The 1990s were a pretty weak time for movies based on both video games and superhero comics. On the video game side, there were Super Mario Bros., Street Fighter and a couple of Mortal Kombat films. And on the superhero front, Batman acted out the law of diminishing returns. And that was about it. (I'm going to pretend Steel didn't exist.)

And then in the 2000s, CG visual effects caught up to the amazing superpowered spectacles that comics and games had led us to expect. In 2000, Bryan Singer, well-regarded director of The Usual Suspects, directed X-Men, which was a huge success. And the floodgates of superhero movies opened. Meanwhile, we got movies based on Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, and a ton of others.

But superhero movies have vastly outgrossed video-game movies, according to Box Office Mojo: $7.2 billion to $900 million. (And to be fair, the site lists 77 superhero films, and only 28 video-game films.) Not only that, but directors like Singer, Christopher Nolan, Sam Raimi, Jon Favreau and Ang Lee have been willing to venture into superhero films. By contrast, the most well-known video-game directors are people like Paul W.S. Anderson, and... Uwe Boll.

Why is this? There seem to be a few reasons. For one thing, many of the most successful video games haven't yet made the leap to movies. Neill Blomkamp's Halo film could have been the X-Men of video-game movies, but it fell apart. Ditto for Gore Verbinski's BioShock movie, which seems to have stalled out due to budgetary concerns.

And it's possible that translating video games to movies requires a higher level of CG mastery than translating comic books — the CG renditions of superhero comics just have to live up to our memories of 2-D pen-and-ink drawings. A live-action CG rendition of a video game, meanwhile, has to look cooler than the already impressive computer graphics most games serve up these days.

But also, movie adaptations of video-game films have generally employed the same kinds of story logic you used to see in the Joel Schumacher Batman films. Like, really — the Doom film, which featured evil alien parasites whose tongues could tell if you were genetically evil or not. Let me just repeat that: They had tongues that could genetically scan you and figure out if you were evil. No superhero movie in the past decade has shown that level of disrespect for the audience or the material. Sure, the Tomb Raider and Resident Evil films were a lot better — but even the mediocre superhero films showed a certain commitment to telling a semi-coherent story. Most comic-book heroes have decades of stories in the bank, however contradictory and full of holes, and the films have gotten slightly better about drawing on them.

But maybe the crux of it is that superhero films learned the difference between respect for the format, and respect for the characters. In some superhero films earlier in the decade, you saw some half-assed attempts at making "comic book panels" and captions on the screen — this was especially heinous in Ang Lee's Hulk. But as the decade went on, superhero films learned that the format wasn't what made these worlds awesome. Meanwhile, even as video games became more cinematic, the movies based on them haven't been able to distinguish between paying homage to video-game action, versus translating it to the different format.

But the other thing that becomes apparent, after you look at all of the superhero and video-game films of the past decade, is that the overall level of quality of both has been pretty bad. For every X-Men 2, Spider-Man or The Dark Knight, there are plenty of films like X-Men 3, Wolverine, Catwoman, Daredevil, and so on. Uwe Boll would have to work overtime and weekends to make a film half as bad as Catwoman. Superhero movies have won, in part, due to sheer quantity — if you generate a large enough mountain of crap, some good stuff will rise out of it. But also, a movie doesn't have to be good to make ten squillion quatloos.

But one thing's for sure: The House That Bryan Singer Built won't stand forever. Something's going to come along and knock superhero movies off their perch, establishing a new Hollywood feeding frenzy. Will it be video-game films? Maybe, if the ten video game movies that are in the pipeline actually get made, and achieve Dark Knight/Iron Man levels of success. It really only takes one movie to make half a billion dollars to turn on the firehose of copycats and sequels.

And even though Avatar isn't based on a video game, it's enough like a video game that if it has a strong enough second and third weekend, you could see the gears (of war) turning in the studio execs' heads. Avatar could turn out to be the movie that supercharged the video-game movie genre, since its strengths can so easily translate to recreating Dead Space or Bioshock. And of course if Tron Legacy does gangbusters next year, it could also provide a shot in the arm.

But right now, the up-and-coming genre seems to be toy movies instead. The two Transformers movies did superhero numbers, and appealed to a similar sense of nostalgia and escapism to superheroes. And there are tons and tons of toys out there waiting for their moment on the big screen — and unlike video-game companies, toy companies don't have any concerns about making sure the movies do justice to their existing stories. A toy movie doesn't have to tie in with existing continuity or jibe with the stories that have already told. A toy movie has one purpose only: To sell toys.

And that means toy movies can be dumber, and yet also more spectacular, than superhero films and video-game films combined. Just look at the Transformers films — they're so overstuffed and bloated with nonsense, they can barely move, but they have the power to spew crap for miles in all directions. And now there are films based on Monopoly, Battleship, Viewmaster, Stretch Armstrong, Battle Bots, and countless others on the way. Actual directors, like Ridley Scott (Monopoly) and Peter Berg (Battleship), are signing on to these projects.

Toy movies could well win out in the next decade, because the key to success will be casting the widest net for nostalgia among adults aged 18-49. Everybody feels vaguely nostalgic for Monopoly or Battleship — and it's just a matter of time before we get Steven Spielberg's Sorry! or David Lynch's Yahtzee. It's like the perfect combination: Everybody feels nostalgic, but nobody will complain that they got it wrong. How on Earth do you get a Yahtzee movie wrong?

It already seems like we're maxed out on superhero films, when Warner Bros. puts the kibosh on Superman and Wonder Woman movies and a Green Lantern film starring "it" boy Ryan Reynolds struggles to get made. If Marvel follows through on its plans to put out four movies a year, we could discover just how many superheroic origins the movie-going audience can stand. So maybe we'll see more of a blend of action/nostalgia pics, with films based on comics, toys, video games and other sources. Or maybe toy movies will just crush every other film genre, until there's nothing but massive CG recreations of your old plastic playthings, as far as the eye can see.

In an interview with InContention, Bridges explained that the Marvel superhero movie rushed into production to make its release date, with the director and star making up scenes as they went along:

"They had no script, man. They had an outline. We would show up for big scenes every day and we wouldn't know what we were going to say. We would have to go into our trailer and work on this scene and call up writers on the phone, 'You got any ideas?' Meanwhile the crew is tapping their foot on the stage waiting for us to come on."

Bridges, director Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. would literally act out sequences during primitive rehearsals, Downey taking on Bridges's role and vice versa, to find and essentially improvise their way to full scenes, the actor recounts. Bridges says that the entire production was probably saved by the improv prowess of the film's director and star.

"You've got the suits from Marvel in the trailer with us saying, 'No, you wouldn't say that,'" Bridges continued. "You would think with a $200 million movie you'd have the shit together, but it was just the opposite. And the reason for that is because they get ahead of themselves. They have a release date before the script, ‘Oh, we'll have the script before that time,' and they don't have their shit together.

"Jon dealt with it so well," Bridges continues. "It freaked me out. I was very anxious. I like to be prepared. I like to know my lines, man, that's my school. Very prepared. That was very irritating, and then I just made this adjustment. It happens in movies a lot where something's rubbing against your fur and it's not feeling right, but it's just the way it is. You can spend a lot of energy bitching about that or you can figure out how you're going to do it, how you're going to play this hand you've been dealt. What you can control is how you perceive things and your thinking about it. So I said, ‘Oh, what we're doing here, we're making a $200 million student film. We're all just fuckin' around! We're playin'. Oh, great!' That took all the pressure off. ‘Oh, just jam, man, just play.' And it turned out great!"

First off, that's amazing that he called them "suits." He really is The Dude. And second, this is just hilarious. I can't believe they let Robert Downey Jr. and Jon Favreau just run with this stuff. But, thank goodness they did, because what came out was a pretty great action flick blended with biting humor. Still I can't imagine what it must have been for everyone else on set. [InContention via Worst Previews]

Still can't wait to see the giant exploding, Robert Downey Jr. quipping madness that is another Iron Man movie. The film will be released May 7, 2010.

