Robert Downey Jr. on 'Iron Man 2' and Mickey Rourke
Filed under: Action, Casting, RumorMonger, Newsstand, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels
We wet ourselves too soon, because apparently the Iron Man 2 cast is anything but secure. While Sam Rockwell confirmed himself as Justin Hammer, we're still iffy on one Emily Blunt (who may drop out for Guillver's Travels) and Mickey Rourke (who apparently may not be paid enough to appear). Robert Downey Jr. gave an update on Rourke to MTV and revealed that we all had it wrong when it came to who Rourke was playing -- and whether or not he was in. "If he signed on to do it, I'm super excited. If he's in Iron Man 2, we have a fantastic shot at doing something interesting. [But Crimson Dynamo] is actually incorrect." So, is he playing Whiplash? Downey could "neither confirm nor deny that. Maybe it's some semblance of both."
But Downey is adamant that Iron Man won't fall into the "too many villains spoil the story" trap that Spider-Man 3 did. "We're not doing that. The enemy comes from within ... Here's what I would say. It's very very much about -- it's one thing to say you're Iron Man, it's another thing to understand what it is to hold that responsibility. And if that sounds like a familiar theme, trust me -- this film is three times more fun and strange."










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-04-2009 @ 10:41AM
Paul Nicholson said...
The way he said that, i almost wonder if he means Rourke is going to make a cameo appearance as another future Marvel hero - he'd make a heck of a Thor....
Reply
2-04-2009 @ 1:17PM
@K01e said...
I don't think that it was the multiple villains that destroyed the Spider-man 3. It was the crappy treatment of Venom and Emo Spiderman/Peter Parker. IMO
Reply
2-04-2009 @ 7:13PM
vegimorph said...
at least things are getting put together and cleared out. Iron Man 2 should be great : }. No offense to any Mickery Rourke fans but I just don't find the guy very appealing and He hasn't been in any kind of stuff that I would personally like and Ikind of dislike the rumor that he's going to be in the movie but I'll have to wait and see. No, I haven't seen the Wrestler and I don't plan to. Sorry if I've offended you again. Its just a wait and see kind of thing i guess.
Reply
2-04-2009 @ 7:13PM
vegimorph said...
By the way, Spider-Man 3 was bad because a. too many villains, B. Ari Arad told Sam Raimi about the popularity of Venom so Sam Raimi was pressured into it and even if he hadn't, been, there was too much hype with Venom and Topher Grace wasn't the best choice, C.the evil Peter Parker/Spider-Man was just cheesy and really stupid, D. both Peter and Mary Jane were dumbed down to make mistakes or sound like jerks, even though you would have thought they would be smart enough not to make these mistakes, D. The Sand Man character's role as the sumpathetic villain was pretty much just a copy of thwe much better Dr. Octopus in Spider-Man 2 and E. (which is more of a personal reason for me than a sensical reason) Harry Osborn's storyline kept it way too close to the comics in that you knew immeadiately where it was going so it just went all down hill from there. what they could have done instead was have Harry make the opposite decision instead.
Reply
2-12-2009 @ 4:17PM
stephen said...
I want to say that too many villians wasn't the reason of Spider-Man's 3 failure. A) Each villian had their origin story, and B) they each had their battle scenes. What was the cause was the cheesy EMO particuarly when Parker is doing the highly embarrassing strutting along and giving the look to passing females.
As far as Rourke for Thor, my vote is no.My suggestion is Nathan Jones ( "Fearless"). At 6' 11" and former bodybuilder and some acting skill to boot, ought to make a really fearsome Thor role.
'The enemy comes from within.' Almost seems to be a clue to Tony Starks alcohol problem.
Reply