Sucks.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.
Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
Moderator: Steve
Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
http://www.thesuperficial.com/jon-favre ... -3-12-2010
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
-
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2922
- Joined: 2002-07-11 04:42am
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.
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.
"They're not triangular, but they are more or less blade-shaped"- Thrawn McEwok on the shape of Bakura destroyers
"Lovely. It's known as impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications' in the legal world"- Karen Traviss, crying libel because I said that no soldier she interviewed would claim that he can take on billion-to-one odds
"I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands"- Dark Moose on supporting your claims
"Lovely. It's known as impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications' in the legal world"- Karen Traviss, crying libel because I said that no soldier she interviewed would claim that he can take on billion-to-one odds
"I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands"- Dark Moose on supporting your claims
- Ghost Rider
- Spirit of Vengeance
- Posts: 27779
- Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
- Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.
I heard that IM3 would be some bizarre aftermath of Thor-Cap-Avengers happenings, but didn't hear about Favreau leaving. That particular sucks.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!
Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all
Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete
Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all
Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.Ghost Rider wrote: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.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.
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.
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
- DudeGuyMan
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2010-03-25 03:25am
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.DudeGuyMan wrote: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.
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?
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
- DudeGuyMan
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2010-03-25 03:25am
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.
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
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: 2008-09-14 02:36pm
- Location: Finland
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.DudeGuyMan wrote: 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.
-
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2922
- Joined: 2002-07-11 04:42am
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.Tsyroc wrote: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 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.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?
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.
"They're not triangular, but they are more or less blade-shaped"- Thrawn McEwok on the shape of Bakura destroyers
"Lovely. It's known as impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications' in the legal world"- Karen Traviss, crying libel because I said that no soldier she interviewed would claim that he can take on billion-to-one odds
"I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands"- Dark Moose on supporting your claims
"Lovely. It's known as impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications' in the legal world"- Karen Traviss, crying libel because I said that no soldier she interviewed would claim that he can take on billion-to-one odds
"I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands"- Dark Moose on supporting your claims
-
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 11924
- Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.
And does this mean Happy Hogan's getting recast? There's No smooching, Gwyneth Paltrow for you if you quit, Jon.
- DudeGuyMan
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2010-03-25 03:25am
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.Marcus Aurelius wrote: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.
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
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 16375
- Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
- Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.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.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.DudeGuyMan wrote: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.Marcus Aurelius wrote: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.
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.
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.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
- DudeGuyMan
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2010-03-25 03:25am
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.
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.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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?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
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
- DudeGuyMan
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2010-03-25 03:25am
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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...Havok wrote: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.
Even if half of these die in pre-production, they are really fucking going to be cranking them out like sausage.
- Shroom Man 777
- FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
- Posts: 21222
- Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
- Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
- Contact:
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
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.
"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 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.Vympel wrote: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?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
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
Try reading the whole post.DudeGuyMan wrote: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...Havok wrote: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.
Even if half of these die in pre-production, they are really fucking going to be cranking them out like sausage.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
So someone should be "forced" to do his job just because he made a good first and second film for Iron Man?Havok wrote: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.Vympel wrote: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?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
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
-
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 30165
- Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Re: Jon Favreau bails on Iron Man 3
If this results in shitty movies, which people don't watch, and thus in the future no comic book movies... why not?Havok wrote:Wow. I'm sorry. Are comic book nerds now complaining that too many comic book movies are coming out at once?
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.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov