Movie Morsels 64: Bad News for Iron Man

The first Iron Man I liked, very much. The second one? Eh. Not my favorite. Not even close. So, the news that Jon Favreau has left the third film distresses me a bit. Sure, he helmed the second movie and I didn't like it but it's pretty well known on the gossip circuit that he was creatively castrated by Marvel and the studio. In that sense, then, I guess it doesn't really matter that Jon's not directing the third one - he probably wouldn't have the same thing happen all over again. But on the flip side, someone with less vested interest in the series than Jon might just make things 10 times worse. It's hard to know. Annoying! Why do studios always have to muck up the works? Ugh.

via The Superficial:

Great. Now who’s going to needlessly insert themselves into the movie?

While Iron Man 2 was less a movie and more a painful clusterfuck advertising Marvel’s upcoming films, the blame for that rested squarely on Marvel who, instead of letting director Jon Favreau continue to build a successful franchise after taking a genius gamble on Robert Downey Jr., thought it’d be best to make him essentially act like a toy-hawking George Lucas, which miraculously didn’t end in suicide. However, it has brought us to today where Vulture reports Favreau has walked from the third film:

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.

Wait. Everybody just saw that, right? Robert Downey Jr. has director approval. HELL. YES. Finally, my dream of seeing Mel Gibson direct an Iron Man movie has come to pass.

ROBERT: Hey, Mel, got a sec? Was looking over the script and apparently 80% of the scenes are nothing but Iron Man being nailed to a cross by a Russian supervillain named “Record-o-Bitch.” Am I reading this right?
MEL: It’s actually more like 90, but listen, be honest: Do ya think Gwyneth will blow me?
ROBERT: …. God, I made the right choice here. ACTION, PEOPLE!

Movie Morsels 57: Iron Man 2

New trailer just released (to ride on RDJ's current Sherlock Holmes publicity wagon). It actually doesn't look terrible... Let's hope that's actually true. (I'm still worried about a Spiderman-esque villain saturation problem. War Machine [who's not necessarily a villain but it's in the gray area], Whiplash and Black Widow? Could easily become a case of too many characters spoil the story, you know?)

Movie Morsels 41 - Iron Man 2

I actually read this yesterday but I didn't want to bump off my Halloween video from the top slot so I waited until today to post. Sorry! Anyway, EW.com has a bit more insight into the Terrence Howard Iron Man sequel saga:

When a summer blockbuster grosses more than $300 million, putting together a sequel is typically as simple as throwing buckets of money at your stars and signing a few pieces of paper. That hasn't been the case with Iron Man 2. It took months for Marvel Studios to lock in director Jon Favreau for the sequel. And reports that Don Cheadle will replace Terrence Howard as Col. Jim Rhodes — a supporting character who seemed poised for a big role in the follow-up after he muttered ''Next time, baby'' to Iron Man's steel suit — hint that IM2 isn't quite as infallible as the superhero at its center.

Hollywood insiders believe the exit stems from Terrence Howard's difficult behavior on the set of Iron Man. But those with intimate knowledge of the situation suggest a far more dramatic backstory: Howard was the first actor signed to the film and, on top of that, was the highest-paid. That's right: more than Gwyneth Paltrow. More than Jeff Bridges. More than Robert Downey Jr. And once the project fully came together, it was too late to renegotiate his deal. It didn't help that, according to one source, Favreau and his producers were ultimately unhappy with Howard's performance, and spent a lot of time cutting and reshooting his scenes. (Favreau could not be reached for comment, while Howard's publicist says: ''Terrence had a tremendous experience working on Iron Man.'')

As such, when Favreau and screenwriter Justin Theroux went to map out the sequel they found themselves minimizing Howard's story line. Once Marvel learned that Favreau was thinking of curtailing the role, the studio went to the actor's agents with a new and drastically reduced offer — a number that's similar to what supporting cast members were paid for the first movie. The agents, according to sources, were so taken aback by this new figure — estimated at somewhere between a 50 and 80 percent pay cut — that they questioned it. Why did they blanch? Multiple sources say that Marvel execs never told Howard's reps that they had issues with the star's on-set conduct. (Marvel would not comment for this story.)

It's unclear whether Howard's team walked away first, or if Marvel ended the discussion at that point. Either way, the studio moved quickly to secure Cheadle and the story leaked out the next morning, Oct. 14. And alas for Howard, there will be no next time.

Interesting... what I am still having trouble grasping, however, is how on Earth Howard wound up making more money than nayone else on the first movie! I know he was the first to sign on but I really do not understand how everyone else's agents were OK with the way the pay went down. It may have been too late to reegotiate Howard's deal - but I don't see that Iron Man himself couldn't get his bit redone. Oh well. It is not for me to understand, I suppose. Bye bye, Terrence. No matter how or why this situation has come about, you lost. Big.

Movie Morsels 36 - Iron Man 2

Looks like baby wipes were not included in his contract negotiations 'cause Terrence Howard is out of Iron Man 2. According to TunaFlix,

So much for Terrence Howard’s “Next time”… According to The Hollywood Reporter, he won’t have one: Don Cheadle has been signed to replace Howard as Jim Rhodes, Tony Stark’s best friend and eventual fan-favorite War Machine. Talks apparently fell through over “financial differences, among other reasons,” which would mark a distressing trend for Marvel after talks with director Jon Favreau almost collapsed over money as well.

You always hate to see characters recast for sequels (though The Dark Knight managed it without incident, for the most part), and it’s hard to defend squabbling over money when the original made over $570 million worldwide. Luckily, Cheadle’s no slouch and I doubt it’ll take long for him to win fans over, no matter what a great job Howard did with the role.

Buh-bye, Terrence. You were fine in the first movie but, honestly, I don't think I'll notice that you're gone. It's probably for the best, anyway. I mean, really - you're probably so in demand that turning down a gazzillion-dollar franchise sure to have more than just the one sequel was probably a smart move. Oh, wait - you only have 1 movie on tap right now? My mistake.

Movie Morsels 33 - Iron Man 2

TunaFlix had a little blurb from Iron Man director Jon Favreau that sheds a little light on what's in store for number two:

Jon Favreau’s always made himself readily accessible to fans, so it shouldn’t be too surprising that he dished out some Iron Man 2 tidbits during a live online Q&A yesterday. You can read the full transcript over at the LA Times’ Hero Complex blog, but here are a few choice excerpts.

Favreau addressed speculation about the Mandarin’s involvement in the Iron Man sequel saying, “Mandarin is still an important figure in the Iron Man universe. We have an interesting take on him that allows us to incorporate the whole pantheon of villains. The whole 10 Rings thing in [’Iron Man’] was a good tease for it.” And when a fan mentioned female villain Madame Masque, Jon was intrigued: “Female villain… Now there’s an interesting notion.”

Female villain or not, you’ll be happy to know that Sam Jackson’s Nick Fury and War Machine definitely have a place in the second film. Favreau told one fan, “[S.H.I.E.L.D.] is important to the franchise, and what is S.H.I.E.L.D. without Fury?” and agreed on that other fan favorite as well: “We need War Machine. Agreed. Shoulder cannons and all.”

As for their May 2010 release date, which is approaching faster than you’d think, Jon admitted the date is “daunting [but] we are making much faster progress than the first time around and have much less to design and fewer casting issues. I am confident that 2010 is achievable if we continue working together as we have for the past few months. It has to be great, though. It has to be great.”

I honestly have no knowledge of Iron Man so I don't know who any of these villains are but I just got my Iron Man DVD earlier this week so my interest has been reignited a bit! At this point I'm still looking forward to Iron Man 2... but I'm sure that can change between now and May '10. I'll keep my fingers crossed that it doesn't.

Movie Morsels 25 - Iron Man & Twilight

Per TunaFlix:

In preparation for the DVD release of Iron Man next month AccessHollywood has got their hands on a deleted scene from the film. Remember the rumored Ghostface Killah cameo that never made it into the final cut? Well, here it is for you now in all its non-scored glory. Enjoy.

The Iron Man DVD comes out September 30th.

______________________________

I have not gotten into the whole Twilight phenomenon - I just started Harry Potter for crying out loud!! At this rate I won't start reading the Twilight series until 2012, at least. Actually, I do have the first book... but after reading the reviews of the final book, I'm reluctant to start the series at all. I wasn't too jazzed about it in the first place; most of the reviews I've read point out that people are usually so embarrassed by the books that they either glue a magazine over the cover or just don't tell anyone they're reading it at all. Still, those same reviews also said that, schmaltzy as they are, the books are oddly compelling. I'm definitely not one for book schmoop - and the Twilight stuff sounds especially goopy (Apparently, the lead guy is so beautiful he sparkles or something... I don't know. It sounds stupid.) - but I am always looking for something new to read and since it seems like, embarrassed or not, tons of people have read or are reading the books, I thought I may as well jump on the bandwagon as not. Now I'm thinking not. (If you've read the final book or are interested to read a scathing review of the ridiculous final book in the series, click here. Or here. There are definite spoilers, so beware.)

