The LA Times hosted a live chat between Iron Man director Jon Favreau and his fans yesterday, during the course of which plenty was said about the process of making the sequel and working within the onscreen Marvel universe.
You can read the whole thing here and take in selected quotes below, but the bottom line is simple: Favreau knows all too well what made the first film great, he knows that he doesn’t have very much time at all to hammer a similarly excellent second film into shape, and he’s got pretty specific ideas about how the developing film version of Marvel’s grand scheme should work.
In the interest of keeping the extraneous crap to a minimum, I’ve simply excerpted Favreau’s comments so you can get the big picture quickly.
On the failure or compromised nature of superhero movies in general:
The reason that superhero films in the past have fallen short is either
because the director was unfamiliar source material or the director
chose to depart from it for personal reasons.Another reason is that the
studios that have had the rights to a particular franchise would never
think twice about compromising the source material if thought it would
enhance the commerical appeal.
On what made Iron Man work:
I focus mostly on story and character. I put a great value on emotion,
humor and natural dialogue. The effects are fun to explore in original
ways, but without a strong story, they mean nothing.
On the interconnectedness of Marvel directors:
I think its important for all filmmakers working for Marvel to
collaborate so there is a consistency in the films, so yes they should
keep in touch. I had not been in touch really with Louis during”Hulk”
and I think that would have been helpful. I hope to be in contact with
directors in the future.
On the sequel, and what it might entail:
– 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 IM 1 was a good tease
for it.
– The sequel is shaping up to incorporate Tony’s vision for the future. What happens after he says “I am Iron Man?”
– Shield is imortant to the franchise, and what is Shield without Fury?
– We need War Machine. Agreed. Shoulder cannons and all.
On the possibility of the Demon in a Bottle story being part of the sequel:
Stark has issues with booze. That’s part of who he is. I don’t think
we’ll ever do the Leaving Las Vegas version, but it will be dealt with.
On the effect of the demanding schedule:
The date is daunting. 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 tha past few months. It has to be great, though. It has to be
great.





11 comments
I know that having War Machine in the sequel is more of a fan pleasure, but you can't argue that a great-looking character must appear as soon as possible.
Fuck all that. Will there be tits?
So after Iron man so bravely fought the evil tewwowist's and helped the good brown desert people out, which current evil American enemy will he fight in the sequel? Maybe the evil Russians with the false democratic leader who annexes good freedom loving democracies. What about the Chinese? Those evil commies! They need Iron dude to show them the right way with a good iron fist. Afterward's Robert Jr can drunkenly pick up some hot Beijing tail and crack jokes with his black side kick about how his iron mask's eye holes are too slanty. Can't wait, fav's!
Such hatred must a young man have to wretch forth his vomitous hate unto a movie message board….MOVIE numbnuts. Shut off the entitlement gland clutching your brain, ignore the "PC" fairy whispering in your ear and enjoy the sequel…sweet Jeebus in a swim diaper son!
wow, i really dont agree with what favreau said what makes comic book movies work…if staying true to the material was key, then daredevil and ghost rider would have been awesome….in fact, i think its the liberties the director takes with the material and makes it his own that makes it great
Read, understand, learn: http://tiny.cc/NXRpI
So, making a childish action-comedy (in other words, his comfort zone) doesn't "depart from it for personal reasons"? How hypocritical. RDJ was decent, but apart from him I thought the movie was mediocre and totally uninspired. Favreau played it safe (thank god for the Marvel shareholders and the kids) but eventually I thought it was the Charlie's Angels of wannabe spy movies: good FX, no plot. Favreau should quit buttering up the fans with his chats and other MySpace page, and spend more time writing a real movie between the jokes.
Wow…lotta haters (without a clue) here. He is 100% right that the worst mistake a director can make with any beloved character is to depart drastically from the core of that character's story. These characters are successful for a reason, and any director that thinks he can come along and "fix" a hero who has been popular for decades is a complete moron.
As for Jonathon's comment? Go back to reading about Dark Knight. We know you can never enjoy another comic book movie now, so why try? Iron Man was THE best…by a factor of ten…comic book movie to have ever been made. Favreau made a literally perfect film. Sorry if you forgot to actually watch it before you commented. I'll give you the important facts…the main character doesn't sound like a terminally ill pervert…so you won't like it.
Easy, mike. Peace; no one wants to start a rivalry between two totally different, unrelated, uncomparable movies from two totally different directors. Right?
What's up with TDK? If you feel insecure about the comparison, then don't bring it to the table.
I never even started to mention it; my only point was that Favreau spent considerable time "discussing" with the fans (marketing ploy and nothing else – any informed people knows that these chats help shaping the marketing aspect, NEVER the editorial one), raising issues he had no business talking about. For instance, he mentioned Verhoeven and RoboCop in extenso while promoting Iron Man but in the end you find *nothing* even remotely evocative of the political aspects (the Afghan/War on Terror bits are just pointless and childishly portrayed), the satire (could've used the previously mentioned 2-D geopolitics: not even close…), or the science fiction aspects. Not to mention that he kept bragging about making "the ultimate spy movie" and, apart from casual fan service (Shield references), the movie was ultimately totally non-spy oriented, just a forgettable action-comedy mistaking cynicism for audacity.
Whether you agree or disagree with my humble opinion, throwing personal attacks and ad hominem arguments is uncalled for.
The movie delivered. Can't wait for the sequel. I couldn't care less about what Favreau may or may not have said beforehand, the movie was great.
The first movie was great, loved it. I can't say that about many movies that come out. The entertainment industry is like a sewer pipe that dumps into a river. Lot's a shit. You can see, and smell it, and it's always flowing. Every once in a while something pops out of the sewer pipe that makes you take notice. Nice analogy huh?
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.