JON FAVREAU AND TONY STARK ARE DONE - Page 2

Superhero comics got on fine for decades without leaning on a shared universe. The only thing a shared universe is integral to nowadays is sales. Interesting stories can come out of it, sure, but it's mostly a bunch of convoluted bullshit meant to target the wallets of nerds with no discerning taste. Superhero comics are already a world where stories never end, and the shared universe is that special incestuous ingredient that keeps it all on the ferris wheel.

Am I totally against seeing these characters together? No, but you don't make films like you make modern comics, you keep the fuck away from that model, otherwise you end up with a lot of the weird shit that brought IM2 low or that ruined the ending of The Incredible Hulk.

JacknifeJohnny, What...Ruined the end of, The Incredible Hulk? The wait for the throwdown was worth it, as the Fight between, The Hulk and Abomination, was...Incredible!
Iron Man 2, on the other hand was, terrific all the way through.

There has been a shared universe since the 60s or before, which is over 50 years. If there's nothing in that 50+ years of history that appeals to you, then that's your opinion but don't try to act as if it's some bastardization of the genre to have it in the movies. That's just ludicrous. Might as well complain that some superheroes have capes.

And I don't really care about the "sales" aspect, I care about good stories being told with interesting characters. Seeing different, disparate characters interact and go into action together is profoundly entertaining to me, and again part of tradition for well over FIFTY YEARS.

It's the DC and Marvel UNIVERSES. Not the "DC and Marvel individual universes for each separate group of characters"

Again, if that's not for you, fine. But the "shared universe" concept is just as much a pat of the superhero genre as anything else, so calling it "nonsense" or whatever is forcing personal preference onto what's already been established. I find that (not speaking of you here) a lot of people seem to have issues with the whole concept of superheroes so want to constantly narrow what they are in order to feel "better" about watching movies based on the "funny books".

Now if the "shared universe" concept had been created BY the movie studios in order to force characters together, then I would see more of a point. But that's far from the case so it makes no sense to me. I highly doubt you're 50+ years old so the "shared universe" has been part of comics for much longer than you've even been alive.

It's not like it's alien territory for him. And I suspect that Favreau got a lot less studio interference when we made Elf and Zathura.

That velociraptor is a condescending prick, he doesn't know shit. The T-Rex has it all figured out.

None of that makes it an inherently good idea:



Your argument should have began and ended with the Brave and the Bold animated series.

Nice!
Course not. It, like most things, is all about execution.

While I was initially excited for the idea of a shared movie universe, the way it's playing out seems to indicate that MARVEL has no interest in each film being able to stand on it's own merits. They seem to seek to turn the multiplex into the comic shop, where each year we're treated to a new, impenetrably confusing and labyrinthine entry in their complex meta narrative

That's fine, but it's not for me

I wanted to see the next step in Stark's character arc in IM3, not a sequel to AVENGERS by another name

Can't say I blame Mr Favreau for jumping ship. If RDJ wants to come out of this whole mess with his class intact, he'd exercise the director choice clause in his contract and head for the lifeboats too (though given his history I can't say I blame him for wanting to cling to a safe gig at all costs)

Right because the only way to pull off a shared universe movie is by having Batman and Robin playing baseball with Superman.

I stand corrected.

Imagine if when Superman landed the plane in the center of the ball field in Returns, Nolan and Bale's Batman was amongst the players standing there gawping along with everyone else. Cut to Langella slumping in his chair and no further explanation as to why the Dark Knight was catching. Fuck you, Singer! Wasted opportunity!

If I don't see Thor and Captain America throwing the ol' pigskin with Iron Man in the Avengers I'll be sorely disappointed.

Seeing Batman at a ballgame (in full costume) would be hilarious. Reminds me of him attending the trial in BATMAN FOREVER in his suit and cape. Dive for it!

Wait, how was the end of INCREDIBLE HULK ruined by the shared universe stuff? I haven't seen it in two years or so, but all I remember is that little scene with Stark and Ross. Is that all you guys are kvetching about there?

You trot out the "long history" of the shared universe to lend it credence, but it took decades for the shared universe to ever really work well. (Less of a problem at Marvel Comics, but it still resulted in, say, Johnny Storm building Spider-Man a hot rod). Cinematically, so far it's just been a lot of easter egg clutter in the films. The Avengers will make or break the concept, but to date the shared universe is just there to fan geek flames, not to enrich the films.

And don't count on live-action filmmakers NOT playing up the inherent absurdity for laughs.

What you're basically saying is that some of the goofiness that was included in the comics' shared universe (mostly during a "simpler" time in American culture) needs to be removed.

I highly doubt any film maker would ever put anything like Superman playing baseball with Batman in a movie no matter how many comic book covers you trot out. Not really getting your point. Just like they're not going to have Robin in green short shorts if he's ever in a movie. You act like there aren't any non shared universe concepts that also need to be removed from movie versions.

If the only thing you've gotten in over 50 years of the shared universe concept is a few silly covers, while ignoring the many many MANY serious stories that have been written then that's your problem, not any indication that it can't be successfully translated.

Banner was meditating in his cabin, trying to control the Hulk rage. There's a onscreen counter or something like that mentions the days/hours he hasn't hulked out. The counter stops, he looks at the camera with green eyes and smirks. Instead of it cutting to black and having the credits roll, FUCKING Marvel decided to tack on a scene of Ross drinking in a bar that features Downey Jr. walking in and talking about taking care of his Hulk problem.

A really cool ending ruined to satisfy this shared universe deal and the surprise success of Iron Man 1.

That ruined it?

That's like saying Predator 2 was ruined because of the Xenomorph skulls in the background.

It may have been superflous for the movie itself, but... there's no damage. It doesn't take away anything. It's not like that green eye smirk was such a cliffhanger in-the-face super ending that throws you out with a big grin on your face. It's not a Spider-Man II or Batman Begins final scene. Even Iron Man and Janes Punisher had a better ending scene.

Am I wrong or was the RDJ scene only after the end credits? I am not a fan of Nortons hulk film, but it's problems were weak script and director not AVENGERS stuff IMHO

KingOne, If, The Incredible Hulk...ended, with Banner meditating, that would have been dull. Who want's to see Banner...Avoid Hulking out? I want to see, Hulk, cured of...Banner. The Hulk is...Incredible, not...Puny Banner! I liked the ending of General Ross and Tony Stark, and would have liked to see more of that building of...The Avengers.

The ending was screwed up structurally because of the RDJ scene. That should have gone before Banner in the cabin, which would make it flow better. Though I think it was moved from the end credits.

duke, Banner was learning to control the Hulk, hence the green eyes and the smirk. That was what he got from the meditation.

Heck, in the comic, he was actually zapped and turned completely into Banner with no ability to transform into the Hulk for a while. His son was actually the Hulk for a while. Bruce Banner, even without the Hulk, is still pretty incredible and dangerous since he's still a scientific genius and sorta a douchebag.

I thought JLU handled the concept fine, and in a "serious" manner (for spandex types anyway). Actually, it's been a while, but from what I remember that show had some surprisingly effective characterization given many characters were featured in a single 20 something minute episode. I agree though, the Marvel-cinema take has been clumsy at best.

Yeah, Phil, don't you realize how serious comics are?!

The covers are just me fucking with you, AOC. I do really think it's a FAR more delicate balancing act in live action than in comics or animation, both of which have done amazingly successful crossovers - see Alan Moore's Swamp Thing run, or the aforementioned JLU. It will be hard for content creators like Whedon to avoid playing up the inherent absurdity, the elephant in the room, and that lone fact sets them up to be less successful than, say, Alan Moore or Bruce Timm, who, by the nature of their respective media, are excused from having to "set up" a shared universe.

I think what this whole thing needed is somebody in a position equivalent to showrunner, but even then, the negotiations between showrunner and his staff writers seem monumentally different than what would be needed between movie-runner and other directors. Directors are already prone to be motivated by their visions. A shared movie universe is already a complex enough thing. That said, I'm more interested in seeing how it works out than in simply watching origin stories (well told or not) for every superhero there is.

With Iron Man 2, I have trouble seeing how Marvel is the one that fucked it up. Let's say they asked a mention of Coulson going to New Mexico, introduction to Black Widow as well SHIELD/Nick Fury's role, perhaps even War Machine existing. I doubt however they asked for a mediocre villain on a simple minded revenge quest that tells us next to nothing about the main character that we didn't already know that, details aside, we all knew how it was going to end and posed literally no threat. I think a better writer/director could've merged the Marvel requirements with a story that furthered Tony Stark. And the ideas were there already, which is weird, why not, instead of pairing Vengeance McGrudge with Incompetent Competition, have the main villain (which easily could've been Whiplash himself) sell the kinds of suits he was making to US enemies. Part of what worked in IM1 was Tony's "shit this is what my life has led to" thing and having populations get ravaged because his own suit/presence escalated warfare, could've continued that angle of the character as well as led him to understand that perhaps doing everything alone isn't possible anymore, which ties to the SHIELD thing.

I think there's a silverlining, though, now that IM2 wasn't that good and IM3 will have the next to impossible task of following The Avengers, which is the only way they can make the story epic enough to stand alone is do something like Matt Fraction's "Stark Industries literally destroyed by an enemy" plotline, making Tony's arc mirror the best parts of IM1 as well as having to show him at his most brilliant. (If they seem interested in using Asgardians to introduce weird tech, couldn't they go something like Extremis except instead of Skrull(was it skrull?) something Asgardian?)

Rant aside, I think the main fault in IM2 had to have been Favreau's. If you have a brilliant character, you need to give him a brilliant enemy, not a theoretically-brilliant one but rather dumb as fuck in action.

The problem with Iron Man 2 isn't that Hammer and Whiplash are the villains, it's that they don't go all the way with the concepts of the characters.

IM2 is a transparent rehash of Batman Returns. The central question of the film is "Who is Tony Stark/Iron Man?" and each of the villains is supposed to mirror a side of the character. In the second Batman film, Penguin represents the abandonment issues, tortured psyche, and obsessive nature of the Batman character while Schreck represents Bruce Wayne without a moral framework. In the second Iron Man film, Whiplash is obviously supposed to be Stark's genius divorced from his resources and moral failings and Hammer is obviously supposed to be his moral failings and resources divorced from his genius.

The film falls apart for two reasons. The first--and most important--is that, unlike Batman Returns, Iron Man 2 is not really about Stark. It's about The Avengers. The second is that they neuter both the villains. Hammer can't bed a woman to save his life and Whiplash has to take crib notes from Stark to make his reactor sustainable. Those two things make the bridge between what the movie wants to be about and what is ends up being about uncrossable.

I don't disagree, but what I'd argue is that is the wrong way to go with Tony Stark. The central question you mention I'd consider more specifically suited to explore the Bruce Wayne/Batman dilemma, because up to a degree that's what the character is about. I don't think Tony Stark should be explored that way, I think Tony Stark is best when his genius and his good intentions return to him in the shape of horrible real world consequences, specifically because, unlike Batman, Tony Stark's existence is meant to have explicit worldwide consequences even before he actually gets inside a suit. The sequel should've explored, in my view at least, the man that singlehandledy brought world peace, through force, out of good intentions and the consequences that created.

In Matt Fraction's current run, a whatever character (Obadiah Stane's son) builds, out of Stark technology, a human/machine hybrid specifically used for suicide bombing and then, he gives that kind of technology to lots of terrorist groups, several of whom would probably have nothing in common except disdain for Stark, to get revenge against him. Now, I get the second movie couldn't have gone there, but that's the kind of story Tony Stark should be exploring. And even if you don't agree with me here, still it should be a rule in storytelling, that if your main character is meant to be a genius, his antagonist should be able to play at his level. Then again, I'm the guy that always thought Sorkin did Bartlett a disservice by making his re-election opponent Mr. Crime Boy I Don't Know.

Shane Black could do a pretty personal take on the Demon in a Bottle storyline.

Could y'all stop saying Shane Black? It's such a perfect suggestion it'll end up making whoever gets picked 10x more disappointing.

Unless, Phil, you can use your Rorschach-casting powers?

I've slaughtered the necessary farm animals. Now y'all need to conjure the perfect villain for Val Kilmer to play.

I get the horrible feeling that--if Downey stays with the franchises after The Avengers--we're likely in for a Mel Gibson-helmed Iron Man 3. With the Gibson and Downey executive sway combo, that could turn into the most weirdly right-wing superhero movie ever.

That's even better than Shane Black. And after Gibson rescued Downey's career, that makes total sense. The super villain could be the Oven Dodger.

Yeah, actually, despite myself, I like the full circle idea of Downey saving Gibson's career.

If Mel Gibson directs...Iron Man 3, the perfect villain might be...The Hate Monger! A clone of, Hitler, armed with a...Hate-Ray, both are a creation of the freakish...Arnim Zola!

Ok, for the record, I liked IRON MAN 2. I think the SHIELD stuff sucked, but overall I liked it

I think you are dead wrong to blame Favreau for it's faults though. *do not forget MARVEL rushed him through preproduction at a pace he went on record as being uncomfortable with, and then fought back against his intended Stark heavy DEMON IN A BOTTLE focus*

They wanted more villains and a lighter tone, and they rushed the movie because they cared more about setting up AVENGERS than getting IM right

Princess Kate, Demon In A Bottle is a...Depressing story. I am glad that...IM2, did not go as negative as that storyline. Whomever directs next, should up the ante on the action. I also hope, War Machine returns as well!

Quoted for posterity.