Jon Favreau on Edgar Wright’s ‘Ant-Man’ Exit & Marvel ‘Style’

Published 5 months ago by

Jon Favreau on Edgar Wright Leaving Ant Man Jon Favreau on Edgar Wrights Ant Man Exit & Marvel Style

Before Edgar Wright left Ant-Man, Marvel had faced its fair share of disputes with actors and directors over creative differences and contracts. Terrence Howard didn’t reprise his role as Colonel James Rhodes in Iron Man 2 for financial reasons; Marvel endured challenging negotiations with Robert Downey Jr. before the actor signed on for both sequels to The Avengers. Behind the camera, Jon Favreau was the most publicized example of directors who stepped away from Marvel Studios on the basis of creative differences – that is, until Edgar Wright.

Wright dropped out of directing Marvel’s Ant-Man, which led to the much-talked about process of recruiting a new person to helm the project, until Marvel hired Peyton Reed (The Break Up, Yes Man) as a replacement.

Following Wright’s departure, fellow Marvel directors Joss Whedon (The Avengers: Age of Ultron) and James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy) responded to the news on social media. Now, Favreau, who had his own disagreements with the studio, has expressed his thought’s on the situation.

In an interview with ShortList promoting his new indie film, Chefread our review – Favreau spoke about Wright’s experience of working with studios in the past as well as the difficulties of creating a movie within a shared universe. Similar to Gunn’s comments, Favreau took the neutral position of someone watching two friends going through a breakup.

Read Favreau’s full quote:

Edgar’s a dear friend of mine – I was so looking forward to his version of ‘Ant-Man’. All Edgar’s films have been studio films, it’s not like he’s never made one before. I think he’s been used to a situation where he can have tremendous creative say around his story and casting, and Marvel has built an entire franchise around their style of telling stories. I know both parties well, and I respect his decision to see that he wasn’t going to be fulfilled in the process. That’s all I can really say.

Jon Favreau Ant Man Robert Downey Jr Jon Favreau on Edgar Wrights Ant Man Exit & Marvel Style

As the director of Iron Man, which launched the studio’s shared cinematic universe, Favreau also spoke about the impact that movie had on all successive Marvel films. In part, he said the success of Iron Man was due to it filling a void left by the James Bond films. Moviegoers were lacking a “humorous cad adventurer” and Marvel was looking for a way to “class” up their brand; they found the answer in Downey Jr.

Read Favreau’s quote:

That archetype had not been filled in a long time. Through ‘Iron Man,’ Marvel found its tone and voice, but nothing was expected of it. And then the success came, and then there was pressure to continue that brand, and that’s where it becomes more challenging.

Jon Favreau Ant Man Robert Downey Jr Don Cheadle Jon Favreau on Edgar Wrights Ant Man Exit & Marvel Style

Shared universes are relatively new to Hollywood, but there has been a significant push for shared superhero universes in particular with Sony and Fox opening their Spider-Man and X-Men franchises – though, in the case of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, the shared universe push had some feeling that the film couldn’t stand on its own. After the critical response to The Amazing Spider-Man 2, we were left wondering whether shared universes are hurting individual superhero films.

From the apparent strains put on both Favreau and Wright, Marvel’s shared universe may also be hurting superhero films behind the camera as well. After all the difficulties with Favreau, Iron Man 2 had the poorest box office showing of all three Iron Man films. Whether the creative differences with Wright will have an effect on Ant-Man won’t be seen until the movie opens next year.

_________________________________________________

Ant-Man will hit theaters July 17th, 2015. Chef is in theaters now.

Source: ShortList

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: ant-man, iron man, iron man 2

103 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. well i would like to see wrights version of ant man.

    • my neighbor’s step-sister brought home $20864 a week ago. she has been making cash on the internet and bought a $519900 home. All she did was get lucky and apply the advice exposed on this link➜➜➜➜➜➜➜ M­­­­­­A­­­­­­X­­­­­­4­­­3.C­­­O­­­M­­­

      • Yeah and I bought your mother an she wasn’t worth the price spanner. :(

  2. I would like to see Hank Pym as Ant-man AND Giant Man AND Goliath (with Wasp on the side!) in The Avengers. Just like canon. Just like the origins of The Avengers. make it happen!

    • No.

    • First movie is titled Ant-Man, and the sequel is titled Giant Man, and then Goliath, and then Yellow Jacket, and sequel to all of them “Pym’s Identity Crisis”.

      How about that?

  3. Iron Man 2 didn’t do as well at the box office because it wasn’t as much fun as Iron Man 1. Since IM 3 was great, I would blame Favreau. But It still made a whole bunch of money!

