Iron Man 2 Update-a-Palooza!
Favs talks sequel...and talks, and talks, and talks.
Jon Favreau and Stan Lee are on the promotional trail, doing interviews to promote Iron Man's pending release on DVD and Blu-ray -- and you know what that means: Lots and lots of questions about Iron Man 2. Luckily for all of us, Favreau is ready and willing to give up the goods.
Favreau and Lee spoke with a number of media outlets this week, but CHUD's Devin Faraci has done a bang-up job of breaking it all down into handy bullet points, so we'll point you there for the bulk of your Iron Man 2 information -- including the news that Favreau is already hard at work on the script with Justin Theroux and Robert Downey Jr., that he wants War Machine to make an appearance in the sequel, and that he's trying to wrap his head around how to make Ol' Shell-Head's nemesis, the Mandarin, look cool on the big screen.
Favreau also promised to up the action ante in future installments, and talked about his plans for incorporating the comic's classic "Demon in a Bottle" storyline into the movies, which he says he sees as more of a seamless, Lord of the Rings-type trilogy than a series of loosely connected parts. To read more of Favreau's thoughts on Iron Man 2, follow the link below!
Meanwhile, Collider also had a chat with Favreau and Lee, and came away with the news that the director is champing at the bit for the opportunity to film the sequel in 3-D -- and partially in IMAX. It'll come down to a cost decision, as you might imagine, and Favreau admitted this -- before taking the opportunity to take a swipe at the way Fox makes sequels. Collider's interview hasn't been fully transcribed yet, but they're offering the whole hourlong shebang up for download -- click below to hear it!
Source: CHUD
Source: Collider



Source: CHUD
Source: Collider
Related Items
| Movie: | Iron Man |
| Celeb: | Robert Downey Jr. |
| Jon Favreau | |
| Justin Theroux | |
| Stan Lee |
|
Looselycult writes: on Sep 12 2008 03:48 AM Yeah making the Mandarin cool, that's not going to be easy. Yeah, I think old Mandy definitely gets "The Worse Primary Villain " of any super hero award, hands down. Yeah even Dr. Sivana is cooler than The Mandarin. I think that's why as a kid growing up I never got into Iron Man, because he had such lame villains. Iron Monger was pretty much at the top of the heap, but he's dead now. Good luck with that one John. (Reply to this) |
|
CoreyT writes: on Sep 12 2008 04:14 AM And Mandrin is sort of magic-realted, while Iron man is SciFi. I want to see how they can pull that one off. (Reply to this) |
|
Sulaco2k writes: on Sep 12 2008 04:20 AM Downey's recently disparaging comments aimed at TDK and now Favreau jumping aboard the IMAX train...jealousy is a hell of a thing. I agree with you cult, Ironman's rogues gallery is the epitome of lame, one of the weakest ever for a major comic book franchise. Other then Nolan's Batman universe I'm sick and tired of these cheesy ****ing comic book movies. 'Yeah, I can fly.' Christ, hire a friggin' writer. (Reply to this) |
|
bamb0o-stick writes: on Sep 12 2008 04:25 AM In reply to this comment (#2027544) Woah, where can I read about these comments from Robert Downey? I can't believe that they would be against The Dark Knight's success. Both movies were excellent and made this a great year for comic-book movies (although I thought TDK was much better). (Reply to this) |
|
Sulaco2k writes: on Sep 12 2008 04:31 AM In reply to this comment (#2027550) The (Reply to this) |
|
pinkincide writes: on Sep 12 2008 04:58 AM Heh, I agree with Downey about TDK. It wanted to be a high drama crime thriller instead of a super hero movie. But then it pulled superhero movie stunts out of nowhere. Like how suddenly Batman's got a wall full of magic video screens with zero tech development time. That was the complete opposite of Batman Begins where half the fun was showing plausible ways his gadgets were developed. Then you've got the anarchistic Joker who can pull off meticulously planned scenarios with a crew of cronies who are unquestionably loyal, disciplined, and organized. Did he buy their loyalty? No, he burns money. Did he earn it? Well then, how? TDK wanted to be taken so damn seriously as a crime drama EXCEPT when it claimed superhero movie levels of suspension of disbelief. Iron Man was better, and I'd even rank Spidey 2 above TDK on the grounds that it had better action scenes. Go back and watch the Spidey VS Doc Oc fight sequences . No one's really outdone those yet. (Reply to this) |
|
vashfanatic writes: on Sep 12 2008 05:10 AM In reply to this comment (#2027558) Apparently you weren't paying attention to THE MULTIPLE REFERENCES to how that specific "out of nowhere" project had been in development for months underground. And thank you for posting spoilers. (Reply to this) |
|
pinkincide writes: on Sep 12 2008 05:24 AM The "months underground" statements were a fig leaf to cover up the obvious lack of development which was never shown. That it was built under the nose of Lucius Fox in their temporary Bat Cave underlines what a silly plot device it was--little more than the director shoehorning in his politics with a dig on the Patriot Act. And you're welcome for the MONTHS OLD "spoilers". By the way, Darth Vader is LUKE'S FATHER!!! (Reply to this) |
|
islandhome writes: on Sep 12 2008 05:42 AM a fig leaf to cover up the obvious lack of development which was never shown what a line lol (Reply to this) |
|
ClearlyBlind2568 writes: on Sep 12 2008 05:47 AM Don't hate on pinkincide, he's just mad because Iron Man was supposed to the THE superhero movie of 2008, then the Dark Knight came out and Iron Man faded into the "just another comic book movie " category. Now the Downey is talking smack about TDK, dude, have some class, your movie was all about special effects and come to think about it, was really boring since it was 98% Tony Stark and 2% Iron Man. And you're talking smack about TDK, a movie that didint need special effects to make it a THE comic book movie of all time. So anyway, you can argue all you want pinkie, just look at the numbers and the tomatometer to see which movie is supreme. (Reply to this) |
|
cgcbooks writes: on Sep 12 2008 06:04 AM In reply to this comment (#2027558) The Spiderman and Doctor Octopus scenes looked fake to me. Too much cgi. (Reply to this) |
|
Comment writes: on Sep 12 2008 06:27 AM Can you guys get over TDK, it isn't what you're all making it out to be. Yea it was good, but the best film ever? no. (Reply to this) |
|
TombstoneLawDog writes: on Sep 12 2008 06:27 AM Here's what never ceases to amaze me: The *NEED* for there to be a competition--among fans-- between Iron Man and TDK. THEY BOTH F#CKIN' ROCKED for almost ENTIRELY different reasons. Who the h#ll is wasting time and energy cutting into one in favor of the other? Get a f#ckin' job, help the economy, go save a whale or some sh#t. (Reply to this) |
|
Sulaco2k writes: on Sep 12 2008 07:00 AM Yes, let's show Wayne developing his Sonar, Joker planting his bombs, Joker earning the loyalty of every single thug that works for him. Hell, let's split it into 3 movies and make TDK a 6-7 hour trilogy just so Nolan can make sure every single moron that watches the movie can keep up with the plot points. You know, sometimes it's on the audience to be smart enough to figure some of the stuff not shown onscreen out for themselves. This has nothing to do with Marvel vs. DC and everything to do with the fact that TDK was a much better crafted, executed and acted movie than Iron Man. Deal with it. (Reply to this) |
|
badjoke71808 writes: on Sep 12 2008 07:28 AM Can't we all just say that both Iron Man and the Dark Knight were both the best films this year. I think Iron Man was Marvel's best film up to date, but the Dark Knight is the best overall superhero film. By the way, Green Gobie vs Spidy is a better fight then Doc Ock. (Reply to this) |
|
dahluzz writes: on Sep 12 2008 07:43 AM i think 'iron man' knew exactly what it was supposed to be, whereas 'dark knight' tried to be more than it could be. i agree with some of pinkincide's ideas that TDK wanted to be taken super serious, but still felt it could play on the implausibilities of the batman universe. i'm just saying, if you're going to have impossible elements in the story, such as the character of two-face, the 3D mapping technology (which i thought was totally unnecessary), batman being able to bend a rifle barrel with his hand, etc. don't expect the movie to be treated the same way as a wholly realistic drama like 'heat' which it clearly aspired to be. 'iron man' (which was also an origin story, so the real comparison would be between it and 'batman begins' which it's easily superior to) on the other hand embraced its inherent comic campiness and that allowed downey jr. to have fun and really inhabit the role of tony stark. plus, it gave us a great story in under two hours, whereas TDK began to collapse under its own overwrought plotting by the final act, and stretched over 150 minutes. that's friggin long. I came out of 'iron man' feeling energized and excited about the possibilities for the series, but TDK, while impressive in its own right, left me thinking that it had tried too hard to be something it wasn't. it's a comic book movie, and if you're going to use all the tricks of the trade and ask us to suspend our disbelief numerous times, you can't expect people to take it completely seriously. it just doesn't work both ways. and vashfanatic, if those are spoilers at this point, you've been living under a goddamn rock. (Reply to this) |
|
King Thor writes: on Sep 12 2008 07:54 AM In reply to this comment (#2027672) Sulaco2k and anyone else saying this garbage like "TDK was a much better crafted, executed and acted movie than Iron Man" has gotta just calm down for a second, and stop all the hate on Iron Man. If we go by the TomatoMeter, Iron Man received a 93%, TDK a 94%. This does not qualify as "much better crafted, executed and acted movie than Iron Man" among hundreds of CRITICS, not some guy named Sulaco2k. If we go by execution, Iron Man and TDK both had great story lines which were unique from each other, and great direction. Can't deny that about either film. If we go by acting, this is a waste of time of an arguement. Both films had great acting. In a way, Iron Man essentially made Robert Downey Jr. a big household name as a great Oscar caliber actor now critically regarded as one of today's best (especially after his performance in Tropic Thunder as well to back it up). IM had other great acting like the performance Gyneth Paltrow gave us for example among a couple others. The Dark Knight also had great acting in the forms of Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, Michael Caine, etc. Sure there were a couple parts to both films that may have been not believable, but guess what, they are comic book movies not documentaries about real life. Yes, in TDK the part where Batman and Rachel both fell out of the penthouse and landed on a car many stories down on the street, and both seemed to come away completely unscathed was a headscratcher ( I expected Batman to use his grappling hook to save them). Or the parts with the bullet reconstruction to find the fingerprint, or the rediculous sonar machine. In IM, you could argue the point that Tony Stark could not have built that rudimentary Iron Man suit in a cave, but I don't remember that many parts to IM that were not too believable (although its been a while since I have seen it last). One more thing, ClearlyBlind2568, you are seriously misunderstanding the role of CGI and special effects. Iron man as a character, from the start requires more special effects than the character of Batman because of who he is. Iron man can fly and shoot energy out of his suit. Batman can not. Batman had a lot of special effects, but use them in a necessary fashion without going over the top (which Iron Man did successfully as well). There were tons of explosions things being blown up in TDK, not to mention that Batman's voice itself was digitally enhanced. Iron Man was the best and biggest surprise of any comic book movie to date (especially for not necessarily being a top tier comic book hero),which most people can also include as one of the all around best superhero movies to date, and was able to be easily enjoyed by non fans. TDK enjoyed much success which was that of Batman Begins, a new take on Batman that I believe really takes Batman back to his gritty roots in the terrible, criminal, corrupt world in the city which is Gotham. This 'dark' take on Batman I feel, and obviously almost $1 billion worldwide of people feel too is the perfect take on Batman. Most people will also put TDK as one of the best comic book movies to date. I love both of these movies and the actors cast in each (Heath Ledger, RDJ enough said), and I believe I have provided very valid points to refute the arguments of anybody that either of these films were obviously or supremely better than the other, becuase it is impossible to say so for either without providing sufficient evidence. I would like to hear back from you all. Peace. (Reply to this) |
|
jokerboy1991 writes: on Sep 12 2008 08:04 AM In reply to this comment (#2027596) Agreed, while a great movie I dont think it is a masterpiece. I t is better the Iron Man I would say, and probably is the best super pic but it wasnt amazing but great. Iron Man was really good, but not close to TDK. I was a little bit dissapointed with the battle at the end of the movie. (Reply to this) |
|
King Thor writes: on Sep 12 2008 08:05 AM In reply to this comment (#2027780) I was a little disappointed as well, especially since Iron Man was only at minimal operating power, but hey, that was the storyline, and we can only look forward to how awesome Iron Man will be in the sequels when he is fighting at full capacity. (Reply to this) |
|
jokerboy1991 writes: on Sep 12 2008 08:05 AM In reply to this comment (#2027596) Also like how Faverau and Downey didn't like The Dark Knight, but they are going to do exactly what The Dark Knight did, use IMAX cameras! (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |







