Comments on: Here’s Why Terrence Howard Isn’t In Iron Man 2

By: Lotustar

Lotustar — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 03:27:03 +0000

You are correct on all counts sir. Its the same way in the music biz. And the latter being the key as to why. Biz, the money end. Big name actors fill seats. Your average John or Jane Doe actor has to work their way to the top by sometimes doing a lot of smaller parts of leading indie films. Same in music. Bands play clubs for years sometimes before they make it. Would you rush to ticket master’s website and buy tickets for a band you never heard of if they were covering songs you DID know for a night? Most ppl prob would not. But maybe some ppl would. In Hollywood that’s called a gamble and they RARELY take those anymore. Just my 2 cents.

By: tlby

tlby — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:18:31 +0000

You people need to think harder after reading this. I know its old but what im about to say should be referenced in the future and in all honesty should be standard practice in movies anyway. First why didn’t they make him sign a contract for a sequel deal to begin with? They knew there would be a sequel, what comic book hero movie hasn’t?. 2nd why oh why in this country do we flock to big name actors? There are plenty of no names with as much or maybe more talent than the big names who would of filled the roll just as well and sometimes even better for not near as much and would gladly sign for sequels if asked (its not like this is sports were you TRULY have to have something extra special to get paid more). And you wouldn’t have known the difference, in fact you would having been raving how good “john doe” was as Rhodes. Its not rocket science just common since. Look at Hugh Jackman, i never heard of him til X-Men and look how great he turned out. Now he is a BIG NAME actor. Halle Berry as Storm? Please. She was horrible for the part. Yes Terrence Howard is a marvelous actor there is no doubt. But when you replace an actor in a sequel it knocks 50% of like value right off the top before i even see it for me.

By: Suzz

Suzz — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:34:03 +0000

I was gutted when I found out that they replaced Terrance Howard. He is an amazing actor and I love the on screen connection between Howard and Downey. Howard portrayal of the friendship between the two seems so genuine. And Howard is extremely good looking to boot. I was so unhappy that I didn’t bother to watch Iron Man 2.

By: anne

anne — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:29:16 +0000

I almost boycotted IM2 WHEN I HEARD TERRENCE HOWARD HAD BEEN REPLACED. BAD decision by Marvel and JF. I have since seen it at a second run theater where I paid 3 bucks to get in ( there’s your pay cut JF). I don’t know of a single fan that was impressed with Mr Cheadles performance. He is usually quite good as we all know. Still, I think it was a HUGE MISTAKE! GRRRRR! The relationship between Tony Stark and James Rhodes felt genuine . . . Mr Cheadles performance was “mechanical” and could have been phoned in. Perhaps “Happy” should be replaced both on and off screen.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 13 May 2010 20:28:23 +0000

I have seen Iron Man 2, and Cheadle’s role as Rhodes was as soft-spoken as Terrence Howard’s portrayal. Let’s not forget that it is Favreau’s job to direct the actor’s into his vision of the overall work. Honestly, upon watching Iron Man 2, it seems that Cheadle was directed not to portray Jimmy Rhodes, but instead to portray Terrence Howard as Jimmy Rhodes.
I dislike actor changes between sequels, especially with significant characters, regardless of their acting ability. Once the suspension of disbelief has been established in the first film, seeing an entirely different face and body – yet with the same character name – causes that suspension of disbelief to come crashing down. It effects the story.
I like Terrence Howard as an actor. I like Don Cheadle as an actor. But once a world has been created, the world needs consistency in its existence. It’s not a matter of which actor was better than the other when comparing sequels.
And I like Will Smith as an actor, too, but his mug showing up in Iron Man would have cast a huge shadow over the rest of the cast. Hell, and we think Howard would have been paid too much…

By: LF

LF — Wed, 05 May 2010 22:01:58 +0000

well they could have asked to play a more aggresive role he could do it i think they should have not had him soft spoken while they filmed it they could have just made him play the role different they set him up in my opinoin it takes time to make a movie so why not experiment with how they want him to act and than look it over than make a decision. set up completely didnt want to pay money for the 2 movie if he nailed the role on the 1

By: VX

VX — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:30:29 +0000

For me, Replacing a character’s actor after a prequel is wrong! not that Cheadle can’t play the part, It’s just that Howard was 1st! You can’t change the actor after the 1st one, it confuses people. and Personally, i think it’s kinda irritating. Why couldn’t they just tell Howard to play the part tougher or whatever is it that they want him to be like. just don’t change the actor. I was really looking forward to Howard playing Warmachine after he said “Next time Baby”
Oh well.. I just hope that Cheadle can play the part.

By: What The Heck Is Going On With Iron Man 2? - Screen Rant

What The Heck Is Going On With Iron Man 2? - Screen Rant — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:26:50 +0000

[...] came word that Terrence Howard was out of Iron Man 2, then despite the fact that last October Samuel L. Jackson stated that Nick Fury would have a [...]

By: Twilight Director Hardwicke Off Sequel, New Moon - Screen Rant

Twilight Director Hardwicke Off Sequel, New Moon - Screen Rant — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 05:06:43 +0000

[...] very surprised about this, and it reminds me of Terrence Howard being replaced by Don Cheadle in Iron Man 2… No one is safe, I [...]

By: KR

KR — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:30:03 +0000

I understand the money and the portrayal aspect of this, but the choice of Don Cheadle baffles me. I could see if they chose a gruffy, intense actor like Samuel Jackson or Keith David, but Cheadle I just don’t get…

By: Jay P

Jay P — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:22:44 +0000

This is terrible news. Don Cheadle is a fantastic actor and a better one than Howard, but Howard was in the first one. This is just like what happened with Dark Knight. Katie Holmes had to be replaced. It’s just weird and it would be better if people didn’t have to deal with these minor problems. It’s just a real shame.

By: Navycross

Navycross — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:43:52 +0000

I don’t like the change and not because Cheadle is the wrong choice, simply because it is a continuity issue for me. It isn’t like we’re talking about a seldom seen character in the first movie here; he and Downy built a relationship on screen. If you weren’t impressed with his portrayal, it would be easy enough in the second movie to show a different side to the character, a stronger side. You live with it and you keep him in there, if for no other reason then to ensure there is a seamless continuity between movies. Stupid decision in my opinion.

By: Jeromy Mendoza

Jeromy Mendoza — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:45:37 +0000

i hate that they replaced Terrence Howard in Iron man 2. Its stupid he would have been a great war machine. I think the new guy doesn’t even get anywhere close to a good actor to be war machine. They should of just stuck with the same characters from the first one. the actors is what makes the movie great and the characters from the first one made the movie great. i really hope that they really don’t screw them selves over and piss fans off for do that.

By: Traue

Traue — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:00:36 +0000

I hate it when they replace there leading actors. But, actors are over paid in my view anyways and if he was banking that much for the acting job he did they did the right thing cause he was being over paid for the role. The only problem I really have is I don’t like the replacement. I just cant see Cheadle doing any better. I still think they could have found someone gruffer to play the part. Cant remember who brought up Will Smith but cant see him as Rhodes. He’s too big of an actor to play the side kick at this point. If they were going to do a spin off with him as the main Character that I could see maybe. I still like the idea of Wesley Snipes myself but thats just me

By: John "Kahless" Taylor

John "Kahless" Taylor — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:38:45 +0000

I find it odd that Howard would be given more money than RDJ, similar to the scenario in the first Batman movie. But unlike the first Batman movie, Howard does not have the clout like Nicholson. Why did Marvel do that? Also, isn’t it the director who is suppose to direct the actor on how strong or how soft the character is? I see Faveau having some culpability here.

By: 90caliber

90caliber — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 06:20:11 +0000

cheadle was good in Devil in a Blue Dress and he played a hard core gangsta in Ot of Sight which i thought was good movie all around and showed that he has range and he wasnt very soft spoken in Rosewood either. So while I agree he doesnt physically look the part he is great actor that is CAPABLE of pulling it off lets just hope he does it sucessfully.

By: 790

790 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:26:25 +0000

Lol Vic,,,
Arnold Schwarzenegger is pretty short too.
And you guys wouldn’t believe how short Al Pacino is… He practically a dwarf…

By: Vic Holtreman

Vic Holtreman — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:19:11 +0000

Robert Downey Jr. isn’t exactly a big man. I’m 5’10″ and when I met him he was shorter than me.

Vic

By: 790

790 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:06:44 +0000

No your correct, he’s too short and soft spoken…

War Machine, I just don’t see War when I see Cheadle,,,
I see that Missionary he played in “Hotel Rwanda”.

By: JD5DAD

JD5DAD — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 04:18:25 +0000

is it just me or is Cheadle to small to be war machine I remember seing him in oceans 11 and he looked about 5 feet tall now I would have picked a different guy even thou I don’t really care about this actor I think Tyrese Gibson would have been better than kenny Bakers stand-in (Cheadle)