Yah, I love me some RDJ but give someone else a chance. There are tons of actors who are primed for a big break that could have stepped into the role of Doom.
Not to mention that RDJ is stepping into another mask dominated role.
Doom's aesthetic/frame IIRC is also much more Hemsworth than RDJ, no?
I wonder how a Viggo Mortensen would do?
Or Michael Blomkvist?
They could bulk him up like they do Homelander in the Boys but yeah, I'm not a fan of bringing RDJ back.
On the topic of Deadpool & Wolverine, it is great and the marketing campaign did a fantastic job of not giving everything away.
Ooh, "Eric the vampire" Skaarsgard would be an inspired Doom!
Homelander in the Boys
Vic has to be pretty.
Has to have the biggest ego.
Has to be f*cking scary.
Antony Starr please.
Report: Marvel Threw Down Serious Cash to Bring RDJ Back For Avengers: Doomsday
A new reports suggests Marvel paid Robert Downey, Jr. "significantly more" than $80 million dollars to return to the MCU.That is just crazy.
Adjusted for inflation, that's more than the budget for the first Blade.
If you google it, RDJ's already made between $500 and $600 million from Marvel.
Still wanted Charles Dance
Nevin73 wrote:Homelander in the Boys
Vic has to be pretty.
Since when?
Top_Shelf wrote:Nevin73 wrote:Homelander in the Boys
Vic has to be pretty.
Since when?
Kirby further described Doom as being "paranoid", wrecked by his twisted face and wanting the whole world to be like him.[17] Kirby went on to say that "Doom is an evil person, but he's not always been evil. He was [respected]…but through a flaw in his own character, he was a perfectionist."[18] At one point in the 1970s, Kirby drew his interpretation of what Doom would look like under the mask, giving Doom only "a tiny scar on his cheek".[19] Due to this slight imperfection, Doom hides his face not from the world, but from himself.[19] To Kirby, this is the motivation for Doom's vengeance against the world; because others are superior due to this slight scar, Doom wants to elevate himself above them.[18] Stan Lee's writing typically showed Doom's arrogance as his constant downfall, and how his pride leads to von Doom's disfigurement at the hands of his own machine, and to the failures of many of his schemes
ranalin wrote:Top_Shelf wrote:Nevin73 wrote:Homelander in the Boys
Vic has to be pretty.
Since when?
Wikipedia wrote:Kirby further described Doom as being "paranoid", wrecked by his twisted face and wanting the whole world to be like him.[17] Kirby went on to say that "Doom is an evil person, but he's not always been evil. He was [respected]…but through a flaw in his own character, he was a perfectionist."[18] At one point in the 1970s, Kirby drew his interpretation of what Doom would look like under the mask, giving Doom only "a tiny scar on his cheek".[19] Due to this slight imperfection, Doom hides his face not from the world, but from himself.[19] To Kirby, this is the motivation for Doom's vengeance against the world; because others are superior due to this slight scar, Doom wants to elevate himself above them.[18] Stan Lee's writing typically showed Doom's arrogance as his constant downfall, and how his pride leads to von Doom's disfigurement at the hands of his own machine, and to the failures of many of his schemes
Right and it gets worse because of his mask, by the time the events of the Secret Wars happen he's Darth Vader like under the mask
So... Hayden Christensen then?
Something, something, "like sand".
With what they've done with D&W we may get a glimpse of pretty Doom from another dimension, but they don't have the time or the luxury to rehash all the creation stories from the Fox characters that are being cut over
I think a lot of the backlash is because fans expected Doom to be a long running character through several films. But Marvel always straight up kills its villains in a movie or two anyway and this will be no different.
Maybe this won’t work out as well as Marvel expects it to.
Frankly, to do Doom right, he should've been introduced not as a/the Big Bad, but as a charismatic antihero and then show his fall into megalomania over the course of several years of projects. Yes, essentially the inverse of Stark and Strange. And sure, we'd all know he would end up evil, but it's not about making it a "twist", it's about building emotional weight to his character and the relationships he would have made with our various heroes and then the process of losing all their friendship and/or respect.
Would have been great to see his rise to power be allowed as much by everyone else's unwillingness to give up on turning him good again as it was fueled by his own efforts to become a supreme authoritarian.
Instead a potentially compelling long-term villain arc is going to be wasted on bringing back a beloved fan-favorite in a way that can't sustain such an approach.
Well put Farscry.
Frankly, to do Doom right, he should've been introduced not as a/the Big Bad, but as a charismatic antihero and then show his fall into megalomania over the course of several years of projects. Yes, essentially the inverse of Stark and Strange. And sure, we'd all know he would end up evil, but it's not about making it a "twist", it's about building emotional weight to his character and the relationships he would have made with our various heroes and then the process of losing all their friendship and/or respect.
Would have been great to see his rise to power be allowed as much by everyone else's unwillingness to give up on turning him good again as it was fueled by his own efforts to become a supreme authoritarian.
Instead a potentially compelling long-term villain arc is going to be wasted on bringing back a beloved fan-favorite in a way that can't sustain such an approach.
I don't disagree with you, but also, that kind of long-form character arc spanning multiple movies has never been Marvel's strong suit anyway. Characters have always started each movie wherever that movie needs them to be, and nuts to wherever the last movie left them. Remember Iron Man blowing up all his armors and retiring in one of his solo movies, only to show back up in the next Avengers movie like that never happened?
Remember Iron Man blowing up all his armors and retiring in one of his solo movies, only to show back up in the next Avengers movie like that never happened?
I just rewatched Captain America Civil War and he explains what happened in a scene with Cap. Just after Cap, Falcon, and Black Panther are taken into custody for violating the accords, Stark brings some historic pens into a one-on-one meeting and explains where his head is at.
There's even a line later where Black Widow asks if he has a suit and he makes a joke about having a nice Armani lovely Tom Ford 3-piece 2-button. So he did try to extract himself from the Avengers, but after being honest with himself, he wasn't ready to do that.
I'm kind of surprised to see the assertion that big character arcs aren't the MCU's strong suit. The entire Infinity Saga was a whole bunch of big character arcs tied together, and it was... fairly successful. 
I mean, naturally the Infinity Saga movies were a bit like villain-of-the-month things, but they still had interesting characters for the most part. Marvel is definitely less known for its exploration of character and more known for its exploration of the superpowers of those characters, though.
Here's a thing I've been trying to understand.
In the comics, Infinity Gauntlet was an early 90's joint, after the sturm/drang of Frank Miller and Alan Moore's take on stuff in the 80's. Those were dark stories and the early 90's were this weird mix of huge audiences, speculation and nostalgia.
I'm trying to think about the similarities/differences between what Marvel has done with MCU for a decade plus. Before Iron Man 1, we had dark Nolan Batman stuff but that was sorta like Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen. Most other comics stuff was schlock or, if popular/good not anywhere close to MCU size (in terms of pop culture impact). One exception was 89 Batman, itself an extension of Frank Miller Bat-style.
Following the enormous excess of early 90's comics, there had to be a cooling off period. Nothing came close to X-Men 1 or Death of Superman. Plenty of that was due to the speculator collapse, but also the nostalgia waned. A lot.
The mid-to-late 90's had to do back-to-basics stuff. Get away from the huge things like Superman death, Knightfall, Infinity, even stuff like Spidey clone (oh god). The reconnecting came in the form of stuff like:
The Ultimate books reimagining classic characters.
Astro City.
JLA leaning in to the ethos of the characters, not years-long epics.
The Jeph Loeb/Tim Sale stuff like Long Halloween and Man For All Seasons (still the greatest Clark Kent story of all time).
I think Marvel movies need a similar reset. They did LotR-style end of world stuff. The franchise needs time to breath. You can't do Episode 1 immediately on top of Episode 6. You burn out your hardcore and the casuals just get bored.
Sixteen years of this stuff. Yeah, yeah, capitalism. To that I say that even Lucas knew to ease off the gas. He wasn't able to reach the same (storytelling) heights but Lucasfilm made tons for two decades before another new movie. I mean, can you imagine how well Endgame would do with a rerelease in 2035 right before the next batch if Disney didn't f*ck it up with Phases 19-28 being shoved onto screens?
Ah well. If only!
TBH the majority of past superhero comics have straight up wack stories and characters that may be fun reads but kind of have to be molded to fit in a movie where the majority of the viewers have never touched a comic.
I think Marvel movies need a similar reset. They did LotR-style end of world stuff. The franchise needs time to breath. You can't do Episode 1 immediately on top of Episode 6. You burn out your hardcore and the casuals just get bored.
Weren't they trying that (and mostly failing) with all the movies and series after the last Avengers movie?
