Mickey Rourke Elaborates On Iron Man 2 Problems And Marvel's "Mindless Comic Book Movies"!

In an interview promoting upcoming release, Immortals, Mickey Rourke talks more about his anger at how Ivan Vanko/Whiplash was ultimately portrayed in Iron Man 2 blaming Marvel rather than Jon Favreau and Justin Theroux...

Follow Josh:
By Josh Wilding - 11/7/2011
In a fairly lengthy interview with Crave Online, the Immortals star has commented once again on his anger over how his Iron Man 2 character was eventually portrayed in the final cut of the movie. Putting the blame solely on Marvel Studios rather than director Jon Favreau or writer Justin Theroux, he's clearly unhappy that we didn't get to see his full and unedited take on Whiplash. Alternatively, it could of course have something to do with neither Rourke or the movie receiving much in the way of critical acclaim and he's just looking for someone to blame! Be sure to share your thoughts in the usual place and click on the link below to read the interview in full.

I got the impression that even though you’re technically the "bad guy" in the movie, that he seemed to really sympathize with your character a lot.

Well, I always try to bring that to a character. It’s like when I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought… You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Favreau that I wanted to bring some other layers and colors, not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the [people] at Marvel just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up the floor.

Well, you know, it is f**king too bad, but it’s their loss. If they want to make mindless comic book movies, then I don’t want to be a part of that. I don’t want to have to care so much and work so hard, and then fight them for intelligent reasoning, and just because they’re calling the shots they… You know, I didn’t work for three months on the accent and all the adjustments and go to Russia just so I could end up on the floor. Because that can make somebody say at the end of the day, oh f**k ‘em, I’m just going to mail it in. But I’m not that kind of guy. I’m never going to mail it in.


I could tell you didn’t mail it in on 'Iron Man'...

No, but I’m saying it’s frustrating when that happens, when you care so much and you try so hard. At the end of the day you’ve got some nerd with a pocketful of money calling the shots. You know, Favreau didn’t call the shots. I wish he would have. And Theroux, we worked together to bring layers to that character, so, you know, I fight for that any time I’m playing like a bad guy.







Image and video hosting by TinyPic



Source: Crave Online
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
8
LIKE!
124 Comments
1 2 3 4
ThaMessenger07 - 11/7/2011, 7:21 AM
Mickey never held back his blows....damn lol
ThaMessenger07 - 11/7/2011, 7:23 AM
Hop over to DC and Become the "Main Man!"

SHHH - 11/7/2011, 7:24 AM
Mickey Rourke Speaks The Truth...
A7 - 11/7/2011, 7:25 AM
he portrayed the character well.
BackwardGalaxy - 11/7/2011, 7:25 AM
I can't argue he was right without knowing what those "layers" are. For all we know, his ideas were crap. I can say that the character that made it into the film was definitely not layered. So, I lean toward Rourke being on the money.
MrSuperheromoviefan - 11/7/2011, 7:25 AM
@Intruder - you would know.....
GodzillaKart - 11/7/2011, 7:26 AM
I would love to see a director's cut with the extra footage back in.
Wadey09 - 11/7/2011, 7:27 AM
i totally understand his frustration but why is he bringing it up now?
its like he's trying to get headlines instead of focusing on promoting Immortals.
granted, i wasn't there for the interview, but he is really letting Marvel have it.
is he trying to draw attention away from Immortals? or is Warner Bros. paying him to do this?
again, i believe his opions on this are real but imo, it shows on some level a lack of professionalism on everyone's part. because this is going to turn into another shouting match not only between the actors/studios but also between the fans.

this is where DC fans come in and say how epic TDKR is gonna be and The Avengers is gonna suck. and vice versa.
in some ways, this greatly disappointments me in how low we can sink.
BlindLemonShemp - 11/7/2011, 7:27 AM
hell yea rourke! sound off like ya mean it! damn marvel studios... at least they let loki be a good villain...
i actually liked rourke's vanko better than RDJ's Tony Stark in IM2... but maybe thats just me
VictorHugo - 11/7/2011, 7:28 AM
the movie novelization of "Iron MAN 2", was amazing, specially Ivan Vanko´s dialogue. But it´s hard to say it´s from the original script, or from Peter David´s writing.
RadicalDuck - 11/7/2011, 7:29 AM
He's got a few points, but at the end of the day, Tony Stark is the main character so obviously the focus is more on him. And yeah they could have looked at his character as well as Stark but then the movie would have been three/four hours long. You can't please everyone.
JordanKing - 11/7/2011, 7:30 AM
I'm on Team Rouke's side in this case. It's no secret that Marvel took too much control over the cast and director for this film, and it's shown in the final product.

Not a horrible film, but could have been so much better.
95 - 11/7/2011, 7:31 AM
Same way I felt.

If the guys who get PAID to do the movie don't like it...

Why should the audience PAY to see it?

CA:TFA was AWESOME, but I |wish| I got a refund for IM2.

I've seen Iron Man fan fics that were better than this... smh...
RorMachine - 11/7/2011, 7:33 AM
We don't know if he is exaggerating or not but we do know the movie wasn't very good. So looking at the evidence, why doubt him? Even Favreu said Marvel were too hands on with the final product.
MatchesMalone1989 - 11/7/2011, 7:35 AM
PREACH BROTHER!!!!!
MisterJay - 11/7/2011, 7:38 AM
nah...he is a good actor...but he accepted the role...that role! i mean..if he wanna do something else...then he shouldnt picked this one.... so stop crying Mickey your an actor ...and @JLA2014 haha dc fans do anything but cry? ....cmon i loved ironman , and ironman 2.... captain america is a great movie... ..so before speak think about the GL crap ... and your justice l. movie...o wait ..theres no jl movie xD.... bring the avengers !! ...haters gonna hate........
ZombieOverEasy - 11/7/2011, 7:38 AM
Marvel didn't want an awesome movie, they wanted a hype engine for Avengers. They knew it would sell enough because the first Ironman was so good. So [frick] having multi-layered characters, let's make sure we give Sam Jackson enough screen time to remind people we have Avengers coming out in a few years.

Not to say Ironman 2 was crap, I enjoyed it, just nowhere near as much as the first. It'd be nice to get a Director's Cut of the film on DVD/BluRay in the future to see how Favreau envisioned it.
MatchesMalone1989 - 11/7/2011, 7:38 AM
@Intruder

Yea we want to see War Machine and Iron Man Kick Ass. But We want to see them fighting a challenging battle. Not kill the villain in 30 seconds.
ThaMessenger07 - 11/7/2011, 7:38 AM
He isn't doing it to start sh!t... Rourke has always been like this, they asked him a question and he compared it to a situation he is familiar with. He just says what he wants and always has.
ThreeBigTacos - 11/7/2011, 7:40 AM
JLA2014's still butt hurt over Green Lantern haha

Marvel vs Rourke? Well that's a thin line. Yes Mickey could be 100% correct, but how do we know that he wanted to bring some thing the character needed? Yes he wanted his layers, but what if that completely changed the character? We see too many sympathetic bad guys, and it looks like that's what he wants. We've gotten that with far too many movie baddies.

I can't pick a side. Each one has their opinions and facts I guess.
spiderneil - 11/7/2011, 7:41 AM
marvel movies are far too cookie cutter.
iron man 1 aside, every last one of their movies is a paint by numbers, take no chances, formulaic, garden varity, average, commonplace, cut-and-dried, vanilla piece of cinema.

x-men first class in terms of character developement, plot and pacing BURIED thor and captain america
Fantine - 11/7/2011, 7:44 AM
Mickey should be glad of the work. He not, what you would call in "high demand."
RorMachine - 11/7/2011, 7:45 AM
Well, maybe I'm crazy but I went to see a good movie. Iron Man and War Machien can kick as much robot ass as they like, if it means [frick] all it may as well be a Transformers movie.
ThreeBigTacos - 11/7/2011, 7:46 AM
Ror: you don't like the Transformers movies? I'm not saying they're cinimatic gold, but I love having some mindless fun once in a while. I'm not saying Marvel should make mindless fun like Transformers either.
marvel72 - 11/7/2011, 7:50 AM
oh well mickey,iron man 2 is the worse marvel studio's movie to date & guess what you won't be back.

get over it butt hurt mickey.
RorMachine - 11/7/2011, 7:52 AM
No. I like mindless fun sometimes, but those movies (I liked the first one actually) are cynical, nonsensical, badly acted, badly scripted, trash. Great special effects and action sequences do not a good movie make when literally every other aspect of it is sub par.
BATMANx - 11/7/2011, 7:58 AM
Hey Mickey Rourke No cares what you think. Your mad because your not in the Avengers..

And Nobody cares about Whiplash.. Many wanted another villain not Whiplash
RorMachine - 11/7/2011, 7:59 AM
I don't hold Fav blameless at all, in fact after seeing Cowboys And Aliens I'm starting to think Iron Man 1 was..well, not a fluke..but maybe he peaked with it anyway. 2 was great up to a point, I think after the race track scene it started to lose it..then by the time Stark was walking around Pepper's office with a box of strawberries as we were supposed to be entering the final act I was actually bored. It was all over the place.
RyanLantern77 - 11/7/2011, 7:59 AM
Shut up and go play Lobo you leatherfaced shitbag
BIGBMH - 11/7/2011, 8:01 AM
...and then he made the Expendables.

I can understand what he is saying though. It sounds like he cared a lot and put a lot of work in that was thrown away.
kevberg - 11/7/2011, 8:02 AM
IM2 was decent, it only really fell apart at the end. Whiplash having an big bulky armor was maybe a bad choice. ( I think folks wanted to see him engage IM one on one more.) and the fight scene only lasted a couple minutes.

@intruder
IM 1 aslo had some improv ( ad libbing) . It works well sometimes, sometimes not. But THEROUX's script was bad.

I understand Mickeys frustration, but he was fine in it.
CBMfan001 - 11/7/2011, 8:03 AM
indeed iron man 2 was a big disappointment,i went to watch it the very first day coz how great the first movie was but i was left disappointed,while RDJ made the movie watchable,it felt like a long avengers trailer,it was obvious that marvel studios was interfering with the story of iron man 2 to make way for the avengers movie,sort of felt like spiderman 3,that the director has become a puppet of the studio,too many characters who were not properly utilized making them all unnecessary or more accurately uncaring in the end.the villain was just there coz a villain should be there but nothing significant.

i know marvel has been doing well very well in fact no doubt there,but remember we have only seen first movies of all marvel characters so far,the only sequel they made iron man 2,they really messed it up.they didn't try to retain the director of THOR showing that they seem to care less of continuing the quality,Jon left after iron man 2,ed Norton after giving us one of the best hulk movies left,so clearly there is a problem.the sequels will provide the test for marvel and so far they are one behind thanks to the poor show of iron man 2.

i have watched iron man more than 20 times but i cant watch iron man 2 like that coz it was boring,and feels unnecessary with no real story,only focus on introducing avengers characters.marvel has been very keen to get the launching platform right coz they know that is the key,and then later on even if they mess it up people will watch the sequels,after all how many poor sequels have out grossed their predecessor.i hope they will make a better effort with their other upcoming sequels.
heisei24 - 11/7/2011, 8:05 AM
get over it Rourke...
@LordDeathMan Ironman 1 sucked? lol
Spidey91 - 11/7/2011, 8:05 AM
I kinda gree with him,you can tell MARVEL STUDIOS took too much control of the movie (probably because it was the set-up for Thor and Cap movies),but if he didn't liked the role he could have turned it down.
ArtisticErotic - 11/7/2011, 8:08 AM
Marvel Studios puts out average movies at best, Marvel Studio movies are made for fanboys, that's is there target audience and so far the fanboys have loved it and general audience seems to like them as well.


Anyway Ironman 2 was total pile of crap that should never have been made.

Ironman 1 was decent not amazing but worth a watch.

Thor was lame
Captain America was good
Incredible Hulk was alight for what it was.

X-men first class is probably the best they've done and thats not even under Marvel Studio's.
MyInnerDork - 11/7/2011, 8:11 AM
So "Immortals" is NOT a mindless movie? I highly doubt that...
tazmaniak - 11/7/2011, 8:13 AM
I'm a really big fan of Rourke's, but I'm hoping this doesn't become a trend with him.He just did the same thing with his last movies, 13 and Passion Play.

"Q:You [and 50 Cent] are in a movie together, right?

A:A really bad movie, yeah.

Q:What?! Is it out?

A:No, it's so bad it can't get out.

Q:Tell me why you made it.

A:For the money.

Q:But you think the movie is bad.

A:Terrible.

Q:Why?

A:You have to watch it.

Q:What about your movie with Megan Fox and Bill Murray?

A:Terrible. Another terrible movie. But, you know, in your career and all the movies you make, you're going to make dozens of terrible ones.

Q:You called Megan Fox, like, one of the best actresses of all time.

A:That I worked with [smirk].

Q:That movie is getting limited release.

A:That's because it's not very good."

I mean, come on.You read the script, signed on for it and accepted a paycheck.Even if you think it's bad, aren't you obligated to not bash it before it comes out?If you're going to do it(which you shouldn't), at least wait years until after the film's come out and your comments won't affect the film.

The fact that he says he did it for the money says he initially knew it would be a bad film, so it's not like he thought those two would be good, but ended up being bad.He knew they'd be bad from the start.I'm sure plenty of actors do bad movies for the paycheck, but it's a really dick move to bash the film afterwards.

Not sure if this has any bearing on what he's saying about Iron Man, but it does speak a little to Rourke's character.Still love the guy, I just wish he'd hold back on his opinions sometimes.

Also, on another note, that line about nerds with a pocketful of money calling the shots was a little offputting, too.Because that's the thing we actually like about Marvel movies.Marvel people, who are nerds and care about the properties, are in charge of the films, as opposed to random execs at the other film studios, who don't have any real care for the characters.

Someone should tell Rourke that it's not a good idea to use the word "nerd" negatively when talking about comic book or genre films.I'm sure Favreau would be considered a nerd with a pocketful of money.And I'm not sure if Justin Theroux has a pocketful of money, but I'd classify him as a nerd, too.
bhorwith22 - 11/7/2011, 8:14 AM
When the studio takes away control, you get critically panned movies like Batman and Robin, Spider-Man 3, and Iron Man 2, because all the studio cares about is what will get them more money at the box office (explosions) Hopefully they have learned their lesson by now, because I am really looking forward to The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers, and The Amazing Spider Man.
PapaII - 11/7/2011, 8:18 AM
Bravo! Rourke said it all... don't need one more word! IM 2 could be MUCH better...that's a fact. Shame!

"Ed Norton, Terrance Howard and Mickey are at a bar drowning their sorrows over how they had it all"

Dude, what you're talking about? They're terrific actors, what a terrible loss!
1 2 3 4

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.