The film blogosphere was in joyous celebrations last week when it was announced that action genre favourite Shane Black had been hired to write and direct the third Iron Man film. Since then, Ain’t It Cool News caught up with the Lethal Weapon scribe, where he chatted briefly about some of the potential routes the third feature could take.

The most revealing of these was that apparently, the studio weren’t particularly happy with Iron Man 2, and the plan for next time around is to pit Tony Starke against more grounded, real world villains, instead of iron suits bashing the hell out of each other.

This would certainly take the franchise elsewhere (“Tom Clancy-thriller” is being banded around as an influence on the new direction) although will a Nolan-esque approach (which previous director Jon Favreau took a partial cue from anyway) really work here?

Although there isn’t currently any plans to feature the heroes from The Avengers line-up, as this film will take place chronologically after that Marvel ensemble, could the idea of trying to do a grittier, back-to-basics Iron Man create a tonally confusing experience, given the more fantastical characters (don’t forget – there’s a Norse god in there!) he’ll meet in next summer’s mash-up?

It’s early days yet of course, and Black’s involvement is a huge plus whatever the outcome, but there needs to be some real thought as to how this direction will work. The director is scheduled to meet with Robert Downey Jr. this week, so hopefully they will be attempting to iron out (ho ho) any issues like this.

Yorkshire born and raised Glenn Foster’s childhood dream was to work as a stunt man. When he was 10 his parents bought him a book called ‘Hollywood Stunt Man’ that was filled with inspiring images, and he was enthralled during his early teens watching a succession of American films and TV shows that featured the work of the men he read about in the book. He even went so far as to carefully recreate some of the book’s stunts with teenage pals; these were done carefully based on the information he gleaned, rather than as reckless teenage behaviour.

As he considered career options during his later teens, ‘stunt man’ was not something that guidance counsellors had on their lists or that he thought of as a legitimate career possibility. He became an outdoors instructor after a brief stint in the military, and by his early 20s was working as a rock climbing instructor in the Peak District. A rock climber friend asked if he could assist someone from London who needed to learn to climb as part of his training to join the British stunt registry, a prospect he found intriguing. As he trained and befriended the would be stunt man, Foster realised that he too could undergo the training required to join the registry, and thus his childhood dream might become a reality.

After a nearly 4 year training programme, Foster qualified to join the stunt registry in the late 1990s, a hugely fulfilling achievement in and of itself, and work in television and features followed in quick succession. When he landed a couple of weeks on Die Another Day in 2003 Foster felt that he had surpassed his dreams, as the Bond films are a personal touchstone for him. From there he went on to work on some of the biggest films of the oughties, including Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, Casino Royale and Sherlock Holmes, in which he was thrilled to also have a small speaking part, for as he put it ‘I got to say the word ‘Bond’ in a Bond movie, which was the icing on the cake’.

I spoke with Glenn on a blustery London February afternoon, while he sat basking in the early morning warmth in front of his house near Albuquerque, NM.

HuG: Are you dividing your time equally between the U.S. and the UK now?

GF: I can essentially be based anywhere, and I’m enjoying a newfound existence in the U.S.  My girlfriend is here, who I met while we were doing Due Date. I kind of fell in love with Albuquerque and New Mexico. I love the outdoors and the space the place has to offer, and the climate is just phenomenal. I’m sitting outside on the curb right now (HuG: at this point I could, on cue, hear birds in the background).

HuG: How did you first come to double for Robert Downey Jr. and how did it develop into a multi-film, ongoing relationship?

GF: I’d just finished filming Quantum of Solace and was coming off a pretty extensive run of films, including going from Dark Knight on to Quantum, which was 7 or 8 months of really hard work. I took some time out and went to France for the summer, riding my bike and enjoying French life while I became a local in my village there. I got a call to come back to the UK to double Robert Downey Jr. on a new Sherlock project, but I was having such a good time there, and it had been such a busy year already, that, well, I wasn’t hesitant as such but I wasn’t blown over by the prospect either, although of course it was an honour to be offered the chance to work with someone as iconic as Robert Downey Jr.

I was having such a good time in France that it was really going to have to be a big pull to get me to come back to work on Sherlock, and sure enough they talked me into it as it was a big pull, working with Guy Richie, Robert Downey, and Jude Law. It was a big movie, so in the end I said OK.

I was quite nonchalant about the whole thing as I’m not someone who gets star struck; we’re all professionals at the end of the day. We did some pretty big action sequences for the movie, and there was one week where we were doing some crazy things, and Robert came up to me in the corridor at the end of the week and said ‘hey, you’ve had a pretty big week this week, how was it all?’ I was my usual nonchalant self, and responded that yeah, it was good, it had been an enjoyable week and it all seemed to go well. I think he really liked that understated British approach, and the relationship basically started right there and then. He asked if I could work in the States, and I said I probably could if the paper work was sorted, and he then asked would I want to, and I said of course, I’d love that opportunity.

We left it at that and I didn’t think anything more about it, and he came and found me on set a few days later and said ‘So, you’re going to be doing Iron Man (2),’ and I was just like ‘WHAT??’ It just went from there, and I did Iron Man 2, and Due Date, and Sherlock 2 we just finished, and we’re set to start The Avengers in the next couple of months.

HuG: There are a LOT of stunt people listed in the credits of Due Date; what exactly did they all do? As the film’s a comedy there isn’t that much in the way of overt stunts, so were most of them drivers?

GF: We had sections of freeway locked down in New Mexico, with 20 or so drivers surrounding the film unit. At one point we had a 7 mile lock down near Albuquerque so we used stunt drivers to fill up the traffic scenes, and there’s also the chase sequence with the trailer and the Mexican Border Patrol truck.  There are also people who are there more for the safety element than strictly as stunt type people. There were days when 20 guys would be there doing something legitimately stunt orientated, like the car flip, so there were some pretty stunt heavy days. But it certainly does get lost within the movie and within the edit unless you’re aware of what it takes to construct those sequences. When the car comes off the bridge, there are construction workers all around that particular area leading up to it, and after the car comes off the bridge and onto the road below there are cars driving in and around that area. For a lot of that you couldn’t put your average member of the public/extra into that situation.

HuG: The profession is often divided into specialities, what are yours? What don’t you do and why?

GF:  I’ve pretty much made it my job to be physically capable of doing a lot of things.  I wouldn’t say I was particularly a specialist in any one area, but equally I wouldn’t say that I won’t attempt anything. If I know something is coming up on a movie I’ll spend a month or so training to build up a fairly good level of competency. Being attached to someone like Robert, his films are so varied that it’s good to have all around physical ability, so that’s really where I target myself, to be as adaptable as possible.

One area that I would be hesitant about going into in any great depth would be horses. I was never a big fan of horses growing up and there are people who have really mastered that, who really speak the language of horses and probably grew up with them and therefore have inbuilt intuition as to how they operate. I would be happy to let those people step up and take over.

HuG: Is there an age at which most stunt people retire? Obviously it depends on one’s level of continued fitness but people’s reflexes etc slow down regardless of how much they work to retain fitness.

GF: I don’t think so, it very much depends on the individual. It depends on how lucky you are with injuries, and how well you’ve managed to maintain yourself physically. I know a number of people who are still at the top of their game from a performing point of view in their late 40s both in the UK and in the U.S.  I would say that someone in their late 40s would probably not relish the prospect of doing the  sort of things we were probably doing in our early 20s, such as hitting concrete repeatedly. Any one of us will get up there and do it a few times, but obviously the older you get the more time it takes to recover from those things.  But there’s no reason why, if you’re fit and healthy and taking care of yourself, giving yourself time to recover and maintaining the joints and the muscles, there’s no reason why we can’t continue.  I personally feel no different physically at the age of 40 than I did when I was 28.  I have no real aches and pains when I wake up in the morning, and I still feel that I can do the sorts of things I did when I was in my mid to late 20s.

HuG: You’re a lucky man, considering what you do for a living. I guess to some extent it’s a combination of DNA and whatever else, right?

GF: I think as well it’s a lot to do with how much attention you pay to yourself physically when you’re younger, and I think that really sets the tone for your adulthood. I think certainly genetics play a major role, but if you establish that foundation at a young age and maintain it it stays with you, it becomes something that is so ingrained and so well established that it takes a lot longer for it to dissipate and disappear, and even with a period of inactivity you can still fire that motor up after a couple of weeks. The harder part is trying to establish that foundation or condition later in life, because if you didn’t have it when you were younger it’s a much more difficult process.

HuG: Tell me about what working on the Bond films means to you.

GF: To be part of the process of working with Daniel on Casino Royale and Quantum was pretty surreal, even when I think about it now if I really dwell on it. I was such a big Roger Moore fan during the ‘70s and of the films he was doing at the time. I’ve really got to kind of join the dots between the movies that I was watching then and the ones that I was actually being a part of, and really sort of make a conscious effort to think that it’s all part of the same thing. It’s very easy to become jaded on a day-to- day basis and a little bit complacent and accept it as just another day at work, but it’s a lot more than that. I’m very conscious to really prick myself on a fairly regular basis to be very appreciative and grateful for the world I find myself in.

HuG: I clearly recall thinking while watching the first Bourne film at the cinema in 2002 that I was watching a ‘new Bond,’ as it represented something that the Bond franchise was lacking at that stage.  Bond had become very moribund and kind of interchangeable with other action franchises like Die Hard.

When I saw Casino Royale in 2006, it was clear from the first vicious bathroom fight sequence how much the reimagining of Bond had been influenced by the Bourne franchise. What’s your take on that influence as someone who worked on both the Daniel Craig Bonds and on The Bourne Ultimatum?

GF: That was actually me in that fight sequence.  The buzz around at that particular time was that Casino Royale very much had to live up to what Bourne was establishing. It was a very conscious move on their part to being Daniel in and give it that edge, and that darker, more aggressive feel. It worked.

HuG: It sure did. Sometimes that’s all it takes to initiate change within a genre, one film that reimagines the style of a genre or the way its narrative is presented, and then imitation becomes the sincerest form of flattery.

GF: The business did it again with the reinvention of Sherlock Holmes.

HuG: The Batman films must have been quite extraordinary to work on.

GF: They were, especially the first one because it was shot, for the most part, entirely indoors at Cardington, which was a mind-blowing experience.  To be inside that old Zeppelin hanger with the streets of New York in front of you, roads and stop signs and monorails and skyscrapers, the whole thing situated in the unlikely location of Bedfordshire, it was very interesting.  It was also incredibly interesting to work for someone like Chris Nolan, who’s so in control of his environment and knows exactly what he wants.  It was an honour to have been part of that.

HuG: Have you ever witnessed or been party to an incident in which an actor insists on doing his own stunt or stunts, despite the fact that it’s clearly not a wise thing for the person a film may rest upon to put himself at risk?

GF: I haven’t witnessed it myself. I was aware of an actor who reacted in a seemingly unreasonable way at something that he was doing, resulting in him getting a bang to the arm. This was someone who was of very high stature at the time and he reacted in a very irrational, childish way, and stormed off leaving everybody sitting around looking at each other feeling sort of bewildered.

I’ve been very fortunate to have always had experiences with people who know their limits, and who seem to have their egos in check. They also appreciate that you’re there to do a job as much as they’re there to do a job, and if it’s not crucial to the action, i.e. you can’t really tell if it’s them or not, most of the time the actor will simply say ‘OK, it’s over to you’ and walk away from it and leave you to it.

