Mickey Rourke is NOT Crimson Dynamo in Iron Man 2?!
Apparently we've got our villains all mixed up! Just four weeks ago we ran an article announcing that both Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell had joined Jon Favreau's Iron Man 2 as villains. In the days following, we discovered that neither Rourke nor Rockwell had actually signed and contracts, and that the announcement was made premature. Rockwell later confirmed that he was involved, but oddly no one has heard anything from Rourke. However, when MTV sat down with Robert Downey Jr. on the set of Sherlock Holmes and asked him about Rourke, his answer made things even more confusing than before.
"That's actually incorrect," Downey Jr was quick to say. "I can neither confirm nor deny that. Or maybe it's some semblance of both. Here, I can tell you everything about the story except I won't give away the ending. The nerd stuff is top-drawer security." Huh? He didn't really clear the air either way, but then again, I'm not sure how MTV phrased the question. Others are also speculating that Downey Jr may be hinting that Rourke isn't Crimson Dynamo, but some other villain instead. We do know for certain that Sam Rockwell will be playing Justin Hammer, but as for the other villain(s) in Iron Man 2, we really have no clue!
Casting for Iron Man 2 has been incredibly troublesome. First it was Terrence Howard, then it was Samuel Jackson, now it's Mickey Rourke, and even Emily Blunt may no longer be involved as Black Widow. What gives Marvel?! To be honest, I was really looking forward to Mickey Rourke playing Crimson Dynamo, a Russian villain with a nuclear powered armored suit, just because the character looked pretty badass (see the photo above). If not Dynamo, then who else? Maybe Whiplash as was originally rumored or someone else? I really hope Jon Favreau comes out with some official clarification soon! Anyone else frustrated?
my opinion it needs to be mandarin
charles on Feb 3, 2009
The Iron MAN franchise is going to suck anyways. It'll gradually get worse like Spiderman did. There is nothing about Tony Stark/Ironman that the person watching it can relate to.
Ak on Feb 3, 2009
I say let it all unfold by itself. We'll know eventually. 🙂
Spider on Feb 3, 2009
me thinks Rourke's involvement is supposed to be a surprise....Dynamo will probably be setup at the end of 2 for a villain of 3.
Al on Feb 3, 2009
Meh... Mickey Rourke would not have made much of a difference to me. He's a good actor, but definitely not a make or break when it comes to this Iron Man.
David on Feb 3, 2009
first...it cnt b mandarin....even in comics, it took time for mandarin to b developed....however he was clued towards....both in iron man and in the Incredible hulk...[[ten rings]] second...spider man died out because old fans saw it wasnt true to the comics, and new fans found it a nuisance that they were basically getting false info! third...i hav to agree with AK.....let it play out,,,rush decisions r one of the major causes for a movies death... and finally, i definitly support AL's theory.....crossovers and easter eggs is what marvel is into nowadays...i say let it be a surprise!
theori on Feb 3, 2009
IMDB states that Mickey Rourke will be playing Whiplash.
Jimmy on Feb 3, 2009
Mickery Orc's the actual actor, and he'll be playing a Non-CG Hulk, which Stark will whip out some Hulkbuster wacktion to defeat.
Jimbo Slims on Feb 3, 2009
Number 2, you're a madman. The first Spider-Man was in fact a great movie, the second one was even better in my opinion! I'll agree, the third one is a disgrace and should be retracted back to the editing room. Heck, even the director's chair! But I am a little fused about Rourke's involvement with Iron Man 2. I really like Mickey Rourke - always have. I was jazzed about The Wrestler, and let me tell you, its delivered!!
Conrad on Feb 3, 2009
Ok this movie needs to be simple with one, maybe two villains. The plot in the first one was simple, it just introduced Tony Stark and how Iron Man came to be and the clash with his business partner. They need to keep it simple. One of the reasons Spiderman 3 sucked so much is because they tried to throw in too many characters and the person watching it just looses interest. I'm afraid that this movie might follow that path and become too complicated. Just keep it simple and interesting like the awesome movie Taken for example.
Scott McHenry on Feb 3, 2009
Its too early for me to care yet...
????? on Feb 3, 2009
#7 is correct. Not only does it say that Rourke is Whiplash now, but it has always said he was Whiplash. I guess no one ever went to look? I just always thought IMDB was mistaken, but apparently all the movie news sites run just on rumors.
Zso on Feb 3, 2009
7 and 12, IMDB always has false information when it comes to pre-production movies.
Al on Feb 3, 2009
Big Deal! Patience is a virtue. I always check imdb.com first before succumbing to the rumor mill.
Blue Silver on Feb 3, 2009
I love Mickey Rourke, but i'm not sure if him playing the villain of the Crimson Dynamo is the best way to go as i fear unless he was written a truly memorable performance he could be seen as too similar to Jeff Bridge's War Monger. War Monger/Jeff Bridges = 40-50 year old man in big robot suit Crimson Dynamo/Mickey Rourke = 40-50 year old man in big robot suit. Not exactly iconic mhmm?
Pebbles on Feb 4, 2009
#3 i was thinking the same exact thing.
big r on Feb 4, 2009
I agree with #17. The villain needs to be non-tech based to come off as different. Or at least not a guy in a suit. Maybe a thing with organic tech like Stane jr. in the new Invincible Iron man. But seriously, anything but a guy in a suit.
9mm on Feb 4, 2009
it could be any iron man's rogue gallery backlash,living laser,blizzard,the ghost and titanium man.who is he going to fucking be?
zetsu on Feb 4, 2009
Whoever the villains are, they need to be powerful enough that it requires both Iron Man and War Machine to take them down. Unless they just setup the War Machine character in this one, and then have them team up in the third.
Zso on Feb 4, 2009
"There is nothing about Tony Stark/Ironman that the person watching it can relate to." You obviously don't know anything about the Tony Stark character. He's a deeply flawed person who hides his self-doubt and physical injuries behind the facade of a cocky playboy. He eventually turns to alcohol and winds up (at least temporarily) driving away many of the people he loves through his addictions and arrogance. Yeah, nothing there for folks to relate to.
Joel on Feb 4, 2009
Ok guys, let's think about it. Besides the Mandarin, Iron Man's other arch enemy is...Titanium Man!!! This is who Mickey Rourke is going to be...he just fits this character. Big, huge, powerful man in a machine. The Crimson Dynamo, to whom I love, is going to be more complicated to pull of...and not until #3. Because you have to first find out which C.D. they are going to use. There have been 7 or 8 models. I'm thinking they will go for the leaner version. That way, the armors will be evenly matched...a change up on the theme of brains vs brawn. Also, there is somehting that no one has mentioned...ULTIMO!!! Yeah, remember him???!!! Well, we are going to see giant robots in both Transformers 2 and the Terminator. So maybe we can see Ultimo go against Iron Man, War Machine, and Crimson Dynamo. That would be something!!!
Winged Gecko on Feb 4, 2009
Marvel is being such an a** for changing people that were born to play these roles. What the hell is going on with them changing the roles and putting other people in different roles? To be honest i would have loved seeing Terrance Howard as Rhodes again he did a great job from my POV and Rourke would have been an amazing Crystal Dynamo, Sam Jackson was a good incarnation for Fury. Marvel took it all away and threw it...Shame.
Fisherr on Feb 5, 2009
Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.