Murr Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 Coming off the news of Disney/Marvel and Paramount's new distribution deal, we now have an official release date for the third installment in Jon Favreau's Iron Man franchise.. We knew Iron Man 3 was on the cards, but director Jon Favraeu hasn't said much about it so far. Now we have some news, with Disney acquiring the distribution rights, and now the official release date of May 3rd 2013. All that we know about the plot of the third movie is that it will (most likely) feature The Mandarin as the villain. Jon Favreau has said of the character.. "You've got to do the Mandarin. The problem with the Mandarin is that the way it's depicted in the comic books, you don't want to see that. He has 10 magical rings — that just doesn't feel right for our franchise. So it's either tech-based, or the rings are not really rings. But maybe with 'Thor' and all those others, you'll introduce magic to that world and it won't seem so out of place." Source - Comicbookmovie.com
Happenstance Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 It should be interesting to see the route they take with Mandarin. Even though im never a big fan of magic in comicbooks I do hope thats the way it goes. The Iron Man movies so far have been a bit tech heavy and one of the more interesting aspects of the comic was the tech vs magic angle they took with Iron Man and Mandarin.
Paj! Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 Yeah, to make it a bit more special, magic would be such a joke. And provide a credibly threat. I remember reading an Iron Man issue randomly without any context when I was younger, and IM and Mandarin were like on their last legs, fighting within an insanely huge Dragon spaceship/airship thing that was falling to the ground, like blood and tears. The Avengers were all screaming on the ground. It was Black Widow, Justice and Falcon - the three you'd rather not have in that situation. Apart from that, never read any issue with Mandarin.
Dan_Dare Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 They should do Ezekiel Stane- it would make more sense, he's more modern and he's a better foil for Tony Stark.
ReZourceman Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 They should do Ezekiel Stane- it would make more sense, he's more modern and he's a better foil for Tony Stark. Negatory! Mandarin is the only option. Without him it'd be like doing a Batman trilogy without The Joker. I do love Ezekiel Stane though. I mean....IF theres a fourth.
Dan_Dare Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 TBF, I've not really read any major Mandarin stories. I think the last time he was in it was just after Civil War but I didn't read all of that. Stane makes more sense to me, though. I love that he's like the logical extreme of everything Stark pretends he's not.
Dan_Dare Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 TBF, I've not really read any major Mandarin stories. I think the last time he was in it was just after Civil War but I didn't read all of that. Stane makes more sense to me, though. I love that he's like the logical extreme of everything Stark pretends he's not.
Konfucius Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 So I only read that on Wikipedia just now but the rings are tech based, albeit alien technology. I think they could also sell it in the movie that way if they still want to keep it techy. I actually liked the very technical approach in the first movie. I mean the technology was out of reach but most of it was barely out of reach and it made mechanical engineers look cool, which I like and has nothing to do with the fact that I'm studying this :P
Sméagol Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 I haven't read any comics, I have no idea who the mandarin is. That said, I've seen quite some comic movie adaptations, so I'm hoping this one is at least on par with the first. I loved the first, but I really, really despised the second, despite Scarlett Johanson (perhaps the only good thing in that movie).
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 I haven't read any comics, I have no idea who the mandarin is. That said, I've seen quite some comic movie adaptations, so I'm hoping this one is at least on par with the first. I loved the first, but I really, really despised the second, despite Scarlett Johanson (perhaps the only good thing in that movie). How come? I thought the second was better than the first. Or at least just as good.
Paj! Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 It wasn't HUGELY worse than the first, in any case. A bit more...flabby/loose/less focused than the first, but hardly a big drop in quality or anything.
Sméagol Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 How come? I thought the second was better than the first. Or at least just as good. Well, I can't remember all the details [edit: fuck it, I'll look things up on IMDB], so I can't explain everything well perhaps, but the main points: - Similar antagonist as the first. First had a guy in some alternative Iron man suit. Second had one in an self-made iron man suit. - The movie didn't convince me with Don Cheadle / the army stealing the other suit, and Robert Downey jr doing nothing about it. - Sam rockwell's character, the mastermind behind the drones, casually goes to the army showing off his wares. That scene felt ridiculous and unnecessary. - I can't remember this one, so I might be wrong, but I remember not being convinced about either the reason why the father of Micker Rourke's character was being deported, and / or why Ivan needed revenge (and to such an extent). - Great, iron man fighting a bunch of automated iron man clones. Boring action scene and a waste of SFX. - Oh my god Pepper Pots. I mean, I really don't mind stereotypes in movies in general, but this, that was just a slap in the face. She annoyed the hell out of me, and was pretty much part of the furniture. A waste of a great actress. - Sure, the army gets to keep the suit. - And, again, I'm not the comic expert, but is the iron man not most known for the iconic circular arc reactor? Why change it to an ugly trianglar shape?Apart from selling more toys? (who'd want those?) Like I said, as far as i remember, those were the main things I didn't agree with.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Huh. Can't really say I noticed/remember those points as being bad/not working in the film, personally. I think the general story worked better than it did in the first. Pepper could have been better, though, I agree. I think what buggered me the most was the point at the end ... ... him making A WHOLE NEW ELEMENT based on his father's research HIDDEN IN THE LAYOUT OF THE PARK! That's just a little too farfetched for me. But it's really a minor and acceptable point, seeing as we're dealing with futuristic technology.
Iun Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 "- And, again, I'm not the comic expert, but is the iron man not most known for the iconic circular arc reactor? Why change it to an ugly trianglar shape?Apart from selling more toys? (who'd want those?)" No, you're not the comic expert. The Unibeam, which is the light on the chest, is not always the source of power. And it's not always circular. AND I WANT THE TOYS! Plus there was a great point made in the US War Machine comics mini-series: why would you put the power source dead-centre in the chest? It's going to draw fire. "- I can't remember this one, so I might be wrong, but I remember not being convinced about either the reason why the father of Micker Rourke's character was being deported, and / or why Ivan needed revenge (and to such an extent)." He wanted to commercialise the technology, Stark wanted to use it for the betterment of mankind. Vanko tried to steal the tech and sell it, he was deported for industrial espionage, and seeing as he had already defected, it was equivalent of a death sentence. "- Similar antagonist as the first. First had a guy in some alternative Iron man suit. Second had one in an self-made iron man suit." True, but for different reasons: Stane's motivation for creating the Iron Monger in the first are never really clear... I mean, to fight Iron Man, maybe, but primarily he wanted the company. The second movie was the fall-out of declaring that Stark was the owner AND operator of the technology, which he claimed was impossible to copy, and if it was possible to copy, then it was so far away that his own developments would exceed enemy potential for growth rendering any improvements obsolete before they are made. Also, the idea was the Iron Man has become the new deterrent: but all that responsibility is placed in the hands of one very unreliable man. Vanko had the power to damage the suit, and even prove that he was a match, but he was still defeated at first. His point was to undermine Stark's confidence and the confidence other people placed in him. Anyway, I'd better get to work.
Cube Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 - The movie didn't convince me with Don Cheadle / the army stealing the other suit, and Robert Downey jr doing nothing about it. It was heavily hinted that he wanted to give his suit away because of his condition.
Retro_Link Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Put simply I think the two films work absolutely perfectly as a pairing... the first is far more story based and less action, the second, more action based a looser story. I love them both... the first really established the franchise brilliantly, the second is like a living comic book!... it's OTT and Awesome!!
Sméagol Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Great, I managed to get some direct response! :P Maybe I should find the X-men 3 thread, the Transformers thread and the Star Wars 3 thread, and post what I don't like about those :P. [..]No, you're not the comic expert. The Unibeam, which is the light on the chest, is not always the source of power. And it's not always circular. AND I WANT THE TOYS! Plus there was a great point made in the US War Machine comics mini-series: why would you put the power source dead-centre in the chest? It's going to draw fire. Fair enough. You have to keep in mind though, there are plenty other moviegoers who haven't read the comics.. Just like me, they may only know Iron man from cartoons or something. I'm willing to bet to outsiders, the circular shape is the most recognisable. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, but personally, I just think the mark IV suit looks much better. They're both available, but personally, I'd only want [this one]. I'm not really getting your remark of it being in the centre though.. It's still the powersource in this movie or wasn't it? [..] He wanted to commercialise the technology, Stark wanted to use it for the betterment of mankind. Vanko tried to steal the tech and sell it, he was deported for industrial espionage, and seeing as he had already defected, it was equivalent of a death sentence. Myeah, but basically, it was his own fault. Does this really merit such a bloodthirsty revenge from ivan, on people not even directly involved in his father's demise? But maybe that's my lack of empathy in this case. [..] True, but for different reasons: Stane's motivation for creating the Iron Monger in the first are never really clear... I mean, to fight Iron Man, maybe, but primarily he wanted the company. [..] That all doesn't matter to me, the result on screen is the same: Iron man fighting other iron man clones. More of the same. It bored me. I genuinely thought the action scene with Scarlet was the most interesting to watch, and not just because of her tight suit. [..] It was heavily hinted that he wanted to give his suit away because of his condition. No issue at the end of the movie. Then again, he'd realise cooperation was possible with the army through Cheadle's character. So not a huge issue for me.
Murr Posted December 15, 2010 Author Posted December 15, 2010 The search has begun for a new director to take on Tony Stark's cinematic adventures, as Vulture reports that Jon Favreau will not be returning to direct Iron Man 3. Favreau informed Marvel Studios of his decision this week, though Vulture says it's unclear whether his decision was financial, creative or both. Vulture cites an informed source as saying Favreau was frustrated with Marvel wanting to include more and more of their characters into the Iron Man series, especially in the wake of Iron Man's role in The Avengers. However, Vulture says Favreau may have simply been too expensive for Marvel at this point, as they and their parent company, Disney, look to find ways to cut costs – noting that Favreau is said to have made $10 million for Iron Man 2 and would almost certainly get another sizable raise for Iron Man 3 to as much as $15 million, along with receiving 15 percent of the film's gross after it recouped costs. In fact, Vulture says that one of their sources familiar with "Marvel's playbook" theorizes that the company, "had been pushing a confusing and packed vision of the third film as a tactic to provoke Favreau into leaving the project." According to Vulture, Marvel began quietly searching for a new director as of last night. However, they note whoever is picked will have to be okayed by Robert Downey Jr., who has contractual approval over the director of the film. Favreau may not be making Iron Man 3 for Disney (which purchased distribution rights for Avengers and IM3 back from Paramount recently), but he will still be working for the company – as he prepares to direct the Disneyland inspired Magic Kingdom, after completing work on Cowboys & Aliens. In the meantime, Downey Jr. will get back in the Iron Man armor when he films The Avengers for director Joss Whedon next year, for a 2012 release date. Iron Man 3 is scheduled to be released May 3, 2013. Now here's the big question: Will Favreau still appear in Iron Man 3 as Happy Hogan? UPDATE: Both a Marvel source as well as Jon Favreau himself have confirmed the news. Favreau tweeted, "It's true, I'm directing Magic Kingdom, not Iron Man 3. I've had a great run with Marvel and wish them the best." Source - IGN.com Slightly worried now, I think he did an awesome job with the first 2, Don't know how the 3rd will go.
Retro_Link Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 [FUCK] Just the other day IGN had an interview with him where he was saying he wasn't sure where he'd take the series next, because being a sequel to Thor, C.A. and The Avengers he'd have to wait for those. But that he'd had very brief discussions with those involved in those films. [/FUCK]
Retro_Link Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 ^ Are these a regular feature of the Comic Book thread? I'll have to check them out if they are, good stuff.
Paj! Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 No he just made it today. While I appreciate the effort, all that news and more can be found on CBR and other sites...you should make it more your own, otherwise there's no reason to watch.
Retro_Link Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 Well it was informative for me anyway, as someones who's pretty interested in the comic world, but isn't actually invested in it.
ReZourceman Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 No he just made it today. While I appreciate the effort, all that news and more can be found on CBR and other sites...you should make it more your own, otherwise there's no reason to watch. Well I'm going to do reviews/viewer opinions/and more, and its a general news update with pictures, so instead of having to read individual things you have it read to you, comprehensively in a nicely presented package which included the bigger picture too..... But yes. Thanks Retro, I started it today, but I'll be doing regular features.
Recommended Posts