Part 2 of Quint's interview with Jon Favreau! IRON MAN 2, Stark's alcoholism, Empire Strikes Back and THE AVENGERS!

I knew this day would come ...

Alexander Skarsgard as Thor please! Thanks!

Third

Oh, and D@MN you Michael Bay

there is a very slim chance, that someone's thinking of making a novie

Just kidding. INO gots to eat.

have directed Transformers? D@MN you Michael Bay!

yeah, this can be done in 83 minutes

Iron man. loved it. Fucking loved it. but it had some third act issues and I dont think Favreau even needs to hear it, he gets it.

'Nuff said.

It's interview, arsehat!

I mean, that guy get's it! He nailed Iron Man. It had all the 'pop' that we love but still had depth of characters in tony Stark and Obadiah. He seems to have struck the right balance of serious and fun. Well done sir! Glad you are out there at the helm of this stuff! Keep up the great work. Very much looking forward to Ironman 2!!!!

And I followed that project since Comic Con 2006 when they showed us the teaser poster. I was intrigued how the armor would work and of course how Downey would work.

if the world doesn't end.

In training, yes, but he's ruled by his emotions and he uses his blaster just as much if not more than his lightsaber.<br><br> You could even make the argument that he's never a full-on Jedi, even at the end of Return, and that the title refers to the redemption of Anakin and the return of the ideals of the Jedi rather than Luke becoming a Jedi. How long did he study with Yoda? Like 8 months? He's just a snappier dressed Padawan with a better haircut.

and a uber-geriatric Yoda... how the hell could he have really become a Jedi? He was just hacking it on impulse.

and stay as close to the source material as they can then it will be a hit.

Favreau had a genius-like touch on Iron Man. His attention to detail would rival Walt Disney's. We are all very lucky that he is executive producing Avengers. I'm not worried about the release date of Iron Man II, the second time around is so much easier for everything.

this is a trick, right?>p> quit messin around man

Do you think interview with Nolan will have IRONMAN in it as much as Dark Knight was in this interview?<P>yep, they're very different movies and all.. but at end of day, TDK is a much bigger phenomenon than Ironman.<p>

don't do the Hank hit Jan thing<p> Both characters are so much more than that<p> I don't know how they got caught in that loop<p> and when it was first told, it was a story worth telling<p> but all you comic writer guys<br> please stop

most reports have only a few people left who watch it, should have been after the animation credits at the end. this is why the tony stark cameo wasn't at the end of incredible hulk. more people would have seen the nick fury part if it was early in the credits.

Does Favreau have an answer to that?

in Part One's intro he clearly states the interview was done PRIOR to the Howard/Cheadle thing.

and Terrence Howard would not have gotten 'fucked' out of a plum role that's retardedly going to older and skinnier actor Don(I played Sammy Davis Jr) Cheadle.

From this point forward I won't believe anything your lard ass has to say. What you, Downey, and Marvel did to Terrance Howard was shady is shit. Don Cheadle is going to fucking blow as Warmachine. You have ticked off your fanbase. And I can't wait for Marvel to turn on your fat ass and give this Franchise to someone else, which will happen sooner or later. Believe it. Marvel ruins everything.

Dude, calm down. Unless you have some info the rest of us don't then you have no idea what happened between Howard, Favreau, Downey and Marvel. It sucks that there's going to be some loss of continuity, but I'm pretty confident Cheadle will be good-to-great as Rhodes/War Machine because he's been good in pretty much everything I've seen him in. Maybe it'll turn out that you're right and Howard got shafted, but for now you're post sounds like some reactionary bullshit to me. And since when does Marvel ruin everything? They've made two movies so far and they were both good.

And what's the story with Terrance Howard? And who is Terrance Howard? I guess I don't remember that movie very well.

Do people have some insider knowledge about the IM2/Howard sitch that I haven’t seen? How the fuck do you people know what Fav & Downey did? The quote I’ve read from Howard was that he was ‘surprised’ that ‘good-faith negotiations aren’t held up’. To me, that translates as he was demanding too much money. But that's just me speculating. Granted, Marvel should have told him that he was getting replaced, but whatever the reasons, he’s out, Cheadles in. Get over it.

Avatar is just over one year away! Hurry the fuck up Christmas 2009!

So you can clean up the fanboys brains on the seat of the cinema. This will blow minds.

What happened to Terence? In this day and age?

I haven't spoke with Jon about why Howard isn't going to be in the film, but I have spoke with some other filmmakers that have met with Terrance these days - and he hasn't been exactly as cool as one would think. <BR><BR>Now - before you think I'm slamming on Terrance, you need to remember - AICN was one of the first places anywhere trumpeting and cheering for him. I fucking love him on camera and love his character in IRON MAN - and was dying to see him move forward. <BR><BR>Having said that, I've also worked with Favreau - and frankly - he's great people. He's somebody that extends the definition of Family from just blood relations to the people you surround yourself with. The people you work with. <BR><BR>Now - Howard's non-involvement is either one of two things. He was either making demands (financial or creative) that the production wasn't willing to address to the degree that would make Terrence happy - and you should know, if it is financial, that'd be a MARVEL decision... <BR><BR>But Terrance and Cheadle have a very similar pay scale currently. So I can't imagine it is financial. <BR><BR>The other factor it could be is if Terrence made himself difficult to work with, I have heard some very weird things about him recently, that is the sort of thing I don't repeat, but I do know if he pulled these types of things around Jon... I completely would see why Howard would be shown the door. <BR><BR>That said - no matter who is at fault, it is sad to see Howard's involvement go. But Cheadle is a great actor - and a fantastic person by all accounts. And as an actor, I can see his personality working quite well in scenes with Robert Downey Jr. We'll see, it is an early "DAMN" on the project, but there's not a single thing wrong with Cheadle. At least in my opinion

If it's not written down, it didn't happen. Anyone who got that far in Hollywood should know that.<p>Funny, Robert Downey Jr looked just like Don Cheadle in Tropic Thunder.</p>

"I have heard some very weird things about him recently, that is the sort of thing I don't repeat"

He doesn't FIRE his blaster, but he shows preference for (potentially) using his blaster over using the lightsaber multiple times. On Degobah he pulls out his blaster instead of his lightsaber twice. Once when R2 gets temporarily eaten and once when Yoda shows up. And when he's walking through the hallways of Bespin he's got his blaster out and doesn't put it away and pull out the lightsaber till Vader turns his lightsaber on. A real Jedi wouldn't even be carrying around a blaster because it's an inelegant weapon and so forth.

will revolve around tony coming to terms wiht the mistake he made in declaring himself as iron man. he will build a suit that functions on it's own and stage something so he and the suit are seen in the same scene- so people stop believing he is iron man, but the the suit will go rouge on him. something like that. Sorta how batman created the jokers big game. tony fucked up by revealing himself as iron man and bad shit is going to happen and he will try to trick everyone into thinking he is not iron man.

Hollywood politics are fucking bullshit!!! Plain and simple there are no real friends there. It's all about how hot you are, and what your last film did. <P> And by that post Harry, it sounds like your ready to quietly push this issue under the carpet to help the film move forward. <P> Well I'll say this. Some of the fans won't stop talking about it, until the real answer is given. And as fans I think we are entitled to those real answers. <P>Fav and Howard need to say it in the same room or over a phone. <P>Yeah it could get nasty, but the lies won't hide anymore. <P> The Maggie replacment in TDK- was Katies choice to leave. Cause the bitch is fucking nuts. OK, we could accept that. <P>We can't accept this, and the fact that certain rumors are flying about. Dealing wiht the real reason Howard ain't coming back, and you are in the know, and the rest of the world isn't allowed to be privileged. Fuck man Hollywood is like the social structure of popularity in high school. The fucking bullshit amazes me!!!!! It really does. Everyone stands over their own private toilet bowl inhaling their brand smiling. thinking it, and them are better than the rest. Sometimes someone needs to glove up a hand, reaches in, and smears that shit in that self absorbed fuckers face!

The thing you have to remember though is that, as Vader said: "You are not a Jedi yet." <p> Luke had gotten a crash course in the Jedi arts (I wonder if he did saber training with Yoda....maybe in the Ultra-Hyper-Special Edition haha) and was probably still more comfortable with a blaster. <p> Also, in the Dagobah cave he used his lightsaber and when it came time to confront Vader on Bespin he used his lightsaber as well. Luke was always on the back foot during that duel, getting in a couple of lucky shots here and there but it was clear that he wasn't entirely comfortable with the lightsaber. <p> In Return of the Jedi, he tried to use a blaster to kill Jabba though that was all part of a ridiculously elaborate plan. Once he got his lightsaber from Artoo he looked more comfortable and was clearly a more experienced Jedi though it should be noted that Obi-Wan used a blaster to kill General Grevious so it's not unheard of for Jedi to use them in extreme circumstances. <p> I wouldn't be too hard on Luke though as there is a clear progression from the blaster toting farmboy in A New Hope to the confident, saber-wielding Jedi in Return Of The Jedi.

So...was Favs saying that Marvel would like to redo the Fantastic Four movies themselves? Hell, if that's the case, Fox needs to dump them back to Marvel quick so they can get a great Fantastic Four movie on the fast track!

Hardly. Downy is a very good (not great) actor but he is not likable in fact I remember him and Favreau being pretty big assholes to their interviewers during filming. You like him because he needs the site and so he acts friendly to you and you believe it.

The way Favreau describes Marvel's new studio setup reminds me of the old school days of the Marvel Bullpen. This can only be good.

I would love to know the reasons too, but I'm not close to either of the men involved. I'm not part of the studios involved. And neither are you and a lot of other people. That means we don't have any right to know. That may sound harsh, but that's how it is in businesses. People are fired or leave from all types of jobs, and when that happens its a private matter between those involved that the public has no right to know. The slang for it is 'talking out of school'. Harry wasn't saying "nyah nyah I know and you don't!", he was simply explaining why the reasons weren't discussed by him or anyone else. And they are valid reasons. Like I said before, I would love to know myself what happened, but I nor anyone else should feel we have a RIGHT to know. Because we don't.

I like Jack Daniels whisky. If for some reason the CEO of JD fires the master distiller, I, like every other consumer, have no right to know why it happened. Sure, it'd be good to know why, but being a fan of something doesn't automatically entitle you to insider knowledge.

..they ass fucked him because he demanded WAY too much money for what the role was. Why would you pay a supporting actor as much as the star? Fuck that. Good riddance. A shaved sheep could play that role - and better.

you never hear an Abrams-ism coming from Favreau. "Well, you know, Iron Man and comics are just so silly. How do I take this seriously? I don't even really like Iron Man. Let's make Iron Man good for once and not suck." That's me doing JJ Abrams directing Iron Man. Thank you and good night.

thats what they call it where I come from. But Howard said he didn't ask for a pay raise if i remember correctly, and that was disputed. So now you really only have a few things left. Howard is difficult to work with or demanded more of his character in the sequel then they wanted to provide. Or the big guys who run the show just didn't feel like he was working. And there you go. Can't think of much more than that.

Damn I got up too early today..

wasn't bad, but let's all be honest here: Cheadle can act circles around him. Continuity is a great thing and all, but I'd rather have the better actor instead.

...will there be a sequel to the latest Hulk film before he appears in The Avengers? Will Norton return? I know there is a stand alone Thor film on the horizon, is that ditto for Cap America? So confused...

*is* Terence Howard. No wonder no one wants to work with him!

MTV interviewed the producer, Hale, I think her name was. I can't remember her name, but, she said she wants to make more HUlk films, but we'll see him on screen before his next film, ala The Avengers. Norton is supposed to return, but seems about as confused as anyone else as to when...according to the article.

go to superherohype.com and scroll down. I'm so awful at paraphrasing...

Skipped it in the theater (wish I hadn't), picked it up on DVD, and quite enjoyed it. Love to see the deleted scenes re-incorporated...I think they would have made it a much stronger film overall. I wonder how much of the cut footage (if any) were Norton's contributions...anyone know?

...it was just ok. Better than Lee's, but I'd be surprised if they did Hulk 2, frankly (though they've already set up a villain). Hopefully they can convince Norton to be in Avengers.

That sounded more like everything Michael Bay was saying about Transformers.

Cheers for the heads up mate. I enjoyed the latest Hulk, but did not think it was brilliant but would like to see the character return in other films and be part of the Avengers. I know it only did average business at the box office and Norton was annoyed with the producers etc so a direct sequel is not as surefire as Iron Man 2. Wonder if DC will start to go this way with their characters towards the Justice League, although at the moment I cannot see Superman living in the same universe as Nolan's Batman, depends on the reboot they are doing I guess...

I hope he doesn't pull his ego-trip antics and let the right movie be made. He'll probably be crying if Hulk isn't the most prominently featured character. I could go for Hulk being the villian for a while in the Avengers universe.

Why don't you ever post the entire interview as an mp3 so that we can download it and listen to it later? Especially a nice long interview like this. I think the sound-o-text clips are extremely pointless since it only offers like 90 seconds at a time - and I'm in the middle of reading it anyway! You guys linked to that great interview with charlie kaufman a few weeks back, why can't you do somthing like that yourself? Please answer, I'd like to know.

...was a better score. Saw it again on DVD and really enjoyed it.<p> I could listen to Favs talk for another 2 hrs. He loves what he does and we're lucky to have him overseeing The Avengers.<p> I am dying to know how the hell they're going to approach THOR...script, tone etc. and how they're going to blend it seamlessly with the more 'reality' based films. Anyone got any clue on this? Harry? Mori? Favs...jump in here and give us a heads up!

A good day for Beezbo - I'm at the best Super Bowl ever played and I meet one of my favorite film makers. And he was wearing a Giants jersey!

<p> Los Angeles (E! Online) – Rough month for Terrence Howard. First he's bounced from Iron Man 2. And now he has been tagged with a $5 million lawsuit.<p> The onetime Oscar nominee is facing allegations of assault from Tex Allen, the composer of the Broadway revival of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof that Howard headlined last winter. Allen, a jazz pianist and brother of Cat's director, Debbie Allen, claims he was punched in the kisser by Howard during a rehearsal back in January.<p> Neither Tex Allen nor a rep for the show could be reached for comment on the suit, which was first reported in the New York Post. But Howard's publicist, Michelle Benson, says the flap is much ado about nothing.<p> "We are aware of the allegations and expect this frivolous suit to be dismissed," she tells E! News.<p> Howard has been making the rounds promoting his debut pop album, Shine Through It, which hit stores in September.<p>

should be about Iron Man and Captain America primarily, and I don't know how he'll feel about being not in the limelight the whole time. I don't really care for the Hulk much, for the record. I just can't get behind a big cartoon character in a live action movie. That's all I see in Hulk.

...but Quint, these kinds of interviews are really useful for budding filmmakers like myself - just hearing how Jon is using filmmakers he admires to step outside the box and rethink the filmmaking process challenges me to get that much more out of the resources at my own disposal. Thank you, sir!

I actually know a handful of USMC fighter jocks, and one of my good friends has the smarts and the good-natured demeanor of Terrence Howard in particular, and for all that, Terrence did not convince me that he was a marine. Some things, Marines are trained to be intense about. Cheadle can carry that intensity. Howard did not, in Iron Man. Rhodey is a good guy and a pal to the end, and at the same time, he's also a part of the Green Machine. It's more than just a throwaway line over sake, and a few reproachful glowers thrown towards Robert Downey Jr. It's a conviction, and that's what Terrence Howard was lacking.

War Machine should be able to stand up to Nick Fury. Armor or no, Terrence Howard's Rhodey would have gotten his sally ass handed to him by Samuel Jackson's Nick Fury.

.....than Howard. Howard would break that fool in half. Cheadle is a fucking pussy that always looks like he is about to cry. Where do you guys get that he is more intense?

Tony Stark can discredit that statement very easily. "Hey, just messing with you! If you guys wanted to believe that, it wouldn't matter WHAT I said..." and so on. A good disinformation campaign (and a couple of staged IM appearances with Stark in the vicinity) and no one believes that silly press speculation.

it's really the other way around - Howard always looks like he's going to cry. Whereas Cheadle is a wiry guy whose played some characters who will quietly fuck you up. I was impressed by Howard's approach to the film in interviews, but when I saw him in the movie, I was disappointed. I didn't buy him as a high-ranking military guy for a second, especially with his effeminate voice. Cheadle can pull this off much better. I see Rhodey as a bigger guy, but Cheadle could act the role better.

would fuck you up as soon as look at you.

Totally forgot about IM...

...could really fuck up Terrence in Hustle. What the fuck are you people on?!

could really fuck up... wait... whats your point?

At least not in the movie. He's Air Force.

I liked Iron Man, but I don't really give a shit about seeing anymore with that character. Just make it a one shot thing. All kidding aside, I really don't think I'd pay to see a sequel. Which is weird-- I thought the first was one of the best 5 films of 08. Interesting.

He was so bland in IM, it made me want to puke. And he also seems like a prick in real life. They should never even have cast that guy to begin with.

I know what you mean. The thought of a sequel to IM does nothing for me. I'm not excited at all, and I don't know why.

Maybe its just the essence of the material. It was a fun film and they made the character interesting. But our brain probably thought "Whats the big picture here?" at a certain point. Where does it go from there? I think Iron Man himself is interesting, but the world Favreau created around him was so dull and uninspiring, I don't really care what happens to him within it.

God, how frikin AWESOME would it be to see him in Iron Man II? I'll tell ya....REEEAL awesome! Hey, Russia is the "bad guy" again so it could work! BTW QUINT: when I saw Iron Man the first time and I saw the 10 rings flag and heard the reference I flipped out in true geek fashion. I didn't catch cap's shield till the dvd came out. By then it was by hitting pause and going frame by frame. I don't know how ANYONE saw that in the theaters.

You forget that there were no other Jedi for Luke to reference. He'd never even SEEN a Jedi, aside from Obi-Wan and Yoda, so saying "it's not the Jedi way" isn't enough of a reason for him to stop using a blaster. He simply had never even THOUGHT of relying on a melee weapon up until he met Obi-Wan, and then he was on the fast-track to being a Jedi Knight so he could be pushed into killing his father and Palpatine (and yes, Yoda and Obi-Wan had a really half-assed plan there). <p> Most Jedi were training in lightsaber combat from childhood onward. Luke had, at best, a couple years of self-training, interspersed with a couple hours of training from the living Obi-Wan, and a couple months (at most. The Dagobah time frame is unclear) from Yoda. We can speculate that Luke was getting training tips from Obi-Wan's spirit, but ultimately, all Luke's lightsaber skills in the movie were self-taught or just natural ability. <p> Considering that he's probably well-trained on the use of a blaster (protecting a moisture farm from Tusken Raiders, Rogue Banthas, moisture rustlers, and Krayt Dragons will do that), I can't say I'd blame him for doubting his ability with an ancient weapon he'd never even seen before he was 20 years old, let alone relied upon it to save his life. <p> Up until his first battle with Vader, Luke uses the lightsaber as a tool, rather than as a weapon. He's completely unsure of his skills, and then once Vader KICKS HIS ASS in Cloud City, he probably goes back to his room, listens for Obi-Wan, and trains like crazy until such time as they can arrange the rescue of Han. <p> Even with that training, if you compare his lightsaber skill with that of Jedi from the Republic era, he looks haphazard and a bit wild. He's all instinct.

I *like* the idea of a "Roger Rabbit" approach to reality. I like the non-"realistic" characters that say to you, hey, this is a comic book movie. I say don't be afraid to put Thor in there, unsullied (at least in the Avengers), or to put MODOK or Fin Fang Foom in there. I'm tired of these worlds were everything's "realistic" except for the one crazy bastard at the center of the frame. Let's loosen things up a bit. Let's have the entire reality shifted a bit out of phase with ours. I WANT Dr. Strange and Thor standing side-by-side with the more realistic Iron Man. I want the crazy! Bring it on and make the movie Marvel U more than just a bunch of Marvel characters in our everyday reality. Give us the feel of Alex Ross's Marvels!

In current Marvel storylines, he's not an enemy. He's just kind of a dick. <p> In fact, ALL of the Winter Guard are jerks to Iron Man AND War Machine, with the exception of Ursa Major, who questions why they have to be such assholes whenever an American superhero shows up.

come on! how long since we've seen a good killer robot (not cyborg) on screen!!!

Iron Man and The Incredile Hulk were really fucking weak, IMO. Iron Man had a score that sounded like some shitty saturdy morning cartoon, and TIH had one that switched back in forth between a wannabe Bourne score and sappy soap opera shit. I can't believe they ditched Danny Elfman's awesome Hulk theme for that bland garbage.

I think that the key of making a CGI character seem/look/feel more real (like the HULK, for example)...is to make use of "motion capture" technology, and allow a living, breathing person to perform the movements. Personally, I dislike the movements that are obviously NOT motion-captured, where the movements (sometimes subtle) are too smooth,...when all the character's movements flow at the same pace. I love the motion-captured work in Peter Jackson's "KING KONG" (and his "LORD OF THE RINGS" trilogy goes without saying). And I feel that "motion capture" is a technique that is here to stay.

I mean nothing at all.

Avatar is going to make sweet, sweet love to your MoCap loving eyeballs... Will the next 13 months please hurry the fuck up!?

We shouldnt lower the standards to make it real. Iron Man and Thor and Fin Fang Foom are all in comics together, so they should all be in the movies together. It will not seem silly, it will seem awesome. The whole reason people see movies is to LEAVE reality.

I was never excited about Iron Man, which I found weird cause Im a HUGE marvel fan. Thought it looked bland, and I was right. I didnt do anything bad, which is the most important part. It was just nothing special. The same goes for Hulk. I thought they both needed WAY more action. To me neither of them are in the top 10 of the year. But, since they didnt do anything wrong, the sequels can only be better. Now with the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" created, I cant be more excited for IM2, Thor, and Avengers.

And Alexander Skarsgard for Thor!*** The Demon in a Bottle storyline would be a next logical step. I have confidence he could pull it off, he gets it. I don't know what some people who didn't like the first movie expected. Clearly they don't want an Iron Man movie with an engrossing story and intriguing characters. For me, it worked- it took a character I had loved (but was detached from lately), and made him a flawed yet sympathetic, appealing personality. Comparisons to TDK don't work. Just because they were both big superhero summer blockbusters doesn't mean they aren't completely different animals. I didn't see IM in a theater (limited movie funds, chose Hulk and TDK, missed Hellboy 2, also), and wish I had. I know I'll be going to see IM2, which will hopefully feature the Mandarin.

Luke does pretty well for a guy who never really had any formal training. The real question is why Obi-Wan goes from being the fastest kick-ass lightsaber using jedi in the galaxy to being the really slow old guy he is in Episode 4. I mean, its only been 18 years and Yoda is a hell of a lot older when he fights Dooku and Palpatine.

I liked Ironman a lot, and so did my girlfriend, but the third act sucked and I thought there wasn't enough action. This interview reveals he is bringing on Tartakovsky and going full on action instead of pussyfooting around the unfamiliar cg. And if that wasn't enough he calls out Casino Bournale for dropping the ball and fully intends to pick it up for himself. Favreau is awesome and this movie will kick so much ass.

Hey Harry get off his dick! Don Cheadle is a terrible actor, and Terrance Howard was part of the reason why IRON MAN was such a good movie. I for one will skip out on IRON MAN 2 is Cheadle is in it. HE IS A TERRIBLE ACTOR!!

...was also a bad-ass in "Out of Sight". He can definitely pull-off the military tough guy role, and I think he is a better, more versital actor than Howard. Howard has been good in certain roles, but not this one.

Terrance Howard 4 WAR MACHINE

The Iron Monger suit was labled "Crimson Dynamo" in the production art. -- Upon second viewings (both Blu-Ray) I found INCREDIBLE HULK to be the more watchable movie. Norton may not be a charmer with a flashy role, but pound-for-pound I'll take his chops over Downey's 4 out of 5 times, and both films really had the same damn ending--hero vs. a bigger, stronger version of themselves with the love interest watching. -- Terrence Howard seemed a bit...off...for "War Machine." But so does Cheadle, and Cheadle seems a bit too old to boot. Coulda saved money by hiring Morris Chestnut or something. -- Thing about Luke...he seemed specifically trained to take down Vader, but it seemed pretty obvious that the Emperor would wreck up his shit in about 2 seconds. Since Yoda and Ben were pretty much decided Anakin was lost, WHAT THE FUCK DID THEY EXPECT LUKE TO ACCOMPLISH? Granted, the Emperor still goes down with the Death Star, maybe sacrificing Luke was the original objective?

The Terrance Howard question should have been asked. Sure Don Cheadle is a better actor, and he should have been in the first film from the beginning. But I really don't like it when films change actors around, it is annoying.

This is Cool News indeed. I think I speak for many of us when I say this has given us something to look forward to. But pay heed, a shitstorm is on the horizon... In the coming years we must be stout of heart, we must not loose faith. We must endure tials and tribulations. We must weather reports of possible directors, changes in script, casting rumors, and production difficulties. And then there are our foes, the dreaded Haters. Brrr. For reasons I will never understand, these miserable villains have a twisted compulsion to bitch about pretty much anything. And they will defend their right to groan to anyone foolish enough to listen. All I can say is that a dildo the size of stout Mjolnir would not satisy their voracious arseholes! They are a major threat to be reckoned with. But we are more than some mere collection of geeks: We are a CULTURE, and we are legion. If the director (whomever that may be) and the script be true, we shall prevail.

...he's upset that they won't turn Iron Man into a Jehovah's Witness. <P> Also, the opening scene was Howards' characters' birthday party and he refused to do it. <P> Now you know.

way fucking overrated, the both of them...both good films which is worth something, but it's amazing what low standards people have or how easily they get turned on by superhero shit that isn't totally fucked up

way fucking overrated, the both of them...both good films which is worth something, but it's amazing what low standards people have or how easily they get turned on by superhero shit that isn't totally fucked up

should play both Tony Stark and Rhodey in Iron Man 2. Picture it.

Iron Man doesn't have the best rogue's gallery in comics, but he's had plenty of dealings with the Black Widow, and upping the SHIELD involvement would create the perfect opportunity to play up the espionage angle and throw her into the mix. Plus these days having a Russian bad guy doesn't seem like the craziest thing in the world....

Somebody using the term overrated. You little skeeters sure do like that word don't you? My God, I'm surprised somebody exercised the restraint to not say it before now! Just because a film recieves critical acclaim doesn't make it a good movie, I guess. And just because it is successful doesn't mean everyone's standards aren't as high as yours. Jesus, get over yourself.

Yeah, I hate it when interviewers don't use their psychic powers to look into the future and ask questions about stuff that happens AFTER the interview is conducted. What stupid, lazy assholes, right?

sorry but I'm just not that enamoured by Cheadle and if you're going to replace Howard then fine - but this guy just seems like the wrong choice to me. <p> I guess it could have been worse - at least it ain't Will Smith! <p> Seriously, tho, there are so many other black actors out there in the same pay scale and with the same level of recognition - and at least as much respect - as Howard (or Cheadle for that matter) who could have been cast for this. <p> Don't get me wrong - Cheadle gotta eat - but I just don't see him fitting into this role comfortably. <p> We'll see...

It better be someone pretty good.

I thought it was a great interview...I've enjoyed JF since Swingers and am glad for his success and good directorial sense...on a side note, I think being embarrassed for characters in movies is much more powerful than being scared...think about how much you cringe in scenes like JF calling the girl back over and over in Swingers...or DeNiro in King of Comedy...I was cringing the entire time I was so embarrassed for these guys...they did it well...emotional response and I lost track of where I was going with this...anyway, I'm just glad to have this venue to talk back in and show appreciation for good things and scream about the stuff that went wrong (Dr. Doom anyone?) oh yeah...I was heading towards villains...I was never a big fan of the Mandarin...the rings just didn't work for me...I was always excited when he fought Titanium Man or the early Crimson Dynamo...problem is we already had IM fighting another guy in a bigger suit...so where do you go from here? Good luck, Jon!

He'd be a good 'Howard' replacement... Just an idea... and as you know, I'm an idea man....

But... hey, it's a talkback!

... with IRON MAN though." <p> Quint you idiot! I liked the rest of the interview and thanks for pwning fools like Nuked who are so damn lazy not only do they not read the TB but they don't even read the very start of the interview! <p> Anyway, the tightrope walking comment was moronic in light of the biggest criticism of the film - made by many many AICN readers on these boards - that we'd already seen the best bits of the movie and there were no real surprises because we saw all the major beats in the MANY trailers. <p> Tightrope my arse.

Ask him if he's pissed that they're not allowing him a year to write the film and how he thinks that will ultimately affect the finished movie. Jeez. The guy's gotten a ton of mileage from this site. It wouldn't hurt to ask ONE FUCKING TOUGH QUESTION! JUST ONE!

Realises IM and Batman are ostensibly the same character and therefore the tone must be different. And yes I'll jump on the Genndy bandwagon. Can we have Dexter as Stark's mad scientist nemesis? ;)

I agree 100% about motion capture. But, from the bonus featurettes on the Hulk blu-ray, it seems like they did use motion capture extensively on Incredible Hulk. There were a couple of times, again it seemed to be suggested, where the animators couldn't use the motion capture and animated on their own. But, for the most part, it was motion capture. Personally, I had no problem with about 80% of the animation, but I've been desensitized to reality by Spider-Man 3. You have to admit, though, the Hulk movements and animation from the college quad-army scene to the cave scene were pretty decent, considering.

That's how you make it work. It's essentially Crocodile Dundee. You have a Thunder God living among regular people and trying to figure it all out and redeem himself in his father's eyes while fighting against the evil of his far more savvy half-brother. Could be really funny. My only concern is the secondary characters. There has to be some sort of buddy/guide for Thor in the human world. Let's just hope it ain't Shia LeBouf.

...wasn't always the fun/serious dichotomy that came out on the big screen, at least if Robert Downey Jr.'s screen test on the DVD is any indication. Yeah, I've read the criticism that IM was basically just an action-comedy as though it were "Pirates" or the "Zorro" movies, which is basically bullshit. If the rest of the movie had been identical or even similar in tone to the screen test, which had Downey and a Rhodey stand-in exchanging some VERY serious dialogue, quite frankly it would have sucked balls. Here's something very, very basic; Iron Man, the character, flies around in a freaking red and gold suit of armor. How can a story featuring such a character be told with the dour stoicism that has fanboys enamored with TDK? It would have looked ridiculous. The approach to TDK worked wonders for that film and yeah, it's Coke to IM's Pepsi, but any attempt to ape its intensity by transplanting an uber serious Tony Stark into the mix would definitely NOT have worked out. Downey Jr. walked the line just fine. My favorite scene, oddly enough, is his dance with Pepper. I loved the line about forgetting to wear deodorant. I'm kind of holding my breath about what Theroux will bring to the table (loved Tropic Thunder, but I don't know if he can shift gears well enough) but knowing how these things go, there'll be a team of script doctors waiting in the wings if the first draft rings alarm bells. While I understand the hype for the Avengers movie, I think it's kind of important that Marvel gets IM2 right before they can really say they've captured lightning in a bottle. Here's hoping for the best...

other huge reactions at comic con: GRINDHOUSE X-FILES 2 SNAKES ON A PLANE

he should do all the marvel movies

I noticed you were quick to jump on the person who tried to call you out on the lack of a Terrance Howard question (which you were obviously waiting for). But absence when called out on a legitimate question. Which is that you didn't ask Favreau a single tough question the entire interview. He was clearly irked by the fast-track of Iron Man 2 and that's really the only thing I wanted to know about. Yet you didn't ask the question. Shame.

This has got to be the biggest attempt at collaboration by multiple actors, writers, directors, producers, companies etc. ever attempted. With two movies in the books (Iron Man and Incredible Hulk), they still need to make Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America movies which are slated by IMDB to be done in 2009, 10, and 11 respectively. Then bring all the actors back to make an Avengers film in what, 2012? And using up all the best villains in the individual movies, probably. Why not add Spider Man and the X-Men to the Avengers film, since it'll be at least 6 or 7 years since those last movies and make one huge clusterfuck! But like I said with everything that has to go right for this to ever happen I'm not holding my breath.

I'm happy to read Jon is going to deal with that part of the Iron Man mythology but disappointed it won't be the core of the movie. He wants the tone to stay fun like the first one throughout the movie. That sounds like a tough challenge to face because alcoholism is a serious thing. I have faith that he can do the story justice on some level but I think it would be far more interesting to see Stark get competely fucked-up. I'm not taking Leaving Las Vegas fucked-up but seems like a missed opportunity to not mine the potential drama and make a truly unique and gut-wrenching super hero film.

Not holding your breath is a sound decision, Campion. As you said, this is unprecendeted. And that's why there's a chance they could pull it off. The Avengers don't have the rabid following of a Spider-Man or an X-Men. Still, they are Marvel's mainstay characters. If they are are introduced in individual movies there will be a built-in familiarity with audiences. I know, a lot depends on those movies being successful, so we'll see. At this stage the idea is scarcely embryonic. We don't know what origin they'll follow. In the comic's history at least, the team formed as a result of Loki's schemes. Where it seems to be heading is that the Hulk is the catalyst. So far, so good. Captain America is the heart, Iron Man is the brain, and Thor is the muscle. I don't especially care about Wasp and Ant-Man, but hey, they could be the sleeper hit pov characters. I'd be even more interested in seeing the Scarlet Witch, Black Widow(love those redheads), Hawkeye(played by Lost's Josh Holloway), and the Vision at some point. And the villain? Ultron, baby!

I don't read comics, but I'm familiar with Iron Man, Hulk, Capt. America from general knowledge. All those characters you just mentioned. Never heard of 'em. Wasp? Ant Man? Now you've lost me. Batman and Spider-Man have enemies everyone has heard of. In the Iron Man movie he fought an evil iron man. Hulk fought an evil hulky... thing. Just seems a little un-creative compared to Joker, Green Goblin, Doc Ock, etc. Sure Venom was an evil spider-man, but that was in the third movie. By then they didn't even have another villain of any note. I'd never heard of Sandman before that. Now the villains should not be the focus of the movie over the hero(es) (see Batman and Robin), but with the origins out of the way they need to have more attention. Iron Man 2 will be good because of RDJ. Hulk was "meh" at best, and I can't conceive how they put Thor in the world they've created. I hope it all works out.

the last couple interviews this site has had have truly been a treat. Charlie Kaufman, Jon Fav just to name a few...It really is amazing how Fav learned from the Iron Man and discusses all these very exciting brand new idea that would undoubtedly elevate the sequel.... more news needs to drop about Thor and Cap America especially..any suggestions for directions besides Greengrass lol

I don't think you understand motion capture's abilities and application super well, no disrespect. Motion Capture is great in the right context, no doubt, but hardly ever is appropriate on its own. Both Hulk (actually BOTH Hulks) and new Kong had a TON of keyframing. Apart from action stuff that can't be performed in the first place, here are two clues. Gravity. Scale. A 6-foot man doesn't have the physics acting on him (and you can't 'act' them either) that a 10 foot monster or 25 foot ape does, not to mention you can't capture someone leaping distances that far outweigh their own mass (because that's what the character requires), not going splat when they swing from a web at high velocity straight onto/into a brick wall (which is what your brain expects and therefore Spidey's antics are rejected), or wrestle a few T-Rex (is that plural too?). Add to that penguins hanging onto a birds legs or tumbling down an avalanche, acrobatic swimming etc. <p> A great example of the limitations of mocap is Polar Express. Hanks may be a good actor, and may have been playing his grown-up character as a child, but when you just mocap it and bolt it onto a virtual kid, the body language, sense of mass and even facial expressions (especially a child's involuntary movements) are wrong wrong wrong and give that creepy feel (I didn't even GET to eyes!). <p> So don't misunderstand and think I'm anti mocap or CG or that I put traditional on a subjective pedestal. I don't. But I don't know that you guys realise just how much of those fave performances/animation was NOT motion-capture. Sure keyframing can smooth things if you don't pa attention, but that also depends on the direction. And as for being here to stay, it's just a 3d extension of rotoscoping, although it could be argued that more stylised designs in 2d vs less stylised movement through rotoscoping created more of a dichotomy than mocap does with 3d cg... <p> Not to mention the catch-22 with all this stuff that fx will NEVER seem 'real' as long as we dream up situations and characters that don't and CAN'T happen in real-life! James Cameron stuff included.

He's incredible. But I don't think even he can curl his lip that far or do that with his nose. I bet he can make his ears wiggle though. And his hair does a mean Tony Curtis impersonation!

half vader, I am impressed with your knowledge. We can argue the nuts & bolts of...HOW...a fictional character (like HULK) is realized. But in the end, we just want results. And where people draw that line may depend on the person...or the director. With Spider-man, I like that his web-slinging looks quite natural (most times?), as if a REAL human body is slinging from web to web. The difference is the...distance...that he covers. So, in that sense, Spider-man's movements can look quite real, though the resulting actions are not. With HULK,...other than the resulting energy-releasing impact of HULK slamming into/onto something, the physics of size and weight do not apply, as the character's POWER overrules "our" laws of physics. However, at the same time, I feel that the natural movements of a "motion captured" performer lends a believability to what we see. If it still doesn't look and feel quite right, then something should be adjusted.

'Iron Man 2': How Terrence Howard Lost His Metal Marvel's decision to recast the role of Col. Jim Rhodes said to be a combination of salary issues and concern about the performance When a summer blockbuster grosses more than $300 million, putting together a sequel is typically as simple as throwing buckets of money at your stars and signing a few pieces of paper. That hasn't been the case with Iron Man 2. It took months for Marvel Studios to lock in director Jon Favreau for the sequel. And reports that Don Cheadle will replace Terrence Howard as Col. Jim Rhodes — a supporting character who seemed poised for a big role in the follow-up after he muttered ''Next time, baby'' to Iron Man's steel suit — hint that IM2 isn't quite as infallible as the superhero at its center. Hollywood insiders believe the exit stems from Terrence Howard's difficult behavior on the set of Iron Man. But those with intimate knowledge of the situation suggest a far more dramatic backstory: Howard was the first actor signed to the film and, on top of that, was the highest-paid. That's right: more than Gwyneth Paltrow. More than Jeff Bridges. More than Robert Downey Jr. And once the project fully came together, it was too late to renegotiate his deal. It didn't help that, according to one source, Favreau and his producers were ultimately unhappy with Howard's performance, and spent a lot of time cutting and reshooting his scenes. (Favreau could not be reached for comment, while Howard's publicist says: ''Terrence had a tremendous experience working on Iron Man.'') As such, when Favreau and screenwriter Justin Theroux went to map out the sequel they found themselves minimizing Howard's story line. Once Marvel learned that Favreau was thinking of curtailing the role, the studio went to the actor's agents with a new and drastically reduced offer — a number that's similar to what supporting cast members were paid for the first movie. The agents, according to sources, were so taken aback by this new figure — estimated at somewhere between a 50 and 80 percent pay cut — that they questioned it. Why did they blanch? Multiple sources say that Marvel execs never told Howard's reps that they had issues with the star's on-set conduct. (Marvel would not comment for this story.) It's unclear whether Howard's team walked away first, or if Marvel ended the discussion at that point. Either way, the studio moved quickly to secure Cheadle and the story leaked out the next morning, Oct. 14. And alas for Howard, there will be no next time.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20236884,00.html

I absolutely agree about at a certain point, our own or the director's ideas of what's 'right' about some behemoth jumping an inordinate amount become subjective, and the differing logic and latitudes of disparate mediums also come into play. <p> With Spiderman, having him strike the famous poses from the comic mid-swing isn't 'believable' either, but at least it was a conscious decision by the director. Same with Lee and the hopping Hulk. Another one is Jacksons CG-o-riffic (I know there were miniatures in the shot but stay with me) dive down into the goblin mines. I don't like that sort of whizzy-cam business, but appreciate that he thought it was appropriate that you feel an unpleasant dizzy/sickening feeling at our ride through the bowels of that perverted world that culminates in an unholy birth. Not my style, but at least it's not because he doesn't know any better. <p> Yep, even if you get the Spidey swinging and Spidey landing bits right in and of themselves, I don't know that they'll EVER seem 'right' because there's an intrinsic dichotomy between the two parts. If a human (which is our subconscious barometer of everything) was swinging like that, they'd go splat, and conversely if a human DIDN'T go splat, they'd never swing like that (yep things are getting silly semantics-wise but anyway) to land that way. Catch-22, and no amount of realistic rendering or clever animation (and mocap would never be able to do this anyway, hence the FX in the first place) can overcome that misfire between what our brains naturally expect to happen. <p> The thing that comes in then is accepting that we bloody go to see a Spiderman movie BECAUSE we can't see that in real-life. The greatest irony borne out by these TBs is that Fanboys continuously seem to want their suspension of disbelief in movies like this WITHOUT actually having to suspend their disbelief!! They're the WORST at it! And the examples are misguided. They continuously hold up stuff like the first JP as a paragon of realism & believability when the very subject matter makes the argument flawed. It uses every trick in the book to disguise the cg (I'm not knocking it, or the masterful staging), in addition to the fact that we buy into the mass and movement more easily because our only examples of that sort of behaviour are separated by millions of years and different species... Know what I mean? Before that movie everyone thought a T-Rex walked upright! Aaaanyway... <p> And I'm not excusing anything. I can be the world's worst pedant when it comes to traditional OR cg shots, especially when it comes to the most important stuff - character, and eyes. Hell, there are even shots in the awesome Benjamin Button trailer that look wrong wrong wrong to me, because it seems the character doesn't blink right, and for the right character reason. Obviously I'd NEVER try to teach Fincher how to suck eggs or the animation directors he hires, but it brings us neatly back to the whole subjectivity thing and the inescapable fact that if the very premise is 'beyond belief', then the shots at some point will be too... <p> And I'll lay bets now that even if Button is the best thing ever, the FX will look 'wrong' on the character's more extreme shots just by virtue of the whole "CAN'T be real" brain/eye thing. But what we DO get is the sort of thing that opens our intellect and imagination. The book may give us that in an intellectual/more abstract sense, but the projected vision of it gives us a compelling visceral and uh, 'literal' illumination even while the experience-based brain tries to reject it. Ironically the very mismatches that stop us from completely accepting such imagery simultaneously burn it into our heads like an iconification.

Geez, I just looked at that Mr. Know-it-all post. Didn't mean to come off like that. I get a bit carried away sometimes.

First off, I'm getting the feeling that "half vader" is much more in tune to this technology than I am. Any suggested knowledge (of the technology) that I have...is not by training, but rather from a GREAT interest in making movies (and the old-school art training that I do have). That said, I'll share my perspective,...perhaps with more questions than answers. --I figure that there will come a day...when...a cgi/motion-captured character (like HULK) will be governed by an established rule of physics, programmed (within the virtual world) with limits. Think of it as a video game...where...instead of using a controller, you wear a "motion capture" suit. Sometimes, I find (some) movements of fantasy characters within a video game...as looking more life-like than cgi characters we see in movies. And why is that? Is it money? Can we not (afford to) apply physics (real or fictional) to fantasy characters in film, just as we see in video games? I think that...the ability to tweak REAL WORLD PHYSICS for specific fantasy characters, while utilizing "motion capture",...plus maintaining the REAL WORLD PHYSICS of everything else (cgi or filmed),...would, as combined, offer great results. Just imagine a band creating music, if music was a visual medium. Perhaps it's just a matter of...how...all the instruments play together, guided by the talent behind them.

if you're still out there, yep they do have massive, which is the LOTR crowd A.I. stuff . It evolved from flocking simulations which now incorporate a lot more physics in addition to the A.I. The one that's popular now is Euphoria which is used in that Force Unleashed game and the upcoming (though nobody's heard what's happening with it for ages) Indy game. It's been used photoreal for ads and stuff too. There's also the digital Molecular Matter stuff which replicates the physical properties of materials like rock, steel, wood and so on. So when your character slams into it, instead of breaking in some pre-assigned path, it buckles or splinters or breaks the right way (and being physics-based, differently every time). So that's sort of the way forward at the moment rather than mocap which starts to become redundant when you tweak it with all those factors. HOWEVER (bomm-bomm-bomm!), it hasn't been done with superhero characters (except sort of Ang Lee's Hulk - more in a sec) and even if it WAS applied this way, think about it. Say we dial up the strength of the character, and we also have to dial up stuff like the physical strength of the skin, breaking point of bones, etc. You know what happens then? Your brain STILL rejects it because it says, "hang on, that skin isn't like skin, it's like steel because it's not tearing or breaking with all that trauma!". So we're sorta back to subjectivity/square one. We've just spent millions to realise it... The problem with REAL WORLD PHYSICS is that once you change reality by introducing a fantasy element - it's no longer REAL! <p> Back to 2003 Hulk though, the Hulkdog sequence that everybody despise so much used both hard and softbody physics for the interaction, and to be fair, everybody hated the IDEA of Hulkdogs (which is fanboys splitting fantasy hairs, but that's another story), but they didn't really trash the execution. You can also see a lot of physics/procedurally-based stuff in what they call "secondary animation" on characters. Cloth simulation for clothes, automatically bulging muscles and skin sliding over them, not to mention weighted to jiggle and react like say, a 25-foot-tall Kong or big green hulk (which is another reason a man in a suit or a performer doing mocap will NEVER be right as is - they don't WEIGH as much or deal with the resistance of either their own bodies or gravity the way a huge (or tiny) creature would. So having mocap supplemented by this stuff in addition to keyframing is definitely the way to go to balance both the high movement demands of a photoreal character (the more stylised the look, the more you can styllise the movement). In the first JP they had to animates skin jiggles by hand (I think Casper was the first film to have auto-jiggle from memory)! And enveloping wasn't great and you'd still get skin mesh 'tearing', even on Dragonheart you can see the skin still was sort of 'elastic' in parts and didn't expand, contract and slide properly. It also takes a PERSON to say well, the bits between these more pebble-like scales can contract, but not the scales themselves. The computer will never 'know' that stuff by itself. There was some crappy gas-like particle simulation in that too. It looked like they did one pass of the canned stuff from Maya and didn't tweak it at all, hence it looked super-digital, all single-sized particles, no clump or micro-eddies... <p> One example I use all the time is Jumanji. Sure Jurassic Park fooled us because they SORT OF moved like animals we know, but in Jumanji you're dealing with actual animals doing things animals don't really do. The scene where the lion comes down the steps is a great textbook case. Sure, fur rendering was still in its infancy, but even if that thing LOOKED completely real, with everything moving and looking like perfection, it would still seem fake, and ALWAYS will no matter how great the tech. Because the PERFORMANCE was all wrong. It's a wild lion, right? It's never been in a house before, right? Never moved over something as alien as a staircase. So how does that affect it? Everything changes - its body language is wary but also stop/start, hesitant then too hyper when reacting. Base instincts for protection. So it doesn't stroll leisurely down the staircase then measuredly turn and growl. It slips a bit on polished surfaces, overcorrects, the head and eyes are jittery, it could well attack someone. And a computer can never 'know' that unless you feed it so much stuff you could have just animated it yourself to start with. And you know what else? Apart from supplemental proprietary stuff, EVERYONE these days uses the same programs to do it. But it's still the old guard like Phil Tippet and Dennis Muren that do the BEST digital stuff. Because they know performance, and also think laterally to achieve the desired result. Whether that's traditional OR digital. So it all gets back to subjectivity again. <p> As for money, no I still think more R&D comes from film than Games, broadly speaking. Although things are more muddy now with crossover, shared assets and all. TIME is a big thing though. Mummy 2 didn't suck because ILM were incapable, it sucked because they had no TIME due to some marketing idiot thinking it was of the utmost importance that the film be released on the anniversary of the first one, ready or not. I bet that person also loves to see their trip-meter turn over to a big number, too. Actually you know what, Mummy 2 was shit regardless. <p> Sorry it took me a while to get back to you dude. Super busy.

Thanks for the reply, vader. I find this subject to be quite interesting. I admit...that I feel a bit overwhelmed in the science, though I feel a need for understanding (to some degree). And I do get it. I grasp what you're saying. And the conclusion that I've come to...is that, as technology advances, physics will be applied in more detail. For fantasy characters such as (THE INCREDIBLE) HULK, I foresee that the physical properties of his body, from skin to bone to muscle, will (and should) be different,...which would obviously affect physics. (To a degree, sure, they can smooth CGI with motion-capture.) HULK's skin SHOULD be tougher than steel mesh, while his muscle should be stronger than interwoven cable-wire. And HULK's bones should, arguably, be the strongest material (organic or otherwise) on the planet (in the Marvel Universe). When they can tweak physics and blend mo-cap with a sharper, judgmental eye,...perhaps we will see a more fantastic mother nature. (Thanks again, half vader.)

Terrence Howard Won't Date Women Who Use Toilet Paper TERRENCE HOWARD refuses to date women who don't use moistened tissue on visits to the toilet - as they are "not completely clean". The actor insists potential female suitors must not rely solely on toilet tissues in the bathroom, and even goes to the trouble of advising any partners to make the switch to baby wipes if they don't already use them. He tells Elle magazine, "If they're using dry paper, they aren't washing all of themselves. It's just unclean. "So if I go inside a woman's house and see the toilet paper there, I'll explain this. And if she doesn't make the adjustment to baby wipes, I'll know she's not completely clean.

He was really the most spot-on casting for the Hulk. He was pretty much exactly like I pictured General Ross. Hopefully he will continue as Ross in the future Marvel projects, regardless of what happens with the rest of the Hulk cast.

this guy has his head screwed in straight when it comes to director/fan relationship and damn it he's rite i dont want to see my presents before christmas! just like episode 1 trailer when the whole double bladed lightsaber was revealed, i would have gone crazy with excitment if the first time i saw that was in the cinema! With favareau it seems we have a very respectful fanboy turned film director that loves what he is doing, long may it continue.

Like I said ALL the major beats of the story are given away in the many trailers they put out. The presents before Christmas analogy is stupid because that's EXACTLY what they DID do! Maybe Favs was working on the thing and didn't watch 'em all to realise "Oh Shit!" but God almighty! And I can fully understand the studio and their marketing people stressing that no-one knew who the hell Iron-Man was (remember you're a tiny part of the equation fanboys), and they couldn't just say "Hey everyone, he's pretty much exactly Batman", so of COURSE they overexposed it. <p> I loved the film, but this bullshit about not showing your cards/Christmas presents is revisionist history garbage. When I finally DID see the film the only disappointment I had (besides the Fury bit which squanders the tight ending) was "Fuck! That's IT?!" and wishing I could revise my own history and un-see the trailers I kept playing beforehand. You out there Favs? Quint?

But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If Hulk's flesh and bones reflect the physics qualities of steel or something so strong like that, our brain will just say, hang on - that's NOT flesh! Do you see what I mean? If the flesh LOOKS like flesh but doesn't ACT like it in terms of physics, our brains will still reject it. I can intellectually understand him hopping kilometres at a time, but it will NEVER match even the maximum amount of exertion of a being with that much mass and the fact that he's acting against regular old gravity. <p> One thing I meant to say in that other post - even in your brave new world of amazing computer-physics, show me a simulation where a human can FLY (of their own volition as opposed to being thrown)! It will NEVER be 'solved', because it's INHERENTLY unsolvable. You know... if God had meant us to fly he would have given us wings/he wouldn't have invented aeroplanes. Huh?! Huh?! ;)

God. I wonder how "God" plays out with the science of physics, etc. In that sense, why should we have such difficulty in making fantasy characters feel more believable???

and turn of phrase. I even put a winky guy there. Not making fun of you. You avoided the main point too. Maybe I just shoulda said the more overt aeroplane one...

No voice inflection. (I should have used one question mark, too.) As to skin being tougher, etc... I may be more forgiving, in loyalty to the character (and to his/her powers). --I can only imagine and hope that people do the best that they can.