Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3

[Vympel]

http://www.thesuperficial.com/jon-favre ... -3-12-2010

It’s unclear whether the impasse was financial or creative or both. One informed source hears that he was frustrated with Marvel’s urge to stuff more of their in-house heroes into the next film in the wake of The Avengers. In a recent interview with MTV News, Favreau explained that based on his conversations with Marvel Studios executives, he had no clarity as to what a third Iron Man film would even be about. “In theory, Iron Man 3 is going to be a sequel or continuation of Thor, Hulk, Captain America and Avengers,” said Favreau at the time, “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.”
… Regardless of why, we’re told that Marvel quietly began the process of finding a director to replace Favreau last night. But Marvel’s task is complicated by the fact that Downey Jr. has both contractually negotiated director approval and is currently the hottest leading man in Hollywood with first pick of dozens of “go” movies around town.

Sucks.

[JME2]

Ouch.

[Jim Raynor]

Uh, what the hell? Why would Marvel even pressure him to use IM3 to follow up on Thor, Hulk, etc? If they want to do that, then there's already a future movie that's practically guaranteed. It's called, wait for it...AVENGERS 2. Shouldn't the director and writers be deciding on the general direction of their own movie sequel? Even a couple years ago when WB was working on its awful (and now thankfully canceled) teeny-bopper Justice League movie, they retained the good sense to leave Nolan's Batman the alone.

It should be SO easy to do a IM3 after Avengers. Just write another Iron Man movie, and drop in a couple token lines about how Tony isn't a full-time member or how the team is currently away doing something else.

EDIT: Glad to see that Robert Downey Jr. has to approve the new director, so at least someone involved should understand what worked with the first two Iron Man movies. Although that's no guarantee either, if Marvel is acting as stupid as it sounds like it is.

What's their problem? They want to make this big ambitious movie universe, yet they can't seem to hold onto their talent. Terrence Howard, Edward Norton, Samuel L. Jackson (almost, I remember the troubled negotiations), and now Favreau.

[Ghost Rider]

I see Marvel is running their movie studio like they do their comics. Some giant vision that makes little sense, forcing said people into that direction, and then pray it will work out with a dash of blaming it all on the fans.

I heard that IM3 would be some bizarre aftermath of Thor-Cap-Avengers happenings, but didn't hear about Favreau leaving. That particular sucks.

[Sriad]

I'm looking forward to the Summer of 2014, when the properties will finally be established enough to have a shoddily made 6-film franchise crossover so beset by delays and editorial problems that all major plot points will be spoiled by the bevy of individual titles' sequels that end up being released first.

[ray245]

I see Marvel is running their movie studio like they do their comics. Some giant vision that makes little sense, forcing said people into that direction, and then pray it will work out with a dash of blaming it all on the fans.

I heard that IM3 would be some bizarre aftermath of Thor-Cap-Avengers happenings, but didn't hear about Favreau leaving. That particular sucks.

Well, there's a fair number of fans who wanted to see a superhero team up on the big screen. So I won't totally rule out that the fans are not at fault.

[Steve]

Isn't the Avenger movie going to accomplish that?

Marvel might simply be getting a bit too ambitious about tying all these franchises together, with constant references between them. And it might also be a bit of "get your money's worth": if you're paying SLJ and Chris Evans and Scarlet Johannsen a metric fuckton of money to play Nick Fury and Cap and Black Widow....

As it is, I would think the natural thing in IM3 would be to finally reveal the Mandarin. The novelizations apparently already indicated his unseen hand in the events of the prior movies, which might mean those hints were excised when the editor got the movie to the cutting room.

[DudeGuyMan]

I've long been of the opinion that putting the Marvel Universe(tm) brand above the individual movies will be what leads them to slaughter the golden goose.

[Tsyroc]

I've long been of the opinion that putting the Marvel Universe(tm) brand above the individual movies will be what leads them to slaughter the golden goose.

I also would have thought that they'd learned something from trying to cram too much in Spiderman 3 and X-Men: The Last Stand. I know they aren't produced by the same people but they are still Marvel products, and while they were successful, they did lose some of the popular momentum that the previous films had built on.

You really would think that The Avengers would negate some of the need to stuff as many character into one film as possible but maybe someone is thinking that Iron Man 3 just couldn't stand on it's own with only a few characters when following a film which is going to be bursting with characters. Personally I was a little surprised to hear that there was going to be an Iron Man 3 after the Avengers movie. Other than bringing in the Mandarin what is there left to do with Iron Man that's worth a big budget movie?

Do they plan on making Captain America 2, Thor 2 and another Hulk movie, or are those "franchises" done now that they've set the stage for The Avengers?