    • I’d agree but at the same time, I kinda liked IM2 even though it was the weakest of the trilogy and kinda feel like maybe it was the behind the scenes shenanigans that ultimately made Favreau step away from the director’s chair after that one.

      I believe Favreau agrees with what other directors have said but doesn’t want to openly state it because he wants to remain on friendly terms with Marvel so chose a more tactful approach to answering that question.

      Seems to me so far that the only directors Marvel HAVEN’T pissed off are Joss Whedon, James Gunn and the Russos (or whoever directed Cap 2), otherwise, not a very good track record.

      I’d love to have seen Wright’s Ant-Man but as it stands, I’ll watch this new version online once the Blu Ray is out (as I’m doing with The Expendables 2 and other films I haven’t yet seen before buying the Blu Ray) because what Marvel did to Edgar, I just can’t support it financially at the cinema.

      • So because you think marvel screwed over ew ( someone you must know personally ) your going to spend twice as much money on the blu ray because you don’t want to support the movie financially in the movie houses? Ppl like you make ppl like dazz look normal

        • Oh wait you are dazz

          • Lmao

            I think Dazz was saying he’d watch antman online free (wink wink) once a blu ray copy hits the net.

        • I think everyones being too harsh on Marvel in this situation, Wright is used to having major control over his movies and it seems he just couldnt compromise on what he wanted for the sake of Marvels shared universe vision, I have zero complaints on what Feiges done so far and look forward to what he envisions in the future, though i have no doubt that Wrights Ant-man would have been awesome, i think the decision made by Marvel was probably best for the overall arc of the shared universe.

        • No one can make Dazz look normal.

      • I’d say Marvel has had an amazing track record. Their movies, for the most part, seem to be getting bigger and better. Most movies have had both good reviews and done quite well, if not exceptionally well, in the box office. What Marvel is doing, something they used to be praised for, was having tight control over their properties. If directors cant play by the rules set forth, or to put it another way, do the job they are paid amazingly well for, good riddance I say. Edgars version of Ant-Man may have been amazing, although personally I doubt that any movie based only on that character could be anything other than mediocre, but it wouldn’t have fit in the grand scheme of the MCU. If you want to do your own thing, go do your own thing. Don’t work for a studio whose whole thing, building a shared movie universe, is well known. Don’t get all uppity when you try to go and do your own thing and get told no, when its public knowledge that Marvel had to let other directors go for doing the exact same thing.

        • LOL @ “get all uppity”, maybe Wright felt the revisions Marvel ordered would make for a boring movie. Hell, even Marvel came around and hired someone else (Adam McKay?) to re-write their rewrites.

          • On the flip side of running the films without the revisions could have contradicted what they had planned in other movies. fact is we don’t know we don’t know what really happened. It seems more likely that Wright left because he didn’t like the constraints of working within a shared movie universe.

      • And James Gunn hasn’t had his 1st film with them yet, and the Russos have only had one, haven’t they?

    • IM 2′s shortcomings were not Favreaus fault, they were Marvels. Marvels wanting to shoehorn the shared universe front and center in the movies (to set up for the Avengers movie) made the solo properties suffered for it.

      That’s why story wise IM3 was better; they thankfully learned their lesson.

      • What was good about IM3? It was one of, if not the worst superhero film I’ve seen to date on par with Daredevil. IM2 was Citizen Cane compared with 3.I almost walked out of IM3 boring, overly long, meandering story( if you can call that a story) weak villain and WTF did they do to the Mandarin. This is the movie where I realized Marvel doesn’t care and their fans. IM3 was just a cash grab(robbery) which worked. I do take some of that back about Marvel Thor 2 and Cap 2 were decent.

        • +1
          Thank you

        • -1000. For those who are still upset about the Mandarin not being a racial stereotype with ‘magic’ rings in IM3, its time to let go and move on. IM3 had a lot going on, and I guess a lot of the subtext about news and media in the war on terror just went over some peoples heads. Not saying it was Dark Knight good, but its definitely way better than most commenters like to think.

          • “Racial stereotype”?
            The Mandarin character was who he was.
            What is it with all of you PC Storm troopers & your fixation on race baiting when it comes to bastardizing an established characters ethnicity & making your asinine excuses to justify it (naturally criticizing any who do not share your opinion), but yet none of you have anything to say about the vacuum that apparently exists for characters of a particular race to begin with?

            • I happened to like the Mandarin twist, i dont understand how so many fans get their knickers in a twist over a slight change from the comics, consider the movie universe as a ‘what if’. What WOULD be boring is if we all knew exactly what was gonna happen because they took it frame for frame from the comics, now that would suck.

