As I wrote before Terrence Howard counterpointed the cartoony excesses of Robert Downey, giving the film some balance.

If Marvel paid Howard too much money, then that's their problem. Howard is under no obligation to turn down a good salary.

If they ignore Howard's contribution to Iron Man then they don't understand the workings of their own film.

I smell a rat. There's more to this.

Aren't they all Diva's, so if that's the case you suck it up and do it, he was the best person you could put in the roll, soft spoken just like the person he play's and does it really matter how much you paid him?? you know they saw all the money come back to them, so maybe it's just others being greedy, making a 2nd movie is a big risk, and now having different actors in the role will just make it harder, the chances of me going to see this movie is now slim to none they had to go and ruin a good thing like so many other movies too. Boo to who ever thought to replace an already perfect actor.

Is the lack of Terrence Howard really the "make-it-or-break-it" factor in Iron Man 2 being good? Unless your name is Robert Downey Jr, you are replaceable in this franchise. I know I was unimpressed by Howard's performance (I found him to be rather one note), so I could see why Favreau was disappointed as well, if this is the case. My guess is that both sides could have handled the situation better: Marvel/Favreau may have been weaslly about the whole thing, but I doubt Howard was blameless either.

It's unfortunate that things have turned out the way they have with this. I doubt we'll ever know the full story and some of what's come out is hard to believe. I like Howard and while the acting work he did wasn't scene stealing or all that memorable it wasn't meant to be but as LJ put it, he provided some balance to the excess of Downey's Stark. I really felt like the two of them worked fairly seamlessly and believably together.

If the accounts given are true though then it is what it is. Cheadle certainly seems stoked at the role and not in that ooh I got a new job payday way but genuinely into it. Then again it could just all be an act ;) At any rate, I saw the first film for two reasons one because it was Iron Man and two because of Robert Downey Jr. I loved the movie from top to bottom and while Howard being absent from IM2 will take away from that feel in the first movie... I'll still go see Iron Man 2 when it hits theaters.

It's just come out on DVD in the UK and I love it. It has everything a good action, low-brow movie should have; action (obviously), gadgets, humour, love interest and a good moral backbone of good winning over evil. However, regardless of what really went on (as a previous post said we'll never know what really happened behind the scenes) I don't think it should make much difference. People/viewers don't like change, but within 5 mins of seeing Ironman2, you'll forget Terrence Howard was in the first one and start to see Don Cheadle as a viable and "movie believeable" replacement. Provided he has his own accent in the film. Not the shockingly hammy attempt at a cockney accent he had in previous films..

Cheadle instead of Howard is not going to break Iron Man 2. I just have two objections to it. First of all I though Howard was valuable in Iron Man because he calmed things down. Second, I don't like the idea that you can just fire one black guy and put another black guy in his place. I would have hoped that Hollywood was past that.

Personally, I hated Transformers but I enjoyed Iron Man. One of the differences is that in Transformers there was no character like Howard's who could balance the runaway train(wreck) that was Shia Leboef.

The audience still loved Transformers and I don't think they'll notice the absence of Howard in Iron Man 2.

My point is that they should notice.

This is why you can't make sequels (these days anyways) to great movies and more often than not they fall WAY short of their predecessors. MONEY! It always comes down to money. I guess the studio felt that the $500 million dollar (and counting thanks to DVD sales) profit they made wasn't sufficient to secure one of the main characters in a great film. I haven't heard any fans socially or on the net that were "dissatisfied" with Terence Howards portrayal of Rhodes/War Machine but somehow that's the scapegoat reason to dismiss him from the movie. Nothing against Don Cheadle but now instead of enjoying a bad-ass sequel i'm going to be staring at the screen wondering "This guy looks NOTHING like the previous actor!" B.S. movie studios and their politics. No one is about making a great movie anymore (or at least a great series). Could you imagine if Han Solo was recast in the Empire Strikes Back because "the studio" (and probably other co-stars) felt he made too much in Star Wars?

And for Terence Howard. Next time make sure to get that sequel clause in your contract for just this type of emergency.

I'm going to watch Kung-Fu Panda. This is Bull&^**!

One thing is for sure: TH should never, EVER make more money then Robert (DJ). Come on! A leading role is one thing, a supporting one is something completely different.
No offense to Cheadle (his replacement), but Howard is waaaay more appropriate for the role. He's got something besides talent: his onscreen presence is intense, whilst Don has that "nice guy, cool dude"-type of presence. Not a super hero at all.
I hate replacements.... Come on! What happened? Did that person go 'face/off' and had a facial and full body extreme makeover?! Just write the character off, then!