Marvel released a few pieces of concept art of the Mandarin from the animated series Iron Man: Armored Adventures, which shows us a teenage Tony Stark juggling homework and fighting monsters. (Didn't Marvel already try "Teen Tony" in the 1990s, with disastrous results?) The show sounds dismal, but the concept art is actually quite promising. Let's hope they show this to Jon Favreau before he starts work on Iron Man 3. [Marvel]

After Marvel pushed back The Avengers' release date by a year, we crossed our fingers, hoping the plan was to fit The Avengers into Favreau's directing schedule. But no such luck. He'll still be onboard as an executive producer, but Favreau says he's simply not available to direct — and it's probably for the best:

"You need somebody who has the perspective of all the different franchises to bring them together. I have the myopic vision of just knowing and loving Iron Man."

He also says that, with his high-tech focus on Iron Man, The Avengers will need a director who is able to integrate the Marvel Universe's more science fiction aspects with the supernatural bits that come with Thor. But in the meantime, it sounds like we'll be seeing elements of the other Avengers movies teased in Iron Man 2.

"We want to reinforce a lot of the stuff we started to tip off," Favreau told MTV News. "'The Avengers' is a much larger concern for Marvel and Kevin Feige, who runs Marvel. They're going to be doing 'Thor' and 'Captain America,' and the way we might start to tease those things in this movie, some of it is stuff that we've discussed [and] some of the stuff you do last-minute as you figure out how that stuff is coming together."

"It's an evolving, amorphous thing," he explained. "If we decide and commit too early, the secret always gets out."

So the question is, who's going to sit in The Avengers' director's chair now that Favreau is out?

Jon Favreau Won't Direct 'Avengers,' Explains 'Iron Man 2' Tie-In Process [MTV News]

May 7, 2010 is so far away. But so far, it all looks really, really good. Except Mickey Rourke's Whiplash costume...

[Via Entertainment Tonight]

The Hollywood Reporter claims that Favreau and RDJ are teaming up once again to bring the live action comic book adaption to life.

Favreau will be directing under executive producers and Star Trek writers Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof. The estimated release is in 2011.

Here's the synopsis:

In Silver City, Arizona, Apache Indians and Western settlers must lay their differences aside when an alien spaceship crash lands in their city.

Talking to Ireland Online, Favreau - one of the producers of the 2012 movie - said,

'The Avengers' might be the thing that helps rescue us from the inevitable sequel slump that you get into, because you're throwing everything on its ear. It might be a failed experiment or it might be something wonderful, but it allows you to add complexity in an organic way where you're culminating with something bigger, as opposed to trying to play out and not repeat the same story over and over again.

Well, until you're stuck with making Avengers 2, of course.

Favreau worries about 'Avengers' flop [Ireland Online]

We're referring, of course, to the giant guns that War Machine sports in Iron Man 2 — Rhodey's suit is sort of the opposite of Tony's sleek streamlined look, mostly thanks to the huge amount of firepower he totes around. So we had to ask Favreau if this gun-happy look was going to lead to conflict between Tony and Jim. "He's got big guns, yeah," said Favreau, adding that there was a lot of conflict between Iron Man and War Machine in the comics, so you shouldn't be surprised if the two of them butt heads in the movie as well.

Artist David Krentz posted his concept art of Woola, from the same Paramount production that Favreau was in line to produce, and possibly direct:

Let's hope Andrew Stanton's Mars includes aliens with the same level of loveability mixed with scariness. [Twitter]

There are numerous business reasons for Marvel to make the move if it is the case, not least of which is a continued good relationship with the director as he begins shooting the second Iron Man movie; not only has Favreau been involved in the development of the movie so far as a producer, but he's also - whether by intent or accident - become a successful public face for Marvel's movie efforts, thanks to his work making and promoting the studio's first solo movie, and dealing with all the fanboy speculation that followed. That he also has good relations with two of the few actors we know we can count on for Avengers (Iron Man himself, Robert Downey Jr., and Samuel L. Jackson) is just another mark in his favor.

The most obvious plus to the move - again, if it's a move that's been made at all - is that it would change speculation about the movie from potentially negative unknowns (Who will direct? Will it be a big enough name? What if they suck?) to a firm positive, at least in fan eyes; Favreau is a known quantity, thanks to Marvel's heavy metal hit, and one who's run the fan gauntlet before to rave reviews; he's already passed the "Does he know about this shit, and if he does, does he care?" tests and left the picky faithful dying for more while still giving mainstream, non-comic-reading audiences exactly what they wanted as well. We "know" that he gets Marvel's heroes, by now, and that he can translate their appeal to everyone else.

The re-adjusted release date for Avengers may just be the result of Marvel tightening their belt and not wanting to flood the market with too many superhero movies at one time, but if Kevin Feige and the other Marvel execs haven't considered that it also means that Favreau could theoretically jump straight from Iron Man 2 to Avengers, then here's hoping that these rumors put the idea in their head. If nothing else, who else could handle the responsibility and expectations?

New Spy spilling on MARVEL projects? Let's look and see... [Ain't It Cool News]

If nothing else, the increasing to-and-fro surrounding the cast of the sequel to last year's best superhero movie (Don't groan, Dark Knight fans, you know it's true in your hearts) is becoming an unexpected black eye on the previously perfect public face of Marvel Studios, which only months ago was looking like one of the most successful independent studios in the business and unable to put a foot wrong. Perhaps we should have seen the warning signs when Terrence Howard was unceremoniously replaced by Don Cheadle, and Howard's public confusion over the move was met by somewhat dirty leaks from studio insiders, but even so; that seemed like a one-time thing at the time, instead of the start of a trend.

Since then, of course, Samuel L. Jackson has hinted that Marvel are not bringing him back to reprise his role as Nick Fury, despite Fury appearing to be central to the planned Avengers movie (especially if it's as close to Mark Millar's Ultimates comic as has been rumored) because of a breakdown in negotiations over money. Just over a week later, Variety announces that the studio has offered Mickey Rourke a stunningly low $250,000 to play one of the two lead villains in Iron Man 2... a move that led, earlier this week, to Rourke saying that he wouldn't be doing the movie after all (The usual anonymous sources are saying that the deal isn't necessarily dead just yet).

Marvel, of course, haven't officially commented on any of these situations - and it's unlikely that they will, particularly as the Rourke and Jackson negotiations are still, officially at least, ongoing - but the fact remains that Iron Man 2 is beginning to look like a movie that's being hamstrung by accountants with their eyes staring a little too intently on the bottom line. This isn't exactly news - director and co-writer Jon Favreau has also complained about being lowballed by the studio in their initial offer to sign him for the sequel - but at this point, it's getting embarrassing for Marvel; the only actor who's not complained about the progress of the movie has been Robert Downey Jr. himself (Gwyneth Paltrow has griped about not having seen a script yet, and the production seems to be having trouble keeping the love interest that they cast... but at least neither of those are money-related).

We're still a year away from the release of the movie - Iron Man 2 is scheduled to open May next year (Although, let's face it, that date may end up being as unrealistic as Favreau publicly declared it when it was first announced) - but that doesn't change the fact that Marvel needs to either start coughing up some more money for this movie - and considering the first made close to $600 million, that shouldn't be too much of a struggle - or else start putting together a more convincing PR push to explain that everything's going to be alright in the end. Because, right now, it's not looking as if Tony Stark's second outing is going to be quite as bulletproof as his first.

Talking to MTV's Splash Page Blog, Theroux said,

You know, there’s NO dialogue right now - in a great way. I think [Marvel Studios President] Kevin Feige just wants to make sure we can make the best movie that we can make... Kevin is in all the meetings for all the movies, and is the sort of connective tissue – the neurons if you will – running between the meetings. Making sure all the things can be connected.

We're not convinced that this is really the case; after all, Iron Man director Jon Favreau is also producing Avengers, so we'd like to think that he's keeping an eye on the development of both movies. And, no matter how good at his job as Feige is, would the President of the studio really be the point person for making sure that everyone's keeping their stories straight?

We think that Theroux either has accidentally missed the teams of continuity mavens in each script meeting, or is trying to sell us on the idea of a blockbuster summer movie franchise having greater artistic integrity than anyone would expect - or even want, really. The alternative would be make us far too concerned that Kevin Feige didn't read his job description closely enough.

‘Iron Man 2’ Screenwriter Justin Theroux Confesses There Is No Dialogue With Other Marvel Writers [MTV Splash Page]

Talking to Aint It Cool News last week, Favreau contemplated the role that fans and the internet played in the creation of the first Iron Man:

There was a shot in the Super Bowl ad that didn’t get there in time for that and the feedback on that gave me the ability to turn around and say “Look see, it’s not just me. They have a very high standard, these people. They don’t just eat what we feed them, we have to satisfy, you have to treat it like a chef, not like a short order cook. They’re not just going to eat what you put in front of them. If they don’t feel respected they will not support this thing. This has to be special. There’s too many movies like this out there. We have to win their approval.”

So I like the dialogue, I learn from the dialogue, I’m tremendously grateful to the fans for turning this thing into a phenomenon. All the mainstream press was saying shitty things under their breath in their articles writing about “Marvel parades out its’ B-list heroes does anybody give a shit?” And because the fans gave a shit and liked what we were doing and I was lucky enough to be making this movie in a time when there was still an appetite and there was a very vocal, viral online community where word would spread one way or the other when you’re doing something good and they like it word gets out there. And the next thing you know there are eight thousand prints on screens and shows selling out till three in the morning and them adding screenings and stuff because of people texting each other, and that all started from Comic-Con, that all started from people liking the first trailer.

But don't think that that means that won't change for Iron Man 2 because, as Morrissey once so succinctly put it, we hate it when our friends become successful:

[T]he hunger, the curiosity factor is much higher now. Since the [first] movie’s come out, just the way my… the things that I would sort of say informally on a little blog with some of the core fans would get picked up in mainstream press and on Hollywood type blogs. You have to be a little more selective in the way you… it can’t be quite so conversational because the way you turn a phrase it ends up leading people to conclusions they shouldn’t be led to or they might be misleading. I never want to lie to my fans.
But I reserve the right to keep certain things out of sight until it’s time to reveal them. I think everybody has snuck into their mom’s closet and seen their Christmas presents before they opened them and then taped them back shut and it’s just not as fun Christmas morning. And I want to make sure that everybody has a good time.

So I want to get enough out there that it keeps people excited and it rewards them for paying attention but I don’t want to blow the experience of the movie. And I think we barely squeaked by, I don’t know if there were any secrets that were not revealed by the time people saw the movie... I’m also dealing with a studio that tends to be very secretive about things. So I think that I’m going to probably be more open than most filmmakers would be, but I definitely don’t want to blow enough stuff… because stuff’s going to come out, between all the sites that there are. Stuff will be figured out on its own. And if we reveal too much stuff and certain things are figured out or spies get pictures of things we won’t have any razzle dazzle left for the actual release of the film, and that’s the only concern.

I can almost see his point; the buzz for the first movie adapting a well-loved comic/toyline/TV show/whatever is, as much as anything, "will they do it right?" as much as anything that actually has to do with the movie's plot details... but once the first movie's proven itself, fans (and I'm including myself in there) immediately seem to want to know everything about what happens next. But does that really mean that comments are picked apart more than they were for the "show me" stage before the first movie?

Nonetheless, don't take Favreau's reluctance at face value - In the same interview, he's already talking about setting up a Facebook page for the movie. What's next? Linkedin?

[Ain't It Cool]

The first big surprise in the EW story is that Howard was the most highly paid actor for the original Iron Man movie - and that Marvel had asked him to accept a substantial (somewhere between 50 - 80%) paycut for the sequel. The reason for the paycut? His behavior during shooting for the first movie:

It didn't help that, according to one source, Favreau and his producers were ultimately unhappy with Howard's performance, and spent a lot of time cutting and reshooting his scenes. (Favreau could not be reached for comment, while Howard's publicist says: ''Terrence had a tremendous experience working on Iron Man.'')

As such, when Favreau and screenwriter Justin Theroux went to map out the sequel they found themselves minimizing Howard's story line. Once Marvel learned that Favreau was thinking of curtailing the role, the studio went to the actor's agents with a new and drastically reduced offer — a number that's similar to what supporting cast members were paid for the first movie.

It's at this point where the story gets murky - Did Howard walk from the project because of the low offer, or did Marvel replace him before he had even responded to the offer? No-one seems to be sure, but the latter is definitely hinted as a possibility, which may explain Howard's comments about finding out about Don Cheadle taking over the role when it was announced to the press.

This new version of events certainly casts new light on the story - but also suggests that we may hear another version from more Howard-friendly sources in weeks to come, taking us back to the "Marvel are meanies" narrative that we started with... before Marvel's sources leak more "Howard was insufferable" rumors. After all, this one has the potential to run and run.

'Iron Man 2': How Terrence Howard Lost His Metal [EW.com]

Marvel's Tuesday announcement confirmed not only that Downey Jr. and Cheadle would be two of the stars for the Avengers, which tells how Marvel's biggest heroes formed a team, but that Iron Man director Favreau will act as executive producer for the 2011 movie.

No plot details for Avengers or Iron Man 2 have been announced, although we can now add the creation of Rhodey's War Machine armor to the existing "Hulk goes bad" rumors.

As for those rumors about the Hulk going bad, some sites are concluding the Hulk won't actually be the villain in Avengers, because one Marvel press release refers to Hulk as a member of the team. The release also says the heroes, including the Hulk, face the biggest threat they've ever encountered. So does that mean the Hulk isn't the villain of that movie? Or he joins the team but later goes rogue? (Just as long as he pretends to be a robot clown, like in the comics.)

Iron Man 2 is due to be released May 7, 2010, with Avengers following on July 15, 2011.

Downey Jr. extends Marvel deal [Variety]

Speaking at a press conference for the DVD and Blu-Ray release of Iron Man, Favreau talked about what he'd like to do to make the sequel much more impressive than the original, if money was no object:

I would love to do some of it on Imax for Imax. It's all a matter of dollars and cents for them. I would also love to do 3D... because 3D because, just think of the hub, think of the virtual space and what that would be like, the layers. How what fun that would be. And it also drives people to see it in the theater, it makes that much more of an experience. But it all comes down to how much does it cost, and what they get for it.

As to what we can definitely expect from the sequel, Favreau admitted that Dark Knight can own the dark and brooding "side of the playground"; the next movie will keep the light tone of the original movie, but may build off of the storyline from Matt Fraction's enjoyable Invincible Iron Man comic - which may mean that, before we get to the Mandarin (who we'll get to see, eventually), we may be seeing the Iron Man technology being reverse-engineered by terrorists out to destroy Tony Stark's business as much as the man himself. Even without the seeing a giant Iron Man fly off the screen, that alone will get me to be first in line when Iron Man 2 appears in 2010.

Could Iron Man 2 Be in 3-D [Collider]

As Charlie mentioned in passing yesterday, Favreau was talking about Iron Man 2 at the premiere of Hellboy II this weekend, and he seemed positive that he and Marvel have worked out their tiff:

It's gonna work out, I have a feeling... They're working it all out. We're actively engaged... I would be involved in the other properties in some capacity, but Iron Man 2 is the one that needs [my] day-in, day-out care and attention.

While it's probably the promise of a large paycheck that's brought Favreau back on-board after the seeming stand-off between director and studio about the rush-release schedule of the sequel, it's very possible that he held the largest bargaining chip in the negotiations: He knew what Marvel was planning for their other movies, and he's more than willing to share. He's already spoiled the reveal of the line-up for the movie Avengers, given away that Captain America: The First Avenger is a "period piece" while talking to IESB, and
happily told fans who the bad guy is in the next Iron Man movie ("The Mandarin is Iron Man’s nemesis and will be incorporated in the sequel," being the exact quote. Yeah, we all expected it, but still). Who knows what else he could've ruined had an arrangement not been made?

[IESB]