Daniel Craig is not the biggest fan of heights, yet we had him doing some stuff on Quantum jumping out of windows towards the roofs of oncoming buses, and jumping gaps in the streets of Sienna. He really had to overcome quite a lot to be able to do it, really testing himself by getting out there and doing it. You can clearly see that it’s him doing those things, which is equally impressive. I’ve had a number of people ask me who did the Quantum bits in the streets of Sienna, and when I tell them it was Daniel they are really quite shocked.

As I say I have been pretty lucky not to have to deal with the egos. I do know a pretty funny story I was told by a stunt guy I know in the UK. He was introduced to an actor that he was going to be doubling and the actor basically took the stance when meeting this guy, he shook his hand and said ‘Yeah, I like to do all my own stunts,’ in a really serious tone, to which my friend responded ‘Yeah, I normally like to do all my own acting.’

Due Date is out on DVD and Blu-ray on February 28th

Due Date iPad Competition QUESTION 2:

Complete the following movie title:

‘Mad Max 2: The ____ Warrior’

Make a note of the answer and then click here to find the final question.

To find out more about the HeyUGuys iPad Due Date competition click here.

With the sights and sounds of the Superbowl trailer bonanza still ringing in our eyes and ears there’s never been a better time to throw out this rumour which pertains to the Marvelous mashup coming our way on the 4th of May next year in the form of The Avengers.

While most of the cast for the film is already known, indeed drawing from the other films in the Marvelverse allows for one of the most impressive ensemble casts in terms of box office clout, there’s a new name daubed on the walls of the rumour mill today – that of Chuck actress Yvonne Strahovski.

Comic Book Movie have found this snippet online and boldly asserted that the actress is lining herself up for the Joss Whedon directed Avengers movie as Ms. Marvel – here are the words,

Though it’s not often that we get the scoop on anything here, I’ve just received information from a protected source inside Marvel that points to Yvonne Strahovski being cast in the upcoming Avengers movie as Ms. Marvel.

Could it be true?

I, for one, have long hoped to see Yvonne crop up in a comic book movie. She’s got the action chops to easily pull it off and it was really just a matter of time before the right character came along.

Here’s a handy link to all things Ms. Marvel and while we wait for official confirmation, or the more likely long drawn-out silence broken only with the twitter spray of nay-sayers and supporters, here’s how you should be taking this news,

If those Zoolander fans out there can (blue) steel themselves away from work for a minute or two to read this, Ben Stiller has offered an updated as to the state of a sequel to the further adventures of the eponymous Derek Zoolander.

Talking to Empire about his next project (as producer on Richard Ayoade’s Submarine), Stiller has revealed that he and Tropic Thunder/Iron Man 2 co-scribe Justin Theroux have completed a script, and they’re waiting to see what the studio are looking to do with it.

“It’s ten years later and most of it is set in Europe. I don’t want to give away too much, but it’s basically Derek and Hansel ten years later – though the last movie ended on a happy note a lot of things have happened in the meantime. Their lives have changed and they’re not really relevant anymore. It’s a new world for them.”

He also adds that another supporting comedic actor from the original, who has since gone on to forge a huge career of his own, is also interested in returning:

“Will Ferrell is written into the script and he’s expressed interest in doing it. I think Mugatu is an integral part of the Zoolander story, so yes, he features in a big way.”

So there you have it. Stiller and Co. all seen to be pretty eager to reteam, so let’s hope this sequel gets to strut it’s stuff on the cinematic catwalk sometime soon.

In the meantime, Submarine (which made a big splash at last year’s Sundance) is released in UK cinemas on March 18.

The DVD/Blu-ray of Iron Man 2 hits US shops on the 28th of September and UK shops on the 25th of October. Ahead of that we have seen a few of the extras appear online but today we bring you an extra missing from either the US or UK release.

This wonderful extra is Tom Waits’ very illustrative theme song for Iron Man 2 which was sadly rejected.

Tom Waits, for those unfamiliar, is an very exceptional singer/songwriter/multi-instrumentalist/painter/actor and is also very famous for his particularly distinct gravely voice.

Check out the video embedded below.

Okay, okay, so it’s not really a rejected Tom Waits theme but the work of Adam Buxton who jokingly describes it thusly:

Mysteriously absent from the Iron Man 2 DVD extras; this early attempt at a theme tune was rendered by legendary gravel voiced song barker, Tom Waits. Jon Favreau gave Tom the shoe of a tramp and a rusty euphonium for his trouble, so there was no bad feeling.

Iron Man fan, RDJandSuzieQ has somehow got their hands on this alternate opening for Iron Man 2. The rather spectacular opening sequence of the movie saw Tony Stark aka, Robert Downey Jr. fly out of a C-130 and fly down with some serious style into the Stark Exposition.

As you’ll see from this opening, it could have been a little different with Stark going through some serious nerves before he flew down with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) having to console and encourage him. It was all a bit silly to be honest and I’m glad Marvel / director Jon Favreau didn’t use this version.

Check it out below to see for yourselves. Iron Man 2 is released on Blu-ray and DVD 25th October and you can pre-order it here.

Thanks to SlashFilm for the heads up on this one.

Ever since Scarlett Johansson took on the role of Black Widow in Jon Favereau’s Iron Man 2, film fans have been speculating whether the character will star in her very own spin-off film.

Well, it seems Marvel have now answered that very question.

At a press conference to promote the US Blu-ray and DVD release of Iron Man 2, Marvel’s Kevin Feige confirmed that a Black Widow spin-off film is already in the works. He said,

“We’ve already started discussions with Scarlett [Johansson] about the idea of a solo movie and have begun putting together concepts, but ‘The Avengers’ comes first.”

There, you now have your confirmation. Speculation can now shift to rumors about villains, casting and when the film will actually be released. However, with The Avengers not being released until May 2012, don’t expect it anytime soon.

How do you feel about the news? Are you looking forward to a stand-alone Black Widow film? Do you think Scarlett Johansson has what it takes to carry a high-risk superhero film, or will it end up like Catwoman?

The Playlist reported this.

Given the incredible effect Toy Story 3 has had on the market since release (both in terms of box office and merchandise), it isn’t exactly surprising that Variety are reporting that Disney have announced soaring profits for the third quarter of the year.

Incredibly, the studio posted profit figures of $123 million compared with a $12 million loss in the same period last year. Overall, revenue rose 16% to $10 billion, while profits increased 37% to $2.5 billion.

The uplift has been pinpointed as being down to the healthy box office returns of Iron Man 2 and the aforementioned Pixar offering, as well as healthy DVD and Blu-Ray sales for Alice in Wonderland (despite the, I think, unfair critical reaction). The big man on campus at the Mouse House, Robert Iger declared in a call to investors (who could probably be heard audibly unclenching in relief after usually more gloomy news) that their strategic focus on branded fare is paying off well for the studio.

The profits have even been healthy enough to take the hit of disappointing domestic purses for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and The Sorceror’s Apprentice (though the relatively impressive foreign performance of PoP will probably have helped soften that blow).

The figures look to be vindication for the studio’s decision to experiment with an early release of Alice (a month quicker than usual), as the swift release allowed the studio to cement already strong figures with the almost $67 million that the release’s three versions have brought in since June 1st.

Despite those impressive home release figures for Alice, Iger confirmed that Disney wouldn’t be resting on its laurels, having identified the DVD market as a difficult prospect:

The DVD market is challenged and will continue to be challenged… You’re dealing with a title-to-title environment. It’s very title driven. Collectability doesn’t seem to be as important as it once was other than for certain brands like Pixar.

In response, Iger confirmed that the studio would be actively seeking new approaches to attempt to continue their rude financial health. He said that Disney “will become aggressive in experimenting with new windows, including digital” to try and encourage more of a return out of the home entertainment market going forward.

According to Variety, Iger remained tip-lipped on the subject of the sale of Miramax, other than saying that the $660 million sale to the Ron Tutor headed consortium “reflects a focus on maximising our assets and devoting resources to branded entertainment with franchise potential” and adding that the sale will only have a minimal impact of future Disney profits.

Also within the Disney stable, ESPN and ABC both posted profits with the sports network’s performance buoyed by an increase of 31% in ad sales from their World Cup coverage, and ABC by overseas sales of Lost, Ghost Whisperer and Castle.

Further business reflected a relative uplift in attendance at the company’s theme parks, though it is still incomparable to periods before the economic downturn of last year, and overall the picture was relatively conservative:

Although profits decreased 8% to $477 million, revenue for Disney’s parks and resorts division increased 3% during the quarter to $2.8 billion. While attendance at Disney’s overseas parks, including Disneyland Paris and Hong Kong Disneyland, was stronger than expected, ticket sales in Orlando and Anaheim was still down 3% and 4% respectively, while the additional of a new ship to Disney’s cruise business also ate into profits.

However, the pricey addition of new attractions like the World of Color light and water show is “bringing record crowds” to Disney’s California Adventure park in Anaheim, Iger said. This month, Disney also raised ticket prices at Walt Disney World and Disneyland to move away from the practice of discounting to attract parkgoers.

Aside from the movie arms of the Mouse House, it looks like the company is enjoying the greatest return from its games wing. Following the recent acquisition of Playdom for $563 million and mobile gamemaker Tapulous, plus this week’s launch of  “World of Cars Online,” revenue from interactive media soared 74% to $197 million. Losses in the division were also cut by $10 million to $65 million against the same quarter a year ago.

Going forward, while remaining in the console game market- creating Disney-branded games across all formats, like the recently successful Toy Story 3 tie-in, Disney will devote more money to the burgeoning online gaming business, which Iger claimed will grow more than 30% a year:

We’re all aware of the rapid growth of social networks and the huge popularity of games on them… We feel it’s essential for us to have a presence. We now have a diversified games business to meet consumer interests.

So times are looking good at the minute for the company, and with the intelligent approach to new markets that Iger has outlined, they can only go from strength to strength.

In these times of  financial uncertainty, at least one Hollywood studio is still bringing in the bucks.

Variety is reporting that media conglomerate Viacom (who own Paramount Pictures) have posted a 40% profit in the past quarter.

This has been partly achieved by international  box office results for Iron Man 2 and animated features How to Train Your Dragon and Shrek Forever After (both of which are shared with DreamWorks), helping lift theatrical revenues by 10%.

Viacom chairman 87-year-old Sumner Redstone (you may remember him famously severing ties with Tom Cruise’s production company after the infamous ‘couch-hopping’ incident a few years back) has stated that the “the horizon is brighter than it has been in a long time.”

This sound all positive, but when you read that revenue from DVD sales has fallen by 43% in the same quarter, perhaps it’s not ready to break out in wild celebrations yet.

Still, The Last Airbender has managed to make a so-so profit at the US box-office so far – quite a feat considering the critical reception it received (an appalling 8% on Rotten Tomatoes), and with Steve Carell comedy Dinner for Schmucks doing well on it’s release last week and another Dreamworks team-up (Megamind) due in November, maybe Viacom are looking at brighter days ahead.

So, with only hours before the Marvel movie panel there’s a report from Deadline that the deal is done and Marvel are hoping to haul Ruffalo in front of the waiting world when The Avengers gather at Comic Con.

This would bring the nasty saga of Marvel’s Hulk casting to a close with the third actor to play the character in a decade. I guess we’ll see…

Previously on HeyUGuys…

Comic Con is the place to stand up and champion your latest movie, quash or confirm rumours, or show off your latest hired gun to the gathered faithful, and Marvel know well the power of San Diego

So far we’ve traversed the Edward Norton/Marvel poppycock parade and we know that the name of Mark Ruffalo was thrown into the rumour hurricane and all eyes are now on Comic Con to see if a surprise guest makes an appearance this weekend concerning the forthcoming Avengers film.

Joss Whedon confirmed what we all knew (and hoped) to be true, that he’ll be directing the film for Marvel and The Wrap are stoking the fires and talking up the supposedly furious negotiations between Marvel and Ruffalo’s people going on behind the Comic Con curtain.

To unveil a new Hulk at Comic Con, and particularly if it turns out to be Ruffalo, would be a great coup for Marvel and go some way in regaining some credibility after the notorious statement from Kevin Feige regarding Norton’s future in the Marvel universe. According to the report above there’s a sticking point regarding the number of films Ruffalo would be signing up for, but time is not on Marvel’s side.

It won’t kill the film if Ruffalo (or whoever) isn’t announced at Comic Con, not by a long shot,  but there’s a golden opportunity to put their new man front and centre in front of the fans.

So, while there’s absolutely no confirmation there’s plenty of potential to excite fans, and that’s what Comic Con is all about…

With the fallout of the Edward Norton/Marvel nonsense from earlier this week one question still remained – who would Marvel hire to play Bruce Banner and his not-so-jolly green giant alter ego, the Hulk?

News from Deadline puts the name of Mark Ruffalo in the ring and this is bound to get people talking as Ruffalo seems like a great fit physically but he’s a pretty decent actor as well, I enjoyed him a lot in Zodiac, The Brothers Bloom and Shutter Island.

Ruffalo would become the third incarnation of Bruce Banner in the last decade and given the debacle between Norton and Marvel he’ll step into some pretty big (and soiled) shoes for the Avengers movie.

More news, hopefully some sort of confirmation, as it breaks.

Discrepancies between film trailers and the final cut released to the theaters is nothing new.  It’s been done for as long as I can remember.  But for some reason, it seems to be happening a lot lately.  As it stands right now, I can name three films in the last three months to have scenes in the trailers that were either not present, or altered in some way in the final cut.

The first film this year that I really noticed this happening with was Iron Man 2.  As it got to the part in the trailer that I recognized I thought, “Oh right, this is the scene from the trailer.” Then lo and behold, the scene passed without showing what was shown in the trailer.  The scene I’m speaking of was the scene between Tony and Pepper before he jumps out of the plan to land at the expo.  Disappointment ensued.

The second film actually had a couple of scenes missing.  Get Him to the Greek was a surprise hit for me and I really ended up liking it.  A couple of the scenes in the trailer that I wanted to see were noticeable absent and again, disappointment ensued. The scene that shows Aldous driving a little car through a house, the scene where he wakes up Aaron to go jogging and the scene showing the two of them exercising in the park were all missing.  These were scenes that I wanted to see.  They looked funny on their own but I was hoping to actually see them in the proper context.  Alas, foiled again.

The third film didn’t so much leave something out but rather altered a scene specifically for the preview.  The Predators trailer has a scene showing Adrien Brody’s character being lit up by the laser sites of the Predators weapons.  There’s over a dozen sites locked on him but when we get to that scene in the film, the number drops significantly.  The trailer give the viewer a false hope that they will see a lot of predators, when in fact, the movie actually only shows a few.  It’s a tad disappointing.  While researching this I came across an article on SciFi Squad regarding this trailer.  They had a quote from Robert Rodriguez stating that this was in fact done on purpose.

“A lot of my movies have trailer shots that I shoot just for the trailer,” Predators producer Robert Rodriguez told MTV, “so that people haven’t seen the movie already but they get the feeling of what it’s supposed to represent.”

I find this to be a bit of false advertising.  If a scene gets cut out completely, that’s one thing.  Trailer and teasers are being released so early these days that you can’t always account for what happens in the editing process.  Sometimes a scene released early may not make the film as cohesive so it gets cut.  Blatantly altering a scene to build it up is something else entirely.  Don’t promise me a steak then sell me a burger.

I can understand the studios wanting to build up these films as much as possible and the trailers are designed for that purpose.  I know this issue isn’t likely to be fixed.  There are too many variables to take into account.  But three films in three months is a little much.  I’ve heard that one of the first trailers for The Last Airbender has missing scenes as well but I can’t comment on that personally as I have yet to see the film.  If you know of any other examples, leave us a comment.

We previously brought you the news that Edward Norton would not be The Hulk in the forthcoming Avengers film and then the official statement from Marvel Studios President of Production Kevin Feige.

I raised a few points about Feige’s statement in my post including highlighting what appeared to be criticisms of Norton. It looks like I wasn’t the only one who thought the statement contained thinly veiled criticisms. Today, Norton’s agent Brian Swardstrom of WME issued the following statement, again via HitFix:

This offensive statement from Kevin Feige at Marvel is a purposefully misleading, inappropriate attempt to paint our client in a negative light.  Here are the facts:  two months ago, Kevin called me and said he wanted Edward to reprise the role of Bruce Banner in The Avengers.  He told me it would be his fantasy to bring Edward on stage with the rest of the cast at ComiCon and make it the event of the convention.  When I said that Edward was definitely open to this idea, Kevin was very excited and we agreed that Edward should meet with Joss Whedon to discuss the project.  Edward and Joss had a very good meeting (confirmed by Feige to me) at which Edward said he was enthusiastic at the prospect of being a part of the ensemble cast.  Marvel subsequently made him a financial offer to be in the film and both sides started negotiating in good faith.  This past Wednesday, after several weeks of civil, uncontentious discussions, but before we had come to terms on a deal, a representative from Marvel called to say they had decided to go in another direction with the part.  This seemed to us to be a financial decision but, whatever the case, it is completely their prerogative, and we accepted their decision with no hard feelings.

We know a lot of fans have voiced their public disappointment with this result, but this is no excuse for Feige’s mean spirited, accusatory comments.  Counter to what Kevin implies here, Edward was looking forward to the opportunity to work with Joss and the other actors in the Avengers cast, many of whom are personal friends of his.  Feige’s statement is unprofessional, disingenuous and clearly defamatory.  Mr. Norton talent, tireless work ethic and professional integrity deserve more respect, and so do Marvel’s fans.

Brian Swardstrom
WME

It sounds from this statement like things fell apart because of money and it is interesting to hear that Marvel and Whedon were positive about Norton reprising his role. Swardstrom also seems to confirm the plans that many have suspected Marvel have for the entire Avengers cast to ensemble onstage at this year’s Comic-Con. It’s now likely that this might be the first time we find out who the new Hulk is. This is a tough prospect for an actor to stand up on stage in front of a crowd probably annoyed about this Norton controversy. Let’s hope Marvel make a good choice.

Obviously the above statement is coming from Norton’s agent and not Norton directly but I think it’s safe to say it’s unlikely Norton and Marvel will be working together again, at least for quite some time, and I expect to hear more about this story as the drama continues to play out. We will, of course, bring you further updates when we have them.

Yesterday I reported on the news that Norton was not set to play The Hulk in the upcoming Avengers film. HitFix, who were the first to hear this rumour, now have the official confirmation.

I know a lot of people were hoping that this news wasn’t true but sadly it is. I speculated that the reasoning may be money, as did a lot of other bloggers, but Marvel Studios President of Production Kevin Feige denies this in his official statement (although that doesn’t mean it’s not the reason).

Below is the official word from Feige (courtesy of HitFix):

We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks.

A couple of interesting things to note from this statement:

• Feige claims the decision is “rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members” – Norton doesn’t?
• “a name actor” – This is counter to the claims yesterday that Marvel were looking for an unknown. Doubtful we’ll see a host of names floated as they were with Captain America as the announcement is imminent…
• Announcement in the coming weeks – Comic-Con starts the 22nd of July.
• “The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble” – Fiege sounds almost like he’s criticizing Norton here, suggesting he’s not a team player. He could also be hinting that The Hulk is one of The Avengers (at least to begin with).
• He mentions Scarlett Johansson’s name in reference to The Avengers – although everyone thinks she’s in The Avengers film I’m pretty sure this hasn’t been officially confirmed yet.

Okay, that’s enough over analyzing of a short statement for now. What do you guys think?

Drew McWeeny over at HitFix has the exclusive on this one, bringing the news that Edward Norton will not reprise the Hulk role that he made his own in the 2008 film, The Incredible Hulk.

It seems clear that Edward Norton has been keen to play Bruce Banner/The Hulk again but Marvel has not been forthcoming with an offer.

Drew states the following about The Avengers film in his piece:

According to Marvel sources, the company has decided that they are going to cast “an unknown” to play Bruce Banner and The Hulk in the film.

Now the first thing that springs to my mind is that perhaps Bruce Banner is going to spend the bulk of the film as The Hulk (a CGI Hulk) and therefore execs may think that they do not need to bring back the possibly expensive Norton to play role again. Even a few minutes though of Bruce Banner not played by Norton would be a bit jarring as it would be a break from the continuity of the recent Marvel films. My impression was that Marvel were keen to build a Marvel film continuity with The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 1 and 2, Captain America, Thor and eventually The Avengers film and recasting any of the key actors seems like a misstep in this plan.

If a new actor is brought in to play Banner/The Hulk this will be the third actor in less than ten years to play the role on the big screen. Isn’t this rebooting/recasting getting a little out of hand?

There is superhero precedence here though as the role of Rachel, played by Katie Holmes in Batman Begins was played by Maggie Gyllenhaal in the sequel, The Dark Knight. In this instance, in my opinion, it was a change for the better but replacing Norton? I’m not so sure.

Although not yet fully confirmed it is widely known that Joss Whedon has been placed in charge of the forthcoming Avengers film and rumours are rife that there will be big announcements about the film at this year’s San Diego Comic-Con. Stay tuned for further updates.

Last weekend’s big movies made money, with The Karate Kid doing particularly well against its production budget. However, compared to some of the numbers seen over the Spring, the Summer box office appears to be declining, with the A-Team particularly falling far short of expectations. Usually, Summer is the big seller, and there has been no shortage of big budget blockbusters. Last year saw big budget movies making the lions share of the cash, with the biggest wins at the box office scored by the movies that spent the most, both in terms of production costs and marketing budget.

So why does the trend appear to be slowing? For the last twelve months, we’ve seen movies adapted from popular licenses outgrossing star vehicles and innovative filmmaking. Star Trek, GI: Joe, Terminator: Salvation, Transformers 2, the list is endless. Some ‘original’ movies made a lot of money. But 2012 and Avatar both had huge budgets and weak storylines. Alice in Wonderland, Iron Man 2 and Clash of the Titans have made the big money in the first third of this year, but all suffered poor review scores, and left audiences disappointed. The only film that has made a lot of money, whilst also attaining critical success has been How To Train Your Dragon.

So far this summer, we have seen Prince of Persia, The A-Team, Sex and the City and even Shrek Forever After fall below projections. Persia was a big budget family Disney film, and the other three were based on popular franchises. But audiences have stayed away. Are movie-goers finally growing tired of being disappointed? Are they now paying more attention to movie review scores, in light of recent ticket price hikes? Or are they just sick of going to see poorly conceived, rehashed stories?

I don’t particularly think that people are bored of big popcorn movies, i just think there have been too many. There have been some big releases this past spring, and when you think how much the cost of a typical family trip to the movies has increased recently, you can see why the pace has slowed. With the cost of 3D movies rising considerably, for two adults and their 2.4 children to go see a 3D movie, they could almost have gone to see two regular movies for the same cost last year. We’d all love original, interesting stories with great movies attached, but there will always be a big percentage of the mainstream audience that will only journey out to the cinema to see something immediately recognisable, mistakenly thinking an adaptation of an existing property will be a guarantee of quality.

As far as the current economy goes, the boom that box office takings received last year were linked by many to the global recession. A couple of trips to the cinema were seen as a cheap entertainment, compared with some other options. It may just be that now the economy has settled, and people have grown bored of living on a budget, that they have decided to go on that holiday this year, or spend a bit of money on that new car, or home extension. The factors that caused last year’s record attendances may now be working against the industry.

It may instead just be that they are saving their money for Toy Story 3. The Toy Story series is hugely popular, and with the critical acclaim that Pixar’s interim movies Wall-E and Up have received, their latest movie is one of the most highly anticipated films of the year. The outlook is good, with currently a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 100% fresh. Make no mistake, Buzz and Woody are well placed to make huge amounts of money, and the third Toy Story movie could easily become the highest grossing movie of the year so far.

If, however, the reason that movies like Prince of Persia and Sex and the City have failed is because audiences are starting to crave something more, a story with far more substance, Christopher Nolan’s Inception may be the big beneficiary. No-one knows how the director’s follow-up to The Dark Knight will fare financially. Common sense dictates that it will enjoy only modest box office success. A cerebral storyline, actors rather than stars, and the lack of an already established brand identity all suggest that big audiences will not be drawn in. But if they really are looking for something different, a story and plot that are a bit more compelling, maybe Inception will surprise when numbers come in. The Dark Knight made record amounts at the time, and whilst there were many factors, including the popularity of the character, and the quality of the preceding Batman Begins, it may be that the words ‘from the director of The Dark Knight’ on the poster will be enough to carry that momentum through.

With business slow so far, aside from Toy Story 3 it is difficult to see where the big money is going to roll in at cinemas for the rest of the year. The big budget blockbusters have already arrived, and movies like Predators and The Expendables look to struggle based on the performance of similar movies like The A-Team and The Losers. This year has seen the family market contributing the most money, with Alice in Wonderland and How to Train Your Dragon as the biggest success stories so far. There aren’t too many big family films on the horizon, and it is entirely possible that this year’s final numbers will be down on last year’s record takings.

It’ll be interesting to see in the coming months which movies will win each weekend. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse looks to be the only certainty for big money, and following the critical mauling of the last installment, maybe even that isn’t guaranteed. There are a few months of Summer left, the time when the big money is made, then we go into the traditional quieter Autumn period, when the Oscar contenders tend to filter out. If it is really the case that audiences are on the verge of becoming more discerning, maybe that’s when the money will start to come in again.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Fresh from helping Carey Mulligan with An Education and soon to be seen in the world of Tamara Drewe the rising star of Dominic Cooper may soar new heights if the news coming out from Salon today is confirmed – Cooper is set to play Howard Stark in the Joe Johnston directed Captain America: The First Avenger movie.

It’s barely noticeable in Salon’s interview, almost resigned to a footnote but for fans of the converging Marvel Universe the news of a relatively big actor taking on this role means that we’re sure to see a lot of Stark Snr in the Captain America film.

John Slattery played the part in Iron Man 2 and his role was a pivotal one and I’m sure everyone noticed the tarnishing of the Captain America shield in Stark’s laboratory so the lines are already being drawn.

As you can imagine, we get sent an awful lot of emails to HeyUGuys. I promise you that we (or at least I) read every single one of them and although often we’re unable to promote whatever it is that has been sent through, we do really value all your emails. You can email us at mouthoff@heyuguys.co.uk.

Anyway, moving on……

Every so often, someone will send us something in which really catches our attention and in the case of Sam Gilbey, that’s exactly what happened. He’s created what can only be described as something wonderful. In his spare time, he’s created this hand drawn digital illustrated poster for Jon Favreau’s Iron Man 2. He used digital pencil (Wacom pen and tablet) and drawing application Painter and then did all the  colours and effects in Adobe Photoshop.

Sam lives in Bedford, (about 50 miles north of London) and he started drawing superheroes for fun from the early age of 4. Since then, he hasn’t looked back as you’ll see from the artwork below and from the links which I’ve placed in the next paragraph. His attention to details in the Iron Man 2 poster is just wonderful and although I don’t know too much about art, I know what I like, and I very much like this!

Although this post focuses on the Iron Man 2 poster, have a look at some of the other art which Sam has created. I LOVE this Clint Eastwood drawing and Jon is loving this Woody Allen one but by far and away my favourite is this one from Hot Fuzz. It’s simply awesome! Sam is a big fan of Drew Struzan who film poster fans or movie fans in general will know has created some of the most iconic movie posters ever including Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future (check out the entire Drew Struzan collection here) and even The Goonies which obviously we have a vested interest in (if you don’t know why, watch The Goonies to find out!!). You’ll see a similar style to that of Struzan when you look at Sam’s work but Sam really does have his own style and I love it!

Sam isn’t selling prints of this particular piece, but lots of his other work is available, so take a look and seen if there’s something that you’d like on your wall, head over to Sam’s website here or you can follow and get in touch with him on his twitter account @SamGilbey. You can see a higher resolution version of the final poster on Flikr here. High quality prints are available for most of his work so get in touch and fill up your wall space with something awesome!

Check out the images below and visit Sam’s site to get the full run-down on how this was achieved….

Jon Favreau must be pleased. Iron Man 2 is garnering pretty positive reviews across the board and with the Marvel momentum rising in its wake the director is already looking to the future.

With Thor and Captain America among the films slated for released in the near future of the Marvelverse, and with The Avengers film in the capable hands of Joss Whedon coming soon after, Favreau admits in an interview with MTV that the divergent tones and character strands of each film will have their impact on a third Iron Man film.

‘Iron Man 3,’ to pay it off, there’s so much left to understand about what the world is going to be like then…You’ve got ‘Thor,’ ‘Captain America,’ ‘Avengers’ all happening with different directors before ‘Iron Man 3,’ and that’s all going to affect ‘Iron Man 3.

It could be said that the unexpected success of Favreau’s first encounter with Tony Stark helped Marvel’s foundation for their film universe to launch, and Favreau understands the difficulties in maintaining the ‘world’ of Iron Man when it has to adhere to the other films from the studio.

If you read the interview one gets the sense that, while being rightly protective of his franchise, Favreau is resigned to waiting it out and see how the other films fare, in terms of success and what unique elements they bring to bear on his next Iron Man film.

He did drop one name into the mix when asked about Iron Man 3, and that The Mandarin, who Favreau would want to play the villain on the piece.

You’ve got to do The Mandarin…The problem with the Mandarin is that the way it’s depicted in the comic books, you don’t want to see that. He has 10 magical rings — that just doesn’t feel right for our [franchise]…So it’s either tech-based, or the rings are not really rings. But maybe with Thor and all those others, you’ll introduce magic to that world and it won’t seem so out of place.

Interesting times for Marvel, as Iron Man 2 marks the initiation of their second wave of movies, all eyes are on what happens next, and with Branagh’s Thor, Joe Johnston’s Captain America and Whedon’s Avengers currently inspiring salivation from comic book fans, this will be a very interesting wait for Iron Man 3.

Robert Downey Jr has had a very up and down (and up again) career, and whilst he has been hugely popular with a large set of fans for the duration, his fall from grace meant that he wasn’t a big box office draw for most of it. This has changed in the last couple of years. His charismatic and comedic performance was a big part of the reason for the first Iron Man’s success, and also contributed to Tropic Thunder’s decent numbers.

Then over Christmas Sherlock Holmes shocked the industry by making a huge amount of money. Holmes isn’t the most exciting of properties, director Guy Ritchie was coming off of a series of flops, and co-star Jude Law could never be considered a big seller (as evidenced by Repo Men). This means that the presence of Downey was the main driving force behind the movie’s financial success. Is he the last of the big box office stars, or does he signal the return of the bankable actor?

 Last year’s box office draws were big licenses, not big stars. Consider the highest grossing movies of 2009. There’s no denying Robert Pattinson is hugely popular with a particular set of fans. But this popularity is down to his association with the Twilight franchise, so the success of New Moon can’t reasonably be attributed to his presence, it is actually the other way around. Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen was the highest grossing film of last year, but this could actually be considered to be despite Shia Labeouf’s appearance rather than because of it. He has his fans, but just as many can’t stand him, and the performance of Jennifer’s Body rules out any influence Megan Fox could be said to have had. The other big grossers, Star Trek, GI Joe and 2012 featured casts that were almost B-list, so their success is surely down to property recognition, marketing and blockbuster appeal. There is no denying money goes to money, and that was certainly the big theme last year.

 Back in the eighties and early nineties, there was a set of actors considered to be superstars. Action heroes like Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger were paid a huge amount of money, because the movies they starred in did big business at the box office. When these actors went on to try different types of movies, however, their fan bases didn’t follow them. Leading men like Tom Cruise, Kevin Costner and Mel Gibson were given great power because of their popularity, but they all suffered high profile failures, and the illusion was shattered. It seems clear now that it was the types of movies these actors made, as much as the stars themselves that drew audiences in. The notion of the box office superstar was a fallacy.

 How about the new generation of ‘big names’? Sam Worthington starred in Terminator: Salvation and Avatar last year, both of which drew hundreds of millions of dollars. So were all the people who went to see Clash of the Titans paying to see Worthington? Or the 3D action? Disney’s next big tentpole is Prince of Persia, but lead actor Jake Gyllenhaal, though respected, has never been in financially successful movies, and his last movie Brothers made less than $40M at the worldwide box office. Anyone could have been cast as the star of Prince of Persia, it will make a lot of money regardless.

 The man considered to be the last big bankable star, the actor who could guarantee big box office was Will Smith. But Big Willie was smart. By his own admission, he noticed that the highest grossing movies throughout his childhood were big sci-fi movies, so he followed a formula for his career. Save the world in one big blockbuster movie, then take on a smaller personal part for the next. By alternating like this, he remained a huge star whilst making movies on a regular basis that didn’t take in a huge amount of money. Whilst smaller personal project The Pursuit of Happyness made hundreds of millions, his last dramatic picture Seven Pounds performed disappointingly, and his most personal project of all, his Ali biopic, made a loss.

 This is borne out by Downey himself. Yes, his movies have made a lot of money in the last couple of years, but not his low profile drama The Soloist. His presence wasn’t enough to draw audiences in, and that is clearly proof that even the hottest stars can only sell a movie with a big marketing push to back it up. The other ‘bankable’ star still plying his trade is Johnny Depp. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies were hugely successful, and sold almost singularly on the presence of Depp and his massively popular Jack Sparrow character. This year’s highest grossing movie to date, Alice in Wonderland, also starred Depp. But his appearance in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus didn’t help it make any dent in the pockets of the movie going public.

 The notion of guaranteed box office stars is crumbling. Maybe the bankable box office star NEVER existed, and movie studios have been throwing money away for years on huge pay packets for big name actors. Based on the casting of last year’s hits 2012, Star Trek, GI Joe etc.. Hollywood may actually be beginning to wise up to this. Why pay out $20M plus for a successful actor with a huge ego, when that money can be better spent on additional marketing, the true star of any tentpole movie. There’s no doubting Iron Man II will make a whole lot of money this weekend, and i personally believe the presence of Robert Downey Jr is definitely a factor. I’ve seen the movie, and the performance and sheer presence of Downey elevates the movie. However, i can’t help also feeling that the $100M+ spent on marketing is a bigger factor, and if his paycheck had been instead used on a shoddy post-production 3D conversion, Iron Man 2 would make just as much money. And that is really a very sad thought.

Bazmann – You can follow me on twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann