Jackson as Nick Fury? Aren't we pandering just a wee bit much? I mean, last time I saw a sketch of Fury he didn't even have much of a tan.

Apparently you haven't seen the new "ultimate" Nick Fury that looks just like the BMF

Hmph, headline needs some tweaking. It had me believing that Howard had been recast as Rhodes, not that the role was still recast to Cheadle.

Ah well, I like Cheadle too and I think Rhodes is a role he can have fun with ... just seems a little clumsy handed on the producers' part though given the way the first film telegraphed Howard as Rhodes role in future films. It's not like the prior Batman franchise that had Billy Dee Williams as Arthur Dent. No foreshadowing as to his significance in the first film other than his name, replacing him with Harvey Keitel still seemed weird.

So Marvel has been completely sucked into Hollywood. Becoming one of the huge soul-less studios that every one has to put up with to get the huge action movies we all want to see.

I was really hoping they would avoid that.
I hope it does not the quality of their movies.

Bill, did you see the first Iron Man movie? Kinda old news there....

Spiff, folks in comics have called Marvel a giant soulless behemoth well before they became the primary producer of their own films. Many writer and editors have likened work there as a sweat shop. I worry that they are taking their somewhat calloused attitude toward talent into their hollywood expansion.

In fact, I'm guessing some of the casting problems behind Iron Man 2 may be due to the fact that, while they got high powered H-wood people on the payroll, the ultimate powers that be in the house of M are people who aren't all that experienced in doing the film thing on their own. They have final control over the money making property, but I think quality may suffer.

Yeah, what the hell did happen to fury? When I first started reading about him and shield...he was a cigar smokin 50 year old white man with an eye patch and dark hair that had white side flecks! When did he change races?

Thankfully, all the crap 'Ultimate' titles have been cancelled. I can't believe they lasted longer than the 2099 line.

Nick Fury = The Hoff. No two ways about it.

"Nick Fury = The Hoff. No two ways about it."

LOL. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person who ever saw that movie with Hasselhoff.

I taped the Nick Fury movie,with Hassalholf,and still have it.

Actually, as much as I like Howard and Cheadle, neither is right for James Rhodes, who was always shown with a more muscular presence. Someone like A younger Carl Weathers or Isaiah Washington or Chiwetel Ejiofor has more of the presence of Rhodes.

Cheadle, in particular, is too small for the role.

Anyway, Marvel really cheaped out for Iron Man. It's sad.

Marvel is planning on raising the price of its comics to $3.99 a book from $2.99. Good luck with that. There's no reason for them to raise prices 33%, especially in this economy.

Marvel created a second line of comics called the Ultimate Marvel Universe. This alternate history line revamped characters from the traditional Marvel universe, this included Nick Fury, who was deliberately based on Sam Jackson.

So, for a new generation of comic readers, Nick Fury is Sam Jackson.

The whole SLJ = Nick Fury thing comes from a scene in the Ultimates GN where the Avengers are all sitting around the bullpen and talking about who should play them in a movie. Nick Fury replies (and I quote) "Why, Mister Samuel L. Jackson, of course. That's not even open to debate, Doctor Pym."

If I were to cast Nick Fury, my choice would have been Kurt Russell. They probably didn't want to go that way because everyone would keep thinking Snake Pliskin.

Hey Marty B! Billy Dee Williams was Harvey Dent aka Two Face in Batman. Arthur Dent is the hapless last earthman in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Now I can't help picturing Billy Dee and Mos Def roaming the universe together! lol.

ARTHUR Dent? Please tell me Marty B. meant Harvey and was just having a temporary HHGTTG flashback...

Let's just say after the time and effort it took me to render a HHGTTG / Tim Burton Batman mashup, I think I'm entitled to a few typos. LOL.

Of course, we are reading an entry whose headline "Iron Man's Terrence Howard speaks out about how he got recast" implies that the Iron Man films has a character named "Terrence Howard" and in the future Don Cheadle will be playing the role of Terrence Howard. Hands with access to editing tools have sinned greater than I is all I'm saying.

Plus Harvey Dent ended up as played Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever not Harvey Keitel.

Here's the wikipedia link that explains SLJ as Nick Fury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Nick_Fury

"Many writer and editors have likened work (at Marvel comics) as a sweat shop." If writers and editors have really made such a comparison, that's just funny. Overworked and underpaid I'm sure . . . but no wage and hour laws have been broken, and the idea that writing and drawing could be compared to 3rd world sweatshops is just an incredibly ignorant comparison to make . . .

What a cool guy! I'd be so pissed off if I were him. This is hardly great drama; Iron Man was incredibly superficial, formulaic, apolitical entertainment that completely failed to even hint at the US' wrongdoing in selling arms to so many peoples around the world; instead they blame it on Tony Stark and fail to explain some of the root causes for Al Qaeda being US foreign policy.

So, it's unlikely these actors sign up for anything more than the money to do more artistic and politically insightful projects. They deserved better than what the producers involved did here. I hope this franchise fails. It already has in my eyes. Not a very good movie. Decent in that it was better than X3, but nothing special. It exceeded at very mediocre goals -- just like J.J. Abrams' stuff always does. Movie reviewers hate anything that tries at something nobler but doesn't get it completely right. Shame, really.

"Actually, as much as I like Howard and Cheadle, neither is right for James Rhodes, who was always shown with a more muscular presence. Someone like A younger Carl Weathers or Isaiah Washington or Chiwetel Ejiofor has more of the presence of Rhodes.

Cheadle, in particular, is too small for the role."

Amen... I feel the same way Rafe. I love both actors, I just don't love them as Rhodey. I think Rhodey shoud definately be more muscular, taller, and perhaps with a deeper voice. Like maybe Michael Jai White or Victor Love, unfortunately neither are household names right now. James Avery did a reasonable voice over for the short lived revamp Iron Man in the mid-ninties, but he would be too old to play him onscreen. Boris Kodjoe might not be too bad, but he is more looks than acting talent, perhaps Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje? Damn...Why did Ernie Hudson have to age.

Yes E, sweat shop labor is metaphorical. Wow. It's actually pretty common parlance internationally to denigrate working conditions as "sweat shop" like because the term just doesn't have the political reverence you hold for it.

Yup, I did see IM1 --thyree times. Didn't know what the heck to make of SLJ. I was unaware that SHIELD had race reassignment gear.

You should be careful about tossing history and tradition about in a cavalier fashion. Pretty soon you might start thinking FDR was a hero and you can spend your way out of a recession. People should be screaming and yelling, not bleating like sheep.

And Howard was a bit too milk-toast to be Rhodey anyway.

In the Ultimate comics line Nick Fury is black, and a heck of a lot more interesting than the regular universe Nick Fury I might add. They are not changing his race, they are using the Nick Fury from the Ultimates Universe (as far as we know, ALL of the marvel movies are based on the Ultimates, or any variation thereof).

So, Bill, Stark always looked like Robert Downey Jr.? Oh wait, the spider in the spider man movies _wasn't_ radioactive. Iron Man was the Marvel movie Marvel had the biggest hand in to date. Thanks for playing, the rest of the moving on world wishes you well with your petty bemoaning.

Seriously, your point is so a year ago, get over it.

I am one for keeping the cast as close to original as possible. What a great actor, cannot wait to see the new movie!

I didn't think Terrence Howard was perfect casting for Rhodesy, but I liked his take on the character and I was looking forward to seeing how he would make the change. I love Don Cheadle as an actor, but I think the choice to put him in the role over Howard is wrong, wrong, wrong. Not quite as bad as casting Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury or Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow (OMG!), but wrong nonetheless. The first Iron Man was a great movie experience, but for some reason I'm not looking forward to the sequel.

