Mickey Rourke Criticizes Marvel Studios For "Breaking Jon Favreau's Balls" And More!

Bruiser

get him, he's a dc fanboy!!!!!! LOL

they could have given more substance too whiplash now that i think about it...still a good movie, but every good movie has flaws.

Heard he studied a bit of Russian for the film. I think Marvel is focusing too much on The Avengers. Whiplash could've been a better villian, not regarding his Monger suit at the end, even Mickey was into it....

i love marvel but i hate when shit like this happens, and it seems to be happening quite a bit

of course he blames marvel, how does he know hes a one dimensional villian if he hasnt even seen the [frick]ing movie?

I'm only mad bc they [frick]ed Norton over

@RidiculousFanBoy exactly man. I feel like, yeah Marvel movies are good, just nothing to write home about

Sam Rockwell was terrific in that movie. I was just very disappointed with Iron Man 2. The cast was terrific, the director was good, and all the buzz surrounding it was great.

Then I saw the movie and realized it was a 2 hour preview for The Avengers. I also didn't like how Favreau had to throw himself into the movie, but he wasn't the worst thing about that movie.

Marvel movies are too concerned about appealing to the masses, and selling accessories (toys videogames etc.) that they seem to be holding back when it comes to story telling. Instead of making it a little bit more adult they play if safe. Which is fine, and I understand why they do it. But I would like to see a little them push the envelope a little bit more at the house of idea's.

I can understand why Marvel doesn't want the creative team to have too much creative control. They will lose money and get a bad rep if the movie doesn't do too good. I think because of this The Avengers movie won't be good in my personal opinion.

At the same time they need to let the creative do what they need to do best or else it will keep hurting there bottom line.

Rouke despite being a talented actor would not be able to make a character this simplistic into someone amazing, he was out for revenge against the Stark Family for not getting the same legacy for the Russians. They combined two character concepts that to me didn't mesh. If they made him a prideful Russian, an ex KGB agent or Spetznaz solider out to prove himself and becomes the Crimson Dynamo to combat Tony for supremacy over Technology would have been a better idea.

The problem with Norton was also he wants WAY too much control over film making besides acting, he wants to be part of the writing, directing, and some times editing of a movie. He never cares for promotion simply thinking that the film alone will bring in seats

With Howard the problem was he was cast first in the first movie and had a bigger pay than the others, when #2 came around they wanted to give him less because of RDJ, he didn't like that so they gave him the boot.

Marvel Studios has a plan in all this, they want to create a huge massive interconnect continuity based universe, some things in certain movies sadly had to be altered to rush their decisions into production, why Ant-man seems to take forever is beyond me, Just make it already and have it connect somehow to the Avengers.

Mickey Rourke Speaks the truth!

PREACH BROTHER!!!!

i liked iron man 2. the only problem for me was the last fight.

IM2 was INCREDIBLY LAME.

I THINK Kevin Feige understands what they did wrong and will improve upon them POST-Avengers.

LOL! to those who were okay with IM2's sole purpose being a "bridge" for the MCU.

Cap and Thor had subtle easter eggs and Avengers hype, IM2 was just in your face.

Here's to a bright future for CBMs and Marvel Studios!