Financial negotiations hit a snag, so it looks like Terrence Howard is out for the Iron Man sequel. He mentioned at every press event or public statement that he wanted to play War Machine, so this seems like a weird move.
Don Cheadle is stepping in to replace Terrence Howard in "Iron Man 2," Marvel Studios' sequel to its summer blockbuster.
In the movie, Howard played Jim Rhodes, Tony Stark/Iron Man's best friend and future armor-clad hero War Machine. One scene featured Howard looking at a silver suit of armor and saying "Next time," a line that caused great delight for fans.
But there will be no next time for Howard.
Marvel had no comment, but sources close to the deal said negotiations with Howard fell through over financial differences, among other reasons. Marvel, which had wanted to work with Cheadle, then decided to take the role in another direction and approached the actor, who is shooting Antoine Fuqua's "Brooklyn's Finest" with Richard Gere and Ethan Hawke.
I like Cheadle and all, but I think this a huge bummer. I was jonesing for Howard to be all over that role in 2010.
Howard might be a better fit for the role but I say it's a pretty sad world that an actor like Howard is demanding more money than Cheadle. I don't know if Cheadle fits the role right but good for him for getting such a high profile job.
I am a big fan of Cheadle, but he seems miscast here. Then again, I thought Howard was too. He was decent, but seemed a little too soft spoken for Rhodes, IMO. Maybe not on the level of Ving Rhames, but I thought they needed more of a bad ass in the role.
Cheadle seems too small, but I also thought the same thing about Michael Keaton in the '89 Batman, so we shall see. Not to mention Downey as Tony Stark.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Honestly, you could probably replace the entire supporting cast with muppets and it wouldn't matter. Iron Man is a one-man show, and as long as they have Robert Downey and a good script everything should be fine for the sequel. In fact, seeing as how I consider Cheadle to be a much better actor than Howard, I think the film will actually be better off this way.
Originally posted by Tenken347Honestly, you could probably replace the entire supporting cast with muppets and it wouldn't matter. Iron Man is a one-man show, and as long as they have Robert Downey and a good script everything should be fine for the sequel. In fact, seeing as how I consider Cheadle to be a much better actor than Howard, I think the film will actually be better off this way.
The few things I've seen both in, I'll agree with Cheadle being a better actor, but it's still a shame Howard's out. Although, going by Rhodey's comic appearances, Cheadle is a better fit. (Rhodey ain't light-skinned.)
Question is, do they not bring it up at all, or do they have Downey say, "Hey, new haircut!" and have Cheadle respond, "Yeah, I needed a change. Everyone says I look like an entirely different person" and then pause for a laugh?
I think when sitcoms replace recurring characters it's not a bad idea to play it for a laugh by hinting at it once (e.g., "Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" poking fun at themselves for replacing the mom, "Roseanne" constantly making jokes about the Becky character changing from the original actress to Sarah Chalke, back to the original actress, back AGAIN to Sarah Chalke, back to the original actress yet again, and changing one last time and settling on Sarah Chalke). However, when it comes to movies, I think it's best to just leave it unsaid (e.g., The Dark Knight not mentioning the change from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal).
Iron Man has a considerably lighter tone than Batman, however. I can't think of too many movie examples of lampshading cast changes, however, aside from George Lazenby doing it. Even looking at TV Tropes only gives me the Lazenby example, even: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOtherDarrin