Iron Man 2 Discussion Thread

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Huh...there have been at least 12 versions of the Crimson Dynamo with looks ranging from:

may084749.jpg


to

CrimsonDynamo%5B1%5D.jpg


each having a very distinct armor structure and a very different operator.....none of which are named Ivan....should be interesting to see where it goes from here.
 
Snagged this off IGN, makes Roukes character name a bit clearer (to me anyway).

Iron Man 2 Villain Casting
Wrestler, Dangerous Mind stars up for bad guy roles.
by IGN Staff

January 7, 2009 - Mickey Rourke, the so-hot-right-now comeback star of The Wrestler, and Sam Rockwell (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind) are in talks to join the upcoming Iron Man sequel as dual villains.

Rockwell, The Hollywood Reporter says, is up for the part of Justin Hammer, "a multibillionaire businessman and a rival of industrialist" of Tony Stark. Incidentally, Rockwell was one of director Jon Favreau's original choices for the Iron Man role.

As for Rourke's part, there appears to be some confusion. Variety says that he would play "Tony Stark's Russian alter ego, a heavily tattooed bruiser who is in the arms trade and battles Iron Man in his own nuclear-powered armored suit." The trade mag hints that he's the Crimson Dynamo.

But wait... The Hollywood Reporter describes the character differently. They say Rourke will portray "a tattooed Russian heavy named Ivan who becomes Whiplash, a man with deadly, technologically enhanced coils." That doesn't sound like Whiplash at all -- that character is a girl, except in the Ultimate universe where he's only been briefly glimpsed. The description sounds a little bit like Omega Red, but we're inclined to think that Rourke is actually playing Crimson Dynamo, as Variety states.

- Marvel
Will Rourke play Crimson Dynamo?

Did somebody get their wires crossed here? Is it intentional misinformation? We think the latter is a real possibility given the extremely convoluted nature of today's announcements.

Finally, THR scoops that another role, that of Tony Stark's assistant Natasha, has yet to be cast. Confused yet?

Share your thoughts on Iron Man 2, coming in May 2010, in the comments below.
UPDATE: Marvel's profile of Whiplash reminds us that he was once called Blacklash. His real name is Mark Scarlotti and he was a weapons designer and head of research for Stark International who fell in with organized crime. At one point "he was an operative for Justin Hammer, another rival of Tony Stark. Hammer called on Scarlotti for various reasons even if he had to turn him against another Hammer employee." Scarlotti was killed by the sentient Iron Man armor in Iron Man #28.
 
RDJ basically embodies Tony Stark to me now, I really can't see somebody else in the role. The others I could get used to a recast.

Yeah, same here. He just fits what Tony Stark is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of the news which I was catching up on sounds quite interesting. I think they pulled off the first one quite well and trust them to do the second with the same attention to detail.
 
Why do sequels always have to up the villain quota anyway?

I dunno, but you're right, it DOES seem to be an unwritten "law" of comic movies. Probably just because any comic hero worth his salt has more good villians than the number of movies they're likely to make, so they try to squeeze multiples in to try and make the fanboys happy. Also they're always inclined to make sequels feel "bigger" and adding extra villians seems to be the lazy man's solution to that.
 
Snagged this off IGN, makes Roukes character name a bit clearer (to me anyway).
Quote:
Iron Man 2 Villain Casting
Wrestler, Dangerous Mind stars up for bad guy roles.
by IGN Staff

January 7, 2009 - Mickey Rourke, the so-hot-right-now comeback star of The Wrestler, and Sam Rockwell (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind) are in talks to join the upcoming Iron Man sequel as dual villains.

Rockwell, The Hollywood Reporter says, is up for the part of Justin Hammer, "a multibillionaire businessman and a rival of industrialist" of Tony Stark. Incidentally, Rockwell was one of director Jon Favreau's original choices for the Iron Man role.

As for Rourke's part, there appears to be some confusion. Variety says that he would play "Tony Stark's Russian alter ego, a heavily tattooed bruiser who is in the arms trade and battles Iron Man in his own nuclear-powered armored suit." The trade mag hints that he's the Crimson Dynamo.

