedon] in passing, giving him my two cents about the film."


Although he hasn't seen the script for "The Avengers" yet, Favreau said he's eager to see what the next few years have in store for the Marvel movie universe — especially since he sees "Iron Man 3" as a sequel to all the Marvel Studios movies that come before it.


"In theory, 'Iron Man 3' is going to be a sequel or continuation of 'Thor,' 'Hulk,' 'Captain America' and 'Avengers,'" he said. "This whole world... I have no idea what it is. I don't think they do either, from conversations I've had with those guys."


Favreau indicated that the fluid nature of Marvel's films up to, during, and even after filming makes it difficult to predict the exact nature of the movie universe when it comes time for "Iron Man 3."


With so many things likely to change between now and when the first word is written in the "Iron Man 3" script, the filmmaker said he's can't even venture a guess about what will be going on with Tony Stark when he returns to his solo adventures.

 

[Greg_S_H]

No longer matters, as Favreau is out as director of Iron Man 3.


http://www.newsarama.com/film/jon-favreau-not-directing-iron-man-3-101214.html


Sadness. I wish Marvel had given him a freer hand after the massive success of Iron Man instead of shackling him. Marvel's insistence on a set release date is one problem. Let the filmmakers take however much time is needed (within reason). I'd rather wait than have a rush job. I hope whoever they replace him with does a good job. /obvious

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Yeah, I'm bummed too. The relationship between Favreau and his leading man was crucial to the success of the first two "Iron Man" films. The second film was already hampered a bit by Marvel's insistence on establishing a uniform continuity across all the Marvel films (despite regularly firing the leading men and replacing them with cheaper alternatives for the sequels). "Iron Man 3" would have the added challenge of trying to present a bonafide sequel to the first two "Iron Man" films while grappling with the events in a film ("The Avengers") that series fans may or may not have seen. That Favreau won't be in the director's seat to even try doesn't bode well at all.

 

[nolesrule]

That knocks my interest down a notch.

 

[Ruz-El]

I'm OK with it. I thought Iron Man was the perfect mix of humour and action, but Iron Man 2 went for more humour then it should of, and felt a bit long. My main concern is with that Avengers movie and Weddon talking about putting his own spin on it. I don't want a Weddon Avengers when there's a perfectly good Brian Bendis Avengers comic to adapt. Joss has a solid fan base, but not such a great track record with projects that aren't his babies. Hell, even his babies have a poor track record.


There's a good chance that the Avengers will be a mess and there wont be any Iron Man 3.

 

[JonZ]

Problem is he had a clear direction for the third film,that it was supposed to feature The Mandarin. Wonder if thats out now.


As I rally thought IM2 was a mess, I was hoping the 3rd would be better.

 

[Patrick H.]

This is yet another sign to me that Marvel is slowly stewing their golden goose. They seem hell-bent to get to 'The Avengers', yet there also seems to be a lot of hubris in the attitude that all these talent swaps aren't going to make a difference in the longevity of their mega-franchise ambitions. I have a feeling though that, ultimately, the best of these films ('Hulk' reboot notwithstanding) are going to be the "launch" pictures, where they seem to be hiring interesting directors and fitting actors and then leaving them more-or-less alone to do their thing.

 

[Don Solosan]

"despite regularly firing the leading men and replacing them with cheaper alternatives for the sequels"


What films have they done this with? The only one I can think of is Hulk, but I find it hard to believe that Edward Norton is a "cheaper alternative" to Eric Bana...

 

[Greg_S_H]

Probably the change from Norton to Ruffalo for Hulk and Howard to Cheadle for Rhodes.

 

[Don Solosan]

"Probably the change from Norton to Ruffalo for Hulk and Howard to Cheadle for Rhodes."


Howard/Cheadle's character wasn't a leading man. And I don't think that Norton has been dropped for Ruffalo because of cost concerns.


So does this mean that Marvel hasn't been "regularly firing the leading men for cheaper" actors as charged?

 

[Greg_S_H]

I didn't make the charge, so you'll have to ask Adam. Just trying to suss it all out.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Sorry, I didn't realize we were in a court of law here. I should have been more clear. Yes, Greg got it right. I was referring to Bana being fired for Norton being fired for Ruffalo, and Howard fired for Cheadle, and Tyler Mane being fired for Liev Schreiber. And the rumor that Marvel almost let Samuel L. Jackson walk as Nick Fury when they wanted to lower his pay check. I'm not sure that Norton was cheaper than Bana, but I know Ruffalo got the part after Norton turned down Marvel's offer. Cheadle likewise got the part of War Machine after Howard turned down Marvel's offer. Although in the latter case, the financial dispute may have been a pretext for something they wanted to do anyway.


I just don't like major casting changes within a single continuity. New Superman should = new Superman continuity, new Hulk should = new Hulk continuity, etc.