Iron Man II :news

[House Quake]

In a surprise move, Don Cheadle will replace Terrence Howard as Robert Downey Jr's best friend in "Iron Man 2," the sequel to the superhero saga.

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE49D19L20081014

I'm not too thrilled about this.  Nothing against, Cheadle.... but Terrance Howard is among my fav actors.

This sucks.

[Uncle Yuan]

I was just wondering what was up with the sequel.  It's too bad that Howard won't be back - it's always a bit of a bad sign when principle actors don't come back for the sequel.

[danhagen]

Actually, Howard was the actor that I liked least in the film.

[thalaw2]

Let the records show that I was for Cheadle over Howard in the first movie.  Cheadle is very underrated.  That said I also think such changes in the main actors can mean trouble.   

[BWPS]

He's small. I always pictured War Machine as a bigger fellow. But then again I get this from cartoons where everyone is really buff.

[Panther_Gunn]

Cheadle is a very good actor, but I don't seem him as "right" for the part.  Rhodes is military, the type that actually does field missions, and I thought that Howard at least had the look for the part.  And let's be honest, in the first movie, Rhodes wasn't exactly a "principle actor" part......he didn't have near enough screen time to call him that.  It was all Bridges (who surprised me in his fit in the role), Paltrow (again, another surprise), and Downey.  If the second movie were to feature Rhodes' character more (with or without him in armor), I could see this as being a bigger problem than it is at the moment.  It's a disappointing shift, but not really much of an impact in the long run so far.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

From what I've read, the plan was all along to introduce Howard as War Machine in film two, as Stark find himself unable to be Iron Man for a time due to alcoholism.

What this change actually means, however, I leave to others.

[style]

This sucks! I've met Terrence Howard before he came to my church one time in Houston. He is an extremely nice guy. And as it seems they won't bring him back because, 'negotiations fell through over financial differences, among other reasons.'...which basically means Marvel doesn't want to pay what he rightly deserves!!!! :angry: And then of all things they replace him with Cheadle how about Michael Jai White.

[JeyNyce]

Cheadle is a great actor, but I can't see him playing War Machine.  I heard that Howard wanted more money for the role, which stinks.  If they couldn't get Howard, they should have gotten Jamie Foxx, I can see him & Downey playing off each other.

[The Hitman]

Call me weird, but I always saw Cheadle playing The Falcon.

[style]

[spoiler][/spoiler]
Nuff Said!

[Talavar]

Cheadle's a great actor, so I'm not terribly upset.  To those worried about the change hurting the second movie, I'd say it's about as likely as Katie Holmes getting replaced hurt the Dark Knight.

[GogglesPizanno]

I'm gonna be one of the few that is ok with this.

I agree that Don Cheadle doesn't have the "look" for the character, but honestly, the same thing could have been said when they cast Robert Downey as Tony Stark.

[Panther_Gunn]

[spoiler][/spoiler]
Nuff Said!

Nah, I think having Spawn inside the War Machine suit would just be a bit of overkill.  :P

[House Quake]

Cheadle is a great actor, but I can't see him playing War Machine.  I heard that Howard wanted more money for the role, which stinks.  If they couldn't get Howard, they should have gotten Jamie Foxx, I can see him & Downey playing off each other.

Foxx's price would have been much higher than Howard's.

Another minor point is that there were several scenes which ended up the the editing room floor which extended Howard's/Rhode's screen time significantly.  I'm pretty sure he felt that if his role had extended to even more... ie War Machine... he should have commanded more money.  Another possibility is if he has been offered a role in another movie in which he would be the main star... and more money... and wanted more to stay on as Rhodes.

It would be funny if he turned up as Hal Jordan.

I'm just not sold on Cheadle.  I thought RDJ was a great cast from day one.  Not many actors fit the starks mode better.  With some actors... you just really like their screen presence and the charisma they bring to a role.    I've seen movies with Cheadle,  and his screen presence just isn't the same as Howard's.  He's a good actor... but... IMO Howard was better for the role.  Heh... as some one mentioned... Michael Jai White isn't as good of an actor as either, but his screen presence is at the least as strong as Howard's.

[qazwsx]

IMHO, Cheadle's probably a better than howard. Saying that however, I agree that this is totally uncalled for, because it spoils the continuity, and it doesn't help that they look nothing alike(no blacks don't all look alike) It would be better if they intorduced him as another character instead, although still awkward. The reason this worked for the Dark Knight was because, first and foremost, the movie was just so frelling brilliant that nothing else mattered, beyond that, mags and katie share minute similarities in appearance and mags was a much better actress than katie(quite a minga aswell compared to her though..). Despite all that however I still think Rachel's death would have been more heartfelt if it was Katie that was blown up, as it was her image was the one that was established as "Rachel, Bruce's dear childhood friend". Oops strayed a bit haven't I? Sorry, STILL THINK IRONMAN II SHOULD BE GREAT, BUT NO MANDARINS PLEASE!! There, fixed.

[qazwsx]

I'm gonna be one of the few that is ok with this.

I agree that Don Cheadle doesn't have the "look" for the character, but honestly, the same thing could have been said when they cast Robert Downey as Tony Stark.

I think for most people outside of ironman fandom(I included) Downey in fact defined the look of Stark. Now when I see cartoon Stark I immediately go "Bleh that's not him!"

[TheMarvell]

well, I'm in the "This really sucks" boat. I like Howard and thought he was really good in Iron Man. Replacing him is going to fudge up continuity and it's a shame they couldn't come to an agreement. I like Don Cheadle and I'm sure he'll be good in the role, but this is supposed to be a trilogy and recasting characters just sucks for that.

It was ok in Dark Knight because Maggie's a better actress, but that's a rarity.

[Podmark]

Overall I'd prefer they kept Howard for consistency sake, but otherwise I'm indifferent. I didn't have strong feeling's for Howard's preformance and I'm not familiar with Cheadle.

[BentonGrey]

It was ok in Dark Knight because Maggie's a better actress, but that's a rarity.

Much, much, much, MUCH better.  I ambivalent about this.  I didn't have strong feelings, and while Cheadle doesn't have the right look, he is a very strong actor.

[TheMarvell]

Apparently Howard had nothing to do with it, and Marvel wanted a more "notable" actor. Check this out:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/ironmannews.php?id=7742

:thumbdown:

[BentonGrey]

That's awfully silly, they already made zillions of dollars with the first one, so it isn't like his lack of recognition (perceived or real) would be likely to effect the sequel any worse.

[House Quake]

Apparently Howard had nothing to do with it, and Marvel wanted a more "notable" actor. Check this out:

Where did you get more notable actor from?

Cause Cheadle isn't it.  Terrance Howard is a very known , notable and hot commodity in Hollywood right now and has been for some time now.  I can safely say that a lot of people had to Google who Cheadle even was when this news came out.

But his replacement for what ever reason... sucks.

[qazwsx]

Sad.

[TheMarvell]

I would say that both Howard and Cheadle are on about the same level of fame here. I said notable, because that's what Marvel apparently thinks Cheadle is. Even Howard himself doesn't know why they are doing this and found out about it the same way we did. But I think Marvel hasn't officially announced it yet, so maybe it isn't 100% yet.

[thalaw2]

Oh well...actors and studios have "their people" so perhaps it's those folks who are to blame for all the mix up.  I like Howard and Cheadle...honestly I'm happy with either actor in the role.  However, I agree that recently Howard is a more hot commodity.  Maybe the album he released isn't family friendly or some other oddity. 

My other theory is that some of the big wigs at Marvel Studios saw my post here during the production of IM1 in which I stated that Cheadle should play the role of Rhodes instead of Howard and thought it was a brilliant idea....it's a possiblity :P :P :P

[steamteck]

It was ok in Dark Knight because Maggie's a better actress, but that's a rarity.

She sure didn't show in "Dark knight" then. She was very jarringly a smaller less well played  character for me. Enough that she will be a downside for me in any movies she's in. Funny because I really have never liked Katie Holmes in anything else but Nolan really got something out of her in 'Batman Returns" for me.


Anyway I thought Howard was just about perfect and will be disappointed if they do replace him with Cheadle. Changing actors in midstream should always be avoided if at all possible anyway unless there's a real problem.

[Podmark]

Marvel annouced the change officially the other day.

[BentonGrey]

It was ok in Dark Knight because Maggie's a better actress, but that's a rarity.

She sure didn't show in "Dark knight" then. She was very jarringly a smaller less well played  character for me. Enough that she will be a downside for me in any movies she's in. Funny because I really have never liked Katie Holmes in anything else but Nolan really got something out of her in 'Batman Returns" for me.

You're kidding me!  She had about as much emotional intensity as a cardboard box.  She's a horrible actress, and she was, bar-none, the worst thing about Begins...ughh....when she is in the car with Bruce, giving her little speech about the 'good people,' it's like she's ordering from McDonald's.  In Maggie G.'s defense, she was saddled with a character that was useless, and the audience was inclined to dislike from the first film.  I thought she did a decent job, given what little she had to work with.

[steamteck]

It was ok in Dark Knight because Maggie's a better actress, but that's a rarity.

She sure didn't show in "Dark knight" then. She was very jarringly a smaller less well played  character for me. Enough that she will be a downside for me in any movies she's in. Funny because I really have never liked Katie Holmes in anything else but Nolan really got something out of her in 'Batman Returns" for me.

You're kidding me!  She had about as much emotional intensity as a cardboard box.  She's a horrible actress, and she was, bar-none, the worst thing about Begins...ughh....when she is in the car with Bruce, giving her little speech about the 'good people,' it's like she's ordering from McDonald's.  In Maggie G.'s defense, she was saddled with a character that was useless, and the audience was inclined to dislike from the first film.  I thought she did a decent job, given what little she had to work with.

I thought she was just fine in that scene and Maggie was sonobolististic through the whole film. I thought the character was far from useless and quite integral to "Begins".