I liked D&W but by the end I was getting a bit of reference fatigue. Every shot seemed to have something was a reference to comic Deadpool, the MCU, Renyolds personal life, etc.
For me, that was a nice bit of spice in the other movies but this felt like dumping the whole salt shaker on the plate.
I still enjoyed it but it wore me out by the end.
Top_Shelf wrote:I think Marvel movies need a similar reset. They did LotR-style end of world stuff. The franchise needs time to breath. You can't do Episode 1 immediately on top of Episode 6. You burn out your hardcore and the casuals just get bored.
Weren't they trying that (and mostly failing) with all the movies and series after the last Avengers movie?
I don't think so? I felt like the spigot never got turned off. Do a single show. Wait a few years for a smaller film. I felt like they immediately jumped into the next cycle?
I think they should let the MCU be the generational thing that was amazing...and then do another epic for the next generation. (I know that doesn't align with corpo think.)
that has always been the intention. To build into these massive cross over stories like the comics themselves did. The quality did start falling though due to covid, strikes, and the issues with Majors...
If I was Marvel I would map out a 10 year 20 movie plan to accomplish the following.. Introduce the X-Men in at least 2 movies to set them up in their proper place in the MCU and just completely ignore the Mutant vs Human angle to the X-Men. Intro Doctor Doom and have him as what we think is the big bad and have a couple Avengers and FF vs Doom encounters (Doom didnt really use lower level allies so not sure how they handle this). But the final 3 Movies in the 10 year plan have the X-Men first trying to defend Jean Grey against the Avengers and the FF but ultimately how they all have to band together to defeat Dark Phoenix... and the final key piece is getting Doom's help...
Second choice would be to do the House of M storyline and have Wanda as the big bad but thats a tricky one because you sorta need Kang in the end... and that gets into the whole Human vs Mutant thing which I don't think Marvel should touch... But they've already done alt versions and time travel so the precedent is there to pull it off.
I have less than no faith that the Mouse will handle the mutant allegory well (my own nightmare scenario I described to a friend involves Magneto being subjected to a speech about how the Sentinel Program can't be defunded, because they're needed for the actually evil mutants!), but there's also no point in adapting the mutants without the allegory. This is one of many reasons neither Inhumans nor Eternals have ever hit.
I mean, the Mouse did excellent with the mutant allegory in X-Men 97, so the real issues is if they're willing to hold back their natural inclination to meddle when it comes to bringing to same sort of story to a big budget movie.
I'm not as up on 97 as many, and I can admit they partly handled it better than I feared, mostly by lifting some dialogue straight from Morrison. But even then, and I know many will call this "quibbling" but I'm going to call it "showing attention to detail, they still had Wolverine say "Magneto just declared war" after the second genocide in a few weeks, framing him as the aggressor.
farley3k wrote:Report: Marvel Threw Down Serious Cash to Bring RDJ Back For Avengers: Doomsday
A new reports suggests Marvel paid Robert Downey, Jr. "significantly more" than $80 million dollars to return to the MCU.That is just crazy.
Adjusted for inflation, that's more than the budget for the first Blade.
I just keep coming back to that "significantly more than $80 million" number.
That's more than the price of a John Wick Chapter Three.
That's more than twice the price of a John Wick Chapter Two.
Depending on where the reported budget fell, and how much more than $80 million the price tag was, that's three to five times the price of a John Wick.
For one actor's salary. To not even play the part he's known for.
Take with grain of salt, but I heard on a podcast that Marvel is paying 200 million FOR JUST THE TALENT which includes the Russo Bros, RDJ, and presumably all the other actors that are coming back.
It also wasn’t clear if this was for only one film or two.
Alien Love Gardener wrote:farley3k wrote:Report: Marvel Threw Down Serious Cash to Bring RDJ Back For Avengers: Doomsday
A new reports suggests Marvel paid Robert Downey, Jr. "significantly more" than $80 million dollars to return to the MCU.That is just crazy.
Adjusted for inflation, that's more than the budget for the first Blade.
I just keep coming back to that "significantly more than $80 million" number.
That's more than the price of a John Wick Chapter Three.
That's more than twice the price of a John Wick Chapter Two.
Depending on where the reported budget fell, and how much more than $80 million the price tag was, that's three to five times the price of a John Wick.
For one actor's salary. To not even play the part he's known for.
I want to signal an appreciation for this information and the work that went into it, but all we have is a "Like" button, and I distinctly do not like it.
Pages