Jon Favreau: Tom Cruise is NOT Iron Man
Filed under: Action, Casting, RumorMonger, Fandom, Scripts, Comic/Superhero/Geek
As this news came across my virtual desk this morning I could practically feel the geek community heaving a collective sigh of relief.* Jon Favreau has finally spoke again about the state of his upcoming Marvel flick Iron Man. Fav started by pointing out the risk Marvel is taking with this flick because it is the first film coming from Marvel's personal new "war chest," which means it is self-financed. This is a double-edged sword for Marvel; on one hand, they get full control over their scripts and films and a much, much bigger cut of the profits, but on the other hand they also suck down the damages should their films fail. Marvel is NOT a huge company, so if more than one or two of these flicks tank they could quickly find themselves in trouble. The shame is they've already handed out two of their most valuable properties in X-Men and Spider-Man.Fav also indicated that although the film's origin tale will be updated to fit into modern times, it will still stay faithful to the character and story with which fans are familiar. As an example of good faith, he offers us the gray iron man suit as a sacrifice on the altar of canon. Yes, Iron Man will debut in the classic gray costume. The alcoholism probably won't come into the story in the first film -- but groundwork will be laid.
And most exciting for fans of all sorts -- Fav said he is dedicated to casting a relative unknown, and not a "major star." By this, he is telling Marvel fans "I swear I'm not interested in Tom Cruise. Honest!" He said he hopes to make an official casting announcement later this year. Stay tuned to Cinematical for updates; yours truly is definitely staying on this story.
*Or maybe my sigh of relief was so large and heartfelt I just mistook it for the entire geek community.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-24-2006 @ 5:25PM
Gerald Miller said...
"The shame is they've already handed out two of their most valuable properties in X-Men and Spider-Man."
I assume that these two franchises were brought to film
with the cooperation of Marvel and Stan Lee.The companies that made these films placed Marvel back on the map and opened up the comic book world to God knows
how many fanboys and fangirls.If Marvel has taken on a
franhise on their own its only because of the risks taken by the producers of the XMen and Spiderman films made making comics into films.
Ger
Reply
5-24-2006 @ 5:36PM
bgdc said...
Weird to think Mikey from Swingers is now a big time movie director. Personally, his directing efforts so far have sucked - yes Elf was ass - and god I miss Dinner for Five!
Reply
5-24-2006 @ 6:10PM
Scott Weinberg said...
Mark, I think you and I should collaborate on a screenplay called GREEN.
You get the Lantern; I get the Arrow. :)
Reply
5-25-2006 @ 2:47AM
Finished.Law.School said...
With Marvel financing this the hope and expectation is that there will not be anything like the fuck ups that are/were Fantastic 4 and X men 3. Studios and the asshole directors like Ratner can make all the excuses they want but with Marvel being responsible for the source material as well I have high hopes for this one.
Reply
5-25-2006 @ 9:05AM
Myron said...
I'm reaching way back here, but didn't Tony Stark have a hairy chest? If so, he must be played by Tom Selleck. I don't think there's anyone else in Hollywood with hair on their chest.
Reply
5-25-2006 @ 10:49AM
jimmy said...
Tom Selleck or Matthew Fox would work.
Reply