But wait... The Hollywood Reporter describes the character differently. They say Rourke will portray "a tattooed Russian heavy named Ivan who becomes Whiplash, a man with deadly, technologically enhanced coils." That doesn't sound like Whiplash at all -- that character is a girl, except in the Ultimate universe where he's only been briefly glimpsed. The description sounds a little bit like Omega Red, but we're inclined to think that Rourke is actually playing Crimson Dynamo, as Variety states.

- Marvel
Will Rourke play Crimson Dynamo?

Did somebody get their wires crossed here? Is it intentional misinformation? We think the latter is a real possibility given the extremely convoluted nature of today's announcements.

Finally, THR scoops that another role, that of Tony Stark's assistant Natasha, has yet to be cast. Confused yet?

Share your thoughts on Iron Man 2, coming in May 2010, in the comments below.
UPDATE: Marvel's profile of Whiplash reminds us that he was once called Blacklash. His real name is Mark Scarlotti and he was a weapons designer and head of research for Stark International who fell in with organized crime. At one point "he was an operative for Justin Hammer, another rival of Tony Stark. Hammer called on Scarlotti for various reasons even if he had to turn him against another Hammer employee." Scarlotti was killed by the sentient Iron Man armor in Iron Man #28.

Maybe they are talking about this Whiplash
 
As long as they keep the story centred on Stark, I don't care who is the villain. Why do sequels always have to up the villain quota anyway?

Well two things. If Whiplash IS the villian he needs Hammer. Courtesy of Justin Hammer, Blacklash wields a pair of cybernetically-controlled titanium whips that can extend to be swung fast enough to deflect bullets, or become rigid and be used as nunchaku or vaulting-poles. Blacklash also carries a variety of devices in a weapons pouch, including anti-gravity bolas and a necro-lash which releases electrical energy generated by his gauntlets.

Two, in the comics Justin Hammer had obtained Stane International after the death of its chairman Obadiah Stane, causing problems for Tony Stark through his old company. He DOES NOT have powers. Justin Hammer is the funding for a ton of villains including Electro, Blizzard, Whiplash (obviously), Crimson Dynamo, Rhino, Sandman.

He is a villain for Tony Stark because no matter what he keeps his hands clean because its the brawn he hires to take the fall. Its excellent to bring him in because while the supervillains take on Iron Man, Hammer takes on Stark.

Maybe they are talking about this Whiplash

Possibly, Mark Scarlotti (Blacklash/Whiplash) is originally a gifted electrical technician at Stark International's Cincinnati branch, but becomes a professional criminal to try and become wealthy. With a costume and a metal whip of his own design, Scarlotti becomes Whiplash, a weapons designer, special agent, and assassin for the criminal organization the Maggia. In the Ultimate Universe businessman Marc Scott competes with Tony Stark for military contracts via his company Whiplash.
 
<embed src="https://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:331087" width="512" height="319" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashVars="configParams=type%3Dnormal%26id%3D1602483%26vid%3D331087%26uri%3Dmgid%3Auma%3Avideo%3Amtv.com%3A331087%26startUri=mgid%3Auma%3Avideo%3Amtv.com%3A331087" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="."></embed><div style="margin:0;text-align:center;width:500px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><a href="https://www.mtv.com/movies/trailer_park/" style="color:#439CD8;" target="_blank">Movie Trailers</a> - <a href="https://moviesblog.mtv.com/" style="color:#439CD8;" target="_blank">Movies Blog</a></div>

Don't blink you'll miss it.
 
From aintitcool:

Remember the hubbub leading up to the release of IRON MAN?

First we were told Samuel L. Jackson would appear in the film as Nick Fury. Then we were told he wouldn't. Then we learned that he does show up in the movie...very briefly...but you had to wait through the entire closing credit roll to see him.

The idea was, of course, that Jackson's appearance as Fury would serve to perpetuate an AVENGERS spinoff which would incorporate Tony Stark/Iron Man. Now, it seems, strangeness is afoot in this regard.

"I saw ['Iron Man' and 'Iron Man 2' director] Jon Favreau at the Scream Awards and we had a conversation. He said, 'I hope things are working out for you because we're writing stuff for you.' Then all of a sudden last week I talked to my agents and manager and things aren't really working that well."
[EDIT]
"There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don't know. Maybe I won't be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], 'We're not making that deal.'"

...said Sam per THIS DISCUSSION with The Los Angeles Times.

The L.A. Times does specify that Marvel's official stance is that negotiations with Jackson are "active", but also considers this a "boilerplate response".

Will we see a recast Nick Fury in IRON MAN 2 (cue Shia LaBeouf)? Has Fury been shown the door completely? Does this news portend a change of approach re: Marvel's plans to cross pollinate franchises, culminating in THE AVENGERS? Or, is this merely a bump on the road to Sam's eventual return as Fury?

Stay tuned...

And the LA Times story referenced in the above article:

Nick Fury no more? Samuel L. Jackson says 'Maybe I won't be Nick Fury'
06:14 PM PT, Jan 13 2009

EXCLUSIVE AND UPDATED

Samuel L. Jackson, clearly bristling, said today that negotiations to put him in the role of Nick Fury have broken down because "there seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world."

Jackson told me today that despite his cameo as the hard-bitten military man at the end of "Iron Man," it now appears that "somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it" when it comes to "Iron Man 2," "The First Avenger: Captain America" and "The Avengers," the announced slate of Marvel Studios projects through 2011 that might have a natural spot for the character.

Jackson, who is a fanboy favorite after roles in three "Star Wars" films, "The Incredibles" and "Unbreakable," was actually used as the model for the Ultimate Marvel version of Fury, which took the white, grizzled, aging commando with salt-and-pepper hair and re-imagined him as a younger, bald African American. There were cheers in theaters at the end of "Iron Man," when Jackson appeared as Fury, but when I asked the actor about it today he shook his head.

"I saw ['Iron Man' and 'Iron Man 2' director] Jon Favreau at the Scream Awards and we had a conversation. He said, 'I hope things are working out for you because we're writing stuff for you.' Then all of a sudden last week I talked to my agents and manager and things aren't really working that well."

Jackson might just have been taking a public position that could lead to a bigger payday (it certainly wouldn't be the first time a Hollywood star used an interview as a negotiating tactic) but he seemed especially sour on the whole the topic of working with Marvel ...

"There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don't know. Maybe I won't be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], 'We're not making that deal.'"

I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. "Marvel does not comment on active negotiations," was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word "active" in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.

Marvel Studios only has two films under its belt, "Iron Man" (which finished as the second-highest grossing film of 2008) and "The Incredible Hulk" but executives with the Hollywood upstart have high hopes for creating a new model of unified, character-crossover films that would mirror the spirit of the Marvel Comics in the 1960s, when heroes and villains collided constantly in the various comics titles and firmed up the concept of "the Marvel Universe." One challenge to that will be keeping a good number of movie stars happy with the roles and their paychecks.

Terrence Howard, who by some reports was the first actor signed to "Iron Man" and the highest-paid actor in the cast, won't be back for the sequel (Don Cheadle is taking his place as the key supporting character Rhodey and his alter ego War Machine) and money seems to have been part of the issue. Marvel execs essentially have to weigh each film's budget with the calculating eye of pro-sports franchises who want marquee players but have to fit them under a team salary cap. A publicly traded company, Marvel has a stated goal of keeping shareholders happy with a rigid allegiance to the bottom line. And Marvel's stock has held up far better than shares of most of its larger rivals over the last year. Helped by the lift from "Iron Man" in spring, Marvel Entertainment shares actually rose for the year, gaining 15% to close 2008 at $30.75. That was an amazing feat, considering that more than 90% of all U.S. stocks fell last year. By contrast, Walt Disney shares slid 30% in 2008, Viacom Inc. plunged 57% and Time Warner fell 39%. So far this year, Marvel is down 5.5%, Disney is down 6.6%, Viacom is off 8.1% and Time Warner is down 2.5%.

Think of the challenge to Marvel to put its crossover dream on the screen: For "The Avengers," that means putting Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Edward Norton as Hulk, Cheadle, whoever plays Thor and whoever plays Captain America all in the same movie. How much room (and money) would be left for a supporting character like Jackson as Fury? Still, like I told the actor, he has a big advantage on his side: Who else wants to wear that patch, especially since the character is based on Jackson? Jackson laughed. "Maybe nobody will wear it. Maybe they'll decide Nick Fury won't be part of it."

-- Geoff Boucher
 
Powerplay amongst actor and studio. Same thing happened with Jon Favreau remember? Rumors are that RDJ almost bounced out as well. Edward Norton is currently in holding with Marvel Studios because he wants more power over the film, editing, producing etc....it'll continue with way for a while but Iron Man 2 from what I've read, it didn't really focus on Nick Fury as a side character but more on Howard Stark and how he developed the alloy for Captain America's shield which became the base for the Iron Man suit, the alloy.
 
I can live without Nick Fury in IM2, but I can't imagine it without him in the Avengers movie. And I want Jackson to play Fury. No substitutes.
 
Filming for the Avengers is a while away. The PreProduction isn't even slated to begin according to Marvel Studios until Thor and Captain America have been figured out. Nick Fury is a requirement for The Avengers films I agree but also we have plenty of time for Marvel and SLJ to kiss and make up.
 
SLJ can take a flying leap off the SHEILD ship!! I like him, but can't really see him in this role, I want Thomas Jane!!!! He would be a badass Nick Furry.

Or we could go oldschool and bring back the man, David Hasselhoff!!
 
Filming for the Avengers is a while away. The PreProduction isn't even slated to begin according to Marvel Studios until Thor and Captain America have been figured out. Nick Fury is a requirement for The Avengers films I agree but also we have plenty of time for Marvel and SLJ to kiss and make up.

Okay, I'll hold off on pushing the panic button for a few years. :lol
 
More news today:

Emily Blunt, who formed a level of management between Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway in “The Devil Wears Prada,” is said to be up for a character in "Iron Man 2," possibly one of Tony Stark’s future fellow Avengers.

From Nicole Sperling at Entertainment Weekly:

… sources say Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada) could play a lead character named Natasha, who goes by several aliases, including the Black Widow. Blunt is apparently one of many actresses the fillmmakers are considering, though she's believed to be the front-runner.

Soviet superspy Natasha Romanoff made her initial Marvel Universe appearance in the Iron Man feature of 1964's Tales of Suspense #52.

Funny thing about Blunt is it was hard to notice how beautiful and charismatic she was in “Prada” because she was so overshadowed by Hathaway’s otherworldly hotness. But I recently saw Blunt playing an American in “The Jane Austen Book Club” and I could hardly take my eyes off her – even though Maria Bello and Maggie Grace were often lurking nearby.

Find all of the EW story on the matter here.

bluntb.jpg
 
Bodywise I think she could pull it off already and she is plenty tall:

Emily-blunt6_314.jpg


They'd have to do muted hair though because she looks silly with it drastic like in DWP:
emily_blunt.jpg
 
Mickey Rourke Low-balled for Iron Man 2
January 20, 2009


Marvel dosen't understand the value of a Golden Globe I guess. According to Variety the all things super hero powerhouse decided that they would only offer Mickey Rourke $250K to play the lead villain in the film.

How that deal makes any sense to anyone I have no clue.

Then there is comeback kid Mickey Rourke, who is poised to follow his Golden Globe-winning performance in "The Wrestler" with an offer to play the main villain in "Iron Man 2" — but at a lowball opening offer of $250,000 from Marvel; Marvel’s tactics have already prompted Samuel L. Jackson to swear off playing Nick Fury because of a similarly low offer.
 
Back
Top