Muldfeld, I agree that Terrence Howard comes off as a pretty cool guy in the article, and while I disagree with your take on Iron Man, it was certainly thought-provoking. I hadn't looked at the film in that way. Hmm... food for thought...

@daka: The problem with origin stories is that they are often really deep character driven stories. In order for there to be a sequel, the origin story either needs to be continued some way (in a big way) or they have to shift to an entirely different framework . This is why Spiderman 3 failed so miserably. They tried to make it an origin story that played out like the 2nd movie and it turned out to be a jumbled mess. (Also why everyone wanted a Venom origin story instead of the EMO Parker plus pointless Sandman story). Anyway, I think that Ironman was a decent origin story and it's hard to think what they're going to do for a second movie which will make it just as awesome as the first.

See also: Pitch Black and Chronnicles of Riddick (which I love both--I know there are haters of CoR, sue me...) lol.

I think a lot of people have missed a major point only hinted at in the story. From what I have read, when Howard was offered the chance to play Rhodes in additional movies, he made such unreasonable salary demands that the producers chose to replace him rather than deal with a difficult actor. I have nothing against actors making big salaries, but how come no one rails against their "greed" like they do executives in corporations? How are they any different? An A-list actor still receives millions even if their movie tanks. Should THEY give back a part of their salary and bonuses? The more money big-name actors demand for their appearance in a movie, the less there is in the budget for location-shoots, special effects, and other elements that can employ many more people on the production.

It doesn't matter to me one way or another how much money a CEO or actor receives for their work; it's their business. I just find it interesting that so few people hold actors, who are the faces of huge entertainment corporations, to the same standards they apply to other corporations.

Just goes to show that hollywood knows NOTHING about consistency.

The statements Mr. Howard is making are void of details and are purposely vague, which means that he did something he doesn't want people to know about. From what I can gather, he wanted not just more money, but more input for the project - except that a LOT of people already have their hand in that pot and for yet another prima donna actor to try to influence the direction of the film is a VERY problematic scenario. Don Cheadle on other hand while very well respected artistically understands the concept of a big budget action film and that the role of the actors is to act, not make rewrites constantly.

Sorry Terrance. You didn't convince me.

Personally I thought that Howard was a poor fit for Rhodes. He did nothing for me in the first movie and i don't think he will be missed. For some reason his Rhodes always seems on the brink of tears.

I'd like to see someone like Taye Diggs or Chiwetel Ejiofor play the role.

demonfafa: Terrance Howard probably had something akin to a contract for more than just the first IM film, but not an iron-clad one (no pun intended). Marvel probably gave him an unofficial payoff to avoid a lawsuit for their breach of contract, and in exchange he doesn't badmouth the film. That's a much more likely scenario.

I don't get it, the first film makes hundreds of millions, they try going cheap almost loosing the director but kept him because of fan backlash, they offer howard 20% of what he got for the first one, they offer micky rourke almost nothing, they.....the film is huge, the studio is huge, why are they risking the smooth running of a trilogy to save a few bucks, it seems short sighted, risk turning off fans with cast replacements all over the place or just pay them seeing as the first one made so damn much! Stop being cheap!

i still dont get by Howard was recast i really hate it when they do that...it really pissed me off..

I dont see DC pulling it off, he seems to timid, not badaxx enough. It was cool with TH because he had little fire in him. I agree neither really fit the bill. Speaking of bills, Marvel should pay them what they are worth because with a trilogy people want consistency,besides with everyone waiting on the Avengers, they'll rack up the in DVD and Blu-ray sales the end, if they don't wanna pay the actors now offer them a % of the DVD sales. As far as SLJ, they set that up in the Ultimates. It's all good.

In my oppinion replacing Terrence Howard is like replacing Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man. He was an awesome actor and fit the role perfectly. I can't see Cheadle being in an iron suit. He would break apart easily. I really enjoyed watching the first Iron Man because of the actors. I don't think I'll be as pleased with the second movie than I was with the first. Hopefully for the company sales don't fluctuate too much because of the many disappointed fans.