Iron Man discussion (Spoilers!)

How would you rate Iron Man?

  • Total voters
    54
Rachel Dawes' recasting hardly killed the momentum, and neither will this. And remember that Rachel had a bigger role in Batman Begins than Rhodes had in Iron Man.
 
But more people enjoyed Terence Howard's performance in Iron Man than Katie Holmes' in Batman Begins. And I honestly think that The Dark Knight would have been fractionally better if they'd just kept Katie Holmes. Gyllenhaal certainly wasn't any better and in fact, I actually think she was a little bit worse than Holmes (who wasn't that bad to begin with).

Howard is exactly how I picture Rhodey. Tall, imposing, handsome and friendly, if a little crusty. Cheadle isn't any of these things. Replacing Howard with Cheadle is like replacing...well...Christian Bale with Michael Keaton.
 
Gothamite said:
But more people enjoyed Terence Howard's performance in Iron Man than Katie Holmes' in Batman Begins. And I honestly think that The Dark Knight would have been fractionally better if they'd just kept Katie Holmes. Gyllenhaal certainly wasn't any better and in fact, I actually think she was a little bit worse than Holmes (who wasn't that bad to begin with).
Click to expand...
Actually I thought Gyllenhaal did a really great job, much better that Holmes
Howard is exactly how I picture Rhodey. Tall, imposing, handsome and friendly, if a little crusty. Cheadle isn't any of these things. Replacing Howard with Cheadle is like replacing...well...Christian Bale with Michael Keaton.
Click to expand...
I agree, its a very odd choice
 
*shrug* I just don't see the point of complaining that they gave a good actor's part to a better actor.
 
I don't know, I hate when they change actors but Howard wasn't really significant in the first one and Cheadle is much cooler.
 
ProjectX2 said:
I don't know, I hate when they change actors but Howard wasn't really significant in the first one and Cheadle is much cooler.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.


I found Howards squeky voice to annoying anyway. A military man like Rhodes doesn't seem like the kind of person that wiuld have a squeky voice.


I actually like the idea of Cheadle as Rhodes and the man is a great actor.
 
Dr.Strangefate said:
Rachel Dawes' recasting hardly killed the momentum, and neither will this. And remember that Rachel had a bigger role in Batman Begins than Rhodes had in Iron Man.
Click to expand...

I....

Gothamite said:
But more people enjoyed Terence Howard's performance in Iron Man than Katie Holmes' in Batman Begins. And I honestly think that The Dark Knight would have been fractionally better if they'd just kept Katie Holmes. Gyllenhaal certainly wasn't any better and in fact, I actually think she was a little bit worse than Holmes (who wasn't that bad to begin with).

Howard is exactly how I picture Rhodey. Tall, imposing, handsome and friendly, if a little crusty. Cheadle isn't any of these things. Replacing Howard with Cheadle is like replacing...well...Christian Bale with Michael Keaton.
Click to expand...

... never mind, Gothamite said it for me.

Every word of this post is 100% true. I agree about Holmes and the momentum, and Gyllenhaal in comparison to her, and Rhodey.... all of it.

Dr.Strangefate said:
*shrug* I just don't see the point of complaining that they gave a good actor's part to a better actor.
Click to expand...

The Dark Knight Returns(2011) - Co-starring Daniel Day-Lewis as Harvey Dent.

Nope, sucks, because it doesn't fit and is a pointless, jarring change, overall quality of the actor aside.
 
Planet-man said:
The Dark Knight Returns(2011) - Co-starring Daniel Day-Lewis as Harvey Dent.

Nope, sucks, because it doesn't fit and is a pointless, jarring change, overall quality of the actor aside.
Click to expand...

*shrug* To each his own. I agree that this whole situation is silly and obnoxious, but it happened, and it by no means hurts the impending quality of Iron Man 2.

And to counter your point above, I just want to remind you that I am all for recasting The Joker for the next movie. The reason I wouldn't want DDL in the role is that he would be playing a corpse. And if, let's say, Michael Caine had been replaced with John Hurt (which is a more apt comparison in terms of importance to the stories in question, despite Caine being a better actor, but Hurt is also great), I would find it equally silly and obnoxious, but I'd still be incredibly excited for the next Batman movie.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Strangefate said:
*shrug* To each his own. I agree that this whole situation is silly and obnoxious, but it happened, and it by no means hurts the impending quality of Iron Man 2.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it won't affect the Iron Man 2 experience for the worse, and I still think there's GOT to be more to this situation, and hopefully it isn't a closed book.

And to counter your point above, I just want to remind you that I am all for recasting The Joker for the next movie.
Click to expand...

I'm for stuff like that if the actor is actually unavaliable to play the part, like in the Joker's case.

The reason I wouldn't want DDL in the role is that he would be playing a corpse.
Click to expand...

*sigh*... assuming Harvey Dent's character survived. Would you have a problem with it in that case? You say you don't know why we think a "good" actor being replaced by a "great" actor is a problem.... you don't think it would suck if they dropped Eckhardt for no reason and recast him with the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DDL?

And if, let's say, Michael Caine had been replaced with John Hurt (which is a more apt comparison in terms of importance to the stories in question, despite Caine being a better actor, but Hurt is also great), I would find it equally silly and obnoxious, but I'd still be incredibly excited for the next Batman movie.
Click to expand...

John Hurt replacing Caine would be a TERRIBLE decision that COMPLETELY changes the character and his role in the series.

The problem is that we'd all probably be incredibly excited if even HALF of the next movie was ruined because the franchise already packs more good stuff in half a movie than most other whole movies. Because of this, I say that's a terrible way of judging things. Howard's ejection isn't a problem because he "wasn't one of the top-5 things"? Where does that line come from? I could say having no special effects in the next one wouldn't be a problem because they weren't the #1 best thing, Robert Downey Jr was, so I'm just as excited no matter what if he's attached.

These things amount to a lot more than the sum of their parts, and to me, Howard's Rhodey was a key part of what made the movie work so well - an interesting, exciting character being played by a very fitting actor and promising a lot of future fun. Dumping that may still leave us with rocket-boot effects and an overall great cast, but I don't care. I don't find this decision "silly and obnoxious". I find it something that will add a significant bit of awkwardness and sad to the next movie, which is the OPPOSITE I want from the Iron Man experience.
 
I just think you're making a mountain out of an mole hill here.

I've said I don't like it, I agree to that extent. I just think you're being a little ridiculous in turning this into that big of a deal. This isn't "not having special effects" or whatever ridiculous point you were trying to make. This is a medium sized character that has unfortunately been replaced for whatever reason. Marvel -does- have a reason behind this, you know. And an academy award winner like Don Cheadle isn't exactly cheap, so its not like money was the only concern. Favreau and Marvel decided that Howard wasn't the best choice for the direction they wanted to take the character. And after Iron Man, I trust Favreau's judgment in this franchise.

I am not saying I'm happy with this, but I'm not running around like somebody just destroyed the chances of a good Iron Man 2.
 
Last edited:
Does it really matter anyway? White people think all black people look alike so they'll never tell the difference.:p


Really though i won't miss Howard's squeky voice.
 
Venom Melendez said:
Does it really matter anyway? White people think all black people look alike so they'll never tell the difference.:p
Click to expand...
While this is true, black people constitute a significant portion of ticket sales at the box office, and therefore matter ever since you Yanquis started letting them into the movie houses.

True, they had separate seating, but STILL, that's progress!
 
Last edited:
Oh the switch out of Rhodes. Guess he should have learned his lesson to take less money when it comes to Disney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top