The Chicago Sun-Times recently spoke with the Iron Man star and managed to pry some details about the sequel to the hit film out of him; Movie Hole also asked Downey about Iron Man 2 and got more than they bargained for when the actor went on a tirade, slamming DC Comics and the runaway success of The Dark Knight.
|
|
“You want some plot secrets? Okay, here we go,” Downey said in an interview [with The Chicago Sun-Times] this weekend. “If he said he’s Iron Man in the first film, it’s one thing to say it and another thing to evolve to a point where you can live in a heroic fashion.”
Downey added, “Our goal is also more of the same in ‘Iron Man 2.’ We want to do what worked for us last time. I’m talking about telling more of the story of a guy put in extraordinary circumstances who has a family now and he’s dealing with these forces. In ‘Iron Man 2,’ you will be able to understand various points of view about him that are far-reaching while this guy is still grounded in reality.”
Ok, so basically they’re taking the Christopher Nolan approach: using the continuity established in the first film to logically expand on the plot threads left hanging at the conclusion of the origin story. Not too original, but hey, if the wheel works so well why re-invent it, right?
Downey pretty much echoed his sentiments about IM2 in an interview with Movie Hole, adding that
It’s pretty great and I think it’s going to be cool… [Iron Man has] a very rich feel, because it was a very simple movie, if you ask me. It was an origin story.”
And that’s about when the daggers started flying:
“My whole thing is that that I saw ‘The Dark Knight’. I feel like I’m dumb because I feel like I don’t get how many things that are so smart…and I’m like, ‘That’s not my idea of what I want to see in a movie.’ I…still can’t tell you what happened in the movie, what happened to the character and in the end they need him to be a bad guy. I’m like, ‘I get it. This is so high brow and so f–king smart, I clearly need a college education to understand this movie.’ You know what? F–k DC comics. That’s all I have to say and that’s where I’m really coming from.”
Wow, tell us how you really feel Rob. (It may be time to start urine-testing this guy again.)
Seriously though, I don’t see why Downey is hating on TDK. Iron Man tore it up at the box office ($569 million worldwide as of today,) and basically put Downey back on Hollywood’s radar. What, did that stupid MTV movie award go to his head? Or maybe Marvel has a clause in their contracts which states that their stars have to bad-mouth DC whenever and wherever possible. Hell, maybe Downey is just doing his job
So what do YOU think about Robert Downey Jr.’s kind words for Iron Man 2? About his hateful words for The Dark Knight? You have my permission to sound off.
Source: The Chicago Sun-Times & Movie Hole
Loading ...
209 Comments
HB, I agree about Batman not taking the fall for Two-Face’s crimes, but you have to understand why…Harvey Dent was the bright shining boy of Gotham crime prevention; it was Wayne’s hope that Dent would make Batman unnecessary. To tell the truth would have been smearing Dent’s hero image with cow manure, and Wayne respected him too much to allow that.
Now, as to realism?
See a documentary, because there’s nothing realistic about a jaded rich guy who uses all the high tech at his command to get therapy for personal trauma by playing crimefighter.
(Gee…was I talking Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne, there?)
@ photoshoplifter
jb never said to blame it on harvey he said to blame it on the joker and that wasn’t its only flaw but that ending was one of my main problems with that film.
The problem was everyone knew where Joker was during those murders it was well documented that he was in that building where he and Batman had the big battle. Would be hard to blame it on him.
Also try to update your self on monitor tech a little more. That sonar tech isnt as unrealistic as you seem to think it is.
Yah, we’ve had real-time 3D sonar devices that cover every part of the world for many decades now. Get with the times. Now if only they could read minds, now that would be crazy…
Count me as one of the people who liked IM better than TDK. I, too, found TDK to be flawed. For example:
At the end, when Batman is trying to persuade Harvey to not kill Gordon’s kid, we see that the reason Harvey decided to have revenge on Gordon was that he was mad that Batman and the police decided to rescue him (Harvey) before Rachel, which was the reason Rachel died. But for us, the public who watched the movie, we knew that Batman actually tried to rescue Rachel, but was tricked by the Joker into rescuing Harvey instead. So, why didn’t Bats reveal that to Harvey? Why didn’t he say that he meant to rescue Rachel, but was tricked by the Joker? If he had told Harvey that, then Harvey would realize that Batman and Gordon weren’t at fault, and would most likely have decided to not kill Gordon’s kid.
Well, that is a very typical movie phenomenon. SOOOO many times I find myself thinking “come on, just tell [insert name here] that it was really [insert situation here] that happened, stop staring at him with a bewildered look and just tell him already!!” That’s something that I’ve come to expect from hollywood because they know if they just tell that person, the story cannot progress.
Personally, I felt that entire last 20 minutes or so could have been cut from the film and it would have been an almost 10 out of 10 movie for me. That ending was mainly what killed it for me and made Iron Man an overall better and funner film to watch in my opinion. It was much cleaner and better organized. So that little detail about Harvey and the Joker fooling Batman bit wasn’t too much of a deal for me, it was just a very small detail within a pretty crappy ending all-together.
And like I have said, cutting out that ending would have not only made the film have a more satisfying ending, but would have been better for the sequel as well since then they could have Two-Face as the villain, which would be pretty cool, I think.
My idea for the ending would be they capture the Joker and Gordon is revealed to be alive. They make him commissioner. Batman does his thing, goes and tries to rescue Rachel, he fails, Harvey is injured in the face. They show Joker taunting the guard in his room, but DON’T SHOW the part where he’s holding the guy and asks for a phone call. Cut that out. After they rescue Harvey, he is sent to the hospital and they return to the police station only to find the holding cell part all blown up and that the Joker has escaped. One of the cops that survive tells Gordon what has happened and that’s when they show small muted clips of the Joker holding the guy, making the phone call, and the guy blowing up, but not showing the details of how that went down, because personally I felt that scene was very weak and full of holes. The only way to fill those holes is to make the holes so large you don’t notice them, lol. Basically, give very vague details, and let the audience’s imagination fill in the rest. Works a lot better when you can’t really explain exactly how something happened. The film then cuts to Harvey at the hospital, probably using the footage shot for the conversation between him and Gordon or Joker, but take out the audio, and make some kind of dramatic thing where you don’t see the ugly half for a while, then he turns his head, like he’s looking into the camera, exposing the burnt half, and then the screen goes black. Of course all the while some dramatic Batman music in the background with an exclamation right when he reveals the burnt part. Man, I think someone with some film editing skills can probably cut that together.
I think that would have made a great and exciting ending, instead of the drawn out ending with those overly theatrical narratives that I really could have lived without…
Ben said; “Why didn’t he say that he meant to rescue Rachel, but was tricked by the Joker?”
Yeah, after what happened to Dent, He would have believed that. How your trying to rewrite the movie is just personal choice. Two Face had already had an entire movie. You will only get so many chances to make movies like that and they are a gamble every time you make one. When your on a roll the last thing you want to do is make the story drag. Two Face worked in this movie because it gave Batman hope that he could quit and then dashed that hope, adding to the dark feel of the show. It was called “The Dark Knight” for reasons more than just symbolic or indicative of Batman’s modus operandi. By changing it, you take that away from the show, so it’s not just some element you can excise without consequences. The codependence of the characters with the story, one not rising too much above the other is one of the things that makes “The Dark Knight” so great. A movie that is just story or just character study, will have less audience appeal than one that integrates both well. Remember, It’s all about the money!
Additionally, what is the focus of the movie Batman the hero or Joker and Two Face the villains? If you let the villains totally steal the show you might as well have made a movie and called it “The Joker and Two Face.” Besides, given what happened to Ledger, the franchise doesn’t die with him. Yes it was very tragic, “But The Show Must Go On” as the old saw goes, and I think Heath would want it that way. May he rest in peace..
Ken J:
“Personally, I felt that entire last 20 minutes or so could have been cut from the film and it would have been an almost 10 out of 10 movie for me. That ending was mainly what killed it for me and made Iron Man an overall better and funner film to watch in my opinion. It was much cleaner and better organized. So that little detail about Harvey and the Joker fooling Batman bit wasn’t too much of a deal for me, it was just a very small detail within a pretty crappy ending all-together.”
I agree. The ending seemed the weakest part of the film to me.
the old man:
“Yeah, after what happened to Dent, He would have believed that.”
