"He's a superhero who is just a man," says Downey. "Not that I wouldn't play a guy who got bit by a spider or who has some freaky connection with bats, but I think this is a little more accessible. I guess that when Stan Lee created the character back in the mid-1960s -- to see if he could base a superhero on a hard-partying, womanizing billionaire who manufactures weapons, and still make him likable enough to sell comic books -- he clearly won his bet. Tony Stark is someone who has the ability to be right at the forefront of science and we are finding out more and more nowadays that science and mythology are becoming somewhat interchangeable. Some of the things that seemed really far-fetched aren't any more." [emphasis added]
This just strikes me as funny, because those are Iron Man's likable traits. I bet Iron Man was a lot more fun when he was on the sauce. In theory, I always liked Tony Stark because of his potential to be a cool, Howard Hughes, minus the obsessive compulsive keeping his urine in a jar crazy, style superhero. There's fun to be had there. I just never found the execution all that interesting. I was (note the past tense) kind of looking forward to the movie because I thought we'd get to see some of that. So I guess Downey's right. Stan Lee did succeed. Then Mark Millar and Joe Quesada stepped in, but then, those guys clearly think any character assassination is a good idea.
(Seriously. Click on the link and read all about it. Then consider yourself lucky that you weren't subjected to the scan I saw last night, which constituted the first time I was learning about this comic. Remember the rumors from a while back that said Marvel was going to do a story revealing that Uncle Ben molested Peter? This isn't that bad. I think it's got "Sins Past" beat though. The sad thing is, a romance comic with the Dodsons on art is a good idea. The ick factor is just way too high here.)
The CBR link also includes the news on the latest superhero casting news. Edward Norton as Bruce Banner. I'm a little bit shocked by that, knowing how picky he is about his roles, but I can't say it isn't perfect casting. I'm one of the original film's few defenders, and I was disappointed that not only was this movie going to be another Marvel licensed project scripted by Zak Penn, who sucks, but also that Eric Bana wouldn't be returning. I think they may have actually traded up here though. This movie suddenly got promising.
Sadly, this bit of positive comic book movie news comes after the news that David Goyer plans on making a Green Arrow movie without Green Arrow. Not only does this sound like it could be a Steven Segal movie from the 90s with any old hero filling in for Green Arrow, but it's not going to have favorite thing about the character. No, not the bow and arrow, or the frequent need to call people fascists and fat cats. I'm talking about the goatee. It is mighty. Does Green Arrow even have any big villains that belong to him to even make this project interesting? The only plus side I can see to this is that, being set in a prison, the homoeroticism will be rampant. That's always amusing. But wouldn't a Green Lantern/Green Arrow Hard Travellin' Heroes type movie be just as effective in that regard?
I had previously heard that Warner Brothers was going to make a Green Arrow movie based on "Long Bow Hunters," which was going to have a more gritty, indie movie feel. The only thing I know about "Long Bow Hunters" is that Mike Grell Women in Refrigerator-ed Black Canary, which I'm not so keen on, but I thought more low budget take on the superhero genre would be really interesting. I was a little bit excited about that movie.
1 comment:
Well written article.
Post a Comment