Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

Iron Man 3 Discussion


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 of 22 OFFLINE   oscar_merkx

oscar_merkx

    Lead Actor



  • 7,632 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2002

Posted April 29 2010 - 01:31 AM

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
Toastmasters International

Communication is Everything

#2 of 22 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,883 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted May 07 2010 - 12:29 AM

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





Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#3 of 22 OFFLINE   Jose Martinez

Jose Martinez

    Screenwriter



  • 1,113 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2003

Posted May 08 2010 - 03:39 AM

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.
Live Free or DIE!!!!!

#4 of 22 OFFLINE   Don Solosan

Don Solosan

    Supporting Actor



  • 748 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2003

Posted May 08 2010 - 06:05 PM

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.

#5 of 22 OFFLINE   oscar_merkx

oscar_merkx

    Lead Actor



  • 7,632 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2002

Posted May 10 2010 - 08:40 AM

Jon Favreau on Iron Man III


http://splashpage.mt...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.



Toastmasters International

Communication is Everything

#6 of 22 OFFLINE   TonyD

TonyD

    Who do we think I am?



  • 16,505 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted May 12 2010 - 01:08 PM

What's the spoiler for, is it about IM2 or info on 3. If 3 spoilering that seems over kill this early.
facebook.com/whotony

#7 of 22 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer



  • 15,105 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted May 12 2010 - 01:49 PM

It's solely about 3.

#8 of 22 OFFLINE   oscar_merkx

oscar_merkx

    Lead Actor



  • 7,632 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2002

Posted May 12 2010 - 10:13 PM



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


Toastmasters International

Communication is Everything

#9 of 22 OFFLINE   oscar_merkx

oscar_merkx

    Lead Actor



  • 7,632 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2002

Posted December 07 2010 - 11:51 PM

http://splashpage.mt...vreau-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.


Toastmasters International

Communication is Everything

#10 of 22 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer



  • 15,105 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted December 14 2010 - 06:52 PM

No longer matters, as Favreau is out as director of Iron Man 3. http://www.newsarama...n-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

#11 of 22 OFFLINE   Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer



  • 15,029 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted December 15 2010 - 07:46 AM

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.

#12 of 22 OFFLINE   nolesrule

nolesrule

    Producer



  • 3,084 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Joe Kauffman
  • LocationClearwater, FL

Posted December 15 2010 - 08:33 AM

That knocks my interest down a notch.

#13 of 22 ONLINE   Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp



  • 10,351 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted December 15 2010 - 08:58 AM

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.

#14 of 22 OFFLINE   JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor



  • 7,794 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted December 15 2010 - 10:35 AM

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.

#15 of 22 OFFLINE   Patrick H.

Patrick H.

    Second Unit



  • 477 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 23 2004

Posted December 15 2010 - 01:49 PM

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.

#16 of 22 OFFLINE   Don Solosan

Don Solosan

    Supporting Actor



  • 748 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2003

Posted December 16 2010 - 09:29 AM

"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...

#17 of 22 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer



  • 15,105 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted December 16 2010 - 09:48 AM

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

#18 of 22 OFFLINE   Don Solosan

Don Solosan

    Supporting Actor



  • 748 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2003

Posted December 16 2010 - 06:40 PM

"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?

#19 of 22 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer



  • 15,105 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted December 16 2010 - 07:39 PM

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

#20 of 22 OFFLINE   Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer



  • 15,029 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted December 17 2010 - 06:42 AM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users