It wouldn’t have killed to at least try explaining it to Harvey. And no, you don’t know if he would have believed it or not. Actually, it seemed like Havey was listening to Batman’s words, but still decided to kill the boy because it was fair in his mind. Even if he was Harvey gone insane, and his decision was pure madness, he was doing what he considered fair. His line proves it:
Batman: You don’t want to do this.
Harvey: It isn’t about what I want… It is about what is FAIR!
So I think that if Batman had said what really happened, Harvey would have stopped blaming Gordon for Rachel’s death, and would have let the kid go.
“How your trying to rewrite the movie is just personal choice.”
…What? All what I did was point a flaw. So you mean that the fact that a movie should have the least amount possible of mistakes is a matter of opinion, not a must?
Old man, I’m not sure what your point is. Do you support it the way it is or support the idea that things needed to be changed? Because it sounds like you liked the way it was, but then mentioned a lot of the major flaws that would justify a rewrite… Not sure if you intended to or not.
“Two Face had already had an entire movie.”
No he didn’t. Harvey Dent have about 4/5 of the movie and Two-Face had about 20 minutes and then he was dead… A character that is one of the core villains, a recurring villain like Joker was in the comics and in the animated series lasted 20 minutes.
“When your on a roll the last thing you want to do is make the story drag.”
Yah, I agree, and that’s why the last 20 minutes needed to be cut from the film, because it was dragging on and on and on and on… I felt it was over long before it actually was. I liked the movie up to the point where I thought it ended, then it kept going and it started to annoy me, then they killed Harvey and that pissed me off, then they started nagging the point about how Batman has to make sacrifices and he is the hero he needs to be blah blah blah, and I was annoyed again…
“If you let the villains totally steal the show you might as well have made a movie and called it “The Joker and Two Face.””
Again, I’m not sure if you intended to point this out or not, but this is another flaw of the film. I’m sorry, but it’s too late, they DID let the villain steal the show. But just one of them. The film focused around The Joker while Batman was a costar. Two-Face was a cameo. And my idea for cutting out the end would show even less of Two-Face. It would be like a reference to what the sequel will be about like the Joker card was at the end of Batman Begins.
KenJ said; “It would be like a reference to what the sequel will be about”
That’s what I’m talking about when I say “dragging the story.” You want a sequel but Two Face has already been showcased in “Batman Forever.” Like it or not Two Face had a purpose and that was it.
Ben said ” All what I did was point a flaw”
It’s obvious that what happened is what Nolan wanted. It’s not a flaw It’s a choice. He could have changed the movie up several ways to carry Two-Face into a sequel. Instead he shows us the hero’s clay feet, if the argument is valid that Two Face would have believed Batman. Ok, Batman failed! He failed to keep Harvey alive, which he couldn’t have known how the fight was going to ultimately turn out anyway. Nolan is saying; yeah, bad things happen to heroes too!
You got the extra footage of a last showdown of Two-Face and Batman, Nolan could have just killed him in the car crash. That would have tightened the movie up even more!
It says something about Nolan’s character. He gives the audience what they want, a masked vigilante that gets away with it, and even has certain support of the establishment. Which would never go over in real life. He*l they prosecute you if you shoot a thief or killer in your own home in the middle of the night! But Nolan refuses to descend into kitsch by taking every possible controversy and complication out of the story, or milk the situation into two movies when he could wrap it up in one. That’s his choice not his plot hole.
I think the movie should of been untouched all the way up to a certain point and everything after could of been cut. I would of loved to have seen the movie end during the emotional scenes after Rachael dies. WHen Batman is standing in the rubble and Harvey is crying after seeing the coin. It was a great moment that could of ended the film then for some reason it just kept going. Loved the movie, but that would of made it damn near perfect for me.
Um, old man, and the Joker was showcased in the first Batman… So I guess they shouldn’t have “dragged the story” of the Joker either then… What part of “reboot” is not clear? This Two Face has nothing to do with the Two Face of Batman Forever and don’t see how that should affect his role in any future Batman movies based on this REBOOTED universe…
And Daniel F, that would be an excellent way to end the film too. And I agree, if they had done that, the movie would have been twice as awesome as it was. The ending really hurt the movie in my opinion. I really wanted to love the movie, but after the movie FINALLY ended, I found myself a bit annoyed by that ending. Normally that would have made me not like the film because for me the ending can make or break a film, but the rest of the movie was really darn good, so I was willing to recommend this film despite the ending.