[DudeGuyMan]

My bet is they plan to continue each individual series as well as Avengers until they run the whole thing totally into the fucking ground with six movies a year.

Seriously, this kind of shit is going to be their poison. Joe and Jane Moviegoer who go to see whatever has cool-looking trailers and then never think about it again until three months later when they maybe rent it on DVD aren't the same as comic book nerds. Making everything into one overarching continuity is just going to confuse them because they just can't be arsed to pay that much attention to this bullshit.

Plus movies are a much touchier medium when it comes to suspension of disbelief. Super genius builds a robot suit? Yeah I'll buy that as the premise of a movie. Scientist gets exposed to radiation, turns into a big green monster? Okay, that's a movie too. Society fractured by the appearance of super-powered mutants? Sure I'll watch that movie. Norse god falls to earth and starts kicking ass? That could be a movie.

But a movie about a genius in a robot suit teaming up with a giant green scientist in a world where Norse gods are real and fall out of the sky, a world already in uproar over powerful mutants, where vampires and shit are probably real too if they ever make another Blade movie?

Man why do I want to watch a movie set in a world like that? None of that shit is thematically related or even makes sense to have existing in the same universe.

EDIT to add: It's the difference between "What if Dracula met Wolfman?" and "What if Dracula, Wolfman, Blade Runner, Ninja Turtles, Harry Potter, and Three Men and a Little Lady all took place IN THE SAME UNIVERSE?" One is cool, the other is just baffling.

[Marcus Aurelius]

EDIT to add: It's the difference between "What if Dracula met Wolfman?" and "What if Dracula, Wolfman, Blade Runner, Ninja Turtles, Harry Potter, and Three Men and a Little Lady all took place IN THE SAME UNIVERSE?" One is cool, the other is just baffling.

Yes. There's lot to be said in favor of the KISS principle when it comes to big budget movies aimed at large audiences. And not only because of the audience, either, but also because the director and cast members will also get baffled if the there is simply too much going on. The director should always have a clear vision what the movie is about and if they try to cram too much stuff into it, there's a good chance he won't be able to keep all the strings in his hand. I bet the threat of that happening was the reason why Favreau quit. He simply did not want to deal with an overly complex setup.

[Jim Raynor]

You really would think that The Avengers would negate some of the need to stuff as many character into one film as possible but maybe someone is thinking that Iron Man 3 just couldn't stand on it's own with only a few characters when following a film which is going to be bursting with characters. Personally I was a little surprised to hear that there was going to be an Iron Man 3 after the Avengers movie. Other than bringing in the Mandarin what is there left to do with Iron Man that's worth a big budget movie?

I don't think anybody's going to avoid another Iron Man movie just because it isn't as "big" as the Avengers, especially since Iron Man's solo movies have been so popular.

Do they plan on making Captain America 2, Thor 2 and another Hulk movie, or are those "franchises" done now that they've set the stage for The Avengers?

I believe each hero will continue with their own individual series. The only exception is Hulk, since both Ang Lee's 2003 movie and the Marvel-continuity 2008 reboot were box office disappointments. They couldn't retain the star from the 2008 movie, so any future Hulk movie will look like another reboot even if it's not. From what I've read, Marvel isn't very high on making anymore Hulk films. There have been rumors about making a new TV series. But as is the case with many of these rumors, it's far from any concrete plan and probably won't ever happen.

What I think may lead to the decline of the Marvel movieverse may be all the B and C-List heroes they plan on doing after Avengers. I don't even have a problem with the differences between Iron Man, Hulk, and Thor. There's an appeal to seeing all the big guns getting together to kick some major ass. But Iron Fist? Ant-Man, without Hank Pym but with one of the other guys? I don't know why they're even bothering with that one. In all likelihood the Avengers-linked franchises will still be popular. But when they start pumping out movies starring a bunch of Marvel's lesser characters, it could saturate the market and degrade the appeal of Marvel/superhero movies.

[Crazedwraith]

This is sad, but I'm wondering just how much of Iron Man's enjoyability is due to Favreau's direction and how much is just the snazzy effect and sitting Downey down in front of a camera and letting him get on it with it.

And does this mean Happy Hogan's getting recast? There's No smooching, Gwyneth Paltrow for you if you quit, Jon.

[DudeGuyMan]

Yes. There's lot to be said in favor of the KISS principle when it comes to big budget movies aimed at large audiences. And not only because of the audience, either, but also because the director and cast members will also get baffled if the there is simply too much going on. The director should always have a clear vision what the movie is about and if they try to cram too much stuff into it, there's a good chance he won't be able to keep all the strings in his hand. I bet the threat of that happening was the reason why Favreau quit. He simply did not want to deal with an overly complex setup.

Plus there's the fact that for the most part you just don't have the time. Even if your superhero movie is a smash hit and becomes a trilogy, you're talking about maybe six hours of screen time total. That's it. That isn't nearly enough time to even begin trying to explain and plausibly flesh out a bizzare world where mutants and wizards and the Norse pantheon are all simultaneously real things. Not when you have, you know, three movies worth of plot/characters/explosions to squeeze in.

Besides which, these movies have to sink or swim based on their own merits. Imagine a world where none of these comic books ever existed. Imagine pitching these movies in that world.

Iron Man? A snarky supergenius builds a flying robot suit and kicks ass with cool weapons and pithy one-libers. That totally works. You could get that greenlit, and people would go see it, even if no comic book of that description ever existed.

Avengers? Now we take our snarky supergenius and team him up with a Norse deity! Forget the Hulk and everything else, you'd never get past that Thor bit before the producer threw you right the fuck out of his office.

[Batman]

Besides which, these movies have to sink or swim based on their own merits. Imagine a world where none of these comic books ever existed. Imagine pitching these movies in that world.

I really like that, because, to a large extent, that IS the real world. In a community like ours it's easy to forget that the vast majority of the available audience neither knows nor cares about superhero comics. I found both X3 and SM3 to be overloaded and I know superhero comics.

[Molyneux]

Yes. There's lot to be said in favor of the KISS principle when it comes to big budget movies aimed at large audiences. And not only because of the audience, either, but also because the director and cast members will also get baffled if the there is simply too much going on. The director should always have a clear vision what the movie is about and if they try to cram too much stuff into it, there's a good chance he won't be able to keep all the strings in his hand. I bet the threat of that happening was the reason why Favreau quit. He simply did not want to deal with an overly complex setup.

Plus there's the fact that for the most part you just don't have the time. Even if your superhero movie is a smash hit and becomes a trilogy, you're talking about maybe six hours of screen time total. That's it. That isn't nearly enough time to even begin trying to explain and plausibly flesh out a bizzare world where mutants and wizards and the Norse pantheon are all simultaneously real things. Not when you have, you know, three movies worth of plot/characters/explosions to squeeze in.

Besides which, these movies have to sink or swim based on their own merits. Imagine a world where none of these comic books ever existed. Imagine pitching these movies in that world.

Iron Man? A snarky supergenius builds a flying robot suit and kicks ass with cool weapons and pithy one-libers. That totally works. You could get that greenlit, and people would go see it, even if no comic book of that description ever existed.

Avengers? Now we take our snarky supergenius and team him up with a Norse deity! Forget the Hulk and everything else, you'd never get past that Thor bit before the producer threw you right the fuck out of his office.

When comics first started out, that's exactly the world in which they lived. An Avengers movie should not be impossible, any more than "Abbott and Costello meet the Wolfman" was - what they need to do is make the characters well-known, and then start putting them together.

If you have Iron Man meet up with Thor when the former had a hit movie and the latter has nothing, you'll get laughed out of the theater. If you have two well-known film characters and give them a crossover, you may see a different story.

[DudeGuyMan]

If they were doing this in a more relaxed and organic fashion I'd be less concerned. As it is, it's very clear that they set out quite some time ago to make a Marvel Movie Universe(tm) and started scheduling films and their crossovers before even bothering to see what sticks to the wall when thrown.

[Havok]

Wow. I'm sorry. Are comic book nerds now complaining that too many comic book movies are coming out at once?

Since Marvel has taken over their own properties, they have produced Iron Man 1 & 2 and The Incredible Hulk all three of which were very good, despite the less than stellar box office of Hulk.

What is coming out is Thor, Captain America, The Avengers and Iron Man 3. Not exactly a plethora of titles. And not anything that a studio with a successful track record shouldn't be able to handle.

The movies that have sucked are the ones that are licensed out (with the exception of Punisher: War Zone, which was fucking great!)

Now if they were trying to juggle the FF, X-Men, Spider-Man, Punisher, Wolverine, Ghost Rider along with Thor, Hulk (who has no movies going) Iron Man, Cap, Thor and The Avengers, there might be cause for concern, but they aren't, so there isn't.

Quite honestly Favreau is an idiot for not realizing that this is the direction Marvel was going to go with Iron Man considering that he had Nick Fury and mention of the Avengers in the first fucking movie. Not to mention that Iron Man is a fucking comic book, a medium that can not exist without crossovers. Grow up and stay on the gravy train and make it the best you can. 'Oh noes Marvel is confused and has blindsided me!'. Fucking please.

That said, I hope RDJ uses his contract power to keep him on board.

[Vympel]

Quite honestly Favreau is an idiot for not realizing that this is the direction Marvel was going to go with Iron Man considering that he had Nick Fury and mention of the Avengers in the first fucking movie. Not to mention that Iron Man is a fucking comic book, a medium that can not exist without crossovers. Grow up and stay on the gravy train and make it the best you can. 'Oh noes Marvel is confused and has blindsided me!'. Fucking please

I think as a director, he's doing the franchise a favor from bailing out if he doesn't like what they're planning to do with the third film and doesn't think he can do it justice. Do you want another SpiderMan 3?

[DudeGuyMan]

What is coming out is Thor, Captain America, The Avengers and Iron Man 3. Not exactly a plethora of titles. And not anything that a studio with a successful track record shouldn't be able to handle.

Along with a Spider-Man reboot, another Wolverine, Ant Man, and maybe a Deadpool flick. There's also talk of another Fantastic Four, a Blade reboot, a Daredevil reboot, a Doctor Strange movie, Black Widow, another Ghost Rider, another X-Men, Silver Surfer...

Even if half of these die in pre-production, they are really fucking going to be cranking them out like sausage.

[Shroom Man 777]

Spiderman and Wolverine aren't in the jurisdiction of Marvel studios since these movies were made by other studios before Marvel studios got formed, and those other studios still have rights to the Spiderman and X-men/Wolverine movies.

[Havok]

Quite honestly Favreau is an idiot for not realizing that this is the direction Marvel was going to go with Iron Man considering that he had Nick Fury and mention of the Avengers in the first fucking movie. Not to mention that Iron Man is a fucking comic book, a medium that can not exist without crossovers. Grow up and stay on the gravy train and make it the best you can. 'Oh noes Marvel is confused and has blindsided me!'. Fucking please

I think as a director, he's doing the franchise a favor from bailing out if he doesn't like what they're planning to do with the third film and doesn't think he can do it justice. Do you want another SpiderMan 3?

I didn't want Spider-Man in the first place but that is neither here nor there. Honestly, I would rather he stuck with it and he made the best of the perceived mess then someone new and untested do it.

[Havok]

What is coming out is Thor, Captain America, The Avengers and Iron Man 3. Not exactly a plethora of titles. And not anything that a studio with a successful track record shouldn't be able to handle.

Along with a Spider-Man reboot, another Wolverine, Ant Man, and maybe a Deadpool flick. There's also talk of another Fantastic Four, a Blade reboot, a Daredevil reboot, a Doctor Strange movie, Black Widow, another Ghost Rider, another X-Men, Silver Surfer...

Even if half of these die in pre-production, they are really fucking going to be cranking them out like sausage.

Try reading the whole post.

[ray245]

Quite honestly Favreau is an idiot for not realizing that this is the direction Marvel was going to go with Iron Man considering that he had Nick Fury and mention of the Avengers in the first fucking movie. Not to mention that Iron Man is a fucking comic book, a medium that can not exist without crossovers. Grow up and stay on the gravy train and make it the best you can. 'Oh noes Marvel is confused and has blindsided me!'. Fucking please

I think as a director, he's doing the franchise a favor from bailing out if he doesn't like what they're planning to do with the third film and doesn't think he can do it justice. Do you want another SpiderMan 3?

I didn't want Spider-Man in the first place but that is neither here nor there. Honestly, I would rather he stuck with it and he made the best of the perceived mess then someone new and untested do it.

So someone should be "forced" to do his job just because he made a good first and second film for Iron Man?

[Simon_Jester]

Wow. I'm sorry. Are comic book nerds now complaining that too many comic book movies are coming out at once?

If this results in shitty movies, which people don't watch, and thus in the future no comic book movies... why not?

A lot's going to depend on how they execute Avengers, since they have so much riding on it by making it a jumbo crossover of their other movies. If it bombs (because the audience is confused, or because they fuck up, or because they spend so much time packing it full of comic book references that the plot suffers), then everything past Avengers suffers.

If Marvel Studios turns out a ton of standalone movies using Marvel Comics IP, and they're all good, that's fine. But if they turn out two or three crappy movies in a row it's going to hurt the studio's reputation badly, which could collapse the brand. Likewise, if they turn out so many superhero movies that they saturate their part of the summer blockbuster market, the individual movies become less profitable, and they might have to cut the budget to squeeze them all in... which, again, could collapse the brand.

Nobody wants that.