Any hope people?

MTV talked to Jon Favreau, who is set to direct the first "Marvel financed" movie, Iron Man. Here are some interesting clips: "It's the first movie Marvel is self-financing," he said of a new deal that frees the makers of the "Spider-Man" and "X-Men" movies from studio control. "We're set to come out in the summer of '08, and we'll start shooting in January. "We're gonna have it take place in the present day, but there will be an origin story that has the old, gray Iron Man suit; eventually it will progress into more of the modern look," Favreau said. "That's the fun of doing the first one." The alcoholism doesn't come into play until later on in the story of Iron Man," he said. "[The comic] started off in the '60s, where it was about him as a successful manufacturer who developed this suit. Then, later, it spins off into that story about him fighting against himself. I think we're going to lay the groundwork for it, but the first one's going to explore him taking on this alter ego of Iron Man, and developing the suit, and what happens politically within the Stark Corporation." Mentioning an eventual "Iron Man 2," Favreau said that actor playing Tony Stark for his franchise is unlikely to be a major star (Tom Cruise was briefly attached to the role years ago). Instead, the director hopes to announce his discovery of a relative unknown from the Brandon Routh ("Superman Returns") mold later this year.

I wanna be the next Iron Man. I have a goatee.

But can you play a fascist?

I like Jon Favreau...this may turn out ok.

Sounds like he is going to try to be faithful at least.

Can I play a Fattist? Yeah. I'm like that guy that was 300 lbs in X3 that scared the couple he sat down between...

Wonder when the fanboys' moaning, pissing, hand-wringing, whailing, and gnashing of teeth will start in?
"Oh his hair isn't right.....The armor is too shiny/dull.....they aren't being true to the character......
waaah waaaah waaah..."

I swear, I almost dread hearing about new movies because of all the nitpicking.


(Iron Man sounds good tho......)

Sometimes, the complaints are legitimate. And if the Harry Potter people had decided to change the story alot, for "movie audiences" like make Harry american or Ronald black, there would have been hell. But they decided the source material was damn good and kept it as close as possible. And the fans were thrilled.

Ecktually...wasn't it in JK Rowling's contract that she have some kind of rigid approval over adaptations of her work?

In any event, if it wasn't the creator, it damn sure was the fan base. Warner Brothers knew the fans would accept nothing less than strict fidelity to the source. Of course, adapting the first book in a series of (at that time) 3 is a damn sight easier than adapting a comic book character with over 40 years of stories.

I don't think you have to include the gray armor in an IRON MAN movie any more than you need to reference a gray Hulk. Here's what is needed.

Tony Stark is a wealthy industrialist who is injured by a foreign power and taken prisoner. He uses his genius intellect to design a suit of armor that can keep him alive. The armor also gives him the ability to free himself from the foreign power.

And that's just the first 30 minutes or so. Everything after that is ripe for adaptation. Do you even need to use any of Iron Man's rogues gallery? The Mandarin? The Titanium Man? The Living Laser?

I agree David. But your story is faithful. There is a difference between faithful and having every detail put in.

As fo JK Rowlings, at least there is an owner who cares. That's my point. The movies were made, faithfully and millions were happy. It could be doen for Marvel too.

The critics complained though a lot. And in the US, Harry Potter after the first one has not done quite as well as one might expect.

Not that is the reason why per se. But I do think they could have loosened up a little bit.

I do agree too that with 40 years of history and dozens of people who worked on the books, what is essential and faithful is in the eye of the beholder, a bit.

Never been a big fan of critics.

I am a fan of the books and the films, though, and I think they're among the best page-to-screen adaptations ever done. Rowling working closely with the screenwriter probably helped quite a bit. In any case, I'm sure they're pretty happy with the billion or so dollars they made in the US theaters.

eh. I've got $2 billion myself

I was happy with 3 of the 4. I felt that the second one was not as good-Dobby and the defense against the dark arts professor (forget his name) was not as good as in the book, I felt.

That was one of the two films that I saw prior to reading the book, so my perspective is different than yours. "Chamber of Secrets" and "Goblet of Fire" are my favorites, both in book form and onscreen.

I started reading the Potter books after I saw Prisoner of Azkaban. I thought the movie was just absolutely fantastic, and so much better than the first two (which weren't bad at all). Then a friend said, "You should read the book. It's even better!"

So I did. And she was right. I wonder, though, if that is the reason that I liked the Goblet of Fire adaptation the least? I mean, honestly, how could they not show the Quidditch world cup match? That was just an awful cutaway. But at least they left out the horrible "Hermione Saves the Elves" subplot.

Order of the Phoenix was my favorite of the series. It felt like an old fashioned Marvel comic to me.

Didn't much care for "Order Of The Phoenix". Thought the whole plot depended on Dumbledore being a bit of an idiot and just so many plot elements that seemed to be in preparation for the Big Finale.

Do, however, think it'll end up being an enjoyable movie, as I think they're going to focus quite heavily on the Student Uprising, which seems like it'll be an amazing CGI feast.

Agree.

...and if I don't?

I never thought past that point. I'll get back to you on that )

Disagree.

Or something.

I've actually got a pretty good feeling about this one.

......which is probably going to be a bad sign, but I'm holding on to my 50 000 shares of Iron Man stock on HSX anyway

of course, I've been holding onto my 50 000 shares of Preacher stock for two years now, and that one just keeps plummeting....

Proposed CG Iron Man for movie, courtesy Gohnny and Sugg: