http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30225
confirmed by Hollywood Reporter but too lazy to provide link

If it's true, that is one interesting choice to play Stark. Yeah. I can see it!

For those of us who are at work and can't access Ain't It Cool News 'cause:


Access Denied (content_filter_denied)

Your request was denied because of its content categorization: "Entertainment/Recreation/Hobbies"
For assistance, contact your network support team.

Can someone please tell who this choice is...?

For those of us who are at work and can't access Ain't It Cool News 'cause:


Can someone please tell who this choice is...?

Jack Black!!

For those of us who are at work and can't access Ain't It Cool News 'cause:


Can someone please tell who this choice is...?

Philip Seymour Hoffman!

For those of us who are at work and can't access Ain't It Cool News 'cause:


Can someone please tell who this choice is...?

Will Ferell!!

Howie Mandel!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/29/film.ironman.reut/index.html

Tony Stark has a goatee???

ok, there is always one thing that is radically changed from the comics version.

hmm.....what will that be.................?

Tony Stark has a goatee???

ok, there is always one thing that is radically changed from the comics version.

hmm.....what will that be.................?

First of all, I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in the accuracy of that particular statement. Second of all - who gives a damn? The average movie-goer has no idea who Tony Stark is - or what he looks like in the comics.

Poster

http://www.impawards.com/2008/iron_man.html

Tony Stark has a goatee???
Guess you don't read much IronMan, 'cause Tony Stark has had a goatee a couple different times over at least the last ten years.

ok, there is always one thing that is radically changed from the comics version.

hmm.....what will that be.................?
I have no clue what you're on about 'cause there's not "always" something "radically changed" in a comics version.

Ya know, some of are at work and can't be surfing the web much. Is it really that hard to copy and paste the article on a post? It's not that much harder than providing a link....

Ya know, some of are at work and can't be surfing the web much. Is it really that hard to copy and paste the article on a post? It's not that much harder than providing a link....

LOS ANGELES, California (Hollywood Reporter) -- Robert Downey, Jr. is suiting up to star in "Iron Man," a superhero movie based on the Marvel Comics character.

Jon Favreau is directing the Paramount Pictures release. Filming is slated to begin in February in Los Angeles.

Downey will portray Tony Stark, a billionaire industrialist and genius inventor who is kidnapped and forced to build a devastating weapon. Using his intelligence and ingenuity, Stark instead builds a high-tech suit of armor and escapes captivity. Upon his return to the U.S., he uncovers a plot with global implications and must don his armor and protect the world.

The comic debuted in the 1960s, and Iron Man's origin involved Stark being a prisoner of the Viet Cong. The movie version will be set in today's geopolitical climate.

Budgeted at more than $100 million, it marks the first feature film to be produced independently by Marvel Entertainment, which previously licensed its characters, such as "Spider-Man" and "X-Men," to other studios.

Marvel president of production Kevin Feige said the filmmakers looked for the best actor to embody the character.

"The Marvel characters are not just about how high they jump or how fast they fly, they're about their character flaws," Feige said. "They're about their inner demons. They're about the struggles that they go through between being a man and being a hero."

Downey, who has battled his fair share of inner demons, worked hard to get the role, getting in shape and even growing a goatee like the one Stark sports in the comic books.

"In every casting announcement we've done, people in their mind's eye have their own view of it and let us know about it. We're used to it," Feige said. "The point is, we looked at everybody, and we found the best person for the role. It's as confident a casting move as we've ever done. The proof will be in the pudding, but he is Tony Stark."

^ Thanks Zorro!

I can see Downey doing it. Stark had a drinking problem, so Downey knows what that's like.

Yes, thanks, Zorro! I was able to go to the CNN link and appreciate it. Hadn't thought anybody else wouldn't be able to see CNN at work, so apologies, Jose'.

there is always something radically changed about comics to film!
do i need to list them?

there is always something radically changed about comics to film!
do i need to list them?
There is never anything "changed." The filmmakers simply don't use certain elements from the source material.

Wow, wish I could watch it right NOW.

There is never anything "changed." The filmmakers simply don't use certain elements from the source material.

Like when they didn't use Doctor Doom's actual backstory in the FF movie, and CHANGED him into a super-powered businessman with electrical powers?

there is always something radically changed about comics to film!
do i need to list them?
Yep. Get to it. You made the statement, now you gotta back it up. DC and Marvel and anything else, thanks.

And remember, you said "always".

Like when they didn't use Doctor Doom's actual backstory in the FF movie, and CHANGED him into a super-powered businessman with electrical powers?
And John's given you one of the simplest and most obvious changes right there. We'll call that #1, shall we...?

Like when they didn't use Doctor Doom's actual backstory in the FF movie, and CHANGED him into a super-powered businessman with electrical powers?
So you think it would be a better movie if instead of one unusual event creating both the heroes and the villain, the villain was created by a completely different, unrelated event?

And they didn't change Doom. The movie Doom just has as different backstory than the comic Doom.

And what do you mean by "actual backstory"? You do realize that Doctor Doom is a fictional character, don't you?

You do realize that Doctor Doom is a fictional character, don't you?

Uhhh.....I don't know about that.....who's that standing behind you..... whose head is whistling like a boiling tea-kettle due to the steam coming out of his ears?

This is startin' to look like a Star Trek thread. :eek:

Like when they didn't use Doctor Doom's actual backstory in the FF movie, and CHANGED him into a super-powered businessman with electrical powers?... and when they wrote that Bruce Wayne's parents were killed by Jack Napier, not Joe Chill.

Just sayin'. :)

So you think it would be a better movie if instead of one unusual event creating both the heroes and the villain, the villain was created by a completely different, unrelated event?


Made perfect sense as far as streamlining the script. Unfortunately, the script was still pretty horrid.

That'd be one of those minor changes, not a "radical" change. Dude was still a low-life and it was mostly an "accident", if such can be said of such a crime.

BTW, from the last time I was still reading any of the Batman titles, Jack Napier was never Joker's real name. I don't believe it's ever been revealed.

... and when they wrote that Bruce Wayne's parents were killed by Jack Napier, not Joe Chill.

Just sayin'. :)

Made perfect sense as far as streamlining the script. Fortunately, the script was pretty good. I'm betting "The Dark Knight" will jettison the Joker's comic book origin entirely.

The one big change; the source material is good, while the movie sucks.

I wonder what kind of suit they'll go with. Classic yellow and red, silver and crimson, or black with nipples?

So you think it would be a better movie if instead of one unusual event creating both the heroes and the villain, the villain was created by a completely different, unrelated event?

And they didn't change Doom. The movie Doom just has as different backstory than the comic Doom.

They didn't change him - he's just different. :freak:

And what do you mean by "actual backstory"? You do realize that Doctor Doom is a fictional character, don't you?

Yeah, real friggin nice, pal, let's get right the snotty damn insults instead of discussing things, shall we? :rolleyes:

I need this first thing in the morning.

Slowly so even YOU can understand: The character of Doom has an actual backstory in the comic. The CHARACTER's backstory. It's an actual backstory - for the character. He was a fellow student of Reed Richards in college,as well as hereditary monarch of Latveria. An experiment of Reed's disfigured him, causing a life-long hatred. Doom claimed his throne in Latveria and devoted his life to science and revenge. He has NO superpowers whatsoever, rather building himself armor containing many science-based weapons.

...which the writers of the films completely changed.

Spider-Man 1 - omitted the character of Gwen Stacy and made Mary Jane Peter's first love. Gave him organic web shooters from the beginning. Substituted MJ for Gwen during the Green Goblin bridge scene, which was otherwise copied from the comic. Many CHANGES from the comic.

X-Men - Lots of small changes to the characters and their relationships. Rogue's classic sassy Southern Belle demeanor was discarded, as well as the powers she stole from Carol Danvers, both a huge part of her comic character. Jackman plays Wolvie a LOT nicer (and taller) than he is in the comics. Iceman, Angel and Beast were founding members of the group in the comics, and Bobby was of the same age as Scott and Jean (who was not 10 years older than Scott). Mistique is not naked and scaley in the books, but clothed, blue and furry like Nightcrawler, who does not have Angelic symbols carved into his damn FACE in the books. Colossus and Kitty Pryde only have eyes for each other in the books, and she couldn't care less about Bobby Drake.

Batman - holy crap, where shall we start?! TIBET?!!? Batgirl being Alfred's niece?! Joker and Penguin being killed? Penguin having flipper-fingers and eating raw fish!?

David Bruce Banner? Cathy Lee Crosby as a blonde Wonder Woman in a gym suit?? The Hulk meets Thor, and Thor talks and acts like a surfer? The Hulk meets Daredevil and he wears a black body stocking with a gambler's visor? The Punisher has Dolph Lundgren's accent? Captain America ... well, there was nothing good at ALL about that film, so ...

Ch-ch-ch-CHANgeeees.

John - good list. I don't remember the gambler's visor (but I actually prefer that Daredevil to the Affleck move). It just tickles me what changes some people get upset about. Ben Affleck doesn't have red hair! Wolverine's not wearing yellow spandex! The Batmobile doesn't look like a sports car! But the thing that tickles me the most is the attitude that any change to one of these characters is sacrilage - but only if that change is made by the filmmakers. Never mind that Superman and Batman have been around for 70 years or that Spider-Man and Iron Man have been around for forty and have all gone through so many iterations that there are entire encyclopedias devoted to their characters so that one can keep up with all of the changes, progressions, and variations imposed by the comic book writers themselves. Hell, Iron Man has had something like 30 different suits of armor over the years! That said, I don't like it when the movies frak with the essence of the character as originally conceived. And it's pretty well been proven that the superhero movies that mess with the character's essence the least - are the one's that are the most successful - not only as cinematic stories but at the box-office as well.

Anybody seen the Roger Corman "Fantastic Four"? I'm guessing that qualifies as sacrilage. :p

Anybody seen the Roger Corman "Fantastic Four"? I'm guessing that qualifies as sacrilage. :p

Actually - it's a lot closer in spirit to the original comics. The execution leaves a lot to be desired (the budget was reportedly somewhere between $500,000 to a couple of million). Given the extreme constraints they were working under, the Corman movie is a much truer version to the FF I grew up with than was the recent mega-budget pseudo-comedy "product" we got last summer.

Slowly so even YOU can understand: The character of Doom has an actual backstory in the comic. The CHARACTER's backstory. It's an actual backstory - for the character. He was a fellow student of Reed Richards in college,as well as hereditary monarch of Latveria. An experiment of Reed's disfigured him, causing a life-long hatred. Doom claimed his throne in Latveria and devoted his life to science and revenge. He has NO superpowers whatsoever, rather building himself armor containing many science-based weapons.

...which the writers of the films completely changed.
Doctor Doom is a fictional character with a fictional backstory. The comic backstory is no more "real" than the movie backstory. And no. They didn't change it. They ignored his backstory and gave him a new one.

Despite what some people seem to think, it is not the filmmaker's job to recreate their source material as closely as possible. It is to make a film that works as a film. If they had used the Doom backstory from the comics, it would create an unwieldly story with a lot of heavy, irrelevant exposition.

The whole Gwen Stacy/Mary Jane complaint that keeps popping up just shows why filmmakers should not listen to fans. Making Mary Jane Peter's lifelong love makes for a better story. And that is what should matter.

Doctor Doom is a fictional character with a fictional backstory. The comic backstory is no more "real" than the movie backstory.
I'm backing JohnP up on this point - no need to have gotten snooty with John in the first place, nor this time. There's no need get this way in the forums with folks who have like interestes. It's pretty obvious that Victor Von Doom is not a real person, so there's no need to go out of your way to point out the obvious. Please keep that in mind next time.

JohnP - take a chill pill, dude. :) I understand your aggravation w/the mindset of some folks, but there's no need gettin' worked up over it.

I'm backing JohnP up on this point - no need to have gotten snooty with John in the first place, nor this time. There's no need get this way in the forums with folks who have like interestes. It's pretty obvious that Victor Von Doom is not a real person, so there's no need to go out of your way to point out the obvious. Please keep that in mind next time.
Snooty? Frankly, I don't see where the insult was here. I thought my point was clear.

My disagreement with John is that he seems to believe there is something sacred about a fictional character's background. I'd agree with him if someone was doing a historical movie and changed an actual historical character. But when someone is doing a fictional work based on another fictional work, they are under no obligation to remain faithful to the source material. Since John used the phrase "actual background," he apparently disagrees with this. My point is that there is no "actual background" with fictional characters.

If we can't challenge each other's assumptions on this board, then what is the point of having a discussion?

Personally, I've been disappointed by the exclusion of Bat-Mite and Ace the Bat-Hound from all live-action versions of the Batman mythos. And when the heck are we gonna' see Batwoman?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/Batman133.JPG

Just for the record, I actually like my copy of the Roger Corman "Fantastic Four". It's campy and the SFX are far from the greatest. But as already has been mentioned in this thread, the HEART of the FF was there. It was certainly truer to the Comics Origin of the FF than the more recent, big budget version.

And also for the record - I enjoy the 2005 release of the FF, too. :)


Snooty? Frankly, I don't see where the insult was here. I thought my point was clear.
You were being condescending, which equals insulting.

You do realize that Doctor Doom is a fictional character, don't you?

I'd lay money down on a table that you'd get all upset w/me if I were equally condescending to you.
My disagreement with John is that he seems to believe there is something sacred about a fictional character's background. I'd agree with him if someone was doing a historical movie and changed an actual historical character. But when someone is doing a fictional work based on another fictional work, they are under no obligation to remain faithful to the source material. Since John used the phrase "actual background," he apparently disagrees with this. My point is that there is no "actual background" with fictional characters.
No, you're wrong here. At least, where the ORIGINS of the characters are concerned where the comics come in to play - the SOURCE MATERIAL (aka "history/continuity". As JohnP already said, Dr. Doom has a pretty rich, colorful backstory. His "powers" come from his intellect - his inventions, many of which are incorporated in to his armor - and his knowledge of the arts arcane - sorcery. They had that to work w/for the most recent FF movie - yet chose to ignore it and totally reinvent the character as he's known to long-time fans of the FF since the 1960's. Thus John - and a number of other long-time FF fans I know - problem w/the movie.

Personally, I found it annoying and somewhat distracting from the story, but I just went with it. I was seriously disappointed that they'd totally disregard 40+ years of backstory in regards to Dr. Doom, however. I saw no need for it w/in the constraints of the story as it appeared in the movie. In fact, there was no need for it to have played out as it did and probably would have worked out better if they had left it to where Victor wasn't effected by the Cosmic Rays, but had his mind snap by the rest of the details of the story - losing Sue, having his corporation taken from him and loss of prestige that meant. Then he don's armor that he had already developed and they could have just continued on w/the story that we saw w/o major changes to the Dr. Doom backstory.
If we can't challenge each other's assumptions on this board, then what is the point of having a discussion?
Do it w/o being insulting, as already indicted.

And no. They didn't change it. They ignored his backstory and gave him a new one.


Ignoring something and replacing is generally called "CHANGING" it. I don't know why you're so hung up on NOT using an obviously acceptable word, except to intentionally piss people off, which you're VERY good at.

My point is that there is no "actual background" with fictional characters.

Of COURSE there is, you aggrevating little man. It's the original backstory given to the character by it's creators. And I didn't say movie makers were OBLIGATED to follow it, I'm saying they clearly CHANGE it to suit themselves. Whereas you seem to have some pathological aversion to the word "change," and like to substitute more round-about yet congruent phrases, which you seem to think mean something other than "change."

And, of course, this whole discussion is so typically pointlessly typical of internet bulletin board agruments that it could be in a textbook about them. One guy says "change" and the other guy says "subtitute," and they spend several pages arguing over which freakin WORD is the correct one, when they both mean the same thing. Why do you care so much that we don't use the word CHANGE?! Just because you said it doesn't apply, have been thoroughly proven wrong, and are too proud to just say "Oh, okay, whatever," and move ON with your life? Why do you go so out of your way to suggest that "actual backstory" means anything but what I meant and start hearling hautiness as if you're the only person on the internet who knows comic books are fiction? Why the HELL can't you just have a discussion like a human being?!?

Arguing the definition of "is" starts descending in to ridiculous behavior, doesn't it? I'd rather not see that happen any further than it has, so let's all try and turn it around, shall we?

Let's keep to at least the spirit of this thread, as well. Remember, too, that the original subject is about the upcoming IronMan movie.

Let's keep to at least the spirit of this thread, as well. Remember, too, that the original subject is about the upcoming IronMan movie.

True that. I wonder how much they'll change from his actual backstory. ;)

And when are movie-makers going to adapt what is probably the greatest single Batman story ever told in the comics? Huh? When!?

http://images.comicbookresources.com/oddball/detectivecomics_275.jpg

The reason I object to the word "change" is that it assumes that a movie is simply a version (and implicitly, an inferior version) of the original. As a movie fan I object to this attitude. Movies are there own art form and deserve as much respect and freedom as any other form. Since we seem to be getting hung up on the terminology, OK, the movies change the comics' stories. Let's get to the point. Is there anything wrong with that? Generally, I say no. Although I do get irritated when the changes make the film less interesting.

And I don't think anyone doesn't realize comic books are fiction. I just don't think we should take a made-up-as-we-went-along-to-serve-the-story background and elevate it to the same level as historical fact. I realize that comic fans have a deep connection to the "established facts" but they need to recognize that most of the people seeing the movies are not die-hard fans. It is simply a bad idea for filmmakers to make a dull, unneccesarily complicated, or dramatically clumsy movie in the name of fidelity to the source material.

So, to the subject of Iron Man. Obviously, they are going to change his background. Unless they plan on doing a period piece, or portraying Tony Stark as 70 years-old, making him a prisoner of the Viet Cong won't make much sense.

I think the mustache/goatee change demonstrates why filmmakers need to make changes. Any narrative form deals in symbols. Different forms use different symbols, and the symbology changes over time. In the sixties, Stark's Clark Gable-style mustache showed that though he was a rich industrialist, he was a dashing, romantic figure. Unfortunately, today that sort of mustache symbolizes sleaziness or inept social skills.

Another example. In the novel PSYCHO, Norman Bates is described as looking more like Rod Steiger than Anthony Perkins. Robert Bloch said that if he had written the screenplay, he would have made that change himself. In a novel, describing the character as an overgrown child works. In a movie, we would have to deal with his hulking presence every time he appeared. (Not to mention that no one would be fooled when he dressed up as his mother.) So instead of a hulking man-child, Norman Bates became a small, quiet, unthreatening mama's boy. The intent of the character is preserved by changing the details of the character.

The reason I object to the word "change" is that it assumes that a movie is simply a version (and implicitly, an inferior version) of the original.
Now you want to figure that someone is infering something - after all your inferrance in the Star Trek thread...?

And actually, a movie is a "version of the original" in a number of instances. Movies based on a book are a "version" of that story which came from the book. Same with comics based stories. The story had to originate somewhere, right?

As a movie fan I object to this attitude. Movies are there own art form and deserve as much respect and freedom as any other form. Since we seem to be getting hung up on the terminology, OK, the movies change the comics' stories. Let's get to the point. Is there anything wrong with that? Generally, I say no. Although I do get irritated when the changes make the film less interesting.
Generally speaking, I agree w/you. A lot of Spider-man fans made a big deal over Peter Parker's body developing organic webspinners versus the comics version where he made mechanical devices to mimic this. To me, it' wasn't a major change. It didn't take away from the story and didn't really add any sort of complication, IMNSHO. While it wasn't exactly necessary for that change, it didn't take away from his origin story.

However, in the recent FF movie, changing up Dr. Doom's origin story made little to no sense. It wasn't at all necessary and didn't really add anything to the story that his original backstory already contained. All of his "powers" could have easily been derived from his armor and still taken up as much story time as what they went with did.

Basically, there was no reason for the change when his origin story would have worked just fine. In fact, I still feel that it would have been more interesting 'cause then you've got what amounts to a normal guy fighting super heroes to a stand still, more often than not.

And I don't think anyone doesn't realize comic books are fiction. I just don't think we should take a made-up-as-we-went-along-to-serve-the-story background and elevate it to the same level as historical fact. I realize that comic fans have a deep connection to the "established facts" but they need to recognize that most of the people seeing the movies are not die-hard fans. It is simply a bad idea for filmmakers to make a dull, unneccesarily complicated, or dramatically clumsy movie in the name of fidelity to the source material.
Many times they've taken an interesting, colorful backstory and changed it for no reason - sometimes making it a dull, unneccessarily complicated or dramtically clumsy movie - in the name of "artistic license" or whatever. Meh.... :rolleyes:

Overall, tho, I honestly don't think the majority of fans of most of the comics object to all of the changes. It's when a change is done so that the director/producers/writer(s) can "make their mark" on the movie that fans get upset. If it's a logical change for the sake of simplicity - such as having the X-Men wear something other than spandex gear - then most fans aren't really going to mind. The might grumble, but the loudest complainers are those that'll complain about the stupidest stuff anyhow.

So, to the subject of Iron Man. Obviously, they are going to change his background. Unless they plan on doing a period piece, or portraying Tony Stark as 70 years-old, making him a prisoner of the Viet Cong won't make much sense.

I think the mustache/goatee change demonstrates why filmmakers need to make changes. Any narrative form deals in symbols. Different forms use different symbols, and the symbology changes over time. In the sixties, Stark's Clark Gable-style mustache showed that though he was a rich industrialist, he was a dashing, romantic figure. Unfortunately, today that sort of mustache symbolizes sleaziness or inept social skills.
Actually, it's not really a "change" if they have him sporting a goatee, as I said previously.

Regardless, it's something I wouldn't really have a problem with. Minor stuff like that isn't a big deal, really. However, if they showed him sans any sort of facial hair... well, that'd be a big mistake on their part, as I dn't recall a time when Anthony Stark hasn't had a mustache or some similar sort of growth on his face. It's as much a trade mark of his character as Logan's funky hair or Rogue's white skunk streak.
[Another example. In the novel PSYCHO, Norman Bates is described as looking more like Rod Steiger than Anthony Perkins. Robert Bloch said that if he had written the screenplay, he would have made that change himself. In a novel, describing the character as an overgrown child works. In a movie, we would have to deal with his hulking presence every time he appeared. (Not to mention that no one would be fooled when he dressed up as his mother.) So instead of a hulking man-child, Norman Bates became a small, quiet, unthreatening mama's boy. The intent of the character is preserved by changing the details of the character.
Now, that's an interesting change I new nothing about. It's also one of those that I think makes sense.

Arguing about the Fantastic four movie is like arguing about what color a turd is!
BTW- I love the choice of RDJR as Iron Man, great choice.

Finally saw X-Men 3 last night. Enjoyed the hell out of it, but man, they sure changed a LOT of the Phoenix storyline! I expected them to drop any outer-space angle, but, wow, they really altered it a LOT, including mucking with Jean Grey's backstory and the whole reason for the birth of Phoenix.

I think they missed an opportunity too - when Jean rose from the lake, I was hoping for either the flaming Phoenix, or at least a Phoenix-shaped waterspout to homage Cockrum's art in the book. But they avoided using ANY Phoenix-shapes at all. I was pretty disappointed by that. Could'a been very cool. Kinda confised that they went that too, since her demise in the 2nd movie used the Phoenix symbology.

Oh well.

The reason I object to the word "change" is that it assumes that a movie is simply a version (and implicitly, an inferior version) of the original.

Only to your mind. Some changes may be good, some changes may be bad. But it's only the bad ones I complain about.

Arguing about the Fantastic four movie is like arguing about what color a turd is!
Care to qualify that for those of us who liked the movie...?
BTW- I love the choice of RDJR as Iron Man, great choice.
I think he'll do a great job. One of the more under appreciated actors of our time, IMO.

In the sixties, Stark's Clark Gable-style mustache showed that though he was a rich industrialist, he was a dashing, romantic figure. Unfortunately, today that sort of mustache symbolizes sleaziness or inept social skills.

http://www.vermontlaw.edu/emplibrary/ACF7323.jpg

Frankly, I don't give a damn.