No KenJ, dragging the story is dragging Two-Face into the third movie. That was Nolan’s choice, live with it… or without, I don’t care. You can’t make it a plot hole. It might be something you don’t like but you can keep that in mind if you ever get around to making your own “Batman” movie. If you do, I’ll be first in line to see it and endeavor to be the first one to write about it.
KenJ said, “REBOOTED universe”
Well, in light of that, Nolan has no responsibility to the past to carry Two-Face any farther than he sees fit!
Oh geez old man, I didn’t know you were married to Chris Nolan, didn’t mean to personally offend you bud,
We’ll think twice from now on about stating our OPINIONS on the film. Any other film you get defensive about we should know about?
Ken J said, “What part of “reboot” is not clear? This Two Face has nothing to do with the Two Face of Batman Forever and don’t see how that should affect his role in any future Batman movies based on this REBOOTED universe…”
It’s your obstinacy that’s irksome. You still want to cling to the idea that the way Nolan played Two-Face was a flaw. It wasn’t a flaw it was a choice, which is the whole point. You want to make it different based on choice and personal preference and call it an error free “better” version. It’s no such thing. In my view he chose to write it that way from his experience with art and the points he wanted to make about the Genre. What I understand about your changes is that you wanted “more of the same.” He didn’t see any need to repeat himself. No amount of clever word twisting analysis is going to turn his informed conscious choice into an error.
I also want to inform you that being “married to Chris Nolan” isn’t a requirement for respecting the man’s art. Your homosexual allusion is extremely offensive to me and mis characterizes myself and Mr. Nolan. I didn’t think you would stoop that low to get the last word. But this encounter and your inflammatory remarks to me in the “Dragonball” thread, seals my opinion of you. In the future I’ll make sure to ignore your comments and endeavor to stay out of the way of such an incisive mendacious mind.
I rarely do this but I have to agree with Ken here. Killing off Two Face was a huge mistake. It was a major flaw in the film that removed would of improved the quality.
I would also like to add while there was no reason for him to make the comment about being married to Nolan and it may of been a tad childish. You seem to be overly offended by it. Which shows you to be far to sensitive. Also sadly the part that you are most offended by seems to be that it makes a tiny reference to you being gay which he never directly sad. So I must ask if you are a bigot ? Or just a really really extremely sensitive person ? Most people would have just rolled their eyes at the comment but you took extreme offense that he hinted that you were married to a guy. Had the director been a female he would of said the same thing. Would you of been just as offended?
Said not sad. Opps
the old man:
“It’s obvious that what happened is what Nolan wanted. It’s not a flaw It’s a choice. He could have changed the movie up several ways to carry Two-Face into a sequel.”
…Dude, I never mentioned Two-Face dying. The flaw was that the conflict at the end with Two-Face wanting to kill Gordon’s kid would have been solved if Batman had told Harvey what happened: that they meant to rescue Rachel first, but were tricked by the Joker.
@Daniel F, Ken J, the old man
OK, guys let’s relax. Old Man, I know that Ken J can be pretty ascerbic, but I think you read too much into his comment.
Ken J, sometimes I do wish you would dial back the edginess in some of your comments.
Daniel F, let’s not go down the name-calling accusation path, shall we?
Vic
LOL, wow, yah, my point with that comment is that you’re taking it WAY too personally old man. I’m analyzing a MOVIE made by SOMEONE ELSE who it NOT related to you, with a critical eye, which I do for EVERY movie, only some movies pass with flying colors, others fail horribly, and then some like TDK pass but with some negative points.
Nowhere did I claim my analysis is some definitive “matter of fact” statement of the movie’s qualification or anything like that. Notice I even tried to point this out to you in my sarcastic response to you. “We’ll think twice from now on about stating our OPINIONS on the film.”
So since you DIDN’T get the sarcasm, I’ll just explain it to you. What I described is a flaw IN MY OPINION. I’m still allowed to have those right?? Of course it was the movie maker’s choice. My point is that *I* FEEL that he made a bad choice. Do you kind of notice all of the adjectives are not factual ones but subjective (opinions) ones??
Yes, you’re allowed to have opinions too, I understand you liked the movie, I liked it too, but to try to justify your position that my opinion about the ending is “wrong” because Two Face has been done in another film, is pretty ridiculous, in so many ways…
Oh, and just so no one can say I didn’t try, I’m adding this bit to make it crystal clear. So many people state their opinions in a matter of fact sort of way. And it’s actually ok, most people see their own opinion as a fact and state it that way, but I don’t need them to point it out to me for me to get that it’s their opinion, obviously it is. But I actually do go out of my way to make sure I remind the reader that it’s my opinion all the time. I do that SPECIFICALLY so people like you won’t start telling me that what I’m saying is somehow “wrong” (opinions can’t be wrong! They are OPINIONS!). And here are quotes from my previous posts that clearly show this:
“**Personally, I felt** that entire last 20 minutes or so could have been cut…”
“That ending was mainly what killed it for me and made Iron Man an overall better and funner film to watch **in my opinion.**”
“…they could have Two-Face as the villain, which would be pretty cool, **I think.**”
“**I think** that would have made a great and exciting ending…”
“**I felt** it was over long before it actually was.”
“The ending really hurt the movie **in my opinion.**”
Could I have made it more clear? It’s MY OPINION. So sorry if I’m going to continue having them. What a weird world we live in right? People having opinions… pish posh, back in my day, it snowed in Florida and I had to walk to school 5 miles uphill both ways, and people didn’t have opinions…
Sorry HB, but you need to read up more on modern tech. It’s not really that unrealistic.
Sonar is not at all far fetched. Having 3D sonar technology already installed in everyone’s cell phones probably years ahead of him even knowing he would need it… I don’t know, you tell me.
But then we have a reactor that someone can fit inside of a hole in his chest while he flies around in a suit of armor that can take a direct hit from a tank’s sabot round…
The only difference is, Iron Man never tried to be more serious and more realistic than it actually was, while TDK did. So that is why some people find it harder to accept the unrealistic aspects of TDK. **IN MY FREAKIN OPINION**
Being able too read ‘SWAT’ on a police officer with sonar technology is not far-fetched it is ridiculous.
The Dark Knight has a few flaws but the rest of the film is so remarkable who cares?
I don’t think you should compare TDK and IM. One is a crime thriller not fit for children. The latter is a fun, family comic-book movie. The genre they fit into is completely different as far as plausibility, style and tone.
Just to argue, if Tony Stark is as brilliant as they make him out to be — why wouldn’t he be able to build that suit? That’s kind of the point.
Yah, well unfortunately there can’t be a single mention of Iron Man without TDK fanboys jumping in to tell us how much IM sucks compared to TDK. So it’s no wonder fans of IM get defensive.
I’m a fan of both, but I can’t help but want to side with IM because of the way TDK fanboys tend to act, I feel like I SHOULD go against them because of this fact, but I still keep my argument based on logic.
But don’t worry, I’m not letting that simple fact affect my opinion on the film… too much… I guess it’s impossible for it to not at all, but I still like it, but it does have many flaws. I would just like for the fanboys to at least acknowledge the flaws. They act like it is a flawless movie, and it’s not, not by a long shot. It actually has many more plot holes and things that go against logic compared to many other movies, but there are plenty of good qualities that balances it all out so you’re willing to accept them. Maybe even make up excuses for them in your mind just to keep a positive view.
Just like I, or any other IM fan, would admit IM’s many faults, some of these blind people need to wake up and realize that TDK had just as many, if not more, flaws. But it was aiming higher, and you’re bound to make more mistakes when the ambitions are so high. Higher than they should have been in my opinion. I would have liked a slightly simpler movie from TDK, because sometimes it seems like it’s trying real hard to be high brow. When something seems like it’s trying real hard instead of it just coming naturally, it’s distracting.
@ Ken J
Good post.
I liked IM better, but I guess that’s because I don’t like Batman story.
Yes, that’s right. I said it.
I never understood people’s fascination with Batman. When reading stories about superheroes, I like them to be epic (as in, when they fight big threats and the destiny of the humanity or the world depends on their victory). Batman always bored me because he usually fights street-level villains, and the worst it could happen if he were to lose, would be the destruction of Gotham City.
I guess that’s the reason Ra’s Al Ghul is one of the few Bat-villains I like.
AAARGH. I meant to write “I liked IM better, but I guess that’s because I don’t like Batman stories.”
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!