Avengers movie discussion (news/etc.)

[ProjectX2]

Marvel vs. Favreau.

There seem to be far too many of these incidents and Marvel are always in the wrong.

 

[Iceshadow]

I hope it's not as bad as it sounds.

 

[Random]

I hope it's not as bad as it sounds.

I don't think it is. Probably an annoyance at best to Favreau. I compared news like this to Nortons supposed fight over the final edit of the Incredible Hulk. Everyone made it into this huge thing when really it was a simple and civil disagreement. I think some people just want there to be drama

 

[Bass]

Except that Norton is no longer the Hulk.

And it's possible that this means that not only will Favreau not be directing IRON MAN 3, but that if there is THE AVENGERS 2, Robert Downey Jr won't be in it.

The terrible thing about it is that it feels true, and that's because Jon Favreau was very clear about how he didn't want to do IRON MAN 2 this quickly at the beginning. With Fiege recently unceremoniously dumping Norton publicly and the movie guys in Marvel being responsible for kinda hamstringing the creative outlet of the comics by firing Bill Jemas, along with Sony messing up Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN 3, it feels like a lot of bridges being burnt.

Maybe it'll patch up, but the very idea that this seems so very believable and so samey is the worry; Marvel Studios has a public perception of being stupid, interfering executives who don't know what they're doing. True or not, that's a terrible image to have, especially when you consider they could have an image akin to Pixar.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

Except that Norton is no longer the Hulk.

Exactly

 

[Random]

Except that Norton is no longer the Hulk.

Which only happened two years after the supposed "OMG HUGE ****ING FIGHT!!11!" I can't believe that a studio exec would string him along for two years after a simple disagreement or that Norton would be so kind about it if that were the case

 

[Zombipanda]

Except that Norton is no longer the Hulk.

And it's possible that this means that not only will Favreau not be directing IRON MAN 3, but that if there is THE AVENGERS 2, Robert Downey Jr won't be in it.

The terrible thing about it is that it feels true, and that's because Jon Favreau was very clear about how he didn't want to do IRON MAN 2 this quickly at the beginning. With Fiege recently unceremoniously dumping Norton publicly and the movie guys in Marvel being responsible for kinda hamstringing the creative outlet of the comics by firing Bill Jemas, along with Sony messing up Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN 3, it feels like a lot of bridges being burnt.

Maybe it'll patch up, but the very idea that this seems so very believable and so samey is the worry; Marvel Studios has a public perception of being stupid, interfering executives who don't know what they're doing. True or not, that's a terrible image to have, especially when you consider they could have an image akin to Pixar.

Disney should give Pixar the rights to all of Marvel's characters.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

Disney should give Pixar the rights to all of Marvel's characters.

I don't know how that would work since Disney owns Pixar too.

 

[Dr.Strangefate]

I think his point was that Disney should have Pixar people running their Marvel properties, since they are all under one roof.

 

[Random]

I think Disney should just encourage Marvel to run things like Pixar, take your time making a really good film rather than rush them. Though I have a feeling after the Avengers they'll be doing that with other properties. Disney just need to make sure they stay in line.

 

[Bass]

Which only happened two years after the supposed "OMG HUGE ****ING FIGHT!!11!" I can't believe that a studio exec would string him along for two years after a simple disagreement or that Norton would be so kind about it if that were the case

Except in two years we got an IRON MAN sequel, and not only did we not get an INCREDIBLE HULK sequel, but for two years there was constant speculation as to what was going to happen regarding Norton, they just ditched him out of his contract.

Regardless of whether they strung him along or not; it's obvious from Fiege's remarks that they dumped him because of his conduct (justified or not) during THE INCREDIBLE HULK publicity fiasco. The idea that Jon Favreau isn't going to do IRON MAN 3 due to meddling during IRON MAN 2 would simply make him the third guy to drop out of a Marvel movie due to behind the scenes contention (Raimi, Norton were the first two) which makes it very believable.

 

[Random]

Except in two years we got an IRON MAN sequel, and not only did we not get an INCREDIBLE HULK sequel, but for two years there was constant speculation as to what was going to happen regarding Norton, they just ditched him out of his contract.

Regardless of whether they strung him along or not; it's obvious from Fiege's remarks that they dumped him because of his conduct (justified or not) during THE INCREDIBLE HULK publicity fiasco. The idea that Jon Favreau isn't going to do IRON MAN 3 due to meddling during IRON MAN 2 would simply make him the third guy to drop out of a Marvel movie due to behind the scenes contention (Raimi, Norton were the first two) which makes it very believable.

I would believe that to be the case if it wasn't for the fact that Norton was in negotiations and he and Whedon did have conservations right up to point they decided to recast him. If that creative debacle was so bad they wouldn't even have talked to him about Avengers, but they did and tells me there was serious considerations here. I can believe that it played a part but not in such of a negative "they hate norton now and are a bunch of evil jerks" way some people (not necessarily here) are taking it. I just think people are trying to find drama without having all the information or really considering the other side. That's all

 

[Iceshadow]

Plus wasn't Raimi burned by SONY, not Marvel?

 

[Random]

Plus wasn't Raimi burned by SONY, not Marvel?

Was he even burnt? I know he was lobbying for Spider-man 4 but I recall Sony just wanted to do a reboot and go in a different direction? I know you were referring to Venom being forced in which lead to some tension but he was fine working for them again and they were seriously considering doing both Spider-man 4 and 5 with him. It just seems pretty clear to be creative difference than anything else.

Much like how Schumacher was set to do Batman Triumphant but the studio choose to go in another direction. In fact if you believe it was the studio that forced the movie to be more like a toy commercial it sounds exactly like Raimi's situation but no one here will claim Schumacher got burnt by the studio like we would Raimi.

 

[Bass]

I would believe that to be the case if it wasn't for the fact that Norton was in negotiations and he and Whedon did have conservations right up to point they decided to recast him. If that creative debacle was so bad they wouldn't even have talked to him about Avengers, but they did and tells me there was serious considerations here. I can believe that it played a part but not in such of a negative "they hate norton now and are a bunch of evil jerks" way some people (not necessarily here) are taking it. I just think people are trying to find drama without having all the information or really considering the other side. That's all

Sure, that makes perfect sense.

Plus wasn't Raimi burned by SONY, not Marvel?

Yep. But the public perception and why this Favreau rumour rings true is because it sounds like Marvel Studios messing it up again, regardless if they did or not before.

Was he even burnt? I know he was lobbying for Spider-man 4 but I recall Sony just wanted to do a reboot and go in a different direction? I know you were referring to Venom being forced in which lead to some tension but he was fine working for them again and they were seriously considering doing both Spider-man 4 and 5 with him. It just seems pretty clear to be creative difference than anything else.

SPIDER-MAN 3 didn't do well, and it was clearly due to Sony forcing Raimi to use Venom when he didn't want to. They were right to want Venom but they were wrong to force the director to use him when he had no affinity for him. So when SPIDER-MAN 4 was gearing up, Sam Raimi wanted the Vulture and Sony didn't. It was the same train wreck about to happen, so they just fired Raimi and did a reboot.

Creative difference is the polite way of firing someone in Hollywood. It really is. The Norton above, for example; he met with Whedon. Maybe he acted like a complete tool and demanded top billing and screen time and Marvel were suddenly struck by the fiasco and realised it wouldn't change. Maybe Norton refused to come on board if Whedon was attached because... I dunno, he hates gingers. Maybe Whedon punched Norton. Maybe they loved each other, but Norton was asking too much money. Dunno. But whenever I talk to anyone in the "biz" as it were, or read up on it, it seems that when things fall apart due to creative differences or what-have-you, it's all part of "Production Hell", which is the biggest killer of films in Hollywood it seems. The horror stories of that world seem to have no end.

Like today, I just heard on the grapevine that a certain director spent the first four weeks of his shoot, his head in his hands, bemoaning that the film based on a popular tv show he was making was going to be a total failure because the main kid couldn't act.

So maybe it's not the reasons we've heard; it could be something much worse.

 

[Iceshadow]

Like today, I just heard on the grapevine that a certain director spent the first four weeks of his shoot, his head in his hands, bemoaning that the film based on a popular tv show he was making was going to be a total failure because the main kid couldn't act.

Was it Fat Abbot?

 

[Random]

SPIDER-MAN 3 didn't do well, and it was clearly due to Sony forcing Raimi to use Venom when he didn't want to. They were right to want Venom but they were wrong to force the director to use him when he had no affinity for him. So when SPIDER-MAN 4 was gearing up, Sam Raimi wanted the Vulture and Sony didn't. It was the same train wreck about to happen, so they just fired Raimi and did a reboot.

Sony didn't force Raimi to have Peter Parker do a saturday night strut and make Sandman Uncle Ben's killer. I hate those far more than I hated Venom in the film. He could have worked Venom into something watchable but failed. Also I never heard anything that Sony didn't want Vulture.

 

[Bass]

Sony didn't force Raimi to have Peter Parker do a saturday night strut and make Sandman Uncle Ben's killer. I hate those far more than I hated Venom in the film. He could have worked Venom into something watchable but failed. Also I never heard anything that Sony didn't want Vulture.

SPIDEY 3's failure wasn't due because of any one scene. Rather, it's quite obvious from the movie that Raimi wanted to give the Sandman and Harry stories emotional weight and was forced to put in the Venom storyline to a big degree that it could be used to sell the film, however, he had no affinity for Venom. So he had trouble taking his two plotlines he wanted to do and bending them tangentially around Venom. Hence why Parker does the strutting and ridiculous woman-beating dance, why an idea like Sandman being Ben's killer just couldn't hold up, and so on. It's not like, "Scene Y was bad, the film failed" but rather all the creative decisions that led up to the final film were shaped by Raimi having to accommodate a studio mandate he didn't care for. Sure, Venom absolutely could've worked in the movie, but he had no affinity for the character and spent his energies trying to salvage the characters he was interested in. Essentially, it's a case of "I had to murder my baby, or let someone else do it" as William Goldman said in his book WHICH LIE DID I TELL about one of his writing gigs. Raimi had to gut his third movie to make room for Venom and it's just not easy to do. I recently watched all three Spidey's back to back and while I think all of them are dull and slow, the third one really lacks any charm the first two had. And so, in so far as I know, this seems to be what happened.

As for the Vulture; I honestly can't remember which characters were rumoured to be ones Raimi wanted and ones Sony wanted. I think Black Cat was mentioned as was Kraven, but I can't remember. I just remember the whole rumour mill was spinning with "It's going to be Spidey 3 all over again", and it seemed to be a matter of Sony/Marvel not wanting to have to go through all that crap again, so they jettisoned all the guys in the first three and started again. Which seems believable since Fox is planning on doing that with their new X-MEN movies. And possibly this is true of the James Bond franchise which is not only considering dumping Daniel Craig, but rebooting it again. And Marvel/Universal did it with HULK. There's a definite trend at the moment that if a franchise has a big failure (X-MEN 3, SPIDER-MAN 3, QUANTUM OF SOLACE, HULK, STAR TREK: NEMESIS) they just dump it all, wait a few years, and reboot the entire franchise with an all-new cast, writing team, and director.

I expect this to be the case for THE LAST AIRBENDER too.

 

[Random]

I didn't mean to imply that one scene made the movie bad, but those scenes/plot lines/character development/whatever were put most likely by Raimi with no mandate from the studio to do so. He could have work with Venom and did the job he was given well. I don't think it would have been a great movie but it could have been watchable and I think that difference lands on Raimi's shoulders. But I feel we're getting a bit off point here. I think the idea that Sony "burnt" Raimi isn't true. They were all willing to discuss future films and after considering their potential directions Sony decided to go the reboot route and I believe hearing they consider Raimi for that but I'm not certain. I guess the point I want to emphasize is Raimi wasn't fired he just wasn't re-hired. Sony owns the property so it's theirs and they're the boss, it's there millions of dollars that are invested. Ultimately I don't think their decision was done with any malice or contempt, it may be misguided, misinformed, or be a huge mistake. Raimi wasn't hired cause he was a friend or a nice guy, it was because the studio felt confident he could do the job in the direction they want for their project. Now that direction has change, simple as that. I feel that Norton and the penny pitching at Marvel was very much the same, nothing personal or sinister about it.

I think Raimi may have been done in by the reboot craze than anything else.

Anyway back the Iron Man 2, I don't really see how the "Avengers" could interrupt so much of the plot. Cause when you think about it only one new character from that side of the story appears, both Nick Fury and Coulson were introduced in the first one and only had like three scenes altogether. And Shield's involvement fits the theme and story about governmental concerns over Iron Man. The hints to Thor were just two lines of passing dialog, blink and you missed it. As for the Black Widow I feel there would be a similar role that would be a foil for Pepper whether Avengers were involved or not. I'm thinking back through the movie and the Avengers really didn't interfere with the plot almost at all, just moved some things along quicker. There's so much more Iron and than Avengers there. There wasn't some secondary backdoor plot left open it almost all focuses on Iron Man's story. So I really don't see how Favereau could feel creatively bogged down by this. But I do get the rushed to production thing. And rereading that article I'm just not too sure about the source. But what do I know.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

I didn't get the whole Avengers taking over Iron Man 2 either, it was only about ten minutes of film if that, and most of that was after the credits.

But I'm sure Bass willcome in here and rant for fourteen paragraphs saying "Rubbish", "Bob's your Uncle" and "Pip pip" alot, and suddenly I'm going to go, "I HATED AVENGERS IN THE IRON MAN FILM IT TOOK UP SO MUCH TIME!"

For serious, his accents melts you into his way of thinking. He has a superpower.