Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

And anyone willing to make a bet on the villain of iron man 4?

After the set up in the short film and terrorist groups being en vogue again: the return of the Ten Rings and an introduction to the real Mandarin.

Yeah You aren't the only one to think that

It would be funny if this Mandarin was actually more badass than any of the previous villains.

 Ouze wrote:
I did like The Crow a great deal, even though it spawned many awful sequels. In fact, I can only think of a single super hero film that spun off a good franchise until the Christoper Nolan Batmans.

The Crow is a mixed bag for me. There are places that the movie just nailed it, and then there are places that it really missed the mark. IMO.

The Rocketeer is one of my faves in the genre.

I don't have a lot of faith in Iron Man 4.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

And anyone willing to make a bet on the villain of iron man 4?

After the set up in the short film and terrorist groups being en vogue again: the return of the Ten Rings and an introduction to the real Mandarin.

Yeah You aren't the only one to think that

It would be funny if this Mandarin was actually more badass than any of the previous villains.

Meh. It sounds like a retread.

I'm pulling for Fing Fang Foom.

Hey, Mortal Kombat wasnt bad -

Oh, Annihilation.

Please proceed.

I rate how good a movie did was by how much people remember it and how much money it made in the box office.

But that does not deter me from liking it.

There was though some really terrible movies in the 90s.

 Platuan4th wrote:


After the set up in the short film and terrorist groups being en vogue again: the return of the Ten Rings and an introduction to the real Mandarin.

The "Real" Mandarin, played by Ben Kingsley

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:


After the set up in the short film and terrorist groups being en vogue again: the return of the Ten Rings and an introduction to the real Mandarin.

The "Real" Mandarin, played by Ben Kingsley

I'd watch it.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:


After the set up in the short film and terrorist groups being en vogue again: the return of the Ten Rings and an introduction to the real Mandarin.

The "Real" Mandarin, played by Ben Kingsley

I'd watch it.

I would to... Even if Kingsley still isn't the "real" Mandarin, but basically is the face of the Real Mandarin, at least they are bringing back the true threat of what the Mandarin and Ten Rings represented to Stark/IM

How is that different than the first movie?

 Frazzled wrote:
How is that different than the first movie?

"The Mandarin" was a puppet of that AIM douche... in this every half arsed idea that I just typed up, "The Mandarin" is the public figurehead of The Mandarin.

Again how is that different than the first movie?

By a lot?

How? No one's said how.

We had terrorists and five rings in the first movie.
We had the mandarin and more pseudo terrorism (which turned out not to be) in the 3rd movie.
Help me out.

Frazz - do you have Ebola now?

 Alpharius wrote:
Frazz - do you have Ebola now?

No but i have a raging case of E-bola.

Not seeing how that relates. Again, isn't that what the first and third movies were about?

 Frazzled wrote:
No but i have a raging case of E-bola.

Explains so much!

 Frazzled wrote:
How? No one's said how.

We had terrorists and five rings in the first movie.
We had the mandarin and more pseudo terrorism (which turned out not to be) in the 3rd movie.
Help me out.

What, you don't think "Iron Man 4: The Do-Over" would represent good handling of a film franchise?

I'd rather a do-over of IM 2. I like Mickey Rourke and his character.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd rather a do-over of IM 2. I like Mickey Rourke and his character.

Then you'd probably want less "do-over" and more "direct sequel to"?

 Alpharius wrote:
Anyway, the news of Iron Man 4 - least shocking surprise of 2014?

It is pretty shocking. Disney likes they money, and they're a stupidly frugal company. RDJ commands an exorbitant price, to the point where there have been rumours floating around of simply killing Tony Stark or even recasting him James Bond style. Plus there's his contract, which has exactly 1 more film in it (Avengers 3). Plus there are the general negotiation issues that sprung up around Avengers 2 (certain actors being unhappy of the vast differences in pay, and being locked into many films). The idea of Iron Man 4 isn't unsurprising. It's unlikely, and it still may not be happening, as none of this stuff is confirmed. RDJ backed off these comments on Letterman that night, so nothing is set in stone.

Just having RDJ around is costing Disney a ton of money. Not just for him (which fills dump trucks) but for his costars on the Avenger movies since he went to bat for them.

I'd honestly be surprised if this happened. I wouldn't be surprised if the Iron Man mantle gets passed on to someone in Avengers 3. Like what is likely to happen with Captain America. No sure how they are going to handle Thor bouncing after his contract is up. Funny how much longer term contracts got after the first 3 guys (IM, Thor, Cap).

RDJ deserves...HALF for his role in keeping the entire Marvel enterprise afloat, IMO. Even the first Iron Man film was VERY by-the-book storytelling carried along by RDJ's charm. He was also the most central character in Avengers and helped carry that movie too.

Now maybe they feel things are established enough that they can jettison him. It'll be interesting to see where they go from here. My guess is that they'll retire Iron Man for a while until they're comfortable with rebooting it. Avengers seems like it may more-or-less follow the path in the original comics, with Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk leaving and being replaced by Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. Bucky Cap could come into play here too.

I'd also suggest that while Marvel is known for wanting to keep budgets under control, their actors are probably getting a healthy gross points figure. When big names sign up for popcorn films, usually some financial incentive is at work.

@Gorgon

Except that Evans and Hemsworth weren't "big" names when they signed up with Disney for Marvel. They were both working but their names didn't put peoples butts in the seats like RDJ did and does. They are decently big names now, Hemsworth in particular, but they certainly weren't "stars" when they got signed. I'm pretty sure the gross points thing is what got renegotiated when RDJ went to bat for the the other Avengers.

And while I agree that RDJ is almost single handedly responsible for the Marvel universe's popularity I do think they'll be able to safely let him go. The quality of Thor 2, Cap 2, and GotG shows that they can make good movies without him.

Overall I think he's deserved the money he got because he's made so much money for Disney. It'll be interesting to see what happens once the last 2 Avengers, Cap, and Thor movies are done. Granted, that's like 3-4 years away.

Wasn't really referring to those two so much as the surprisingly A-list supporting talent like Jackson, ScarJo, Redford, Cheadle, etc. It may not be a fat points figure at work, but clearly Marvel can be persuasive. Hell, they were flirting with Joaquin Phoenix for Doctor Strange. He turned them down, but that dance seemed to go on for quite a while, and it's really not something I'd expect Phoenix to entertain even a little.

There might be a coolness factor at work for the actors. Doing a superhero movie might be the new 'thing' in Hollywood. Still, they're professionals who could be doing other things, and any time spent on one project is time they don't get to spend on another.

I think they'll manage well enough without RDJ, Evans and Hemsworth if and when it comes to it. By the end of next year they'll have Ant Man, Vision, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver in the team as well, and there are some pretty easy conversions waiting if they do continue with the Big Three. Bucky becomes Cap, Rhodes takes over as IM, and who knows, maybe female Thor will go down well enough they take that route in the future, or just use Thunderstrike/Beta Ray.

Or just do 5 more GOTG movies

How could we have forgotten the most glorious of 90s superhero movies- Surf Ninjas?

Kwanzuuu dudes!

 gorgon wrote:
Wasn't really referring to those two so much as the surprisingly A-list supporting talent like Jackson, ScarJo, Redford, Cheadle, etc. It may not be a fat points figure at work, but clearly Marvel can be persuasive. Hell, they were flirting with Joaquin Phoenix for Doctor Strange. He turned them down, but that dance seemed to go on for quite a while, and it's really not something I'd expect Phoenix to entertain even a little.

There might be a coolness factor at work for the actors. Doing a superhero movie might be the new 'thing' in Hollywood. Still, they're professionals who could be doing other things, and any time spent on one project is time they don't get to spend on another.

To be completely fair though, Jackson is basically a film "whore"... it seems that just about anyone can plop down *A* script and he'll just say, "I'll do it!"



Also, Rhodes "Can't" take over as IM, as he is War Machine/Iron Patriot.... Yeah, we all know which one is cooler

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Also, Rhodes "Can't" take over as IM, as he is War Machine/Iron Patriot.... Yeah, we all know which one is cooler

Sure he could. That's how he started as Warmachine in the comics to begin with. He took over as Iron Man when Tony relapsed into alcoholism(issue # 170) and then again when Tony "died"(issue #284), the second time using Tony's Iron Man "warmachine" armor. His first use of the name Warmachine was after those two events.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Also, Rhodes "Can't" take over as IM, as he is War Machine/Iron Patriot.... Yeah, we all know which one is cooler

Sure he could. That's how he started as Warmachine in the comics to begin with. He took over as Iron Man when Tony relapsed into alcoholism(issue # 170) and then again when Tony "died"(issue #284), the second time using Tony's Iron Man "warmachine" armor. His first use of the name Warmachine was after those two events.

Didn't know that... Wasn't there a "soviet iron man" character that IM fought?? For some reason, I thought THAT was the origin of WM