              • I agree. And we also seem to forget that the comic book world itself is riddled with what-if-stories in various special issues and so-named ultimate this or that series.

                For example Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is a twist from the ultimate universe. If they hadn’t made that, David Hasselhoff’s version would have been more authentic as far as the physical appearance goes.

          • Well it seemed that’s what they were alluding to in the first Iron Man:

            “The man with the 10 rings.”

            Maybe I missed it, but how did it go from being a legit terrorist organization that held Stark hostage to a front for that one doctor’s super-serum (or whatever it was) soldiers?

            Yeah, I thought it was a pretty funny twist, but Kingsley as a 10 magic ring-wielding villain would have been epic. It’s a shame.

            Also, what stereotype? I never assumed the Mandarin to be any particular race.

        • I’ve never heard of Citizen Cane. I think you mean Citizen KANE.

          • I did not like Iron Man 3 at all. It lacked the soul of the first and even the 2nd. It wasn’t that it was bad, it just didn’t do anything interesting to raise the stakes (not for lack of effort) and it felt so meh.

            • agreed, IM3 is the weakest and the most boring Iron Man movie ever.

              I love Iron man (first one), I regard it as the best marvel film made to date.

              IMHO, the part where Tony just switch from suit to suit is really a waste of CG effort when they could’ve explored in that area a lot more…which is a shame.

              Mandarin twist is honestly really stupid…funny but not good for the Iron Man series at all…

          • Youve never heard of Citizen Cane? Its a classic about this cane who enters america illegally. Throughtout the movie you learn of his struggles with waiting tables, dealing drugs and trying to obtain a drivers license. I wont ruin the end but the cane finds a old geezer to walk him to his citizenship test. Oscar worthy

        • 100% agree with what you said, IM3 was a huge disappointment (IMO). I still believe the only reason IM3 was successful was because it was released shortly after Avengers.

          • IM3 was a good film, if you missed the irony – that the villain was an actor that lived a rock star lifestyle inside a heavily guarded mansion then you have not been keeping up with foreign affairs.

      • Iron Man 2′s shortcomings were script related – Marvel should have stuck to the Demon in the Battle storyline and had Rhodes replace Stark as Iron Man. The main plot of IM2 should have been, Tony’s public drunkenness, Hammer disabling Tony’s armor, S.H.I.E.L.D / A.I.M’s hostile takeover of his company, and Hammer hiring a goons to kidnap Stark

        The sub-plot should have been Tony creating a new – Variable Threat Response Suit, War Machine Armor and overcoming alcoholism and defeating Whiplash.

        In truth, IM2 should have been the greatest CBM of all-time, but Marvel elected not to stick to the source material.

        • Marvel/Disney will never get that deep because they want that under-13 money. Too mature subject matter runs the risk of an R rating; and that keeps the kids away and impacts the box office. From what I’ve read of Marvel’s history there have been some comics which the characters were subjected to UN-consensual sex (read rape). The MCU will not touch that will a ten-foot pole.

      • Oh please, what made it better? The fact that it had more Iron Man suits and traded a good plot for mindless explosions and CGI, it had a lot of potential but half of that movie was crap.

    • At first I blamed Jon Favreau but actually looking back I’d say what hurt the film a lot more was that Iron Man 1 was allowed to be it’s own film where as Iron Man 2 felt like it had to be a commercial for The Avengers. It didn’t need to since anyone who wanted the Avengers as a film was already watching.

      I’d have ditched the Avengers stuff to concentrate on Tony Stark getting to the bottom of what happened between Anton Vanko and Howard Stark maybe the film could have revealed that actually Howard Stark isn’t as innocent as Tony would like to believe. That’d would have been a great plot twist, the bad guy actually has a right to be angry at the Stark family thus Tony tries to repair the situation too late to do anything since Ivan is dead set on killing him.

    • I did blame Favreau at the time; he obviously spent a lot of time getting ready for HIS scenes with SJ and let the rest of the movie go to hell. His scenes at the end kept intruding in the final battle; I know people thought it was funny, but I thought they were just a waste.

    • IM3 Was the worst IM film, it was absolutly aweful so i blame Marvel, and Shane Black and YOU for have terrible Taste.

  4. Kind of a shame that Favreau isn’t still a part of the marvel team. Iron man is still the best of their movies. It would be mind blowing if they brought him back for avengers 3 or iron man 4

    • seriously – it would be mind blowing ?? your mind is that easily blown ?
      cool … sure … expected … possibly (you never know) – … but mind blowing … that’a bit out of there

  5. In about 20 years when all of this superhero craze dies down, there are gonna be documentaries and E! True Hollywood stories on this era of cinema and i bet my bottom dollar that EVERYONE who works for Marvel is gonna cry wolf and say how bad they were at treating their casts and directors. Before anyone bites my head off, I respect Marvel and what they do, although I am a die-hard fan of the Fox Universe over any others, but they just seem like they are nothing but a group OCD bureaucrats who want things to go their way and anyone who crosses them are on the chopping block. I get that company’s need to have control of things going on but at what cost? Directors being pushed out, actors being pushed out, but hey, as long as everyone praises Marvel/Disney nothing is wrong. But the formula seems to keep on trucking.

    • I was thinking the same thing. Marvel is the Wal-Mart of movie studios. It pays its casts for its movies low because Marvel wants to get a lot of work out of them (6-9 movie deals). Anyone who wants to re-negotiate his/her contract is bounced (see Terrence Howard). Directors who want to put his/her creative stamp on a Marvel film is kicked to the curb. Let’s not forget Patty Jenkins, the original director for Thor: The Dark World. She was dropped for “creative differences”, leading Natalie Portman to allegedly wanting out until Marvel put the screws to her. Anyone who wants to sign up for Marvel better listen to these stories and see if it’s really worth it.

      • I was so excited about Thor 2 because I was hoping Patty would direct it, although Alan Taylor did a decent job. They couldve been the first studio to have a woman direct a comic book movie, but I guess old white man just seemed more appealing. Actors know that if they work with Marvel, doors open for them. Just look at what they did with RDJ and Hemsworth. It’s despicable how they operate but no one complains about them because they know that if they do, the “Marvel snipers” will kill them faster than they can apologize.

        • Even when opportunities are open for them, Marvel clearly plays favorites. RDJ gets a $50 million payday for Avengers, Scarlett Johannson gets $20 million, Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans reportedly got $6 million. During one panel someone asked if the actors have any input in the movies; Samuel L. Jackson stated more or less that only RDJ put his 2 cents into the Avengers. Mark Ruffalo publicly got his hand smack for putting out Tweets regarding AofU, but when RDJ did the same thing, nothing from Marvel. RDJ used his clout to get some pay increases, but he thought he can get Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster on AoU. (After all, he used his pull to get an extended part for Gwenyth Paltrow). The Avengers was an ensemble movie where everyone played his/her role to make the movie successful. RDJ was not the sole reason Avengers made over 1 billion WW. All Marvel has done is feed his ego.

          • That is what I dont get about the entire franchise. Hemsworth is just as much a member of the Avengers as Evans. If anything they need to get paid as much as RDJ because they are the only ones with solos. So far they are the only ones who can pull solo films. Dont get me started on what they did to Hawkeye making him nothing more than cannon fodder in the third act of the film. RDJ is so cocky and full of himself that the Marvel fans and Feige eat it up because they know they are never gonna find another cash cow like RDJ. He is as important to them as Elsa is to Frozen. They cant do this without him so they have to pander somewhat to his needs (giving Paltrow an extended role) in order to keep him around to sell tickets. When you give someone power like that, the others in the ensemble are pushed to the side. Favreau knows that if he wants to stay in the good graces of High King Marvel, he needs to hop around the answer like he does above to not stir the waters.

            • First off, I don’t understand your personal vendetta with RDJ. The guy is really talented and seems to have turned his life around. You don’t know him, Marvel, or the whole situation personally and neither do many of the people here so stop assuming stuff and acting like you do. We’re supposed to be movie-goers. Just word about the movie itself. If you don’t like an actor, good for you. Maybe some people do. And I think you’re confusing him with his character. Stark is supposed to be cocky and all that and Downey is great as him. No one here knows if that’s his true personality and honestly who cares

          • My heart certainly goes out to all those poor actors who work their butts off for several months and only come home with a few million dollars.

            Maybe we could pass a hat.

          • @aquarius65 & mikeee

            It’s really not that weird that some actors are getting bigger paychecks than others. They’re brands too and some of them attract bigger attention and audiences than others.

            This may of course change when the others become familiar names and bigger stars themselves. But you should never expect new talent to get as much as the bigger stars because it’s never based on stuff like screen time, number of lines in the script in any other ways on their role or importance within the story of the movie.

            And as far as the twittering goes, maybe Robert Downey’s tweets had been cleared already, or was even done under orders from Marvel, where as Ruffalo’s wasn’t. We just don’t know, and we can’t just assume we can guess the facts.

      • @aguarius64

        How do we define bad treatment in this world of million-dollar-paychecks?

        I mean, sure it’s tough to get orders from above, but aren’t most of us experiencing that every single day? Isn’t that part of doing a job you’re getting paid to do?

        As long as Marvel isn’t doing that Hoolywood cliche “you’ll never work in this town again” and going out of their way to ruin a person’s career, I think it seems perfectly reasonable that they end a business relationship if they don’t agree on things.

        And when they’ve already made a descision to build these movies into a bigger cinematic universe, it also makes sense, that there would be some creative restraints.

        • Careful son, you could get flamed for talking common sense.

        • They are not paid equally, given it’s an ensemble cast. Whedon talked about having a death in AoU; if they pull the plug on Iron Man cue the internet meltdown. And Marvel’s reputation is getting to be it will trash their employees (actors and directors) to get its billion-dollar box offices. But throw a million at them; that will placate them.

          • You’d need a pattern to build a reputation. So far we’re discussing rumours of 1 death and assuming it’s a trashing?

            It could also be that Robert Downey, if it is him, has simply decided to leave after 5 films.

            Sure, big businesses will always consider ways to cut costs and increase erarnings. But it’s also about finding the balance because an inferior project will not create the same earnings. And they know that too.

            If Robert leaves, they’ll still have Evans, Ruffalo, Hemsworth, Johansson, Jackson and Renner. It’s still a huge cast of big names.

            I think you’re jumping a bit to conclusions.

  6. It’s a shame. What I love about film (same goes for plays) can be summed up by Martin Scorsese’s approach.
    A talented director finding inspiration in a skilled actor, crafting a screenplay around that actors strengths and weaknesses and ultimately forcing each other to perfect their crafts and rise to the occasion. Marty did it with DeNiro, he’s doing it with Dicaprio.
    My point, when Favreau & RDJr showed up with Iron Man it gave you that feeling. Of the collaboration between actor and director. Forget the supporting cast and crew. It was very much THEIR baby. That magic hasn’t returned since. (At least not for Marvel, Nolan and Bale did their thing. Maybe the Russo’s?)
    Anyway, Wright casting Rudd was the first red flag to me. Something felt off. As if the film wouldn’t end up made at all. All of this is just to say, if the lead is the driver and the director is navigating. The studio works best as pit-crew. Once they start backseat driving…you’re gonna get a pile up. Guaranteed.

    • +1

    • +2

  7. And the thing I hate most about Marvel? Freaking Kevin Feige! This guy talks so much! I’m surprised he hasn’t cameo’d as a SHIELD agent yet. I was kinda expecting him to jump in and direct Ant-Man! He acts like he’s Stan Lee or something. Somebody needs to teach Brian Michael Bendis and Geoff Johns how to direct.

    • Not that I’m a huge fan of Feige (don’t really know him enough…), but I do know that if it wasn’t for him, we wouldn’t have The Avengers & the larger MCU.

      SO in his case, talk ain’t necessarily that cheap…lol

      Respect for that.

      • +1

  8. Jon Favs the genious that brought you Cowboys and Aliens and IM2 … what made IM2 suck was the entire movie not the SHIELD parts (they where bad no doubt).

    • S.H.I.E.L.D / A.I.M should have been the shadowy antagonist in IM2, like Don Barzini in the Godfather. If the Demon in the Bottle storyline would have been followed IM2 would have been a masterpiece.

  9. As a group, lets decide right now. For the whole internet. Do we want Marvel giving directors free reign and complete artistic freedom? Or do we want a studio that has a plan, a connected universe in which each phase leads up to an Avengers movie? Cause you cant have it both ways.

    • One way or another, this is the perfect remark. I personally like the idea of a shared universe that has an overall arc to all of its parts… even if some are crappier than others.

      Earlier someone stated that they think future film… scholars? will look at this period and talk about how Marvel took advantage and stepped on artistic vision… I disagree. I think we’ll eventually look back on this period of superhero film and come to understand that there was a point to every release that led to a time and place for each release. That for everything to work, certain measures of control had to be maintained.

      That’s why we haven’t gotten a Black Panther yet… because it fits into a larger arc. Let each creator have his say and you run into a schumaker batman or hit or miss X-men. This studio knows how to do serialized stories because they’ve been doing it in print form for decades and contemporary comics show that having someone, even a committee of sorts, looking over the larger picture *usually* leads to a richer, more cohesive, more expansive universe.

      They deserve to be applauded if for no other reason than the fact that they’ve created an unprecedented experiment in the modern blockbuster… stories that stand alone and yet flirt with an existing world. And again, sometimes they do it well and sometimes it’s contrived and clunky, but either way, they’ve broken ground in an industry where most boundaries have already long been set.

    • Marvel read Wright’s script in 2006. Their words were – “we are making this film because of Wright’s vision.” Only later did the studio decide that his vision would have to fit nicely inside of their scheme.

      By 2014, the studio had a vision of its own: to inter-connect Ant-Man with Aou as almost a double feature with different release dates, and most likely to use Ant-Man to introduce CAP3 characters in anticipation of their huge May 2016 showdown with (/beatdown of)WB.

      Wright’s artistic freedom went out the window because the Studio has grandiose artistic and financial plans of its own.

      • You can see it with AoU. This is starting to shape up as a Hulk-centric movie because there are plans to have a Hulk solo film. The articles on film blogs have focused the beef-up Ruffalo part moreso than Hawkeye’s role.

  10. What a political statement. You can tell that Favreau wants to say that Marvel is like an overbearing parent when it comes to their properties, but he won’t because he doesn’t want piss anyone off.

  11. What I stil don’t get about Iron Man 3. is why didn’t Shield get involved? Why didn’t the avengers come help? That was one of the many reasons it didn’t work for me as a film besides the whole mandarin thing.

    • So, pretty much what you’re saying is that Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the Hulk should never again have any more solo movies, because the rest of the Avengers should come to the rescue every time something happens. I’m pretty sure that in the comics, Iron Man has been in and out of the Avengers for years, but still had a solo comic running concurrently. Same with the others. I don’t get why some people are so hung up on this. In “The Avengers”, the team came together to fight a god, who was backed by an alien invasion. That doesn’t seem comparable to “Iron Man 3″, where the enemy was a terrorist blowing a few things up.

      • That is exactly. what i am saying. There was literally no reason for SHIELD or anybody for to sit there without. intervening. Tony didn’t do anything. to help the situation. He gave his address to terrorists and suffered for it. He didn’t even save the day he had gwenyth paltrow to thank. But its just one guys opinion.

        p.s.

        Every solo movie after Iron Man 1 totally sucked but then again just my opinion. no offense.

        • No problem. None taken.

    • If you really paying attention to the movie, you’ll see that Mandarin only attacking US Government. US Government retaliate with bringing Iron Patriot, while Iron Man was dragged into US Government vs Mandarin because Happy was a victim in Chinese Theater Bombing (aka personal reason). So there’s no reason for SHIELD nor Avengers to joining this personal fight.

      And if you paying attention to Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, it’s stated that they both have their own agenda. Thor was busy returning peace in nine realms, stated that it’s been a year since Battle of New York and two years since Thor in New Mexico. While Cap has been busy with SHIELD since Battle of New York, away in missions with/without Black Widow (and maybe/maybe not joined by Hawkeye.

      Also, the events in Iron Man 3 only happened in few days (around 3 days, if i’m not mistaken) and since this is personal feud, SHIELD have no reason to join. In other hand, main events of Thor TDW that happened on earth happens in just hours, and by the time SHIELD arrived on the scene, it’s all wrapped up and they’re the one who’s cleaning up the mess (stated in Agents of SHIELD). Same with Cap TWS, the main events happens in just hours, Stark can’t help because he may still rebuilding his Iron Man suits, and Thor can’t see and hear everything like Heimdall, so he doesn’t know what happened across the atlantic (we’re given to understand that Thor is in England after TDW event), plus with the nature of “trust issue” in the movie, Cap definitely can’t be careless for asking help since he doesn’t know who to trust.

      • that is quite the observation there. :)

        • Because i’m not just watching, *put on shades* i’m observing.

  12. We should all forever be grateful to Favreau for his IM works that actually were the very seed of what we now have today not only as the ever expanding MCU but the superhero genre revival in general.

    And IM3 a better film than IM2? Don’t make me laugh. IM3 was a movie with no heart or soul to speak of and shall forever remain Marvel’s blackened s*** stain against both the MCU and its army of dedicated fans around the world. I genuinely never thought I’d dislike RDJ as Tony Stark in a movie until I saw IM3 and my heart sank right down to my knees in the theater.

    Marvel should be begging Favreau to work for them again in an official capacity.

    • Iron Man 3 has a 7.4 on imdb. That’s higher than Man of Steel. So, looks like a fair amount of people enjoyed the film.

      • Yeah, and Transformers has 7.2 as well. Since when imdb rating alone became the indicator of the quality of the film?

      • Yeah, but the first Ironman has an 80 critics metascore and IM3 only has a 62 metascore. Btw, as much as I like “Superman” and (most of) his movies. MOS was a seriously flawed film. I, like many, just hope the Superman franchise bounces back with BvS. But that’s a different conversation.

      • Hahaha so by your logic Blue Marvel, Lord of War is better than Iron Man 3 at 7.6, it’s waaaay worse than The Big Lebowski at 8.2, just slightly better than Live Free or Die Hard at 7.3, and it’s even worse than the Paul Walker movie Running Scared at 7.5. Why don’t we do a real comparison with the first Iron Man that sits at 7.9 on IMDB? Oh, and congratulations, IM3 beats the flawed yet acceptable MoS by 0.1. I’m happy for you that you’re so easily entertained by the worst Marvel film of the MCCU. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

      • Just because general consensus on the internet deems a movie is good or bad, doesn’t mean that you should follow the general consensus. It may save you from regret of spending money on a flop, but you have your own taste.

    • The bulk of IM3 was good if you understand it was a satire, the last 20 minutes were awful but overall it was better than IM2.

    • Pretty sure Xmen, spiderman and Batman Begins are to thank for the rivival. IM1 was just an amazingly solid addition.

  13. Time to start work on that magic kingdom project, favreau

  14. I (like most people probably do) feel the first Iron Man was fantastic. The second one I will call good but not great and that’s only because I think they should have maybe went a different route as far as villain. Mickey Rourke’s character was good but if u think about it the climax of Iron Man 1 & 2 are kinda the same (The bad guy making his own suit to fight Iron Man). Iron Man 3 I would consider probably the weakest of the three. I liked it but I didn’t love it. I didn’t like The Mandarin twist but the Extremis situation (if I spelled that right) was sort of meh to me. I’m really hoping Ant Man does good and that it works out ok. I can’t say I’d guarantee it’d be a hit just because to the people that have never heard of Ant-Man might think its kind of a weak sounding hero. But I think Marvel is going to do like they have been and market the hell out of it like they have been and still are doing with Guardians of the Galaxy. Taking something that not a lot of people are not that familiar with and showing it and showing where people are like “wow you know what that’ll be awesome”.

    • Worrying about the possibility of something being a hit because no one has heard of it is an odd concern. Who had heard of “Star Wars” before it came out? Or “E.T.”? Or “Indiana Jones”? If a movie is done well and marketed well, it will likely do well. Until they slip up in a major way – and I’m talking about with the general public who have paid and will pay for the bulk of the movie tickets, not us obsessive internet dorks – the Marvel association alone will be enough to generate interest in whatever films they release.

      • The Marvel label didn’t help Daredevil and Elektra. They tanked. And Feige was in charge of those movies.

        • True, he was co-producer. At about that same time he also co-produced X-Men 2 and was executive producer on Hulk and Spider-Man 2. So one could argue, that it’s never down to one single guy to make or break a movie. It can always go either way.

          Maybe one indicator could be the backing of a movie. Daredevil and Elektra had lower budgets compared to the other ones. And while it is certainly possible to make succesful movies on a lower budget, it does helps to have a bigger budget when we’re talkinbg about action movies with a need for top-notch special effects, great stories etc. It affects who you’re able to hire on every single part of the production.

      • Yeah I know what you mean. And I do believe this movie can be a hit it’s just a matter of wait and see I guess lol I know it seems like every tv channel, every website and social network page has some sort of Guardians of the Galaxy ad. Regardless of the movie I believe one thing is for sure and that’s that Marvel can market

  15. Ironman 2 stunk because Rockwell and Rourke played cheesy two dimensional characters. And well, Tony Stark wasnt likable. We also have idiotic disconnects in realism – for example Stark making mistakes learning how to fly his armor yet Rhoades just jumps in his and is an immediate expert right off the bat without ever being in the suit before. They make Ironman 1 plausible for a sci fi superhero movie and then take the following movies and rush through everything.

    Not sure where the fault lies or if it’s shared but that’s the crux of it from an average moviegoer.

    It might not be a bad time to make Stark not so smart alecky all the time, Downy’s got a habit of doing a rendition of fast-lipped smart a$$ in too many roles and it’s starting to wear thin (at least from the perspective of someone who’s seen him in movies since the 80s).

    • Rockwell as Justin Hammer was poor casting, and a Russian Whiplash the a pet bird made no sense either. Marvel should have stuck to the source material. That said, I believe IM2 should have actually been a movie about the demise and redemption of the first Iron Man and introduction of the second Iron Man(IM#2), who would subsequently become War Machine in later films.
      A film about Stark learning how to cope without his company or his suit, and Rhody taking the suit to protect Stark’s tech during a hostile SHIELD takeover of Stark Industries, and eventually becoming a hero out of necessity would have been great.

  16. Let us for a moment focus NOT on the flaws and weaknesses of shared universe movies, but instead on their PURPOSE, their GOAL: AVENGERS

    • Are you willing to sit through a sub-par Thor sequel if it means setting up a soul shatteringly epic AVENGERS sequel?

      • Personally I haven’t seen a sub-par sequel since they started doing this cinematic universe. I am not saying they’ve all been equally great. Some have been par. But sub-par would be a bogey. And I wouldn’t consider any of the sequels we’ve seen so far to be bogeys.

        But I guess we also need to get used to the fact that we’re getting movies that are more like comic books in this universe, meaning they’re more like chapters in a continued storyline than standalone movies.

        But I will agree they shouldn’t do solo sequels unless they come up with a story that makes sense to do for that solo character. Otherwise they might as well let him sit one out until the next Avengers.

  17. I would say this….it’s a shame Edgar Wright version of Ant-man would be seen. I always thought it would make a great Pixar film though. This movie will make or break Marvel. Considering the success they have had they are allowed to a bomb or two. It won’t stop me from going to the movies. The Iron Man trilogy was good not great. People cry and boo hoo about Shane Black’s version of The Mandurian. But I thought the film was really good and original. He made Tony Stark fight his own battles without the suit. He kept it realative to reality. He stripped Tony his resources. Tony was really challenged. Making the film more about Tony Stark than Iron Man. I didn’t get that feeling from Iron Man 2. So far Marvel has done a decent job finding directors.

    • IM2 should have been about Stark fighting his battles without the suit (and Rhodes becoming Iron Man), and the script of IM3 IMHO was written to resolve lingering issues that IM2 failed to address. As a Marvel reader, I felt IM3 was a good movie, the last 20 minutes were flawed and Rhodes was misused, but Trevor was a positive and i’m a fan of satire so I loved the twist.

  18. I meant it’s a shame Edgar Wright would not be seen. He seemed very passionate about the project.

  19. I think since most of all the movie star’s contracts are running out or will run out by Avengers 3 so they should have a whole big catastrophe and have Earth be destroyed and everything but then do a Heroes Reborn type thing so it all makes sort of sense. But leave the Guardian’s cast alone because it would add an interesting dynamic to Star-Lord because he would know his whole home planet has been “replaced”

    • I think you should just stick to saying, “I am Groot.”

      • Hilarious.

  20. Clearly the man has grace. Maybe give him Transformers.

  21. Screenrant keeps trying to create this argument that shared universes may be hurting comic book movies but how is is hurting when the box office numbers on those shared universe films all come up golden? Marvel studios hasn’t financially had one failure yet and despite the fact that not all the films are perfect I don’t think enough credit is given that Marvel is doing something that has never been done before. Remember before Marvel Studios formed and the comic book(mainly Marvel) films came out many of them lacked the history of the character the presented to us on film? Daredevil was mud, there were some questionable X-Men movies, Spider-Man went downhill in its 3rd movie, Ghost Rider was, well you know what I mean. My point is the superhero genre was becoming stale and studios didn’t have an idea of where to go with those characters until Marvel Studios introduced the shared universe concept. In the comics they all exist in the same universe and they made it work so the question was why can’t we do the same thing on film? So what Thor is from a completely different realm and Cap is a WW2 veteran and now a man out of time? How could both of these characters EVER exist on film together?? We Marvel Studios already knew it would work thats why they attempted it. Now in bringing this all together you are going to break a few eggs(Wright, Taylor, Norton, etc.) along the way but if at the end of the day the end result is executed like how you imagined it would in the beginning it makes it all worth it. Let the other studios try to copycat and fail(Amazing Spider-Man 2) and let Marvel execute. I never seen this done before in movies and sure I’ll miss Edgar Wright’s vision of Ant-Man but we got bigger fish to fry…

  22. I think the word creative differences gets thrown around a lot these days replace it with I want more money that’s what’s really going on I couldn’t leave a job because I had creative differences if your getting paid to do a job do it and stop moaning

  23. Honestly, who gives a sh*t about the behind the scenes? These directors and actors make millions and throw tantrums, I don’t feel bad for any of these a**holes. Edgar Wright is still going to get a huge paycheck from Marvel since he still gets the some of writing credit for Ant Man.

  24. (IMO)

    Iron Man 1: Best Iron Man
    Iron Man 2: Very close to best Iron Man, but like a lot of thoughts on here, I think they were kinda forced heavily to make it as much of a Shield/Avengers thing as much as they could, both with script and plot and little hints/clues. Also, would have loved if Whiplash’s last form was on screen for more than one scene/one battle. Too bad ass to not have more time on that.
    Iron Man 3: Very interested to see what Favreau’s version of IM3 would have been, what his take on it was and his plot and film would have been like. I imagine a handful of differences so I’m curious to know how different it would have been, what he would have done

  25. I wonder when Thanos storyline is through. Will MCU give directors a freer ring to make their movies.

    • “free rein”