Anyhoo, if you ARE currently in the Twilight crowd and are looking forward to this winter's film, get excited - taking advantage of Harry Potter's move from November to July, Twilight's premiere has been bumped from December 12th to November 21st. I know it's not Twilight's fault that Harry is almost a whole year away - instead of just 3 months - but sucking up Harry's slot isn't making me love the books and/or movie any more!

Movie Morsels 23 - Iron Man, Terminator & Transformers Sequels

TunaFlix has a blurb on Iron Man 2:

IESB has a few choice quotes from Robert Downey Jr. about what to expect from Iron Man 2, which we’ve got for you here: “Our goals are more of the same. The idea that he said he’s Iron Man in part 1…it’s one thing to say it, and it’s another thing to actually evolve to the point where you can live in a heroic fashion. You know, they say, ‘The superhero movie always needs to follow…’ and I said who is that guy? Get him out of here! We want to do what worked for us last time, in a way that evolves.” Indeed, one of the best things about Iron Man was the way the production made a conscious decision to move away from the typical superhero cliches towards something a little more satisfying - what made sense for the character, not the genre. “We’re talking about a guy who is put in an extraordinary circumstance, and the people that are around him, and how that creates a sense of family, and how that disrupts whatever forces that we have to say that are working [in his life]. I like the idea of an Iron Man 2 that you’re able to understand various points of view. You’re able to touch on some subjects that are a lot more far reaching, while still grounding it in entertainment.” Is that a tease Iron Man 2 may touch on Stark’s alcoholism, a subplot director Jon Favreau has mentioned before? It might not be as commercially viable (then again, consider Hancock…), but it sure as hell would be interesting.

______________________________

Movies Online posted an interview with McG re: Terminator Salvation which you can access here. It's a sorta-lengthy interview, so I won't repost the entire thing but I will say that, if you're interested in the movie, the interview is a good and worthwhile read. McG addresses several topics including how the movie fits in relative to the first three movies and the TV show:

The continuity in the Terminator films was always a little flexible and no one really minds because they’re such wonderful stories. T2 is 10 years later and John looks like he’s 13. What's your take on the timeline when this starts?

MCG: Well there's no doubt that at the beginning of T3, for example, begins with a bit of a punt as to what happened at the end of T2, and there's some rejuggling of the timelines. We're largely treating it as though the bombs have gone off. I'm not going to share with you what the date is when the bombs go off, and we come into the picture in 2018. We’ve done the best we can to honor the timelines that have been put into place and I think it ultimately feels very satisfying. If we've done our job properly, then this will be regarded as the statement of the time and the place and the where and the when and the why and the how. And it comes from a place of doing a lot of research with, you know, futurists, with scientists who talk about how long it would take the atmosphere to clear itself out so you could actually go back outside and do your thing. We're trying to just sort of amalgamate the three pictures and amalgamate the intention, and then answer that to the best of our ability. Again, there are certain things that are in stone. The T800 comes in 2029, you know. We're building towards that place. Therefore, if hardware should show up in 2018 that was supposed to be around in 2029, that's a problem for John Connor.

I definitely recommend the article - and no, it's not Christian-centric. :o)

The character Marcus has been talked about for a long time, with debates running about whether or not he's really the 'main' character of the movie and whether or not he's a true Terminator. (Marcus is played by Sam Worthington and is the other dude in the photo above.) I found an old bit from christian-bale.org that has some choice quotes from an Entertainment Weekly interview with Derek Anderson, Victor Kubicek, and Moritz Borman (the three producers on the film):

The three go on to also clarify just exactly what Connor’s involvement is in the film, considering the rumor that he was just a supporting role. ANDERSON: John Connor is an ongoing, very central character throughout the next trilogy.

KUBICEK: Exactly. The mythology, really at the root of it, is the birth of the hero. John Connor is this modern-day, messianic figure that is going to lead our franchise forward.
ANDERSON: He’s leading the fight for the salvation of humanity against the machines. So he’s very important. “There’s gonna be another major co-star with kind of equal presence in this installment.” But who is this character? It’s not Arnold back as the Terminator, so who is it? “It is a new character introduced in the mythology that’s not replacing Arnold [Schwarzenegger]. It’s not like he’s stepping into Arnold’s shoes. It’s a completely new character.” Is it a Terminator at least? “No, not really. That’s one of the big twists…”

Obviously we won’t know the full answer to those questions until Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins arrives in theaters in 2009. But Kubicek teases, and confuses, with a bit more: “And it’s questionable if he’s an enemy or not. That’s not necessarily resolved.” However, to round things out and finalize the update, Derek Anderson delivers one final statement that definitely gets me excited. “It’s a really interesting time in the franchise because it’s where all the fans have always wanted the franchise to go, and it hasn’t to date, which is the post-apocalyptic world. It’s after judgment day. So because we’re in a different time in the mythology, it introduces a whole new set of circumstances and characters.”

I'm just glad the producers aren't sloughing John Connor off as a second banana. I'm excited for Marcus and Kyle Reese and all those guys but c'mon - John Connor is the whole point of the stupid movies!! He does save the world after all. What else does a guy have to do to get a little attention?

______________________________

CHUD (I know, it sounds gross but it stands for 'Cinematic Happenings Under Development') has a couple snippets on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. They don't feature any actual quotes from real people associated with the movie but they still seem pretty legitimate. The first one is from June and deals with whether or not the Fallen of the title actually refers to the character of the same name. I posted about this earlier but this author actually cared enough to gather up some info on the character and blah de blah blah so here you go:

Some TransFans began speculating that the Fallen of the title was actually a character from Transformers comics, an ancient Transformer who seems to play the Devil in their mythology. (A dude called Primus is like God. I think. Maybe the better correlation is that the Fallen is like Darkseid).

The Transformers wiki provides backstory: At the dawn of time, Primus created new life, the 13 original Transformers, to crew his planetary form into battle against his eternal nemesis Unicron. One of these 13, his original name now lost to the mists of time, turned against his siblings, his creator, and his universe, and betrayed them all. ...this guardian of entropy became obsessed with the darker side of chaos and death, and in the black place these urges led him, the betrayer found a new god, more suited to his nature. He turned against Primus and became the Fallen. Now he is a being of power, darkness, and absolute dedication to Unicron.

Here's what Wikipedia says about him: Around 6.5 million years ago, a test of the experimental "space bridge" matter-transport system on Cybertron liberated the Fallen from his prison, and he materialised on Cybertron, where he quickly recruited the Chaos Trinity, three mystically-inclined Decepticons - Bludgeon, Mindwipe and Bugly - into his employ. Abducting Transformers that he identified as possessing "genetic potential" within their sparks - Grimlock, Blitzwing, Jetfire and Hot Spot - the Fallen planned to use their energies to awaken Primus from his self-imposed slumber, thereby alerting Unicron to his location, allowing the world-eater to renew hostilities with his old enemy. An attack from combined Autobot and Decepticon forces led by Shockwave and Prowl disrupted his plans, and Primus himself reached out and promptly destroyed the Fallen.

Ooh. I'm all atwitter. Anyhoo, the second piece is more current (posted yesterday in fact) and deals with a spoiler of sorts. Now, I don't want to ruin anything for anyone but seriously - did anyone really think Megatron wasn't coming back for the second movie? Oops. Secret spoiled. Eh. You'll live. Sooo... here's the scoop:

If the current incarnation of the script follows the beats of a previous incarnation (which did not feature The Fallen), Megatron may be getting brought back by the Autobots, who need him to conquer the new menace. But I've learned that this time he won't be that weird alien jet. This time he's a tank.

Megatron apparently was a tank in the Transformers Generation 2 comic or toys or something (I don't know, I just looked it up on Wikipedia and I still don't get it), so this has some precedent. I imagine this is as close as we'll get to seeing him be a gun, since the movies appear to eschew the sort of size shifting antics that the comics and cartoons embraced.

Somewhere, Wade and Robert are excited. My work is done.

Movie Morsels 14 - Iron Man 2

Oh great. The first movie isn't even out of theaters yet and already Marvel is screwing up the sequel! Blargh!!!! I first read about this on EW.com but TunaFlix had much more to say about it so I decided to go with their bits. The first is from June 10:

Looks like yesterday’s reports of a March start date may have been just a bit premature. According to the man himself, Jon Favreau, “March seems unrealistic.”

Favreau’s been saying for some time now that no movement can happen on Iron Man 2 until Marvel is finished with The Incredible Hulk (which releases this Friday). He reiterated this point on the Iron Man MySpace group:

“It’s been five weeks since the one and only phone call my reps have gotten from Marvel. I know their hands are full with the Hulk and I’m sure they will get into it shortly, as they tell me they intend to. I ran into the Marvel guys at the Hulk premiere and everyone sounded eager to get to work on IM2.”

He continued:

“I am concerned, however, about the announced release date of April 2010. Neither Robert nor I were consulted about this and we are both concerned about how realistic the date is in light of the fact that we have no script, story or even writers hired yet. This genre of movie is best when it is done thoughtfully and with plenty of preparation. It might be better to follow the BB/DK, X/X2 three year release pattern than to scramble for a date. It is difficult because there are no Marvel 09 releases and they need product, but I also think we owe it to the fans to have a great version of IM2 and, at this point, we would have less time to make it than the first one.”

When the easiest thing in the world would just be to shake hands, rush Iron Man 2, and churn out a sloppy but insanely profitable product, you really have to respect Jon for being focused on quality rather than release slates. You just have to hope Marvel is willing to buck the usual studio thinking and do the same.

Then came this little bit o' info yesterday:

Bad news coming from IESB - apparently Marvel is dragging their feet on locking Jon Favreau in for Iron Man 2, and it’s not just because they’ve got their hands full with The Incredible Hulk:

“The chairman of Marvel Studios David Maisel who has been in charge of negotiating new terms with Favreau is being cheap and not willing to pay a fair directors’ fee.”

To be clear, we’re talking about the standard director’s fee here, not some astronomical figure from a diva holding the franchise hostage. Favreau was asked to take less money and prove himself on the first Iron Man, and now that he has (and then some), the studio is making the foolhardy assumption that he’s suddenly expendable.

Apparently, Maisel is of the mind that Iron Man 2 will be a success no matter who’s in the director’s chair, and in a way he’s right… Iron Man 2 is on pace for Spider-Man 2 numbers so long as Robert Downey Jr. is back in the metal suit, but that doesn’t mean it’s a smart idea to cut ties with Favreau. Especially considering he’s largely to thank for Marvel’s newfound swagger.

But beyond that, this Favreau flap has the potential to turn into a big black eye for the fledgling studio - and penny-pinching Jon out of a sequel he’s so clearly gung-ho about would mark a huge step back, both in the public eye and in terms of attracting future talent. And at this stage in the game, that’s something Marvel truly can’t afford.

I definitely agree that it would be a mistake on Marvel's part to ditch Favreau but I also know that money talks. Most people agree that Spider-Man 3 wasn't very good but because it made a slew of money, Sony wants to make (at least) a 4th installment (as you know from my earlier rant!). Well, 3 made oodles of money because those of us that like the series wanted to see it through - not because it was a fantastic piece of film-making! Still, the same logic applies to Iron Man 2, I suppose, and I certainly wouldn't put it past Marvel to push 2 out just as soon as a monkey with a camera can get shooting...

In Case You Missed It

The MTV Movie awards were early last week... I think. I'm old, I don't watch MTV anymore. Sue me. Anyway, I came across this blurb on A Socialite's Life and it gave me a chuckle. I like Robert Downey, Jr. - he's weird but he's funny.

I tried watching [the MTV Movie Awards] last night, but I was so bored I fell asleep. This was the only skit I saw that I found funny, but be warned that it gets a little violent.

Iron Man

Robert and I finally saw Iron Man this past weekend and I thought it was great! I highly recommend it. I knew next to nothing about Iron Man going into the movie - nothing about the comic and just a bit about the movie itself - so I was pleasantly surprised. It was funny, it had action, it had cute little anthropomorphized robots... it was awesome! :o) (After seeing the post-credits sequel set-up, though, I hope the sequel(s) aren't going to veer off into Cheeseville...) And Robert Downey, Jr. looked as good as he ever has - if Robert looks like that at 43, I'll be pleased as punch, lemme tell you...!

Here are a couple good articles on RDJ:

Robert Downey - Clean, Sober and Talented

Robert Downey Jr.: The "Iron Man" Effect