While writing my previous article on Chris Nolan I got to thinking, can the same be said of Marvel’s ‘savior’? Well when I was younger I honestly never read the Iron Man comics but, I loved watching the cartoon as a kid and that, up until about ten years ago, was my extent of knowledge for the Iron Man character. With that being said I pose this question; is Jon Favreau really deserving of all the praise he has received for what is arguably called Marvel’s best movie series to date?
First and foremost I use the term ‘series’ very loosely simply because Favreau is no longer with the franchise and the fact that this is the only movie through Marvel with a sequel, respectively. Back to the article, first, again we look at the tone of the series. Throughout the process of filming the first movie, it’s been documented that the workers behind the scenes were in fact still working on the script so there was a lot of improv on the set. Now, it appears that the improv did in fact work in favor of the production. The actors felt freer rather than having the constraints of a completed script to have to stick to. But it appears that the second go-around didn’t fare as well. Many viewers may have felt that the second installment was too formulaic. What seemed like magic from the first film, the second appeared to have lost its mojo. Was it Jon Favreau’s fault or was it the strict orders from the top brass to keep connectivity to the rest of the budding MCU? Maybe both, as viewers would want to see a character develop as the story continued rather than see him as the same person they’ve already seen him as. This is where I personally thought that the ‘Demon in a Bottle’ story arc would have worked well, a little scene like the one we’ve seen wasn’t enough.
Second, the villains of Iron Man. We had the introduction (and change) of the Ten Rings as a terrorist organization rather than an actual physical property belonging to his greatest enemy, the Mandarin. I believe that this one change actually worked for the series in being that Tony Stark would have to face a foe with incredible power and an equally powerful following to match. Iron Monger might have been the only enemy to date that stuck close to the source material. An apparent combination of both Crimson Dynamo and Whiplash is what we had the very talented Mickey Rourke portray and while he gave his best, the final battle left people wanting, and not in a good way. Justin Hammer’s character deviated far from the comic version, seeing him younger and less diabolical therefore making his character seem much too whimsical. That is a prime example of a waste of story potential there.
Finally we have the character of Tony Stark himself. Robert Downey, Jr. was perfectly cast as the Iron Knight himself. The first movie was a seemingly perfect sling-board into the future of new age superhero’s being brought to the big screen. A perfect mixture of humor, storytelling and action, it became an instant number one with fans and general audiences and thus the MCU was born with the ‘Avenger Initiative’. Audiences soon found themselves clamoring for a sequel but alas, as it happens with most sequels, character development is non-existent and an introduction to plenty of lifeless characters gives this series a storyline that is not on par with its predecessor.
So I ask again, is Jon Favreau really deserving of all the praise he has received for what is arguably called Marvel’s best movie series to date? The answer is both yes and no. If Marvel had gone with a deeper storyline (think Demon in a Bottle) for the sequel, it could have been taken the entire series and maybe the MCU as well up to an entirely different level. Now make no mistake, I will say that I loved both movies and have them on my top ten favorite of all time, but I write this article subjectively. Go ahead and sound off on the section below ya’ geeks and I’ll talk to you all soon, cheers!