Best news I heard all day! Go on Tom! Make a lot of people upset by getting involved with this project. Oh, and I am not being sarcastic, I really want the Cruiser to be involved in this!

Let's face it, if he wants it he can have it with just a phone call and realistically, we could do worse.

Personally, I wouldn't just settle on a name as this kind of role could be played by any number of great no-name actors. My one fear is that if Tom did get it that the supernerd message boards would light up with flames and they'd be round to the producers house in angry mob garb with burning torches.

If he does get it though, it wouldn't adversely affect my support for what I believe could be an unbelieveably fantastic movie franchise. In fact the idea of him really commiting himself to a role, sans media circus, and hammering home a gritty, believable performance to one of the most opinionated and powerfully responsive demographics in movies today, fan-boys, really sends a shiver down my spine. It'd be a total win-win situation. We'd get the movie we want and he'd be back on top of this media backlash.

Of course, if he screws it up it could be a serious blow to his credibility. High risk, high reward.

I'd really love to see what he could do with this role and I know that 2/3 years ago, many more people would have agreed than would agree today. Still, if he's willing to put up the work, I'd be dying to see it.

What's the betting this Iron Man either has a clear visor or his helmen removed for much of the film?

I meant to say "Helmet" of course.

Obviously they'll have to do a redesign of the suit but Favreau has said on the record that they'd be going with a "traditional" look as the prototype very early on in the movie and then introducing an original design for later in the film.

I think that we'll see enough of Tom to allow people to believe its him behind the mask without them having to be able to wink through it.

They could always go the way of the Green Goblin and have his face partially revealed. That could work.

It didn't work for the Green Goblin. Changing the Goblins mask for a helmet was one of the worse things about that movie. Then of course in SM II we had long scenes where Spidey had his mask off.

This is the Judge Dread syndrome all over again. (Dredd's face was never shown in the comic)

Iron Man has a secret ID. We are not supposed to see his face when he wears the armour.

We don't need to see Iron Man's face. If an audience need to see an actors face then I suggest they go and watch him in a different movie.

Of course this is all subjective and a matter of whats pleasing to the eye, but on a deeper level, I loved the GG costume design and think that similar design motifs may strike a chord with Iron Man.

In particular, it had to be a helmet because the original concept was for a super soldier. Flying into a battlefield on an ultra cool glider featuring on board auto navigation and heat targeting missles is cool and all. But it means shit if you get shot through a polyester hood!

Also on a character level, it really did display the duality of the actor in a particularly creepy and effective way. They managed to represent both sides of the character really well and at the same time. The Goblin mask was locked in that wretched scowl whilst Willem Dafoe could still act through the mouthpiece and lenses. And act he did!

Bearing in mind that that isn't just some tangent, I strongly disagree that we don't need to see his face. We don't HAVE to, you could keep it hidden, but in doing so you run the risk of distancing the character, he might as well, and probably will be, totally CG. I really do think that they will need to find some way of connecting us with the character, whilst he is in the costume, other than his voice.

Look at Batman, granted they are different characters completely but the menace would be gone if you couldn't see his facial expressions. Not that I'm saying we need all of his face either though. Maybe some type of Metroid/Samus Aran design? Or more like the new Raiden Costume in Metal Gear Solid 4? If you haven't seen them look 'em up. Might be the way to go.

So how come the Goblin never needed a helmet in the comic then?

What next are we going to give Spider-Man a helmet, knee pads and a parachute just in case...

It's comic book fantasy, pure and simple.

If people can't accept that in a film for what it is then fine let them watch something else instead.

When it come to a comic book movie, my motto is do it right or don't do it at all.

Goblin didn't need a mask in the comic because his skin was so deformed and scaled over from chemical exposure that it was almost impervious to any bullet except at point blank range. This deformity would have obviously prevented him from being the character he is in the movie and interacting with anyone. The result would have been a Phantom Of The Opera type character who would have hidden away and disappeared as in the comic.

The movie makers obviously wanted him to be a mysterious character and have the interesting prospect of having Osborne interact with Parker as well as Goblin fighting Spidey. Ergo, skin intact, helmet instead. In keeping with advances in technology too, since the books were written so long ago don't you think?

Just because it's "comic book fantasy", doesn't mean we can't give Goblin a a mask and we can't see Iron Man's face. If we see his face through the mask, the audience won't collectively stand up and say "Wait, this isn't comic book fantasy!" As Favreau said, they'll be using a traditional look first and then moving on to a re-design, just like in the comics. They may hide his identity first and then reveal it.... just like in the comics.

People coming to the cinema to "see a comic book on screen" might as well be watching a slide show. They'd find it more interesting.

These are adaptations of comic books. And if people can't accept that then (as you say) "let them watch something else instead".

And how exactly does one "do it right"? That's a pretty loose argument. In that vein, the people who paid to make Spidey one of the biggest opening movies in all-time saw something that "shouldn't have been done at all" because Raimi got the mask for Goblin wrong, or at least in your opinion.

Everyone's gonna have their views on this so who says how it's "done right"?

"Goblin didn't need a mask in the comic because his skin was so deformed and scaled over from chemical exposure that it was almost impervious to any bullet except at point blank range."

You must have read a different Spider-Man comic to everybody else. Norman was not visibly deformed and he did indeed interact with Parker etc while initially even the readers were unaware that he was the Goblin.

The Mask/Helmet thing is just the thin end of the wedge. It's not that big a deal, though the soft mask could have been a lot more expressive than the helmet.

(There are thousands of pages of forum posts on the web on the real controversy of the SM Movies, Mechanical/Organic Web Shooters. Raimi felt that an audience would not accept that Peter Parker could have invented mechanical web shooters and so gave him organic ones. (ignoring the fact that Spiders squirt webs from their backsides.))

So exactly how does one "do it right" You ask? Simple, if it has worked for forty years, dont be conceited enough to think that you know better than the creators when you are making a film version by making unnecessary changes.

We had this with Lord of the Rings, it was understandable that some things would be left out but Jackson still found time to add all new stuff in (particularly in the second film) often distorting characters in the process.

Boo, Hiss, etc....

Of course there have been many incarnations of every single comic book character and each having different powers and ablilities making any question asked about any character entirely answerable and negateable at the same time, ad nauseam, and making such a debate mute and pointless. So no, I mustn't be reading a different comic to everyone else.

"...if it has worked for forty years, dont be conceited enough to think that you know better than the creators when you are making a film version by making unnecessary changes"

That seems naive and closed minded to say the least. I don't subscribe for one second to the premise that you, I or even the creators of said characters "know better" than Sam Raimi/John Favreau. People have to unstick themselves from the mindset that these guys are making comic books. They are not. They are movie directors. They are not "conceited" nor making unnecessary changes. At least when it comes to successful movies. Similarly it would be conceited of a comic book writer to think he/she knows more about whats better for a movie than a movie director.

Just because it has worked for forty years doesn't mean it works now. Do you insulate your house with asbestos for gods sake? Would you similarly have Iron Man in the Ish#1 costume? No, you wouldn't, and why? Because culture evolves. People's interests change and any good institution moves with those changes.

By the standards you propose, Ultimate Spiderman should have bombed because Peter works on a website rather than a newspaper. But it didn't. Why? Because it moved with the times and adapted to the new media available to it's target audience.

To define an ambiguous principle with an ambiguous instruction does not bode well for the production of any movie. When you say to "do it right" you have to simply not make "unnecessary" changes; that's it? That's your "simple" sure fire way to doing it right? The what in holy hell is an "unnecessary change"? And I ask that question in rhetoric, because of course you and I know there can be no real answer. If there was, then movie making would be a science and not an art form, and this debate wouldn't take place.

You "understand" that PJ removed some story arcs from LOTR yet you disapprove at additions. Is this where the line gets drawn? I personally think that the additions were both pertinent and loyal to the spirit of the story and detracted in no way from it's portrayal of the novel. Is this what you mean by an unnecessary change?

Boys, boys, boys, it's getting hot in here! LOL

Ehr Morbius, do you have the Iron Man comics, please lend it to me the next time youre in London okay? ;-)

Oh so now Simone wants some too!

I'll take all you guys on! ;-)

Jees, I must say the debate here is top notch, no kidding. People actually seem to know what they're talking about.

As opposed to certain other sites which have somewhat fallen by the wayside in terms of intelligent conversation.

"The movie sucked and I'm gonna kill that actor" isn't exactly Shakespeare. People around here seem to have genuine educated opinions!

Someone call the free-thinking police!

Instead Cup seems like a good option, but I know next

Ahermmmm Rynndar, thanks for the compliment about intelligent conversation. *winks* That's why I love it here!

But I perfectly agree, I am in the company of thinking movie fans in this site, with people who doesnt whine, moan or scream like faggots about how long it's taking the new Indiana Jones script, or how M:i:III failed at the box office, or using curse words in the headlines, which is so cheap mind you, for goodness sakes, have a bit of class.

Sorry Simone I have very few Iron Man comics in my collection. I have never really been a big Iron Man fan. My main exposure to him was always through the team book The Avengers as he was a founding member.
All I will say is that if the are to Do This Right ;-) then the Cruiser will have to grow a moustache if he is to be an authentic Tony Stark.

He grew a moustache for Born on the 4th, how hard could it be?

Oh my God yeah!

I completely forgot about the moustache! How did that escape me?

Hmmm... how is he gonna look. He did the beardy look quite well in Last Samurai. Can he cultivate some serious 'tache though? I hope he doesn't just look silly.

Maybe I should check him out in Photoshop before I make my decision! Hehe!

We seem to be the only ones agreeing for Cruise to be cast, how refreshing to be in the minority.

I am not objecting to Cruise being cast. My problem lies when an actor becomes more important than the character.